Old English Biblical Verse: Studies in Genesis, Exodus and Daniel (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND 16 OLD ENGLISH BIBLICAL VERSE STUDIES IN GENESIS, EXODUS AND DANIEL CAMBRIDG...

Author: Paul G. Remley

48 downloads 1051 Views 9MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND 16

OLD ENGLISH BIBLICAL VERSE STUDIES IN GENESIS, EXODUS AND DANIEL

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND GENERAL EDITORS SIMON KEYNES MICHAEL LAPIDGE ASSISTANT EDITOR: ANDY ORCHARD Volumes published 1

Anglo-Saxon Crucifixion Iconography and the Art of the Monastic Revival by BARBARA C. RAW

2

The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England by MARY CLAYTON

3

Religion and Literature in Western England, 600—800 by PATRICK SIMS-WILLIAMS

4

Visible Song: Transitional Literacy in Old English Verse by KATHERINE O'BRIEN O'KEEFFE

5

The Metrical Grammar of Beowulf byCALViN B. K E N D A L L

6

The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature by CHARLES D. WRIGHT

7

Anglo-Saxon Medicine byM. L. CAMERON

8

The Poetic Art of Aldhelm by ANDY O R C H A R D

9

The Old English Lives ofSt Margaret byMARY CLAYTON and HUGH MAGENNIS

10

Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian byBERNHARD BISCHOFF and MICHAEL LAPIDGE

11

Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on his Life and Influence edited byMICHAEL LAPIDGE

12

Interactions of Thought and Language in Old English Poetry by PETER CLEMOES

13

14

The Textuality ofOld English Poetry by CAROL BRAUN P A S T E R N A C K

The 'Laterculus Malalianus' and the School of Archbishop Theodore by JANE STEVENSON

15

The Text of the Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon England by RICHARD MARSDEN

OLD ENGLISH BIBLICAL VERSE STUDIES IN GENESIS, EXODUS AND DANIEL

PAUL G. REMLEY Assistant Professor in the Department of English University of Washington

CAMBRIDGE

UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521474542 © Cambridge University Press 1996 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1996 A catalogue recordfor this publication is available from the British Library ISBN-13 978-0-521-47454-2 hardback ISBN-10 0-521-47454-X hardback Transferred to digital printing 2005

This book is dedicated to the memory of my grandfather, John Ashworth Gardner

Contents

page viii

List of tables Preface List of abbreviations

1 2 3 4 5 6

ix xii 1

Introduction The biblical sources of Genesis A and B Exodus and the liturgy of baptism Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition The renditions oiOratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel Conclusion

334 435

Bibliography Index

448 464

Vll

94 168 231

Tables

1 2

3 4 5 6

7

8

9

Lections for the Easter Vigil in the Roman tradition page 84 The affinities of the sectional divisions in the copy of Genesis A in Junius 11 to the sectional divisions in early medieval copies of Genesis I-XXII 121 The affinities of the treatment of the Flood episode in Genesis A and in abridged readings for the Easter Vigil 141 A summary of the biblical (Exodus-based) narrative, subordinate detail and floating imagery of Exodus 196 Lections for the Easter Vigil in early European traditions 219 A summary and analysis of the topics treated in the two accounts of the rescue of the Three in Daniel {Dan 232—78 and 335b-354) 354 A synopsis of readings in Greek and Latin versions of the Song of the Three and in the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel {Dan 362-408) 381 A synopsis of readings in Old Latin versions of the Song of the Three, in the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel {Dan 362-408) and in Old English psalter glosses 406 The sequences of verses in Greek and Latin texts of the Song of the Three and their relationship to lines 362—408 of Daniel 432

via

Preface

The appearance of three publications in 1980 and 1981 — A Bibliography of Publications on Old English Literature by Stanley B. Greenfield and Fred C. Robinson, A Microfiche Concordance to Old English by Antonette DiPaolo Healey and Richard L. Venezky and 'A Preliminary List of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100' by Helmut Gneuss — initiated a crisis of sorts in the area of Old English studies. For the first time since the inception of work in their field, scholars of the literature of the AngloSaxon period were in a convenient position to consult the bulk of existing research and lexical data pertaining to any topic that engaged their interest and, if they managed to find the time, to strike out for new discoveries in neglected manuscripts. The availability of this wealth of bibliographical, lexical and codicological information had an immediate effect that was somewhat stultifying. The quantity of material available for review on a given point frequently threatened to preclude the completion of an introductory paragraph, let alone an entire project. Greenfield and Robinson, in their endeavour to include every book, note, article and review relating to a given literary concern, had included much that was second-rate, as they seemed to acknowledge with their prefatory quotation from the Old English rendition of the Disticha Catonis: 'feola writaS menn ungelyfedlices' ('people write many things which one ought not believe'); the unlemmatized Microfiche Concordance would frequently distract users with misleading homographs; and prospective consultation of a manuscript described by Gneuss as containing, say, 'Vitae sanctorum; Liturgica' stood an even chance at best of turning up anything of note on a particular devotional point. An attempt has been made nonetheless in the course of the present study to read as much of the existing research as possible, published and IX

Preface

unpublished, relating to Genesis A, Genesis B, Exodus and Daniel, and to the Junius manuscript itself, while surveying a wide range of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts for treatments of the biblical matter reflected in the conventional titles of these engaging poems. Completion of this project thus would not have been possible without the help of the following librarians: Madeline Copp, Alison Sproston, D. J. McKitterick, Roger Norris, Mildred Budny, Timothy Graham, Gill Cannell, Nicholas Bennett, Peter McNiven, Martin Kauffman, Gary Menges, P. S. Morrish and Suzanne M. Eward, among many others whose names I have failed to note. My single greatest debt is to the following scholars whom I have known as teachers: the late Sherman M. Kuhn, Claiborne W. Thompson, Peter Clemoes, R. I. Page, Michael Lapidge, Patrick Sims-Williams, Simon Keynes, H. R. E. Ellis Davidson, D. H. Green, Geoffrey Cubbin, James J. John, Joseph Harris, Arthur Groos, Thomas D. Hill, the late R. E. Kaske, Frans van Coetsem, Lee Patterson, G. Thomas Tanselle, Robert Hanning, Joan Ferrante, Margaret W. Ferguson and Howard Schless. Special thanks are due to D. N. Dumville, my Director of Studies at Emmanuel College, Cambridge (1978—81), and to my Dissertation Supervisor at Columbia University, David Yerkes (1986-90). When I read through this list of names, I recall that 'wyrd bi5 fill araed' - but I vacillate in my interpretation of this aphorism (borrowed from Wanderer, line 5b). It is true that things often turn out much as they should - 'wyrd bi5 . . . araed' ('fate is well-planned') — but I would hate to think that the scholarly approaches championed by my mentors will ever be exhausted fully ('. . . ful araed'). I am delighted to acknowledge the continuing support and encouragement of my colleagues in the Department of English at the University of Washington — above all, Robert D. Stevick, David C. Fowler, Miceal F. Vaughan, John C. Coldewey and Sally Mussetter and to the University of Washington, which provided a generous award to assist in the typesetting of a complex manuscript. I would also like to thank my early colleagues at University College, Cork, for their camaraderie and advice during my residence in Ireland from 1984 to 1986: Eamonn O Carragain, Elisabeth Okasha, Padraig O Riain, M. C. Seymour, Donnchadh O Corrain and Maire Herbert. The following individuals have also generously helped me at various stages of my research: Neil Wright, Jane Stevenson, Eric Jager, John Magee, Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe, Patrick W. Conner, Patricia Conroy,

Preface

D. S. Brewer, E. G. Stanley, A. S. G. Edwards, Robin Chapman Stacey, James W. Earl, Robert Stacey, Stephen Jaeger, Eugene Vance, James J. O'Donnell, Christine Rose, Paul Spillenger, Louise Bishop and Thomas Stillinger. None of this work would have reached the press without the encouragement and support of my parents, Frederick M. Remley, Jr and Anne Gardner Remley. In particular, Anne Remley's critical efforts in reviewing draft versions of chapters saved me from many errors and infelicities. Above all, I should acknowledge the contributions — editorial as well as ecstatic — of my wife, Fiona Robertson Remley, for which I shall be ever in her debt.

XI

Abbreviations

AB abbr. AbhGott ABR abstr. Acad. ACC Act. SS AF AIUON ALMA ALW Amer. Amiat. Ape. Archaeol. AS ASE ASNSL ASPR Assoc. Az BAPr BGDSL

Analecta Bollandiana abbreviated Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen: philologisch-historische Klasse, 3rd ser. American Benedictine Review abstract Academy Alcuin Club Collection Acta Sanctorum Anglistische Forschungen Annali, Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli: Sezione germanica Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi Archiv fur Liturgiewissenschaft America(n) Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 Apocalypse, as ed. Weber, unless noted Archaeology, -ical Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Saxon England Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, ed. Krapp and Dobbie Association Azarias, as ed. Farrell, unless noted Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Prosa, ed. Grein etal. Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur XI1

List of abbreviations

BL BN Brit. Bull. BullJRL cap.

CBL CBQ

cccc CCSL CL CLA

CLLA Comm. I, II Cor. Crit. CMCS CSASE CSEL CSIC CUL DACL DA(I) Dan Dan. Dept. Deut. EB Eccl. Ecclus. EEMF EETS OS

EL

British Library (London) Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris) British Bulletin Bulletin of the John Rylands (University) Library (of Manchester) capitulum, -a Collectanea Biblica Latina Catholic Biblical Quarterly Parker Library, Corpus Christi College (Cambridge) Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnhout) Comparative Literature Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores Gamber, Codices Liturgici Latini Antiquiores Commentary I, II Corinthians, as ed. Weber Critical, -icism Cambridge (later Cambrian) Medieval Celtic Studies Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (Barcelona) University Library (Cambridge) Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie, ed. Cabrol, Leclercq and Marrou Dissertation Abstracts (International) Daniel, as ed. Farrell, unless noted Daniel, as ed. in Liber Danihelis, unless noted Department Deuteronomy, as ed. Weber, unless noted Estudios biblicos Ecclesiastical Ecclesiasticus, as ed. Weber, unless noted Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile (Copenhagen) Early English Text Society original series Ephemerides Liturgicae (Analecta Historico-Ascetica) Xlll


ELN

English Language Notes

Eng.

England, English

ES Ex Ex. Ez. FS GCS

English Studies

Gen.

GenA GenB GR Hab.

HBS Heb. Hist. HS Inst. Int.

IP Isa. Jahrb.

Exodus, as ed. Lucas, unless noted Exodus, as ed. Weber, unless noted Ezekiel, as ed. Weber, unless noted Fruhmittelalterliche Studien

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte Genesis, as ed. Weber, unless noted Genesis A, as ed. Doane, unless noted Genesis B, as ed. Doane, unless noted Greenfield and Robinson, Bibliography Habakkuk, as ed. Weber, unless noted Henry Bradshaw Society Hebrew; Hebrews, as ed. Weber, unless noted History, -ical Hispania Sacra

Institute International Instrumenta Patristica Isaiah, as ed. Weber, unless noted

JEH

Jahrbuch, -bucher Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of English and Germanic Philology Journal of Ecclesiastical History

Jer. JMH JMRS

Journal of Medieval History Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies

JBL JEGP

Jnl JTS JWCl Lang. Lat. Lib. Ling. Lit. Liturg.

Jeremiah, as ed. Weber, unless noted

Journal Journal of Theological Studies Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes

Language(s) Latin Library Linguistic(s) Literature, -ary Liturgy, -ical XIV


LQF LSE LXX

Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen

M&H

Medievalia et Humanistica Medium JEvum

MJE Matt. Med. MGH Auct. Antiq. Capitular. Reg. Epist. Epist. Select. Poet. Lat. SS. Rer. Germ. MHS MitJ Mitt. MLN MLQ MLR mm Mod. monog., Monog. MP MS N&Q NachrGott

Nat. Neophil

NM NMS

ns OE OEN om.

Leeds Studies in English

Septuagint(a), as ed. Ziegler et al., unless noted

Matthew, as ed. Weber, unless noted Medi(a)eval Monumenta Germaniae Historica Auctores Antiquissimi Leges II: Capitularia Regum Francorum Epistolae Aevi Carolini Epistolae Selectae Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in Usum Scholarum Monumenta Hispaniae Sacra: Serie litiirgica Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch

Mitteilungen Modern Language Notes Modern Language Quarterly Modern Language Review

millimetre(s) Modern monograph, Monograph(s) Modern Philology Mediaeval Studies Notes and Queries

Nachrichten von der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen: philologisch-historische Klasse National Neophilologus Neuphilologische Mitteilungen Nottingham Medieval Studies

new series Old English Old English Newsletter

omitted XV


OT I, II Par.

Old Testament I, II Paralipomenon, as ed. in Biblia Sacra, ed. Weber, unless noted

PBA Philol. PL PLL PLS

Proceedings of the British Academy

PMLA PQ PRIA Proc. Ps(s). ptd publ., Publ. R. RB RED repr. RES Res. Rev. RHE S&T SC SE,SE sect. SEP ser., Ser. SettSpol SM SN

Philology, -ical Patrologia Latina, ed. Migne Papers on Language and Literature Patrologiae Latinae Supplementum, ed. Hamman et al. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America Philological Quarterly Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

Proceedings Psalm(s), as ed. Weber, Le Psautier romain, unless noted (see p. 177 with n. 25) printed published, Publication(s) Royal Revue benedictine

Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, series maior Fontes reprint(ed) Review of English Studies

Research Review Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique

Studi e testi Madan et al., A Summary Catalogue Sacris Erudiri, and associated monograph series section, sectional division (in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 11) Studien zur englischen Philologie series, Series Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo (Spoleto) Studi medievali Studia Neophilologica XVI

List of abbreviations Soc. SitzWien

SP Spicil. ss Stud. supp.

TAPS TE

Theol. TOES TPL

TPS Trans. TuA

Univ. unpubl. VT,VT YWES YWOES ZAW, ZAW ZDA ZDP

ZNW

Society Sitzungsberichte der osterreichischen (kaiserlichen) Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien: philosophisch-historische Klasse Studies in Philology Spicilegium, -ii supplementary series Study, -ies supplement Transactions of the American Philological Society Textos y estudios Theology, -ical Toronto Old English Series Textus Patristici et Liturgici Transactions of the Philological Society Transactions Texte und Arbeiten (Beuron) University unpublished Vetus Testamentum, and associated monograph series Year's Work in English Studies Year's Work in Old English Studies (annually in OEN) Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschafty and associated monograph series Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

XVII

1 Introduction

The Junius manuscript offers verse without context. The biblical emphasis of the Old English poetry in the collection is clear enough: the verse of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel is indeed given over in bulk to renditions of passages from the Old Testament books that lend these compositions their modern names. The final item, Christ and Satan, treats apocryphal and New Testament episodes. But far from certain are the origins, authorship, dates, sources, intended uses and transmission-histories of these vernacular biblical poems, or reflexes of poems, which have come down to us joined in a medieval leather binding, their texts copied out in a regular script and enlivened at times by dramatic scriptural illustrations. Their single surviving witness is Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 11 (s. x/xi; later provenance PChrist Church Cathedral, Canterbury) - here cited as 'Junius I T or, less precisely, the 'Junius manuscript'.1 Junius 11 was produced in 1

See SC II. ii, 965 (no. 5123). For a complete facsimile of Junius 11 with a useful if in some respects outdated introduction, see Caedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz. For bibliographical treatments, see Cameron, 'List', p. 29 (items A.l-A.1.4); GR, pp. 21-2 (nos. 225a-235a), 23-4 (no. 261) and 242 (no. 3895); and below, pp. 1 8 19, n. 26. A discursive review of scholarship on Junius 11 and its verse (to 1975) has been issued by Greene, 'Critical Bibliography'. Additional critical summaries appear among the columns of YWOES, published annually since 1967, and in the annual volumes of YWES. The manuscript receives its modern press-mark and familiar name as a result of its former inclusion in the library of the younger Francis du Jon (15891677), known as Franciscus Junius, whose interest in vernacular texts emerged in the course of a study of the work In Canticum Canticorum of William of Ebersberg, a bilingual (Latin-Old High German) treatment of the Song of Songs that remains a monumental source for the study of early Germanic languages. Du Jon issued the first edition of the Junius poems in 1655: Ccedmonis monachi parapbrasis poetica Geneseos ac praecipuarum Sacrae Vaginae historiarum, abhinc annos MLXX (Amsterdam, 1655). A transcript of verse in Junius 11, made by William Somner in the course of preparing

1

Old English biblical verse

the later Anglo-Saxon period, in all probability around the year 1000, but the composition of the verse that it preserves is often dated to c. 700 or earlier. Whatever conclusions are drawn regarding the specific chronology of the verse and its exemplars, the evident breadth of the gulf separating the composition of the Junius poems and the execution of their surviving copy, taken together with the fact that no comparable collection of Old Testament poetry has survived to the present day, may justify the statement that the verse of Junius 11 has no known literary-historical context before c. 1000. THE LOST TRADITIONS OF THE JUNIUS POEMS

The consensus of modern scholarship holds that the Junius poems were composed by different poets, or different schools of poets, most probably over many decades and at a number of geographically dispersed AngloSaxon centres. As I have noted, we have no assurance that the configurhis Dictionarium

2

Saxonico-Latino-Anglkum:

Voces, phrasesque praecipuas

Anglo-Saxonicas,

ed. W . Somner (Oxford, 1659), preserved among the lexicographer's papers in the Cathedral Library at Canterbury, remains unstudied. See further The 'Later Genesis', ed. Timmer, pp. 3-5 and 8-9. A. N . Doane is inclined to date the composition of Genesis A to c. 650-900, adding that '{a]ny date in the eighth century seems reasonable' (Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 36—7). Edward B. Irving, Jr, acknowledges outer limits off. 650—1000 for the composition of Exodus, personally favouring a late seventh- or eighth-century date and a Northumbrian provenance (Exodus, ed. Irving, pp. 23—5); cf. also Irving's 'Exodus Retraced', p. 209- Irving advances similarly early dates for Genesis A in his study 'On the Dating of the Old English Poems Genesis and Exodus', Anglia 11 (1959), 1-11. Exodus is dated to c. 700—800 (or 'between the time of Bede and the time of Alcuin') by Peter J. Lucas (Exodus, ed. Lucas, pp. 69—72, cited here from p. 71). Kemp Malone, in his survey 'The Old English Period', p. 66, suggests that 'Daniel A presumably goes back to early Northumbria (c. 700?)'. Robert T. Farrell, the most recent editor of Daniel, ventures no specific range of dates for the poem's composition (cf. Daniel, ed. Farrell, esp. pp. 10—13). Only Genesis B, whose composition has been seen to postdate the completion of the Heliand c. 821 x 840, is generally assigned a date after the eighth century (see The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, p. 46). For some new approaches to the problems surrounding the dating of Old English verse, see the recent, provocative essay by Wilhelm G. Busse, 'Kriterien zur Erstellung des chronologischen Systems', in his Altengliscbe Literatur, pp. 17-140, esp. 17-39As C. L. Wrenn has remarked, 'examination of the four poems of the Junius Manuscript makes it clear that they are each by different authors . . . [T]hey all differ . . . in tone, method and treatment very markedly' (Wrenn, A Study, p. 98).

Introduction

ation of verse preserved between the boards of Junius 11 reflects the processes of the poems' composition rather than those of their transmission. The questions of dating and authorship will be discussed in greater detail below. But we can say here that in all probability the compilation of the Junius collection was preceded by undocumented traditions of biblical versification that extended across three or more centuries. The frequently intriguing manuscript contexts of the poems must thus be regarded with caution. We have no assurance, for example, that the versification of the apocryphal legend of the Revolt of Satan preceding the commencement of the Genesis-based verse of Junius 11 was invariably accompanied in earlier documents by a striking illustration of the sort we see now on the third page of the manuscript, depicting the fanged hell-mouth of 'a huge monster, or Leviathan, with jaws extended', in which Satan, 'with snaky locks and animal claws' is ensnared, 'while his associates are seen plunging into the burning gulf. Nor is it possible to say for certain that the poetic treatment of the fall of Satan and the rebel angels always served to introduce a narrative on the six days of Creation, as it now does through its juxtaposition with the versification of Genesis I—XXII attributed to Genesis A. In view of our lack of knowledge regarding the processes of composition and transmission of Old English biblical verse, I believe it is indeed unwise to attribute originary authority to any context arising out of the juxtaposition of episodes in the Junius poems without first supplying convincing critical justification. The point is worth stressing, because, as we shall see, many critical inferences regarding the meaning of the biblical poetry of Junius 11 have already been founded on the organization of its texts. The presence in the volume of plausibly co-ordinated reflexes of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel has been seen to recall the medieval reading of passages from these three books in the liturgy of the Easter Vigil, observed on Holy The phrases are those of Ellis, 'Account of Caedmon's Metrical Paraphrase', p. 336, and Broderick, 'The Iconographic and Compositional Sources', p. 93- The present comments are not intended to discourage exploration of the often intriguing interactions between the iconography of the illustrations in Junius 11 - as well as the blank space set aside for illustrations that were never completed - and the received narratives of its verse. See Lucas, 'On the Blank Daniel-Cycle', and L. Amtower, 'Some Codicological Considerations in the Interpretation of the Junius Poems', ELN 30.4 (1993), 1-10. My thanks to Prof. Amtower and other members of my 1991 seminar on Junius 11 (particularly James I. McNelis, Leslie A. Donovan and Robert Costomiris) for helpful discussion of many points bearing on the codicology and palaeography of the manuscript.


Saturday as a night service extending into the early hours of Easter Sunday. The integration in Exodus of narratives on the Flood, Abraham's offering of Isaac and the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites has been associated with the same set of lectionary texts. 5 The New Testament-influenced Christ and Satan has been adduced in support of the conclusion that the supersession of the Old Testament matter in Junius 11 by the christological concerns of its last item bears witness to a book-length comment on salvation history. Nevertheless, when we attempt to make sense of the heterogeneous contents of Junius 11,1 believe that it remains necessary to maintain a distinction between the received text of the sequence of biblical poetry in the manuscript and the literary content and meaning of the verse itself. The text-history of the Junius poems: toward a suspension of critical assumption

For the purpose of the present study, the Old Testament verse of Junius 11 is best regarded as a black box, a mechanism whose effects are largely known but whose components and characteristic processes remain hidden from view. From a literary-historical perspective, it is accepted here that none of the Junius poems has yet been dated reliably, even in relative terms, within the range of dates assigned to the progression of Anglo-Saxon Christianity. Vernacular religious poetry might well have been put to good use in English Christian centres at any point from the commencement in 597 of the Roman mission to England led by Augustine of Canterbury, up to the time of the production of the Junius 11 manuscript itself, which roughly coincides with the formulation of a comprehensive set of Englishlanguage religious texts by ^lfric of Eynsham in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. If, as some historians of art maintain, additional illustrations continued to be added to the manuscript into the second half of the eleventh century, we must reckon with a historical window for the composition and reception of the Junius poems that looks upon five centuries of the Anglo-Saxon period. Though no critic to my knowledge 5

Plausible connections can be drawn between the texts of the same service and certain passages of Genesis A and Daniel. See below, pp. 80-7, 138 with n. 99, 358, 375 and 422-4. Bede recounts the Augustinian mission at Historia ecclesiastica (hereafter HE) 1.23-7 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 42-62). On yElfric's project, see Clemoes, T h e Chronology', and below, pp. 87-90.

4

Introduction

has championed a date of composition as early as the sixth century or as late as the eleventh, questions surrounding the dating of the Junius poems defy easy resolution and for the moment are best left entirely open. The verse of Junius 11 does little more to accommodate other traditional concerns of literary critics. None of the poems has been securely attributed to a named author or, for that matter, to an anonymous poet working in an identifiable compositional milieu. Unsubstantiated judgements have at different times associated the poems with the efforts of lay aristocrats or cloistered monks, but the fact remains that we have no reliable means to determine who composed any of the Junius poems. As I have noted above, it is now generally accepted that all of the main items of Junius 11 — the passages of verse generally assigned to Genesis A and B, Exodus, Daniel and Christ and Satan1 - are by different poets, but even this assumption has yet to receive a detailed critical defence. It is not even clear precisely how many poems are in question. Estimates might range from three — taking Genesis, Exodus and Daniel as the main items of the Junius collection and excluding the New Testament-themed Christ and Satan — to as many as fourteen, if all the various verse-divisions proposed by nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars are taken into account. Beyond the certain interpolation of verse treating the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis B, critics have questioned the integrity of passages on Noah and Abraham in Exodus and on the rescue of the three youths in the fiery furnace in Daniel. The prefatory matter of the three main Old Testament compositions has been separated out in different ways, as have elements in the meandering narrative of Christ and Satan. As in the case of dating the Junius poems, an effort has been made in the present study to avoid ungrounded speculation about the authorship or artistic integrity of the poems of Junius 11. Problems of oral and written transmission

Huge advances have been made in the course of the present century in our understanding of the formulaic verse produced by Germanic alliterative 7

In referring to the extant verse of Junius 11, the present study maintains the accepted fourfold demarcation of poems, dividing the Genesis-based verse into two items {Genesis A and B) and, unless explicitly noted, regarding the fragmentary entities conventionally titled Exodus, Daniel and Christ and Satan as received wholes. But this practice should not be taken to exclude the possible presence of poetical 'subunits' within the compositions so distinguished.


poets and of the interaction of oral and literary textual traditions throughout the early Middle Ages. However, many difficult questions still surround the details of the composition of the Junius poems and the mechanics of their transmission. In particular, it is not known for certain whether some or all of the verse preserved in Junius 11 traces back to orally transmitted exemplars. Bede (ob. 735), who offers our most detailed witness to the emergence of Old English biblical poetry in his account of the oral poet Caedmon (to be considered in greater detail below), reports unambiguously that vernacular treatments of the matter of Genesis, Exodus and other biblical books might be composed by a poet who never learned to read or write, relying on learned interlocutors for his scriptural knowledge.10 But it is by no means clear that all such biblical verse was produced orally, nor is it known how or when such orally composed texts might have entered the manuscript traditions that culminate in the production of Junius 11. Formulaic considerations relating to the composition and transmission of Old English biblical verse overlap with the previously noted problem of the verse-division of the Junius poems in two distinct ways. First, at the level of word and phrase, the debt of Old English biblical verse to the formulaic conventions of Germanic alliterative poetry is everywhere For introductory treatments, see R. Finnegan, Oral Poetry: its Nature, Significance and Social Context (Cambridge, 1977); discussion and references by J. M. Foley, Oralformulaic

9

Theory and Research: an Introduction and Annotated Bibliography', Folklore

Bibliographies 6 (New York, 1991) and Foley, The Theory. For discussion of Old English oral texts specifically, see also Foley's study 'Literary Art and Oral Tradition in Old English and Serbian Poetry', ASE 12 (1983), 183-214, M. T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1993), esp. pp. 25-44, and R. Frank, 'The Search for the Anglo-Saxon Oral Poet', BullJRL 75 (1993), 11-36. For some new approaches to the difficult questions surrounding the composition and transmission of medieval oral and written texts, see essays collected in Schrift und Geddchtnis: Beitrage zur Archaologie der literarischen Kommunikation, ed. A. Assmann,

10

J. Assmann and C. Hardmeier (Munich, 1983); essays in Vox intexta: Orality and Textuality in the Middle Ages, ed. A. N. Doane and C. B. Pasternack (Madison, WI, 1991); and, with special reference to Old English sources, O'Keeffe, Visible Song, esp. pp. 23-76 and 108-137, and C. B. Pasternack, The Textuality of Old English Poetry, CSASE 13 (Cambridge, 1995). As a matter of course in the early Middle Ages, Pierre Riche concludes, '[t]he faithful . . . were invited to read the Bible or, if they were illiterate, to have the sacred text read to them by someone else' (Riche, Education and Culture, p. 486).

Introduction

apparent in Junius 11. The verse of Genesis A praises God as 'sigora waldend' Cwielder of victories' (126b)) in much the same terms as a poet of secular verse would celebrate the achievements of an earthly ruler. At the level of narrative, it is less clear that early Christian commonplaces such as the consignment of Satan to hell (occurring three times among the Junius poems), the extended simile likening the progeny of Israel to the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea-shore (also occurring three times) or the account of Abraham's binding of Isaac (occurring twice) were treated by Anglo-Saxon biblical poets as discrete compositional units, or 'typescenes', comparable to, say, the treatments of the dilemma of Hildeburh in Beowulf and The Fight at Finnsburh.11 If the likelihood is granted that some of the biblical episodes treated in the Junius poems did in fact circulate as type-scenes, then questions surrounding the authorship and artistic identity of these compositions become vastly more complex, as it follows that elements of their narrative as well as features of their diction properly belong to the formulaic stock of Germanic alliterative verse. When we turn from the complexities of the oral tradition to consider the hypothetical written precursors of the Junius poems we should first ask whether these exemplars were transmitted as fixed or variable texts. The carefully executed layout of Junius 11 suggests that by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period the verse of its biblical poems was accorded an antiquarian sort of respect. But any speculation about the textual fixity of the texts witnessed by the manuscript has to confront the disconcerting phenomenon of the interpolation of the Old Saxon-based verse of Genesis B. The early discussion of A. R. Skemp, 'The Transformation of Scriptural Story, Motive and Conception in Anglo-Saxon Poetry', MP 4 (1906-7), 423-70, remains a useful introduction. The treatments of the offering of Isaac in the verse of Junius 11 have been treated by R. P. Creed, 'The Art of the Singer: Three Old English Tellings of the Offering of Isaac', in Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays, ed. R. P. Creed, Brown Univ. Bicentennial Publ. (Providence, RI, 1967), pp. 69-92, and L. N. McKill, 'The Offering of Isaac and the Artistry of the Old English Genesis A\ in The Practical Vision: Essays in English Literature in honour of Flora Roy, ed. J. Campbell and J. Doyle

(Waterloo, Ont., 1978), pp. 1-11; see also U. Schwab, 'Zum Verstandnis des IsaakOpfers in literarischer und bildlicher Darstellung des Mittelalters', FS 15 (1981), 435-94. For some classic statements on the circulation of type-scenes in ancient oral tradition, see M. Parry, 'On Typical Scenes in Homer', Classical Philol. 31 (1936), 357—60; see also more recent discussion by W. Arend, Die typischen Scenen bei Homer (Berlin, 1975). For complementary work in this area by biblical scholars, see M. J. Buss, 'The Study of Forms', in Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. Hayes, pp. 1—56, with references.


At some stage in the transmission of the Genesis-based verse a copyist (or redactor, or recensionist) undertook to recombine material drawn from multiple exemplars so as to produce a new and in some sense proprietary text. It is especially troubling that the resulting interpolation, at least when viewed from a twentieth-century perspective, appears to disrupt the narrative progression of Genesis A while evincing a gross disregard for the poetic qualities of Genesis B. It holds to reason that similar recastings of material may have taken place in the course of the transmission of Exodus, Daniel and Christ and Satan, albeit with less disruptive results. Indeed, specific arguments alleging interpolation have been offered for all of these poems. In sum, when we turn to study the Junius poems, we encounter a group of texts which defy nearly all of the expectations of modern literary scholarship: origin, authorship, historical context, artistic integrity and so on. Moreover, the intrusive interpolation of Genesis B suggests that we have to reckon with the certainty that at least some of the verse in Junius 11 has been altered in the light of an aesthetic (or an attitude toward texts) that is wholly foreign to the sensibilities of modern readers. Recent scholarship on the Junius poems has attempted to surmount the critical obstacles sketched out above by recourse to extrabiblical sources: traditions of biblical glosses and encyclopaedic learning, apocryphal legends and, especially in recent years, the works of patristic authors writing in the Latin tradition, such as Augustine, Jerome and Gregory. This approach seems reasonable insofar as the status of the Junius poems as products of early medieval Christian tradition is not in question. The words of patristic theologians exerted a pervasive influence on the educational and devotional practices of religious communities throughout Europe, and it thus holds to reason that, say, the doctrinal background of See esp. Huppe, Doctrine and Poetry. The 'exegetical' approach has been criticized by B. Brockmann, ' "Heroic" and "Christian" in Genesis A: the Evidence of the Cain and Abel Episode', MLQ 35 (1974), 115-28; Boyd, 'Doctrine and Criticism'; W. G. Busse, 'Neo-Exegetical Criticism and Old English Poetry: a Critique of the Typological and Allegorical Appropriation of Medieval Literature', REAL: The Yearbook of Res. in Eng. and Amer. Lit. 2 (1984), 1-54; and Busse, Altenglische Literatur, pp. 198229- Nevertheless, J. N. Garde and B. J. Muir, 'Patristic Influence and the Poetic Intention in Old English Religious Verse', Lit. and Theol. 2 (1988), 49-68, have recently reasserted the viability of a doctrinally centred approach to Old English biblical poetry (since developed further by Garde, Old English Poetry). Work in this area perhaps will be encouraged by the continuing appearance of volumes of Biblia Patristica, ed. Allenbach et al.

8

Introduction

the Junius Exodus might be illuminated by consideration of patristic writings on the liberation of the Israelites. Even if we doubt that Old English biblical poets commonly had direct access to voluminous copies of works by Augustine and others, there are plausible intermediary channels for the transmission of patristic traditions, including homiletic, classroom instruction, the circulation of extracts in compilations and pastoral care. (Some specific examples will be discussed below.) The present study, however, endeavours to facilitate future interpretation of the Junius poems through consideration of a yet more fundamental set of background texts: the books of the Old Testament. The defining characteristic of the undeniably heterogeneous verse of Junius 11 is its consistent attempt to provide, at least at the level of narrative, approximations to the content of continuous passages of Old Testament scripture. Genesis A offers a sequential and essentially complete treatment of the first twenty-two chapters of the book of Genesis (extending from the Creation to Abraham's offering of Isaac), and Daniel closely follows the episodic structure of Daniel I—V (the reigns of the Babylonian kings). The poetic innovations of Exodus have been deservedly celebrated by many critics of Old English verse, but at a basic level the poem offers a rendition of the matter of Exodus XI-XIV (the passage from Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea). Even the heavy-handed interpolation of the account of the Fall and its aftermath in Genesis B has been effected in such a way that the Junius Genesis, regarded as a whole, embodies the basic narrative sequence of Genesis II-IV. Viewed in this light, nearly every sequence of lines in the Old Testament verse of Junius 11 may be seen to rest ultimately on a continuous exemplar of some passage of scripture. The common debt of its contents to the model of Old Testament narrative, in my view, serves to set the Junius Manuscript apart from all other surviving collections of Old English verse. These observations in turn raise a number of source-critical questions. Are the poems founded directly on the words of Latin biblical texts? Or, as in the case of patristic writings, should we suspect the influence of intermediary traditions of Christian religious instruction and devotional practice? Do the biblical renditions of the Old Testament-based On questions of literacy and knowledge of Latin texts in Anglo-Saxon England, see Cross,'The Literate Anglo-Saxon'; Bately, 'Evidence for Knowledge of Latin', stressing the evidence of Old English prose but discussing verse at pp. 36—7 and 46—7, nn. 6—9; and the recent study by G. H. Brown, 'Latin Writing and the Old English Vernacular', in Schriftlichkeit> ed. Schaefer, pp. 36—57.


Junius poems bear comparison with texts of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel preserved in surviving medieval Bibles? Does the innovative treatment of certain biblical episodes in the poems resemble the handling of the same passages in early liturgical documents? The biblical basis of the Junius poems has generally been taken for granted. In discussions of the biblical sources of the poems, scholars have most often cited passages from critical editions of the Latin Vulgate or, in a surprising number of cases, from modern translations of the Bible. It is a central premise of the present study, however, that the biblical resources available to the poets of this verse bore only limited resemblance to the modern canon of scripture. The textual uniformity that has emerged in recent times through the efforts of biblical scholars did not exist in the early Middle Ages. Rather, the revised readings of Jerome's Vulgate text continued to cross paths with the remnants of the earlier Old Latin translation, resulting in the emergence of so-called 'mixed' exemplars. Identifiable groups of textual variants and differing systems of verse- and chapter-division also arose within the Vulgate tradition itself. Complete copies of the Latin Bible were precious and physically unwieldy commodities in all phases of Anglo-Saxon history. It is possible and perhaps probable that none of the poets of the verse of Junius 11 owned a complete Latin Bible. It is more likely that the verses of Genesis, Exodus, Daniel and other biblical books reached our poets in a variety of formats: discrete copies of individual books of the Old or New Testament; so-called 'partBibles' comprising several biblical books, often in configurations reflecting the main divisions of the Bible itself (Pentateuch, prophets, gospels, etc.); liturgical documents containing biblical lections or biblical adaptations (in canticles, antiphons, prayers, etc.) prescribed for the ceremonies of mass and Office; documents serving doubly as part-Bibles and as liturgical texts, such as psalters employed in the recitation of the Office or copies of the gospels marked to provide the evangelical readings at mass; and private manuscripts of many types prepared as adjuncts to Bible-study, meditation or other activities undertaken as part of the medieval devotional routine. Even if we assume the intervention of an intermediary, oral 1

For discussions of the circulation and physical forms of early medieval Bibles, see Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, esp. pp. 39-47; McGurk, 'The Oldest Manuscripts' and other essays assembled in The Early Medieval Bible, ed. Gameson; P. Petitmengin, 'La bible a travers les inventaires de bibliotheques medievales', in Le moyen age et la bible, ed. Riche and Lobrichon, pp. 31-53; and Brown, 'A New Fragment'.

10

Introduction

stage in the communication of biblical knowledge to Old English poets, whereby the contents of specific books were transmitted through the efforts of interlocutors, it is probable that the texts consulted by these interlocutors resembled those described here. Concluding remarks on method

The chapters below explore the relationship of surviving early medieval texts of the books of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel to the Old English poetry oi Genesis (treated in a single chapter, but according to the accepted division oi Genesis A and B), Exodus and Daniel (treated in two chapters, respectively addressing the prose- and verse-based passages of the poem). Each of the chapters endeavours to provide the following: (1) Exhaustive consideration of the passages of each poem that appear to reflect the influence of specific verses of the Old Testament, with special attention accorded both to incidental details and to entire narrative sequences that may be associated with identifiable biblical models; (2) detailed consideration of the nature and composition of the hypothetically inferrable biblical exemplars standing behind the text of each poem; and (3) discussion of representative specimens of surviving early medieval biblical texts that may serve profitably to exemplify the handling of Old Testament sources. In the main, the textual tabula rasa established above is maintained throughout the discussion. That is to say, no assumptions are made here a priori regarding the date, authorship or compositional milieux of the Junius poems, nor is it assumed that the biblical texts adduced for comparison with these verses are in every case precisely those consulted by the Anglo-Saxon poets held accountable for the poems' composition. What is of greatest concern here is the establishment of common patterns of response to biblical texts that extend across a range of early medieval sources and may thus be associated plausibly with the traditions witnessed by the Junius poems. The promise of this approach is that by obtaining a more precise definition of the position of the poems in early medieval scriptural tradition we may bring about some of the contextualization that their verse has thus far resisted. As it happens, historical sources attesting to the knowledge and use of the Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon Christian centres are fairly numerous. 15 The 15

See Marsden, Text of the Old Testament\ esp. pp. 1^49; Marsden, 'The Old Testament', and below, pp. 97-8 with n. 10, 302-4 and 414-15. 11


position of lections and canticles drawn from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel in early medieval devotional practice has been clarified greatly through the recent efforts of liturgical scholars. And most of the major early medieval witnesses to the Old Latin and Vulgate texts of these biblical books have now received critical scrutiny. It remains to be seen, therefore, whether the evidence supplied by the monuments of the Latin scriptural tradition may help to illuminate the special features of the Junius poems. Surviving collections of Old English verse

Approximately one thousand extant manuscripts are known to have been produced in Anglo-Saxon England or imported to English centres before 1100. 16 Only four of these preserve substantial collections of Old English poetry.17 These are the Junius manuscript; the famous manuscript including the unique copies of Beowulf and Judith, now constituting the second volume of London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. xv (s. x/xi); the Exeter Book (Exeter, Cathedral Library, 3501, fols. 8-130 (s. x2; provenance, Exeter)); and the Vercelli Book (Vercelli, Biblioteca Capitolare, CXVII (s. x 2 )). 18 These four documents represent less than a half of Gneuss, 'List', catalogues 947 of these. The most extensive sets of descriptions occur in Ker, Catalogue and Ker, 'A Supplement', which omit manuscripts containing only Latin texts. For these, see entries in Gneuss, 'List'; Gneuss, 'Liturgical Books'; Medieval Libraries\ ed. Ker; and N . R. Ker et al., Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries (Oxford,

17

18

1969-). See further J. Morrish, 'Dated and Datable Manuscripts Copied in England during the Ninth Century: a Preliminary List', MS 50 (1988), 512-38. The voluminous interlinear versification of the Psalms in the Paris Psalter (BN, lat. 8824 (s. xi med ); see below, pp. 401-2) - essentially a single-item production - is omitted from this survey of Old English poetic compilations. The vernacular prosimetrum in King Alfred's revised treatment of his version of Boethius's De consolatione Philosophiaey preserved in the damaged manuscript BL, Cotton Otho A. vi, fols. 1-129 (s. x med ), has been excluded on similar grounds. If Kevin Kiernan's arguments regarding the disunity of the Beowulf manuscript are accepted (see pp. 13-14 with n. 19), that celebrated codex might well be left out of the account as well. On the Beowulf manuscript, see Kiernan, Beowulf esp. pp. 65-169, and The Nowell Codex (British Museum Cotton Vitellius A. XV, Second MS), ed. K. Malone, facs. ed.,

EEMF 12 (Copenhagen, 1963, pp. 11-119); see also the reproduction of the copy of Beowulf only in Beowulf, Reproduced in Facsimile from the Unique Manuscript

British

Museum MS. Cotton Vitellius A. XV, ed. J. Zupitza, 2nd ed. by N. Davis, facs. ed., EETS os 245 (London, 1959). The Exeter Book and its poetic contents have been the subject of recent, extensive studies by Conner, 'The Structure'; Conner, Anglo-Saxon

12

Introduction

one per cent of the total number of extant documents witnessing to the manuscript culture of the Anglo-Saxons. But it would be wrong to characterize them as forming 'the tip of an iceberg', even in view of historical evidence which indicates that such documents may have been fairly numerous throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. The diversity of their contents suggests rather that we should think in terms of four separate glacial pinnacles. The monumental Beowulf manuscript has little in common with Junius 11 and its contents. Kevin S. Kiernan has recently argued that the eight gatherings of leaves (hereafter termed quires) of Cotton Vitellius A. xv containing the text of Beowulf once formed a discrete codicological entity of an as yet indeterminate type. 19 In any event, the manuscript stands by Exeter, esp. pp. 48-147 and 236-54; and also discussion by M. Forster, 'General Description of the Manuscript', in The Exeter Book, ed. and introd. Chambers, Forster and Flower, pp. 55—67; the facs. in the same volume; the description by Ker, Catalogue, p. 153 (no. 116); and references assembled by B. J. Muir, The Exeter Book: a Bibliography (Exeter, 1992). On Muir's project to re-edit the verse in the collection, see his articles 'A Preliminary Report on a New Edition of the Exeter Book', Scriptorium 43 (1989), 273-88, and 'Editing the Exeter Book: a Progress Report', in Medieval Texts and Images: Studies of Manuscripts from the Middle Ages, ed. M. M. Manion and B. J. Muir

(Sydney, 1991), pp. 149-76. For further discussion of the collection of prose and poetry in the Vercelli Book, see M. Forster, 'Der Vercelli-Codex CXVII nebst Abdruck einiger Homilien der Handschrift', in Festschrift fur Lorenz Morsbach, ed. F. Holthausen and H. Spies, SEP 50 (Halle, 1913), 20-179, D. G. Scragg, 'The Compilation of the Vercelli Book', ASE 2 (1973), 189-207, and The Vercelli Homilies, ed. Scragg, esp. pp. xxiii-xxv and xxxvii-xlii. See further The Vercelli Book: a Late Tenth-Century Manuscript Containing Prose and Verse (Vercelli Biblioteca Capitolare CXVII),

19

ed. and

introd. C. Sisam, facs. ed., EEMF 19 (Copenhagen, 1976), with discussion at pp. 13-31, and description by Ker, Catalogue, pp. 460-4 (no. 394). For detailed discussion of all four major poetic codices, see O'Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 155-87. See K. S. Kiernan, 'The Eleventh-Century Origin of Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript', in The Dating of Beowulf, ed. Chase, pp. 9-32, and Kiernan, Beowulf, pp. 65-150. The report of the ruling on fols. 126-41 of the manuscript offered by L. E. Boyle, 'The Nowell Codex and the Poem of Beowulf', in The Dating of Beowulf ed. Chase, pp. 23-32, at 23, would seem to contradict this hypothesis. But it is not clear that Boyle's detection of rulings of '9 mm. and 10 mm. [in lines near the bottom of the written space of] . . . each frame in folios 126-133' - a span of leaves preserving the end of the Old English prose version of Alexander's Letter to Aristotle and the beginning of Beowulf'- as against 'the regular 7 mm. or so that one usually finds' {ibid.) will bear the weight that he places on it, given the 'fire damage [that has] caused shrinkage at the edges of that vellum' and frequent irregularities in the ruling of leaves throughout Cotton Vitellius A. xv, described by Kiernan {Beowulf,

13


itself in preserving a Christian-heroic vernacular epic of over three thousand lines, the best-known product of the schools of Anglo-Saxon poets. The texts preceding Beowulf in the second volume of Cotton Vitellius A. xv are in Old English prose. These texts, which occupy the first four quires of the volume, are written in the same scribal hand as the first 1939 lines of Beowulf. The quires containing prose include a fragmentary Life of St Christopher as well as two unusual texts that might be described as encyclopaedic: The Wonders of the East (including some illustrations of Asian exotica) and Alexander's Letter to Aristotle.20 The emphasis in the opening quires is on the exotic, with only a few passages offering anything approaching deep theological reflection. St Christopher himself is said to be descended from a race of dog-headed cannibals and the ensuing prose text describes a tribe of women hunters with beards, among other legendary marvels of Asia. But the fact remains that all of the texts in this volume were copied out and consulted by Anglo-Saxon Christians. The only possible indication that Beowulf has emerged from transmissional channels similar to those which sustained the biblical verse of Junius 11 occurs in Cotton Vitellius A. xv in the fragmentary Old English poem on the Old Testament figure Judith, which occupies the final quire of the volume.21 (The canonicity of the biblical book of Judith was generally accepted in Anglo-Saxon England.) The verse of Judith thus has the distinction of providing the most important surviving witness to the circulation in Anglo-Saxon England of Old Testament-based vernacular poetry outside of the pages of the Junius manu-

20

21

pp. 121-3). N o one, moreover, seems to have overruled Kiernan's observations regarding visible wear on the first and last pages of the sequence of leaves containing the copy of Beowulf, the inscription of a press-mark at the foot of the first page (unusual if it fell near the middle of a quire) and the incremental crowding of script on leaves toward the end of the copy (Kiernan, Beowulf esp. pp. 123—30 and 150—9). Kiernan also cites Humphrey Wanley's description of Beowulf before the damage incurred in the Cottonian fire of 1731, which begins with the words 'In hoc libro . . .' (Kiernan, Beowulf pp. 133-5). On The Wonders of the East, see GR, p . 378 (nos. 6472-6) and the edition and sourcestudy by A. Knock, 'Wonders of the East: a Synoptic Edition of "The Letter of Pharasmanes" and the Old English and Old Picard Translations' (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Univ. of London, 1982). Ed. in ASPR IV, lix-lxvi, 9 9 - 1 0 9 and 2 8 1 - 9 .

14

Introduction

script. The scribe of Judith also copied the latter part of Beowulf, but executed the copy of the former, Old Testament poem on sheets ruled to display a smaller written area, amongst other dissimilarities. Twentiethcentury scholarship has tended therefore to dissociate the two texts. In any case, it must be concluded that the second volume of Cotton Vitellius A. xv offers no corroborative evidence for the sort of collection of Old Testament verse attested by Junius 11. The principles guiding the compilation of the Exeter Book appear to differ fundamentally from those evinced by either Junius 11 or Cotton Vitellius A. xv. The manuscript opens with a fragmentary, three-part (or, most critics would assert, three-poem) treatment of the life and divinity of Christ now comprising 1664 lines. The Exeter Book Christ (or Christ I, // and HI) qualifies as biblical verse in its allusions to Christ's Conception, Nativity, Crucifixion, Ascension and Second Coming, which manifest a common emphasis on New Testament traditions. But this verse lacks the sort of continuous scriptural versification observed in Junius 11. It includes non-narrative, liturgically predicated renditions of the so-called 'O' antiphons for Advent juxtaposed with what has been described as a 'mosaic' of narrative passages, whose tone is by turns 'homiletic', 'devotional' and 'epic'. The remainder of the Exeter Book is occupied by verse on the lives of saints (Guthlac A and B and Juliana) and an assortment of poems, often fairly short in length, of an extremely miscellaneous character, including aphoristic compositions (The Gifts of Men, Precepts, etc.), animal-poems (The Panther, The Whale, etc.), apparent remnants of Old English popular verse (Deor, Wulf and Eadwacer, etc.) and almost one hundred riddles. Only two of the more than 130 items in the Exeter collection (an exact count is impossible) can in any sense be considered specimens of Old Testament verse. These are a nine-line fragment on the 22

On the production of Latin and vernacular biblical poetry in the early Middle Ages, see D. Kartschoke, Bibeldkhtung: Studien zur Geschichte des episcben Bibelparaphrase von Juvencus bis Otfrid von Weissenburg (Munich, 1975); M. Roberts, Biblical Epic and Rhetorical Paraphrase in Late Antiquity, ARCA Classical and Med. Texts, Papers and Monog. 16 (Liverpool, 1985); and G. Malsbary, 'Epic Exegesis and the Use of Vergil in the Early Biblical Poets', Florilegium 7 (1985), 55-83. For an early deployment of the cited critical terminology, see C. W. Kennedy, The Poems of Cynewulf Translated into English Prose (New York, 1910), pp. 27—32. On the 'O' antiphons, see also Rankin, 'The Liturgical Background'. For a detailed survey of Christ I-HI and the other poetic contents of the Exeter Book, see Conner, Anglo-Saxon Exeter, pp. 148-64.

15


count of warriors in Pharaoh's army, perhaps better classified as a riddle, and the intriguing fragment of Azarias, now comprising 191 lines, which appears to offer a recast version of the treatment of the miracle of the three youths in Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace witnessed by lines 178—439 of the Junius Daniel. Apart from this forceful confirmation that Old Testament verse such as we find in Junius 11 did circulate in tenthcentury England, however, it is evident that the Exeter Book and Junius manuscript provided very different sorts of vernacular complements to Anglo-Saxon religious practice. The Vercelli Book offers the only extant group of Old English poems exhibiting a consistency of purpose comparable to that of the Old Testament verse of Junius 11. The Vercelli poems Andreas and Cynewulf's Fates of the Apostles and Elene all offer vernacular reflexes of Latin texts serving the Anglo-Saxon cult of saints and relics. The treatments of the legends of Andrew, Helena and other early saints in these poems attest to the pervasive literary influence of saints' lives in the early Middle Ages. The devotional sphere of the cult of relics is addressed by the account of the finding of the True Cross in Elene and, perhaps, by another poem in the collection, The Dream of the Rood, whose verse is informed by matters relating to worship of the Cross. There are considerable differences between the Vercelli Book and the other three Anglo-Saxon monuments discussed here, notably the circumstance that all of the poetry in Vercelli CXVII has been incorporated into a long sequence of prose works, comprising twenty-two vernacular homilies (or sermons).2 An Old 2

25

Forms of reasonably familiar biblical names such as Nebuchadnezzar (as against the spellings Nabuchodonosor in the Vulgate, Nabochodonossor, etc., in Daniel and so on), as well as the names of such universally known figures as Noah and Abraham, have been standardized according to the usage of modern English Bibles. All other biblical names are standardized on the usage of the Vulgate. Similarly, familiar names of Old English derivation are rendered in a modern form (for example, Alfred as opposed to Alfred) whereas individuals less well known are identified by orthographically modernized approximations to Late West Saxon forms of their personal names (iEthelthryth as opposed to MtStVprytS or Audrey). Donald G. Scragg suggests that the Vercelli Book 'is an original collection put together by its scribe from a variety of exemplars, and perhaps copied over a long period of time' {The Vercelli Homilies, ed. Scragg, p. xxiv). The only indication of the homiletic purpose of the last item, an extract from a longer Old English translation of the Vita S. Guthlaci of Felix of Crowland, occurs in a single added sentence at the end of the text {ibid., pp. 381 and 392).

16

Introduction

English hagiographical treatment of Guthlac, which is set off from the preceding series of homilies (items XIX—XXI and XXII, possibly copied in two scribal stints) by the intervention of Elene, serves to conclude the Vercelli Book. Of the 135 extant leaves of the volume about two-thirds are given over to batches of prose texts. The prose thus effectively overshadows the collection's three relatively brief sequences of verse, the longest of which spans twenty-six leaves. Even if we view the common concern with matters relating to the worship of saints and the Cross as a unifying principle in the selection of poems in Vercelli CXVII, it is clear that the category of these religious texts differs fundamentally from that which we encounter in the Junius poems. Generally speaking, the contents of the Junius manuscript, the Exeter Book and the Vercelli Book are linked by their common concern with subjects and texts that were intimately bound up in the daily devotional lives of Anglo-Saxon Christians, and in this respect they contrast with some of the more exotic concerns of the prose and poetry of the Beowulf manuscript. The Junius manuscript and the Exeter Book share the distinction of providing our only evidence for the collection of Old English poetry in volumes exclusively devoted to the preservation of verse, even if their contents seem to have been brought together according to fundamentally different principles. In certain respects, the most striking Anglo-Saxon analogue of Junius 11 is a manuscript, not yet mentioned, which contains no Old English biblical verse whatsoever: BL, Cotton Caligula A. vii, fols. 11—176 (English centre, s. x ), preserving one of the two extant nearly complete copies of the Old Saxon Heliand, a poem celebrating the life of Christ. Cotton Caligula A. vii is a single-item manuscript rather than a collection; the language of the verse it preserves is Old Saxon, not Old English; and its verse treats themes of the New Testament and not of the Old. But the pages of this Cottonian codex, similar to those of Junius 11, are wholly given over to vernacular biblical poetry, the verse in question is decorated with elaborate zoomorphic initials and the copy of the Heliand appears to have been executed by an Anglo-Saxon scribe, quite possibly on English soil. Nonetheless, joint consideration of the four main repositories of Old English verse treated above, and of Cotton Caligula A. vii, leaves the unsettling impression that these monuments represent distinct traditions in the dissemination of Germanic alliterative verse. As we have no information that would allow us to judge the relative prevalence during the Anglo-Saxon period of the 17


various formats and collecting principles observed in these manuscripts, an attempt to draw general conclusions regarding the transmissional history of vernacular poetry on the basis of any one of them might well be misguided. Most alarmingly of all, the evidence set out above makes it clear that if the Junius manuscript had not survived, we would have no reason to think that any such book had ever been produced. Junius 11 as a witness to the transmission of Old English verse

The main concern of the present study is with the texts preserved in Junius 11 rather than with the manuscript's codicology, or its layout or illustrations. A few comments on these subjects, however, will enable readers to gain a better impression of the remarkable volume that provides the setting for the verse of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel.26 The Junius manuscript 26

For discussion of the palaeography, codicology and library-history of Junius 11, see Conybeare, Illustrations, pp. 183—97; Ellis/Account of Caedmon's Metrical Paraphrase'; K. W. Bouterwek, De Cedmone po'eta Anglo-Saxonum vetustissimo brevis dissertatio (Elberfeld, 1844), esp. pp. 18-23; F. H. Stoddard, 'Accent Collation of Csedmon's Genesis B\ MLN 2 (1887), cols. 165-74; F. H. Stoddard, 'The Caedmon Poems in MS Junius XI', Anglia 10 (1888), 157-67; J. Lawrence, 'On Codex Junius XL (pp. 143 to 212)', Anglia 12 (1889), 598-605; Exodus and Daniel, ed. Blackburn, pp. vii-xviii; Bradley, 'The Numbered Sections'; C. W. Kennedy and C. R. Morey, The Ccedmon Poems Translated into English Prose, with an Introduction and Facsimiles of the Illustrations in the Junius MS (London, 1916), pp. xi-xiii and 175-95; Christ and Satan, ed. Clubb, pp. ix-xvii; Ccedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz, pp. xiii-xxxviii; Clubb, 'The Second Book'; Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp, pp. ix-xxiv and xxxvi-xliii; B. J. Timmer, 'The History of a Manuscript', The Book Collector 1 (1952), 6-13; F. Wormald, English Drawings of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1952), pp. 38-42 and 76, with plate 18; Exodus, ed. Irving, pp. 1-12 and 44; G. C. Thornley and J. R. Firth, 'The Accents and Points of MS. Junius 11', TPS (1954), 178-201; The 'Later Genesis', ed. Timmer, pp. 1-18; Ker, Catalogue, pp. 406-8 (no. 334); Vickrey, 'Genesis B\ pp. 1-30; M. D. Clubb, 'Report of Progress on a Census of Junius', JEGP 61 (1962), 202-3; G. Henderson, 'Late-Antique Influences in Some English Medieval Illustrations of Genesis', JWCI 25 (1962), 172-98; M. D. Clubb, 'Grimm's Transcript of Caedmon', PQ 44 (1965), 152-72; Brennan, 'The Old English Daniel', pp. iii-xiv; M. D. Clubb, 'Junius, Marshall, Madden, Thorpe - and Harvard', in Studies in Language and Literature in honour of Margaret Schlauch (Warsaw, 1966), pp. 55—70; Wells, 'A Critical Edition', pp. iii-xxxii; A. J. Bliss, 'Some Unnoticed Lines of Old English Verse', N&Q 216 (1971), 404; T. H. Ohlgren, 'Five New Drawings in the MS Junius 11: their Iconography and Thematic Significance', Speculum 47 (1972), 227—33; Hall, 'The Old English Book of Salvation History', pp. 1-49; Daniel, ed. Farrell,

18

Introduction

bears comparison with the Exeter Book and the Vercelli Book in respect to the dimensions of its pages and the amount of space that has been set aside for writing. Most of the pages in these three books exhibit a height of approximately twelve inches and a half (ranging from 310 to 323 mm) and a width of about eight inches (196 to 225 mm), with a written space occupying an area measuring about nine inches and a half (220 to 240 mm) by six inches (120 to 160 mm). 27 All of the books have been fashioned to contain similar numbers of leaves. Taking account of the maximum numbers of leaves conjectured by critics to have been removed from the quires of these manuscripts, whether or not these originally contained text, the Vercelli Book (with 136 extant leaves) may formerly have contained as many as one hundred and fifty leaves, while the Junius manuscript (115 extant leaves) and the Exeter Book (123 extant original leaves) once contained at least 126 leaves and 129 leaves respectively. The main impression is of a group of books comparable in bulk to many modern reference works, whose physical form would have rendered them eminently transportable, if still too cumbersome for use as pocket-books. The Beowulf manuscript, by contrast, comes closer to achieving a smaller, quarto-sized portability with an original page-size of about nine inches by six (c. 195 by 115-30 mm) and a written area regularly measuring about seven inches by four and a half (c. 170 by 105 mm). Physical evidence for

27

28

pp. 1—10; G. Henderson, 'The Programme of Illustrations in Bodleian MS Junius XI', in Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice, ed. G. Robertson and G. Henderson (Edinburgh, 1975), p p . 1 1 3 - 4 5 with pis. 5 9 - 7 1 ; Christ and Satan, ed. Finnegan, p p . 3 - 1 1 ; Exodus, ed. Lucas, p p . 1-35; Broderick, 'The Iconographic and Compositional Sources', p p . 1-55 and 4 5 1 - 6 9 ; Genesis A , ed. Doane, p p . 3 - 2 4 ; Lucas, ' O n the Incomplete Ending'; Lucas, ' O n the Blank Daniel-Cycle'; Lucas, 'MS Junius 1 1 ' ; R. Thomson, 'Identifiable Books from the Pre-Conquest Library of Malmesbury Abbey', ASE 10 (1982), 1-19, at 1 6 - 1 8 ; H . R. Broderick, III, 'Observation on the Method of Illustration in MS Junius 11 and the Relationship of the Drawings to the Text', Scriptorium 37 (1983), 1 6 1 - 7 7 ; Raw, 'The Construction'; The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, p p . 2 8 ^ 2 ; J . Lowden, 'Concerning the Cotton Genesis and Other Illustrated Manuscripts of Genesis', Gesta 31 (1992), 40—53; and Anglo-Saxon Textual Illustration, ed. T. H . Ohlgren (Kalamazoo, M I , 1992), p p . 10 and 8 8 - 9 9 . T h e figures given here draw on reports by Ker, Catalogue, p p . 153, 4 0 8 and 4 6 4 . These have been compared with figures given in ASPR I, ix—x; II, xi; and III, xi; and, for Junius 1 1 , in Genesis A , ed. Doane, p p . 3—4, and by Lucas, 'On the Incomplete Ending', p p . 47—8, and Raw, 'The Construction', p p . 200—2. See ASPR I, ix-x; II, xi-xiv; and III, x-xii. See also Ker, Catalogue, p p . 153 (no. 116), 4 0 7 - 8 (no. 334) and 4 6 3 - 4 (no. 394), and Lucas, 'MS Junius 1 1 ' , p t 2, 1 5 - 2 0 .

19


the use of these books is ambiguous at best. On the one hand, the Exeter Book shows signs of having been maintained as a private volume, and scholars have speculated that the Vercelli Book owes its remarkable survival in an Italian provenance to its having been transported to the Continent in an Anglo-Saxon traveller's book-satchel. (There is no solid evidence, however, to prove that the book was in Italy before the sixteenth century.) On the other hand, Neil R. Ker and Barbara C. Raw have detected a mark on the upper cover of Junius 11 which they take to suggest that the book was at one time chained in place. Raw suggests that 'the manuscript was stored flat, resting on its front cover', possibly on a lectern. In the final analysis, it is impossible to judge on the basis of surviving evidence whether collections of Old English poetry were commonly maintained as publicly displayed volumes or as private books or if, perhaps, they enjoyed a localized circulation comparable to that of modern library books. One neglected aspect of the codicology of Junius 11 is the intriguing, if ultimately inconclusive, evidence provided by its final quire for the circulation of Old English biblical verse in fully portable, single-quire manuscripts. Writing in 1925, Merrel D. Clubb observed that the seventeenth quire of Junius 11, containing the last extant lines of Daniel and the poem Christ and Satan, shows signs of having been 'folded from top to bottom in the middle after it was written'. Two years later Israel Gollancz confirmed that 'the manuscript of Christ and Satan shows a ridge caused by its leaves having been folded'. Gollancz argued, however, that the folding had taken place before the writing of the quire. The most specific conclusion yet to be drawn from this crease occurs in the scholarship of Peter J. Lucas. Lucas argues that quire 17 'began its life as a folded booklet . . . compact enough to be carried in the pocket of a monk's habit and . . . presumably used for private reading away from the study facilities 29

R a w , 'The Construction', esp. p p . 1 9 8 - 9 - Ker, Catalogue, p . 4 0 8 , describes the present b i n d i n g of J u n i u s 11 as 'medieval'. Lucas, 'MS J u n i u s 1 1 ' , p t 1, 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 , referring to discussions w i t h G r a h a m Pollard, dates the production of the b i n d i n g to the A n g l o Saxon period. R a w , ' T h e Construction', p . 199, however, dates the b i n d i n g to the period 1 1 0 0 - 1 2 5 0 , her c o m m e n t s regarding the p r o m i n e n t display of the volume (possibly on a lectern) t h u s perhaps suggesting a hitherto unsuspected A n g l o - N o r m a n cultivation of O l d English verse.

30

Christ and Satan, ed. C l u b b , p . xv, and Ccedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz, p . xcix; see also C l u b b , 'The Second Book'.

20

Introduction

of the cloister'. Though we may choose to doubt the specification of a monastic milieu, Lucas's 'booklet' hypothesis has the merit of accounting at a stroke for the abrupt termination of Daniel, whose last twenty-six extant lines fill out the first verso of the outer sheet of quire 17, followed immediately by Christ and Satan. In Lucas's view, the outer sheet of quire 17 (comprising pp. 211-12 and 229-30 in the present foliation) is the sole remnant of a quire formerly containing a continuation of the text of Daniel in quire 16, whose former inner contents have been replaced by the leaves containing the bulk of the text of Christ and Satan (comprising the present pp. 213-28 of Junius 11). Barbara Raw, characterizing the inclusion of Christ and Satan in Junius 11 as 'a fairly early afterthought', has nevertheless argued (against Clubb, Gollancz and Lucas) that the folding occurred after the quire had been written and been bound once in Junius 11. She suggests that the creasing occurred in the course of a later dismantling and re-sewing of the manuscript. To my knowledge, however, no one has yet countered the observation of Lucas (following Clubb) that 'some of the letters (especially those with ascenders) in line 16 of pp. 226, 227 and 228, that is, the innermost pages in the folded booklet, have become partially indistinct through repeated folding and unfolding of the parchment'. Whatever the final verdict on Lucas's Lucas, ' O n the Incomplete E n d i n g ' , p . 5 1 . A g r o u n d b r e a k i n g study of medieval folded booklets is B . Bischoff, ' U b e r gefaltete Handschriften, vornehmlich hagiographischen Inhalts', in his Mittelalterliche Studien I, 9 3 - 1 0 0 . For other c o m m e n t s on the possible transmission of O l d English texts in booklets, see Conner, 'The Structure', p p . 2 4 1 - 2 , Conner, Anglo-Saxon

Exeter, esp. p p . 9 5 - 1 4 7 , and P . R. Robinson, 'Self-Contained

U n i t s in Composite Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Period', ASE 7 (1978), 2 3 1 - 8 . Lucas adverts to discussions w i t h Robinson as well as M . B. Parkes, b u t I find no record of a specific c o m m e n t by these scholars on the fold in quire 17. Conner informs m e that he would no longer prefer the use of the term booklet to indicate the distinct, multiple-quire codicological subunits that he sees as having arisen over the course of the production of the Exeter Book. Such units bear scant resemblance to the singlequire, folded booklet that has been detected between the boards of J u n i u s 11 by Lucas. 32

R a w , 'The Construction', p p . 2 0 2 - 3 . Morrell, A Manual,

p . 19, had previously

maintained t h a t Christ and Satan was added 'a generation later' than the other contents of J u n i u s 1 1 . Raw argues further that an earlier set of stitch-marks visible in quire 17 prove that it was first sewn into boards w h e n the other quires of J u n i u s 11 were first b o u n d together. B u t this observation offers no real a r g u m e n t against Lucas's hypothesis, as the very purpose of folding a single-quire manuscript would be to hold together a g r o u p of unsewn leaves in the m a n n e r of a m o d e r n newspaper. 33

Lucas, ' O n t h e Incomplete E n d i n g ' , p . 4 9 .

21


undeniably attractive hypothesis regarding the sometime use of the inner leaves of quire 17 (comprising pp. 213—28) as — or as part of — a discrete handbook, it should be acknowledged that the affinity of these leaves to the leaves of the preceding sixteen quires may be called into question on other grounds. The verse of Christ and Satan has been copied out by several scribes, none of whom may be identified conclusively as the scribe of pp. 1—212 of Junius 11. Indeed, the New Testament-themed poem appears on leaves whose written area, line-count, system of section-division and approach to illustration all diverge from practices observed in the preceding sixteen quires.3 34

The following considerations have been cited most often as evidence of the formerly independent status of the inner leaves of the seventeenth quire of Junius 11 (comprising pp. 213-28), which contain the bulk of the verse of Christ and Satan: (1) The occurrence of the words 'finit liber .ii. amen' after the conclusion of the copy of Christ and Satan; see Ker, Catalogue, p. 407. (No corresponding allusion to a 'liber F occurs in Junius 11.) (2) The status of quire 17 in its present state as a ten-leaf gathering (comprising pp. 211-30), in contrast to gatherings containing eight leaves or fewer observed throughout the first sixteen quires of Junius 11. The fact that the extant copy of Daniel ends abruptly with the end of the last ruled line of the first verso of the outer sheet of quire 17 (pp. 211—12) has been taken to suggest that the quire's present inner leaves (comprising pp. 213-28) were inserted to patch up a physical loss from Junius 11 as originally constituted, which had incurred the loss of the concluding lines of the manuscript's copy of Daniel. (3) The fact that all of the leaves preserving the verse of Christ and Satan are ruled to accommodate twenty-seven written lines of verse, whereas pp. 1—212 of Junius 11, containing the verse ofGenesis A and B, Exodus and Daniel, are ruled for twenty-six lines. Problematically, the second leaf only of the quire's outer sheet (comprising pp. 129—30), which is physically conjoint with the twenty-six-line leaf preserving the final extant verse of Daniel (pp. 211—12), has been ruled for twenty-seven lines. The concluding passage of Christ and Satan, moreover, has been entered on the recto of this leaf (p. 229) in a scribal hand unlike any hand appearing among the other leaves of Junius 11. These two facts may be associated logically with the process of physical restoration noted above. (4) The wider written area of all of the inner pages in the seventeenth quire; Raw, 'The Construction', p. 200, and Lucas, 'On the Incomplete Ending', p. 48, corroborating Ker's observations, report a written area on pp. 213-28 exhibiting a width in the range of 135-40 mm, exceeding the width (115-20 mm) regularly observed throughout the preceding sixteen quires (pp. 1-210) and on the outer leaves of quire 17 (pp. 211-12 and 2 2 9 30). (5) The multiplicity of scribal hands observed in the final quire. The verse on pp. 1-212 of Junius 11 (comprising the extant texts ofGenesis A and B, Exodus and Daniel) has been copied out by a single scribe, who is also responsible for the irregular sectional numbering observed on these leaves. The contributions of up to four different hands, however, appear in the pages containing the verse of Christ and Satan, none of which

22

Introduction

The decision to exclude the New Testament-themed Christ and Satan from the present study on source-historical grounds thus finds strong support in the palaeography and codicology of Junius 11 itself. It should be stressed, however, that my purpose here is not to show that Christ and Satan has no place whatsoever in the Junius manuscript. There is a logic to the received contents of Junius 11 and their order which includes Christ and Satan. Krapp rightly remarks that even if the leaves of quire 17 'were added later, the intention at the time of adding them was to make them an integral part of the manuscript'. 35 Several eminent scholars have argued (persuasively, in my view) that a codicological 'reading' of Genesis^ Exodus', Daniel and Christ and Satan is possible, especially if the concern with salvation history implicit in a Christian treatment of the Old Testament is seen to anticipate the matter of Christ and Satan?6 The crucial point is that the physical disposition of the copy of Christ and Satan in Junius 11 appears to owe little if anything to the ruling of leaves in the earlier quires of the manuscript, or to the apportionment of space there for illustrations, or, for that matter, to the manner of execution of the only partially completed series of illustrations in the first eight quires. The inclusion of conforms precisely to the practice of the scribe of pp. 1-212. (6) The beginning of a new series of sectional numbers with the commencement of Christ and Satan. (7) The distinctive manner in which sectional divisions are indicated in the verse copied out on the inner leaves of quire 17. (8) The apportionment of blank space among the inner leaves of quire 17 (pp. 213—28), presumably for illumination or some other purpose, in excess of that set aside for illustrations in the first sixteen quires of the manuscript (pp. 1-210) and in the first leaf of quire 17 (pp. 211-12). In some cases (to judge by the continuity of verse) the blank space in question was present on leaves now lost to lacunae. Thus, even if we choose to disregard the two leaves of the present outer sheet of quire 17, it is not clear that the verse of Christ and Satan was ever entered in a regular quire of eight leaves resembling those employed for the copying of the Old Testament verse in Junius 11. (9) The presence of illustrations on pp. 225 and 230, both in quire 17 as presently constituted, unlike any others in Junius 11. The second illustration appears on the second verso of the quire's present outer sheet, that is, on the mainly blank last page of Junius 11. It is thus doubtful that more than a quire's worth of verse has been lost from the end of the copy of Daniel in Junius 11. Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp, p. xii. An argument that Christ and Satan forms part of the 'original plan' of Junius 11 is offered by Hall, 'The Old English Book of Salvation History'; see further J. R. Hall, 'On the Bibliographic Unity of Bodleian MS Junius 11', Amer. N&Q 24 (1986), 104-7. Recently, Garde, Old English Poetry, pp. 25-56, has submitted a reading of the entire contents of the Junius codex as a 'vernacular Heilsgeschichte.

23


the New Testament poem in Junius 11 is thus most easily seen as a phenomenon arising subsequent to the concatenation of Genesis (or Genesis A and B), Exodus and Daniel as a coherent sequence of Old Testament verse and to the allotment of sectional divisions in those poems in an exemplar of the Old Testament sequence. The very statement that any of the verse in Junius 11 has an exemplar deserves theoretical justification. Strictly considered, in addressing the contents of a unique document such as the Junius manuscript only one 'original' is in question: the received text in the surviving witness. As in all areas of textual scholarship, the postulation of hypothetical exemplars of Old English poems must be undertaken with extreme caution. In the case of the Junius poems, the existence of the Vatican fragment of the Old Saxon Genesis and the Exeter Book Azarias might seem to close the case a priori: Genesis B and Daniel would appear to have pedigrees. But the value of the Old Saxon source in establishing the circulation of its Old English reflex in Anglo-Saxon England is limited at best. Moreover, there exists at present no general agreement that the text imperfectly witnessed by Azarias has priority over the verse of Daniel. A case could probably be made that the four items in question {Genesis B, the Old Saxon Genesis, Daniel and Azarias) represent distinct compositions and are thus essentially irrelevant to speculation about the text-history of the biblical poetry of Junius 11. Commentary by A. N. Doane in his recent editions of Genesis A and Genesis B, however, has adduced important evidence to show that the received texts of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel do in fact manifest traces of an earlier textual tradition and almost certainly appeared in the same sequence (including the interpolation of Genesis B) in an immediate exemplar of Junius 11. The evidence in question relates to the handling of sectional divisions in the manuscript. The sectional divisions of Junius 11 and lost exemplars of the Junius poems

A single and continuous (if incomplete) series of Roman numerals extends across the quires of Junius 11 that contain the texts of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel. There are many irregularities in this series. For example, the sectional numbering goes up to fifty-five (sect. 'lv' on p. 209 of Junius 11, 37

For an unflinching assessment of these textual problems, see W. G. Busse, 'Assumption in the Establishment of Old English Poetic Texts: P. J. Lucas's Edition o( Exodus, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 6 (1981), 197-219-

24

Introduction

marking the beginning of the fragmentary section commencing at line 675 of Daniel). But the section-numbers span a sequence of verse comprising fifty-six sections. Doane takes this discrepancy, and others, to indicate that the received text of the Old Testament verse in Junius 11 imperfectly reproduces a more consistent and thoroughgoing numeration that had earlier been introduced in a lost, continuous exemplar containing the composite, Genesis-based sequence of verse embodying Genesis A and B followed by texts of Exodus and Daniel. Indeed some aberrations in the sectional numbering can only be explained reasonably by assuming that errors of transcription arose in the course of the copying of such an exemplar. 8 The section-number 'viiii' — for 'xviiii', or nineteen — appears, for example, at the start of a section falling between two others clearly headed 'xviii' and 'xx\ Fully thirty-six out of the hypothetical maximum of fifty-six section-numbers fail to appear in Junius 11. (In the present study, absent but inferrable section-numbers are indicated by the use of angular brackets; for example, 'sect, [xxvi}' designates the unnumbered section in Junius 11 recounting God's calling of Abraham, God's blessing of Abraham and Abraham's early sojourns (GenA 1719—804, treating Gen. XL29—XII.8a).) Nevertheless, the system of numeration never breaks down completely. In five cases, the absence of a numeral may be attributed to physical losses from the manuscript and in one instance we have to reckon with the possibility of a 'ghost' section-number, identified as section 'xxviia' by Gollancz, who notes that three unnumbered sections fall between the sections marked by the numerals 'xxv' (GenA 1637-718) and 'xxviii' (I960- 2017), where we would expect the demarcation of no more than two sections (that is, sect, [xxvi} and sect, [xxvii}). The thirty remaining cases of missing section-numbers involve more than a half of the total number of sections that begin intact. It is far easier to attribute these discrepancies to scribal omission arising during the copying of an exemplar than to the intentions of a capricious or incompetent numerator who neglected to enter more than a half of the requisite section-numbers but managed to place the rest essentially in their proper positions. Neil Ker affirms that the first sixteen quires of the manuscript are 'numbered spasmodically . . . in the hand and ink of the text'. 39 The transmissionhistory that must be postulated to account for the present state of the

39

Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 12 and 240, and The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, pp. 29 and 34. Ker, Catalogue, p. 406. 25


section-numbers thus applies to the fortunes of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel as well and attests to the three poems' joint occurrence as an Old Testament sequence in at least one exemplar antedating Junius 11. The handling of sectional divisions in Junius 11 is in fact more complex than the preceding remarks would suggest. The process by which the compositions now occupying the larger divisions of the manuscript {Genesis, Exodus and Daniel) came to be divided into fifty-six subsections may be seen to comprise at least three distinct stages, each of which has specific implications for knowledge about the lost exemplaria of the Junius poems. The stage most closely preceding the production of Junius 11 has already been noted. This stage, which in fact may have involved two distinct substages, saw the production of an exemplar establishing the verse of all three of the major Old Testament divisions (the Genesis-based verse, Exodus and Daniel) in its present configuration, which was then supplied with a single, continuous sequence of section-numbers spanning the full length of the collection. The concatenation of the verse in question and the assignment of section-numbers, however, must be distinguished from the constitution of the sectional divisions themselves. If we treat the individual sections of the Genesis-based verse, Exodus and Daniel as discrete units, it becomes possible to assess quantifiable aspects of their texts, such as sectional linecount, and to probe the correlation of narrative breaks and sectional breaks. Henry Bradley long ago demonstrated that the length of sections in the extant text of Genesis A is remarkably regular, especially in the verse following the interpolated text of Genesis B. Bradley's figures and conclusions are no longer trustworthy, but my own calculations indicate that the last twenty-two intact sections of Genesis A (comprising 1768 lines) exhibit an average length of eighty lines, with the line-count of all but three of these sections falling within ten lines of this mark. 40 All of the intact sections of Daniel, by contrast, contain more than one hundred lines, with an average count of 138 lines per section. The length of intact

1

The tally includes sections xvi—xli of Genesis A (comprising lines 918—2936, or 2019 extant lines). Sections [xxxiii}, xxxiiii, [xxxvi], xxxvii and xl are left out of this accounting in view of their having sustained damage that resulted in the loss of text. The exceptional sections are xxviii (comprising fifty-eight lines), xxxv (ninety-four lines) and xli (103 lines). Sections li and lv are left out of this account in consequence of their evident textual losses. 554 lines of Daniel occur in intact sections.

26

Introduction

sections in the earlier part of Genesis (through line 917) and in Exodus varies widely, with the former group of sections exhibiting a minimum count of forty-six lines and a maximum of 137 and the latter a minimum of forty-four lines and a maximum of 144. 2 Two alternative hypotheses might be put forward in an attempt to account for this variance in the length of sections: (1) all of the present sectional divisions were made in the course of the stage in the transmission of the Junius poems that saw both the concatenation of the continuous exemplar and the addition of the long series of section-numbers, but, for reasons presently unknown, different principles of section-division were followed in preparing different parts of the exemplar; or (2) some or all of the sectional divisions in the Old Testament poems in Junius 11 had been set in place prior to the assembly of the exemplar of their verse. It is my guess that any scholar who spends a few minutes contemplating the received state of the sectional divisions in Junius 11 will prefer the second explanation. The textual complexity exemplified by the use of short and long, regular and irregular section lengths is unlikely to have arisen in connection with a programme of textual unification but may well have emerged as a result of the vagaries of the poems' transmission-histories. It is of course also possible to speculate that some or all of the sectional divisions in question were introduced during the composition of the poems rather than during their transmission. (This concern will be addressed shortly.) The essential point here is that we have to reckon with at least one additional stage in the transmission of the verse preserved in Junius 11 prior to the compilation of its continuous exemplar. In that earlier stage, Genesis (or, in all probability, Genesis A and B), Exodus and Daniel circulated as separate items, some or all of which had been divided into sections. To bring this discussion to its logical conclusion, acknowledgement of the possibility that some of the sections in question may have been delimited at a compositional stage demands closer consideration. We may look for evidence in the sectional divisions themselves. Breaks are most often indicated in Junius 11 by the apportionment of blank space and 2

3

Sections [iii}-[v], vii[i]-[x}> [xliiii] and [xlviii] have suffered textual loss or are missing altogether. Gollancz argues that 'the sectional divisions, not always correctly indicated by scribes, were originally structural divisions due to the poet' (Ccedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz, p. xxxii). This view is countenanced by Krapp, Junius Manuscript, p. xix.

27


capital letters (or decorative initials). Scholars have long recognized that the silences implicit in these sectional divisions engender a special set of problems, notably regarding the interpretation of adjoining lines of verse. It is difficult to reconcile the notion that the sectional divisions in Junius 11 form part of the compositional stratum of some or all of its verse with the flagrant discontinuity evinced by the narration that straddles certain breaks. Indeed, certain passages are more readily construed if the sectional divisions are entirely ignored. For example, gaps between sect, [vi} and sect, vii and between sect, [xliii] and sect, [xliiii} interrupt grammatical sentences (at lines 323b—327a of Genesis B and lines 106b-107a of Exodus). Sect, viifi] and sect, xx begin with clauses uncharacteristically introduced by conjunctions (ac (GenB 389a: 'but') and oSpcet (GenA 1248a: 'until')). There are many other cases in which the placement of sectional divisions appears to bear scant relation to the flow of surrounding narrative. Krapp, while seeing the divisions as original features of the verse, acknowledges that the 'sectional divisions in the manuscript are not always happily made'. It thus seems that we may postulate an even earlier stage in the transmission of the Old Testament poetry now witnessed by Junius 11, in which some or all of the verse in question circulated in copies that lacked any sort of sectional division or that included divisions markedly at variance with those now exhibited by the received text.45 The evidence of the sectional divisions in Junius 11 thus points to a minimum of four stages in the transmission of the verse now preserved uniquely between its boards. First, a compositional stage, in the course of which some or all of the poems, arising under separate circumstances, may have been divided into sections. Then followed a stage of transmission involving the circulation of the poems as separate items. This stage possibly involved the introduction of new sectional divisions or the alteration of existing ones. Next came the stage (possibly a two-part process) at which the texts now witnessed by Genesis, Exodus and Daniel were brought together in a single exemplar and supplied with a comprehensive series of section-numbers, possibly also involving the introduction or alteration of sectional divisions. The final stage is represented by the sole surviving witness to the whole transmissional sequence — the 44 45

Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp, p . xix. Some specific suggestions regarding passages in Genesis A traceable to such an early stage of transmission appear below, pp. 115-18.

28

Introduction

received text preserved in Junius 11 - which is notable, at the very least, for a marked degradation in the continuity of its sectional numbering. Preliminary conclusions

The point of the preceding exercise has not been to effect a gratuitous proliferation of lost exemplars. One of the most difficult challenges facing scholars of the Junius poems is the necessity of reconciling the appearance of unity manifested by the received form of the surviving collection — encouraged by the carefully executed layout of the manuscript and the pervasive emphasis on Old Testament subjects in its contents — with the frequent impression of disunity conveyed by the texts of the poems themselves. In confronting the paucity of alliterative verse available for comparison with the texts of Genesis A and B, Exodus and Daniel and the silence of the historical record regarding the circulation of Old English biblical poetry in books, any confirmation that the contents of Junius 11 bear witness to processes of textual transmission is extremely valuable. As I have indicated above, my own sense is that we have to reckon with at least four distinct stages in the transmission of the Junius poems, and probably many more. 47 In any event, there is no possibility of arguing that the bulk of the verse in question was composed or substantially redacted concurrently with its entry in the surviving witness, as Kevin Kiernan has maintained regarding the text of Beowulf. 8 The admission that the verse of Junius 11 has an undocumented text-history, however, brings with it certain responsibilities. On the one hand, the temptation to attribute every apparent textual difficulty to scribal tampering must be resisted. Narrative discontinuity should not be laid at the door of a heavy-handed interpolator without the very best of reasons. Most importantly, we should not expect to be brought significantly closer to hypothetical 'originals' of the Junius

7

48

For discussion of some of the problems associated with the undocumented transmission of Old English verse, see M. Lapidge, 'Textual Criticism and the Literature of AngloSaxon England', BullJRL 73 U99D, 17-45, esp. pp. 37-45. I here leave out of account the mainly non-textual issues surrounding the apportionment of space for illustrations in Junius 11 and the transmission of hypothetical models for the completed biblical scenes (see above, pp. 3 and 18—19 with nn. 4 and 26). It is probable that the art in the manuscript, considered in relation to the narratives of the adjoining verse, witnesses at least one additional transmissional stage. See Kiernan, Beowulf, esp. pp. 13-64 and 172-278.

29


poems by any programme of wholesale textual emendation or the sort of systematic rearrangement of entire passages undertaken by Napier, Tolkien and Irving in the preparation of their texts of Exodus. On the other hand, we should not be disconcerted if we detect seams in the verse of Junius 11. Robert T. Farrell, in defending the compositional integrity of the central section of Daniel, adduces 'a fundamental principle of literary criticism, that a text is considered a whole until there is proof to the contrary'. While my own position regarding the unity of Daniel is nearer to that of Farrell than of critics who have argued for the interpolation of a Daniel B, I doubt that adherence to the cited principle will always help us comprehend the received texts of the Genesis-based verse of Junius 11, Exodus and Daniel. The interpolation of the Old Saxon-based Genesis B into the fundamentally Old English Genesis A shows prima facie that textual unity cannot be regarded as a typical feature of the verse of Junius 11. Beyond the interpolation in the collection's Genesis-based verse, there are structurally problematic passages in sections of Exodus and Daniel. These include the patriarchal excursus on Noah and Abraham in Exodus and the two partly redundant accounts in Daniel treating the rescue of the three youths from Nebuchadnezzar's furnace. The discontinuity evinced by these passages should not be elucidated simplistically by recourse to a theory of original 'wholes'. THE BIBLICAL BACKGROUND OF THE JUNIUS POEMS

The necessity of searching for traces of a textual tradition in the sectional divisions of Junius 11 arises out of deficiencies in the historical record. There are a few allusions to the existence of vernacular biblical verse in Anglo-Saxon sources but none whatsoever that mention unequivocally the collection of such verse in books. I know of only one description in a preConquest work that might possibly be seen to refer to an ancestor of Junius 11. This occurs in a passage well known to students of the AngloSaxon period: Asser, biographer and sometime mentor of King Alfred (ob. 899), writes of an offer by the young Alfred's mother to give a certain book of Old English poetry ('quendam Saxonicum poematicae artis librum') to whichever one of her sons might memorize its contents most 49 50

Farrell,'Unity, p. 135. On these passages, see below, pp. 216-29 and 334-56.

30

Introduction

quickly. Attracted by the ornamental capital on the first page, Alfred has the Old English poetry of the book read out to him by a teacher and immediately memorizes its contents. There is of course no particular reason why this book should have contained biblical poetry rather than some other form of Old English verse. We may infer safely, however, that Christian poetry is at issue. Asser is everywhere concerned to depict his biographical subject as a pious king and it is extremely unlikely that he refers here to a collection of pagan alliterative verse, if such a document ever existed. According to a strict induction from the evidence of surviving collections of Old English verse - and a yet more strict reading of Asser's Latin — it seems we must reckon with a book that did not contain a compilation of prose and poetry such as we find in the Vercelli Book or Beowulf manuscript but which rather resembled the Junius manuscript and the Exeter Book in its exclusive dedication to verse. I suspect that most readers who are familiar with the last two books, if asked to choose the more likely acquisition for a royal library, would specify an ancestor of Junius 11, whose 'first word, VS, has a large, ornamental capital', 5 rather than some congener of the Exeter miscellany. But it would be foolhardy to base anything other than speculation on such a chain of logic, or on other shreds of evidence to indicate that King Alfred may have known some or all of the Junius poems at first hand. (The translation of the Old Saxon Genesis into the Old English poem now witnessed by Genesis B is often assigned to an Alfredian milieu, and our surviving examples of Alfred's own alliterative poetry, the Metres of Boethius, do exhibit occasional verbal parallels with verse in Junius 11. ) We may suspect that collections of Asser, De rebus gestis JElfredi xxiii, as ed. in Asser's 'Life of King Alfred'', ed. Stevenson,

p. 20. The event in question is dated to c. 856 or earlier in Alfred the Great, trans, and introd. Keynes and Lapidge, p. 239, n. 48. Alfred's keen memory and fondness for vernacular poetry are also recorded by Asser in a slightly earlier passage: 'Saxonica poemata die noctuque solers [sic] auditor, relatu aliorum saepissime audiens, docibilis memoriter retinebat' (xxii (as ed. Stevenson, ibid., pp. 19—20, at 20): '{Alfred} was a careful listener, by day and night, to English poems, most frequently hearing them recited by others, and he readily retained them in his memory'). Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp, p. xviii. On the milieu of the translation of the Old Saxon Genesis, see The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, pp. 47—53- Formulaic parallels between the Junius poems and the Metres of Boethius include 'eorfte aelgrene / and eacen feoh', etc. (GenA 1517; cf. 197a and 1787) and 'eor5e aelgreno / and eac hwaeftre ceald' (MBo xx.78; cf. Chr 1128a and And 798a); 'Loth / . . . wunode, . . . / daegrimes worn / and his dohtor twa' {GenA 2597b—2599)

31


Old English Christian poetry of every genre and in every configuration were available in West Saxon aristocratic circles during the second half of the ninth century. Finally, however, it must be acknowledged that the book in Asser's tale may never have existed. We are dealing, after all, with a work of royal biography, and Asser's presentation of the anecdote has a ring of rhetorical embellishment. The question thus arises whether the story of Alfred's poetry-book, our only Anglo-Saxon witness to the memorization of Old English verse transmitted in written copies, has any value whatsoever for our appreciation of the Junius poems. The answer is affirmative, I think, if the anecdote is viewed in the larger context of Asser's Latin account. Taking up the story at the point at which Alfred accepts his mother's challenge, we read: [xxiiib] Tune ille statim tollens librum de manu sua, magistrum adiit et legit. Quo lecto, matri retulit et recitauit. [xxiv] Post haec cursum diurnum, id est celebrationes horarum, ac deinde psalmos quosdam et orationes multas didicit, quos in uno libro congregatos in sinu suo die noctuque, sicut ipsi uidimus, secum inseparabiliter, orationis gratia, inter omnia praesentis uitae curricula ubique circumducebat.54

and 't>2er Apolines / dohtor wunode / daegrimes worn' (MBo xxvi.32b-33); 'ne J>earft t>u t>e ondraedan' (GenA 1037a) and 'ne J>earft J>u no wenan' (MBo xxix.38a), etc. The cited text of the Metres of Boethius follows the edition in Alfred's Metres ofBoethius, ed. B. Griffiths (Pinner, Middlesex, 1991). De reb. gest. JElfr. xxiiib-xxiv (Asser's 'Life of King Alfred', ed. Stevenson, pp. 20-1): '[Alfred] immediately took the book from her hand, went to his teacher and learnt it. When it was learnt, he took it back to his mother and recited it. After this he learnt the "daily round", that is, the services of the hours, and then certain Psalms and many prayers; these he collected in a single book, which he kept by him day and night, as I have seen for myself; amid all the affairs of the present life he took it around with him everywhere for the sake of prayer, and was inseparable from it'. The translation derives from Alfred the Great, trans, and introd. Keynes and Lapidge, p. 239, n. 48; subsequent translations of Asser's Latin follow this text. Concerning the difficulties associated with the reading et legit (literally 'and [Alfred] read [the book - that is, he recited it?]', rendered here by '. . . learnt [the book]'), see ibid., p. 239, n. 48). The witness of Symeon of Durham includes the phrase 'praceptore ostendente' ('with the teacher looking on') after the reading legit; see Asser's 'Life of King Alfred', ed. Stevenson, pp. 20—1, in apparatus. Asser reports in ch. xxii that Alfred did not learn to read before his twelfth year, so the phrase post haec must indicate the passage of a significant amount of time after the incident involving his mother's book.

32

Introduction

There can be little doubt that Asser's account here promulgates the ideal of a personal Office. Throughout the early Middle Ages, successful fulfilment of the obligations of the daily Office required the memorization of a large number of liturgical texts or access to (and the ability to read) substantial manuscript resources. In Asser's anecdote, an allusion to one of the most mnemonically intensive aspects of Christian worship has been juxtaposed with an account of one of the most famous feats of memorization in English royal history. This narrative holds neglected implications for our knowledge of the evolution of Anglo-Saxon devotional practices. In the early Middle Ages many churches were hard pressed to maintain sufficient resources to perform the full round of canonical Hours. Complete adherence to the strictures of the Office was never a common practice among lay Christians in Europe at any point before the central Middle Ages. But Asser's account — which certainly strives for credibility, though it may fall short as historiography - may be taken to suggest that a progression from the cultivation of vernacular religious poetry to the absorption of the texts of the daily Office was a conceivable turn of events in the intellectual development of a lay aristocrat. The solution that Asser attributes to Alfred regarding the textual problems associated with the Office is also striking. In one of the most remarkable codicological descriptions to appear in a contemporary witness to Anglo-Saxon letters, Asser reports Alfred's maintenance of a personal anthology, compiled as a substitute for the bulky assortment of liturgical books regularly accompanying the celebration of Hours in daily worship. In a more elaborate description of Alfred's handbook, which I shall address below, Asser reveals that the document in question was either a single-quire booklet or a small, portable collection of unbound quires, and that it contained continuous extracts from the books of the Bible (also necessary for certain ceremonies of the Office) and passages of patristic exegesis interspersed with liturgical texts. I will resist the temptation to draw any special connection between the Junius poems and events of the time of Alfred, but the textual nexus represented by the collocation of Latin texts implicit in Asser's description clearly bears comparison with the heterogeneous body of sources regularly adduced in studies of Old English biblical verse: familiar passages of scripture, psalms, other basic liturgical texts and 55 5

For a more detailed introduction to the daily Office, see below, pp. 67-78. The Study of Liturgy, ed. Jones, Wainwright and Yarnold, pp. 420-9-

33


gleanings from the writings of patristic exegetes. The circumstance that such a group of Latin devotional texts is cited beside an unambiguous allusion to the memorization of vernacular alliterative verse is also intriguing. In the absence of reliable information about the sort of texts that influenced the composition of Old English biblical verse and attended its circulation, we must advert to the witness of narrative passages such as those cited here. The remainder of this introduction seeks to augment the meagre evidence of these accounts by reference to other types of texts, such as biblical glosses and liturgical forms. Biblical glosses, for example, attest to the concurrent use of Latin and vernacular texts for the elementary instruction of Anglo-Saxon Christians and thus may cast some light on the scriptural background of vernacular religious poetry. However, the establishment of critical and text-historical parameters that would allow us to draw specific conclusions about the relationship of Old English biblical verse to the instructional use of the Bible in Anglo-Saxon England lies beyond the scope of the present introduction. I will limit myself here to the presentation of the specific early medieval texts that have exerted the most profound influence on conclusions set out below regarding the scriptural background of the Junius poems. I will include only the minimal amount of commentary necessary to indicate their relevance to the argumentation set out in later chapters of this study. The virtue of this approach is that in confronting the 'black box' of the transmissional history of Old English biblical verse, a single early medieval anecdote or liturgical prescription may tell us far more than many pages of critical speculation. Moreover, the consideration of examples drawn from various spheres of biblical and liturgical instruction may allow us to contextualize the phenomenon of Old English biblical verse without disturbing the textual tabula rasa championed above for the dating, authorship and compositional milieux of the extant poetry. The specific responses to problems of biblical interpretation so unevenly attested in sources dating from the time of Aldhelm (ob. 709 or 710) to that of Êlfric (ob. c. 1025) whether arising in the classroom or in the course of extracurricular devotional practice — will have prevailed at many stages in the development of Anglo-Saxon Christianity. It is probable that similar responses to biblical texts will have emerged independently at various periods and in many different Christian communities, including those in which the Junius poems were composed. 34

Introduction Beck's story ofCcedmon

Bede has left us a brief, disarmingly anecdotal account of the life and work of the oral poet Caedmon, a monk of Whitby whose performative career flourished in the years preceding the death of Abbess Hild in 680. This narrative appears to offer the same sort of limited witness to the poetic contents of Junius 11 that Asser's report provides for the basic facts of its external codicology. The text of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica (completed 731 x 734) provides our only evidence for the existence during the early Anglo-Saxon period of a canon of Christian vernacular poetry ascribed to a named author. Bede states specifically that Caedmon 'sang' (canebat) about the creation of the world and the human race, the rest of the history related in Genesis and the departure of the Israelites from Egypt: 'Canebat autem de creatione mundi, et origine humani generis, et tota genesis historia, de egressu Israel de Aegypto . . .' The poet's repertoire would thus seem to have taken in the subject matter of all the Old Testament poems of Junius 11, with the possible exception of Daniel.38 (Bede's allusion to a separate treatment of the departure narrative of Exodus XII— XIV, which underlies the bulk of the verse of Exodus, is especially suggestive.) Not surprisingly, for more than two hundred years after the discovery of Junius 11, the contents of the manuscript were regularly attributed to Caedmon. Modern criticism of Bede's narrative, by contrast, has laid stress on its inventiveness in depicting Caedmon's miraculous 57

Bede, HE IV.22(24): 'He sang about the creation of the world, the origin of the human race and the whole history of Genesis, of the departure of Israel from Egypt [and other topics] . . .'; see text ptd in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 258—62, here at 260—1. Translations of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica generally follow Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History of the English People', ed. and trans. B. Colgrave and R. A. B.

Mynors, Oxford Med. Texts (Oxford, 1969)- Cited titles and editions of Latin texts conform as a rule to the recommendations of M. Lapidge, Abbreviations for Sources and Specification of Standard Editions for Sources Compiled for Fontes Anglo-Saxonici and Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture (Binghamton, N Y , 1988), Frede, Kirchenschriftsteller, and Frede, Aktualisierungsheft

59

1988.

The likelihood that Caedmon also would have had occasion to treat the matter of the book of Daniel may be indicated by statements in the same chapter (HE IV.22(24), Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 261) that the poet had been instructed in the whole course of sacred history ('ilium seriem sacrae historiae') and composed other songs 'about divine mercies and judgements' ('de beneficiis et iudiciis diuinis'). For a collection of early opinions, see Wiilker, Grundriss, pp. 111-34. For more recent discussion, see Wrenn, A Study, pp. 91-105.

35


acquisition of his poetic gift. The episode is now often viewed as an origin-legend whose utility as historical evidence is limited. It is true that the account of Caedmon exhibits many features of a miracle-story. There is an unmistakeable element of the fantastic in Bede's report that Caedmon, during his early career as a secular cowherd in a monastic community, had no ability as a poet whatsoever until a mysterious stranger appeared in a dream and induced him to sing a song of Creation, now known as Caedmon's hymn. ° The emphasis placed on Caedmon's inability to produce any sort of verse before his wondrous dream is illustrated by a scene in which the future poet bolts from a drinking party for fear that he will be invited to sing. Bede's stress on this point suggests that he regarded the phenomenon of Old English biblical verse as a type of syncretism, an accommodation of the Bible, the central text of the new religion, to the requirements of an ancient, originally pagan manner of composition. Caedmon's lack of training in the methods of pre-Christian versification validates the divine inspiration of the new poetry. No textual evidence to support the historicity of Bede's account of Caedmon is provided by the nineteen surviving witnesses to the Old English composition now entitled Ccedmoris Hymn, frequently cited as an analogue of Genesis A. The vocabulary of the Hymn, to be sure, exhibits 60

Bede, HE IV.22(24): '"Quid", inquit, "debeo cantare?" Et ille, "Canta", inquit, "principium creaturarum"' (' "What must I sing?", said Caedmon. "Sing", he said, "about the beginning of created things." '); see text ptd in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 259- Concerning the associations of extramural labourers (such as Caedmon before his monastic profession) with early Anglo-Saxon monasteries, see Thacker, 'Monks', p. 141. Busse, Altenglische Literatur, pp. 101—37, has recently discussed the phenomenon of syncretism in relation to Old English literary culture. See also the comment of Riche, Education and Culture, p. 492: '[R}ather than forcing the laity to break with antique traditions, [the church] thought it better to use those traditions to organize the cult of God.' See the list of manuscripts preserving copies of Ccedmoris Hymn in Cameron, 'List', p. 38 (item A.32), and the study of E. V. K. Dobbie, The Manuscripts of Ccedmoris Hymn and Bede's Death Song, Columbia Univ. Stud, in Eng. and Comparative Lit. 128 (New York, 1937). Verbal parallels between Ccedmoris Hymn and Genesis A (and the Latin text in Bede's account of Caedmon at HE IV.22(24), as ed. in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 259-60)) include 'nu scylun hergan', etc. {Ccedmoris Hymn, Northumbrian and West Saxon texts (hereafter CadNWS) la; cf. HE IV.22(24) 'Nunc laudare debemus . . .'), and 'we . . . herigen' {GenA lb-2); 'hefaenricaes uard', etc.

36

Introduction

striking parallels with Bede's Latin paraphrase of the lyric purportedly composed by the poet in his sleep, as well as the Old English diction of the opening sequence in Genesis A. But all extant copies oiCcedmoris Hymn postdate the publication of Bede's account, many appearing as marginal additions adjoining the Caedmon episode in manuscripts of the Historia ecclesiastica and its Old English translation. It has thus sometimes been argued that the composition of the extant text of Ccedmon's Hymn may in fact paraphrase Bede's text, having been confected to supply a vernacular equivalent to the Latin paraphrase that he supplies in his Historia, and not vice versa. Invoking a similar sort of logic, a sceptical view may also be accorded the concept that a precedent for the selection of verse in Junius 11 is offered by the repertoire attributed to Caedmon. The archetype of the Junius collection may well have been compiled at some time after Bede's florescence, perhaps in order to provide an anachronistic equivalent to the canon of Old Testament verse ascribed to the poet. And even here, in my view, there are alternative, more convincing principles (discussed below) that might be adduced to account for the selection of material in Junius 11. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that Bede's account of Caedmon has no value for the establishment of a tradition of Old English biblical verse. The frequently encountered opinion that all of the Junius poems date from the second half of the seventh century or later reflects the continuing trust placed by many scholars of Old English in Bede's assertion that there were no Christian alliterative poets before Caedmon, or at least none who chose to address biblical subjects. Personally, I see no reason to doubt that Christian alliterative verse could have been composed, orally or perhaps in writing, at any point after the Augustinian mission, (CcedNWS lb), and 'heofena rices' and 'heofonweardes gast' {GenA 33b and 120a; cf. HE IV.22(24) 'auctorem regni caelestis', etc.); 'end his modgidanc', etc. (CcedNWS 2b; cf. HE IV.22(24) 'potentiam . . . et consilium'), and modgeponce {GenA 93a); 'eci dryctin', etc. (CcedNWS 4a and 8; cf. HE IV.22(24) 'aeternus Deus'), and 'ecean drihtnes' and 'ece drihten' (GenA 7a, 112b, etc.); 'or astelidae', etc. (CcedNWS 4b), and 'or geworden' (GenA 6a); 'he aerist scop', etc. (CcedNWS 5a; cf. HE IV.22(24) 'qui primo . . . creauit'), and 'her aerest gesceop' (GenA 112a); 'heben til hrofe', etc. (CcedNWS 6a; cf. HE IV.22(24) 'caelum pro culmine tecti'), and 'faestenne . . . hrofes' (GenA 153); 'haleg scepen', etc. (CcedNWS 6b; cf. HE IV.22(24) auctor, etc.), and 'scippend ure' (GenA 137b); 'tha middungeard', etc. (CcedNWS 7a; cf. HE IV.22(24) terram), and 'middangeardes' (GenA 136a); and 'frea allmectig', etc. (CcedNWS 9b; cf. HE IV.22(24) omnipotens), and 'frea aelmihtig' (GenA 5a, 116a, etc.); cf. p. 49, n. 85.

37


late in the sixth century, or even before that, in the course of the earliest peregrinations of Celtic Christians in Germanic territories. But it is certainly acceptable to infer from Bede's witness that Old English religious verse was being composed in late seventh- and early eighth-century Anglo-Saxon England. To assume otherwise, even if the anecdote is viewed as a wholly fictive origin-legend, is to deny his prose any point at all. The account of Caedmon thus provides a reasonably secure terminus ante quern of c. 730 for the emergence of Old English biblical verse as a poetic genre. (It is not necessary to assume, however, that any of the vernacular compositions referred to by Bede were ancestors of those preserved in Junius 11 or even that the poems within his purview represented authentic compositions by a poet named Caedmon.) It is clear, moreover, that the cultivation of such poetry was fairly widespread in Bede's time, as he is at pains to contrast some other vernacular biblical poems which he knows with those of Caedmon: 'Et quidem et alii post ilium in gente Anglorum religiosa poemata facere temtabant; sed nullus eum aequipare potuit.' This comment would be pointless if there were no Christian alliterative poems in circulation which members of Bede's intended audience could contrast with compositions putatively associated with the name of Caedmon. We have no way of knowing who composed the lesser religiosa poemata to which Bede refers, although it does seem that he holds specific individuals responsible for the verse which he values so lightly. As far as I know, there is only one named poet to whom the composition of Old English verse before Bede's time has been attributed at all credibly: Aldhelm. According to the well-known anecdote of William of Malmesbury (ob. c. 1143), Aldhelm composed at least one 'trifling' Old English poem (carmen triuiale) that circulated for centuries (Gesta pontificum Anglorum V.190). The poet was famous, moreover, for holding forth on a bridge after mass, adopting the role of an oral singer ('quasi artem cantitandi professorum') and expounding similar vernacular trifles (ludicra), perhaps in prose as well as verse, informed by the words of the Bible ('verbis Scripturarum insertis'). It is thus tempting to entertain speculation — though surely it can be no more — that Bede's slight remark gives short shrift to some Old English biblical verse by Aldhelm by way of 3

Bede, HE IV.22(24): I t is true that after him others of the English race attempted to compose [vernacular] religious poems, but none could compare with him'; see text ptd in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 259.

38

Introduction

a curt valediction, much as his biographical remarks on Aldhelm elsewhere in the Historia ecclesiastica (V.I8) dismiss his famed predecessor's huge (if recondite) body of Latin verse and prose in two short sentences. The weakest link in this chain of reasoning, in my view, is the testimony of William of Malmesbury, issuing more than four hundred years after Aldhelm's death - William's claim (treated below) to own lost, late ninthcentury writings by King Alfred notwithstanding. To my knowledge, there is only one other tradition of Old English religious verse for which a reasonable claim of circulation before Bede's time can be made. This involves the poetry serving the cult of the Cross now represented mainly by the runic inscription of the Ruthwell Cross and The Dream of the Rood preserved in the Vercelli Book.64 To return to the account of Caedmon and its value for our knowledge about the composition of Old English biblical verse, the main point to be taken from Bede's anecdote, as I apprehend it, is that scriptural poetry had been in circulation by his time as long as anyone could remember. The fact of its existence was familiar to Bede's audience and thus its origin merited an explanation in a compendious history of the English church. We cannot, moreover, deny the likelihood that Bede had access to reliable sources for the history of Whitby, some of which may inform his biographical remarks on Caedmon. In any event, as in the case of Asser's account of Alfred and his mother's book, some of the most important, historically sound conclusions to be drawn from the Caedmon episode occur in passages following the report of unusual events which forms the basis of the narrative. After his moment of divine revelation, Caedmon adopts the regular life of a monk and undertakes the systematic programme of biblical versification said to have yielded his treatments of Genesis and the liberation of the Israelites: 64

See Cameron, 'List', pp. 30 (item A.2.5) and 259 (F.39). The Ruthwell inscription was almost certainly executed before c. 750 and perhaps as early as the late seventh century. For arguments against later dates for the Ruthwell inscription (which have ranged into the twelfth century), see The Dream of the Rood, ed. B. Dickins and A. S. C. Ross (New York, 1966), pp. 6-8; see also The Dream of the Rood, ed. M. Swanton, Old and Middle Eng. Texts (Manchester, 1970), pp. 9 - 1 1 . Two other minor witnesses to this particular body of Old English verse include the Brussels Cross (Cameron, 'List', p. 262 (item F.8)) and an unpublished inscription on an Anglo-Saxon bell, exhibiting verbal parallels with lines 48-9 of The Dream of the Rood. I owe my knowledge of the latter to Elisabeth Okasha.

39


Uncle mox abbatissa amplexata gratiam Dei in uiro, saecularem ilium habitum relinquere, et monachicum suscipere propositum docuit, susceptumque in monasterium cum omnibus suis fratrum cohorti adsociauit, iussitque ilium seriem sacrae historiae doceri. At ipse cuncta, quae audiendo discere poterat, rememorando secum, et quasi mundum animal ruminando, in carmen dulcissimum conuertebat, suauisque resonando doctores suos uicissim auditores sui faciebat. Bede's prose here clearly refers to the monastic practice of ruminatio, a system of meditation on the words of the Bible that has received close attention in the scholarship of Jean Leclercq and others. The extraordinary feature of Bede's account is its description of the cultivation of the meditative technique in question by a poet who could neither read nor write. 7 Ruminatio is most often associated in the monastic tradition

65

Bede, HE IV.22(24): 'The abbess [ H i l d , founder of W h i t b y ] , w h o recognized the grace of G o d which the m a n had received, instructed h i m to renounce his secular habit and to take monastic vows. She and all her people received h i m into the c o m m u n i t y of the brothers and ordered that he should be instructed in the whole course of sacred history. H e learned all he could by listening to t h e m and then, memorizing it and r u m i n a t i n g over it like some clean animal chewing the cud, he turned it into the most melodious verse. A n d it sounded so sweet as he recited it that his teachers became in turn his audience'; see text p t d in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. P l u m m e r I, 2 6 0 .

66

On ruminatio, see Leclercq, The Love of Learning, pp. 7 2 - 3 ; see also Riche, Education and

67

T h a t Caedmon declined to undertake a literary education even after his monastic

Culture, p p . 4 7 4 - 5 . conversion is indicated by an earlier c o m m e n t of Bede: 'ita u t , quicquid ex diuinis litteris per interpretes disceret, hoc ipse post pusillum uerbis poeticis maxima suauitate et conpunctione conpositis, in sua, id est A n g l o r u m , lingua proferret' (HE IV.22(24): 'thus, whatever he learned from the H o l y Scriptures by means of interpreters, he quickly turned into extremely delightful and m o v i n g poetry, in his own language, that is, English'; m y italics); see text p t d in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. P l u m m e r I, 2 5 8 - 9 . In the early development of modern oral-formulaic theory, it was commonly maintained that an oral poet, almost by definition, could not be literate. Recent research has revealed, however, that literate individuals remain fully capable of producing new compositions in the course of an oral performance. See the groundbreaking discussion by A. B. Lord, 'The Influence of a Fixed Text', in his Epic Singers and Oral

Tradition,

Myth and Poetics (Ithaca, N Y , 1991), p p . 1 7 0 - 8 5 , and additional references in Foley, The Theory. Bede's account, w i t h its emphasis on Caedmon's use of interlocutors, may also be seen to recall techniques k n o w n to have been employed in the early Middle Ages in the religious instruction of rural lay converts, w h o also often received their biblical knowledge at second hand.

40

Introduction

with the course of private reading known as the lectio divina. But even if we choose to view the Caedmon episode as an exercise in verisimilitude rather than as historiography as such, it seems safe to conclude that Bede here may be describing a regular practice of Christian alliterative poets, as otherwise he would risk straining the credulity of his contemporary audience. In any event, there is additional evidence to indicate that scriptural ruminatio was practised in English monastic communities around the time of the florescence attributed to Caedmon. Possibly the earliest description of ruminatio by an Anglo-Saxon author occurs in the exhortatory flourish that serves to close the Carmen de uirginitate of Aldhelm {ob. 709 or 710). The passage addresses practitioners of the lectio divina who '. . . sacros uersant sub pectore libros / Crebro scrutantes praescripta uolumina legum'. Aldhelm here seems to anticipate Bede's association of the bovine analogy implicit in the term ruminatio with the distinction of clean and unclean animals in Mosaic law: Sic lector libri solers et gnarus amator Nititur electos scripturae carpere fructus, Ut pecus agrestes ex prato uellicat herbas, Nocturnis recubans quas rursus ruminat horis; Sed sus caenosis uolutabri sordibus apta Alternare nequit crasso sub gutture rumen, Dum stratis recubans porcaster pausat obesus Iuncis et stipulis necnonfilicumquemaniplis.70

70

See introductory treatments by Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 117—21 and 466, Riche, Les Ecoles, pp. 38-9 and 44-5; and J. Rousse, H. J. Sieben and A. Boland, 'Lectio divina et lecture spirituelle', in Dictionnaire de spiritualiteascetique et mystique: doctrine et histoire, ed. M. Viller et al, 16 vols. in 20 (Paris, 1937-92) IX, cols. 4 7 0 510, esp. 470-87. See also A. Harnack, Bible Reading in the Early Church, ed. J. R. Wilkinson, Theol. Lib. 36 (New York, 1912) and recent discussion by M. Sandor, 'Lectio divina and the Monastic Spirituality of Reading', ABR 40 (1989), 82-114, esp. 82-90, with additional references at 83, n. 2, and I. Illich, 'Lectio divina\ in Schriftlichkeit, ed. Schaefer, pp. 19-35; see also below, pp. 59-60 with nn. 110-17 and 73-4 with nn. 146-7. Aldhelm, Carmen de uirginitate 2769—70: \ . . [those who} turn over sacred books in their mind, frequently searching into those previously-written books of the laws'. All citations of Aldhelm's works derive from Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, here at p. 465; translations of his verse follow those in Aldhelm: the Poetic Works, trans. Lapidge and Rosier, here at p. 164. Carm. de uirg. 2773-6: 'Thus the skilled reader and expert lover of the Book strives to pluck the chosen fruits of Scripture, as from the meadow a cow munches the wild

41


The main implications for the present study of the meditative technique praised by Aldhelm and the compositional method ascribed to Caedmon by Bede are twofold. First, the reliance of the poet Caedmon (like the young Alfred) on the services of interlocutors points to one possible means of accounting for the incorporation of apocryphal and variant biblical traditions — as well as wholly extrabiblical matter — into extant Old English biblical verse. This observation will be explored in greater detail below, where it will be interpreted by recourse to existing scholarship on early medieval systems of dialogical exchange. Second, Bede's explicit statement that Caedmon achieved his compositional feats with the aid of highly developed skills of listening and memorization ('audiendo . . . rememorando') suggests that we cannot assume in every instance that the immediate biblical sources of the Junius poems were preserved in written exemplars. This point may be borne in mind profitably when considering some of the biblical and liturgical texts I set out in later chapters for comparison with the poetry of Junius 11. I am not arguing, in every case, that the poet of a particular sequence of lines consulted a written text at first hand in the course of an act of composition. Given the traditional fixity of biblical and liturgical texts, it is assumed here that 'oral' or 'mnemonic' exemplars of scripture will in most cases have been transgrass, which she chews over and over again when she reclines during the night. But the pig, accustomed to the muddy filth of its wallow, cannot redigest its food in its fat gullet - the bloated porker which sleeps lying on the strewn straw, stables and bundles of fern'. Lapidge and Rosier, in Aldhelm: the Poetic Works, p. 164, compare Lev. XI.7. A locus classicus for the figure, cited by Crepin, 'Bede and the Vernacular', pp. 172 and 187, n. 5, occurs in Augustine, Enarrationes in psalmos xlvi.l (CCSL 38, 529). The only comparably early Anglo-Saxon description oiruminatio occurs elsewhere in the body of Aldhelm's writings, in the Epistola ad Acircium: 'Illi quidem, ut arbitror, diuino imbuti magisterio et praeceptorum instructi exemplo hoc successurae posteritati rite ruminasse et regulariter ructasse referri queunt, quod ab ipso tenerrimae rudisque infantiae nutritore ceteris ruminandum et ructandum gratuita praecurrente gratia accepisse meruerunt' (Those ones indeed [i.e. the faithful}, in my opinion, imbued with divine teaching and instructed by the example of their tutors, can be said to have ruminated duly and regurgitated regularly to succeeding posterity that which they themselves merited to have received - with the assistance of freely-given grace - from the very nourisher of their most tender and earliest infancy, so that it might be ruminated and regurgitated by others'); see text ptd in Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, p. 67, and trans, in Aldhelm: the Prose Works, trans. Lapidge and Herren, p. 38. But it is evident that Aldhelm here adduces the bovine metaphor mainly in connection with the pedagogical process and not with personal scriptural ruminatio as such.

42

Introduction

mitted and preserved as 'fixed' texts. Scholars of oral composition have long recognized that the faculties of memory demonstrated by oral poets are fully capable, at the level of diction, of preserving textual variants, or, at the level of narrative, of reproducing the distinctive structural features of their traditional sources. The only fundamental difference between oral texts and written texts, for purposes of the present study, resides in their differing means of transmission. Seventh-century biblical glosses

The Junius poems may be viewed as reflexes of Anglo-Saxon methods of biblical instruction. This is true whether we suppose their verse to have been produced by rural poets such as Caedmon, relying on learned masters for access to biblical knowledge; or by secular aristocrats such as Alfred, studying scripture under the direction of private tutors; or by literate recipients of an elementary education in sacred writings, who sought to share favourite texts with other members of a Christian community; or even by intermediate students, who had completed intensive studies of the Bible in episcopal or monastic classrooms.7 The pervasive instructional techniques in question are the pedagogical monologue and dialogue. A typical scene in an Anglo-Saxon classroom saw a teacher sitting in an elevated chair, or cathedra — the symbol of pedagogical authority — surrounded by a crowd of attentive students. In early Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical schools, the teacher was almost always a bishop or some other highly placed member of the church order. In monastic schools, lessons were most often conducted by an abbot, abbess or a designated surrogate. There is no standard treatment of Anglo-Saxon pedagogy. For introductory treatments of the Anglo-Saxon schools, see Lesne, Les Ecoles, pp. 8—14; Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 307-23; D. A. Bullough, 'The Educational Tradition in England from Alfred to ^lfric: Teaching utriusque linguae, in La scuola nell'occidente Latino dell'alto

72

medioevo, 1 vol. in 2, SettSpol 19 (Spoleto, 1972), 453-93; the essay 'Biblical Study' by Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature, pp. 177-210; and P. Lendinara, 'The World of Anglo-Saxon Learning', in The Cambridge Companion, ed. Godden and Lapidge, pp. 264-81. Although I have tried to couch my remarks here in the plainest possible terms, we should bear in mind the caution of Contreni, 'Carolingian Biblical Studies', p. 97, adduced in connection with continental practices, that 'we know less about the actual methods of instruction than we do about the texts that supported it'. For a distinction between presbyteral (later parochial) schools, episcopal schools and monastic schools, see Riche, Education and Culture, p. 8.

43


If anyone present in the classroom had recourse to continuous copies of Latin texts, it was the teacher. These texts, in almost every case, will have included a Bible or part-Bible. The books of the Old and New Testament supplied the basic subject-matter of all early medieval pedagogy from the elementary to the intermediate level. The mode of instruction was almost exclusively oral, and not always as a result of the scarcity of manuscripts. Spontaneous, if carefully moderated, discussion informed the dialogical processes of nearly all early medieval pedagogy.74 By expounding the texts of the Bible, the teacher effectively generated multiple copies of crucial passages, supplied with commentary, simply by communicating their contents to the students. Dialogue on biblical topics naturally will have arisen in the course of the students' questioning of the teacher and the teacher's provision of responses. I know of no evidence for the practice of a 'Socratic' technique in early Anglo-Saxon England. Indeed, in situations where parchment was scarce it may be doubted that instructors often had occasion to question pupils about the nuance of set-texts that they had been charged to prepare in advance. But diligent masters will have inquired about the progress of pupils' studies. In my view, the continuing negotiation and renegotation of the complexities of biblical texts in the classroom setting provides a natural model for the amalgamation of variant scriptural traditions evinced by the verse

7

Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 391—2, argues that Anglo-Saxon teachers affirmed more strongly than their predecessors that the Bible was superior to all other texts, 'not only by authority, since it is divine, or because of its usefulness, since it leads to eternal life, but even more by its antiquity and its form'. Cf. Contreni, 'Carolingian Biblical Studies', pp. 96-7, on the universal presence of the Bible in early European pedagogy, and the recent comment of Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature, p. 177: 'For the Anglo-Saxons the study of the bible was the fundamental literary activity.' For detailed discussion of the interaction of the teacher and pupils in the religious schools, see Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 458-77, and Riche, Les Ecoles, pp. 187-245. On the importance of the didactic or pedagogical dialogue in Anglo-Saxon usage, see M. Lapidge, 'Three Latin Poems from yEthelwold's School at Winchester', ASE 1 (1972), 85-137, at 96-100. I should distinguish the spontaneous dialogue described here from more formal pedagogical techniques and literary genres such as the scholastic colloquy and the quaestiones tradition, discussed below in connection with intermediate Anglo-Saxon biblical instruction. As Bullough, 'Alcuin and the Kingdom of Heaven', pp. 16—17 with n. 35, notes, teachers provided 'discursive oral comment on a select passage or passages of the Bible, using their own reading in the Fathers — and, where appropriate, pre-Christian didactic works — to extract the fullest possible range of meanings'.

44

Introduction

of Junius 11. (Some alternative hypotheses will be considered below.) Literate Anglo-Saxons present in these exchanges frequently recorded lecture-notes on specially prepared, wax-coated writing-tablets or rejected sheets of parchment. The discontinuous texts written out by students in their notes frequently took the form of glosses, short entries comprising a word or phrase extracted from a Latin biblical verse accompanied by a definition or explanation in Latin or Old English.7 As a result of the fragility of the writing materials used for the note-taking, the original copies of lecture-notes of Anglo-Saxon students have perished. Knowledge of their existence is provided by copies of glosses recorded in the classroom, which were assembled in compilations known as glossaries. In the process of their transferral to glossaries, the contents of individual sets of glosses (or batches) were sometimes integrated and arranged alphabetically, obscuring the original order of their entry in students' notes. But in other cases the sequence of the glosses was preserved, effectively providing a fossilized witness to the exposition of scripture in the Anglo-Saxon classroom. Treatments of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel in glosses of the 'Leiden family' of glossaries

An important recent advance in scholarship on early Anglo-Saxon pedagogy has been the recognition of the survival of substantial witnesses to the exposition of the Bible in the earliest attested phase of English pedagogy. In particular, there is a remarkably full body of evidence witnessing to instructional techniques employed in the famous school established at Canterbury in the years 669—70 by the see's seventh consecrated archbishop, Theodore of Tarsus, and his African colleague Hadrian. 77 These Mediterranean scholars were immensely popular in their For an introduction to biblical glosses, see G. Lobrichon, 'Une nouveaute: les gloses de la Bible', in Le moyen age et la bible, ed. Riche and Lobrichon, pp. 95-114. Major collections of surviving glosses of all types include Corpus glossariorum Latinorum, ed. G. Goetz, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1888-1923) and Glossaria Latina, ed. W. M. Lindsay, 5 vols. (Paris, 1926-31). On Theodore's archbishopric and the pedagogical undertakings of Theodore and Hadrian, see Biblical Commentaries, ed. Bischoff and Lapidge, esp. pp. 5-274, and essays in Archbishop Theodore, ed. Lapidge, with references. Theodore's immediate predecessor at Canterbury, Wigheard, was elected archbishop c. 666 but died in Rome before consecration.

45


time. Writing some sixty years later, Bede recalls their crowded classroom: 'congregata discipulorum caterua, scientiae salutaris cotidie flumina inrigandis eorum cordibus emanabant; ita ut etiam metricae artis, astronomiae et arithimeticae ecclesiasticae disciplinam inter sacrorum apicum uolumina suis auditoribus contraderent'. As Michael Lapidge has shown, an indication of the teaching practices of Theodore and Hadrian may be gleaned from glosses preserved in more than thirty extant manuscripts, collections commonly identified by 'family' names, such as the glosses of the 'Leiden family' of glossaries (so termed after an early continental witness, Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss. lat. Q. 69, fols. 7-47 (Sankt Gallen, s. viii/ix), 20r-36r). J. D. Pheifer has offered similar judgements regarding the glosses of the 'Epinal-Erfurt' group of glossaries, traditionally represented by collections preserved in Epinal, Bibliotheque Municipale, 72 (2), 94r— 107v (s. viii1), Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek, Amplonianus F. 42 (s. ix1), lr—I4r, I4v—34r and 34r—37v, and other witnesses. While the Epinal—Erfurt glosses have been alphabetically arranged in surviving witnesses, glosses of the Leiden family on the books of the Old Testament (including treatments of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel) appear to preserve some of the original features of the form they took in the notes of Anglo-Saxon students. 80 For 78

79

80

Bede, HE IV.2 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 2 0 4 - 6 , at 204-5): 'They attracted a crowd of students into whose minds they daily poured the streams of wholesome learning; they gave their hearers instruction not only in the books of Holy Scripture but also in the art of metre, astronomy and ecclesiastical computation'. See Ker, Catalogue, pp. 151-2 and 4 7 6 - 9 (no. 114 and appendix, nos. 10 and 18). See esp. the studies by Lapidge, 'The School of Theodore', with a list of manuscripts at pp. 67—72, and Pheifer, 'Early Anglo-Saxon Glossaries'. The Leiden glosses have been edited in A Late Eighth-Century Latin—Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, and Das Leidener Glossar, ed. Glogger, with additions and corrections to Glogger's text ptd in the review by J. H. Kern, Englische Studien 41 (1910), 393-6; Old English glosses of the Epinal—Erfurt group are ed. in Old English Glosses in the Epinal—Erfurt Glossary, ed. J. D. Pheifer (Oxford, 1974). It is not clear which, if any, of these glosses might be traced back to the monastic school established at Canterbury in the church of SS Peter and Paul, overseen by Benedict Biscop and later Hadrian and his disciple Albinus; see Bede, HE IV. 1-2 and V.20 {Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 201-6 and 330-2), and comments by Riche, Education and Culture, p. 369. Lapidge, 'The School of Theodore', p. 55, has commented on 'the apparently random and unsystematic way in which [the eponymous collection of Leiden glosses] has been assembled, as if the various batches were copied more or less as they came to hand'. Glosses on books of the Old Testament (including Genesis, Exodus and Daniel) as well

46

Introduction

example, the glosses on Daniel in Voss. lat. Q. 69 consist in a roughly sequential treatment of nearly all the chapters of the book (glosses 1—22 in the edition of Hessels, continuing through Daniel XIV, the account of Bel and the Dragon), followed by an essentially discrete sequence of glosses addressing terms mainly drawn from Daniel I—V (glosses 23—32). 81 The second sequence is almost entirely given over to terms relating to pagan religious practices, while the first group addresses a more varied selection of textual cruces. It appears that the extant series in Voss. lat. Q. 69 unites at least two distinct sets of notes on Daniel, probably reflecting separate discussions of the biblical text. My own examination of glosses of the Leiden family that have appeared in print, however, suggests that there is no basis for positing a direct connection between their contents and any of the Old Testament verse of Junius 11. The Leiden glosses pass comment on biblical readings drawn from what appears to have been a complete and fairly pure Vulgate text, often devoting careful attention to the wording of Jerome's prefaces to individual books. However, the Junius poems, as we as several nonbiblical texts are preserved in BN, lat. 2685 (Belgium or Holland, s. ix 2), 47r-56r. Whereas the handful of Old English glosses in this source have found their way into print, the bulk of the Latin-to-Latin glosses of BN, lat. 2685 (including most of those treating Genesis, Exodus and Daniel) remains unprinted; see Lapidge, 'The School of Theodore', pp. 56-7 and 70. The Daniel glosses of Leiden, Voss. lat. Q. 69, 26r, have been edited in A Late Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, p. 17, whose numbering of entries is followed here, and in Das Leidener Glossar, ed. Glogger I, 43-4; II, 31-2; and III, 23-4 (including uneven references to variants preserved in eight other manuscripts preserving glosses of the Leiden family); see also Lapidge, 'The School of Theodore', pp. 52-9 and 69-70. Glosses in the Leiden family on Genesis, Exodus, Daniel and other Old Testament books also occur in Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, M. 79 sup. (northern Italy, s. xi 2 ); see Lapidge, 'The School of Theodore', pp. 59-65 and 70, and Lapidge, 'Study of Greek', esp. pp. 172-8. The numbering of glosses follows the text ptd in A Late Eighth-Century Latin—AngloSaxon Glossary, ed. Hessels, p. 17. 82

It is an interesting question whether the presence of vernacular glosses in the collection of the Leiden family may be taken to suggest that Theodore and Hadrian encouraged the production of Old English texts. Wormald, 'Anglo-Saxon Society', p. 8, noting the masters' Mediterranean origins, remarks that '[t}he eastern church always approved the use of native vernaculars more than the aggressively Latin west . . . It is thus interesting that Bede should go out of his way to describe how a pupil of Theodore was proficient in his own language as well as Latin and Greek (HE V.8); hardly a remarkable fact if he merely spoke it'; for the cited locus in Bede's HE, see Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 294—6. One significant conclusion to be drawn from the glosses issuing from the Canterbury

47


shall see, bear witness to a mixed selection of Old Latin and Vulgate readings and leave the matter of Jerome's prefaces wholly out of account. The Leiden glosses often include detailed comments on the names of less familiar Old Testament figures and geographical locations. Theodore, Hadrian and contemporary glossators seem also to have taken delight in explicating unusual technical terms from the Bible, relating to flora and fauna of the Holy Land, weights and measures, medical knowledge, and, surprisingly often, to pagan religious practices. In surviving Old English biblical verse, such concerns arising out of scripture are normally passed over in silence. The significance of biblical glosses for the present discussion inheres in the evidence they provide for a common — nearly universal — process by which extrabiblical knowledge came to be associated with specific passages of scripture in the early medieval classroom. The verse of Junius 11 similarly reflects knowledge of apocryphal and non-Vulgate scriptural traditions, commonplaces of patristic exegesis, traditional etymologies of proper names and so on. At the level of diction, we find evidence in the poems of knowledge of readings associated with an expansive array of biblical texts — the Greek texts of the Septuagint and its Theodotionic revision, Old Latin translations from the Greek and textual variants arising within the Vulgate tradition, as will be discussed in later chapters. All of these diverse areas of knowledge are addressed by glosses of the Leiden family as well as most other early medieval collections of biblical glosses. The limited influence of such biblical glosses on the transmitted texts of school is that the Vulgate text of the Old Testament was available in copies of an impressive quality in Anglo-Saxon England as many as forty-five years before the production of de luxe copies of the Vulgate Bible at Wearmouth and Jarrow (r. 716). This and other evidence has led me to view the Old Latin readings witnessed by the Junius poems with heightened curiosity. For discussion of the biblical texts in use at the Canterbury school, see R. Marsden, 'Theodore's Bible: the Pentateuch', in Archbishop Theodore, ed. Lapidge, pp. 236-54. On prefaces to texts of the Vulgate, see S. Berger, 'Les prefaces jointes aux livres de la bible dans les manuscrits de la Vulgate', Memoires presentes par divers savants a VAcademie des inscriptions et belles lettres de I'Institut de

France 1.11.2 (1904), 1-78, De Bruyne, Prefaces and standard editions in the volumes of Biblia Sacra, ed. Quentin et al. Lapidge, 'Study of Greek', pp. 172-3 and 178-9, on the basis of an examination of glosses in Milan, M. 79 sup., argues that Theodore (and perhaps Hadrian) issued comments reflecting knowledge of the Greek text of Genesis derived directly from the verses of the Septuagint rather than a later, Old Latin translation. A series of glosses preserving many Old Latin readings (including passages drawn from Genesis, Exodus

48

Introduction

the Junius poems is indeed beyond question. The text of Genesis A has been shown to incorporate an unmetrical embedded gloss on the names of Noah's wives.85 It holds to reason that the glossary tradition may have exerted an influence on the composition of the poems as well, especially if we admit the possibility that some or all of the poets responsible for the verse knew how to read and write. Interpenetration of scriptural traditions in the verse of Junius 11

The evident heterogeneity of the source-material drawn on by Old English biblical poets is a pervasive if frequently neglected feature of their verse. To be sure, the prevalence of this phenomenon is implicit in the argumentative concerns of many modern studies, which frequently seek to explain Old English poetic cruces by reference to diverse strands of patristic and encyclopaedic learning. But the phenomenon itself has seldom been addressed as a discrete area of inquiry, let alone theorized systematically. To elucidate the problematic heterogeneity of Old English biblical verse, scholars most often adduce two main types of extrabiblical influence — whose relative force in Anglo-Saxon times can only be established inferentially — to explain the state of the received texts. (1) The influence of lost documents and the influence of poorly and Daniel) is described by D. De Bruyne, 'Fragments d'anciennes versiones latines tires dunglossaire biblique', ALMA 3 (1927), 113-20. GenA 1547—8: 'nemde waeron / Percoba, Olla, Olliua, Olliuani' ('[Noah's wives] were named Percoba, Olla, Olliva and Ollivani'); discussed by A. Bammesberger, 'Hidden Glosses in Manuscripts of Old English Poetry', ASE 13 (1984), 4 3 - 9 , at 44-6; another embedded gloss may occur at GenA 1601c: 'l>a he forS gewat' ('then he [i.e. Noah] died'); the biblical notice of the patriarch's death occurs at Gen. IX.29- Unless noted, all citations of Genesis A and all line-numbers derive from the text established in Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 456—65, with adjustment of capitalization and punctuation. Translations of the verse of Genesis A generally follow those in Genesis A Translated from the Old English, trans. L. Mason (New York, 1915). For some recent work in this area, see Cross,'The Literate Anglo-Saxon', M. Lapidge, 'Aldhelm's Latin Poetry and Old English Verse', CL 31 (1979), 209-31, and Garde, Old English Poetry. There is a need for a survey of the transmissional channels through which extrabiblical materials entered the Anglo-Saxon biblical tradition, such as has been undertaken recently for classical literature by Janet M. Bately, who concludes that '[derivation at second hand, whether through marginal gloss or commentary, seems probable in a number of cases . . . Dependence on encyclopedic texts, however, seems incontrovertible' (Bately, 'Evidence for Knowledge of Latin', p. 44).

49


documented intellectual traditions: to my knowledge, source-scholarship on Old English verse has thus far failed to produce a single manuscript or set of documents whose texts display an admixture of source-material (whether biblical, liturgical, patristic or otherwise) comparable to that which we detect in the Junius poems. Nonetheless, the ephemeral nature of the types of documents that would have been most likely to contain such material — wax tablets, spare sheets of parchment, private devotional compilations, etc. — justify the attempt to hypothesize about the undocumented circulation of such resources. Moreover, a substantial number of Anglo-Saxon liturgical and devotional manuscripts containing biblically derived texts do exist and many more such witnesses of continental origin survive. These extant texts allow us to speculate about the contents of Old Testament-based texts that have not survived. (2) The creative impulses of Anglo-Saxon poets: from a literary perspective, any attempt to account for the special features of the Junius poems by extrapolating back to texts circulating in lost manuscripts may seem unnecessarily reductive. It is probable that the mixed exemplars of the Junius poems in some cases never had a physical form, but rather emerged in Anglo-Saxon Christian communities as part of the intellectual ambience attending informal biblical instruction, catechetical training and classroom discussion. For the moment, the example of the seventh-century biblical glosses may give sufficient indication of the intersection of diverse written and oral traditions arising in the course of elementary biblical studies in Anglo-Saxon England. The historical record plainly reveals that the biblical education of many students of Theodore and Hadrian (as well as contemporaries at other centres) passed well beyond the elementary level. None of these pupils has left writings in any quantity, however, with the sole exception of the Canterbury alumnus Aldhelm. When we turn to the more plentiful evidence in eighth-century sources for Anglo-Saxon approaches to intermediate biblical studies, we encounter a trend toward the refinement and concretization of practices originating in the glossary tradition, with an attendant increase in the heterogeneity of the extrabiblical source-materials that were brought to bear on the words of the Old Testament. 87

Specific references to biblical studies occur in Aldhelm's writings at De uirginitate, chs. i and xxxv, and Epistolae iii, v, viii and xi; see texts ptd in Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, pp. 229, 276-7,479,488-93,497 and 500. 50

Introduction From Bede to Alcuin

The elementary techniques of biblical instruction attested for the seventhcentury English schools included, as we have seen, classroom lessons on the books of the Bible conducted in conjunction with the preparation of discontinuous glosses by students. In all probability, these practices continued to be employed throughout the historically documented AngloSaxon period.88 Surviving Anglo-Latin sources from the eighth century, moreover, witness methods of biblical study more advanced than those described above, particularly in writings issued by Bede; by Boniface (ne Wynfrith), the Anglo-Saxon missionary and archbishop of Mainz who was slain by unconverted Frisians in 754; and by Alcuin {ob. 804), a renowned teacher who was recruited from the school of York to serve Charlemagne in the establishment of his palace school. 9 These more advanced peda88

It is clear that the Bible remained the single focus of nearly all formal pedagogy at the elementary and intermediate levels. Grammars, encyclopaedic works and other texts continued to be consulted mainly for the explication of its canon. See, for example, Boniface's exhortation of the youth Nithard, in his Epistola ix (MGH, Epist. Ill, 2 4 9 - 5 1 , at 250), to the 'studium sanctarum litterarum' ('the study of holy writings'). Willibald's Vita S. Bonifatii ii (MGH, SS. Rer. Germ. II, 3 3 1 - 5 3 , at 335-7), attributes to its Anglo-Saxon subject an intensive course of biblical study involving a tripartite exposition of scripture according to the moral, allegorical and anagogical sense, assisted by a deep study of grammar and metre, which was carried out in conjunction with large amounts of physical labour and strict adherence to the requirements of the Office; see Bright, Chapters, p . 470. There is only a small amount of evidence for biblical studies during the period of ascendancy of the kingdom of Mercia (c. 7 6 0 825), largely in consequence of the failure of the courts of King Offa (757-90) and his successors to support a literary culture that left many tangible remains. Moreover, the intensification of Viking attacks on Anglo-Saxon centres, commencing around the time of the destruction of the monastery at Lindisfarne in 793 and reaching a peak in the decades after c. 830, has greatly limited the available evidence for ninth-century Anglo-Saxon pedagogical techniques up to the period of the Alfredian literary revival (c. 880-900). But it is probable that any biblical studies that were successfully carried out during these dark years conformed perforce to the elementary systems of instruction sketched out above. W e may also suspect that the sort of basic scriptural knowledge that had entered the tradition of Old English biblical verse by the later eighth century would have been especially valuable during this period of intellectual decline. I am not, however, aware of any witnesses to the collection of vernacular poetry in books before the Alfredian revival.

89

See the essay 'The Flowering of Monastic and Episcopal Schools in England' by Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 3 0 7 - 2 3 , and Lesne, Les Ecoles, pp. 621-39-

51


gogical techniques included a better equipped form of gloss-based instruction, in which students possessed their own copies of biblical texts (though, we may suspect, most often in the form of part-Bibles or privately prepared extracts), which they read concurrently with the teacher's explanation of difficult points. There were also refinements of the dialogically predicated, question-and-answer approach to the biblical text, involving a formal treatment by the teacher (or, less commonly, by a designated pupil) of a series of queries, or quaestiones, on passages of scripture. Pupil-topupil exchanges, or colloquies, on biblical topics were carried out in the presence of a teacher and sometimes staged as mock debates. 91 And, finally, there was a more ambitious form of monological delivery involving the teacher's presentation of a prepared text, perhaps a draft version of a new work of biblical exegesis, comparable to the type of academic performance encountered in university lecture theatres of today. 92 The eighth century also saw the production of new written resources for biblical study, perpetuating the influence of traditional methods of note-taking and glossary-compilation while attaining a more carefully defined form. These included literary dialogues presenting a contrived series of questions and answers on biblical topics, concretizing in literary reflexes the classroom use of the quaestiones and colloquy techniques. 93 Collections of

91

92

93

A standard treatment of the quaestiones technique is G. Bardy, 'La litterature des quaestiones et responsiones sur l'ecriture sainte', Revue biblique 41 (1932), 210—36 and 341-69; cf. E. Bertola, 'I precedenti storici del metodo del Sic et non di Abelardo', Rivista difilosofta nebscolastica 53 (1961), 255-80; see also Lesne, Les Ecoles, pp. 621-39, P. Riche, 'Divina pagina, ratio et auctoritas dans la theologie carolingienne', in Nascita dell'Europa ed Europa carolingia: un'equazione da verificare, SettSpol 27 (Spoleto, 1981), 7 1 9 - 5 8 , esp. at 7 3 3 - 5 , and P. Riche, 'Instruments de travail et methodes de l'exegete a l'epoque carolingienne', in he moyen age et la bible, ed. Riche and Lobrichon, pp. 1 4 7 61. There is a treatment of the classical tradition of the dialogue, with a very brief look at medieval practice, by R. Hirzel, Der Dialog: ein literar-historischer Versucb, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1895). For a recent discussion with a useful bibliographical summary, see Ziolkowski, 'Cultural Diglossia', p. 196. It is probable that most of these techniques were employed in earlier periods. Literary embodiments of the quaestiones technique, for example, certainly go back at least as far as the work In libros Veteris ac Noui Testamenti proemia of Isidore of Seville (ob. 636). Additional references are given by Riche, Education and Culture^ pp. 474 with nn. 178-9 and 475 (esp. in a discussion of the 'puzzle-like' dialogues of the loca monachorurri). See Riche, Les Ecoles, pp. 204-6. Examples of pupil-to-master and pupil-to-pupil

52

Introduction

biblical passages and patristic opinions, sometimes termed florilegia, were prepared for the consultation of students in their reading outside of the classroom.9 New grammars were produced to aid the interpretation of scripture, whose content and arrangement addressed the needs of students for whom Latin was a second language.95 Finally, the earliest surviving works of biblical exegesis by Anglo-Saxon masters appeared in the eighth century, which will also have been consulted by intermediate students of scripture in the course of their private reading.

94

95

9

dialogues and debate-literature from the Anglo-Latin tradition include Dialogus Ecgberhti, as ptd in Councils, ed. Haddan and Stubbs III, 403-13; Alcuin's In Genesim and Disputatio Pippini regis cum Albino (PL 100, cols. 516-66, and 101, 975-80); and for the later Anglo-Saxon period, ^lfric Bata, Colloquia, as ptd in Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. W. H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1929), pp. 27-66, 67-74 and 75-101; iElfric (of Eynsham), Colloquia (Latin colloquy with continuous Old English gloss), as ptd in JElfric's Colloquy, ed. G. N. Garmonsway (New York, 1966); and iElfric's Interrogationes Sigewulfi Presbiteri in Genesim (Old English only, rendering Alcuin's In Genesim; see Cameron, 'List', p. 83 (item B.I.6.1)). A vivid fictionalization of a pupilto-pupil debate occurs in the Alcuinian dubium known as the Disputatio puerorum per interrogationes et responsiones (ptd in PL, 10 1, cols. 1097—1144). For additional references and discussion of the Old English reflexes of dialogue literature, including extensive treatments of the matter of Genesis and Exodus, see The Prose Solomon and Saturn and Adrian and Ritheus Edited from the British Library Manuscripts, ed. J. E. Cross and T. D. Hill, McMaster OE Stud, and Texts 1 (Toronto, 1982), esp. 65-110. On Bede's composition of patristic florilegia for monks and correspondents (notably Acca of Hexham), see Riche, Education and Culture, p . 4 7 3 , with references. Alcuin's unpublished florilegium, known as De laude Dei (preserved uniquely in Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Misc. Patr. 17 (B. II. 10), 1 3 3 r - l 6 l v (s. x)), is discussed by Constantinescu, 'Alcuin et les libelli precum , and Bullough, 'Alcuin and the Kingdom of Heaven', esp. pp. 4 - 1 2 and 3 3 - 5 ; see also below, p . 358, n. 50. On florilegia generally, see also D. De Bruyne, 'Un florilege biblique inedit', ZNW 20 (1930), 197—208; H.-H. Rochais, 'Contribution a l'histoire des florileges ascetiques du haut moyen age latin', RB 63 (1953), 2 4 6 - 9 1 ; Leclercq, The Love of Learning, pp. 182-4; J. Lienhard, 'The Earliest florilegia of St Augustine', Augustinian Stud. 8 (1977), 2 1 - 3 1 ; and Contreni, 'Carolingian Biblical Studies', p . 85. Bede's grammatical and rhetorical treatise De schematibus et tropis (CCSL 123A, 142-71) was intended largely as an adjunct to biblical studies. The careers of Bede and Alcuin may be seen to straddle the division between the patristic and early medieval periods. Bede is widely regarded as the last of the major patristic authors whereas Alcuin - very rarely encountered as St Alcuin - is often seen as one of the first great European scholars whose fame depends mainly on his abilities as a teacher. Bede's Commentarius in Genesim (CCSL 118A) manifests an unusual type of synthetic exegesis involving the concatenation and recasting of substantial extracts

53


Evidence for various techniques of biblical instruction in Anglo-Saxon England is plainly more plentiful in the eighth century than in the seventh. But the approaches mentioned above will receive brief comment here, as few critics have suspected that poets of the Old English verse of Junius 11 enjoyed the benefits of such relatively advanced biblical study. In particular, the question of possible first-hand knowledge of patristic exegesis on the part of vernacular poets has proved especially controversial. My own view is that the evidence of Anglo-Saxon biblical studies at the intermediate level should not be arbitrarily excluded from a discussion of Old English biblical verse. John J. Contreni, discussing continental biblical studies, has recently noted that no truly advanced scholarship on the Bible emerged until 'the scholastic and high-scholastic periods [of the central and later Middle Ages}, by which time biblical studies had become highly professionalized and arcane to the beginner and certainly to the laity'. 98 Contreni adds that 'the context of the Fathers or of the university theologians was not that which tempered biblical studies in the eighth and ninth centuries'; the main goal of scriptural instruction remained 'the desire to teach, to introduce the Bible to the educated layman or laywoman, to the busy ecclesiastical administrator, and to the beginning student'. 99 If these observations are seen to hold good for English as well from patristic authors. It also provides an important witness to the emergence of the literary tradition of quaestionesy as do his Aliquot quaestionum liber (PL 93, cols. 455—62) and In Regum librum xxx quaestiones (CCSL 119, 293-322). Other Old Testament exegesis by Bede treating biblical books within the purview of the Junius poets includes the Commentarius in Habacuc (CCSL 119B, 381-409), De templo (CCSL 119A, 1 4 3 - 2 3 4 ) and the heterogeneous collection Nomina locorum ex beati Hieronimi presbiteri et Flauii losepbi collecta opusculis (CCSL 1 1 9 , 2 7 3 - 8 7 ) ; see also Alcuin's In Genesim (PL 100, cols. 5 1 6 - 6 6 ) and below, n. 9 8 a n d p p . 5 6 , n. 1 0 2 ; 6 0 , n. 1 1 5 ; 7 6 , n. 1 5 3 ; a n d 1 5 1 , n. 1 2 1 . 97

See above, p p . 8 - 9 .

98

Contreni, 'Carolingian Biblical Studies', p . 8 0 , n. 3 0 . T h e main Carolingian biblical commentaries on books relevant t o t h e J u n i u s poems, following t h e n u m b e r i n g of Repertorium, ed. Stegmiiller, are t h e following: Genesis: Alcuin (1084—5), A n g e l o m e of Luxeuil (1334), Bede (1598), pseudo-Bede (1652), Remigius of Auxerre (7094) a n d H r a b a n u s Maurus (7021); Exodus: Bede (1602), pseudo-Bede (1648) and H r a b a n u s Maurus (7022); I - I V Kings: Bede ( 1 6 0 3 - 6 ) , pseudo-Bede (1662), Angelome of Luxeuil ( 1 3 3 5 - 8 ) , Claude of T u r i n ( 1 9 5 4 - 5 ) a n d H r a b a n u s Maurus ( 7 0 3 3 - 6 ) ; Psalms: T h e o d e m i r (7976); I—II Paralipomenon: H r a b a n u s Maurus (7037); Jeremiah: H r a b a n u s Maurus (7054). Contreni,

'Carolingian

Biblical Studies', p p . 79—80.

54

A neglected

codicological

Introduction

as for continental schools, there would seem to be no reason to exclude the possibility that Old English biblical verse found audiences (and practitioners) in centres at which competent instruction in biblical subjects was freely available. It might seem on first reflection that we must reckon, if anything, with less developed curricula than were in place in late eighth and ninth-century Carolingian schools as the norm in Anglo-Saxon schools for most of the eighth century. But even here, the examples of Alcuin, his learned teacher iElberht and their school at York suggest that advanced instruction was available to those who sought it out. Eighth-century views on the use of the vernacular

More obviously germane to the consideration of Old English biblical verse in its contemporary setting are specific statements by Bede and other eighth-century authorities regarding the use of the vernacular in the instruction of the laity and — most intriguingly — in the education of members of clerical and monastic orders who knew no Latin. In his Epistola ad Ecgberhtum episcopum, Bede admonishes Ecgberht, archbishop of York, to evangelize the citizens of isolated communities by whatever linguistic means prove necessary: 'Sed idiotas, hoc est, eos qui propriae tantum linguae notitiam habent, haec ipsa sua lingua discere, ac sedulo decantare facito. Quod non solum de laicis, id est, in populari adhuc uita

100

medium for the interpenetration of biblical and patristic traditions in the course of elementary to intermediate study includes the supplements appended to medieval Bibles (especially in the Carolingian period and later) including substantial extracts of early church writings (Isidore, Etymologiae\ Eucherius of Lyon, Instructions; pseudoMelitus, Clauis scripturarum; pseudo-Augustine, Liber de diuinis scripturis\ etc.); see Contreni, ibid, p. 79. For a discussion of Bede's views on the use of the vernacular, see Dekkers, 'L'eglise devant la bible', pp. 10—11; see also the study of Crepin, 'Bede and the Vernacular', some of whose conclusions (and methods) should be approached with caution. Bede himself undertook his earliest biblical studies under the tutelage of Trumbert, a monk who had been trained by Ceadda, third bishop of the Mercians under King Wulfhere from 667 until his death of the plague in 672 (HE IV.3 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 206-12, at 210)). On the interpenetration of Latin and medieval vernaculars as a discrete area of inquiry, see discussion by G. Bardy, La Question des langues dans l'eglise ancienne, Etudes de theologie historique (Paris, 1948); Y. Congar, 'Clercs et laics au point de vue de la culture au moyen age: lai'cus = "sans lettres"', in Studia mediaevalia et mariologica: Melanges P. Carolo Balk (Rome, 1971), pp. 309—32; and Ziolkowski, 'Cultural Diglossia'.

55


constitutis, uerum etiam de clericis siue monachis, qui Latinae sunt expertes, fieri oportet.' 101 Bede's admonition refers specifically to the vernacular treatment of liturgical texts — the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer (cf. Matt. VI.9b-13 and Luke XI.2b-4) - rather than the use of continuous biblical passages in addressing the laity. In a subsequent and yet more telling comment in his letter to Ecgberht, Bede reports his own provision of similar Old English renditions from the Latin to priests: 'Propter quod et ipse multis saepe sacerdotibus idiotis haec utraque, et symbolum uidelicet, et dominicam orationem in linguam Anglorum translatam optuli.' As scholars have long recognized, the unavoidable conclusion is that in Bede's time there were priests who knew no Latin. It is also clear that only a fraction of the six hundred or so brethren at Bede's monastery at Jarrow knew how to read and write. 103 This state of affairs is confirmed by the canons of the Council of Clofesho in 747, which similarly recommended that priests and their congregations learn the Apostle's Epistola ad Ecgberhtum episcopum v (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 405—23, at

409). 'But encourage the uneducated people — that is, those who have a notion of their own language only - to learn them {i.e. the Apostle's Creed and the Lord's Prayer] in their own language and to repeat them assiduously. This ought to be done, not only in the case of members of the laity, that is, those still leading a secular life, but also in the case of those clerics or monks who are ignorant of the Latin language'; cf. Crepin, 'Bede and the Vernacular', p. 178. For a recent discussion of the letter to Ecgberht, see D . P. Kirby, Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum: its Contemporary Setting, Jarrow

Lecture (Jarrow, 1992), pp. 10-15 and 21-2. Ep. ad Ecgb. v: 'On account of this very concern [i.e. Bede's desire to instruct the faithful] I have also often given to many uneducated priests both of these, the Creed, of course, and the Lord's Prayer, translated into the English language.' On questions of the use of the vernacular and the scarcity of priests, see also Ep. ad Ecgb. vi and xv (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 409-10 and 418-19); Bede, Commentarius in primampartem Samuhelis II.xiv.28-30 (CCSL 119, 5-272, at 120-1); and Boniface, Ep. xci (MGH, Epist. Ill, 376-7, at 377). Klauser, A Short History, pp. 2 2 - 3 , notes that the introduction of vernacular elements as adjuncts to the liturgy is wholly in line with the teachings of Paul and subsequent authorities, who stipulate that the liturgy must be comprehensible to the common people. On Bede's intention to translate all or part of the book of John and excerpts from Isidore's De natura rerum into English, see Crepin, 'Bede and the Vernacular', pp. 177-8. Bede admonished his learned monks, 'nemo cum scripturarum se scientiae institutum et ad dicendum uerbum Dei uiderit idoneum, despiciat simplicitatem fratris' {Commentarius in Parabolas Salomonis 11.20 (PL 91, cols. 937—1052, at 997): 'no one, when he has obtained for himself a knowledge of sacred writings and attended to the suitable preaching of the word of God, should look down on the simplicity of a brother').

56

Introduction

Creed and the Lord's Prayer in Old English renditions.1 Intriguingly, multiple canons issued by the Clofesho council explicitly forbid the use of secular forms of verse in church services, strongly suggesting that vernacular alliterative verse was on occasion recited paraliturgically before 747. A later eighth-century witness to the use of the vernacular in teaching Anglo-Saxon converts who knew no Latin occurs in a letter of Alcuin to the monks of Wearmouth-Jarrow written in 793: 'Saepiusque regula sancti Benedicti legatur in conuentu fratrum et propria exponatur lingua, ut intellegi possit ab omnibus.' 10 The spirit of these admonitions can be traced back to the earliest period of Anglo-Saxon Christianity. Indeed, Pope Gregory I explicitly authorized his first English bishop, Augustine, to make use of virtually any type of non-Roman practice in promoting the faith among the Anglo-Saxons, though he offered no specific comment on the use of the vernacular. By the end of the eighth century, the use of 104

See now the detailed study of Clofesho provisions by Cubitt, 'Pastoral Care'. See also Riche, Education and Culture, p p . 480—1, for the preeminent position of the two liturgical items in question in presbyteral use and evidence for their translation into Germanic vernaculars on the Continent. D o c u m e n t s witnessing the development of early medieval canon law provide m a n y additional examples of the incursion of biblical texts into the legal sphere. T h e major Irish collection of canon law k n o w n as the Collectio canonum Hibernensis, for example, includes biblical extracts and quotations from patristic authors, a m o n g other gleanings, and for this reason occasionally supplied material for florilegia; see also P. Fournier, 'Le Liber ex lege Moysi et les tendances bibliques d u droit canonique irlandais', Revue celtique 30 (1909), 2 2 1 - 3 4 ; Chartier, 'Presence de la bible'; and three articles in the collection Le moyen age et la bible, ed. Riche and Lobrichon: J . G a u d e m e t , 'La bible dans les collections canoniques' (pp. 3 2 7 - 6 9 ) ; T . M . Izbicki, 'La bible et les canonistes' (pp. 3 7 1 - 8 4 ) ; and P. Riche, 'La bible et la vie politique dans le haut moyen age' (pp. 385—400). Citing relevant passages in thirty-four episcopal statutes from the Carolingian period alone, Contreni, 'Carolingian Biblical Studies', p . 7 5 , concludes that '[b}iblical studies were implicit in all the legislation'.

105

Alcuin, Epistola xix ( M G H , Poet. Lat. I, 5 3 - 6 , at 54): 'Let the rule of St Benedict be read frequently a m o n g the assembled brethren and explained in their own language that all may understand'; the English rendition follows Alcuin, trans. Allott, p . 39-

106

Bede, HE 1.27 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. P l u m m e r I, 4 8 - 6 2 , at 49): 'Sed m i h i placet u t , siue in Romana, siue in Galliarum, seu in qualibet ecclesia aliquid inuenisti, q u o d plus o m n i p o t e n t i Deo possit placere, sollicite eligas, et in A n g l o r u m ecclesia, quae a d h u c ad fidem noua, institutione praecipua, quae de multis ecclesiis colligere potuisti, infundas' ('But if you have found any customs in the R o m a n or the Gaulish church or any other church which may be more pleasing to A l m i g h t y G o d , you should m a k e a careful selection of t h e m and eclectically introduce to the Church of the

57


the vernacular by members of the clergy, particularly in preaching to the laity, would be formally codified in the edicts of the Carolingian reform, notably the Admonitio generates of 789 and the Epistola de litteris colendis.

The Carolingian programme of educational reform also laid great stress on the acquisition of biblical knowledge, especially through the copying and study of scriptures. The influence of Anglo-Saxon custom on the continental reforms, most plausibly as a result of the involvement of Alcuin in their promulgation, has been asserted by several scholars. But it should be recalled that the issues surrounding the use of the vernacular in England differed fundamentally from those arising in the continental churches, especially in Francia and other territories in which a pre-Romance dialect was spoken. 108 Whereas Latin texts were entirely incomprehensible to converts whose only language was Old English, they could often be read successfully to European audiences simply by introducing a change in inflection. It must also be acknowledged that none of the surviving eighthcentury sources dealing with the use of the vernacular alludes specifically to the use of translations or paraphrases of biblical texts. Given Bede's explicit depreciation of the talents of post-Caedmonian biblical versifiers, we may suspect that the employment of Old English renditions of scripture to the exclusion of the Latin texts, whether in verse or prose, would have constituted a significantly more controversial practice than the use of the vernacular in preaching or in promulgating basic liturgical texts.

107

108

English, which is still new in the faith, what you have been able to gather from various churches'). The texts of these edicts are p t d in M G H , Capitular. Reg. Il.i, 5 2 - 6 2 (no. 22) and 7 8 - 9 (no. 29). Chrodegang, in his Regula xliv and lxxxiii (PL 8 9 , cols. 1 0 5 7 - 1 1 2 0 , at 1076 and 1 0 9 4 - 5 ) , urges preachers to adapt sermons to each audience so as to ensure that all listeners can follow their words. See discussion in Lesne, Les Ecoles, p p . 1 5 - 3 2 ; B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, I N , 1964), p p . 3 7 - 8 2 ; the essay 'Les educateurs carolingiens', in Riche, De I'education antique, pp. 4 0 - 5 6 ; J . J. Contreni, 'Inharmonious Harmony: Education in the Carolingian World', Annals of Scholarship 1 (1980), 8 1 - 9 6 , esp. 8 3 - 6 ; and Contreni, 'Carolingian Biblical Studies', p p . 7 5 - 9 . Riche, Education and Culture, p . 4 8 4 , notes that no European conciliar decree mentions the language of biblical exposition (whether Latin or the vulgar tongue) before the 8 1 3 Council of Tours.

58

Introduction Memorization by rote and the treatment of biblical and liturgical texts

We have already seen an indication of the highly developed faculties of memory attributed to Anglo-Saxon oral poets in the account of Caedmon. Eighth-century sources often ascribe similarly impressive mnemonic skills to literate Christians who learned specific biblical texts by rote. Claims regarding the memorization of the entire psalter are commonplace.110 The anonymous Vita S. Ceolfrithi celebrates the recitative diligence of Ceolfrith, who is said to have sung all of the Psalms twice daily, and three times a day while on a journey. Bede reports that Ecgberht, in atonement for the sins of his youth, vowed to recite the entire psalter every day in addition to the prescribed texts of the daily Office.112 Early witnesses to the rote rehearsal of the texts of the Old and New Testament might be taken to pose a theoretical problem that may impinge on our interpretation of Old English biblical verse. If it is assumed that many or perhaps nearly all early medieval Christians, presumably including some or all of the Old English biblical poets, possessed a comprehensive knowledge of scripture, then attempts such as those undertaken below to connect the verse of the Junius poems with specific written texts — let 109

111

112

113

Riche, Education and Culture, p. 466, remarks that '[i]n the history of memorization, the men of the seventh and eighth centuries had no reason to envy the men of Antiquity. In fact, their achievement was even greater, since oral reading was less and less practiced outside the classroom.' See also H. Blum, Die antike Mnemotechnik, Spudasmata 15 (Tubingen, 1969). See, for example, detailed descriptions of the memorization of Psalms, canticles and biblical lections by the study of texts preserved on tablets and in books ('tabulis et codicibus') at Regula magistri 1; see text ptd in La Regie du maitre, ed. H. Vanderhoven and F. Masai, Les publications de Scriptorium 3 (Brussels, 1953), 247. Charlemagne placed psalmody first in his list of subjects for study at Admonitio generalis lxxii; see also Frere, Studies III, 45, on Paul the Deacon's reform of the Office. Vita S. Ceolfrithi xxxiii, as ed. in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 388-404, at 401. On memorization of the psalter, see also Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 280, 285 and 464-5. Bede, HE 111.27 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 191-4, at 193). As the phrase 'psalterium totum' is used here, it might be inferred that Ecgberht memorized the series of canticles regularly appended to psalters as well. Riche, Education and Culture, p. 120, points out that we cannot conclude on the basis of the surviving evidence whether the memorization of texts by medieval Christians was commonly achieved in the light of a deep understanding of scripture or was simply performed by rote.

59


alone specific versions of written texts — may seem misdirected. I see two immediate responses to this objection. The first is essentially the point made above in connection with Caedmon. Given the mnemonic attainments that must be postulated for artistically inclined members of a society that had in recent centuries existed as a Geddchtniskultur, we are justified in concluding that biblical and liturgical texts learned by rote in Anglo-Saxon England in many cases will have been treated as fixed exemplars preserving most of the distinctive lexical and structural features of their written models. To be sure, the early eighth-century Vita S. Wilfridi, ascribed to Stephen of Ripon, asserts that its hagiographical subject (Wilfrid, sometime bishop of York, Ripon and Hexham (ob. 709)) could recite two variant versions of the psalter by heart — the texts of the Old Latin-derived psalterium Romanum and the Vulgate-based psalterium Gallicanum.114 Bede states unambiguously on two occasions that AngloSaxon scribes of his day were prone to introduce erroneous forms into their copywork as a result of their familiarity with variant Latin texts from the usage of the liturgy. 11 The second, more important, rejoinder is that claims regarding the brute memorization of the whole canon of scripture are encountered far less frequently than those regarding, say, the psalter. It appears that certain texts were committed to memory more often than others. 117 Even a brief survey of the columns of citations in the Biblia Patristica, edited by J. Allenbach et al, or the apparatus of Bonifatius Fischer's edition of the Old Latin text of Genesis will reveal that some verses of the Bible are quoted far more often than others by

114

115

116

Vita S. WHfridi ii-iii {The Life of Bishop Wilfrid, ed. and trans. Colgrave, pp. 6-9); cf. Bright, Chapters; p. 217. See P. Meyvaert, 'Bede the Scholar', in Famulus Christi, ed. Bonner, pp. 40-69, at 49 and 65, n. 4 1 , citing Bede's Expositio Actuum apostolorum xxviii.l (CSEL 121, 88) and Retractatio in Actus apostolorum ii.l (CSEL 121, 98). Some claims by continental authors in this regard are discussed by Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 263, 271, 285 and 465. But one of the more demanding early medieval conciliar prescriptions, issued by the eighth Council of Toledo (653), only required that priests memorize all of the Psalms, the major canticles and hymns, and all of the texts of the baptismal liturgy; see Riche, Education and Culture, p. 285. For other explicit statements by Bede regarding individuals who possessed a thorough knowledge of the Bible, see HE 111.23, V.18, V.20, V.23 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 174-7, 3 2 0 - 1 , 330-2 and 348-51) and Historia abbatum x {ibid. I, 364-87, at 371-2).

60

Introduction

medieval authorities. It thus holds to reason that certain biblical passages were more popular than others in the common usage of Christian congregations and were more likely to consolidate distinctive variants. In the chapters that follow, I have thus attempted to provide especially close readings of passages in the Junius poems treating those parts of the books of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel that would have been most familiar to an Anglo-Saxon poet who had undertaken either an elementary or intermediate course of biblical study or, perhaps, had simply encountered biblical texts in the daily routine of Christian life. Finally, no discussion of Old English verse in connection with the decades spanning the careers of Bede and Alcuin can conclude without some mention of an endlessly reproduced query of the latter, found in a letter addressed to an unidentified secular community: 'Quid Hinieldus cum Christo?' This stunning apostrophe offers scholars of Germanic heroic verse the same sort of unique sounding on centuries of lost tradition that Bede's story of Caedmon provides for specialists in Old English biblical poetry. Alcuin here clearly refers to one or more pagan Germanic poems Ocarmina gentilium') celebrating the deeds of Ingeld, legendary prince of the Heathobards, whose recitation by members of the Christian community is taken to task in his letter. No such encomium on Ingeld has survived, but Alcuin's curt barb gives us reason to suspect that entire cycles of poems on Ingeld, Beowulf and other heroes were circulating in eighth-century Anglo-Saxon England — even, perhaps, in monasteries. I am in agreement with D. N. Dumville about the likelihood that Alcuin's negative comparison of Ingeld with Christ only reflects his objection to the recitation of secular verse in a Christian dinning-hall ('in sacerdotali

See Biblia Patristica, ed. Allenbach et al.9 for exhaustive treatments of citations and reminiscences of biblical texts in patristic works. For Old Latin citations, see also the apparatus of Vetus Latina, ed. Fischer et al., and cf. H. J. Frede, 'Bibelzitate bei Kirchenvatern: Beobachtungen bei der Herausgabe der Vetus Latina\ in La Bible et les peres: Colloque de Strasbourg (1-3 octobre, 1969), introd. A. Benoit and P. Prigent, Bibliotheque des Centres d'etudes universitaires de specialises (Paris, 1971), pp.

79-96. 119

Alcuin, Ep. cxxiv (MGH, Epist. IV, 180-4 (no. 124), at 183): 'What does Ingeld have to do with Christ?' See discussion, including a rejection of the long-standing identification of the community addressed in the letter as the monastic community at Lindisfarne, by D. A. Bullough, 'What Has Ingeld to Do with Lindisfarne?', ASE 22 (1993X93-125.

61


conuiuio'). It is not necessary to infer that the reforms championed by Alcuin included an eradication of alliterative verse — heroic, biblical or otherwise. Poetic entertainment simply had to be restricted to its appropriate setting. (Some conjectures about the nature of this setting appear below.) There is also an important deduction to be drawn from Alcuin's letter regarding Old English biblical verse. The probable reason that such scriptural versification attracts no comment here or anywhere else in Alcuin's writings is that he took the existence of such verse for granted and found its cultivation in a religious milieu, perhaps even at meal-time, wholly unobjectionable. Alfred and Asser

If we choose to draw a connection between the study of the Bible in AngloSaxon classrooms and treatments of Old Testament episodes in the verse of Junius 11, it might be argued that we are effectively placing the receptionhistory of the poetry in an aristocratic milieu. Close associations between royal courts and prosperous monasteries are observed at all periods in the development of the Anglo-Saxon church. In the seventh and eighth centuries, attempts to reconcile secular interests with the divine sometimes resulted in unorthodox arrangements whereby abbots were chosen primarily for their political (or genealogical) ties to the ruling aristocracy rather than their attainments within the orders of the faith. Bede, Boniface and Alcuin all find occasion to denounce the abuse of power engendered by the rule of monasteries according to dynastic succession.121 The AngloSaxon dynastic (or 'proprietary') monastery (often termed Eigenkirche or Eigenkloster by German scholars) has sometimes been held to provide a possible cultural setting for the emergence of Christian-heroic alliterative

120

Dumville, lBeowulf y p. 157. Reg. magistr. xxx-lv include very detailed accounts of the interactions of residents in a monastic community who were able to read and write with those who were not, summarizing the cultivation of oral and written texts throughout the liturgical year (see above, p. 59, n. 110). The importance of Regula magistri for the present discussion lies not in its influence, which was restricted in Anglo-Saxon England, but in its vivid narrative descriptions of the daily routine that will have arisen in many early medieval Christian communities. See discussion by Wormald, 'Bede', esp. pp. 53—5, and Thacker, 'Monks', pp. 142—3 with references.

62

Introduction

verse, such as Beowulf.122 The case for aristocratic influence on Old English religious poetry — whether arising in an Eigenkirche or in the course of sanctioned interactions of church and state — has been plainly put by Patrick Wormald: 'Aristocratic infiltration of the church meant that the idioms of heroic poetry passed into the medium of religious verse. This is not to say that all poems in this style were written by or for noblemen, merely that aristocratic literature sets its tone. The cowherd, Caedmon, was obviously not an aristocrat, but the few lines ascribed to him exploit epic vocabulary.'123 Wormald's point regarding the aristocratic origin of the heroic diction of Old English verse is not beyond cavil. A fen-bound hermit with some knowledge of Christian-Latin epic verse might well employ similar terminology. 12 But the tradition of royal patronage of Anglo-Saxon letters and the frequent consignment of the sons and daughters of the aristocracy to education in monastic institutions certainly suggests that members of the upper tiers of the Christian social hierarchy played a role in the reception and preservation of Old English religious verse. It is true, moreover, that our only Anglo-Saxon narratives treating the postCaedmonian transmission of vernacular poetry arise in connection with the education of aristocrats. Asser's account of the memorization of a booklength collection of alliterative verse by the young Alfred has been 122

123

12

125

See esp. the suggestions of M. Lapidge, lBeowulf, Aldhelm, the Liber monstrorum and Wessex, SM 3rd ser., 33 (1982), 1 5 1 - 9 1 . Wormald, 'Anglo-Saxon Society', p . 10. The basic point extends speculation offered by Wormald, 'Bede', p . 55: '[T}he idiom of early English Christian poetry is aristocratic, and testifies to the social ambience of Anglo-Saxon Christianity, as much as it does to the range of its literary and patristic learning. The usual poetic term for God, Dryhten, is still used in Beowulf, and in the early Kentish laws, for a secular lord, and originated in a word for the military leader of a comitatus'; cf. also Boyd, 'Doctrine and Criticism', p . 2 3 8 . See, for example, the recent study of L. T. Martin, 'The Influence of Arator in AngloSaxon England', Proceedings of the PMR Conference (Villanova, PA, Augustinian Historical Institute) 7 (1982), 7 5 - 8 1 . Riche, Education and Culture, p . 3 2 3 , remarks that '[t}he Anglo-Saxon aristocracy had been closely associated with the evangelization of England and had contributed to the organization of religious culture . . . Whenever English princes and aristocrats wanted their children educated, they confided them to monasteries, without intending them to become monks.' Children of the aristocracy might embark on their courses of education at ages as young as seven.

63


noted. 12 Elsewhere in Asser's work we read that Alfred's children Edward and ^lfthryth studied Old English verse as part of their basic education: 'Nee etiam illi sine liberali disciplina inter cetera praesentis uitae studia quae nobilibus conueniunt, otiose et incuriose [uiuere] permittuntur, nam et psalmos et Saxonicos libros et maxime Saxonica carmina studiose didicere, et frequentissime libris utuntur.' The most important passage for the appreciation of the biblical and devotional background of the Old English religious verse cultivated in aristocratic circles, in my view, occurs in a section of Asser's royal biography that makes no explicit mention of alliterative poetry. Asser's narrative, which recounts the course of a conversation with Alfred in the royal chamber, begins at the point at which the teacher has introduced the king to an excerpt from a certain book ('ex quodam quoddam testimonium libro illi'): [lxxxviii] Quod cum intentus utrisque auribus audisset et intima mente sollicite perscrutaretur, subito ostendens libellum, quern in sinum suum sedulo portabat, in quo diurnus cursus et psalmi quidam atque orationes quaedam, quas ille in iuuentute sua legerat, scripti habebantur, imperauit, quod illud testimonium in eodem libello literis mandarem. . . Sed, cum nullum locum uacuum in eodem libello reperirem, in quo tale testimonium scribere possem — erat enim omnino mult is ex causis refertus — aliquantisper distuli, et maxime quia tarn elegans regis ingenium ad maiorem diuinorum testimoniorum scientiam prouocare studebam. Cui, cum me, ut quanto citius illud scriberem, urgeret, inquam: 'Placetne tibi, quod illud testimonium in aliqua foliuncula segregatim scribam? . . .' Quod ego audiens et gaudens festinus quaternionem promptum paraui, in cuius principio illud non iniussus scripsi; ac in ilia eadem die non minus quam tria alia sibi placabilia testimonia, illo imperante, in eodem quaternione, ut praedixeram, scripsi. Ac deinde cotidie inter nos sermocinando, ad haec inuestigando aliis inuentis aeque placabilibus testimoniis, quaternio ille refertus succreuit, nee immerito, sicut scriptum est 'Super modicum fundamentum aedificat iustus . . .', uelut apis fertilissima longe lateque gronnios interrogando discurrens, multimodos diuinae scripturae flosculos inhianter et incessabiliter congregauit; . . . [lxxxix] . . . diuinitus instinctus, praesumpsit incipere in uenerabili Martini solemnitate, [illosque] flosculos undecunque collectos a quibuslibet magistris 126 127

See above, pp. 30-4. De reb. gest. Mlfr. lxxv (Asser's 'Life of King Alfred', ed. Stevenson, pp. 57-9, at 58-9): 'Nor, amid the other pursuits of this present life which are appropriate to the nobility, are these two allowed to live idly and indifferently, with no liberal education, for they have attentively learned the Psalms, and books in English, and especially English poems, and they very frequently make use of books.'

64

Introduction

discere et in corpore unius libelli, mixtim quamuis, sicut tune suppetebat, redigere; usque adeo protelauit quousque propemodum ad magnitudinem unius i

••

•

128

psaltern perueniret.

First-person narratives recounting Anglo-Saxon pedagogical practices are so rare that we must number this passage among our most precious early medieval witnesses to the biblical and doctrinal instruction of a lay Christian under a learned master. Comparable accounts of the education of secular aristocrats occur in continental sources, but none of these goes as far as does Asser's to bring us into the scene of instruction. 129 The scene described by Asser must be viewed as atypical insofar as it takes place in De reb. gest. JElfr. lxxxviii—lxxxix {Asser's 'Life of King Alfred', ed. Stevenson, pp. 73—5:

'As he [i.e. Alfred] was listening intently to this [lessons] with both ears and was carefully mulling it over in the depths of his mind, suddenly - showing me [i.e. Asser] a little book which he constantly carried in a pouch in his garment [or 'purse'], and in which were written the [prose texts of the] day-time Offices and some Psalms and certain prayers which he had learned in his youth - he told me to copy the passage in question into the little book. But, when I could find no empty space in the little book in which I might copy the passage — for it was completely filled with all manner of things - I hesitated slightly, mainly because I was eager to draw the king's excellent intelligence to a fuller understanding of passages of Holy Scripture. When he urged me to copy the passage as quickly as possible, I said to him: "Would it meet with your approval if I were to copy out the passage separately on another sheet of parchment?" When I heard his [affirmative] reply I was delighted, and quickly prepared a quire for the purpose, and copied the passage - not without some prompting from him! - near the quire's beginning; and that very same day I copied into the same quire at his request no fewer than three other passages pleasing to him, just as I had foreseen. Thereafter during our daily discussions, while searching to this end, as we found other equally pleasing passages the quire grew full, and rightly so, just as it is written, "The just man builds on a modest foundation . . .", as the busy bee, wandering far and wide over the marshes in his quest, eagerly and relentlessly assembles many various flowers of Holy Scripture; . . . [and so,] prompted from heaven, he took it upon himself to begin on the rudiments of Holy Scripture on St Martin's Day [11 November] and to study these flowers collected here and there from various masters and to assemble them within the body of one little book (even though they were all mixed up) as the occasion demanded; he expanded it so much that it nearly approached the size of a psalter.' The source of the quotation beginning with the words 'Super modicum fundamentum . . .' is unknown. For the emendation Mosque, see Alfred the Great, trans, and introd. Keynes and Lapidge, p. 269. 129

For introductory discussion of the education of the laity in early medieval Europe, see P. Riche, 'Recherches sur l'instruction des laics du IX e au XII e siecle', Cahiers de civilisation medievale 5 (1962), 175-82; Riche, De I'education antique, pp. 28-30 and 40-7; and Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 9, 8 1 , 123, 158, 161, 263-4 and 477-94.

65


the king's chambers ('in regia cambra') rather than in a classroom or scriptorium. But its reports of the timeless student rituals that remain frustratingly conjectural for the early episcopal and monastic schools, such as the attempt to fit a few more notes on an overwritten sheet or the preparation of a new quire, have universal application. The codicological information contained in Asser's description is especially intriguing. Improbable as it may seem, William of Malmesbury, writing in the twelfth century, would claim personal possession of some descendent of a fair copy supposedly transcribed from the very sheaf of crowded leaves inscribed by Alfred and Asser (Gesta regum Anglorum 11.123 and Gesta pontificum Anglorum V.I 88). But no example of such a privately maintained handbook from the Anglo-Saxon period — or of a more widely disseminated redaction thereof, such as William seems to describe — has survived intact to the present day. Asser's words, nevertheless, describe a portable collection of texts whose diversity of content suggests one possible method by which literate Christians without convenient recourse to a large library might regularly consult biblical passages, extrabiblical texts of the liturgy, extracts from patristic writings and many other types of material. The fact that the description occurs in a work elsewhere concerned with the cultivation of Old English religious verse by individuals of similar educational attainment might be taken to suggest one possible means of accounting for the heterogeneity of the sources proposed to date for the verse of Junius 11. Evidence to place the cultivation of the sort of Old Testament verse witnessed by Junius 11 in an aristocratic setting, such as we encounter at the Alfredian court, while mainly circumstantial, is ultimately quite suggestive. If we choose, however, to posit an exclusive connection between the surviving specimens of Old English biblical verse and such an environment, we will indeed be forced to view them as the compositions of an elite and to conclude that they may have achieved little 130

The reading out of passages of scripture in conjunction with quotations from the patristic authors is recommended by Benedict of Monte Cassino, Regula ix (CSEL 75, 55—6). It is interesting to note that the content that William of Malmesbury is thought to have reproduced from the Alfredian handbook - the anecdote about Aldhelm on the bridge and so on — differs markedly from the readings prescribed by Benedict and described in detail by Asser. But William's access to authentic Alfredian materials remains credible; see D. Whitelock, 'William of Malmesbury on the Works of King Alfred', in Medieval Culture and Civilization: Studies in memory of G. N. Garmonsway, ed. D. A. Pearsall and R. A. Waldron (London, 1968), pp. 78-93.

66

Introduction

if any dissemination among the Anglo-Saxon populace at large. Before taking such a drastic step, it would be wise to consider alternative explanations for the access to Latin biblical materials witnessed by the poems. Regularis concordia Contemporary witnesses in sources dating from the seventh to the ninth centuries encourage the view that the transmission of scriptural knowledge in Anglo-Saxon England most often took place in a pedagogical setting. The only exceptions to this general rule examined thus far have involved cases of ad hoc exchanges between religious scholars and members of the laity or unlettered monastic converts. For the entire period under discussion, however, we must reckon with one additional means of transmission through which some or possibly all of the Old Testament passages rendered by the verse of Junius 11 might have entered the purview of biblical poets — even if we were to assume that not one of them had ever set foot in a classroom. The transmissional medium in question is the liturgy. The excerption of texts of Genesis, Exodus, Daniel and certain other Old Testament books for recitation in liturgical ceremonies was common in the 131

Taking a rather dim view of the achievements of the Alfredian literary revival, Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 398—9, remarks: 'An elite of monks and clerics denned the principles of a new Christian culture but were followed by only a few lay princes. The great mass of the regular and secular clergy did not have access to Latin culture and thus shared the culture of the majority of laymen.' For general introductions to early medieval liturgy, see Vogel, Medieval Liturgy; I. H. Dalmais et al, Principles of the Liturgy, The Church at Prayer, gen. ed. Martimort 1 (Collegeville, MN, 1987); The Study of Liturgy, ed. Jones, Wainwright and Yarnold; A. Adam, Foundations of Liturgy: an Introduction to its History and Practice, trans. A. F.

Detscher (Collegeville, MN, 1992); and earlier studies by E. Bishop, Liturgica historical Papers on the Liturgy and Religious Life of the Western Church (Oxford, 1918).

For a useful review of critical issues, see P. F. Bradshaw, 'Ten Principles for Interpreting Early Christian Liturgical Evidence', in The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship, ed. P. F. Bradshaw and L. A. Hoffman, Two Liturg. Traditions 1 (London, 1991), 3-21. There is no standard introduction to Anglo-Saxon liturgy. See, however, the valuable study of G. G. Willis, 'Early English Liturgy from Augustine to Alcuin', in his Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy, ACC 50 (London, 1968), 191—243; Gneuss, 'Liturgical Books'; and earlier comments (with an extensive review of vernacular materials) by M. Forster, 'Zur Liturgik der angelsachsischen Kirche', Anglia 66 (1942), 1-51.

67


early Middle Ages. Unfortunately, no comprehensive explication of the position of biblical lections, Psalms and canticles in Anglo-Saxon liturgical practice appears in native sources before the tenth century.134 Regularis concordia is the most elaborate extant Anglo-Saxon consuetudinal text (or 'customary') — essentially a written code for living that addresses many aspects of the daily routine undertaken by the residents of a monastic community. Summarizing a set of prescriptions adopted at a synod held at Winchester c. 970—3, the work's immediate authorship has been attributed plausibly to the hand of Êthelwold, the local bishop. As a product of the

134

In early Christian communities, biblical texts were regularly encountered in the following contexts: the reading of prose lections that accompanied the recitation of Psalms, canticles and other texts of the daily Office, including the lectio continua (described below); recitation of lections at mass; communal contemplation of biblical texts read out during meals; readings undertaken in the course of the collatio, an evening gathering in Benedictine communities conducted by the abbot or abbess; in the course of private, meditative reading (the lectio divina, discussed above, pp. 39-42, and below, pp. 71—5); additional lectionary obligations undertaken during Lent and other special periods; and courses of Bible-reading imposed as acts of penance. On the position of the Bible in monastic rules and consuetudinal texts, see Chartier, 'Presence de la bible'. For the earlier period, an adequate impression of the customs in question arguably may be conveyed by contents of continental rules such as the 'textus purus' and 'textus mixtus' of the Regula of Benedict and other consuetudinal texts such as Rufinus's translation of the Regula ad monachos of Basil (PL 103, cols. 488—544), whose use in Anglo-Saxon England is attested by glosses associated with the Leiden family of glossaries, as well as by passages in the writings of Aldhelm, Bede, Boniface and Alcuin. See Lapidge, 'The School of Theodore', pp. 62—4, for a discussion of early English texts of Benedict's Regula, and Ogilvy, Books Known to the English, pp. 98-100, for a summary of early Anglo-Latin literary allusions to the rules of Benedict and Basil. Continental sources known to have influenced ninth- and tenth-century Anglo-Saxon lectionary usage are the compendious Concordia regularum of Benedict of Aniane; the so-called Supplementum Anianense, a summary of diverse (and frequently non-Roman) liturgical practices often appended to reformed 'Gregorian' sacramentaries; the treatise De ecclesiasticis officiis of Amalarius of Metz (Amalarii

Episcopi Opera, ed. Hanssens II,

13—580) and the Regula canonicorum sometimes ascribed to the same author (PL 105, cols. 815—976); and the Reg. canon, of Chrodegang (for which see above, p. 58, n. 107). On the Anglo-Saxon transmission of most of these works, see now esp. Wulfstan of Winchester, ed. Lapidge and Winterbottom, pp. li—lx. The text of the customary, with a convenient English translation (adapted for use in notes below), may be consulted in Regularis concordia, ed. and trans. Symons; see also the edition in T. Symons et al., Regularis concordia Anglicae nationis', in Consuetudinum saeculi X/XI/XII monumenta, ed. Hallinger, pp. 61—147. On the question of

68

Introduction

sweeping tenth-century Benedictine reforms carried out by Dunstan, ^thelwold and their collaborators, the value of the customary as a witness to specific practices of earlier centuries is slight. Another caveat is that Regularis concordia, as a reform document, inevitably gives a better impression of how affairs were meant to stand rather than how they actually stood. The value of the work as a witness to the decades that saw the compilation of the great Old English poetic codices is thus limited at best. The main benefit for the present line of inquiry offered by Regularis concordia inheres in its extremely vivid illustration of the prominent position occupied by biblical texts — notably Psalms, canticles and an assortment of favoured prose-texts — in the daily lives of adherents to the strictures of Benedict's Regula. The following comments are restricted to topics for which the witness of Regularis concordia, at least in its broad outline, has general application for our understanding of liturgical practices commonly employed across five centuries of Anglo-Saxon Christianity: psalmody, lectio continua, lectio divina and the celebration of the Easter Vigil. The biblical texts of the daily Office

Apart from the books of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel, the biblical texts cited most often as having exerted an influence on the Junius poems are the verses of the Psalms and their lyrical companion-pieces, the Old Testament canticles. Verbal parallels between these texts and certain lines of Genesis A and B, Exodus and Daniel have been advanced by many scholars.1 Intriguingly, in many of these cases we encounter passages of Old English biblical verse that reproduce isolated phrases from certain Psalms and canticles without paying heed to their larger lyrical context. An indication of how such a poetic phenomenon might have arisen is conveyed by Mary Berry's recent summary of the schedule of recitation specified by Regularis concordia for the ceremonies of the daily Office observed throughout the months of summer: 137 authorship, see M . Lapidge, ' ^ t h e l w o l d as Scholar and Teacher', in Bishop ed. Yorke, p p . 8 9 - 1 1 7 , and Wulfstan

Mthelwold,

of Winchester, ed. Lapidge and W i n t e r b o t t o m ,

p p . lviii—lxiii. 136

See below, p p . 1 7 5 - 8 and 2 5 7 - 8 , for discussion of these verbal parallels.

137

T h e s u m m a r y of the obligations of Regularis concordia derives from the study of M . Berry, ' W h a t the Saxon Monks Sang: Music in Winchester in the Late T e n t h Century', in Bishop JEthelwold, ed. Yorke, p p . 1 4 9 - 6 0 , esp. at 1 5 0 - 1 .

69

Old English biblical verse [T}he monks rose at 1:30 am, and went into the church to recite, on their knees, the first prayers of the day: the trina oratio,158 sets of prayers and psalms for the monks themselves, for the Royal House, and for the Faithful Departed. Then they chanted a group of psalms known as the Gradual Psalms (Ps 120—134), and finally the long night Office of Nocturns, made up chiefly of twelve psalms, three canticles, twelve readings and twelve responsories. More psalms followed for the Royal House, after which there was a short break. Towards dawn they sang the Office which is known today as Lauds, but was then called Matins, an Office made up of seven psalms. This was followed by the Miserere (Ps 51) and further psalms and prayers for the Royal House. Then came a succession of antiphons, memorials of the Holy Cross, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the saint who was the patron of the house, after those the Office of Matins of All Saints, preceded by an antiphon sung in honour of the saint before whose altar the Office was to be recited, and this was followed by Matins of the Dead. Next came a wellearned break, during which the monks washed and changed their shoes. By this time they had been singing for about three hours. At 5.00 am they returned to the church.

The daily Office is commonly regarded primarily as an exercise in psalmody. Such a view is justified insofar as the lyrical elements of the The trina oratio, an augmentation of Anglo-Saxon usage introduced by Regularis concordia, required every member of the community to recite three sets of texts in three separate physical locations as addenda to the texts regularly employed at Nocturns, Prime (or Terce) and Compline; see Spurrell, T h e Architectural Interest', pp. 171-3. On the central position of psalmody in the Office, see Nicetas of Remesiana, De psalmodiae bono, esp. xi—xiii ('Niceta of Remesiana II', ed. Turner, pp. 233—41, esp. at 73—6, with references to manuscripts by Turner, 'Niceta of Remesiana: De uigiliis and De psalmodiae bono [I]', JTS 22 (1921), 305-20, at 305); see also discussion by J. A. Jungmann, 'Essays in the Structure of the Canonical Hours', in his Pastoral Liturgy (London, 1962), pp. 157-200; Pascher, 'Die Psalmen'; A. Rose, 'La repartition des lectures bibliques dans le livre de la liturgie des heures', EL 85 (1971), 281-305; and J. Dubois, 'Comment les moines du moyen age chantaient et goutaient les Saintes Ecritures?', in Le moyen age et la bible, ed. Riche and Lobrichon, pp. 261—303. The entire psalter was frequently recited on Good Friday and on other special occasions; see Tyrer, Historical Survey, p. 118, and Reg. cone, xl (Regu laris concordia, ed. and trans.

Symons, p. 38), requiring full recitation of the psalter three times during Holy Week. For specific instructions, see ordines Romani XII-XIV and XVI-XVIII (Ordines Romani, ed. Andrieu II, 449-525, and III, 23^41 and 127-208). Treatments of the Office dated before 900 include Isidore of Seville, De ecclesiasticis ojficiis (PL 83, cols. 737— 826); Amalarius of Metz, De eccl. off.; Hrabanus Maurus, De institutione clericorum (PL 107, cols. 293-420, esp. 325-39); and Ado of Vienne, Libellus de festiuitatis (PL 123, cols. 145-420).

70

Introduction

recitation had by the tenth century come to predominate over all other texts, as Berry's summary shows. In the early days of the church, however, the daily Office was more often organized as a programme of Bible-reading. The emphasis on group singing emerged over time as a means to regulate the devotional activities of large numbers of celebrants. Biblical lections, however, continued to play a role in the Office at all periods. 141 Lectio continua and lectio divina We have seen above that a group of twelve biblical readings is interspersed among the Psalms, canticles and responsories of the protracted night Office of Nocturns. (In practice, the twelve-lection series was only See K. Hruby, 'La place des lectures bibliques et de la predication dans la liturgie synagogale ancienne', in H. Cazelles et al, La Parole dans la liturgie, pp. 23-64, and treatments by S. Baumer, Histoire du breviaire, trans, and rev. R. Biron, 2 vols. (Paris, 1905), pp. 3-8 and 380-99; J. L. Baudot, The Lectionary: its Sources and History, trans. A. Cator (London, 1910), pp. 5—87; P. Batiffol, History of the Roman Breviary, trans. A. M. Y. Baylay (London, 1912), pp. 3-4 and 70-99; C. A. Callewaert, Liturgicae institutiones II: de breviarii Romani liturgia (Bruges, 1931); M. Righetti, Manuale di storia

liturgica II: I'anno liturgico; il breviario, 2nd ed. (Milan, 1955); P. Salmon, 'La priere des heures', in L'Eglise en priere, ed. A. G. Martimort (Paris, 1965), pp. 787-876; P. Salmon, UOffice divin au moyen age: Histoire de la formation du breviaire du IX6 au XVI"

siecle, Lex Orandi 43 (Paris, 1967); P. F. Bradshaw, Daily Prayer in the Early Church: a Study of the Origin and Early Development of the Divine Office ( N e w York, 1982); R. F. Tart, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: the Origins of the Divine Office and its

Meaning for Today (Collegeville, MN, 1986); and P. F. Bradshaw, 'Cathedral vs. Monastery: the Only Alternatives for the Liturgy of Hours?', in Time and Community, ed. Alexander, pp. 123-36, esp. pp. 124-6. From the sixth century onwards, accounts of saints were also excerpted as prose lections for the Office. Nicetas, De psalmod. xiv ('Niceta of Remesiana IF, ed. Turner, p. 241), offers the following admonition: 'Obtenu orationis ne perdideris lectionem, quia non semper earn quilibet paratam potest habere, cum orandi potestas in promptu sit. Nee putes paruam nasci utilitatem ex sacrae lectionis auditu' ('Do not, under the pretext of prayer, miss the lection, for you can always pray whenever you will, but you cannot always have a lection at hand. Do not imagine that there is little to be gained by listening to the sacred lection'; trans, follows Niceta of Remesiana: Writings, trans. G. G. Walsh et al, The Fathers of the Church (New York, 1949), p. 76). See also G. Stefani, 'La recitazione delle letture nella liturgia romana antica: Appunti per uno studio', EL 81 (1967), 113-30, and Riche, Les Ecoles, p. 370, with references, on the memorization of biblical lections.

71


universally imposed on feast-days.) In the history of the liturgy, the Office of Nocturns provided a customary setting for the recitation of the so-called lectio continua, the sequential reading of the whole canon of scripture that extends across the church year. One consequence of the lectio continua was the association of certain times of the year with the reading of certain books of the Bible. Most significant for the present discussion is the reading of Genesis, Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch specified for the weeks of Lent. iElfric, in a letter to his brethren, indicates that in his experience celebrants performing the lectio continua in this season only managed to get through Genesis and Exodus in the hours of the appointed Office,143 the reading of the other books being relegated to the monastic 142

See early descriptions in Constitutiones apostolkae ii, v and vii-viii {Constitutiones apostolicae, ed. M. Metzger, 3 vols., Sources chretiennes 320, 329 and 336 (Paris 1985-7) I, 324-7, II, 247-85 and III, 150-1); ordo Romanus XIV.1-9 {Ordines Romani, ed. Andrieu III, 2 3 - 4 1 , at 39); and Canones Hippolyti xix-xxx, esp. xxvii-xxix {Les Canons d'Hippolyte, ed. R. Coquin, Patrologia Orientalis 31.2 (Paris, 1966), 375-403, esp. 395—401). For discussion, see The Liturgical Portions of the Apostolic Constitutions,

trans. W. J. Grisbrooke (Bramcote, 1990), pp. 46-51; The Canons of Hippolytus, ed. P. F. Bradshaw, trans. C. Bebawi (Bramcote, Nottingham, 1987), esp. pp. 26-9; and, for the readings in Lent that are of special relevance to the selection of verse in Junius 11, A. Mundo, 'Bibliotheca: Bible et lecture de Careme d'apres saint Benoit', RB 60 (1950), 65-92. The order of lections for the lectio continua was sometimes included among the pages of early medieval biblical codices; see, for example, the ordines legendi ptd by De Bruyne, Prefaces, pp. 265-6. ySilfric, Epistola ad monachos Egneshamnenses xviii ('De tota bibliotheca legenda in circulo anni' ('What ought to be read from the whole Bible over the course of the year')), sects. 70 and 74: 'Quia rogastis, fratres, scribi uobis qualiter legere siue cantare per anni circulum in aecclesia debeatis, exponam uobis secundum auctoritatem aecclesiasticam et secundum consuetudinem in qua hue usque conuersati sumus, ita ut in Septuagessima legamus Genesim usque in mediam Quadragessimam . . . Media uero Quadragessima legimus Exodum et canimus "Locutus est dominus ad Moysen"' and '. . . Mense uero nouembre legimus Ezechielem et Danielem et minores prophetas et canimus "Vidi Dominum" usque Aduentum Domini' ('[xviii.70] As you asked, brothers, I have written out for you in what manner you ought to read and sing throughout the course of the church year, and I shall explain to you according to ecclesiastical authority and according to the practice to which we are accustomed in this place, insofar as we read Genesis in Septuagesima up to the middle of Quadragesima. And so in the middle of Quadragesima we read Exodus and we sing "Locutus est dominus ad Moysen"' and '[xviii.74} And so in the month of November we read Ezekiel and Daniel and the minor prophets and we sing "Vidi Dominum" up to Advent'); see text ptd in 'Aelfrici abbatis epistula', ed. Nocent, pp. 181-3.

72

Introduction

refectory.144 There is a limited amount of evidence, much of it in postConquest sources, to suggest that the recitation of Genesis and Exodus to the exclusion of the other books of the Pentateuch constitutes a recognizable feature of English lectionary practice. This possibility has not gone unnoticed in recent work by scholars of the Junius collection, which might be seen to embody a similar pairing of texts. Immediately after the early morning Office recitations described above, which brought the monks up to 5:00 am, the text of Regularis concordia calls for another type of sacred reading, known as the lectio divina. This entails the monks' private meditation on holy writings, mentioned above in connection with Caedmon's ruminatio. In accordance with an ancient tradition cemented in place by Benedict's Regula, the customary prescribes a second, more extensive period of reading later in the morning (around 9:30 am).1 Moreover, the text of Regularis concordia draws an unforgettable picture of monks reading books out of doors in fine weather beneath a 'corporate cloister alley' (claustrum), moving inside to a heated space

143

146

c, Ep. ad monachos xviii.78 ('Aelfrici abbatis epistula', ed. Nocent, p. 184): 'Et sciendum quod tota bibliotheca debet legi in circulo anni in aecclesia, sed quia nos pigri serui sumus et segnes, legimus in refectorio quicquid de ea in aecclesia omittimus' ('And it should be understood that the whole Bible ought to be read in church over the course of the year but, because we are lazy and tardy servants, we read in the refectory whatever we omit from it in church'). Regularis concordia offers a reprieve during summer from the full set of lections at Nocturns (except on feast-days) and, in so doing, provides an important witness to the memorization of Old Testament prose texts in later Anglo-Saxon England. See Reg. cone, liv (Regularis concordia, ed. and trans. Symons, p. 53): 'una tantum lectio memoriter ac breue responsorium, exceptis festiuis diebus, ad nocturnam uti regula praecepit tota aestate dicantur' ('throughout the whole summer, except on feast-days, there shall be at Nocturns one lection only, said by heart (memoriter), and a short respond, as laid down in the Benedictine Rule'). For Benedict's requirement of the memorization of lections extracted from the Old Testament, cited here in Regularis concordia, see his Regula x (CSEL 75, 56-7). See J. R. Hall, 'Some Liturgical Notes on ^lfric's "Letter to the Monks at Eynsham" ', Downside Rev. 93 (1975), 297-303, at 297-301, citing the Ordinale Exoniensis and the Hereford Breviary. Benedict, Regula xlviii-xlix (CSEL 75, 114-21); see discussion by Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 117-18 and 120-1, who concludes that in Benedictine communities '[o]n the average . . . more than twenty hours a week were spent reading' (p. 118). The lectio divina was not always restricted exclusively to Bible-reading. Patristic works, saints' lives and perhaps grammars and other pedagogical texts were sometimes consulted. See also recent discussion by K. S. Frank, 'Lesen, Schreiben und Biicher im friihen Monchtum', in Schriftlichkeit, ed. Schaefer, pp. 7-18.

73


(characterized only as a locus aptus) in the winter. 1 7 For all periods of Anglo-Saxon Christianity, the lectio divina poses many of the same historical problems as do other text-based areas of liturgical observance (noted above, for example, in connection with Bede's comments on unlettered priests). We simply do not know how residents of monasteries who knew little or no Latin approached the reading and meditation of the lectio divina. It is probable that in many cases there was a public or semi-public aspect to the observance. In the early Middle Ages, after all, nearly every act of private reading involved an element of oral delivery. Scholars generally agree that absolutely silent reading remained the exception rather than the rule during these centuries. Even in private, medieval readers normally exercised their vocal cords, moved their lips and produced an audible delivery 'whose minimal level would presumably be a mumble'. 150 It thus holds to reason that those without recourse to their own texts might listen to the words of others. Moreover, the text of Regularis concordia reveals that spaces remained available in the monastery for oral exchanges, even during periods of silence, including the meetingroom known as the auditorium and perhaps the aforementioned locus aptus. It is in settings such as these that the more learned members of a 7

148

150

Reg. cone, xxix and lv {Regularis concordia, ed. and trans. Symons, pp. 26 and 54): 'si autem temperies tranquilla fuerit claustro, uti libuerit, cum Christi benedictione utantur' and 'sedentes in claustro firatres uacent lectioni' ('[xxix] if, moreover, the weather is fair they may use the cloister, as seems agreeable, with Christ's blessing' and '[lv] the brothers may find time for their reading sitting in the cloister'). See Spurrell, 'The Architectural Interest', pp. 163-4, for the cited phrase and additional discussion. Other references to lectio divina and meditation on the content of biblical lections occur at Reg. cone, xxxiii, xxv and xxix {Regularis concordia, ed. and trans. Symons, pp. 19, 21-2 and 26-7). The translation into English of sections of Regularis concordia treating the night Office through Nocturns and Prime, the paschal and pentecostal vigils and so on, may be taken to show that newly reinforced devotional guidelines had generated a linguistic problem of their own; see J. Hill, 'The Regularis concordia and its Latin and Old English Reflexes', RB 101 (199D, 299-315. See J. Balogh, 'Voces paginarum: Beitrage zur Geschichte des lauten Lesens und Schreibens', Philologus 82 (1926-7), 84-109 and 202-40, and discussion by Riche, Education and Culture, p. 117, with references. Dumville, 'Beowulf', p. 157. Only secular entertainment would seem to be expressly forbidden by the customary; see Reg. cone, lvi {Regularis concordia, ed. and trans. Symons, p. 55): 'non uero fabulis aut otiosis ibi aut alicubi uacari loquelis oportet' ('indeed it is not right that time should

74

Introduction

community will have shared their biblical knowledge with fellow residents, possibly in connection with the lectio divina. Additional recitation of the texts of the Office, including dozens of Psalms and canticles, took place at the canonical hours of Prime, Terce, Sext and Nones (roughly 6:00, 8:00 and 11:30 am and 2:30 pm). Despite the intervention of these ceremonies, individual residents spent the better part of the daylight hours working in the fields, copying texts in the scriptorium or otherwise contributing to the operations of the monastery. The end of the day was marked by a final burst of recitative activity, as Berry relates: Towards sunset they sang Vespers of the day in choir, followed by the Miserere and the usual prayers for the Royal House. Then came two further Offices of Vespers, corresponding to the two extra morning Offices: Vespers of All Saints and Vespers of the Dead, both of which were made up of psalmody, antiphons, short readings and responsories. Cena, the evening meal, followed, and then the monks changed into their night shoes ready for Compline, which was followed by the Miserere, further prayers and psalms for the Royal House, and the trina oratio. They retired to bed at about 8:30 pm. They had been up for about nineteen hours and of these about eleven had been spent in singing. After five hours of sleep, the members of the community rose and the universal prayer of the daily Office began again, no later than at half past one in the morning. Fulfilment of the obligations of the Office

As might be expected, much scholarly discussion of the daily Office in the early Middle Ages has been concerned with the degree of adherence to the rigorous schedules imposed on early Christian communities. There is, however, a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that diligence in the performance of the Office in the early Anglo-Saxon period was frequently

152

be found for useless stories (fabulae) or idle speech (loquelae) there or anywhere else'); talking is permitted at appropriate times to discuss necessary matters ('opportuno . . . tempore de rebus necessariis' (Reg. cone, ibid.)). W. J. Grisbrooke, 'A Contemporary Liturgical Problem: the Divine Office and Public Worship', Studia Liturgka 8 (1971-2), 129-68, at 131, remarks, 'the practices of recitatio continua of the psalter and of lectio continua of the rest of the scriptures, whatever the period over which these are spread, assume that the worshipper will be present at every office every day, and unless this is the case they simply do not make sense'.

75


on a par with or even in excess of that stipulated in Regularis concordia. But at all periods it is clear that successful fulfilment of all the obligations of the Office required many participants and large numbers of texts. Many small congregations must have found themselves hard pressed to complete a full cycle of Office ceremonies, and certain compromises had to be accepted, such as the implementation of a reduced form of the Office, the performance of the daily obligation in shifts by a staggered roster of celebrants, or an increased emphasis on private recitation of texts. Consuetudinal works often address the behaviour expected of adherents who were unable to attend group celebrations of the Office. At the sound of the bell-ringing that marked each of the Hours of the daily Office, labourers in the field at a distance from the church, those lying ill in the infirmary and other absentees were encouraged to pause to recite Office texts privately, consulting, if necessary, portable booklets prepared for this purpose. Similarly, travellers occupied by long journeys were advised to

15

The celebration of Compline, a post-Benedictine augmentation of the evening hours, is mentioned in early Anglo-Latin texts, for example, at Vita S. Wilfridi lxviii {The Life of Bishop Wilfrid, ed. and trans. Colgrave, pp. 146-9, at 148): 'completorium oratio'. Bede refers frequently to the performance of the long night Office and Matins; see, for example, HE III. 12, IV.7, IV.17(19), IV.22(24) and V.9 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 150-2, at 151; 219-20; 243-6, at 244; 258-62, at 262; and 296-9, at 297); Vita S. Cuthberti x {Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert, ed. and trans. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 188-91); and Hist. abb. viii {Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 371—3). Other references to the daily Office in Bede occur at Commentarius in Ezram et Neemiam ii (CCSL 119A, 235-392, at 329-34); Comm. in Luc. iii (CCSL 120, at 225-9); and Expositio Actuum Apostolorum ii.15 and x.30 (CCSL 121, 1-99, at 18 and 53). See further Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, xxv—xxvi, and II, 137, for notes on the recitation of the daily Office by secular clerics as well as monks, and II, 118-19, on psalmody generally. The fifteenth canon of the Council of Clofesho prescribes adherence to Roman usage in the performance of the Office; see above, pp. 56—7. Alcuin, anticipating the behaviour of the young Alfred, is said to have undertaken the arduous recitation of the Divine Office even in his youth; see Vita Alcuini i—ii, ed. in Monumenta Alcuiniana, ed. W. Wattenbach and E. Diimmler, Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum 6 (Berlin, 1873), 1—34, at 6—11. For the later period, see discussion by M. McC. Gatch, 'The Office in Late Anglo-Saxon Monasticism', in Learning and Literature, ed. Lapidge and Gneuss, pp. 341—62, esp. at 352—62. On illness as justification for abstention from Office ceremonies, see Benedict, Regula xliii (CSEL 75, 106-10), and Bede, HE 111.27 {Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 191—4). yElfric offers the following advice to his brethren at Ep. ad monachos iv.9 ('Admonitio ne quis neglegenter occurrat horis canonicis' ('A warning that no one should heedlessly neglect the canonical hours')): 'Ergo regularium monachorum

76

Introduction

carry handbooks to assist in the performance of the Office. No full copy of an Anglo-Saxon Office lectionary has survived to the present day, but some suggestive fragments that have recently been brought to light display Old Testament lections juxtaposed with patristic extracts.1 5 The most important inference to be drawn from the lectionary traditions of the daily Office concerns the apparent continual availability of texts that supply Old Testament sources of the Junius poems. Successful fulfilment of the obligations of the Office will have brought any devout Anglo-Saxon Christian into contact with Latin texts of Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, the Psalms, canticles and so on. If direct apprehension of the meaning of the Latin texts was beyond the capabilities of an adherent, some grasp of their meaning in the short term might well be obtained from associates and,

consuetudo non sinit, ut aliquis frater neglegenter occurrat horis canonicis. Sed facto signo conueniant omnes ad orationem et intenti incipiant simul sinaxim simulque finiant omnes stantes exceptis egrotantibus' ('And so the custom of obedient monks does not allow that any brother should neglect the canonical hours in a heedless manner; but when the signal is made they should all come together for prayer and begin the communal gathering in earnest as a group and finish as a group with all standing, except for those lying sick'); see text ptd in 'Aelfrici abbatis epistula', ed. Nocent, p. 158. See L. E. Voigts, 'A Fragment of an Anglo-Saxon Liturgical Manuscript at the University of Missouri', ASE 17 (1988), 83-92, and A. I. Doyle, 'A Fragment of an Eighth-Century Northumbrian Office Book', in Words, Texts and Manuscripts, ed. Korhammer, Reichl and Sauer, pp. 11-27. (The palaeographically predicated assignment of an Anglo-Saxon origin to the fragment printed by Voigts has been questioned; see Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, pp. 47-8 with n. 236.) Liturgical books that include the texts of biblical lections (rather than merely indicating readings by the use of marginal notations, incipits, etc.) usually provide the readings in extenso. For a full review of surviving monuments, see Gneuss, 'Liturgical Books', who notes appearances of Old English terms (including rcedingboc, sumerrcedingboc and winterrcedingboc) that

seem to refer to Office lectionaries - to judge by the common theme -reeding— as opposed to psalters, prayerbooks or other accessories of the Office. But the possibility that such books contained heterogeneous collections of texts should also be considered. See Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 314-20, for a discussion of the types of readings, their terminology and preservation in lectionaries; see also Chavasse, 'Les plus anciens types'. On the use of biblical texts in the liturgy, see Danielou, The Bible; J. A. Lamb, 'The Place of the Bible in the Liturgy', in The Cambridge History I, ed. Ackroyd and Evans, pp. 563-86; S. J. P. Van Dijk, 'The Bible in Liturgical Use', in The Cambridge History II, ed. Lampe, pp. 220-52 and 520-1; and P. Gy, 'La bible dans la liturgie au moyen age', in Le moyen age et la bible, ed. Riche and Lobrichon, pp. 537-54.

77


because of the cyclic nature of the daily Office, mastery of these basic Latin texts might well emerge over time. It is not necessary to conclude that the Junius poems, simply by virtue of their transmission as written texts and their debt to Latin sources, must be regarded as artefacts of a learned elite. The lections of the Easter Vigil

Limited corroboration of the main points established above regarding the wide distribution of certain passages from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel in observances of the daily Office is offered by texts associated with liturgical ceremonies outside of the Office, notably mass-lections and readings for church holidays. By and large, however, the ceremonies of the early medieval eucharistic mass derive their lections far more frequently from the books of the New Testament than of the Old. The early European use of a full series of Old Testament lections, however, is well attested. Many Old Testament passages that had become familiar through such usage — including selections from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel — continued for centuries to be read out among the 'epistles' of the eucharistic mass.137 The most significant departure from the familiar course of New Testament-based lections employed at mass, however, occurs in conjunction with the most important eucharistic mass of the year, which forms the climax to the medieval celebration of the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday. The night-long Easter Vigil was one of the most physically strenuous (and textually intensive) liturgical ceremonies of the year, often continuing into the early morning hours of Easter Sunday. One of the high points of the observance was the recitation of a series of Old Testament lections — varying in number from four to thirteen, according to different customs shortly before the preparation of the font for the baptism of cate-

157

158

See discussion by K. Gamber, 'Das miinchener Fragment eines lectionarium plenarium aus dem Ende des 6. Jahrhunderts', EL 72 (1958), 2 6 8 - 8 0 , with a helpful review of terminology and witnesses at 275—80, and R. Dubois, 'Hatte die romische Messe je einige dreigliedrige Leseordnung?', Heiliger Dienst 18 (1964), 1 2 9 - 3 7 . For references to specific Old Testament mass-lections, see Le Sacramentaire gregorien, ed.Deshusses III, 2 9 8 - 3 0 1 . Tyrer, Historical Survey, p p . 1 4 3 - 4 and 147, and Chavasse, 'Le cycle pascal', p p . 9 8 - 9 Gregory I, Epistula xi.21 (CCSL 140A, 8 9 1 - 2 , at 892), advises a correspondent to stay away from vigils because of ill health. Over the centuries, the duration of the Easter Vigil tended to decrease and the commencement of the celebration was moved to increasingly earlier hours of the evening.

78

Introduction

chumens. Indeed, assertions regarding the possible influence of AngloSaxon liturgical practices on the Junius collection as a whole often involve the lections of the Easter Vigil. Barbara C. Raw has recently remarked: The material in [the] first section of {Junius 11], which includes the stories of the creation and fall of man, of Noah and Abraham, the crossing of the Red Sea and the saving of the three youths from the fiery furnace, corresponds very closely to the {Office] readings during Lent and to the {lections] read during the vigil service of Easter, and this suggests that the book may have been intended for reading during Lent. The poems are divided into fifty-six numbered sections, and if one section were read each day the material would last either from Septuagesima to the day before Palm Sunday or from Sexagesima to Holy Saturday. Raw here refers to the presence of substantial lections from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel in the twelve-lection series of Easter Vigil readings that have been employed from an early period in the development of the Roman church to the present day. In this connection, it may be worth noting that the instructions for the vigil in Regularis concordia depart markedly from the familiar twelve-lection model: Benedictione peracta ascendat subdiaconus ambonem et legat lectionem primam: I n principio creauit' {Gen. I.1-II.2]; sequitur oratio a priore: 'Oremus. Deus qui mirabiliter'. Secunda lectio: Tactum est in uigilia' {Ex. XIV.24-XV.1]; tractus 'Cantemus Domino' {Ex. XV.lb-19]; sequitur oratio: 'Oremus. Deus cuius antiqua miracula'. Tertia lectio: 'Apprehendent' {Isa. IV. 1-6]; tractus: 'Vinea facta est' {Isa. V.I—2]; sequitur oratio: 'Deus qui nos ad celebrandum'. Quarta lectio: 'Haec est hereditas' {Isa. LIV.17-LV.2]; collecta: 'Deus qui ecclesiam tuam'; tractus: 'Sicut ceruus'; sequitur oratio: 'Concede quaesumus omnipotens Deus.' 161 159

161

Amalarius of Metz offers a detailed summary of the Easter Vigil lections at De eccl. off. I.xix.1-16 (Amalarii Episcopi Opera, ed. Hanssens II, 113-21); see also discussion by P. De Puniet, 'La liturgie baptismale en Gaul avant Charlemagne', Revue des questions historiques 72 (1902), 382-423, and B. Botte, Xe choix des lectures de la veille pascale', Questions liturgiques et paroissiales 33 (1952), 65-70. On the liturgy of baptism generally, see P. De Puniet, 'Bapteme', DACL II.lb, cols. 251-346; T. Thompson, The Offices of Baptism and Confirmation (Cambridge, 1914); J. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 2nd ed., ACC 47 (London, 1970); and E. C. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, 2nd ed., ACC 42 (London, 1970). Raw, Art and Background, p. 1; cf. also p. 84 with n. 3. Reg. cone, xlviii (Regularis concordia, ed. and trans. Symons, p. 53): 'After the blessing has been completed, the subdeacon shall go up into the pulpit and shall read the first lection: "In principio creauit"; there follows a collect said by the prior: "Oremus. Deus

79


Regularis concordia here refers to the reading of four biblical lections rather than the expected twelve. This points up a previously unacknowledged assumption in scholars' speculation about liturgical influence on the selection of verse preserved in Junius 11. The parallel drawn between the Genesis—Exodus—Daniel sequence of Junius 11 and the lections of the Easter Vigil only holds good if the lections in question are taken to be those of the old Roman six-lection series or the commonly encountered medieval (and modern) twelve-lection series. (A representative selection of the lections in these series is set out in Table 1.) But it is by no means clear that either system was in regular use throughout the Anglo-Saxon period.1 2 The text of Regularis concordia, followed by Mlinc in the eleventh century, refers to the recitation of a reduced set of four lections that had been introduced in the course of the 'Gregorian' reforms undertaken by late eighth- and ninth-century Carolingian liturgists - nearly two hundred years after the death of Pope Gregory I (ob. 604).1 3 Even in

163

qui mirabiliter". Second lection: "Factum est in uigilia"; tract: "Cantemus Domino"; followed by the collect: "Oremus. Deus cuius antiqua miracula". Third lection: "Apprehendent"; tract: "Vinea facta est"; followed by the collect: "Deus qui nos ad celebrandum". Fourth lection: "Haec est hereditas"; collect: "Deus qui ecclesiam tuam"; tract: "Sicut ceruus" [cf. Ps. XLI.2]; followed by the collect: "Concede quaesumus omnipotens Deus".' It is unfortunate that we do not possess resources similar to the expositions of baptismal practices directed to Charlemagne by ecclesiastical authorities of his time in connection with his liturgical reforms; see S. A. Keefe, 'Carolingian Baptismal Expositions: a Handlist of Tracts and Manuscripts', in Carolingian Essaysy ed. Blumenthal, pp. 169-237. See also discussion by Foot, ' "By water" ', pp. 172-3, and below, pp. 216-22. See M\k'\c, Ep. ad monachos ix.46 ('Aelfrici abbatis epistula', ed. Nocent, p. 173): 'Sequantur tune lectiones secundum constitutionem sancti Gregorii papae cum tractibus et collectis' ('The lections should then proceed according to the arrangement of the holy Pope Gregory, with tracts and collects'). An early witness (c. 800) to the four-lection system is ptd in Sacramentaire et martyrologe de I'Abbaye de Saint-Remy, ed.

U. Chevalier, Bibliotheque liturgique 7 (Paris, 1900), p. 129, from a Rheims sacramentary no longer extant; cf. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, p. 71. The use of these four lections is specified in ordo Romanus XXVIII (appendix), which prescribes that they should be read twice, once in Greek and once in Latin; see Ordines Romani, ed. Andrieu III, 373-413, at 412-13- As Klauser, A Short History, pp. 7 2 - 3 , notes, the reform antedated Charlemagne: 'We know now that it was not Charlemagne, but Pepin before him, who first introduced the Gregorian liturgy of Rome into his kingdom and made it obligatory by royal decree, and that he did this on the occasion of his coronation in the presence of the Pope in the year 754 . . . It was Charlemagne's

80

Introduction

the course of the Carolingian reform, an earlier six-lection, 'old Roman' series including lections from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel continued to be prescribed, notably in the epistolary or comes of Alcuin.164 (In the present study, the term comes, literally 'companion', describes a book containing summary lists of both evangelical and epistolary mass-lections and, in most cases, texts of these lections copied out in extenso.) There is also evidence of Insular use of a very ancient, bilingual Roman system — which appears to have the strongest claim to true Gregorian (that is, late sixthcentury) origin — wherein six lections were read out twice, once in Latin and once in Greek, yielding a total of twelve recitations.1 5 Moreover,

1 4

165

intention to complete his father's work.' See also three notes by H. Ashworth: 'Did St Gregory the Great Compose a Sacramentary?', Studia Patristica 2 (1955), 1-16, 'Did St Augustine Bring the Gregorianum to England?', EL 72 (1958), 39-43, and 'In Quest of the Primitive Gregorianum', EL 72 (1958), 319-22, with references. The earliest full exemplar of the so-called comes of Alcuin, embodying an epistolary of the old Roman tradition and a later, albeit 'official', Carolingian supplementum, occurs in BN, lat. 9452 (?Saint-Amand, s. ix in ; later provenance Chartres), as treated by Wilmart, Xe lectionnaire', pp. 151-68, and another important early witness to the text of the comes occurs in Cambrai, Bibliotheque Capitulaire 553 (Cambrai, s. ix ). There is no full modern edition of the continuous lections in these sources; cf. texts of incipits and explicits ptd by Wilmart, ibid., and the text produced by Tommasi, from a transcript made by Arnoul de Loo, in Tommasi's Opera, ed. Vezzosi V, 297-423; see also Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 340-2. See also CLLA, pp. 438-9 (nos. 1040-1), Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 340—2, and discussion by G. Ellard, Master Alcuin, Liturgist: a Partner of Our Piety, Jesuit Stud. (Chicago, 1956), pp. 86-102. The ascription to Alcuin in the preface to the work has the support of the evidence of an entry in a Saint-Riquier booklist ('Lectionarius plenarius a supradicto Albino ordinatus'), and thus Alcuin's historical involvement in the redaction of the lectionary (with its possible ramifications for our knowledge of Anglo-Saxon usage) is generally accepted by modern scholarship. Although evidence for the general circulation of the Alcuinian comes is limited, a nearly identical list is noted by Frere, Studies III, 45, as occurring in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6424 (Freising, s. x in ). Amalarius of Metz, De eccl. off. Il.i (Amalarii Episcopi Opera, ed. Hanssens II, 13-580, at 197), describes the bilingual, six-lection-twelve-recitation system as follows: 'De duodecim lectionibus: Sex lectiones ab antiquis Romanis Grece et Latine legebantur . . . Duodecim lectiones propter duodecim lectores dicuntur, non propter duodecim varietates sententiarum; sex lectiones sunt tantummodo in sententiis' ('Concerning the twelve lections: six lections from ancient Roman times are read in Greek and in Latin. Twelve lections are recited on account of there being twelve readers, not twelve different types of texts; there are only six lections in terms of the texts'). An Insular witness to the use of the bilingual, six-lection system occurs in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 4. 32, fols. 19-36 (Wales, s. ix in and ixex; 'Liber

81


from the earlier Anglo-Saxon period on — certainly in the eighth century and later centuries — we have to consider the possible use in certain centres of the Roman (or Frankish—Roman) ten-lection and twelve-lection series of Easter Vigil lections respectively associated with the earlier and later forms of the eighth-century 'Gelasian' usage. (These systems are nominally Commonet), on leaves imported to England from Wales by the late ninth century, at 19r—v and 28v— 36r; see facs. ed. in Saint Dunstan's Classbook> ed. and introd. Hunt; see also Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 812-13 (no. I l l ) , and A. Breen, 'The Liturgical Materials in MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F. 4./32 1 , ALW 34 (1992), 121-53. The four lections of the reformed 'Gregorian' system are followed in this Insular witness by two additional lections, the first of which relates the binding of Isaac (Gen. XXII. 1-19), which is absent in the old Roman system described in the Alcuinian comes. (For the full series, see p. 84f note 'a'). Bonifatius Fischer has shown that these additions serve to restore two of the lections removed in the 'Gregorian' reform from what was possibly the most ancient Roman six-lection system of Easter Vigil readings; see B. Fischer, 'Die Lesungen der romischen Ostervigil unter Gregor der Grosse', in Colligere fragmenta: Festschrift Alban Dold, ed. B. Fischer and V. Fiala, TuA ss 1.2 (Beuron, 1952), pp. 144-59, repr. in his Beitrdge zur Gescbicbte der lateinischen Bibeltexte, pp. 18-50. For the ten-lection system of Easter Vigil readings typical of the earlier 'Gelasian' usage of the eighth century, see the famous witness in Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 316, fols. 3-245 + BN, lat. 7193, fols. 41-56 (Chelles, s. viii med ; 'old Gelasian Sacramentary'), as ed. in Liber sacramentorum Romanae aecclesiae ordinis anni circuit (Sacramentarium Gelasianum), ed. L. C. Mohlberg, L. Eizenhofer and P. Siffrin, RED 4 (Rome, I960), 70-2; but cf. also below, p. 84, note ' b \ Amiet, 'Un comes carolingien', describes a Roman lectionarium plenarium preserved in BN, lat. 9451 (northern Italy (?Monza or Verona), s. viii/ix), which includes a ten-lection series whose readings are summarized in Table 1. Gamber, 'Die Lesungen', pp. 126-7, summarizes a similar ten-lection grouping in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 7678 (Regensburg, s. viiiex), and cf. the ten-lection grouping in Prague, Metropolitni kapitoly, O. 83 (s. viii2), as ptd in Das Prager Sakramentar (Cod. 0.83 (fol. 1-120) der Bibliothek des Metropolitankapitels), ed. A. Dold with L. Eizenhofer, 2 vols., TuA 1.38 and 1.42 (Beuron, 1944-9) II, 58*-60*, items b-1; see Vogel, Medieval Liturgy\ p. 345, and below, p. 84, note 'b'. It should be stressed that the term 'Gelasian' as used here refers only to the usage of the eighth century; Chavasse, 'Lecons', summarizes the content of a number of very old Roman five- and six-lection systems, more closely related to the 'old Roman' series described in the preceding note, which he terms 'Gelasian' and which is elsewhere occasionally termed 'old Gelasian'. The expanded, twelve-lection 'Gelasian' system which prevailed in the later eighth and subsequent centuries adds readings in Bar. III.9-38 and Jonah III. 1-10; see Gamber, 'Die Lesungen', p. 127. Witnesses include St Petersburg, Public Library, Q. v. 1. 16 (Corbie, s. viii/ix; 'comes of Corbie') and Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 29164 (Scheyern, s. ix1; 'Sacramentary of Arno'), as ptd in Sacramentarium Arnonis:

82

Introduction

associated with the papacy of Gelasius I (ob. 496), but their characteristic texts are attested rarely, if at all, before c. 700.) Beyond the five putatively Roman lectionary systems mentioned thus far — the old Roman six-lection system attested by Alcuin and others, employing exclusively Latin texts; the yet more ancient, bilingual (Greek—Latin) six-lection—twelve-recitation system; the ten- and twelve-lection 'Gelasian' systems; and the reformed 'Gregorian' four-lection system - no thorough review of early European Easter Vigil ceremonies can overlook several non-Roman systems, notably those associated with the Gallican, Spanish and Milanese churches. These non-Roman lectionary systems will be summarized in a later chapter of this study in connection with Exodus (Table 5). For the moment, it may suffice to document concisely (in Table 1) the main Roman series of lections that bear directly on questions surrounding the principle of selection evinced collectively by the Old Testament contents of Junius 11. (In Table 1, lections embodying biblical passages treated among the various compositions in the collection are indicated by the use of bold type.) die Fragmente des Salzburger Exemplars, ed. S. Rehle and K. Gamber, TPL 8 (Regens-

burg, 1970). Early manuscripts witnessing the twelve-lection series include Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 348 (northern Italy, s. viii/ix; early medieval provenances Chur and Sankt Gallen), as ptd in Das frdhkische sacramentarium alamannischer Uberlieferung (Codex Sangall. No. 348),

Gelasianum

in

ed. L. C. Mohlberg, 3rd ed., LQF

1-2 [ = Sankt Galler Sakramentar-Forschungen 1] (Miinster, 1971), 84-6 (nos. 540-52), and BN, lat. 816 (Angouleme, s. viii/ix; 'Sacramentary of Angouleme'), as ptd in CCSL 159C, 111-13. Other witnesses include the comes of Murbach (Besancon, Bibliotheque Municipale, 184, fols. 58-74 (Alsace, s. viiiex)), as ptd by Wilmart, 'Le comes', p. 4 1 , and discussed by A. Dold, 'Ein Vorlaufer des comes von Murbach', EL 65 (1951), 237-52, and Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, p. 347; the comes associated with the name Theotinchus, witnessing ninth-century customs of Saint-Riquier and Amiens (as ptd by Ranke, Das kirchliche Pericopensystem, pp. lxxxiii-xcii, at lxxxvi-lxxxvii), reproducing a text edited by E. Baluze from a Beauvais manuscript no longer extant (also ptd in PL 30, cols. 503-47, at 519; see Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 347-8); the witness to lost texts supplied in Liturgica Latinorum, ed. J. de Joigny de Pamele ('Pamelius'), 2 vols. (Cologne, 1571) II, 23-5; and, most importantly, perhaps, in the widely circulating Supplementum Anianense (as ptd in Le Sacramentaire gregorien, ed.

Deshusses I, 363-8); see above, p. 68, n. 134. Once again, there is no standard edition of the twelve-lection series; see, nevertheless, the reconstructed early Roman text of twelve-lection series set out in extenso in Antiqui libri, ed. Tommasi, pp. 46-51. See further B. Moreton, The Eighth-Century

Gelasian Sacramentary: a Study in

Tradition

(Oxford, 1976) and A. Chavasse, Le Sacramentaire dans le groupe 'gelasiens du VIHe siecle',

IP 14A (The Hague, 1984), esp. pp. 57-76. 83

Old English biblical verse Table 1 Lections for the Easter Vigil in the Roman tradition Old Roman (Alcuinian)a lGen.I.l-II.2 2Ex.XIV.24-XV.la withXV.lb-19 3Isa. IV. 1-6, with Isa. V.l-7 4 Deut. XXXI.22-30 5Isa.LIV.17-LV.5 6 Dan. 111.49-51 with III.52-5

Frankish-Roman ('Gelasian') (earlier form) (later form) 1 Gen. I.1-II.2 2 Gen.V.31-VIII.21 (abridgement) 3 Gen. XXII. 1-19 4 Ex. XIV.24-XV.la 5 Isa. LIV.17-LV.il 6 Ez. XXXVII. 1-14 7 Isa. IV. 1-6 8 Ex. XII. 1-11 9 Deut. XXXI.22-30 10 Dan. III.1-24

Reformed Roman ('Gregorian')0

1 Gen. I.1-II.2 1 Gen. I.1-II.2 2 Gen.V.31-VIII.21 2 Ex. XIV.24-XV.la (abridgement) 3 Isa. IV. 1-6 3 Gen. XXII.1-19 4 Isa. LIV.17b-LV.ll 4 Ex. XIV.24-XV.la (with Ex. XV.lb-19) 5 Isa. LIV.17-LV.il 6 Baruch III.9-38 7 Ez. XXXVII. 1-14 8 Isa. IV. 1-6 (with Isa. V.1-V.2-V.7) 9 Ex. XII. 1-11 10 Jonah III. 1-10 11 Deut. XXXI.22-30 (and Deut. XXXII. l^S) 12 Dan. III. 1-24 (with Ps. XL. 1-3)

a

Spans of verses in the cited lections follow the text of the six-lection series in the comes of Alcuin (see p. 81, n. 164), as ptd by Wilmart, 'Le lectionnaire', p. 156. The spans of the verses of canticles, for which Wilmart prints only incipits, are restored conjecturally. The expanded, albeit disordered, bilingual (Greek-Latin) series in Oxford, Bodleian, Auct. F. 4. 32 (see pp. 81-2, n. 165) seems to bear witness to the following series: (1) Gen. 1.1II.3; (2) Gen. XXII.1-19; (3) Ex. XIV.24-XV.3; (4) Deut. XXXI.22-XXXII.4; (5) Isa. IV.1-6, with Isa. V . l - 7 ; (6) Isa. LIV.17-LV.5, with Ps. XLI.2î. The spans of verses given here summarize accurately the readings of the manuscript, but the ordering of lections reflects the consensus of other witnesses. Note also the use of a lection comprising Baruch III.9-38 as the last item in other six-lection systems. b The summary of the 'Gelasian' ten-lection series follows the summary of the readings of BN, lat. 9451 (see pp. 82-3, n. 166) ptd by Amiet, 'Un comes carolingien', p. 349. The summary of the 'Gelasian' twelve-lection series follows the summary by Frere, Studies III, 9-10 (no. LXVI*), treating a text in the comes of Corbie (see p. 82, n. 166). Verses in parentheses are present in the Corbie text but not in the normative text set out by Baumstark, Nocturna lausy p. 47. The ten-lection series preserved in the old Gelasian Sacramentary (see above, p. 82, n. 166) in some respects bears comparison with the twelvelection 'Gelasian' series insofar as it does not include the lections from Baruch and Jonah but otherwise agrees with the series in the comes of Corbie cited in Table 1; see text ptd in Liber sacramentorum Romanae aecclesiae, ed. Mohlberg, Eizenhofer and Siffrin, pp. 70-2.

84

Introduction c The summary of the four-lection, reformed 'Gregorian' series conforms to the text ed. in Le Sacramentaire gregorien, ed. Deshusses I, 183-5, and the series set out in the Sacramentary of Padua (Padua, Biblioteca Capitolare, D. 47, llr— 132v (Lotharingian centre, s. ix me ; early medieval provenances Liege and Verona)), as ptd in Die dlteste erreichbare Gestalt des

Liber sacramentorum anni circuli der romischen Kirche (Cod. Pad. D. 47, fol. llr—100r)

y

ed. L. C.

Mohlberg and A. Baumstark, Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen 11-12 (Miinster, 1927), 53*—54*; and in the text of the so-called Hadrianum, as exemplified by the text ptd in Das Sacramentarium

Gregorianum nach dem Aachener Urexemplar, ed. H. Lietzmann, LQF 3

(Munster, 1921), 51. See also discussion by Baumstark, Nocturna Iaus, pp. 51-2, with additions and corrections in notes by Odilo Heiming. Early indirect witnesses include Amalarius of Metz, De eccl. off. I.xix.3—16 (Amalarii Episcopi Opera, ed. Hanssens II, 114— 21) and pseudo-Alcuin, Liber de diuinis officiis xix (PL 101, col. 1217).

Similar groups of lections were recited on other occasions, such as the Vigil of Pentecost, most often in connection with baptismal ceremonies, but annotations in early medieval liturgical guides indicate that celebrants associated these specific configurations of Old Testament texts primarily with the services of the Easter Vigil. 1 7 The crucial point regarding the lections of the Easter Vigil and related ceremonies, in my view, is that nearly every devout Christian of the early medieval period will have numbered these readings among the most familiar of all Latin texts. These were the most prominent readings of the pre-baptismal service of the Easter Vigil. The notional content of all the texts is implicated in the meaning of that service, and their phrasing will have been studied closely Clear proof of this statement appears in a series of post-pentecostal lections for a Saturday service ad sanctum Petrum in the comes of Alcuin (see p. 81, n. 164), where the familiar lection from Daniel on the rescue of the three youths from the fiery furnace (see below, pp. 422-4), commonly recited among the readings for the Easter Vigil, is referenced by the phrase 'Hie debes legere "angelus Domini": require in uigilia paschae' ('Here you should read "angelus Domini" [cf. Dan. 111.49}: seek out [the lection} among {the readings for] the Easter Vigil'); see text ptd by Wilmart, 'Le lectionnaire', p. 158 (no. CXXXV). Chavasse, 'Lemons', pp. 210-11, notes that outside of Holy Saturday, the familiar lections were sometimes employed in the Vigil of Pentecost, at Christmas, on Easter Sunday and for ordinations. Bede refers to the baptism of catechumens at Pentecost in his Homilia ii.17 (CCSL 122, 290-310, at 306). On the various series of pentecostal lections, see Le Sacramentaire gregorien, ed. Deshusses I, 222-5 and 368-71. See also Wilmart, 'Le comes\ p. 43; Frere, Studies III, 12 (no. LXXXVI); and Chavasse, 'Lemons', esp. p. 211 (on the reading of pentecostal texts in Greek and Latin). Baptisms were also performed in conjunction with the lections in question at Pentecost and at other times; see Riche, Education and Culture, pp. 481-2.

85


in the course of catechetical training. 168 The verses of these lections will have been among the first to be committed to memory in undertaking the reduced forms of Office reading described above. In other words, if we seem to detect points of verbal correspondence between the verse of Junius 11 and the lections of the Easter Vigil, we need not discount the possibility of a direct link between the texts on the grounds of the inaccessibility of liturgical texts. These lections will have been familiar to any Anglo-Saxon Christian who participated in ceremonies of baptism. Material from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel occurs in almost every early medieval series of readings for the Easter Vigil, eastern or western, that contains six or more lections.1 Nevertheless, from a narrowly mathematical perspective, the evidence for any correspondence between the booklength contents of Junius 11 and the readings of Holy Saturday in a twelve-lection system might appear to be even weaker than in the case of the reformed 'Gregorian' usage. J. R. Hall has maintained that numerical considerations — specifically the fact that the Junius poems account for only three out of the twelve lections in question — argue against the probability of liturgical influence on the collection. This objection, however, can be overruled. Apart from the fact that the proportion is three lections out of six in some forms of the older Roman lectionary system, including the Alcuinian, a pivotal triad of readings from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel has been shown by biblical scholars to inform the very

9

170

Thacker, 'Monks', pp. 141—2 and 157—8, notes that despite the seventh-century appearance of prescriptions regarding the baptism of infants in the laws of Ine and the ludicia of Theodore of Canterbury, adult baptism of new converts remained common in Bede's time and is encountered throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. In any event, the texts in question will have been familiar to all catechumens preparing for confirmation and to all participants in the annual Holy Saturday services. In the case of infant baptism, parents were sometimes required to recite texts on behalf of their children. Eligius Dekkers has noted that baptismal texts — along with penitentials, sermons and the Bible itself— were among the first writings of the church to be translated into the vernacular, mainly for the benefit of catechumens; see Dekkers, 'L'eglise devant la bible', p. 12; see also remarks by B. Botte, 'Les traductions liturgiques de l'ecriture', in H. Cazelles et al.y La Parole dans la liturgie, pp. 81—105, esp. 86. For a convenient summary of the lections for the Easter Vigil in the old Armenian, Georgian and Byzantine systems as well as in the major early medieval western systems, see Baumstark, Nocturna laus, pp. 44-55. J. R. Hall, 'The Old English Epic of Redemption: the Theological Unity of MS Junius 11', Traditio 32 (1976), 185-208, at 118.

86

Introduction

structure of the Easter Vigil recitation.171 In most cases, the triad in question comprises readings from Gen. I.1-II.2, Ex. XIV.24-XV.la and Dan. III. 1—24, often in conjunction with adjoining canticles. All three of these passages give rise to notably amplified treatments in the verse of Junius 11. The general notion that the content of the Holy Saturday service exerted an influence on the assortment of texts preserved in Junius 11 may thus seem quite reasonable — unless we assume that the compilation was undertaken after c. 950. JElfric and Sigeweard

One additional and yet more basic medium for the transmission of biblical knowledge to Anglo-Saxon Christians may be noted briefly: the exposition of scripture in the administration of pastoral care.173 The prevalence of

173

See the useful structural diagram printed by R. Dubois, 'La vigile de paques, est-elle une vigile baptismale?', EL 82 (1968), 124-5, at 124, illustrating the prominence of these passages in eastern and western usage. This state of affairs traces back to the liturgy of Jerusalem before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (where the GenesisExodus—Daniel triad also informs the Vigil of the Epiphany) and it continues to predominate in non-'Gregorian' usage throughout the Middle Ages. Morin, 'Le plus ancien monument', p. 5, notes that the prominent position of texts specifically drawn from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel in the earliest extant European liturgical documents is 'incontestablement un indice de tres haute antiquite'. Evidence for the continuing knowledge of the twelve-lection system in Anglo-Saxon England, however, includes the 'Leofric Missal' (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 579 (France, s. ix2); SC II.i, 487-9 (no. 2675)), imported to England from France in the tenth century, at 155r-156v; see text ptd in The 'Leofric Missal' as Used in the Cathedral of Exeter during the Episcopate of its First Bishop, A.D. 1050-1072, ed. F. E. Warren (Oxford, 1883), pp. 96-9. For recent discussion of pastoral care in the early medieval period, see M. McC. Gatch, Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England: JElfric and Wulfstan (Toronto, 1977); G. Constable, 'Monasteries, Rural Churches and the cura animarum in the Early Middle Ages', in Cristiannizzazione ed organizzazione ecclesiastica delle campagne nell'alto medioevo: Espansione e resistenze, 1 vol. in 2, SettSpol 28 (Spoleto, 1982), 349-89; S. Foot, 'Parochial Ministry in Early Anglo-Saxon England: the Role of Monastic Communities', Stud, in Church Hist. 26 (1989), 43-54; Cubitt, 'Pastoral Care'; and G. Rosser, 'The Cure of Souls in English Towns before 1000', in Pastoral Care, ed. Blair and Sharpe, pp. 267—84. See also the earlier scholarship of H. Pirenne, 'De l'etat de l'instruction des laiques a l'epoque merovingienne', RB 46 (1934), 165—77, and B. Luykx, 'L'influence des moines sur l'office paroissial', La Maison-Dieu 51 (1957), 55-81.

87


this practice in the secular sphere carries much the same implication as the employment of biblical lections in the monastic environment. Information about the contents of Genesis, Exodus, Daniel and other biblical books will have been commonly available to Christians with little or no formal training in Latin. While the responsibilities of pastoral care will have been assumed by church officials at every period of Anglo-Saxon history, it is not until the early eleventh century that we find an effective first-hand description of the dispensation of spiritual advice in conjunction with an exposition of the books of the Old Testament. This occurs among the sizeable body of Old English prose writings ascribed to ^lfric of Eynsham, who undertook over a period of years to produce the first comprehensive and systematic treatment of biblical, liturgical and more broadly devotional topics to be issued in the English language. Writing c. 1005—6, Êlfric prepared an engaging prose summary of the contents of the Old and New Testaments for one of his neighbours, the secular landowner Sigeweard of East Healle.17 In the Old Testament synopses in this work, Êlfric's choices regarding the inclusion and exclusion of material frequently depart from the model of Vulgate scripture, as do the changes of emphasis which he brings to bear on his biblical sources. It has been suggested reasonably that the contents of the Letter to Sigeweard provide a 17

Wormald, 'Anglo-Saxon Society', pp. 17-18, notes that iElfric's 'life's work was homiletic exposition of scripture and of saintly life written in English, and at a level intelligible to all. . . . [I}n his own youth he had been confronted by a priest unable to account for the fact that Jacob had four wives; such things, he felt, must never recur.' Works of yElfric treating topics versified in the Junius poems include his Hexameron, the Interrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin, the treatises De creatore et creatura and De sanguine,

the vernacular homilies De initio creaturae, and De populo Israhel, various sermons for mid-Lent and Easter and the work known as Admonitions in Lent; see Cameron, 'List', pp. 45, 48, 50, 6 2 - 3 , 79 and 82-7 (items A.I.1.2, A.I.1.13, A.I.1.17, A.l.2.13, A.l.2.18, A.l.2.19, A.l.4.21, A.l.5.13, A.l.6.1, A.l.6.4, A.l.8.7 and A.l.9.6). The biblical contents of these works following Genesis, Exodus and Daniel are analysed in Biblical Quotations, ed. Cook I, 76-91 and 125-9, and II, 126-30, 180-2 and 201; see further A. S. Napier, 'Nachtrage zu Cook's Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers', ASNSL 101 (1898), 309-24, and 102 (1899), 29-42, and Napier, 'Zum Archiv ci, S. 313', ASNSL 107 (1901), 105-6. Clemoes, 'The Chronology', p. 243, remarks that in the later years of his career yElfric 'was now under demand for help and advice from lay and cleric alike'. The letter is treated by Cameron, 'List', p. 85 (item B.I.8.4.4); see also White, Mlfrk, pp. 66-7 i^lfric's treatment of the matter of Exodus in the Letter to Sigeweard is discussed below, pp. 201-5.

88

Introduction

valuable if indirect witness to basic Anglo-Saxon instruction in biblical topics, especially the technique known as catechetical narratio, undertaken to prepare adult converts to the Christian faith for baptism and baptized Christians for confirmation.177 It is thus interesting to note that some of the special features of Êlfric's biblical treatments in the Letter to Sigeweard bear comparison with the handling of biblical episodes in the Junius poems. The exercise of the responsibilities of pastoral care (on the evidence of Êlfric's letter and other witnesses) typically involved a type of biblical exposition emphasizing the narrative content of Old Testament books and the position of individual episodes in the broad scheme of salvation history, while devoting only limited attention to doctrinal interpretation, ^lfric plainly states that he has supplied similarly anecdotal retellings to his friend Sigeweard in his home: Êlfric abbod gret freondlice Sigwerd aet Eastheolon . . . Du baede me for oft Engliscra gewritena, and ic l>e ne getiSode ealles swa timlice, aer Sam J>e t>u mid weorcum J>aes gewilnodest aet me, {>a 6a {m me baede for Godes lufon geornefraetic l>e aet ham aet J>inum huse gespraece. And J>u 5a swiSe maendest, l>a {>a ic mid J>e waes, {>aet Jm mine gewrita begitan ne mihtest.179 177

See Day, 'The Influence'.

178

See also below, p p . 1 3 0 - 1 , n. 8 1 , and 1 5 2 , n. 122, on parallels with Genesis A and B.

179

Letter to Sigeweard, lines 1 and 1 1 - 1 8 (The Old English Version, ed. Crawford, pp. 1 5 - 7 5 , here at pp. 15—16): 'Abbot JElfric sends affectionate greetings to Sigeweard of East Healle . . . Y o u often entreated me for Scriptures in English, but I did not provide them to you in an altogether timely manner until you further enticed me through your good works, when you implored m e to to preach to you at your own house for God's love. And when I was with you, you made so great a complaint that you could not obtain any of my writings.' Crawford's text, based on the text preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 5 0 9 (s. xi 2 ; cf. also SC Il.i, 3 9 (no. 942)) has been compared throughout with the fragmentary witness from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 3 4 3 (s. xii 2 ), as ptd in Angelsdchsische Homilien, ed. Assmann, p. 8 5 ; cf. SC Il.i, 3 5 2 - 3 (no. 2406). Translations have been freely adapted from Crawford's rendition. Throughout this study, abbreviated titles of Old English texts regularly follow the recommendations of B. Mitchell, C. Ball and A. Cameron, as set out in their 'Short Titles of Old English Texts', ASE 4 (1975), 2 0 7 - 2 1 , and 'Short Titles of Old English Texts: Addenda and Corrigenda', ASE 8 (1979), 3 3 1 - 3 - These have been supplemented as necessary by abbreviations set out by A. DiP. Healey and R. L. Venezky, The List of Texts and Index of Editions (Toronto, 1980), issued as an adjunct to Healey and Venezky, Microfiche Concordance. Unless noted otherwise, all citations of Old English texts in this book derive from preferred editions specified by Healey and Venezky in their List of Texts and Index of Editions.

89


Recalling one of his visits to Sigeweard in a later passage of his letter, y^lfric draws a vivid picture of the convivial atmosphere in which conversation on biblical matters was impeded by the host's excessive generosity with his supply of drink. Du woldest me laSian, J)a £>a ic waes mid J>e, £>aet ic swiSor drunce swilce for blisse ofer minum gewunan. Ac wite \>u, leof man, {>aet se t>e oSerne neada5 ofer his mihte to drincenne, J>aet se mot aberan heora begra gilt, gif him aenig hearm of J)am drence becymS. Ure haelend Crist on his halgan godspelle forbead J)one oferdrenc eallum gelyfedum mannum: healde se 5e wille his gesetnysse. And {)a halgan lareowas aefter t>am haelende aledon l>one unSeaw l>urh heora lareowdom and taehton j>aet man drince swa swa him ne derede, for San t>e se oferdrenc forde5 untwilice t>aes mannes sawle and his gesundfullnysse, and unhael becymS of {>am drence.180 Given Sigeweard's standing as a witness to charters issued between 995 and 1012, we might suspect that Êlfric's despatch arose as part of a bid to strengthen his position within the local political hierarchy. But the homely nature of the closing comments on Sigeweard's provision of drink, which serve to close out the whole sequence of ^lfric's substantial review of holy writings, leaves little room to doubt that he undertook his exposition of scripture out of a genuine concern for his neighbour's education in the faith. A SCRIPTURAL APPROACH TO THE JUNIUS POEMS We have now surveyed the various circumstances under which AngloSaxon Christians are known to have encountered the texts of the Bible. We still do not know precisely how the poets of the verse of Junius 11 learned 180

Letter to Sigeweard, lines 1262-71 {The Old English Version, ed. Crawford, pp. 74-5) 'When I was with you [at your house}, you wished to encourage me to drink more heavily than I was accustomed for the sake of merriment. You ought to know, dear friend, that if anyone compels another to drink more than he has the strength for, and if any harm result from that drinking, the one who caused it must bear the guilt of both parties. Our saviour Christ in His holy gospel forbade drunkenness to all the faithful. One who wishes to adhere to His guidance should hold to this. Since the time of our saviour, the holy and learned Fathers have also suppressed this vice through their teaching, and have taught that a man should drink in such a way that it does not cause him any harm, for inebriation surely destroys a man's soul and health, and sickness of the body comes from such drinking'; see also White, JElfric, pp. 66—7.

90

Introduction

about the contents of the Old Testament, but we can be quite sure that each poet will have gained access to biblical knowledge in one or more of the ways outlined above: from an interlocutor, whether in the context of a systematic course of biblical paraphrase or in informal exchanges with other Christians; in the classroom or in private study, most probably while engaged in a programme of elementary or intermediary instruction; or in the fulfilment of liturgical and devotional obligations. We simply have no knowledge of any other means through which such a transfer of information might have come about. The preceding illustrations of the various methods of biblical study undertaken in Anglo-Saxon England have been arranged chronologically, but this should not be taken to suggest that a connection drawn between verse preserved in Junius 11 and a given practice would have any specific weight as a dating criterion. Rather, I have attempted to identify traditions of biblical learning that extend across the five centuries of Anglo-Saxon religious culture. Classroom dialogues on biblical topics will have arisen in England from the seventh century to the eleventh and secular aristocrats will have interacted with members of monastic communities. Catechumens will have prepared for ceremonies of baptism and confirmation throughout the period in question, Christian celebrants will have participated in the recitation of biblical lections in group settings and literate devotees will have undertaken courses of private Bible-reading. By admitting such a wide range of pedagogical and devotional practices into a discussion of the biblical sources of the Junius poems, we run the risk of blurring the subject of this study beyond redefinition. In my experience, however, the verse of the Junius poems is sufficiently heterogeneous to resist any single line of inquiry into its sources. As difficult as it may seem, I feel strongly that we must bear all of these practices in mind all of the time when we confront the received texts of Old English biblical poems. Only through the identification of special features of the texts of the poems themselves — reflexes of biblical glosses, borrowings from the language of the liturgy and so on — do we stand any reasonable chance of reducing the compass of our inquiry. Nevertheless, the preceding survey may point the way toward the formulation of a coherent set of questions that may be directed in turn at each of the main sequences of Old Testament verse in Junius 11. We may ask first whether a given sequence of lines reflects direct knowledge of Latin scripture on the part of a poet or interlocutor. If so, it is worth considering whether the biblical 91


source has been treated as a fixed exemplar, giving rise to a literalistic versification in the Old English, or simply offers a backdrop to an innovative treatment of an Old Testament episode. If we posit a Latin biblical exemplar whose readings are faithfully reflected in whole or in part in the verse of Junius 11, several specific textual questions demand attention. For example, was the exemplar preserved in a manuscript or fixed in the mind of a poet? If it appears that a document is in question, can we tell whether this lost exemplar preserved a continuous witness to the canon of scripture (presumably in the form of a Bible or part-Bible) or contained some sort of liturgical extract? At the level of diction, did the exemplar preserve a Vulgate text, an Old Latin text or a mixed text drawing on the readings of both versions? At the level of narrative, did it exhibit any distinctive qualities in its handling of section- and versedivisions? Was the exemplar supplied with glosses or some other form of expository apparatus? As we shall see in the chapters below, it is sometimes possible to offer very specific answers to these and similar questions regarding the biblical sources of the Junius poems. It is almost certain that the processes of composition and transmission underlying the received texts in Junius 11 emerged in connection with the development of one or more of the intellectual traditions sketched out above. A comprehensive approach to this problem would require full consideration of the extrabiblical elements in the Junius poems - echoes of patristic commentaries, encyclopaedic texts and so on. Although such an undertaking lies beyond the scope of the present study, we are already in a good position to draw some broad conclusions on the basis of the poems' handling of biblical sources. If a given sequence of lines exhibits a significant number of uncontextualized reminiscences of the diction of the Psalms and canticles, we might do well to recall the time-consuming obligations of the daily Office. If, on the other hand, an Old English biblical poem interweaves allusions to Old Testament passages seldom if ever excerpted as discrete liturgical lections, we may suspect the influence of direct knowledge of continuous scripture, perhaps obtained in the course of a poet's private reading. These and other interpretative principles will be more effectively introduced in the process of considering specific bodies of evidence. Even so, we can scarcely hope to recover more than a tiny fraction of the undocumented acts of composition, reception and transmission that must be assumed to stand behind the extant texts of the Junius poems, nor may we endeavour to restore any of their verse to an 92

Introduction

'original state'. A large part of the discussion which follows will be given over to the weighing of probabilities against possibilities in attempting to resolve doubtful points. It is my belief, however, that by undertaking a close comparison of the verse of Genesis, Exodus and Daniel with the contents of early medieval witnesses to the circulation of biblical texts we can establish a firm basis for future research. Viewed in such a light, nearly all of the verse of Junius 11, including many passages that have so far resisted convenient explanation (for example, the patriarchal narrative in Exodus and the redundant account of the rescue of the three youths in Daniel, to cite two long-standing cruces), may be seen to reflect an intelligible and not infrequently intelligent set of responses to problems engendered by the words of the Bible themselves.

93

The biblical sources of Genesis A and B

The Genesis-based poetry of Junius 11 vastly outweighs the other poetic contents of the manuscript in the bulk of its verse and in the quantity of visual and textual embellishment that accompanies it in the extant leaves of the first eleven quires of the manuscript. Comprising 2937 lines in its present state, the copy of the Genesis sequence may have embodied more than 3350 lines before the excision of leaves from quires 2—3 and 9—11 of the manuscript.1 Pp. 1-142 of Junius 11 thus bear witness to the longest sequence of thematically integrated verse in the corpus of Old English, with the dubious exception of the metrical gloss of Psalms LI—CL in the The figure offered here, based on analyses by Lucas, 'MS Junius 11' II, 15—20, and others, assumes the following apportionment of lines for the Genesis-derived verse of Junius 11 (note that line allotments are designated GenA or GenB, according to the common division of the text, and that figures for lacunae are estimated): GenA 1—168: 168 lines (followed by a lacuna of 62 lines); GenA 169-205: 37 lines; (lacuna: no detectable textual loss); GenA 206-34: 29 lines; (lacuna: 70 lines from Genesis A and B)\ GenB 235-441: 207 lines; (lacuna: 116 lines); GenB 442-851: 410 lines; GenA 852-2045: 1195 lines; (lacuna: no detectable textual loss); GenA 2046-381: 336 lines; (lacuna: 20 lines); GenA 2382-418: 37 lines; (lacuna: 61 lines); GenA 2419-512: 94 lines; (lacuna: 18 lines); GenA 2513-99: 87 lines; (lacuna: 36 lines); GenA 2600-806: 207 lines; (lacuna: 19 lines); GenA 2807-936: 130 lines. Total estimated lines in Genesis A and B before the mutilation of Junius 11: 3339 lines. A higher estimate emerges if we accept Lucas's maximum estimate of 130 lost lines after GenB 441 (assuming a passage containing few if any hypermetric lines), posit a textual loss after GenA 205 or see a loss of more than nineteen lines after GenA 2806. Short or mutilated lines at GenA 168, 1125, 1200 1929, 2143, 2441 and 2810 have been counted as full lines. Apparent embedded glosses at GenA 1547-8 and 1601c have been reckoned as part of the received text and counted as three full lines. Line 2045, divided by a codicological lacuna, is counted as comprising one full line. (For the text used in the present study, see above, p. 49, n. 85.)

94


Paris Psalter. The only extant Old English poem of comparable length is Beowulf, comprising 3182 lines.2 Other features of Junius 11, both textual and iconographic, corroborate the pre-eminent position of the Genesisbased verse in the collection. Genesis A and B are the only compositions whose text has been provided with illustrations; both of their texts have been corrected and supplied with additional points and accents by readers. The text assigned to Genesis B in particular has been revised systematically — evidently in accordance with a phonologically informed programme of orthographic normalization.4 In the course of the later medieval transmission of Junius 11, the Genesis-based material seems often to have served to represent the entire contents of the manuscript. Two hands, one medieval and one early modern, have added the only titles to appear in Junius 11: 'Genesis in anglico' and 'Genesis in lingua Saxania' [sic]. An early fourteenth-century Christ Church booklist entry, 'Genesis anglice depicta', has been seen as a possible reference to the codex as a whole.5 The attention which the text and art of the Genesis sequence have commanded in the course of the execution and reception of Junius 11 is difficult to reconcile with the jarring heterogeneity of the contents of the verse itself. In accordance with accepted scholarly usage, the title Genesis is sometimes employed in the present study to refer to the full sequence of Genesis-based material in Junius 11, but it will be clear even to the casual reader of a modern translation that two essentially distinct compositions are in question — Genesis A and B, in standard nomenclature. The latter has been interpolated into the former at a point just over a tenth of the way into the continuous rendition of Genesis I-XXII, the text of Genesis A.6 These two compositions exhibit such widely diverging poetic styles and differ so 2

3

4

5

Only a few poems contain more than a thousand lines. These include Andreas (1722 lines), Elene (1321 lines) and the discontinuous texts embodied by Christ I-HI (1664 lines) and Guthlac A and B (1379 lines). On the significance of punctuation for our knowledge of the reception-history of Old English verse, see O'Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 138-89, with comments on Junius 11 at pp. 179-86. See Genesis A, ed. Doane, p. 14, The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, pp. 35-6, above and pp. 18-19, n. 26. See Ker, Catalogue, p. 408. Drawing on figures set out above, p. 94, n. 1, this statement assumes that about 331 of the 2571 lines conjecturally assigned to Genesis A in its unmutilated state, or thirteen per cent of its verse, will have preceded the commencement of the interpolated sequence of lines in Genesis B. These figures include both extant and hypothetically

95


fundamentally in their handling of biblical narrative and passages of direct speech that their integration in the received text of the Junius collection may well seem aesthetically indefensible. Genesis A, on the one hand, is undeniably the magnum opus among surviving witnesses to Old English techniques of sequential biblical versification. Its length is extraordinary - we may posit a minimum of about 2571 lines for the copy in Junius 11 before its mutilation, and there are reasons to suspect that many more lines have been lost.7 But, more importantly, Genesis A is a tour de force of bilingual (Latin—Old English) lexical negotiation. The poem reproduces nearly all of the episodic content and most of the Latin diction of Genesis I-XXII in a proficient and only occasionally pedestrian versification. The extant fragment of Genesis B, on the other hand, offers only a half of a dozen or so remote parallels with the phrasing of Latin texts of Genesis in its 616 extant lines. By and large, the verse of Genesis B manifests no deep concern with the biblical text treating the Fall at Gen. III. 1—7. The verse of the Old Saxon-derived fragment seems to stand at several removes from its ultimate biblical source. Much of the extant verse of Genesis B is given over to long speeches by Satan, Adam and Eve, whose rhetorical embellishment exceeds any observed in Genesis A. At the level of narrative, the verse of the fragment owes a clear debt to apocryphal tradition in its recounting of the temptation of Adam and Eve by a lieutenant of Satan sent from hell, the tempter's approach of Adam before Eve, Eve's visionary experience after eating the Forbidden Fruit and so on. Finally, the metre, syntax and vocabulary of the Old Saxon-derived Genesis B are often at odds with the poetic language of Genesis A, whose Old English origin is accepted by all authorities. It is hard to imagine a more inharmonious arrangement of material drawing on a common Old Testament source than we encounter in the interpolation of the panoramic and unevenly canonical fragment Genesis B into the sequential rendering of Genesis A. Not surprisingly, the most widely accepted theory holds that the interpolation was effected to patch up a textual loss incurred by a physical defect in an exemplar of Genesis A. For all of these reasons and

8

inferred lines, but leave out of account lost verse treating the matter of Gen. III. 1-8 that may have appeared in an earlier exemplar of Genesis A. The poem concludes abruptly at GenA 2936 (following Gen. XXII. 13), suggesting that the copy we possess may be far from complete. As noted, the interpolation of Genesis B may imply loss of material corresponding to Gen. III. 1—8. See Genesis A, ed. Doane, p. 240.

96


others, the Genesis-based verse in Junius 11 — in keeping with modern scholarly practice — will be discussed in the present chapter under the separate headings of Genesis A and B. The verse of Genesis A is especially well suited to the type of biblically informed analysis that is emphasized in the present study, as it offers dozens of passages that merit close comparison with specific sequences of Latin verses in Genesis. Much of the groundwork has already been completed. The Latin-derived diction of Genesis A has been scrutinized at length three times in recent decades: in the apparatus of A. N. Doane's 1978 edition of the poem, which prints a generous selection of Vulgate and Old Latin parallels on pages facing the Old English text; in a 1988 article by the present writer published in the journal Anglo-Saxon England', and in Doane's 1991 submission to the database Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, which includes a thorough enumeration of biblical sources. The introduction to Doane's edition, moreover, offers systematic analyses and discussion of the intermittent omission of biblical matter from Genesis A. 11 Doane also treats more than three hundred instances in which extrabiblical detail has been introduced into the poem's rendition of Genesis I—XXII. The biblically derived diction of Genesis A has thus been extraordinarily 9

For bibliographical references through 1972 {Genesis A and B), see GR, pp. 228-33 (nos. 3686a-3789), and Greene, 'Critical Bibliography' pp. 18-225. For bibliographical references to Genesis A only, see Wells, 'A Critical Edition', pp. lxviii-lxxv; L. N. McKill, 'A Critical Study of the Old English Genesis A' (unpubl. PhD dissertation, State Univ. of New York at Stony Brook, 1974), with abstr. in DA(I) 35 (1975), 3693A; and Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 97-106. See Genesis A, ed. Doane; Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis'; and A. N . Doane, 'The Sources of the Anonymous Genesis A', in Fontes Anglo-Saxonici: a Database Register of Written Sources Used by Authors in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. D . G. Scragg and M. Lapidge,

nos. A.1.1A.001-117 (Manchester, 1991—). To the manuscript resources for the study of the early European text of Genesis mentioned in my cited article, pp. 184—5, add the notice of a text of Gen. 111.13-16, III.22-IV.2, IV.8-13 and IV. 17-23 (with fragmentary prologue and chapter-headings — including those for chapters of Genesis treated in Genesis A - on the conjoint leaf) in Diisseldorf, Universitatsbibliothek, A. 19 (s. viii/ix or ix1) by B. C. Barker-Benfield, 'The Werden "Heptateuch" ', ASE 20 (1991), 43—63, at 62, and the Irish lectionary fragment of Gen. IV.20—6 and VI.9—21 in Louvain, Katholieke Universiteit, Centrale Bibliotheek, Fragmenta H. Omont 1 (PIreland, s. viii 1 ), treated by Bischoffand Brown, 'Addenda' I, 332-3. 11

See Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 62-70. Earlier expositions of the poem's sources in the book of Genesis include Gotzinger, 'Uber die Dichtungen', pp. 13-21, and Wells, 'A Critical Edition', pp. xlv-liii.

97


well served by recent scholarship, and my comments below will attempt to build on these advances in our knowledge of the poem's sources. In particular, the following discussion addresses outstanding questions surrounding the form of the biblical exemplar or exemplars in which the verses of Genesis I—XXII were consulted, presumably at first hand, by the poet of Genesis A. In my previous study of the biblical diction of the poem, I avoided drawing firm conclusions regarding the specific contents and arrangement of the exemplary sources reflected in the versification of Genesis. I referred only to a 'base-text' comprising an 'archetypal group of readings that correspond in point of detail to those parts of Genesis A derived from a Latin source (in most cases, the text of Genesis I-XXII)'. 12 I left open the question whether 'the exemplary series of readings behind [Genesis A] once existed in a single manuscript'.1 The main part of the present study thus endeavours to clarify the relationship of the individual Latin-derived readings in the poem discussed by Doane and myself to the larger structure of the narrative of Genesis A. The study further considers the possible dependence of both the individual readings and their subsuming narrative context on the contents of a hypothetical exemplar (or exemplars) preserving Latin readings in Genesis. Discussion of the larger, narrative structure of Genesis A will necessitate some consideration of Genesis B, if only to elucidate the problematic placement of its verse within the main sequence of Genesis-based material. This will also facilitate the exploration of problems relating to the textual boundaries that must have arisen at the point of its interpolation into the continuous rendition of Genesis I—XXII. In so doing, it will also prove useful to address a seldom discussed aspect of Genesis B: the fragment's limited debt to the Latin text of Genesis III. OLD LATIN AND VULGATE READINGS IN GENESIS

A

Previous studies of the biblically derived diction of Genesis A by A. N. Doane and the present writer have brought to light more than fifty passages in the poem whose wording agrees with readings of Old Latin texts of Genesis against those of the Vulgate text established by Jerome. There are, moreover, at least twenty-four points at which the verse of

13

Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', p. 163.

98


Genesis A can be shown to agree with the Vulgate against surviving Old Latin texts. On first consideration, it may seem that this assortment of Old Latin and Vulgate readings reflects the influence of a 'mixed' biblical exemplar that preserved a significant number of early, ante-Hieronymian forms of verses in Genesis. The fact that examples of possible reflexes of Old Latin texts in Genesis A outnumber those involving the Vulgate might even be taken to suggest that Genesis A draws on a fundamentally Old Latin text of Genesis I—XXII, a text which had been partly revised in the light of the Vulgate. Jerome's efforts to establish a revised text of the Old and New Testaments, which resulted in the production of the text now known as the Vulgate, had essentially been completed by the year 404. The very necessity for this undertaking arose out of the multifarious nature of the Old Latin texts circulating in his time, most of which had been produced from the second to the fourth centuries.15 These Old Latin texts normally contained slavish and frequently inelegant translations from the Greek 14

On the production and transmission of the Vulgate, see Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate; S. Berger, 'Notice sur quelques textes latins inedits de l'ancien testament', Notices et extraits des manuscripts de la Bibliotheque Nationale et autres bibliotheques 34.2 (1893), 119-52; Quentin, Memoire; B. Fischer, 'Bibelausgaben des friihen Mittelalters', in La bibbia nell'alto medioevo, SettSpol 10 (Spoleto, 1963), 519-600, as repr. in his Lateinische Bibelhandschriften, pp. 35—100; H. F. D. Sparks, 'Jerome as a Biblical Scholar', in The Cambridge History I, ed. Ackroyd and Evans, 510-41; and R. Loewe, 'The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate', in The Cambridge History II, ed. Lampe, 102—54. Collections of variant readings in the Vulgate are available in Vindiciae canonicarum Scripturarum, ed. Bianchini; Variae lectiones Veteris Testament! ex immensa mss. editorumque codicum congerie haustae, ed. G. B. de Rossi, 4 vols. (Parma, 1784-98); Scholia critica in V. T. libros, seu Supplementa ad varias Sacri Textus lectiones, ed. de Rossi (Parma, 1794); and Variae lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum, ed. C. Vercellone, 2 vols. (Rome, 1860-

4). 15

Introductory treatments of Old Latin biblical texts include Swete, An Introduction, pp. 93-7; Billen, The Old Latin Text, with the review by F. C. Burkitt, JTS 29 (1928), 140-6; H. F. D. Sparks, 'The Latin Bible', in The Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, ed. H. W. Robinson (Oxford, 1940), pp. 100-27, esp. pp. 100-10; B. J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions: the Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions (Cardiff, 1951), pp. 237-46; Vetus Latina Hispana I, ed. Ayuso, esp. pp. 65-139 (bibliography) and 205-27 and 345-99 (treatment of manuscripts); Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, pp. 716-18; Jellicoe, The Septuagint, pp. 249-51; E. Wiirthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments: eine Einfuhrung in die Biblia Hebraica, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, 1973), pp. 9 0 - 3 ; L. Light, 'Versions et revisions du texte biblique', in Le moyen age et la bible, ed. Riche and Lobrichon, pp. 55-93; Fischer,

99


of the Septuagint and revisions thereof issued by Origen, Theodotion and other early scholars of the biblical canon. Over the centuries following the publication of the Vulgate, compendious copies of Old Latin texts fell out of circulation — it is not certain that a complete Old Latin Bible ever existed in a unified form — as the new revision gained in popularity. In particular, Jerome's polished and stylistically consistent version of the Pentateuch, which had been developed with frequent recourse to the Hebrew text, immediately gained adherents. It is clear that Vulgate texts were available in England in the earliest attested phases of Anglo-Saxon letters. The Vulgate text of the Old Testament was scrutinized in the classroom at Canterbury during the later seventh century and copied out in de luxe volumes at Wearmouth and Jarrow in the early eighth. 1 Despite the popularity of the Vulgate, however, Old Latin readings con-tinued to circulate as discontinuous texts, most commonly in liturgical lections, patristic citations and entries in biblical florilegia. Old Latin readings also continued to circulate as lemmata in collections of glosses and items in brief summaries of biblical episodes commonly copied out on the opening leaves of early medieval Bibles, hereafter termed capitula. Manuscripts providing continuous texts of the Old Latin versions of most books of the Bible are rare, but the shortage of reliable witnesses is especially acute in the case of the book of Genesis, whose placement at the beginning of biblical codices frequently resulted in the destruction of leaves containing its text. The physical vulnerability of these leaves and the encroachments made by Jerome's translation resulted in the nearly complete disappearance of continuous witnesses to the Old Latin text of Genesis. In particular, no example of a full Old Latin text of Genesis I-XXII has survived to the present day, and no 'mixed' text has yet been brought to light displaying Old Latin readings in the quantity that we find in Genesis A. We do not even know for certain whether such complete texts circulated at all after the emergence of the Vulgate. If Genesis A could be shown to derive the bulk of its Old Latin readings from a single, continuous text of Genesis I-XXII, its verse would Lateinische Bibelhandschriften, pp. 35-100 and 404-21; Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', pp. 165-8 and 180; and Mikra, ed. Mulder, pp. 299-312. See above, pp. 47-8, on the Canterbury schools, and below, p. 101 with n. 17, on surviving Northumbrian Bible fragments.

100


provide a type of documentation otherwise unavailable to scholars of the Old Testament. However, attribution of some or all of the apparent Old Latin reflexes in the poem to a single exemplar should only proceed when there is evidence for such a continuous text beyond the collective witness of the individual readings that might be conjecturally assigned to this document. Establishment of the existence of such a source, in my view, can only take place in the light of a close examination of the narrative of Genesis A. The sequence of major episodes in Genesis A

The sheer bulk of the verse of Genesis A precludes a full review here of the relationship of various passages of the poem to the Latin verses in Genesis on which they are founded. And, as noted above, such resources are already available in the scholarship of Doane and others. As a basis for further discussion, the main topics of the Genesis-based matter assigned to Genesis A may be summarized briefly. (The following summary concords the line-numbers of Genesis A with the modern chapter- and versedivisions of the Vulgate text of Genesis and the early medieval divisions in the famous Anglo-Saxon manuscript Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 (Wearmouth—Jarrow, s. viii in ; 'Codex Amiatinus'). 7 ) (Praise of God the Creator; the Void before Creation; the revolt and fall of the insubordinate angels; Creation as a response to the apostasy of the angels (GenA 1-91 (cf. Gen.I.1-2)).) 1 Creation of the world and of Adam and Eve (GenA 92—234 (Gen. 1.1—31 and II. 1—25; and Amiatino 1, divisions 1—3a)). 17

18

On Amiatino 1, see Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, esp. pp. 107-201; Marsden, 'The Old Testament', pp. 103-5 and 123, with references; McGurk, 'The Oldest Manuscripts', p. 2; and Sapientia Salomonis, ed. Thiele, pp. 26-7 (item A). For discussion of the content and structure of Genesis A, see further Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 38-83, and C. B. Hieatt, 'Divisions: Theme and Structure of Genesis A', NM 81 (1980), 243-51. For a more detailed enumeration of Latin-Old English parallels and further discussion of the biblical divisions of Amiatino 1, see below, pp. 105-13. Unless noted, citations of the Vulgate text of Genesis follow the edition of Biblia Sacra, ed. Weber, compared throughout with the text of Genesis, ed. Quentin. Translations of the Vulgate texts of Genesis and other books of the Bible are adapted from The Holy Bible Translated from the Latin Vulgate, pref. W. H. McClellan (New York, 1944).

101


2 3 4 5

6 7 8

(Satan in hell; the Temptation; the Fall and its aftermath (GenB 235— 851 (Gen. III.l-8a; Amiat. 4a)).) God's cursing of the serpent and of Adam and Eve; the sinners' banishment from Eden (GenA 852-966 (Gen. III.8b-24; Amiat. 4b)). Adam's offspring; Cain's murder of Abel and his banishment (GenA 967-105 la (Gen. IV. 1-16; Amiat. 5-6a)). The lineages of Cain and Seth (GenA 1051b-1269 (Gen. IV. 17-26, V.l-31 and VI. 1-4; Amiat. 6b-7)). God's anger, God's command to Noah and Noah's survival of the Flood (GenA 127O-15O3a (Gen. VI.5-22, VII.1-24 and VIII.1-20; Amiat. 8-9a)). The Institution of the Covenant (GenA 15O3b-1554 (Gen. VIII.21-2 and IX. 1-19; Amiat. 9b-10a)). Noah's drunkenness (GenA 1555-6Olc (Gen. IX.20-9; Amiat. 10b)). The lineage of Cham (GenA l6O2-35a (Gen. X . l - 3 2 ; Amiat.

9 The destruction of the tower and city of Babel (GenA 1635b—1702 (Gen. XI. 1-9; Amiat. lib)). 10 The lineage of Shem and God's calling of Abraham (GenA 1703—43 (Gen. XI. 10-32; Amiat. lie)). 11 God's blessing of Abraham and Abraham's early sojourns (GenA 1744_8lO(Gen. XII. 1-9; Amiat. lid)). 12 Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (GenA 1811-72 (Gen. XII.10-20; Amiat. 12)). 13 Abraham and Lot; God's promise to Abraham (GenA 1873-959 (Gen. XIII. 1-18; Amiat. 13)). 14 Lot's capture by the four kings and Abraham's rescue of Lot (GenA 1960-2100a (Gen. XIV. 1-17; Amiat. 14)). 15 Melchisedech's blessing of Abraham (GenA 2100b-2l6l (Gen. XIV. 18-24; Amiat. 15)). 16 God's promise to Abraham (GenA 2162—215 (Gen. XV. 1—21; Amiat. 16a)). 17 Abraham and Agar; the birth of Ismael (GenA 2216-303 (Gen. XVI. 1-16; Amiat. 16b)). 18 Institution of the Circumcision (GenA 2304-81 (Gen. XVII. 1-27; Amiat. 17-19)). 19 Abraham and the angels, prediction of the birth of Isaac and God's 102


judgement of Sodom (GenA 2382-418 (Gen. XVIII. 1-33; Amiat. 20a)). 20 Lot and the angels; the destruction of Sodom (GenA 2419—575 (Gen. XIX. 1-26; Amiat. 20b)). 21 Lot and his daughters (GenA 2576-620 (Gen. XIX.27-38; Amiat. 21-2)). 22 Sarah and Abimelech (GenA 2621-1^ (Gen. XX. 1-18; Amiat. 23)). 23 The birth of Isaac (GenA 2760-802 (Gen. XXI.1-13; Amiat. 24)). 24 Agar and Ismael; Abraham and Abimelech (GenA 2803—45 (Gen. XXI. 14-34; Amiat. 25-6)). 25 Abraham's offering of Isaac (GenA 2846-936 (Gen. XXII. 1-19; Amiat. 27)). Biblical references here allude to entire episodes, but there is no suggestion that all of the verses of a given biblical episode are rendered in Genesis A. Nevertheless, nearly all the major episodes of Genesis I—XXII are treated at some length in the poem. This circumstance raises the possibility that the poet's contribution to this adaptation of the Latin Genesis might be defined with some precision. As we shall see below, valuable clues regarding the poet's handling of source-material in Genesis are available both in the arrangement of the narrative of Genesis A (the disposition of individual biblical episodes) and in the pacing of the narrative (the disposition of omissions, expansions, conflations and so on). Structural features of the Latin exemplar of Genesis A

As I have noted, the lexical correspondence of the treatments of biblical episodes in Genesis A to their biblical counterparts has been explored at length in existing scholarship. The main obstacle hindering further inquiry into the sources of the poem's rendition of Genesis I-XXII - and the assessment of the status of its narrative as a possible reflex of a single, continuous exemplar — is lack of knowledge about the textual divisions in the book of Genesis that prevailed at various stages in the development of the Anglo-Saxon church. We can be certain that these divisions bore only limited resemblance to the arrangement of chapters in modern editions of the Old Testament, many details of which trace back to scholastic and post-scholastic textual criticism of the Bible, dating from the twelfth century on. Some indication of the variety and complexity of systems of biblical division in use before the efforts of the scholastics may be derived 103


from the Vatican edition of the Vulgate Genesis.19 This edition prints nine distinct series of biblical capitula, whose summaries of individual episodes in Genesis comprise as a rule no more than one to three sentences. Three of these originated as accessories to Old Latin texts and seven as post-Vulgate accretions. The Vatican edition also distinguishes three grades of textual division (major, medial and minor), although all of these represent 'major' divisions insofar as they involve groups of verses.20 They thus come closer to our modern notion of the biblical 'chapter' than to our notion of the 'verse' — the basic unit of scriptural sense-division at the phrasal level. (The apportionment of verses in a prosaic or accentual text is sometimes denoted by the term stichometry.) In extant early medieval Bibles, major textual divisions in continuous copies of biblical books were normally indicated by apportionment of blank space, augmented at times by division-numbers and various marks of punctuation. They were not typically accompanied by texts corresponding to the capitula set out in the opening leaves of volumes or by other sorts of chapter-headings. Nevertheless, these silent breaks in the text of Genesis are most easily classified according to the nomenclature assigned to the various Old Latin- and Vulgate-derived sequences in the Vatican edition, and this convention has been maintained here. The main point to be taken is that in confronting the divisions of early medieval Bibles, we have to reckon with substantially more complex divisional and stichometric practices than are encountered in the modern system of'chapter and verse'. A second, more detailed summary of the episodic contents of Genesis A is thus offered in the list below (pp. 105—13). This summary attempts to avoid the anachronism that might result from reliance on conventions of biblical division that originated in central medieval or later times. Specific verses of the Latin Genesis are associated with their corresponding passages in Genesis A following an arrangement based on the biblical divisions and capitula of the copy of Genesis in Amiatino 1. This copy has the merit of preserving series of capitula and biblical divisions that were known and reproduced in Anglo-Saxon England by the early eighth century. The 19

See Genesis, ed. Quentin, and, on extrabiblical features of early copies of the Old Testament, two studies by T. Ayuso Marazuela: 'Los elementos extrabfblicos de la Vulgata, EB 2 (1943), 133-87, and 'Los elementos extrabfblicos del Octateuco', EB 4 (1945), 35-60. See Genesis, ed. Quentin, pp. 73-133 and 139On Amiatino 1, see above, p. 101 with n. 17.

104


completeness and apparent one-to-one correspondence of the capitula and textual divisions in the copy of Genesis in Amiatino 1 render the manuscript's extrabiblical apparatus particularly appropriate as a model for the type of structural analysis undertaken here, but I do not mean to draw a special connection between the contents of this codex and Genesis A.2 In the following analysis, I endeavour to take account of every apparent omission from Genesis A of biblical matter comprising more than one verse in the stichometry of modern editions of Genesis and every instance of narrative dislocation involving a shift in the position of an Old English reflex of Genesis more than one verse forward or back, vis-a-vis the context of its biblical source. The analysis further subdivides the material in question to accommodate the sectional divisions of the copy of Genesis A in Junius 11, which, as we shall see, appear to owe an independent debt to an early medieval series of biblical divisions. The information in the summary should thus be regarded in the first instance as offering a new view of the narrative structure of Genesis A. It offers an exploratory arrangement of an immensely complex body of evidence that holds the promise of clarifying the relationship of the verse of Genesis A to any lost exemplar of Genesis I— XXII that may be seen to stand behind its verse. 1 Gen. 1.1—31 and II. 1—3: 'Opus deificum sex diebus et septimo requieuit.' It should be stressed that there are m a n y points at which the arrangement of biblical material in Genesis A diverges from that observed in Amiatino 1 (see p . 1 0 1 , n. 17) and may be associated plausibly w i t h other early medieval series of capitula and textual divisions. These will be noted over the course of the following discussion. T h e capitula of A m i a t i n o 1, as is customary, stand at the head of the volume and are not reproduced in the m a i n body of the text of Genesis. Nevertheless, they correspond closely to the n u m b e r e d series of biblical divisions in the main text. This greatly facilitates the precise demarcation of the specific sequences of Latin verses contained in the divisions signalized by the capitula, in contrast to many of the series enumerated by D e Bruyne and Q u e n t i n . 23

T h e summary on p p . 1 0 5 - 1 3 is everywhere indebted to the detailed apparatus in Genesis A , ed. Doane, p p . 1 1 2 - 2 2 0 , although I have taken the liberty to add a few refinements of m y own. Capitula follow the edition of Genesis, ed. Q u e n t i n , p p . 1 2 4 - 8 (Vulgate-based series G , form b, to which Amiatino 1 is the major witness); cf. D e Bruyne, Sommaires, p p . 3 and 5 (text D ) , and, for the divisions, p p . 426—8. Estimates of lost leaves and lost lines of Genesis A again follow Lucas, 'MS J u n i u s 1 1 '

24

II, 15-20. Capitulum 1: 'The work made by God in six days; and on the seventh He rested.'

105


Gen. I.l-5a(G*»A 110b-134) (Junius 11, sect, [iii}) Gen. I.5b-10 (GenA 135-68a) (one to three lost leaves (that is, three?): textual loss of about sixtytwo lines (that is, about forty- seven lines from section [iii] and sixteen from section [iiii])) (Junius 11, sect. [?iiii]) 2 Gen. II.4—18: 'Adam posuit Deus in paradiso ut operaretur.' (textual loss (see above)) (Junius 11, sect. [?iiii]) Gen. 11.18 (GenA 169-78a) Gen. II.21-2 (GenA 178b-186a) Gen. 1.27-8 (GenA 186b-205) (one to six lost leaves (that is, one or two?): no detectable textual loss) Gen. 1.31 (GenA 206-8a) Gen. II. 1 (GenA 208b-210a) Gen. II.5-6 (GenA 210b-215a) Gen. 11.10-14 (GenA 215b^234) (one to three lost leaves (that is, two?): textual loss of about seventy lines from Genesis A and B) (Junius 11, sect. [?v]) 3 Gen. 11.19—25: 'Adam cunctis animantibus nomina inposuit, sed Euam de costis eius productam adduxit ad Adam.' (textual loss (see above)) (Junius 11, sect. [?v]) 4 Gen. III. 1—24: 'Serpens qui seduxit Euam scilicet et Adam ad gustum non cibi sed inoboedientiae.'27 (textual loss (see above)) (Junius 11, sect. [?v]) (cf. Gen. II.8-9,11.15-17 and III.lb-3 (GenB 235-45)) (Junius 11, sect, [vi]) (cf. Fall of Satan (apocryphal legend) (GenB 246-324)) 25

Cap. 2: ' G o d placed A d a m in Paradise so that he m i g h t labour.'

26

Cap. 3 : ' A d a m gave names to all living creatures and [ G o d ] b r o u g h t Eve to A d a m ,

27

Cap. 4 : ' T h e serpent which indeed enticed Eve and A d a m , not to the tasting of food

having been produced of his ribs.' b u t to disobedience.'

106


(Junius 11, sect, [vii]) (cf. Fall of Satan {GenB 325-88)) (Junius 11, sect. vii{i]) (cf. Fall of Satan {GenB 389-44la)) (two lost leaves: textual loss of about 116 lines from Genesis B) (Junius 11, sect, [viiii]) (textual loss from Genesis B (see above)) (Junius 11, sect, [x]) (textual loss from Genesis B (see above)) (Junius 11, sect, {xi}) (textual loss from Genesis B (see above)) (cf. Gen. II.8-9 and III.l {GenB 442-546)) (Junius 11, sect, [xii]) (cf. Gen. I I I . l - 6 a ( G ^ £ 547-683)) (Junius 11, sect, {xiii}) (cf. Gen. III.6b {GenB 684-820)) (Junius 11, sect, [xiiii]) (cf. Gen. III.7 and III.8b {GenB 821-51)) Gen. III.8b-10 {GenA 852-71) (Junius 11, sect, [xv]) Gen. III. 11-15 {GenA 872-917) (Junius 11, sect, xvi) Gen. III. 16-24 {GenA 918-66) 5 Gen. IV. 1—7: 'Adam procreauit filios.'29 Gen. IV. 1-4 {GenA 967-82a) 6 Gen. IV.8—24: 'Instigante aduerso, Cain occidit Abel fratrem suum, et generatio Cain ontur. Gen. IV.8 {GenA 982b-1001) (Junius 11, sect, xvii) Gen. IV.9-21 {GenA 1002-81) (Junius 11, sect, xviii) Gen. IV.22-4 {GenA 1082-103) 28

T h e estimated figure is that of Lucas, 'MS J u n i u s 1 1 ' II, 17. Benskin, 'An A r g u m e n t ' , 2 3 9 , n. 1, posits a m a x i m u m figure of 104 lost lines. Lucas, in his cited article, at II, 1 7 - 1 8 , n. 8, suggests a possible m a x i m u m figure of 130 lost lines.

29 30

Cap. 5: ' A d a m begot offspring.' Cap. 6: 'Having been instigated to t u r n against h i m {i.e. Abel}, Cain slew his brother Abel and the generation of Cain arises.'

107


1 Gen. IV.25-6, V.l-31 and VI.l-4a: 'Item genuit Adam Seth et cuncta generatio eius subsequitur. Hie constituit offensus Deus annos hominum centum uiginti.'31 Gen. IV.25 (GenA 1104-16) Gen. V.3-14 (GenA 1117-66) (Junius 11, sect. [x}viiii) Gen. V.I5-23 (GenA 1167-217a) Gen. V.26-31 (GenA 1217b-1242a) Gen. VI. 1 (GenA 1242b-1247) (Junius 11, sect, xx) Gen. VI.2-3 (GenA 1248-69) 8 Gen. VI.4b—7: ' "Paenitet me," ait Dominus, "fecisse eos super terrain prae malitia hominum."' Gen. VI.5-7 (GenA 1270-84) 9 Gen. VI.8-22, VII.1-24, VIII.1-22 and IX. 1-11: 'Hae generationes Noe cui et dixit: "Et enim uidi iustum coram me in generatione hac." Praecepit etiam ut faceret arcam; etiam promittit ne ultra percutiat hominem, praecepta tradens Noe et semini eius modum legis.'33 Gen. VI.8-13 (GenA 1285-95) Gen. VI. 17-18 (GenA 1296-302a) Gen. VI.14-16 (GenA 13O2b-131Oa) Gen. VI. 19 (GenA 131Ob-1313) Gen. VI.22 and VI. 14 (GenA 1314-26) (Junius 11, sect, xxi) Gen. VII. 1 and VI. 18 (GenA 1327-34) Gen. VII.2 and VI.21 (GenA 1335-46a) Gen. VII. 1 (GenA 1346b-1348a) Gen. VII.4-9 (GenA 1348b-1362) Gen. VII.16 (GenA 1363-7a) 31

Cap. 7: ' A n d so A d a m begot Seth and his whole generation follows. A t this t i m e God harboured a resentment of m e n for 120 years [Gen. VI.3}.'

32

Cap. 8: ' " O n account of the wickedness of m e n , I regret that I created t h e m on earth", said the Lord.'

33

Cap. 9: 'These are the generations of N o a h to w h o m [ G o d ] also said: " A n d indeed I saw a just m a n before m e in that generation." A n d H e c o m m a n d e d that an ark should be built; moreover H e promised that H e would not afflict m a n further, giving c o m m a n d m e n t s to N o a h and his offspring in the way of the law.'

108


Gen. VII.6 and VII. 11 (GenA 1367b-1368) Gen. VII. 13 (GenA 1369-7la) Gen. VII. 11 and VII.6 (GenA 1371b-1376a) Gen. VII.12 and VII.17 (GenA 1376b-1386a) Gen. VII. 19 (GenA 1386b-1388a) Gen. VII.17 (GenA 1388b-1397a) Gen. VII.20 (GenA 1397b-1399a) Gen. VII.23 (GenA 1399b-l406) (Junius 11, sect, xxii) Gen. VIII. 1-12 (GenA 1407-82) (Junius 11, sect, xxiii) Gen. VIII. 15-20 (GenA l483-503a) Gen. IX. 1-11 (GenA 15O3b-1538a) 10 Gen. IX. 12—29 and X.I—32: 'Arcus foederis qui [sic] dum apparuerit in caelo recordabitur Dominus quod ultra non erit, ait Dominus; et generationes filiorum Noe; natique filii post diluuium. Ab his diuisae sunt gentes in terra post diluuium.'34 Gen. IX. 12-13 (GenA 1538b-1542) Gen. IX. 18-19 (GenA 1543-54) (Junius 11, sect, xxiiii) Gen. IX.20-5 (GenA 1555-97) Gen. IX.28-9 (GenA 1598-601c) Gen. X.l-10 (GenA l602-35a) 11 Gen. XI. 1—32 and XII. 1—9: Turrem quam temere extruxerunt habitatores terrae in terra Sennaar ubi ad uidendum descendit Deus. Generationes Tharae qui genuit Abram et Nahor et Aram unde oritur Israhel. Principium sermonis Domini ad Abram.'35 Gen. XI.l (GenA I635b-l636) 3

35

Cap. 10: 'The rainbow of the Covenant, [by] which, whenever it will appear in the sky, the Lord will recall [ci. cap. 9, above, and cap. 21, below} that such will not be again, as the Lord said; and the generations of the offspring of Noah; and the offspring born after the Flood. In consequence of these developments, the races on earth separated after the Flood.' In view of the inclusion of the phrase transacti diluuii between the words Dominus and quod in other witnesses to this capitulum, as ptd in Genesis, ed. Quentin, p. 125, the present translation must be regarded as provisional. Cap. 11: 'The tower which the inhabitants of earth heedlessly built up in the land of Sennaar, where God came down to see it [Gen. XI. 5]. The generations of Thare who begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram from which Israel arises. The beginning of the Lord's speech to Abraham.'

109


12

13

14

15

36

(Junius 11, sect, xxv) Gen. X.20-1 (GenA 1637-48) Gen. XI.2-10 (GenA l649-703a) Gen. XI.27 (GenA 1703b-1718) (Junius 11, sect, [xxvi]) Gen. XI.29-32 (GenA 1719-43) Gen. Xll.l-82i(GenA 1744-804) (Junius 11, sect, [xxvii]) Gen. XII.8b (GenA 1805-10) Gen. XII. 10-20: 'Abraham facta fame in terra Aegypti abiit cum uxorem suam.' 36 Gen. XII.10-20 (GenA 1811-72) Gen. XIII. 1—18: 'Abraham et Loth ascenderunt de Aegypto diuiseruntque ab inuicem. Abraham habitauit in terra Chanaan et Loth in Sodomis.' Gen. XIII. 1-4 (GenA 1873-89) (Junius 11, sect, [xxviia]) Gen. XIII.5-12 (GenA 1890-959) Gen. XIV. 1—17: 'Abraham expugnatis regibus reduxit Loth fratrem suum cum substantia sua.' (Junius 11, sect, xxviii) Gen. XIV. 1-4 (GenA 1960-6a) Gen. XIV. 10-16 (GenA 1996b-2017) (Junius 11, sect, xxviiii) Gen. XIV.13-14 (GenA 2018-45a) (lost leaf: no detectable textual loss) Gen. XIV. 14-16 (GenA 2045a-2095) (Junius 11, sect, [xxx}) Gen. XIV. 17 (GenA 2096-lOOa) Gen. XIV. 18—24: 'Melchisedech rex Sale proferens panes et uinum occurrit.'39 Cap. 12: 'When a famine was brought about in the land of Egypt, Abraham departed with his wife.' Cap. 13: 'Abraham and Lot went up out of Egypt and parted mutually. Abraham lived in the land of Canaan and Lot [lived] among the Sodomites.' Cap. 14: 'Abraham, having overcome the kings, brought back his brother Lot with his possessions.' Cap. 15: 'Melchisedech, king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, came forward.'

no


16

17 18 19

20

40 41 42

43 44

Gen. XIV. 18-24 (GenA 2100b-2l6l) Gen. XV. 1— 21: 'Abrahae promittit Deus filium habiturum.' Gen. XV. 1 (GenA 2162-72) (Junius 11, sect, [xxxi]) Gen. XV.2-7 (GenA 2173-204a) Gen. XV. 18 (GenA 2204b-2215) Gen. XVI.l-6a (GenA 2216-60) (Junius 11, sect, [xxxii}) Gen. XVI.6b-12 (GenA 2261-98) Gen. XVI. 15-16 (GenA 2299-303) Gen. XVII. 1—8: 'Apparuit Deus Abrahae cui etiam nomen ampliauit.' Gen. XVII. 1-2 (GenA 2304-9a) Gen. XVII.9—14: 'Praecepit Dominus circumcisionem Abrahae et futurae generationi.'42 Gen. XVII. 9-14 (GenA 2309b-2325) Gen. XVII. 15—27: 'Ampliatur nomen Sarae ore Domini.' 3 Gen. XVII. 16 (GenA 2326-37) (Junius 11, sect, [xxxiii]) Gen. XVII.17-23 (GenA 2338-81) (lost leaf: textual loss of about twenty lines) Gen. XVIII. 1-33 and XIX. 1-26: 'Apparuerunt Abrahae tres uiri, erepto Loth, subuertentes Sodomam.' (textual loss (see above)) Gen. XVIII. 10-14 (GenA 2382-98) (Junius 11, sect, xxxiiii) Gen. XVIII. 16 (GenA 2399-406a) Gen. XVIII.20-1 (GenA 2406b-24l8) (lost leaf: textual loss of about sixty-one lines) (Junius 11, sect, xxxv) Gen. XIX. 1-13 (GenA 2419-512) Cap. 16: 'God promises to Abraham that his son will have a dwelling.' Cap. 17: 'God appeared to Abraham whose name, moreover, He lengthened.' Cap. 18: 'The Lord prescribed the Circumcision for Abraham and for the future generation.' Cap. 19: 'The name of Sarah is lengthened by an utterance of God.' Cap. 20: 'Three men appeared to Abraham, when Lot had been seized, bringing the destruction of Sodom.'

Ill


21

22

23

24

25

26

45

(lost leaf: textual loss of about eighteen lines) (Junius 11, sect, [xxxvi}) (textual loss (see above)) Gen. XIX. 18-26 (GenA 2513-75) Gen. XIX.27-30: 'Recordatus est Deus Abrahae et liberauit Loth de subuersione urbium.' 5 (Junius 11, sect, xxxvii) Gen. XIX.27-30 (GenA 2576-90) Gen. XIX.31-8: 'Incubuit Loth cum filiabus suis.' 46 Gen. XIX.31 and XIX.30 (GenA 2591-9) (lost leaf: textual loss of thirty-six lines or slightly fewer) Gen. XIX.33-8 (GenA 2600-20) Gen. XX. 1—18: 'Profectus Abraham in terram Cades ubi uxorem sororem suam dedisset et temptatus est in ea Abimelech.' (Junius 11, sect, xxxviii) Gen. XX. 1-9 (GenA 2621-90) (Junius 11, sect, xxxviiii) Gen. XX. 11-18 (GenA 2691-759) Gen. XXI. 1-13: 'Sara genuit Isaac.'48 Gen. XXI. 1-4 (GenA 2760-71) (Junius 11, sect, xl) Gen. XXI.5 and XXI.8 (GenA 2772-7) Gen. XXL9-13 (GenA 2778-802) Gen. XXI. 14—21: 'Agar ancillam et filium eius Ismahel dimisit a se Abraham iubente domino.' Gen. XXL 14 (GenA 2803-6) (lost leaf: textual loss of nineteen or more lines) Gen. XXI.22—34: 'Abimelech et Fichol humiliant se Abrahae.' ° (textual loss (see above)) Cap. 2 1 : ' G o d remembered A b r a h a m and rescued Lot from the destruction of the cities.'

46

Cap. 2 2 : 'Lot lay w i t h his daughters.' Cap. 2 3 : 'Abraham w e n t o u t into the land of Cades where he surrendered his wife [and] sister [Sarah] a n d Abimelech was tested in it.' Cap. 2 4 : 'Sarah begot I s a a c ' Cap. 2 5 : 'Abraham sent away from h i m the serving w o m a n Agar and his son Ismael at the c o m m a n d of t h e Lord.' Cap. 2 6 : 'Abimelech and Phicol h u m b l e themselves to Abraham.'

112


Gen. XXI.22-4 (GenA 2807-33) (Junius 11, sect, xli) Gen. XXI.33-4 {GenA 2834-45) 27 Gen. XXII.1-19: 'Temptat Deus Abraham si offerret ei Isaac.'51 Gen. XXII. 1-13 (GenA 2846-936) The information set out in the list above illuminates some hitherto unrecognized features in both the verse of Genesis A and the sections into which it has been divided in the extant copy. In particular, it leaves little room to doubt that approximately the latter two-thirds of the verse of Genesis A (whether extant or hypothetically inferrable) was composed in the light of a complete, continuous exemplar of Genesis VIII—XXII.52 There is no occurrence in the entire sequence of what in the present discussion has been broadly termed narrative dislocation. That is to say, there is no deviation from the narrative of Genesis that effectively displaces biblical matter in Genesis A by a distance of more than one verse (with respect to the canonical sequence). There are, admittedly, a few substantial omissions of biblical material that cannot be attributed to physical losses from the manuscript, especially in the genealogical summaries — for example, after GenA 1635a, where matter corresponding to Gen. X.I 1—19 is left wholly out of account. But on the whole, the rendition of the major biblical episodes of Genesis VIII-XXII (the last breaking off at Gen. XXII. 13) is sequential and essentially complete. In spite of its length, the narrative of Genesis A also tends to be laconic. There are only a few conspicuous poetical enhancements of the matter of the biblical Genesis, 51

Cap. 2 7 : 'God tests A b r a h a m [to determine] if he will offer Isaac to h i m . '

52

These figures assume a total of 2 5 7 1 lines for Genesis A before t h e m u t i l a t i o n of J u n i u s 1 1 , of w h i c h 1 6 8 4 lines (or sixty-six per cent of the total) will have been given over to the m a t t e r of Genesis V I I I - X X I I (in the sequence now b o u n d e d by lines 1407 and 2 9 3 6 of Genesis A)\ see also above, p . 9 4 w i t h n. 1. O n structural aspects of Genesis V I I I - X X I I , see esp. D . W . Baker, 'Diversity and U n i t y in the Literary Structure of Genesis', in Essays, ed. Millard and W i s e m a n , p p . 1 9 7 - 2 1 5 . T h e sole exception would appear to be the brief foreshadowing of the Tower of Babel episode in which a single biblical verse (Gen. X I . 1, reproduced at GenA

1635b—1636)

is b o u n d u p w i t h the poem's treatment of the lineages of C h a m and Shem (Gen. X . 2 0 - 1 ; cf. GenA 5

\6$7-46a.).

O n t h e whole, the treatment of the genealogical summaries in Genesis A is remarkably t h o r o u g h ; see discussion by J . W . Butcher, 'Formulaic Invention in the Genealogies of

the Old English Genesis A\ in Comparative Research on Oral Traditionsy ed. J. M. Foley

(Columbus, OH, 1987), pp. 73-92.

113


which are better regarded as natural features of an Anglo-Saxon versification: the amplified, perhaps characteristically Germanic treatments of the capture of Lot, Abraham's victory against the four kings and the destruction of Sodom (GenA 1920-2095 and 2535-75). 55 All critics who have read the verse of Genesis A in tandem with a Latin text of Genesis (including Grein, Holthausen, Klaeber and Doane) have come away with the impression that the composition of the poem involved the versification of a single, continuous biblical exemplar by one prolific poet.5 As Doane has noted, '[w]hat sets the poet apart is his ability to see Genesis as a text [Doane's emphasis], as a fixed form of words which must be reproduced as entirely as possible . . . The Vulgate text is the only antecedent that can be traced with any assurance, and its direct working can be demonstrated in nearly every line of the poem.' 57 For the latter two-thirds of the narrative of Genesis A, then, it appears that we can confidently postulate the influence of at least one continuous exemplar of the Latin text of Genesis. It is still far from clear, however, that this was the only Latin source known to the poet, who includes varying amounts of extrabiblical detail even in the most literalistic sections of the poem. In the summary presented on pp. 105-13, moreover, it will be noted that the situation regarding sources is considerably less straightforward in the earlier parts of the poem. On the one hand, the versification of episodes recounting the aftermath of the Fall and Cain's slaying of Abel (GenA 852—1116, following Gen. III.8—IV.25) are as sequential and literalistic as most of the passages in the versification of Genesis VIII-XXII. The 55

5

Raw, Art and Background, p. 82, notes that '[i}n the Old English poem this brief reference to the sacking of Sodom and Gomorrah, the capture of Lot, the pursuit by Abraham and the recovery of the captives is transformed into an energetic battle story in the heroic manner'. The exemplar almost certainly contained a Latin text. The influence of Latin syntax on the verse of Genesis A is unmistakeable and, in some passages, pervasive. There can be little doubt that the poet of Genesis A was a competent Latinist. Connections between the words of the Old English and Latin etymologies of proper names in Genesis, noted by Robinson, 'The Significance', pp. 28—34, among other apparent encyclopaedic borrowings, implicitly support this conclusion. Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 54—5. Doane adds, pp. 61 and 63, that 'the poet has systematically, virtually phrase by phrase, reproduced in traditional poetry the essential meaning of the Latin Genesis which he had before him as he worked . . . Overall, the ratio of omitted whole biblical verses to those represented is two to five. In most chapters the actual ratio of omissions is considerably lower . . . [and] almost everything is represented.'

114


renditions on the Creation and Flood in Genesis A, however, exhibit a large amount of narrative dislocation, enough to suggest that the Genesis A poet (if we are in fact dealing only with the work of the same individual who undertook the versification of Genesis VIII-XXII) chose to treat these episodes in a manner that differs fundamentally from the approach observed in the passages exhibiting a close adherence to the model of scripture. Or perhaps the poet drew here on the readings of a different exemplar. The special features of the Creation and Flood narratives will be discussed in greater detail below; the following comments address passages that offer essentially complete treatments of the scriptural model (for example, in treatments of Genesis III—IV and VIII—XXII). Biblical divisions in the lost exemplar of Genesis A

The probability that an exemplar preserving a continuous Latin text of Genesis VIII—XXII (and, presumably, other matter of Genesis) stands behind the final two-thirds of Genesis A raises questions about the arrangement of the text in such a resource, notably in its handling of textual divisions and stichometry. For example, we may ask whether the divisions more closely resembled those of the Vulgate series established by De Bruyne, Quentin and others, or stood closer to Old Latin systems of biblical division. To judge by the witness of surviving biblical manuscripts, almost any early medieval copy of Genesis would have been divided into sections. The summary of Latin and Old English parallels (above, pp. 105—13) was arranged in accordance with the capitula and divisions in Genesis preserved in Amiatino 1, allowing us to examine the narrative of Genesis A in the light of one particular medieval system of biblical divisions that was certainly known in Anglo-Saxon England. Many different systems are, however, known to have been employed in Europe prior to c. 800, with an even greater number of variants proliferating thereafter. Many of these continental systems of verse-division will have found their way into Anglo-Saxon England and many more will have been introduced on an ad hoc basis by English scribes. In the course of preparing the following analysis, I have thus attempted to accord special attention to those textual divisions commonly encountered across a range of early medieval divisional and stichometric systems. The evidence of early medieval biblical divisions bears on five passages in Genesis A in which I detect instances of apparent omission or com115


pression of biblical matter involving a substantial number of verses from Genesis. These passages seem more readily comprehensible if we theorize that the poet's exemplar reproduced a group of textual divisions well attested in early medieval sources. The poem renders only the first ten verses of the modern Genesis X, treating the lineage of Noah. It leaves the details of Gen. X.I 1—32 — comprising little more than a list of names — almost wholly out of account. The poet appears to have leapt forward to the matter beginning the modern Genesis XI (treated at GenA 1636b— 1637) and picked up again with a sequential rendering of the contents of the chapter that continues unbroken to the end of the chapter and beyond. This may point up one distinctive feature of the lost exemplar of Genesis A. The modern division of Genesis X and XI finds precedent in the early Middle Ages only in Amiatino I. 5 8 Similarly, a brief echo of God's speech to Abraham before the account of the Institution of the Circumcision in Genesis A (lines 2304—9b, following Gen. XVII. 1) suffices for matter corresponding to the whole of the seventeenth major division of Amiatino 1 (comprising Gen. XVII. 1—8). The subsequent commencement of a continuous rendering drawing on Gen. XVII.9—27 (divisions 18 and 19 in 58

Apart from Amiatino 1, Quentin records a division before Gen. XI. 1 only for manuscripts of the thirteenth century or later, with the sole exception of a Spanish manuscript of the tenth century whose capitula conform to Quentin's Old Latinderived series in series Y (form a). (The manuscript in question is Burgos, Seminario de San Jeronimo, s.n. (s. x); see Sapientia Salomonis, ed. Thiele, p. 61 (item A ), and Genesis, ed. Quentin, pp. 73-4 and 125-6.) The most commonly encountered early medieval sectional division separating out the matter of Genesis X-XI typically appears one verse sooner than the division in Amiatino 1, that is, before the modern Gen. X.32, a verse which does not appear to be rendered in Genesis A. This division is typical of manuscripts exhibiting capitula conforming to Quentin's Old Latin-derived series A (form a), witnesses to which include Paris, BN, lat. 3 (Tours, s. ix1) and other representatives of the revision of the Vulgate associated with Alcuin; see Sapientia Salomonis, ed. Thiele, pp. 79-88. There is no break whatsoever in the sequence of verses intervening between Gen. X.I and XII. 1 in manuscripts exhibiting capitula conforming to Quentin's Vulgate-derived series F (form a), as represented by BN, lat. 9380 (s. ix m ) and other witnesses to the revision of the Vulgate associated with Theodulf of Orleans; see ibid., pp. 61-8. (Note that distinctions between Old Latin and Vulgate here refer only to the derivation of the capitula associated with early medieval Bibles displaying particular arrangements of sectional divisions. They have no bearing whatsoever on the textual affinities of verses preserved in the hypothetical exemplar of Genesis I-XXII underlying the verse of Genesis A, since the Old Latinderived capitula regularly occur in otherwise faithful witnesses to the Vulgate.)

116


Amiatino 1) again suggests that the poet compressed the matter corresponding to division 17 of Amiatino 1 by moving forward to the division, which will have marked the commencement of verses corresponding to the modern Gen. XVII.9 and following.59 Finally, there are three passages exhibiting a phenomenon, possibly also traceable to the influence of an exemplar, which differs markedly from the quickening of biblical narrative observed in the preceding examples. In these cases the verse of Genesis A expands matter corresponding to the concluding verses of early medieval biblical divisions. Interestingly, in each case the expansion immediately precedes the commencement of a concise rendition of a series of verses beginning a new division in commonly encountered early medieval systems of textual division. These shifts in the pacing of the narrative can be seen clearly in the facing-page synopsis of Latin and Old English texts in Doane's edition. l Caution must be observed in evaluating the correspondence of breaks and changes of pace in the narrative of Genesis A and the divisions preserved in early biblical exemplars. The textual divisions in copies of 59

The division before Gen. XVII.9 in Amiatino 1 finds counterparts in Theodulfian Bibles displaying capitula conforming to Quentin's Vulgate-derived series F (form a) and in Bibles associated with the Old Latin-derived series T (form a), as exemplified by the Burgos manuscript; see the preceding note for both of these series. Gen. XIV. 16 (the return of Abraham and Lot after the episode of the four kings) is expanded at GenA 2087b-2095, followed immediately by a continuous rendition of Gen. XIV. 18-24 {GenA 2 1 0 0 b - 2 l 6 l , comprising division 15 in Amiatino 1, recounting Melchisedech's blessing of Abraham). Gen. XIV.24 (the end of Abraham's speech to the king of Sodom) is expanded at GenA 2155b—2161, at which point the poem turns to a full treatment of the matter of the modern Genesis XV (God's promise to Abraham), constituting the sixteenth division in Amiatino 1. Lines 2728—59 of Genesis A offer a dilatory conflation of Gen. XX.16—18 (God's speech to Sarah and Abraham's prayer), followed by a concise rendition of XXI. 1—13 (division 24 in Amiatino 1, recounting the birth of Isaac). The division at Gen. XIV. 18 is observed only in Amiatino 1. The last two cited divisions of Amiatino 1 (before Gen. XV. 1 and XXI. 1), however, are also frequently encountered in Alcuinian biblical codices preserving capitula conforming to Quentin's Old Latin-derived series A (form a), on which see p. 116, n. 58; conforming to the Theodulfian, Vulgate-derived series F (form a), also treated in the same note; and in manuscripts preserving capitula conforming to Quentin's Vulgate-derived series A (form a). Witnesses to series A (form a) include Paris, BN, lat. 6 (s. x) and other Bibles whose texts go back to a Spanish revision of the Vulgate carried out in the seventh century; see Genesis, ed. Quentin, p. 74, and Sapientia Salmonis, ed. Thiele, pp. 75-9-

61

Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 178-83 and 210-15.

117


Latin texts of Genesis often reflect natural breaks in the Old Testament narrative. Moreover, some of the expansions noted in Genesis A occur in passages of direct speech, suggesting that rhetorical conventions of Old English prosody may have played a role in the design of the narrative. Nevertheless, the impression remains that the continuous exemplar of the rendition of Genesis VIII—XXII in Genesis A did contain textual divisions, some of which are reflected in the Old English versification. The reason that these breaks have not left more traces is probably to be attributed to the diligence of the poet. As most of the verses from most of the chapters of Genesis (both modern or medieval) find a close counterpart in the Old English versification, the matter of the individual sections often runs together without a break. A similar — but essentially separate — set of questions pertains to the sectional divisions of Genesis A itself, such as they exist in the fragmentary copy of the poem in Junius 11, and the relationship of these poetic divisions to the systems of division observed in early medieval Bibles. There are thirteen points in the poem at which sectional divisions (many supplied with numbers) serve to separate out biblical matter which either corresponds precisely to the content of verses adjoining sectional divisions in Amiatino 1 (and, in many cases, other early medieval Bibles) or standing in close proximity to such divisions. These are the sectional divisions identified by the following numerals (either explicitly indicated in Junius 11 or, when bracketed, determined by inference) which have already been set out once (on pp. 107—13, where they appear in boldface): sect, xvii (before line 1002 of Genesis A), sect, xviii (before 1082), sect, xxv (before 1637), sect, [xxvii} (before 1805), sect, [xxviia] (before 1890), sect, xxviii (before I960), sect, [xxx] (before 2096), sect, [xxxi] (before 2173), sect, {xxxiii} (before 2338), sect, xxxvii (before 2576), sect, xxxviii (before 2621), sect, xl (before 2772) and sect, xli (before 2834). 63 There are at 2 3

For discussion of the series of sectional divisions in Junius 11, see above, pp. 24-9Four of these sectional divisions correspond closely to the divisions in Amiatino 1 against those in all commonly encountered early medieval divisional systems: sect, [xxviia] (before line 1890 of Genesis A), sect, [xxx} (before 2096), sect, [xxxiii} (before 2338) and sect, xxxvii (before 2576). Eight sectional divisions in the copy of Genesis A show agreement with Amiatino 1 and Bibles displaying capitula conforming to Quentin's Alcuinian, Old Latin-derived series A (form a): sect, xvii (before line 1002 of Genesis A), sect, xviii (before 1082), sect, xxviii (before I960), sect, [xxx] (before 2096), sect, [xxxi] (before 2173), sect, xxxviii (before 2621), sect, xl (before 2772) and sect, xli (before 2834). Six sectional divisions in the copy of Genesis A show agreement

118


least nine additional cases in which the sectional divisions in the copy of Genesis A correspond closely to those observed in early medieval Bibles other than Amiatino 1. These are: sect, [iii] (before line 135 of Genesis A), sect, [xv] (before 872), sect, xx (before 1248), sect, xxii (before 1407), sect, xxiii (before 1483), sect, xxiiii (before 1555), sect, [xxvi} (before 1719), sect, [xxxii} (before 2261) and sect, xxxv (before 2419). 64 On the face of it, these impressive figures - which account for fully twenty-two out of the twenty-nine sectional divisions in the copy of Genesis A not lost to lacunae — might appear to support the hypothesis (advanced by Gollancz and others) that the divisions in the poem go back to the process of its composition. The poet of Genesis A, the theory holds, attempted to preserve at least a portion of these exemplary divisions at the point of issuing the verse for wider distribution. Under scrutiny, however, these sectional divisions in the copy of Genesis A frequently appear to be as awkwardly effected as many others in Junius 11 (outside of the leaves preserving the verse of Daniel). The positioning of the cited sectional numbers in the copy of the poem, when judged strictly in the light of the evidence of early biblical divisions, often appears to be out of place by one verse or a few. In some cases, there is no break in the narrative of Genesis A at the point at which the sectional division has been inserted. The verse of the poem would construe just as smoothly if the blank space of the division were ignored, as well as the accompanying

65

with Amiatino 1 and Bibles displaying capitula conforming to Quentin's Spanish, Vulgate-derived series A (form a): sect, xviii (before line 1082 of Genesis A), sect, xxv (before 1637), sect, [xxvii] (before 1805), sect, [xxxi] (before 2173), sect, xxxviii (before 2621) and sect, xl (before 2772). Five sectional divisions in the copy of Genesis A show agreement with Amiatino 1 and Bibles displaying capitula conforming to Quentin's Theodulfian series F (form a): sect, xxv (before line 1637 of Genesis A), sect, xxviii (before I960), sect, [xxxi] (before 2173), sect, xxxviii (before 2621) and sect, xl (before 2772). Seven of the nine sectional divisions in question show agreement with divisions in Bibles displaying capitula conforming to Quentin's Alcuinian, Old Latin-derived series A (form a): sect, [iii] (before line 135 of Genesis A), sect, [xv] (before 872), sect, xx (before 1248), sect, xxii (before 1407), sect, xxiii (before 1483), sect, xxiiii (before 1555) and sect, xxxv (before 2419). Three of the sectional divisions show agreement with divisions in Bibles displaying capitula conforming to Quentin's Spanish, Vulgatederived series A (form a): sect, [iii] (before line 135 of Genesis A), sect, [xv] (before 872) and sect, [xxvi] (before 1719). One shows agreement with divisions in Bibles displaying capitula conforming to Quentin's Theodulfian series F (form a): sect, [xxxii]. See above, p. 28.

119


section-number, when it is present. I am thus inclined to attribute the sectional divisions in Genesis A collectively to a revision of the text of the poem that occurred in the course of its transmission, as opposed to an effort undertaken at the compositional stage. The evidence informing the preceding comments is set out in Table 2, where the sectional divisions in Genesis A showing an affinity to divisions in early medieval biblical codices, marked with asterisks, immediately follow summaries of the divisions in biblical codices, and the matter of Genesis B and losses to lacunae are noted between parentheses. The undeniable general correspondence of many of the sectional divisions to those exhibited by early medieval biblical codices should thus be ascribed to the knowledge of a reviser and distinguished from the points at which the narrative of the poem appears to owe a debt to medieval divisional practices. We may imagine an individual who had direct recourse to a continuous Latin text of Genesis and sought to reproduce, at least in part, a familiar set of textual breaks while adding a series of sectional divisions to an exemplar of Genesis A — with mixed results. Narrative dislocation in Genesis A When we turn to the opening sections of Genesis A, treating the matter of Genesis I—VII, the narrative principle that seems to govern nearly the whole of the versification of Genesis VIII—XXII is only occasionally in evidence. Those later sections of the poem, as I have noted, display a rendition that is reasonably faithful to the biblical model insofar as it follows its sequence and is essentially complete for the chapters in question. To be sure, the extant verse of the earlier sections of Genesis A does offer several examples of sequential rendering such as we find in later parts of the poem, notably in the fragments of the versification of Genesis III—V (GenA 852—1242a), recounting the banishment of Adam and Eve, Cain's slaying of Abel and patriarchal genealogy from Adam to Noah. But the sections of Genesis A treating the hexameral and prelapsarian matter of Genesis I—II exhibit a substantial amount of narrative dislocation, as does the poem's distinctive account of the Flood. (The dislocations in question can be seen clearly in the summary of Latin and Old English parallels listed above.66) Departures from the biblical model in these sections 66

See pp. 105-9, under capitula 1-2 and 8-9. 120

The biblical sources of Genesis A and B Table 2. The affinities of the sectional divisions in the copy of Genesis A in Junius 11 to the sectional divisions in early medieval copies of Genesis I—XXII Verse(s) preceding division Witness(es)

Verse(s) following division

Gen. 1.5

Old Latin: ser A Vulgate: ser. A

Gen. L6

Gen. I.l-5a

•Junius 11: sect, [iii] GenA 135-68a(+ lacuna)

Gen. I.5b-10

(lacuna)

Junius 11: sect, [iiii] (lacuna +) GenA 169-234 (? + lacuna)

(lacuna)

(lacuna)

Junius 11: sect, [v]

(lacuna + cf. Gen. II.8-9, 11.15-17 and III.lb-3)

(lacuna + GenB 235-45) (d. Gen. II.8-9, etc.)

Junius 11: sect, [vi] (GenB 246-324)

(Fall of Satan)

(Fall of Satan)

Junius 11: sect, vii (GenB 325-88)

(Fall of Satan)

(Fall of Satan)

Junius 11: sect. vii[i] (GenB 389-44la + lacuna)

(Fall of Satan + lacuna)

(lacuna)

Junius 11: sect, [viiii] (lacuna)

(lacuna)

(lacuna)

Junius 11: sect, [x] (lacuna)

(lacuna)

(lacuna)

Junius 11: sect, [xi] (lacuna + GenB 442-546)

(lacuna)

(cf. Gen. II.8-9andIII.l) Junius 11: sect, [xii] (GenB 547-683)

(cf. Gen. III.l-6a)

(cf. Gen. III. l-6a)

(d. Gen. III.6b)

(cf. Gen. III.6b) (d. Gen. III.7 and III.8b)

Junius 11: sect, [xiii] (GenB 684-820) Junius 11: sect, [xiiii] (GenB 821-51) GenA 852-71

121

(cf. Gen. III.7 and III.8b) Gen. III.8b-10

Old English biblical verse Table 2

(contd) Verse(s) following division

Verse(s) preceding division Witness(es) Gen. III.7

Old Latin: ser. A

Gen. III.8a

Gen. III.8a

Vulgate: ser. A

Gen. III.8b

Gen. III.8b-10

*Junius 11: sect, [xv] GenA 812-911

Gen. III. 11-15

Gen. III. 11-15

Junius 11: sect, xvi GenA 918-1001

Gen. III. 16-24 Gen. IV. 1-4

Gen. IV.7

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: Amiat.

Gen. IV.8

Gen. IV. 1-4 Gen. IV.8

*Junius 11: sect, xvii GenA 1002-81

Gen. IV.9-21

Gen. IV.24

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: Amiat.; ser. A

Gen. IV.25

Gen. IV.9-21

*Junius 11: sect, xviii GenA 1082-166

Gen. IV.22^ Gen. IV.25

Gen. V.3-14

Junius 11: sect. [x]viiii GenA 1167-247

Gen. V.I5-23

Gen. IV.26

Old Latin: ser. A

Gen. V.I

Gen.V.26-31 Gen.VLl

*Junius 11: sect, xx GenA 1248-326

Gen. VI.2-3 Gen. VI. 5-7

Gen. VI. 19 Gen.VI.22andVI.l4

Junius 11: sect, xxi GenA 1327-406

Gen. VII. 1 and VI. 18 Gen.VII.2andVI.21

Gen. VII.24

Old Latin: ser.A

Gen. VIII. 1

Gen. VII.20 Gen. VII.23

*Junius 11: sect, xxii GenA 1407-82

Gen. VIII. 1-12

Gen. VIII. 12

Old Latin: ser. A

Gen. VIII. 13

Gen. VIII. 1-12

•Junius 11: sect, xxiii GenA 1483-554

Gen. VIII. 15-20 Gen. IX. 1-11

Gen. IX. 17

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: ser. A

Gen. IX. 18

Gen. IX. 12-13 Gen. IX. 18-19

*Junius 11: sect, xxiiii GenA 1555-636

Gen. IX.20-5 Gen. IX.28-9

122

The biblical sources of Genesis A and B Table 2

(contd)

Verse(s) preceding division Witness(es)


Gen. X.32

Vulgate: Amiat.

Gen. XL 1

Gen. X.I

Vulgate: ser. A, F

Gen. XI.2

Gen. X.l-10 Gen. XI. 1

*Junius 11: sect, xxv GenA 1637-718

Gen. X.20-1 Gen. XI.2-10

Gen. XI.26

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: ser. A

Gen. XI.27

Gen. XI.2-10 Gen. XI.27

*Junius 11: sect, [xxvi] GenA 1719-804

Gen. XI.29-32

Gen. XII.9

Vulgate: Amiat.; ser. A

Gen. XII. 10

Gen. XI.29-32 Gen. XILl-8a

*Junius 11: sect, [xxvii] GenA 1805-89

Gen. XIL8b Gen. XII. 10-20

Gen. XII.20

Vulgate: Amiat.

Gen. XIII. 1

Gen. XII. 10-20 Gen. XIII. 1-4

Junius 11: sect, [xxviia] GenA 1890-959

Gen. XIII.5-12

Gen. XIII. 17

Vulgate: Amiat.

Gen. XIII. 18

Gen. XIII. 18

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: ser. F

Gen. XIV. 1

Gen. XIII.5-12

*Junius 11: sect, xxviii GenA 1960-2017

Gen. XIV. 1-4 Gen. XIV. 10-16

Gen.XIV.10-16

Junius 11: sect, xxviiii GenA 2018-95

Gen. XIV. 13-14 Gen. XIV.14-16

Gen. XIV. 17

Vulgate: Amiat.

Gen. XIV. 18

Gen. XIV. 13-14 Gen. XIV.14-16

*Junius 11: sect, [xxx] GenA 2096-172

Gen. XIV. 17 Gen. XIV. 18-24

Gen. XIV.24

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: Amiat.; ser. A

Gen. XV. 1

Gen. XV. 1

Vulgate: ser. F

Gen. XV.2

Gen. XIV. 18-24 Gen. XV. 1

*Junius 11: sect, [xxxi] GenA 2173-260

Gen. XV.2-7

123


(contd)

Verse(s) preceding division Witness(es)


Gen. XV.21

Vulgate: ser. F

Gen. XVI. 1

Gen. XV. 18 Gen. XVI.l-6a

*Junius 11: sect, [xxxii] GenA 2261-337

Gen. XVI.6b-12

Gen. XVII. 14

Vulgate: Amiat.

Gen. XVII. 15

Gen. XVII.9-14 Gen. XVII. 16

*Junius 11: sect, {xxxiii] GenA 2338-98

Gen. XVII.17-23

Gen. XVIII.10-14

Junius 11: sect, xxxiiii GenA 2399-418 (+ lacuna)

Gen. XVIII. 16 Gen. XVIII.20-1 (+ lacuna)

Gen. XVIII.33

Old Latin: ser. A

Gen. XIX. 1

(lacuna)

*Junius 11: sect, xxxv GenA 2419-512 (+ lacuna)

Gen. XIX. 1-13 (+ lacuna)

(lacuna)

Junius 11: sect, [xxxvi] (lacuna + ) GenA 2513-75

(lacuna)

Gen. XIX.26

Vulgate: Amiat.

Gen. XIX.27

Gen. XIX. 18-26

*Junius 11: sect, xxxvii GenA 2576-620

Gen. XIX.27-30

Gen. XIX.38

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: Amiat.; ser. A, F

Gen. XX. 1

Gen. XIX.33-8

*Junius 11: sect, xxxviii GenA 2621-90

Gen. XX. 1-9

Gen. XX. 1-9

Junius 11: sect, xxxviiii GenA 2691-771

Gen. XX. 11-18

Gen. XX. 18

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: Amiat.; ser. A, F

Gen. XXI. 1

Gen. XX. 11-18 Gen. XXI. 1-4

*Junius 11: sect, xl GenA 2772-833

Gen. XXI.5 Gen. XXI.8

Gen. XXI.21

Old Latin: ser. A Vulgate: Amiat.

Gen. XXI.22

Gen. XXI.22-4

*Junius 11: sect, xli GenA 2834-936

Gen. XXI.33-4 Gen. XXII. 1-13

124


involve conflation of verses (sometimes drawn from adjoining divisions of Genesis, to judge by the early medieval evidence), omission of significant numbers of verses and interchange in the position of adjacent single verses, as well as adjacent series of verses. The resulting complication of the narrative ofGenesis A, involving idiosyncrasies internal to the verse itself as preserved on intact leaves, is exacerbated by the severely damaged state of the second quire of Junius 11. The loss of all but two of the leaves of this quire effectively serves to obscure the position and interrelationship of the surviving fragments of the Creation narrative in Genesis A. 7 The abrupt beginning of the fragmentary verse now assigned to Genesis B on the first leaf of the third quire of the manuscript — another result of the losses in quire 2 — brings with it a further set of difficulties. Genesis B, as noted above, in its own way traverses most of the matter of Gen. III. 1—8 (the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve). It appears that any hypothetical versification of these verses that once formed part of Genesis A must be assigned to an exemplar anterior to the immediate exemplar of Junius 11 — to judge once again by the evidence of the intermittent sectionnumbering on these leaves. Even beyond these two sets of complications those internal to the text itself and those occasioned by the loss of leaves A. N. Doane and others have suggested that the received text of Genesis A preserves traces of outright textual disruption introduced at an earlier stage in the poem's transmission. 8 This disruption, it has been held, is possibly to be associated with an attempt to resolve textual confusion

7

68

A. N . Doane argues at length for the viability of three possible reconstructions of the quire (in Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 5-7, and The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, pp. 30-4). Doane's analysis has the merit of offering the most clearly stated conclusions and the greatest amount of supporting evidence. None of his reconstructions agrees precisely with any of those advanced by Timmer {The 'Later Genesis', ed. Timmer, pp. 13-14, followed by Ker, Catalogue, pp. 406-8), Lucas, 'MS Junius 11' I, 202-3, and II, 15-17 (who, on the basis of a new survey of the evidence, favours a reconstruction of the second quire that agrees in all essentials with that proposed by Timmer), or Raw, 'The Construction', pp. 188 and 191-5 (on which see below, pp. 135-6 with n. 91). No analysis of quire 2 has yet been supported by precise measurements of the surviving leaves of the quire, their prickings and rulings, or by discussion of the vexed questions surrounding the disposition of hair and flesh sides in the quires of Junius 11. See The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, pp. 37-8 and 4 1 - 2 . For specific suggestions regarding the biblical matter treated in verses that have been lost to this disruption, see below, pp. 130-6 with nn. 81-93.

125


caused by physical defects in an exemplar. The results of this attempt are perhaps reflected most clearly by the interpolation of the verse of Genesis B. Extrabiblical elements in the rendition of Genesis I—II

The convoluted sequence of narrative fragments preserved in the opening quires of Junius 11 has already incurred the expense of much critical ingenuity. With misgivings for adducing yet another factor to complicate the interpretation of these fragments, I feel it deserves to be noted that the Creation sequence of Genesis A differs markedly from all other parts of the poem in its inclusion of a significant amount of extrabiblical material. The most prominent instance occurs in the series of liturgically influenced lines that serve to open Genesis A by praising God the creator: Us is riht micel (>aet we rodera weard, wereda wuldorcining, wordum herigen, modum lufien. He is maegna sped, heafod ealra heahgesceafta, frea aelmihtig. Naes him fruma aefre, or geworden ne nu ende cym{> ecean drihtnes ac he biS a rice ofer heofonstolas heagum f>rymmum. As Laurence Michel has shown, the preceding lines imitate the form and diction of a preface for a eucharistic mass.70 They are followed by the substantial, apocryphally derived narrative on the fall of the angels (GenA 10—91), which serves to introduce the opening lines of the extant part of the poem's hexameral narrative (92—168, following Gen. I.I—10). Many recent studies have offered additional suggestions regarding the presence of extrabiblical elements in the early sections of Genesis A, including apparent 9

70

GenA 1-8: 'Ours is a great duty - to praise in word and love at heart the heavens' ruler, the glorious king of hosts. He is the substance of all power, the head of all high things, the Lord almighty. Origin or beginning was never made for Him, nor shall an end ever come to the eternal God. But on the contrary, He is forever supreme by His high power over the heavenly kingdoms.' (For the translation of Genesis A used in the present study, see above, p. 49, n. 85.) The parallel is noted by F. Klaeber, 'Die christlichen Elemente im Beowulf, Anglia 35 (1911), 111-36 at 125-7, and discussed at length by L. Michel, 'Genesis A and the praefatio, MLN 62 (1947), 545-50. See also F. Klaeber, 'Jottings on Old English Poems', Anglia 53 (1929), 225-34, at 226 with n. l[b], for parallels in the Office.

126


reflexes of patristic diction, encyclopaedic learning and other sources. It is indeed striking that the passages in Genesis A that seem to bear witness to the greatest amount of extrabiblical influence are those in which we observe the most profound effects of narrative dislocation. Though a certain amount of this dislocation may well be attributed to the fortunes of the poem in the course of its transmission, it seems likely that some of the deviations from the model of the book of Genesis may reflect deliberate decisions on the part of the poet, undertaken in the light of personal knowledge of extrabiblical materials relating to the early episodes of the book. The following comments thus endeavour to define the idiosyncrasies of the Creation and Flood sequences in Genesis A (vis-a-vis the biblical model) while exploring the possibility that extrabiblical sources — especially liturgical texts or, more broadly, devotional or 'paraliturgical' sources — may help to account for the narrative dislocation observed in the earlier sections of the poem. Conflation of the Jahwist and Priestly narratives in the Creation sequence

The extant verse treating the creation of Eve in Genesis A is preserved on one of the two surviving leaves of the manuscript's second quire (comprising pp. 9—10 in the modern foliation). Barbara C. Raw, in a major study of the codicology of Junius 11, has characterized the relationship of this verse to its biblical sources. Raw states: The text on pp. 9/10 {Genesis A 169—205) describes the creation of Eve. It is based on the second of the two biblical accounts of the creation (Genesis 11.18 and 21—3), but it is clear that this has been conflated with the earlier account (Genesis 1.26—7), because the text continues with a paraphrase of the blessing of Adam and Eve, based on Genesis I.28-30.72 See Biggs, ' "Englum gelice" ', and Doane, in Genesis A, ed. Doane, p. 236, who notes that '[t]his episode is greatly augmented by traditional material of the most eclectic sorts' and, pp. 236—7, cites parallels in Augustine, De Genesi ad litter am and De ciuitate Dei; in writings of Bede, Alcuin and i^lfric; and in various apocryphal and hexameral texts. See also A. Mirsky, 'On the Sources of the Anglo-Saxon Genesis and Exodus', ES 48 (1967), 385—97, for some interesting parallel passages in midrashic exegesis, none of which is likely to have exerted any direct influence on Genesis A. Raw, 'The Construction', pp. 193—4. The problematic arrangement of biblical matter in the rendition of Genesis I—II is also discussed by Wells, 'A Critical Edition', pp. 1-lii.

127


The poetic conflation described by Raw provides the first of several examples to be considered in the present study in which the matter of discrete passages in the Old Testament has been recombined to create a new artistic whole. Liturgical scholars have long since established a standard nomenclature to aid in the analysis of similar recastings of biblical passages in Latin sources, and their terminology will be retained here in addressing Old English scriptural reflexes. Generally speaking, the conflation noted by Raw constitutes an instance of biblical harmonization: the matter of notionally related verses in Genesis I and II is interwoven so as to produce a coherent synthesis of traditions on Creation. Other instances of narrative dislocation in the treatment of Genesis I—III in Genesis A, however, will be seen to bear comparison with the liturgical textual phenomena known as centonization and abridgement. The verse of Genesis A, in its account of the creation of Eve, weaves together the matter of two passages in Genesis I—II whose status as discrete and, ostensibly, partly redundant texts goes back to early stages in the development of the Pentateuch. One of these is the familiar account of the creation of Eve that occurs in the ancient 'Lay* stratum of the narratives of the Pentateuch.7 The passage on Eve is specifically situated in the 73

Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 301 and 377-8, defines three major categories of liturgical adaptation as follows: (1) harmonization, involving the 'weaving together [of] several parallel passages of [biblical texts] into one continuous reading'; (2) centonization, in which 'a variety of scriptural passages [is] drawn from different parts of the Bible and assembled like a quilt or mosaic'; (3) abridgement, in which texts are 'made up of excerpts drawn from a single book of the Bible and are not properly speaking centos. The [Old Testament] reading . . . composed of [Lev. XIX.]l-2, 11-19 and 25 is one example.' Vogel offers no single term to refer to what is here designated an abridgement, but examples of this type of adaptation, in my experience, are fairly common in early medieval lectionaries. See Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, who concludes, '[The "Lay" stratum] is, as we have seen, particularly crude and archaic, and although a powerful religious spirit also moves strongly through it, it is nevertheless the least touched by clerical and cultic interests . . . That [the stratum] is to be assumed to be the oldest narrative strand is proved by the fact . . . that this strand reveals the crudest and most primitive original elements' (p. 195); cf. also Eissfeldt's comments at pp. 160, 185, 194-5 and 199- See further P. Humbert, 'Die literarische Zweiheit des Priester-Codex in der Genesis', ZAW 58 (1940-1), 30-57; W. H. Schmidt, Die Schbpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift: zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis 1, 1—2, 4a und 2, 4b-3, 24, 3rd ed., Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1973); B. W. Anderson, 'A Stylistic Study of the Priestly Creation Story', in Canon and

128


'Jahwist' substratum of the Lay matter informing the present Gen. II.4b— III.24. In Genesis A, the diction of the Jahwist account has been conflated with the language of the very brief allusion to the creation of male and female that occurs at Gen. 1.27. This allusion forms part of the 'Priestly' stratum of the pentateuchal narratives, whose composition is generally held by biblical scholars to postdate that of the Lay matter. The Priestly account, in the opening verses of Genesis, expounds the familiar hexameral narrative - the account of the six days of Creation (Gen. I.l-II.4a). The fact that notional conflation of Jahwist and Priestly traditions has occurred in Genesis A is placed beyond question by a clear echo of the Latin phrase 'masculum et feminam creauit eos' (Gen. I.27b) in the Old English versification.75 This is followed by a full treatment of God's blessing of creation which occurs in the next verse of the Priestly hexameral account (1.28: 'benedixitque illis Deus et ait, "Crescite et multiplicamini . . ." '). 7 The presence in Genesis A of reflexes of both verses (Gen. 1.27—8) may be seen clearly in the following lines: Pa. gebletsode bliQheort cyning, metod alwihta monna cynnes 6a forman twa, faeder and moder, wif and waepned. He J>a worde cwae6: 'TemaS nu and weaxaS . . .' The preceding lines (following Gen. 1.27-8) occur in Genesis A immediately after a detailed (if slightly compressed) versification of the Jahwist account of the creation of Eve in lines l69-85a of the poem, following Gen. 11.18 and II.21-2. 7 8 It is interesting to note that the juxtaposed (if Authority:

Essays on Old Testament Religion,

ed. G. W . Coats and B. O. Long

(Philadelphia, 1977), p p . 1 4 8 - 6 2 ; and S. E. McEvenue, The Narrative

Style of the

Priestly Writer, Analecta Biblica 50 (Rome, 1971). 75

G e n . 1.27: 'male and female H e created t h e m ' ; cf. O l d Latin 'masculum et feminam fecit illos'. Unless noted, citations of O l d Latin texts of Genesis follow the text established in Genesis, ed. Fischer.

7

G e n 1.28: 'and G o d blessed t h e m , saying: "Increase and multiply . . . " ' (there are no substantial variants in the O l d Latin).

77

GenA

1 9 2 - 6 a : 'Then the b e n i g n k i n g , ruler of everyone born of the race of m a n ,

blessed these first two creatures, father and mother, w o m a n and m a n . Thereafter H e spoke these words: "Be fruitful now and increase . . 78

T h e long passage that opens the verse preserved on the leaf u n d e r review

{GenA

1 6 9 - 9 4 , b e g i n n i n g 'ne {nihte l>a gerysne / rodora wearde / |>aet A d a m leng / ana waere . . .' ('the ruler of heaven did not t h i n k it fitting that A d a m , the keeper of

129


reversed) reflexes of the Priestly and Jahwist narratives are separated by one of the more suggestive occurrences of extrabiblical detail in the early section of Genesis A. This is the extrabiblical simile 'heo waeron englum gelice', an apparent echo of a Latin phrase such as sicut angeli, a commonplace in exegetical treatments of the creation of Adam and Eve.79 Whatever conclusion we choose to draw on the basis of the handling of this episode regarding the doctrinal underpinnings of Genesis A, there is clear justification for regarding the treatment of the creation of Eve as the first of several notable instances of conflation in the verse of Junius 11 that serve to harmonize conspicuous narrative 'doublets' occurring in passages of the Old Testament. 80 The conflation of matter drawn from the Jahwist and Priestly narratives in Genesis I—II described above occupies the verse preserved on one of the two surviving leaves of the fragmentary second quire of Junius 11. The damaged state of the manuscript, taken together with the other textual problems outlined above, will probably always preclude a final resolution of what I see as fundamental problems posed by this harmonization: Does the narrative dislocation of matter from Genesis I—II at lines 192—205 of Genesis A involve a proleptic treatment of the Jahwist account of the creation of Eve (Gen. 11.18—24), which has been moved back to form part of the poem's treatment of the Priestly hexameral sequence?81 (Lines

80

Paradise, should be alone any longer . . .') clearly derives from the Jahwist narrative (cf. Gen. 11.18: 'Dixit quoque Dominus Deus: "Non est bonum esse hominem solum"' (Old Latin and Vulgate: 'And the Lord God said: "It is not good for man to be alone"')). See also, for example, GenA 183-5a: 'of t)am [i.e. Adam's rib} worhte god / freolice faemnan, / feorh in gedyde, / ece saula' ('God created a noble woman from that {rib}, put life into it, an eternal soul'), following Gen. 11.22 ('aedificauit Dominus Deus costam . . . in mulierem' (Old Latin and Vulgate: 'the Lord God built the rib into a woman')). GenA 185b: 'they were like angels'; see citation and discussion of comparable passages in works by Isidore and pseudo-Bede by Biggs,' "Englum gelice"'. See below, pp. 252-4 and 349-56. The impression remains that the versification of the phrase 'masculum et feminam creauit eos [Old Latin "fecit illos"]' and the blessing 'crescite et multiplicamini' (Gen. 1.27-8: 'male and female He created them' and 'increase and multiply') at GenA 192—205 has been appended to end the poem's account of the creation of Eve {GenA 169—85a, following Gen. 11.18 and 11.21—2) rather than the other way around. yElfric's Letter to Sigeweard (for which see above, pp. 87—90), however, might be seen to offer an analogue to such a reenvisionment in its placement of the creation of Adam and Eve on the sixth day: 'Da on 5am sixtan daege, siân Sis gedon waes, gesceop se aelmihtiga

130


110b—168a of Genesis A offer a fragmentary rendition of the opening of the Priestly narrative, following Gen. I.I—10, which commences with the creation of heaven and earth and continues through the division of land and sea.) Does the versification of the blessing 'crescite et multiplicamini' (Gen. 1.28) rendered at lines 195b-2O5 of Genesis A thus stand near the end of the poem's hexameral sequence, the midsection of which (treating Gen. 1.11—26) has presumably been lost to the lacuna that commences after p. 8? If, as most critics have maintained, both of these questions are to be answered in the affirmative, how can we explain the appearance of a paraphrase of Gen. 1.31 (God's survey of creation) at the very start of the text on p. 9? Do we assume that pp. 8 and 9 stood in close proximity before the mutilation of quire 2? 82 Finally, as the creation of Eve has apparently already been treated in Genesis A as part of a conflated hexameral sequence, what matter will have intervened between the verse on the second surviving leaf of quire 2, treating the watering of Paradise and the naming of the four rivers (Gen. II.5-6 and 11.10-14), and the commencement of the lost account of the Fall that presumably formed part of Genesis A at some point before the interpolation of Genesis J3?83 In a sequential versification, we would expect a treatment of the creation of Eve at this juncture. My own inability to arrive at satisfactory answers to these questions has led me to consider the possibility that the disruption of the narrative of the verse preserved on these leaves is even greater than has been suspected hitherto. Specifically, it seems to me that many of the questions raised by

83

God mannan of eorSan Adam mid his handum and him sawle forgeaf, and Evan eft sij){)an of Adames ribbe' ('Within six days after this was done [i.e. the consignment of the rebel angels to hell], almighty God created man, Adam of the earth, with His own hands and gave him a soul, and Eve of Adam's rib soon after'); see text ptd in The Old English Version, ed. Crawford, pp. 2 0 - 1 , lines 108-13. With 'uiditque Deus cuncta quae fecit' (Gen. 1.31: and God saw all the things that He had made'; cf. Old Latin 'uidit Deus omnia quaecumque fecit') compare the first words preserved on p. 11 of Junius 11: 'â sceawode / scyppend ure / his weorca wlite' (GenA 206-7a: 'then our maker beheld the beauty of His works'). Raw, 'The Construction', pp. 193-6, argues that p. 9 immediately followed p. 8 in quire 2 of Junius 11 in its unmutilated state, as it does now in the volume as it is presently bound; see below, p. 135, n. 91. Following the biblical account, we would expect an allusion to God's commission of the upkeep of Paradise (Gen. 11.15) and the prohibition regarding the Tree of Knowledge (11.16-17), to be followed, plausibly, by a treatment of the creation of Eve.

131


the present arrangement in Genesis A of both the hexameral sequence and the account of Adam and Eve before the Fall (hereafter termed the prelapsarian narrative) are resolved by a hypothesis maintaining that lines 169—205 of the poem (the verse preserved on the first of the two extant leaves of quire 2, comprising pp. 9-10) once occupied a position in the narrative following lines 206-34 (preserved on the second extant leaf of quire 2, on the present pp. 11—12).8 The treatment of the creation of Eve, in this view, does not constitute a proleptic addition to the hexameral sequence. Rather, it occurs precisely where we would expect it, in a treatment of the matter of Genesis II. The allusion to the creation of male and female (GenA 194-5, following Gen. 1.27) and the rendition of the blessing 'crescite et multiplicamini' (lines 196—205, following Gen. 1.28) thus may be viewed as deferred treatments — or, perhaps, as reminiscences — of two verses from the hexameral narrative proper (Gen. 1.27-8). Accordingly, these allusions would appear to have been appended to the account of the creation of Eve, perhaps in order to provide a suitable conclusion to the entire sequence of hexameral and prelapsarian matter. According to this hypothesis, lines 206—10a of Genesis A (God's survey of creation, following Gen. 1.31 and perhaps also II. 1) constitute the only surviving remnant of the concluding lines of the poem's fragmentary hexameral sequence, now represented only by lines 110b-l68a (treating Gen. 1.1-10). The prelapsarian material on the watering of Paradise and the naming of the rivers (GenA 210b-234, following Gen. II.5-6 and 11.10—14) would thus appear in its proper place: in a treatment of the matter of Genesis II, following the account of the six days of Creation and preceding the account of the creation of Eve (and, presumably, the creation of Adam and other matter of Genesis II rendered in lines lost to lacunae). The allusion to the matter of Gen. 1.27 (the Priestly reference to the creation of male and female, paraphrased at GenA 194-5a) would then appear naturally enough as a reminiscence following the account of the creation of Eve. This reminiscence seems to have suggested the versifica84

These effects can be inferred conveniently from the summary of Latin-Old English parallels set out on p. 106, under entries treating GenA 169—234, headed Gen. II.4— 18 (corresponding to division 2 of Amiatino 1). Given the occurrence of the phrase 'faeder and moder' ('father and mother') at GenA 194b, it seems possible that the decision to include such a reminiscence of Gen. 1.27 (especially the phrase 'masculum et feminam creauit eos [Old Latin "fecit illos"}'

132


tion of the contents of the biblical verse in Genesis I that immediately follows the mention of the creation of male and female, the blessing 'crescite et multiplicamini' (Gen. 1.28). This blessing was an exceedingly popular text in Anglo-Saxon England, circulating independently as a liturgical extract and as an element in secular charms intended to promote the growth of crops, among other uses. The rendition of this blessing thus may be viewed as an extrabiblical augmentation of the narrative, serving to mark the conclusion of the rendering of the hexameral and prelapsarian sequences in Genesis I—II. Such an arrangement of the verse of the Creation sequence in Genesis A (that is, a reversal of the present order of lines 169—205 and 206—34) has other virtues. It facilitates the conjectural apportionment of space to treatments of biblical matter addressed on leaves now excised from Junius 11 or in an earlier exemplar of Genesis A. This matter presumably would have included a rendition of the Priestly narrative that extends from the creation of plants to the creation of animals (Gen. 1.11—25). ('male and female He created them')) was influenced by the appearance of the admonition 'relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem [Old Latin "patrem et matrem"]' ('a man shall leave father and mother') at Gen. 11.24, immediately following the Jahwist account of the creation of Eve. A view of the lines in question as a reminiscence seems to underlie the comments by Gollancz, Ccedmon Manuscript, pp. xl—xli. The most important witness to the independent circulation of the text of Gen. 1.28 in Anglo-Saxon England, occurs in the cecerbot charm, intended to promote the restoration of unproductive farmland: 'Crescite, wexe, et multiplicamini, and gemaenigfealda, et replete, and gefylle, terre, J>as eor5an' (MCharm 1 (Tor Unfruitful Land'), lines 10-12, cited from ASPR VI, 116); see discussion by T. D. Hill, 'The cecerbot Charm and its Christian User', ASE 6 (1977), 213—21. Note the similarity of the diction of the charm and lines from Genesis A quoted above, as well as renditions of Gen. 1.28 at MLS X.212, 'beo5 gemenigfylde and gefylla5 £>as eor5an' ('be plentiful and fill the earth'); JEHex lines 351-2, 'God hi 5a gebletsode mid Syssere bletsunge: "WexaS and beo5 gemenigfylde and gefyllaS 5a eor5an"' ('God then blessed them with this blessing: "Increase and be multiplied and replenish the earth"'); and OE prose Gen 1.28, 'And God hi bletsode, and cwaeS, "WeaxaS and beo5 gemenifylde and gefyllaS 5a eor5an'" ('And God blessed them and said, "Increase and be multiplied and replenish the earth"'). A versification of the matter of Gen. 1.11-25 may well have appeared sequentially in the lacuna commencing after the present line 168a of Genesis (the final entry on p. 8 of Junius 11), perhaps going on to include a treatment of the verses of the Priestly account of the creation of the human race (Gen. 1.26-7) reprised so briefly at the present GenA 194-51.

133


Also included would have been Gen. II.2-4 (God's rest on the seventh day and establishment of the Sabbath),88 and Gen. II.7—9 (God's creation of the first man and of the Trees of Life and Knowledge). Final logical inclusions would be Gen. 11.15—17 (the commission of the upkeep of Paradise and the prohibition regarding the Tree of Knowledge) and 11.24— 5 (the Institution of Marriage and the nakedness of Adam and Eve). In sum, the proposed reversal of lines would restore biblical order to the narrative of Genesis A. It would establish God's blessing of Paradise as the climax of the poem's versification of the hexameral and prelapsarian matter 88

89

90

Matter relating to the seventh day (Gen. 11.2-4) appears to have been omitted from the passage of Genesis A where it would most naturally be expected, that is, between the rendition of Gen. 1.31 (and perhaps II. 1) in lines 206—10a of the poem (God's survey of the completed state of Paradise) and the report of the irrigation of Paradise in lines 210b-215a (following Gen. II.5-6). I see three plausible explanations for this state of affairs: (1) the biblical verses treating the immediate aftermath of the six days of Creation (Gen. 1.31 and II. 1-4) were treated in a conflated rendition, witnessed now only by the preservation of its concluding lines at the present GenA 106-210a; or (2) an expansive treatment of the events of the seventh day (following Gen. II.2—4) formerly intervening between the matter of the present 210a and 210b, was preserved on a single leaf lost from an earlier exemplar in the course of the transmission of Genesis A; or (3) the material on the seventh day was deliberately omitted by the poet, as in many Easter Vigil lections on Creation, which leaves the matter of Gen. II. 3—4 wholly out of account. I list these suggestions in what I take to be a descending order of probability. No loss of leaves from Junius 11 may be adduced to explain the absence of verse treating the Jahwist account of the creation of Adam (Gen. II.7-8) after the rendition of Gen. II.5-6 in lines 210b-215a of Genesis A (the watering of Paradise) and lines treating 11.10-14 (GenA 215b-234: the four rivers of Paradise). As Raw and others have suggested, the matter relating to the creation of Adam may well have been treated in closer proximity to the surviving account of the creation of Eve - and perhaps even conflated with the matter of Gen. I.26-7a (God's creation of the human race in His own image). The matter of Gen. 11.15-17 (on the upkeep of Paradise) presumably would not appear before the account of the creation of Adam, so its disposition in the present sequence is partly dependent on conclusions drawn regarding the placement of II.7-9 (see preceding note) in relation to the extant versification of the creation of Eve in Genesis A. The concerns of Gen. 11.15-17 and II.24-5 (the upkeep of Paradise, the Prohibition, the Institution of Marriage and so on) may have once formed part of the prelapsarian matter of Genesis A, preceding the commencement of the interpolated verse of Genesis B. At some point, these elements of the prelapsarian narrative may have fallen victim to the same sort of physical damage that is held to have incurred the interpolation of Genesis B.

134


of Genesis I—II. And it would help resolve long-standing speculation regarding the placement of missing material. It should be stressed that the suggestions offered here only address the verse preserved on the two surviving leaves of quire 2 of Junius 11, not the present physical state of the copy of the poem in Junius 11. As noted, Doane and others have theorized that an exemplar of Genesis A fell into fragments at a stage in the poem's transmission preceding the introduction of the series of section-numbers now attested only irregularly in Junius 11. This mishap may have occasioned both the interpolation of Genesis B and much of the narrative dislocation now observed in the opening sections of Genesis A. Thus, even if the hypothesis were to find general acceptance it would not be necessary to conclude that the two leaves presently comprising pp. 9—12 of Junius 11 are bound out of order. Published attempts to reconstruct the original state of the damaged second quire have arrived at widely diverging conclusions, but all agree in maintaining that the quire's surviving leaves are bound in the proper order.91 A strict interpretation of Barbara C. Raw's description of the state of quire 2 would permit the hypothesis that the order of the leaves has been reversed, presumably in the course of the rebinding of the manuscript, but the evidential basis of Raw's analysis (especially her assertion that the leaf comprising the present pp. 9—10 shows signs of reruling) has recently been challenged by A. N. Doane. Moreover, Doane, arguing against Raw's 91

Doane observes that '[t]he two extant leaves are scored on opposite sides, showing that a [comprising pp. 9-10 of Junius 11] is from the left side of the gathering (considering it opened at the middle sheet) and b [comprising pp. 11-12} from the right, that is, they are in the right order as presently bound' {Genesis A, ed. Doane p. 8). Raw, 'The Construction', p. 192, states that '[t]he first leaf, pp. 9/10, is ruled on the recto, suggesting a position in the first half of the gathering. This looks like a reruling, however, particularly since the margins are marked by a single vertical line whereas on all other pages up to p. 95 the margins are indicated by double vertical lines. The top outer corner of each of the two leaves was cut away at some time before the pages were numbered in the seventeenth century . . . and careful comparison of the indentations on the edges shows that the two leaves were cut simultaneously. It seems likely, therefore, that the leaves were adjacent and that both belonged to the second half of the gathering.' Doane has since responded: 'There does not seem to be sufficient physical evidence for this supposition about the reruled page. . . According to the strict physical evidence, the leaf holding [pp.] 9/10 seems ruled normally, so as to be the second or third sheet of the left-hand side of the gathering, and the leaf holding [pp.] 11/12, on which the rules are fainter and hence farther inside the gathering, is clearly from the right-hand side' {The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, p. 33)-

135


textually supported reconstruction of quire 2, has rightly observed that 'this part of Genesis A is being freely composed from rearranged elements of Genesis [1—11} and it is perilous to make a guess [about the structure of quire 2 before its mutilation] based solely on what the poem ought to do'. 92 Doane's observation, however, points up the fact that the mode of rendition observed in this part of the poem differs radically from the carefully sequential order observed in the renditions of Genesis III—V and VIII—XXII. It is clear, moreover, that the texts of both Genesis A and B have been radically altered by the transmissional fortunes of their verse. It may thus seem reasonable to explore the possible ramifications of a fairly radical rearrangement of the surviving verse preserved in quire 2. 9 3 The Flood narrative in Genesis A and abridged lections for the Easter Vigil

Another instance of narrative dislocation occurs in Genesis A in the accounts of Noah's building of the ark and survival of the Flood. This dislocation differs significantly from that observed in the poem's versification of the hexameral and prelapsarian sequences of Genesis. The amount of biblical matter that appears to have been omitted, conflated or rearranged in this section far exceeds that of even the most textually complicated parts of the poem's versification of Genesis I-II. 93 Still more problematic is the lack of any indication that physical losses in Junius 11 The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, p. 3393

O t h e r plausible explanations for the state of the received text of Genesis A m i g h t well be p u t forward. For example, it seems possible that the verse of Genesis A may once have e m b o d i e d a fully integrated harmonization of the Priestly and Jahwist narratives of Genesis I - I I . In such a case, a proleptic treatment of the creation of Eve would m a k e good sense, as w o u l d the detailed treatment of the watering of Paradise and the n a m i n g of the four rivers.

94

T h e narrative dislocation in the passage is easily observed in the s u m m a r y of Latin and O l d English parallels set out on p p . 1 0 8 - 9 , u n d e r the heading corresponding to division 9 of t h e text of Genesis in A m i a t i n o 1 ('Hae generationes N o e . . .'). T h e Flood narrative appears at GenA

1 2 4 2 b - l 4 8 2 , ranging over the main contents of

Genesis V I - V I I I ( t h r o u g h VIII. 14). T h e b u l k of the narrative dislocation occurs in the treatment of Genesis VI—VII. T h e proof of this statement inheres in the apparatus of Genesis A , ed. Doane, p p . 140—7, and may be conveniently reviewed in the s u m m a r y set out on p p . 105—9See also t h e study by L. N . McKill, 'The Artistry of the N o a h Episode in Genesis A ' , Eng. Stud in Canada 13 (1987), 1 2 1 - 3 5 .

136


or an exemplar played a part in these alterations of the Flood narrative. Junius 11 has suffered no perceptible damage on the leaves containing the poem's treatment of Genesis VI—VII and to my knowledge no such damage has been posited for an exemplar of the poem. Simply stated, we are confronted here with a mode of biblical rendition that has no close counterpart in any of the other extant verse of Genesis A. The meandering narrative of the Flood episode contrasts markedly with the poem's sequential and nearly complete treatments of Genesis III-V and VIIIXXII. And it far surpasses the intermittent, notionally grounded conflation observed in the verse following Genesis I—II in its divergence from the biblical model. If the passages of Genesis A exemplifying a sequential rendering - those treating Genesis III-V and VIII-XXII - are analogous to (and, in all likelihood, dependent on) an early medieval biblical text copied out in extenso, the treatment of the central matter of the Flood narrative in Genesis A appears to have a different basis. All determinations to date concerning the disposition of the Flood narrative in Genesis A have been made on the basis of comparisons with continuous Latin texts of Genesis VI-VII, most often drawing on the readings of the Vulgate. (A. N. Doane has also noted some important parallels with continuous Old Latin texts. 9 ) Given the distinctive mode of versification observed in the poem's treatment of the matter of these chapters, however, we may well suspect that some change of exemplar took place during the composition of this part of Genesis A, especially in the vicinity of lines 1285—406 of the poem. The versification in question approximately corresponds to Gen. VI.8—VII.23, the lengthy series of verses that begins a new division in the text preserved in Amiatino 1 and in many other early medieval systems of biblical division. 97 The most simple explanation might hold that the poet's attention shifted from the written exemplar that in all probability underlies the sequential versifications of Genesis III—V and VIII—XXII, perhaps turning to a personal memory of the very familiar - and very lengthy - episode on Noah. But the pervasive influence on such a memory may not have been the Vulgate. The biblical passages on the Flood which are subject to the greatest amount of alteration in Genesis A correspond precisely to those encountered in drastically abridged forms among Latin lections that were commonly 96

97

See Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 60, 136, 140 and 148, and Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', pp. 179 and 188-9. See De Bruyne, Sommaires, p . 427.

137


included among liturgical lections for the Easter Vigil. 98 The Old English rendition of Noah thus appears to manifest the first of several striking alignments of the verse of Junius 11 with texts of the Holy Saturday liturgy. We have seen above that critics often associate the Old Testament contents of the manuscript collectively with these vigil lections, and it is thus a remarkable circumstance that individual passages of Genesis A, Exodus and Daniel, as well, display clear points of lexical and structural agreement with extant specimens of early medieval recitations employed in the Holy Saturday services." On the one hand, the parallels between the Flood narratives of Genesis A and the ubiquitous abridged Flood lections of the Easter Vigil — described below — reveal far less about the structure and, perhaps, meaning of the poem than similar parallels in Exodus and Daniel. The extent of the congruence in question is essentially limited to the free approach to the adaptation of biblical material observed in both sources. On the other hand, the parallels offer a unique insight into the religious background of the verse of Junius 11 because, in any fair assessment of the evidence, they show that familiarity with Latin vigil lections on the part of the Genesis A poet is almost certain. The following analysis draws on collations of abridged Holy Saturday lections on the Flood from the Roman twelve-lection series of vigil readings, as well as on representative examples drawn from texts of the Gallican, Spanish and Milanese liturgies. For purposes of the present comparison, four abridgements, preserved in extenso in surviving early medieval manuscripts, will be taken as representative of western liturgical practice in the preparation of lections for the Easter Vigil: Roman twelve-lection series (edition of Tommasi): Gen. V.31b, VI. 1-22, VII.1-6, VII.llb-l4a, VII.18b-21a, VII.23b-24 and VIII. 1-7 (with significant non-Vulgate readings) and VIII.8-21. 1 0 0

99

100

For example, the supplementary matter appended to the copy of the comes of Alcuin preserved in BN, lat. 9452 (see above, p. 8 1 , n. 164) specifies an abbreviated text of Gen. V.31-VIII.21 and a text of Gen. XXII. 1-19 as recommended items in its revised series of readings for the Easter Vigil; see Frere, Studies III, 9 (nos. LXVI*.b-c) and 46. For parallels in Exodus, see below, pp. 216-25 and 227-30. Brennan, 'The Old English Daniel', pp. xxxii-xxxiii, presents a case for a connection between Daniel and the twelve-lection system of lections for the Easter Vigil. The continuous text of the abridgement summarized here is ptd in Antiqui libri, ed. Tommasi, pp. 46-7. Baumstark, Nocturna laus, pp. 46-7, notes the following abridgement: Gen. V.31-VII.8-VII.11-VIII.3-VIII.6-21.

138


Gallican series (Lectionary of Luxeuil): (textual loss in manuscript), Gen. VII.10b-l4a, VII.l6b-17a, VII.18b-21a, VII.23b-24, VIILla, VIII.4, VIII.6-12 and VIII.15-21 (ends intact).101 Spanish series (Missale mixtum): Gen. V.31b, VI. 1—3, VI.5a, VI.6a, VI. 13a, VI. 14a, VI.18b-19a, VILlb, VII.3b-5, VII.17a, VII.23a, VIII. lb, VIII.2b, VIII.4a, VIII.6b-9a, VIII.9c-ll, VIII. 13b, VIII. 15-17a, VIII. 18a (with the non-Vulgate phrase 'fecit ut dixerat eideus')andVIII.20-la. 102 Milanese series (Sacramentary of Bergamo): Gen. VI.9-22; VII.6, VII.11-14, VII. 18-21, VII.23-4, VIII.1-3, VIII.6-12 and VIII.15-21.103 The most conspicuous feature of surviving specimens of Flood lections, considered as a group, appears to be their variety. Abridgements of Genesis VI—VIII seem to have been produced or revised on an ad hoc

103

The summary follows the text ptd from BN, lat. 9427 (Gaul (PLangres), s.vii/viii; later provenance Luxeuil; 'Lectionary of Luxeuil') in Le Lectionnaire de Luxeuil, ed. Salmon I, 97-9. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 321-2, describes the lectionary as a 'pure Gallican book untouched by Roman influences'. On this important source, which will be cited numerous times in the present study, see DACL V, cols. 274-7 and 863-9, and IX, 2748-69; CLA V, 18-19 (no. 579); Clavis, ed. Dekkers and Gaar, p. 443 (no. 1948); CLLA, p. 176 (no. 255); P. Rado, 'Das alteste Schriftslesungssystem der altgallischen Liturgie', EL 45 (1931), 9-25 and 100-15; Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 819-20 (no. 251); and esp. Biblia Sacra, ed. Quentin et al. XV, xiv, on the disposition of the Old Latin and Vulgate texts. The text of a fragment of another Gallican lection, reproducing an unabridged text of Genesis VI-VIII in extenso, apparently intended for use in the Easter Vigil, occurs in Wolfenbiittel, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Weissenburgensis 76 (palimpsest; lower script, Psouthern or southeastern Gaul, s. v/vi or vi m ); see text ptd in Das alteste Liturgiebuch, ed. Dold, pp. 4 - 5 , and the full notice below, p. 303 with n. 190. The summary treats the early medieval Flood lection preserved among the Spanish collection of mass-texts known as Missale mixtum secundum regulam S. Isidori, as ptd in PL 85, cols. 109-1035, following a text ptd in 1500 by A. Ortiz from a manuscript that has since perished, revised by A. Lesley in 1755; the text of the Flood lection appears at cols. 448—9; see further Baumstark, Nocturna laus, pp. 44—7, Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, p. 278, and Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 844-8 and 853-4 (no. 419). See text ptd in Codex sacramentorum Bergomensis, ed. Cagin, pp. 194 and 199, following a copy of the Flood lection in the Sacramentary of Bergamo (Bergamo, Biblioteca di S. Alessandro in Colonna, 242, 12r-19v (northern Italy (PMilan), s. ix me or ix2)); see CLLA, p. 264 (no. 505); Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 109 and 332; Sapientia Salomonis, ed. Thiele, p. 98 (item u B ), and Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 867-8 (item uB).

139


basis to suit the vagaries of local custom. Variant text-types exist even within the discrete corpora of Flood lections associated with the major early medieval liturgies. The relative freedom exercised in the handling of biblical material relating to this single episode, in my view, bears most directly on the mode of rendition observed in Genesis A. Nevertheless, there are some notable points of lexical correspondence between the Latin and Old English Flood narratives. These may serve to illuminate some previously unrecognized aspects of the versification of Genesis A.

The Flood lections summarized above agree with each other and with Genesis A in omitting verses (or versicles) in Genesis VII that report the entry of male and female representatives of all species into the ark 'two by two' (Gen. VII.9 and VII.15-l6a: 'duo et duo', 'bina et bina', etc.; VII.2, including references to the male and female genders, is also sometimes omitted). The conspicuous absence in the verse of Genesis A of details relating to the mixed gender of the species in the ark has been noted by Doane and others. 104 Nor does the poem ever appear to render directly the language of Gen. VII. 10 and VII. 18, both describing the inundation of the earth by the Flood. These verses are similarly omitted in whole or in part in all of the liturgical abridgements summarized above. The most striking parallels I have observed, however, exist between the verse of Genesis A and the putatively Gallican readings of the Lectionary of Luxeuil (variously supported by Roman, Spanish and Milanese sources), where allusions to the victims of the Flood (VII.21— 2) and the chronology of the catastrophe (VIII. 13—14) are greatly curtailed or omitted altogether (see especially GenA 1399b-l406 and lines following 1482). The last omission has the effect of placing greater emphasis on the dove's failure to return (Gen. VIII. 12, included in the Gallican series and rendered at GenA 1476b—1482). This omission is especially striking, as it occurs in the midst of an otherwise unbroken treatment of the matter of the modern Genesis VIII, whose passages are typically abridged only slightly (or not at all) in surviving lectionary extracts for the Easter Vigil. Although the complexity of the textual data in question is very great, a preliminary attempt has been made to compare the readings of Genesis A with the sampling of abridged Flood lections for the Easter Vigil set out in Table 3. 104

Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 142-5. 140

The biblical sources of Genesis A and B Table 3. The affinities of the treatment of the Flood episode in Genesis A and in abridged readings for the Easter Vigil Roman Gallican Spanish Milanese Gen. V.31a (omitted from GenA) (om.) X Gen. V.31b (GenA 1236b-1242a) X Gen. VI. 1 (GenA 1242l>-1247) Gen. VI.2-3 (GenA 1248-69) X Gen. VI.4 (omitted from GenA) X Gen. VI.5 (GoiA 1270-6a) Gen. VI.6a (GenA 1276b-1278) X Gen. VI.6b (omitted from GenA) X Gen. VI.7 (GenA 1279-84): abbr. X Gen. VI.8-13 (GenA 1285-95): abbr. Gen. VI.14-16 (GenA 13O2b-131Oaand 1314-26): X abbr. Gen. VI.17-18 (GenA 1296-302a and 1327-34): X abbr. X Gen. VI. 19 (GenA 131Ob-1313): abbr. X Gen. VI.20 (omitted from GenA) X Gen. VI.21 (GenA 1335-46a) X Gen. VI.22 (GenA 1314-26) Gen. VII. 1 (GenA 1327-34 and 1346b-1348a): abbr. X X Gen. VII.2 (GenA 1335-46a): abbr. X Gen. VII.3 (omitted from GenA) X Gen. VII.4 (GenA 1348b-1355) X Gen. VII.5 (GenA 1356b) Gen. VII.6 (GenA 1367l>-1368 and 1371b-1376a): X abbr. (om.) Gen. VII.7-9 (GenA 1356a and 1357-67a): abbr. (om.) Gen. VII. 10 (omitted from GenA) Gen. VII.11 (GenA 1367b-1368 and 1373-6a): abbr. (abbr.) Gen. VII.12 (GenA 1376b-1386a) X Gen. VII. 13 (GenA 1369-7la): abbr. X Gen. VII. 14-15 (omitted from GenA) (abbr.) Gen. VII. 16 (GenA 1363-7a): abbr. (om.) Gen. VII.17 (GenA 1376b-l386a and 1388b-1397): abbr. (om.) (abbr.) Gen. VII. 18 (omitted from GenA) Gen. VII.19 (GenA 1386b-1388a) X Gen. VII.20 (GenA 1397b-1399a) X Gen. VII.21 (omitted from GenA) (abbr.) Gen. VII.22 (omitted from GenA) (om.)

141

(om.) X X

(om.) (abbr.) (om.) (om.) (abbr.) (abbr.) (abbr.)

X

(abbr.) X (abbr.) X (om.) X (om.) X (om.) X (abbr.) (om.) (om.) (om.) (abbr.) (om.) X (om.) X (om.)

X X X

(abbr.) (abbr.) (abbr.) (abbr.) X X

(abbr.) (om.)

(om.) (om.) (om.) (om.) (om.) (om.) (om.) (om.)

X

(om.) (om.) X X X

(abbr.) (om.)

(abbr.) (om.) (om.) X (om.) X (om.) X (om.) X (om.) (om.)


(contd) Roman Gallican Spanish Milanese

Gen. VII.23 {GenA 1399b-l4O6): abbr. Gen. VII.24 (omitted from GenA) Gen. VIII.l-5a {GenA 1407-3la): abbr. Gen. VIII.5b (omitted from GenA) Gen. VIII.6-12 {GenA I431b-1482): abbr. Gen. VIII. 13 (omitted from GenA) Gen. VIII. 14 (omitted from GenA) Gen. VIII. 15-21 {GenA l483-503a): abbr.

(abbr.) (abbr.) X

X

(om.) (abbr.) (om.) (om.) (abbr.) X X (om.) X (om.) X

X

(abbr.) (om.) (abbr.) (om.) (abbr.) (abbr.) (om.) (abbr.)

X X

(abbr.) (om.) X

(om.) (om.) X

In the final analysis, we may doubt that the poem's narrative reflects a deliberate attempt to render the text of a specific lectionary abridgement as a vernacular composition or to invoke the theology of the baptismal liturgy. Strictly judged, the adaptations embodied by lections on the Flood must be classed as abridgements, while the treatment of the episode in Genesis A comes closer to a full-scale harmonization. I find no precedent in the liturgical extracts for the Genesis A poet's reversal of the order of topics treated in the biblical passages comprising Gen. VI. 17—18 and VI. 14—16, such as is seen in Genesis A (at 1296—310a). Nor can we discover any Latin equivalent to the poem's ambitious conflation of the partly redundant matter of widely separated biblical verses, including treatments of God's commands to Noah regarding the selection of animals, the inundation and other topics treated at Gen.VII.l and VII.18, VII.2 and VI.21, etc., which are dutifully versified at GenA 1327-34, 1335-46a, 1367t>-1368, 1371b1376a and 1376b-1386a. But the account of the Flood is the only episode of the Latin text of Genesis that is regularly subjected to such liturgical abridgement — so much so that recognition of the phenomenon has become a commonplace of scholarship on the baptismal liturgy. Further, the lengthy biblical text provides the central subject of the only passages in Genesis A that regularly achieve narrative compression by omitting the matter of many single verses and two- and three-verse passages of the biblical Genesis. The safe conclusion to be drawn from the liturgical parallel is that Genesis A witnesses a common early medieval response to the lengthy and somewhat intractable biblical account of the Flood, which includes the matter of four modern chapters of Genesis (verses spanning

142


Genesis VI—IX, corresponding to divisions 8—9 in Amiatino 1). The common pattern of omission of elements in the biblical Flood narrative exhibited by Genesis A and lections associated with the Holy Saturday liturgy, however, would seem to strengthen the case for a change of exemplar at this point in the composition of the poem. We can surmise that the poet's attention shifted away from a continuous Latin text of Genesis to another written text, such as a private copy of a Flood lection, or simply to some personal recollection thereof. In all likelihood, the adaptation in Genesis A - similar to most of the Easter Vigil abridgements of the Flood episode, to judge by the early medieval evidence — was undertaken ad libitum. But the fact remains that out of the dozens of passages from the book of Genesis excerpted for use in the liturgy and out of the twenty-two chapters of Genesis treated in whole or in part in Genesis A only one episode is adapted in a manner that drastically affects the progression of its narrative: the account of the Flood. I should thus conclude that the Genesis A poet's familiarity with this extremely common form of lectionary abridgement is almost certain, even if the poem generally seems to reflect this liturgical knowledge at the level of style rather than meaning. The biblical sources of Genesis A

We have now amassed evidence on which to base some specific conclusions about the continuous exemplar that may be inferred to stand behind the bulk of the verse of Genesis A. The state of the narrative certainly supports the belief that the readings of such an exemplar inform passages treating the matter of Genesis III-V and VIII-XXII, and possibly of other chapters as well. And we are now able to address the relationship of that exemplar to the characteristically Old Latin and Vulgate readings reflected in isolated words and phrases of the poem. As noted above, if all of the distinctive biblical reflexes in Genesis A could be shown to derive from a single exemplar, the poem might then be seen to embody a uniquely comprehensive attestation to a type of text that has not been preserved in any manuscript, but may well have circulated throughout the early Middle Ages: a markedly heterogeneous, Old Latin-Vulgate, text of Genesis I—XXII. The preponderance of identifiable Old Latin readings in Genesis A might even be taken to suggest that the poem's continuous

143


exemplar preserved a fundamentally Old Latin text, an entity that is almost wholly unrepresented in the corpus of extant early medieval biblical manuscripts.105 A hypothesis maintaining that a single biblical exemplar stands behind the verse of Genesis A would appear to be both attractive and reasonably strong. On the basis of my reading in early medieval Genesis materials, however, I am presently inclined to posit two distinct types of biblical sources as having exerted an influence on the composition of the poem. The first of these, as expected, is the fixed exemplar of Genesis I-XXII (or III—V and VIII—XXII) noted above, which will in all probability have contained an admixture of Old Latin and Vulgate elements. The second is a more amorphous sort of biblical source altogether: the Genesis-derived diction of the early medieval liturgy. The decisive evidence necessitating this conclusion, in my view, does not inhere in the echoes of the eucharistic preface occurring in the opening lines of the verse assigned to Genesis A — though these show nonetheless that a poet of the Junius Genesis knew at least one basic text of the mass. Nor does the key evidence reside in the similarity of the poet's handling of the Flood narrative and the abridgements commonly encountered as lections for the Easter Vigil. Rather, the admission of the liturgy to the present discussion as a possible medium for the transmission of Old Latin and Vulgate readings in Genesis — and the concomitant rejection of a single-source hypothesis in tracing the biblical matter of Genesis A — is justified by recourse to textual evidence internal to the poem itself. There is a select and seldom discussed group of four passages in Genesis A that seem to bear witness to their poet's concurrent knowledge of both the Old Latin and Vulgate forms of certain verses in Genesis. The first of these passages occurs in the previously noted paraphrase of the blessing For the matter treated in Genesis A, the only continuous Old Latin biblical texts in Genesis cited by Bonifatius Fischer are the fragmentary copy of Gen. XVI.9—XVII. 18 and XIX.5-29 preserved in Lyons, Bibliotheque de la Ville, 403 (329) + 1964 (1840) (s. vii; provenance Lyons) and the copy of Gen. XII. 17—XIII. 14 and XV.2—XVI.2 in Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, latinus 1 (palimpsest; lower script, Italy, s. v); see Genesis, ed. Fischer, pp. 5*-10*. For the Old Latin texts of Genesis, see further F. Reuschenbach, Hieronymus als Ubersetzer der Genesis (Limburg, 1948); Genesis, ed. Fischer; Vetus Latina Hispana I, ed. Ayuso, pp. 205-7; Vetus Latina Hispana II, ed. Ayuso, pp. 17-71 and 84-117; J. W. Wevers, The Text History of the Greek Genesis, AbhGott 81 [=Mitt. des LXX-Unternehmens 11] (Gdttingen, 1974), esp. pp. 17685; and Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', esp. pp. 179-80 and 186-9.

144


'crescite et multiplicamini', where the commission of 'halig feoh' ('sacred livestock' {GenA 201b)) to the care of Adam and Eve recalls the Old Latin text of God's precept 'habete potestatem . . . omnium pecorum terrae', 106 while an allusion to the Vulgate form of the verse seems to occur in the nearby phrase lifigende / 5a 5e land treda5'. 107 Similarly, in the account of the cursing of Eve, the inclusion of the common Old English poetic formula 'wop and heaf' ('weeping and lamentation' (GenA 923a)) may have been suggested by the normal Old Latin reading 'multiplicabo tristitias tuas et gemitus tuos', but the Vulgate form of the verse sounds clearly in the poem's allusion to the subjugation of the first woman to the power of men: 'I>u scealt waepnedmen / wesan on gewealde' (following Vulgate 'sub uiri potestate eris' against common Old Latin 'erit conuersio tua ad uirum tuum'). A third possible instance of Old Latin—Vulgate conflation occurs in the Flood narrative. It is hard to say precisely how the biblical sources have been construed here, but the phrase 'grene blaedae' (GenA \474SL: 'green leaves') echoes the Vulgate 'uirentibus foliis' ('with green leaves') against the Old Latin 'folium oleae' or 'oliuae folia' (leaf of the olive-tree' and 'leaves of the olive-tree'). The description of the return of the dove (GenA 147 lb: 'gewat fleogan eft', that is, 'it came flying back [to Noah}'), however, stands closer to the Old Latin reading 'reuersa est columba ad eum' (Gen. VIII. 11: 'the dove came back to him') than the Vulgate 'ilia uenit ad eum' ('it came to him'). Finally, the most famous Old Latin reminiscence in Genesis A, recurring also in the Genesis-based patriarchal narrative of Exodus, is the statement that Abraham's sacrifice of 106

G e n . 1.28: 'Have power over all of the earth's livestock'; there is no close Vulgate equivalent.

107

GenA 2 0 3 : '[every] living t h i n g that walks the earth'; cf. V u l g a t e 'et d o m i n a m i n i . . . uniuersis animantibus

(Gen. 1.28: 'and rule over all the living creatures') against the

O l d Latin '. . . repentium o m n i u m ' and '. . . o m n i u m reptiliurri ('. . . all of those which crawl' and '. . . all of the reptiles'). See Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', p p . 1 7 8 - 9 , n. 7 6 , and Genesis A , ed. Doane, p . 6 0 . 108

G e n . III. 16: 'I will m u l t i p l y your sorrows and your groans.' See Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', p . 176 w i t h nn. 6 4 - 6 .

109

GenA 9 1 9 b - 9 2 0 a : 'you will be u n d e r the sway of m e n ' ; G e n . III. 16 'you will be u n d e r the power of a m a n ' (Vulgate) and 'your t u r n i n g will be to your m a n ' (Old Latin). T h e phrase 'Jmrh sar micel' {GenA 92A&: 'with great suffering') may also recall the Vulgate reading 'aerumnas tuas' ('your sufferings') in the same verse. See Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', p . 1 7 6 , n. 6 7 . My thanks to David C. Fowler for suggestions regarding this passage.

110

See Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', p p . 177, n. 7 1 , and 179, n. 7 9 .

145


Isaac will occur on 'a ridge of high ground' Chringc âes hean landes' (GenA 2855a)), following an Old Latin form of Gen. XXII.2, such as 'in terram altam' or 'in terram excelsam' ('on high ground'). This description occurs in juxtaposition to a rendition of Gen. XXII.3 that seems to draw concurrently on the diction of Old Latin and Vulgate forms of the verse.111 Taken together, these passages suggest that the Genesis A poet had knowledge of more than one version of certain verses in Genesis. It is difficult to account for the apparent conflation in Genesis A of matter deriving from both the Old Latin and Vulgate forms of verses of Genesis. As noted above, we may conclude reasonably that the poet drew on the readings of a substantial exemplar of Genesis in the course of the poem's composition. But a dual-exemplar hypothesis, according to which the poet would be held to have consulted two continuous texts, one representing the Old Latin text and the other the Vulgate, would require us to attribute extraordinary diligence in textual matters to the poet. On the other hand, if we prefer to see a single exemplar standing behind the verse ofGenesis A, the only obvious explanation for the state of the poem's text would involve an assumption that the poet's copy of Genesis was supplied with a set of glosses recording variant readings. Similar to a dual-exemplar hypothesis, such an assumption might be seen to test the limits of evidentiary speculation. A more natural explanation for the phenomenon of Old LatinVulgate conflation in Genesis A, I should suggest, might be sought in a textual environment that may never have been committed to written form during the centuries that saw the emergence of the verse of Junius 11. This is the performative environment arising during the recitation of several distinct types of texts in the observation of ceremonies of mass and Office. As Patrick Sims-Williams has recently noted, '[according to Ecgberht of York, a priest ought to equip himself before his ordination with a psalter, lectionary, antiphonary, missal, baptismal order and martyrology'. 112 The recitation of texts drawn from these different types of books, undertaken by priests and their subordinates in the ceremonies of mass and 111

112

The line 'swa him saegde aer / swegles aldor' {GenA 2879: 'as the Lord of heaven said to him previously') stands closer to the Old Latin 'dixit illi deus' than to the Vulgate 'praeceperat ei deus' in Gen. XXII.3. But the specific mention of night in the phrase 'nihtreste ofgeaf' {GenA 2864a: 'he finished his night's rest') recalls the Vulgate reading 'de nocte consurgens' against the Old Latin 'exsurgens . . . mane'; see Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', p. 170, nn. 34 and 36. Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature, p. 27 3.

146


Office, provides a likely setting for the interpenetration of various traditions of biblical diction. In particular, the preservation of the vocabulary and phrasing of verses of Old Latin biblical texts in hymns, canticles, prefaces, collects and other types of prayers will have frequently brought about a juxtaposition of Old Latin and Vulgate readings in a performative context. Documentary attestation for this sort of textual conflation is rare before the central medieval period, but the emergence of 'proto-breviaries' in the eleventh and later centuries confirms the existence of a phenomenon that may be assumed to trace back to the earliest periods of Christian liturgical observance. For example, in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 743 (s. xi; 'Breviary of Saint-Martial de Limoges'), one of the earliest items catalogued by Victor Leroquais in his survey of breviaries preserved in French libraries,113 we find (on llOr) a prayer influenced by the diction of the blessing 'crescite et multiplicamini' (Gen. 1.28) preceding a pairing of an antiphon and respond (both supplied with musical notation). These passages draw on both the Old Latin and Vulgate forms of the later verse describing Adam's solitude (Gen. 11.18: 'Dixit . . . Deus non est bonum esse hominem solum faciamus illi adiutorium [Vulgate ei adiutoreni] .. .'). 1 1 4 Similar examples of Old Latin-Vulgate conflation occur at many other points in the text of this 'proto-breviary', most notably at 108r— 11 lv of BN, lat. 743, where nearly every verse of the opening chapters of Genesis is treated in an elaborate setting of prose and lyric, including episodes on the Creation, the establishment of Paradise, the creation of Adam and Eve, the Fall, God's cursing of the sinners and the Flood. There occur other instances in this manuscript of antiphons, responds, invitatories and hymns in which reminiscences of Old Latin biblical texts are brought together with continuous Vulgate texts. Further evidence for this phenomenon, which seems especially common for verses V. Leroquais, Les Breviaires manuscrits des bibliotheques publiques de France, 5 vols. (Paris, 114

1934)11,418-19On the alternation of abstract and concrete terms in Old Latin and Vulgate texts of this verse and its relevance to the verse of Genesis A, see Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', p. 172 with nn. 42—3. For a discussion of limited evidence for the use of antiphonaries in Anglo-Saxon England in the late eighth and ninth centuries, notably in Alcuin's partially edited florilegium, De laude Dei, see the extensive discussion of Bullough, 'Alcuin and the Kingdom of Heaven', pp. 5—8; see also Constantinescu, 'Alcuin et les libelli precum\ Marsden, Text of the Old Testament\ pp. 222—9, and Gneuss, 'Liturgical Books', pp. 116—18. For discussion of antiphonal usage in connection with Old English verse, see also Rankin, 'The Liturgical Background'.

147


of the book of Genesis, can be inferred from the masterly analysis of ReneJean Hesbert, whose Corpus Antiphonalium Ojficii frequently attests to the interpenetration of Old Latin and Vulgate readings in this area of the liturgy. In particular, language from verses in Genesis on the Creation (notably from the admonition crescite et multiplicamini) and the stories of Noah, Abraham and Isaac and other figures were regularly adapted for use in antiphons and responsories, especially during Quinquagesima and Sexagesimal 15 Conclusion: the biblical sources of Genesis A

It is a striking circumstance that Old Latin reflexes in Genesis A occur in the poem's treatments of nearly all of the episodes of Genesis I—XXII that are commonly encountered in the liturgy: the hexameral and prelapsarian sequences, the Flood narrative, the Institutions of the Covenant and Circumcision and Abraham's offering of Isaac. The Old English versifications of these scenes embody nearly sixty per cent of the apparent reflexes of Old Latin readings in Genesis A identified to date. 11 Nevertheless, it remains unlikely that all of the Old Latin echoes in Genesis A should be ascribed to the influence of liturgical texts. The poem's main biblical source, we must still conclude, was almost certainly a continuous exemplar of Genesis I-XXII (or III-V and VIII-XXII). This exemplar did, in all probability, contain a mixed (Old Latin—Vulgate) text of Genesis. In my previous study I chose to group Old Latin readings in Genesis A according to the clarity of their verbal correspondence, as judged by a convergence of lexical, syntactic and contextual evidence. I would now be inclined to refine the categorization by giving greater weight to Old Latin parallels appearing in passages in Genesis A and biblical exemplars that were less often excerpted for ceremonies of mass and Office. These passages include 115

116

See, for example, antiphons treated in Corpus Antiphonalium, ed. Hesbert and Prevost VIII. 1, 128-9 (no. 54a: 'in principio fecit Deus . . .') and responds at VIII.2, 224-5 (no. 54a: 'Noe, uir Justus . . .') and 229 (no. 56a: 'temptauit Deus Abraham . . .'), with additional responds at X, 24 (no. 6098, on Abraham and Isaac), 63 (no. 6252: 'Benedixit Deus Noe . . .') and 303 (no. 7218: 'Noe, uir Justus . . .'). On the continuing use of Old Latin texts in liturgical contexts, see, for example, S. J. P. Van Dijk, 'The Medieval Easter Vespers of the Roman Clergy', SE 19 (1969-70), 261-363, at 313-14, and Chavasse, 'Les plus anciens types'. See verses cited by Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', pp. 188-9, under Genesis I—III, VI-IX, XVII and XXII, comprising thirty-two out of fifty-four examples.

148


the report of Cain's slaying of Abel, the genealogical summaries, the account of the destruction of Sodom, other events of Abraham's sojourns and so on. The presence of Old Latin echoes in these passages would seem to lend support especially to the previously expressed opinions of Doane, the present writer and others regarding the use of one main, textually mixed exemplar as the model for the bulk of the versification of Genesis A. But certain cautions will be necessary if we accept the previously stated hypothesis — and given the ephemeral nature of liturgical observance, it can be no more — that exposure to Old Latin reflexes in the recitations of mass and Office influenced the biblical diction of the Genesis A poet. Regrettably, it may no longer be possible to regard the collective witness of the Old Latin and Vulgate reflexes in Genesis A as providing a reliable guide to the contents of a mixed and perhaps predominantly Old Latin text of the book of Genesis. THE LATIN BACKGROUND OF GENESIS

B

When we shift our attention from Genesis A to Genesis B, we exchange the source-critical certainties that inhere in verse founded on a specific Latin exemplar — the mixed (Old Latin and Vulgate) text of Genesis discussed in the preceding remarks — for the difficulties of interpreting a poem that seems to have no identifiable source of any kind. It is true that the 117

118

See verses cited by Remley, 'The Latin Textual Basis', pp. 188-9, under Genesis IV, XI-XVI and XVIII-XXI, comprising twenty-two passages in all. Note, however, that M. McCormick, 'Un fragment inedit de lectionnaire du VHIe siecle', KB 86 (1976), 75—82, prints a continuous lectionary fragment of Gen. IV.20—6—VI.9—21, which he suspects was used as a reading for the paschal period, citing (at 77—9) comparable unpublished lections in Genesis. It would probably be possible to mount an argument that all of the Old Latin reflexes in Genesis A arrived by way of the liturgy, but the point of such an exercise would seem uncertain. T. O'Loughlin, 'The Latin Version of the Scriptures in Iona in the Late Seventh Century: the Evidence from Adomnan's De locis sanctis\ Peritia 8 (1994), 18-26, challenging some long-standing views regarding the knowledge of non-Vulgate biblical texts in the early church at Iona, has recently asserted the role of biblical exegesis in the Insular transmission of Old Latin readings. But it is perhaps less clear than in the case of expository Hiberno-Latin texts discussed by O'Loughlin that exegetical intermediaries should be adduced to account for all of the Old Latin parallels in Genesis A. The state of the question resembles that articulated by Timmer in 1954: 'The situation, then, with regard to the sources of [Genesis 5} is this: no general source has

149


narrative argument of Genesis B rehearses in its own way the account of the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve that occupies Gen. III. 1—8. But this episodic foundation is submerged beneath a mass of extrabiblical detail, including speeches, descriptive passages and entire scenes that find no close parallel in the book of Genesis or, for that matter, in known apocryphal and exegetical works treating the Fall. More than a half of the matter of the extant verse of Genesis B consists of reports of direct speech, and these passages and other thematic elaborations have no counterpart in scripture. In the narrative passages of Genesis B, the plot to seduce the primordial couple is concocted in advance by Satan, who lies bound in chains in a characteristically Germanic inferno, assailed by alternating blasts of fire and ice (GenB 313—21). The seduction itself is carried out by a shape-changing emissary of Satan, more closely resembling a protagonist in a Wagnerian opera than an Old Testament demon, who flies up to earth with the aid of a protective helmet of invisibility {GenB 442—5a) and some form of a feathered cloak (or set of wings: lines 415-17; cf. 669-71a). The emissary only later adopts the form of a serpent {GenB 491—2). In another striking divergence from the biblical account, the tempter visits Adam before approaching Eve {GenB 495-546). The First Man, like a dutiful soldier, resolutely asserts his obedience to his commander (God) and rejects the tempter's solicitation out of hand. Eve, meanwhile, is lured by the prospect of gaining greater faculties of knowledge. She is induced to eat of the Forbidden Fruit {waestm {GenB 594a)), thereby increasing her own bodily strength (also described as wcestmas (613a)) and powers of cognition. 120 After partaking of the Forbidden Fruit, she acquires a panoramic faculty of sight {GenB 599—609a), recalling the visions attributed to the pagan sibyl in the Old Icelandic Voluspd. The temptation of Adam by Eve is treated in a long passage, wholly unrepresented in scripture, containing speeches that achieve a striking degree of psychological realism {GenB 654a-683). Only with the descriptions of the shame been found; there are certain mediaeval poems and religious prose works which show a certain similarity in some details and three main deviations from the Bible tradition, mentioned above, may very well go back to some apocryphal document, but that document is lost' (The 'Later Genesis', ed. Timmer, pp. 47-8). For bibliographical references to Genesis B, see above, p. 97, n. 9; and The 'Later Genesis', ed. Timmer, pp. 70-5; Vickrey, 'Genesis B\ pp. 327-43; and The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, pp. 181-202. On the lexical associations of the term wcestm in this passage, see below, pp. 162-5.

150


of the naked sinners and their attempt to conceal themselves from God (GenB 783b-784a and 845-51, following Gen. III.7-8), does Genesis B show any close connection to the account of the Fall in the book of Genesis. The tale of the futile concealment lays the ground for the resumption of the extant narrative of Genesis A. Original features of the poem notwithstanding, some limited direct use of a Latin text (usually assumed to have been the Vulgate) has been asserted by most critics of the poem. But the Vulgate, in the final tally, can be adduced to account for only a small fraction of the extant contents of the Genesis B fragment. The impression remains that we have a poem without a source. In general, students of Genesis B have confronted this critical impasse in one of two ways. First, with assertions of poetic originality: the dramatic and psychological overtones in Genesis B point up one of the more notable instances in the early medieval vernacular corpus in which alliterative prosody breaks free of the mimetic constraints observed in many other examples of formulaic verse-composition. The possibility that the extant fragment (or, rather, its lost Old Saxon model) owes a special debt to otherwise unrecorded traditions of Germanic alliterative verse, however, cannot be ruled out. Clearly, Genesis B reflects the influence of Germanic traditions that border on the folkloristic, though the extent of this debt is hard to estimate. Second, with doctrinal interpretations 121

Vickrey, 'Genesis B\ p. 70, notes that '[t]he concepts, the motifs, the vocabulary of an Old English religious poem such as Genesis B are blends of heathen Germanic and Christian Latin thought and literature'. The alternating blasts of heat and cold in the description of hell have been seen to reflect Germanic tradition, but parallels have also been noted in Latin writings of Bede, for example, in his Hymnus xiv.93-105 ('De die iudicii': CCSL 122, 439-46, at 442), with which compare the Old English poetic reflex in Judgement Day II (Cameron, 'List', p. 36 (item A. 17)); HE V.I 2 (the so-called Visio Dribthelmi; see text in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 303—10, esp. 304-5 and 308-10); and Commentarius in epistolas septem catholicas iii.6 (CCSL 121, 181-342, at 204-6); cf. also Hrabanus Maurus, Commentarius in Matthaeum (citing Bede; see PL 107, cols. 727-1156, at 859); and biblical loci at Job XXIV.19 and in the apocryphal book of Enoch (XIV. 13). For critical discussion, see further S. J. Crawford, 'A Latin Parallel for Part of the "Later Genesis"?', Anglia 48 (1924), 99-100, and Crawford, 'The Caedmon Poems', Anglia 49 (1925-6), 279-84, at 284; Christ and Satan, ed. Clubb, pp. 7 0 - 1 ; and Vickrey, 'Genesis B\ pp. 7 2 - 3 . The notion of a 'Germanic conception that the north is the place of evil' (Vickrey, 'Genesis B\ p. 73) supposedly informing the statement in Genesis B (274b-276a) that Satan dwells in the northwestern regions - has been effectively challenged by P. Salmon, 'The Site of Lucifer's Throne', Anglia 81 (1963), 118-23, and T. D. Hill, 'Some Remarks on "The

151


involving parallels in apocryphal and patristic works: there are few, if any, lines in Genesis B that would connect the poem unambiguously with any single strand of doctrinal tradition. But it should be borne in mind that the theme of the Fall, particularly as it relates to the hexameral tradition, was commonly addressed by learned theologians in catechetical instruction and other types of oral exposition. As the only available evidence for Site of Lucifer's Throne"', Anglia 87 (1969), 303—11, who adduce a number of Latin patristic parallels; cf. also Isa. XIV. 13- The motif of Adam's sea-penance in the poem has been associated with Germanic legal convention, but also bears comparison with European (notably Celtic) ascetic practices and passages in Old Testament apocrypha, as well as II Cor. XI.25; see Vickrey, 'Genesis B\ pp. 75, n. 36; 201; and 278-80. In the final tally, the descriptions of Satan bound in chains (often compared to the binding of Loki in Old Norse myth — but cf. Bede, HE V.I2 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 303-10)), the exotic accoutrements of his emissary, and Eve's panoramic vision have proved most resistant to explication by reference to Latin sources. Of course, the debt of the poem's formulaic diction to Germanic poetic tradition is beyond question. On Germanic elements in Genesis B, see further W. von Unwerth, 'Eine Quelle des Muspilli', BGDSL 40 (1915), 349-72; J. I. Young, Two Notes on the "Later Genesis'", in The Anglo-Saxons, ed. Clemoes, pp. 204-11; R. E. Woolf, The Fall of Man in Genesis B and the Mystere d'Adam, in Studies in Old English Literature in honor of Arthur G. Brodeur, ed. S. B. Greenfield (Eugene, OR, 1963), pp. 187-99; and J. F. Vickrey, Jr, T h e Vision of Eve in Genesis B\ Speculum 44 (1969), 86-102. Êlfric's Letter to Sigeweard (for which see above, pp. 87—90) may serve once again to exemplify the point: 'he [i.e. Satan} feoll 6a adun to deofle awend, and ealle his gegadan of 5am Godes hirede in to helle wite be heora gewirhtum . . . Da beswac se deofol si56an eft l>a men, t>aet hi Godes bebod tobraecon forraf>e' ('[Satan] fell down, turned into a devil with all of his accomplices, from the court of God to the pains of hell as they deserved. Whereupon the devil soon deceived [Adam and Eve] so as to make them break the commandment of God at once'; see text ptd in The Old English Version, ed. Crawford, pp. 20-1 (lines 104-7 and 117-19), and above, pp. 130-1, n. 81, for intervening matter on the creation of Adam and Eve. Biblical allusions to the fall of the angels occur at Isa. XIV.11-16, Luke X.18, II Peter II.4 and Ape. XII.9 and XX. 1-2. On the influence of hexameral traditions on Genesis B, see further The 'Later Genesis', ed. Timmer, p. 47 with n. 1, and Vickrey, 'Genesis B', pp. 64-7. Another didactic tradition may be indicated by the analogous accounts of the fall of the angels, of a bombastic speech to Eve by a shape-changing (here hermaphroditic) tempter and of Eve's affective temptation of Adam, occurring in the Old Norse Konungs skuggsjd, an Old Norse speculum regale (or 'king's mirror') dated to the thirteenth century; see texts ptd in Konungs skuggsjd, ed. L. Holm-Olsen, Gammelnorske Tekster 1 (Oslo, 1945), pp. 75-6 and 78-9, with trans, in The King's Mirror, trans. L. M. Larson, Scandinavian Monog. 3 (New York, 1917), pp. 253-4 and 261-2; cf. also comments by Conybeare, Illustrations, p. 186 with n. 1.

152


these lost hexameral traditions resides in written sources, critics have admitted an unusually wide range of Latin texts into their purview in attempting to account for the doctrinal underpinnings of Genesis B. By the end of the nineteenth century, a dozen or so patristic thinkers had been mentioned as possible influences on the Saxon Genesis poet. 124 In particular, there is a substantial literature on the poem's similarities to the Genesisbased verse of Avitus. 125 In the present century, a number of early Christian apocryphal works, whose circulation in Latin translations in some cases can only be established conjecturally, have been put forward as sources or analogues of the poem. 126 But these parallels, individually and 123

Allen and Calder suggest that the poem's 'Latin background can only be reconstructed from various apocryphal works, hexameral exegesis, and Christian Latin poems of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries' (Sources and Analogues, ed. and trans. Allen and Calder, p. 3).

124

Three studies in particular - E. Hdnncher, 'Uber die Quellen der angelsachsischen Genesis', Anglia

8 (1885), 4 1 - 8 4 , T. Siebs, 'Zur altsachsischen Bibeldichtungen',

ZDP 2 8 (1896), 1 3 8 - 4 2 , and the introductory essay in Die altsdchsische Bibeldkhtung, ed. Piper, p. lix — collectively adduce passages in the writings of Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, Isidore, Bede, Alcuin and Hrabanus Maurus. For other suggestions regarding the influence of Latin texts by other authors, see A. D . McKillop, 'Illustrative Notes in Genesis B\ JEGP

2 0 (1921), 2 8 - 3 8 , D . Hofmann,

'Untersuchungen zu den altenglischen Gedichten Genesis und Exodus', Anglia

75

(1957), 1 - 3 4 , and J. M. Evans, 'Genesis B and its Background', RES ns 14 (1963), 1 - 1 6 and 1 1 3 - 2 3 , collectively citing analogues of the Tree of Death in the verse of Prudentius, Dracontius and Cyprianus Gallus. M. Dando, 'The Moralia

in Job of

Gregory the Great as a Source for the Old Saxon Genesis B\ Classica & Mediaevalia 30 ( 1 9 7 4 for 1969), 4 2 0 - 3 9 , cites passages in Gregory I, Moralia in Job, the poetry of Avitus and works by Augustine, Dracontius and Juvencus. There is a parallel to the description of Eve's striking appearance in the Pelagian Epistula ad Demetriadem xxv (PL 3 0 , cols. 1 5 ^ 5 , at 4 0 - 1 ) , circulating under the name of Jerome in the early Middle Ages. The tradition that the temptation was carried out by a subordinate demon occurs in Latin texts of the Vita S. lulianae (Act. SS, Febr. II, 8 7 3 - 7 ) ; but cf. also II Cor. X I I . 7 - 8 . 125

See preceding note and Der Heliand, ed. Sievers, pp. 1 7 - 1 9 ; Kogel, Geschichte I, suppl. vol., 2 8 8 ; L. Berthold, 'Die Quellen fur die Grundgedanken von V. 2 3 5 - 8 5 1 der altsachsisch-angelsachsischen Genesis', in Germanica: Eduard Sievers zum 75. Geburtstage (Halle, 1925), pp. 3 8 0 - 4 0 1 ; and Vickrey, 'Genesis B\ p. 69.

126

F. N . Robinson, 'A Note on the Sources of the Old Saxon Genesis, MP 4 (1906), 3 8 9 96, and Vickrey, 'Genesis B', pp. 2 0 2 - 3 , cite apocryphal analogues of allusions in Genesis B to the ten orders of angels (lines 246-51), the tempter's changing appearance (GenB 4 4 2 - 5 2 and 4 9 1 - 4 ; cf. 409-21a and 669-71a), the Trees of Life and Death (460-90; cf. also Matt. VII.17-20), Eve's vision after the Fall ( 6 0 0 b - 6 l 6 ) and the

153


collectively, only go a short distance toward accounting for the special features of the verse of Genesis B. Nevertheless, the fact remains that while the surviving resources of hexameral literature are vast, no one early medieval source has been identified that would account for even a fraction of the peculiar features of Genesis B. The present chapter, after reviewing the scriptural basis of the division of Genesis A and Genesis B, will attempt a preliminary inquiry into the biblical sources of the latter, concentrating on the poem's few apparent direct borrowings from the text of Gen. III. 1—8. The poetical identity of Genesis B

The demarcation of lines by which modern scholarship divides the Genesis-based verse of Junius 11 into two separate compositions — Genesis A (the present lines 1—234 and 852—2936 of the Genesis sequence) and Genesis B (235—851) — has never been based entirely on the evidence of manuscripts. It is a well-known fact that part of a fragmentary Old Saxon poem on Genesis printed by Karl Zangemeister and Wilhelm Braune in 1894 from Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 1447 (St Albans, Mainz, s. ixin; Latin additions and Old Saxon entries, s. ix me ; later provenance Heidelberg) closely resembles lines 791—817a of Genesis B.128 The fragment, however, comprises fewer than two dozen lines, allusion to A d a m ' s contemplated penance in the waters ( 8 2 8 - 3 5 a ) . Most of these extrabiblical themes also occur in the Apocalypse of Moses and the apocryphal Vita Adae et Evae. It has been noted above (p. 1 5 1 , n. 121) that the apocryphal book of Enoch has been associated w i t h the poem's depiction of hell. Finnegan adduces the apocryphal Visio Pauli,

a third-century Greek work circulating widely in Latin

versions, in connection w i t h the same point {Christ and Satan, ed. Finnegan, p p . 4 5 - 7 ) ; see text p t d by T. Silverstein, Visio Sancti Fault

(London, 1935). O n

medieval

circulation of biblical apocrypha, see E. Bozoky, 'Les apocryphes bibliques', in Le moyen age et la bible, ed. Riche and Lobrichon, p p . 4 2 9 - 4 8 w i t h references. 127

Allen and Calder, Sources and Analogues, p . 5, conclude that 'Evans' claim that the poet d e p e n d e d on a tissue of reminiscences from the Christian Latin poets is no more reasonable t h a n W o o l f ' s insistence on a lost apocryphal source.'

128

For a full t r e a t m e n t of t h e manuscript, see The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, p p . 9 - 2 8 . See also Zangemeister and Braune, 'Bruchstiicke', esp. p p . 30—2, and Die altsdchsische Bibeldichtung, ed. Piper, p p . lvii-lviii, for a concise summary of the flurry of scholarship on Genesis B appearing between the appearance of Sievers's hypothesis and the discovery by Zangemeister. T h e O l d Saxon Genesis is ed. in Heliand, ed. Behaghel and Taeger, p p . 2 3 3 - 4 8 , and in The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, p p . 2 3 2 - 5 2 .

154


none of which is of any use for establishing the beginning or end of the interpolation in the Genesis-based verse of Junius 11. Critical consensus, however, holds that a significant portion of the Genesis material in Junius 11 — certainly far more than lines 791—817a — is founded on a lost Old Saxon composition witnessed by these Vatican fragments. The specific demarcation of Genesis A and B after line 234 and before line 852 rests, as it has since Sievers's groundbreaking work, mainly on lexical and metrical considerations and on the divergent modes of biblical versification observed among segments of the poem. The marked literality of the scriptural rendition of many parts of Genesis A was recognized long before linguistic data were brought to bear to assist in the identification of Genesis B. As Cassidy and Ringler state, 'as early as 1826 it was realized that [lines] 235-851 of the [Old English] poetical paraphrase of the first part of the Book of Genesis were radically unlike their context'. 129 To be sure, part of this 'context' arises as a result of the loss of several leaves from the Junius codex. Most critics have suspected that two or three leaves — perhaps containing as many as six full pages of text, have been lost from the manuscript after p. 12 (that is, after the account of the naming of the rivers of Paradise), though the apportionment of some of this missing textual space for one or more illustrations may be deemed probable. The 'beginning' of the fragmentary text of Genesis B thus coincides with the commencement of the text written at the top of p. 13 of Junius 11 (the end of God's prohibition regarding the Tree of Knowledge). The currently accepted 'end' of Genesis B at line 851 finds no codicological or palaeographical support whatsoever. There is no indication of a break other than a single point in the text on p. 40, preceding the phrase '{>a com feran / frea aelmihtig'. Nor is there any shift: in the mode of biblical rendition at this point in the Genesis-based narrative. In

130

Bright's Old English Grammar and Reader, ed. F. G. Cassidy and R. N. Ringler, 3rd ed. (New York, 1971), p. 299, referring to remarks by Conybeare, Illustrations, p. 188: 'The portion of the paraphrase [i.e. the Genesis-based verse of Junius 11] . . . here, indeed, rather claims the title of an original poem . . . [on the basis of] the awkwardness of its connection with the narrative of [C]reation, the repetition of the story of the fallen angels, and the change of metre observable near its commencement, as well as from the contrast which it exhibits to the meagre style of much of the following paraphrase.' Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 5-10; see also above, pp. 127-36. GenA 852: 'Then the almighty Lord came forth.'

155


the final analysis, internal evidence of the verse itself, mostly of a linguistic or metrical nature, must be adduced to justify the currently accepted demarcation of Genesis A and B. In 1875, Eduard Sievers proposed that lines 235—851 of the Genesis sequence in Junius 11 should be viewed as a discrete literary entity, a sequence of interpolated matter which he first identified as Genesis B (as against the surrounding lines of verse, which he termed Genesis A).152 The interpolation was maintained by Sievers to be an Old English rendition, produced (in all likelihood) by an Anglo-Saxon poet, of a continental, Old Saxon poem on Genesis which, as far as he knew at the time of writing, had disappeared altogether. Using the Old Saxon Heliand as a basis for comparison, Sievers's apparatus to his edition of Genesis B presented an assortment of verbal peculiarities that he thought attested to the retention of characteristically Old Saxon vocabulary in the Old English (often in alliterating position). He noted, as well, an Old Saxon influence on the syntax of the Old English versification and the idiomatic phrasing and formulaic diction typical of Old Saxon verse in the Heliand. Sievers's analysis swept away an earlier theory that the Heliand itself was a translation of some lost Old English religious epic. 133 It also dispelled the notion, already controversial in Sievers's day, that the second account of the creation and fall of the angels in Junius 11 (GenB 246—337) constituted a deliberate reminiscence of the first (GenA 12b—77) and that both were the work of one poet. 13 Sievers still suspected, because of the paucity of verbal parallels with the Heliand, that part of the great speech of Satan (GenB 371-40, ending in mid-sentence) was an interpolation into the text derivative of the Old Saxon original, which he held to have been composed in Old English by an Anglo-Saxon poet. 135 In the decades following the publication of Sievers's study, his hypothesis remained controversial. The separate identity of the lines now assigned to Genesis B was generally acknowledged, but several critics argued, against Sievers, 132

Der Heliand, ed. Sievers; cf. The 'Later Genesis', ed. T i m m e r , p . 1 1 .

133

H o n n c h e r , 'Studien', p . 469-

134

Der Heliand, ed. Sievers, p . 7; cf. The 'Later Genesis', ed. T i m m e r , p . 10.

135

Der Heliand, ed. Sievers, p . 1 5 . Cf. Zangemeister and Braune, 'Bruchstiicke', p . 2 5 , for the notion that the frequency of hypermetric lines and the rhetorical force of this p a r t of the speech could be taken as evidence of authorship by a poet other t h a n t h e one w h o composed the b u l k of the O l d Saxon Genesis. (As noted below, p . 157 w i t h n. 1 3 7 , the possibility of Anglo-Saxon authorship is rejected by Braune.)

156


that the original language of the interpolation was not Old Saxon but Old English. However, in 1894, Wilhelm Braune, in his introduction to the edition of the fragmentary Old Saxon poem based on Genesis,13 argued persuasively for the derivation of all of the lines now assigned to Genesis B from an Old Saxon original. Since the publication of the Old Saxon fragment (part of which corresponds to lines 790—817a of Genesis B), Braune's conclusions (including those he accepts from Sievers) have rarely, if ever, been questioned. But it is worth bearing in mind that the fundamental justification for the division of Genesis A and B rests on Sievers's metrical and linguistic analyses, as refined by Braune and subsequent scholars, as well as on the compositions' diverging approaches to scriptural versification.138 Genesis B and Latin texts of Genesis

Few if any continuous sequences of lines in the narrative of Genesis B derive unambiguously from the Latin text of Genesis. Detailed consideration of the many deviations from canonical scripture embodied by the 13

For c o m m e n t s on the script of the O l d Saxon entries, see The Saxon Genesis, ed. Doane, pp.

1 9 - 2 7 , and B. Bischoff, 'Palaographische Fragen deutscher Denkmaler

der

Karolingerzeit', FS 5 (1971), 101—34, and Bischoff, Paldographie des rbmischen Altertums unddes abendldndischen Mittelalters', G r u n d l a g e n der Germanistik 2 4 (Berlin, 1979), 122. 137

Zangemeister and Braune, 'Bruchstiicke', p p . 2 5 - 7 .

138

O n e fundamental question that has received very little attention in recent years is whether, in the course of the integration of Genesis A and B , the text of either (or both) was revised or 'worked u p ' . This issue was first raised by Conybeare,

Illustrations,

p . 1 8 8 , w h o saw Genesis B as the earlier composition: '[I]t seems to have formed originally a distinct composition, which perhaps the paraphrast of a later age has worked u p into his fabric.' In the introduction to Genesis A, ed. Doane, the suggestion is m a d e t h a t perhaps 'Genesis A was partially revised at the t i m e of the translation [or insertion?] of Genesis B' (p. 36). For speculation regarding specifically Old English elements in Genesis B, see P. Bethel, 'Notes on the Incidence and Type of Anacrusis in Genesis B: Some Similarities to and Differences from Anacrusis Elsewhere in O l d English and in O l d Saxon', Parergon ns 2 (1984), 1-24, P. Cavill, 'Notes on Maxims in O l d English Narrative', N&Q ns 33 (1986), 1 4 5 - 8 , at 1 4 6 , and Lucas, 'Some Aspects'. A related question is whether the translator w h o rendered the O l d Saxon Genesis into English was familiar w i t h (and influenced by) Genesis A. This suggestion was made by T i m m e r (in The 'Later Genesis', ed. T i m m e r , p . 39), w h o also suggested that the 'translator was probably familiar' w i t h Andreas, Daniel, Christ and Satan and w i t h the Alfredian prose translations of Gregory's Dialogi and Regula pastoralis and of Boethius's De consolatione Philosophiae.

157


narrative is beyond the reach of the present study, but the most important extrabiblical elements have been noted above. There are a few details in Genesis B that corroborate the witness of scripture: for example, the depiction of Satan's emissary as a serpent ('Wearp hine J)a / on wyrmes lie . . .'; cf. 'serpens erat callidior') and the notion that Eve and Adam will acquire heightened powers of vision by partaking of the Forbidden Fruit Ol>u meant swa wide / ofer woruld ealle / geseon si55an'). Even in these cases, the biblical details are greatly elaborated and there is little question of direct borrowing from the words of scripture.1 l As noted above, the small debt owed by the verse of Genesis B to Latin scripture contrasts strongly with the pervasive biblical influence observed in Genesis A and tends to confirm the distinctive character of this part of the Genesis material in Junius 11. The most notable parallels with Latin scripture in Genesis B occur in the sequences of lines currently accepted as standing at the beginning and ending of the interpolated material. The first two lines of the extant Genesis B fragment, as they have been established in modern editions, occur after a lacuna in the manuscript at the top of the thirteenth page of Junius 11. These two initial lines commence in the middle of the penultimate sentence of an exhortation by God regarding the Forbidden Fruit: . . . ac niotaS inc f>aes o8res ealles, forlaetaS {)one aenne beam, waria5 inc wi5 l>one waestm. Ne wyr5 inc wilna gaed.142 These lines might be seen to offer a plausible paraphrase of either of two 139

GenB 491a: 'he turned himself then into the form of a snake' and Gen. III. 1: 'the serpent was more subtle . . .' Translations of Genesis B generally follow the rendition in Anglo-Saxon Poetry, trans. Bradley, p p . 1 8 - 3 5 .

140

GenB 5 6 5 - 6 : 'you will afterwards be able to gaze widely over the whole world';

141

Jager, 'Invoking/Revoking', p p . 3 0 7 - 2 1 , suggests that the locutive terminology of

cf. G e n . III.5 and III.7. Genesis B (particularly such terms as stefn, sprac, word and so on) reflects the ultimate influence of a g r o u p of verses in Genesis that refer to the voice of God (for example, G e n . 11.16: 'praecepitque ei dicens' ('He c o m m a n d e d h i m , saying . . .'); III.8: 'uocem D o m i n i D e i ' ('the voice of the Lord God'); III.9: 'uocauitque D o m i n u s Deus A d a m , et dixit ei' ('and the Lord G o d called Adam'); and III. 10 'uocem t u a m audiui' ('I heard your voice'). 142

GenB 2 3 5 - 6 : 'But you two {Adam and Eve] may partake of all the other [trees], [ b u t ] leave that one tree alone, [and] guard yourselves against that fruit. There will t h u s be no lack of good things for you.'

158


separate pairs of biblical verses (Gen. 11.16—17 and III.2—3), and perhaps they should be seen to witness a conflation of both: [Gen. 11.16] Praecepit ei \sc. Adam] dicens, 'Ex omni ligno paradisi comede. [11.17] De ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas. In quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris.' [Gen. III.2] Cui respondit mulier, 'De fructu uero lignorum quae sunt in paradiso uescemur. [III.3] De fructu uero ligni quod est in medio paradisi praecepit nobis Deus ne comederemus et ne tangeremus illud, ne forte moriamur.'143 As in the first pair of biblical verses cited here, God (rather than Eve) is the speaker in the Old English text, and He explicitly allows food to be taken from all the trees of Paradise but one ('ac niota5 inc {>aes o5res ealles, / forlaetaS {>one aenne beam'; cf. 'ex omni ligno paradisi comede; de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas'). The use of the dual pronoun inc, however, might be taken to suggest that the sanction has been imposed after the creation of Eve rather than during the period of Adam's solitary existence related in Gen. II. The specific mention of the Forbidden Fuit in connection with the benefits to be derived from obedience to God's command ('Ne wyr5 inc wilna gaed')145 perhaps reflects a slight softening by litotes of the phrase 'ne forte moriamur' (Gen. III.3). 146 Though the verbal parallels between Genesis B and the Latin biblical sources of this passage are not particularly close, the wording of these lines owes a more specific debt to canonical scripture than does any other passage in Genesis B. Arguably, the mode of rendition observed here stands closer to the versification of Genesis A than that of the bulk of Genesis B and, not surprisingly, this circumstance has led one recent critic to suggest that the 143

G e n . 11.16-17: 'And [ G o d ] c o m m a n d e d h i m [i.e. A d a m ] , saying, "Eat of every tree of Paradise. B u t of the tree of knowledge of good and of evil you m u s t not eat. For on whatever day you will eat of it you will die the d e a t h " '; and I I I . 2 - 3 : 'And the woman answered h i m , [saying], " O f the fruit of the trees that are in Paradise we may surely eat. B u t of the fruit of the tree which is in m i d s t of Paradise G o d has commanded us t h a t we should not eat, and that we should not touch it, lest it should happen that we die."'

144

GenB 2 3 5 : 'partake of all the others, b u t leave that one tree alone'; cf. Gen. 11.16-17, as cited and translated in the preceding note.

145

GenB 2 3 6 b : 'there will be no of good things for you'.

146

See above, p . 1 5 8 , n. 142. T h e phrase 'wariaS inc w i 5 l>one waestm' {GenB 236a: 'guard yourselves against that fruit') would then render 'de fructu . . . ne comedere m u s ' (Gen. III.3).

159


beginning of the interpolation is uncertain. Michael Benskin puts the case as follows: 'It is not finally established that L[ater] G[enesis] begins at l[ine] 235 (rather than l[ine] 246). Neither language nor metre demands a necessarily O[ld] S[axon] original.' This provocative view, which runs counter to the present consensus regarding the compass of Genesis B, has been effectively challenged on metrical grounds by Peter J. Lucas.148 I find three other items of evidence supporting the traditional assignment of lines 235—45 of the Genesis-based verse of Junius 11 to Genesis B: (1) forms of the verb niotan occur also at GenB 40 l b and 486b, while Genesis A employs a cognate of the verb (nyttian) at line 1598a; (2) three of the speeches in Genesis B conclude with sentences occupying a single halfline; and (3) God's prohibition is alluded to directly within the body of Genesis B. With the Old Saxon origin of these opening lines safely established, it seems that the important point to be taken from the biblical parallels in the poem's rendition is that the Saxon poet's impressive command of extrabiblical traditions of the Fall was undergirded by firsthand knowledge of the Latin text of Gen. III.l—8.151 1 7

9

150

Benskin, 'An Argument', p. 231, n. 2. Lucas, 'MS Junius 11' II, 17. Note, however, that Lucas, 'Some Aspects', p. 172, finds that 'Genesis B conforms to the requirements of [Old English] metre to a remarkable degree . . . and the distribution of verses follows {Old English] norms with few exceptions . . . Specifically [Old Saxon] features are quite difficult to pin down.' Lucas nevertheless detects Old Saxon influence in the poem's high incidence of anacrusis and several grammatical tendencies. 'Ne wille ic leng his geongra wurân' (GenB 291b: 'No longer will I be his subordinate'), 'Ne eom ic deofle gelic' (587b: 'I am not like a devil'), and 'Fela he me Ia6es spraec' (622b: 'He expressed much that was abhorrent to me'). See, for example, GenB 430a, 460-90 and 636-46. Cf. also the metrical analysis by D. J. G. Lewis, 'The Metre of Genesis B\ ASE 16 (1987), 67-125, at 75, 81 and 118-19Another notable group of Old English phrases whose wording appears to rely on biblical diction occurs in the final lines of verse presently accepted as falling within the compass of Genesis B, at GenB 783b—851. These lines present a continuous, though greatly expanded, paraphrase of Gen. III.7b—8. Cf. for example, 'bare hie gesawon / heora lichaman' (GenB 783b—784a: 'they saw their bodies were naked') and 'wit her baru standa6' (811b: 'we stand here naked') and Latin 'cognouissent esse se nudos' (Gen. III.7: '[when] they perceived themselves to be naked . . .'); ' "uton gan on ^ysne weald innan / on frisses holtes hleo." / Hwurfon hie ba twa . . . / on {x>ne grenan weald' (839b-84l: ' "Let us go into this forest, into the shelter of this wood." They turned away, the two of them, . . . into the green forest') and 'abscondit se Adam et uxor eius a facie Domini Dei in medio ligni paradisi' (III.8b: 'Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God amidst the trees of Paradise'); and '{>a hie

160


The possibility does not seem to have been previously considered that the occasional reminiscences of words of the Latin scripture in Genesis B might be associated with a particular type of text, such as an Old Latin or Vulgate text. The question, however, may deserve closer attention. For example, if the influence of Gen. 11.16 is reflected in the lines cited above on the Prohibition, then Genesis B, in its use of the dual pronoun inc, almost certainly follows the common form of the Old Latin text, which employs verbs in plural tenses where the Vulgate has the singular. (Note, for example, in Gen. 11.17, Old Latin edetis ('you [two] should [not] eat . . .'), with variants comedatis, manducabitis, etc. against the Vulgate comedas\ and, similarly, Old Latin ederitis against the Vulgate comederis\ and Old Latin moriemini against the Vulgate morieris. ) The following heora lichoman / leafiim beêahton, / weredon mid Sy wealde' (845—6a: 'then they covered their bodies with leaves and dressed themselves with greenery') and Vulgate 'consuerunt folia ficus et fecerunt sibi perizomata' (III.7: 'they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves aprons'). The lines conventionally assigned to the beginning of the resumed text of Genesis A continue quite naturally with a paraphrase of 'et cum audissent uocem Domini Dei deambulantis in paradiso ad auram post meridiem' (Gen. III.8: 'and when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in Paradise in the afternoon air . . .'): *t>a com feran / frea aelmihtig / ofer midne daeg' (GenA 852—3a: 'then the Lord almighty, the glorious prince, came walking after the midst of day'). These parallels might be seen to call into question the status of the lines presently assigned to the end of the Genesis B fragment. For the final ten lines of Genesis J3, Sievers cites as evidence of Old Saxon origin of the passage only GenB 842b 'bidan selfes gesceapu' ('[they sat apart] to await the provisions of {God] Himself, comparing Heliand 196-7 'Bed aftar thiu that uuif uurdigiscapu' ('the woman awaited the workings of fate after that')), where use of bidan with accusative is held to be atypical of Old English usage (several examples of such use, however, are listed in Supplement\ ed. Toller, s.v. bidan)\ and 851a 'on J>am leohte' in the sense 'in the world' (cf. GenB 258a 'on {>am leohte' and Hel 465b 'an them liohta'). Both examples were rejected early on by Hb'nncher, 'Studien', p. 490, as common expressions in Old English and Old Saxon, but are reinstated by Timmer (The 'Later Genesis'y ed. Timmer, pp. 34 and 112). The view that the second phrase, 'on t>am leohte' is uncharacteristic of Old English usage is also reaffirmed by A. S. C. Ross, 'OE. leoht "World"', N&Q ns 22 (1975), 196. See also the Old Latin variants editis and manducabitis (Gen. 11.16) against the common Old Latin edes and Vulgate comede. I would like to thank Eric Jager for sharing these suggestions with me at an early stage of my research. See now Jager, 'Invoking/ Revoking', p. 310, noting that the 'plural verb forms (-ad) and the dual pronoun (inc) suggest that God is speaking here to both Adam and Eve. A plural audience is confirmed by the subsequent narrative.' The singular forms in Gen. 11.17 follow the readings of Hebrew scripture and the plural forms follow the Septuagint;

161


comments explore the possibility that the composition of the Old Saxon source of Genesis B was undertaken in the light of additional Old Latin readings in Genesis. Study example: fruit as body in the narration of the Fall

The narrative of Genesis B, as noted, parallels (albeit allusively) the text of only eight verses in the biblical account of the Fall (Gen. III. 1—8). As the variation between the Old Latin and Vulgate texts of these verses is not great, any attestation of direct influence on Genesis B of their words, either in an Old Latin or Vulgate form, must be viewed with extreme caution. For example, the common Old Latin text of Gen. III. 1 portrays the serpent as more wise (sapientior; variants include prudentior, astutior, sapientissimus and prudentissimus) than any of the animals on earth, while Jerome's Vulgate translation tempers this dubious compliment through its employment of the adjective callidior — the serpent is 'more sly* (or 'more cunning') than other beasts. The Old Latin reading could conceivably throw some light on a difficult phrase in Genesis B describing Satan's emissary before his sudden (and apparently temporary) transformation into a serpent: 'haefde hyge strangne' (GenB 447b). This phrase has often been taken to mean that 'he had a strong mind' or, in line with the Old Latin tradition, possessed formidable intelligence. One curious feature of the uncanonical narrative of Genesis B is the absence of any unambiguous reference to the pleasant appearance of the tree of the Prohibition or, more specifically, the pleasant appearance of its forbidden fruit. Two separate trees of Paradise are described in the course of the narrative, and it is a beneficial Tree of Life (and not Knowledge)

153

cf. Augustine, De Genesi adlitteram viii.17. For further discussion of the use of the dual pronoun in Genesis B, see The 'hater Genesis1 and other Old English and Old Saxon Texts relating to the Fall of Man, ed. F. Klaeber, Englische Textbibliothek 15 (Heidelberg, 1913), 50, and J. R. Hall, 'Duality and the Dual Pronoun in Genesis B\ PLL 17 (1981), 139-45. The phrase in question ('hyge strangne') might also be taken to mean 'resolute spirit', 'violent temperament' or 'pitiless heart'. In any case, the tempter's cunning is alluded to elsewhere in the episode: 'haefde faecne hyge' (GenB 443b: 'he had a deceitful mind'). See also discussion by G. C. Britton, 'Repetition and Contrast in the Old English Later Genesis', Neophil 58 (1974), 66-73, at 67, and Avitus, Carmen iii.189 and following, where the emphasis throughout is on the faculties of the senses.

162


that 'waes swa wynlic, / wlitig and scene, / Ii5e and lofsum'. 154 The tree of God's prohibition is 'eallenga sweart, / dim and {)ystre>155 and its produce is described as 'troublesome fruit' ('weorcsumne waestm' {GenB 594a)). The external appearance of the Forbidden Fruit, which is depicted elsewhere in Genesis B as repugnant, is not mentioned in the arguments by which the devil's emissary attempts to seduce Adam, which stress the internal and external benefits to be gained through eating of the Tree of Death: '{>e weorS on pinum breostum rum, / wcestm J)y wlitegra .

It is

perhaps worth noting that the dichotomy between sensory and spiritual delight implicit in Eve's subsequent statement to Adam (*J>is ofet is swa swete, I bli5[e] on breostum . . Z)1 7 parallels two of the three qualities explicitly associated with the fruit in the Old Latin form of Gen. III.6a. The relevant scriptural evidence may be set out as follows: Septuagint: Kai ei8ev f) yuvfi oxi Ka>-6v TOfybXoveic; Ppcoaiv Kai o n apeaxo 6(p$a>,uoinne rume raed gepencan\ powers of vision ('wur5a5 J)in eagan swa leoht') and beautiful appearance ('{>e is ungelic / wlite and waestmas).1 5 The inner (cognitive) and external (visual) benefits which the tempter mentions to Eve are almost identical to those he had cited earlier in the speech to Adam, and, at least

1 2

1 3 1 1 5

On the 'punning' quality evinced by much of the word usage in Genesis B, see 'Genesis B\ ed. Vickrey, pp. 48-51. GenB 561: 'Then by that you will be readily able to think of the best course of action.' GenB 564b: 'Your eyes will be thus illumined'; cf. also 603-6a and 6l4b-18a. GenB 6 l 2 b - 6 l 3 a : 'there is no equal to you with respect to beauty and form [literally 'growths']'. As an additional enticement, Satan's emissary promises Eve dominion over Adam: 'meaht l>u Adame / eft gestyran' {GenB 568: 'you will be able moreover to control Adam'). He claims effectively that the fruit has the power to preclude the subjugation of womankind. This will of course be inflicted in any case by God after the Fall (Gen. III. 16). For discussion of the scene, see S. Burchmore, 'Traditional Exegesis and the Question of Guilt in the Old English Genesis B\ Traditio 41 (1985), 117-44, esp. 126-30; cf. also Dubs, 'Genesis B: a Study', pp. 5 ( M .

164


on a formal level, parallel the attributes that are ascribed to the forbidden tree in the cited Greek and Old Latin texts of Gen. III.6a (as in Old Latin 'bonum est oculis ad uidendum et cognoscendum). As in the case of the speech to Adam, the parallel between the attractive qualities associated with the forbidden tree and the benefits to be gained by those who partake of its fruit is not stated explicitly, but it may be implied here again by the unusual use of the term wcestmas {GenB 613a) in reference to Eve's physical appearance. As I have noted, Eve, in her approach to Adam, appears to stress the internal benefits to be gained by eating the fruit: '{>is ofet is swa swete, / bli5[e} on breostum'. The phrase 'on breostum' appears to connote qualities associated with the mind, spirit or demeanour, and the mention of the sweetness of the fruit recalls the notion that it appears 'good to eat' expressed in Gen. III.6a (with the whole phrase compare, for example, the cited Old Latin reading 'bonum est lignum ad manducandum . . . et speciosum est ad intuendum). Finally, Eve claims to Adam that she has gained the benefits of both internal and external illumination by eating the Forbidden Fruit: 'WearS me on hige leohte / utan and innan! In the tempter's speeches to Adam and Eve and in Eve's speech to Adam, the parallelism between the potential benefits to the senses of taste and sight and to the mind or spirit - attributed to the fruit in the Old English and the qualities associated with the forbidden tree in Old Latin scripture is unmistakeable. Conclusion: the biblical sources of Genesis B

The present chapter opened with an enumeration of the range of discrepancies between the verse of Genesis A and B. These involved issues of style and metre as well as related questions concerning the original languages of the compositions. Similar observations might be advanced regarding the sources of Genesis A and B, biblical or otherwise. Genesis A has one main source, which can be described in some detail: a mixed, Old Latin—Vulgate exemplar of the Latin text of Genesis whose individual verses are often reproduced in extenso in the extant Old English versi166

GenB 655b-656a; see trans, above, p. 163, n. 157. GenB 676b—677a: 'this illumination has entered my senses both externally and internally'.

165


fication. Genesis B, by contrast, offers only an occasional hint that its narrative rests on a biblical source. As Benno Timmer stated earlier in the present century, '[h)alf a century of investigation on the question of the sources of the [Old Saxon] Genesis and [Genesis B~\ has failed to reach a consensus of opinion, except as to the Vulgate'. The preceding discussion, however, may serve to call even Timmer's cautious assessment into question. The appearance of a handful of apparent points of agreement between the verse of Genesis B and Old Latin readings in Genesis III suggests that we may know even less about the dependence of the Saxon exemplar on Latin scripture than has been suspected previously. The presence of these parallels might even be taken to indicate that some of the biblical elements in the poem arrived by way of some source akin to the apocryphal traditions and to the Greek- or Old Latin-predicated scriptural exegeses that have been adduced to date as analogues of the poem.1 9 In any event, the comments above would seem to affirm the status of Genesis B as the single item of the Junius collection with no known direct source beyond its Old Saxon template. The verse of Genesis B is particularly conducive to source- critical speculation largely as a result of the circumstance that it appears to issue sui generis. My own thoughts in this area are in line with recent suggestions by A. N. Doane, Brian Murdoch and others, who have reasoned that the use of Old Saxon for the composition of its exemplar points to an origin in a continental centre that may have benefited from the efforts of Insular missionaries - presumably including emissaries of both the Irish and Anglo-Saxon churches. I am especially struck by the resemblance of the collective character of the texts that have been proposed to date as analogues or hypothetical sources of the verse witnessed by Genesis B — apocryphal works, commentaries drawing on Greek and Old Latin scripture and so on — and the contents of libraries associated with Insular

168

169

The 'Later Genesis', ed. Timmer, p p . 4 5 - 6 . Kogel, Geschkbte I, suppl. vol., 27, was one of the first to express the view that the poet did not draw on any source but a Latin text of Genesis. Many of the nonbiblical sources that have been suggested as possible sources for Genesis B embody quotations from Old Latin scripture. These include Gregory I, Moralia in lob\ Avitus, Carmina\ and the works of Augustine, Dracontius and Juvencus; see above, pp. 1 5 3 - 4 with nn. 124 and 126.

166


missionary activities. The additional non-Vulgate parallels set out in the present chapter thus add to the evidence for the circulation of exotic strands of scriptural knowledge in the Saxon territories in the early centuries of continental Germanic Christianity. M. Benskin and B. O. Murdoch, 'The Literary Tradition of Genesis: Some Comments on J. M. Evans' Paradise Lost and the Genesis Tradition (Oxford University Press, 1968)', NM 76 (1975), 389-403, at 395, add: 'There remains too the strong possibility that otherwise obscure oriental notions [about the Fall] were transmitted on the continent by Irish scholars during the ninth century.' See also comments by Murdoch, 'An Early Irish Adam and Eve: Saltair na Rann and the Traditions of the Fall', MS 35 (1973), 146-77, at 163-4, and Dubs, 'Genesis B: a Study', pp. 54-63-

167

3 Exodus and the liturgy of baptism

Texts associated with the liturgy of baptism have been adduced many times in published attempts to resolve the complexities of the verse of Exodus. Noting the presence in the poem of both Genesis-based and Exodus-based passages, James W. Bright concluded in 1912 that Exodus is 'based on Scripture selected to be read on Holy Saturday', specifically lections prepared for the night-long Easter Vigil treating Noah, Abraham and the miracle at the Red Sea. In particular, Bright was struck by the intrusive appearance of a two-part patriarchal narrative about the Flood and Abraham's binding of Isaac in the second half (or last third) of Exodus.2 More recently, James E. Cross, discussing the insertion of these Genesis-based stories into the poem's account of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea, notes that 'the unusual structural principle (if it is not lack of structural principle) needs some explanation'. Indeed, no textual loss from Bright, 'The Relation', pp. 97—8. For an introduction to the Holy Saturday services and the readings of the Easter Vigil, see above, pp. 78-87. Any attempt to analyse the structure of Exodus has to contend with two substantial textual losses occurring after pp. 148 and 164 of Junius 11, the former involving the excision of two leaves, the latter one leaf. Lucas estimates that about eighty lines of text have been lost in the first case and another sixty-six in the second, yielding a hypothetical length of 736 lines for the Junius copy of Exodus before its mutilation {Exodus, ed. Lucas, pp. 8-10 and 13-15). The passage on Noah would thus have begun around line 442 of such a text, well past the midpoint of the copy of the poem in Junius 11. Cross, 'The Old English Period', p. 45. Critical precedent for the distinction maintained in the present study between the 'main narrative' of Exodus (recounting the legend of the Exodus itself) and the poem's 'patriarchal narrative' (treating Noah, Abraham and Isaac) occurs in studies by R. T. Farrell, 'A Reading of OE Exodus, RES ns 20 (1969), 401-17, at 402-6 and 410-12; P. F. Ferguson, 'Noah, Abraham, and the Crossing of the Red Sea', Neophil 65 (1981), 282-7, with references; and S. R.

168

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism Junius 11 can be adduced to explain the abruptness with which the treatment of Noah in Exodus (362—79: 'Niwe flodas / Noe oferlaS . . .') follows lines celebrating the Exodus and the lineage of the Israelites (346b-36l: 'Maegen for5 gewat . . .'). 5 The poem's allusion to the Israelites' patriarchal ancestry (fcedercedelo (Ex 36lb)) in the latter sequence of lines might be seen as providing a transition of sorts into the reminiscence on Noah, but nineteenth-century studies of Exodus tended to regard the whole of the poem's Genesis-based narrative (lines 362-446; that is, 362—79, on Noah, and 380-446, on Abraham and Isaac) as a gross interpolation comparable to the matter now ascribed to Genesis B or, as we shall see, to certain exceptional lines in the central section of Daniel. This view is a logical one insofar as the patriarchal reminiscence in Exodus serves to interrupt the progression of the narration of the miracle at the Red Sea. The poem has already presented a detailed foreshadowing of the parting of the waves in the form of an unbiblical speech attributed to Moses (Ex 278—98) and described the advance of the Israelite army onto a phantasmagorical battlefield that seems to merge with the dry ground of the Red Sea (299-35la). 7 The latter passage provides a good illustration of the

Hauer, T h e Patriarchal Digression in the Old English Exodus, Lines 362-446', in Eight Anglo-Saxon Studies, ed. J. Wittig (Chapel Hill, NC, 1981), pp. 77-90. On the biblical sources, see the studies collected in Essays, ed. Millard and Wiseman. Ex 362: 'Noah journeyed over the new floods.' For bibliographical references to Exodus (through 1972), see GR, pp. 222-5 (nos. 3604-50), Greene, 'Critical Bibliography', pp. 478-694, and Exodus, ed. Lucas, pp. 149-59- Unless noted, citations of the poem follow the edition in Exodus, ed. Lucas, whose readings have been compared throughout with those ptd in Exodus, ed. Irving, and revised by Irving, 'New Notes'. Ex 346b: 'The host went forth.' The matter of the departure occupies lines 344b-351a. See, for example, Wiilker, Grundriss, p. 130: 'In der Exodus sing ihm V. 362—44[6] eingeschoben, in dem DanielV. 280-410 und 422-^27 (das Azariaslied).' See, for example, the phrases 'saeweall astah' (Ex 302b: 'the sea-wall rose up'), 'wod on waegstream' (311a: '[the host] advanced into the sea-stream') and 't>raca waes on ore' (326b: 'there was a fight on the shore'). As Godden, 'Biblical Literature', p. 218, remarks: 'The biblical account has no battle, indeed much of the point of its story is that it was God who protected His people, and the battle never quite happens in the Old English version either, though it seems constantly threatened.' Translations of the verse of Exodus draw variously on those by Bradley (Anglo-Saxon Poetry, trans. Bradley, pp. 49-65) and Tolkien (Exodus, ed. Tolkien, pp. 20-32), but in the end are mainly my own work.

169


imagistic and nonlinear style that is typical of the biblical versification in the main narrative of Exodus, but it contrasts with the mode of rendition encountered in the patriarchal narrative. It is impossible to know precisely what matter originally followed the patriarchal narrative as a result of the loss of a leaf after p. 164 of Junius 11. But when the text resumes at the top of p. 166 we arrive immediately at a depiction of the chaos of the drowning of the Egyptian army after the closing of the waves (Tolc waes afaered; / flodegsa becwom / gastas geomre').9 In brief, it is impossible to avoid the impression that the passage on Noah and Abraham disrupts the dramatic climax of Exodus, the account of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea. Occasionally, however, critics have argued for the unity of the received text of Exodus. In the study noted above, James W. Bright held that the poem's incorporation of episodes from Genesis and Exodus reflects the influence of liturgical lections, specifically the twelve readings commonly recited in the course of the celebration of the Easter Vigil, the lengthy rite bridging the evening of Holy Saturday and the morning of Easter Sunday. Moreover, Bright drew a specific connection between the content of the poem and the theology of the baptismal liturgy, noting that the lections of the Easter Vigil 'were almost exclusively designed for the baptism of catechumens' and would have been appreciated as such by Anglo-Saxon auditors of Exodus.11 As presented, these arguments have found little acceptance, not least of all because of Bright's own efforts to support his theory by isolating reminiscences of all nine remaining vigil readings in the text of Exodus. For example, Bright links the Creation narrative of the first Easter Vigil lection (comprising Gen. I.I—II.2) with a

9

10

11

Godden, 'Biblical Literature', p. 217, adds: 'The most striking feature of the poem is its multi-valency: the way it throws off sparks of significance in all directions as the poet explores the story of the exodus . . . [Tjhere are suggestions of great battles which do not actually occur [and] there are indications of an imaginary sea-voyage which takes place over a desert and a dry sea-bed.' On the mode of the biblical rendition in the passage on Noah and Abraham, see below, pp. 187-94. Ex A4l-8a.: 'The [Egyptian] army was terrified; the horror of the flood befell their wretched souls.' Bright, 'The Relation'; see also three additional notes by Bright: 'Notes on the Caedmonian Exodus, MLN 17 (1902), 212-13, 'The Source of the Caedmonian Exodus', PMLA 18 (1903), xxxiii, and 'On the Anglo-Saxon Poem Exodus*, MLN 27 (1912), 13-19. Bright, 'The Relation', pp. 97-8.

170

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism

single line in the exordium of the poem ('J>as woruld worhte / witig drihten'). He is forced to admit defeat in regard to lections in Baruch (III.9-38), Ezekiel (XXXVII. 1-14), Jonah (III. 1-10) and Daniel (III.l24, etc.), noting that '[t}here is apparently nothing in the poem' treating their content. Bright deduces, however, that these apparent instances of omission must reflect considered decisions on the part of a poet who was conversant with the full set of vigil lections.13 The kernel of Bright's argument — that the selection of biblical texts witnessed by Exodus reflects knowledge of the familiar twelve-lection series of Easter Vigil readings — has fared better than his hypothesis regarding the poem's comprehensive treatment of that source. After all, it is probable that an Anglo-Saxon Christian maintaining even a moderate schedule of church attendance would know the twelve texts for Holy Saturday. Cross has observed that the episodes of the Flood and Abraham's binding of Isaac 'together with the story of the saving of the Israelites at the Red Sea comprise three of the twelve readings from Scripture presented in the ritual for Holy Saturday, a day reserved especially for the baptism of the catechumens, so that the liturgical service may have stimulated the poet to recall Noah and then Abraham's intended sacrifice'. In sum, the presence of this prominent subset of passages on the patriarchs in the series of vigil lections offers undeniably striking precedent for the selection of biblical matter in Exodus. Bright's emphasis on the liturgy of baptism clearly raises doctrinal issues whose compass extends far beyond textual questions relating to liturgical documents. Daniel G. Calder and Michael J. B. Allen note that the 'suggestion that [Exodus] may be, in some way or other, about baptism continues to find partisans'.15 In recent years, the poem's supposed 13

Ex 25: 'The wise Lord created this world.' Bright, 'The Relation', pp. 100-1. For a trenchant critique of Bright's scholarship, see Exodus, ed. Irving, pp. 14-16. Irving argues that 'the general similarity of material in both the poem and the liturgical service need not imply the same use of that material' while conceding that 'the {Exodus} poet, especially if, as is very likely, he was connected with a religious order, was familiar with the impressive Holy Saturday service' (Exodus, ed. Irving, p. 15). Cross, 'The Old English Period', p. 45. Even in a notably sceptical survey of the problem, Milton McC. Gatch states that '[t]here is little doubt that there are connections of some sort between the poem and the services of the medieval church' (Gatch, 'Old English Literature', p. 244); see also Garde, Old English Poetry, pp. 39-41. Sources and Analogues, ed. and trans. Allen and Calder, p. 219-

171


connection with the ritual of baptism has given rise to a remarkable number of doctrinally informed studies discussing Exodus in connection with conversion, spiritual absolution and related concerns such as the rebirth of the soul.16 Frequently, the tenor of such criticism seems to reflect a desire to make sense of the insertion of the patriarchal excursus in Exodus. But even one of the most eloquent exponents of this approach, James W. Earl, admits that ' M o amount of interpretation will ever explain the suddenness and awkwardness of the transition in lines 361—362 and the unusual placement of the passage within the action of the poem'. 17 More often, however, the baptism is cited in these studies as one of several doctrinal issues touching on a problem that is essentially separate from questions about the structure of Exodus: the poem's apparent lack of a clearly identifiable theme. The diction of Exodus has been adduced as witnessing traditions more commonly associated with the commentaries of biblical exegetes. The advance of the Israelites across the desert parallels the progress of salvation history; the crossing of the Red Sea foreshadows the triumph of the church; Pharaoh represents Satan, vanquished by God, whose twin pillars of fire and cloud guard the Israelites on their journey. Accordingly, the water-imagery and nautical metaphor prevalent in Exodus have been cited in support of the view that the poem (to return to the phrase of Calder and Allen) is somehow about baptism. The obvious objection to this approach inheres in the frequently laconic verse of Exodus itself. There is no unambiguous allusion to baptism in the poem. Christ does not appear and there is no explicit mention of the triumph of the church. The Egyptians are charged with the worship of demonic idols (deofolgyld {Ex 47a)), but the Pharaoh-as-Satan equation never sounds clearly. It is of course likely that most Christians in the early Middle Ages would have known such liturgical commonplaces as the See, for example, Earl, 'Christian Traditions'; D. G. Calder, 'Two Notes on the Typology of the OE Exodus, NM 74 (1973), 85-9, at 85-6; Vickrey, 'Exodus', p. 41, with references; Hall, 'Niweflodas'>pp. 244-5; Helder, 'Etham', pp. 5-6 and 22; J. R. Hall, 'The Junius Manuscript', Explicator 3 9 3 (1981), 26-7, at 27; and Luria, 'The Old English Exodus', pp. 603—4. For some critical comments on this line of inquiry, see P. B. Rollinson, 'The Influence of Christian Doctrine and Exegesis on Old English Poetry: an Estimate of the Current State of Scholarship', ASE 2 (1973), 271-84, at 281-2. Earl, 'Christian Traditions', p. 565.

172

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism association of Pharaoh with Satan or the prefiguration of holy baptism in the crossing of the Red Sea.18 Even so, the impression remains that such concerns are fairly distant from those of the verse of Exodus. Malcolm Godden has recently put the case as follows: 'The allegorical meaning of these events was familiar to the Anglo-Saxons: Pharaoh stood for the devil, the Hebrews represented the Christians leaving the world (Egypt) for the next life (the Promised Land) and passing by way of baptism (the Red Sea) from servitude to the devil to the service of God . . . [Y]et much of the poetry seems to have little to do with such a way of reading the text.' 19 A final resolution of these complex issues is beyond the scope of the present study. The underlying question to be addressed in this chapter is not whether Exodus is about baptism but whether the basic form of its verse has been influenced by texts and documents associated with the baptismal liturgy. Speculation about liturgical sources notwithstanding, Bright and his followers seem to have assumed that the ultimate biblical source of Exodus — that is, the immediate source of the subset of vigil lections seen to provide its chief model — is to be sought among the Vulgate texts of the books of Genesis and Exodus. In reviewing existing source-studies of the poem, Calder and Allen conclude that 'apart from the Bible and particularly Exodus [XIII} and [XIV], no single model has yet been discovered for the poem as distinct from some of its ideas and phrases'. I would argue, however, that all theories regarding the influence of baptismal liturgy on Exodus carry the implication that the sources of the poem are essentially extrabiblical. If liturgical treatments of Noah, Abraham and the events of Exodus XI—XIV exerted influence on the received text of the poem, then it follows that the search for models should

19

20

W i t h specific reference to early medieval liturgy, P. Salmon, The Breviary through the Centuries, trans. D. Mary (Collegeville, M N , 1962), p . 65, notes that 'the systematic arrangement of the continuous readings [of the daily Office] . . . revives in the course of a year the whole progression of the story of salvation . . . The Deluge prefigures the destruction of the sinful world through Christ in baptism and penance. In the same way, the true Exodus has been carried out by Christ and it is prolonged in the Church: it delivers mankind from the tyranny of the devil.' Godden, 'Biblical Literature', p . 217. Cf. also Irving's remark: 'While [the poet of Exodus] was doubtless familiar with the conventional allegorization of Old Testament narrative, he seems to have been less interested in ingenious abstract interpretations than in the stories themselves' {Exodus, ed. Irving, p . 34). Sources and Analogues\ ed. and trans. Allen and Calder, pp. 2 1 9 - 2 0 .

173


take place among the group of texts associated with the performance of baptismal rites rather than in complete copies of the book of Exodus. At the minimum, we have to reckon de facto with a set of biblical extracts — readings removed from the context of continuous scripture by virtue of their recitation in ceremonies of mass and Office. Priests and their subordinates in some cases will have consulted complete Bibles and other voluminous codices as sources of liturgical lections. The evidence of surviving medieval Bibles suggests that the resulting process of textual extraction was often facilitated by the addition of special marks of punctuation to the pages of continuous biblical texts. A representative example of this practice occurring in an Anglo-Saxon copy of Exodus will be analysed below. Discrete passages of biblical verses were also frequently excerpted for consultation in separate liturgical documents, such as Office lectionaries and mass lectionaries. (The possibility that the arrangement of texts of Exodus (and Genesis) in extant service-books might illuminate certain aspects of the verse of Exodus does not seem to have been addressed previously.) Finally, surviving catechetical lessons and homiletic texts also deserve attention, given the possibility that the poet of Exodus may have experienced the liturgy as a member of a congregation, rather than as an officer of the church. The project of the present chapter may be summarized as follows: the discussion will first explore the possibility that the immediate source of the main narrative of Exodus - the account of the departure of the Israelites, considered apart from the intervening patriarchal narrative - is less likely to have been a full text of the book of Exodus preserved in a complete Latin Bible than an excerpted text of an as yet indeterminate nature. Wherever possible I have drawn on evidence preserved in AngloSaxon texts and manuscripts and, when English sources fail, in representative medieval liturgical documents from continental European centres. The study is predominantly concerned with the structure of Exodus and its relationship to a hypothetical scriptural exemplar. It attempts to discern which biblical topics have been included in the poem, which have been left out and how the included material is arranged. Having defined the structure of the main narrative — the account of the Exodus proper — with some precision, and having affirmed its formal resemblance to certain surviving liturgical texts, it may then prove possible to consider the status of the Genesis-based passages of Exodus in an informed manner. In 174


particular, it will be possible to examine the relationship of liturgical texts based on Exodus to those treating the Flood and the story of Abraham and Isaac with an eye toward the special stylistic and structural features of Exodus.

Before proceeding with the main analysis, one more preliminary concern needs to be addressed. All of the speculation above (with the possible exception of the comments on catechesis) accepts that the text of Exodus may reflect direct knowledge of Latin liturgical sources on the part of any poet or redactor held responsible for the present form of its verse. The status of Exodus as a vernacular work, however, along with the poem's clear debt to the traditions of Germanic alliterative verse, might be taken to suggest that the contents of Latin liturgical texts are wholly foreign to the ethos of the poem. It may thus prove useful to review the evidence for the direct consultation of Latin sources in the composition of Exodus while undertaking a preliminary assessment of the poem's affinities to Old Latin and Vulgate biblical sources. THE LATIN BACKGROUND OF EXODUS

Edward B. Irving, Jr, in the introduction to his Exodus, published in 1953, maintained that attribution of a wide-ranging knowledge of Latin literature to the Exodus-pott 'would argue a greater sophistication, or at least a different kind of sophistication, than this poet seems to show'. Irving concludes that 'the only Latinisms of any kind in the poem are minor verbal echoes of the Vulgate itself and of no great importance'.21 In subsequent work on Exodus, however, Irving came to believe that the poem reflects a more extensive familiarity with Latin literature than he originally envisaged, noting in particular that the poem manifests a knowledge of a wide range of Psalms, canticles and passages of biblical prose.22 Another indication that the verse of Exodus may reflect the work of a competent Latinist has been noted by Fred C. Robinson, who adduces instances in which the verse of the poem bears witness to traditional Latin etymologies of biblical names. For example, Robinson draws a connection between an allusion to the Israelites as 'onriht Godes' (Ex 358b: 'correct [in the view (or 'in respect')] of God') and the well-documented medieval Latin etymology 21 22

Exodus, ed. Irving, p. 34; cf. pp. 16-20. See Irving, 'New Notes', and Irving,' Exodus Retraced', esp. pp. 205-7.

175


of Israel as rectus Domini?' It even seems possible that Exodus betrays some extremely limited, etymologically derived knowledge of Greek. The noun for&weg ('way forth', that is, 'outward journey' (or 'road')), used three times in the poem in reference to the Exodus of the Israelites, seems to suggest the road travelled by the people in their departure from servitude while offering an appropriate loan-translation of Greek 8ô5oc; (EK + 656ider becom' (46b)), X V I I . 16 (foundations of the sea; cf. 'ealde s t a d i a s ' (285a),

176

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism but collectively impressive verbal parallels between Exodus and many other biblical books have been proposed over the years, the strongest cases involving passages from Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Apocalypse and various historical books. In his more recent work, Irving has stressed the allusive treatment of the fate of the Egyptians in Wisdom XVII-XVIII, notable for a mingling of details relating to the destruction of the Egyptian firstborn in the tenth plague and the drowning of Pharaoh's army, the two events that serve to define the narrative compass of the extant verse of Exodus. Simply put, no other single work of Old English biblical verse has occasioned as much speculation about verbal parallels within the canon of scripture as has Exodus. In Irving's phrase, 'some of the peculiar intensity of [the poem's] language comes directly from the Bible itself'.28

26

27

etc.), XVII. 17—20 (divine rescue from the waters), XXVI.5 (protection of divine tabernaculum), XXVI. 11 (divine guidance), XXXII. 16-17 (destruction of king and horses), LVIII (protection from enemies), LX.5 (divine tabernaculum), LXXI.8 ('between two seas' topos; cf. 'be saem tweonum' (563b)), LXXIII.14-16 (Etham and the Ethiopians), LXXVI. 17-21 (path across the water), LXXVII.26 (south wind as manifestation of divine power; cf. sudwind (289b)), LXXVII.49-51 (death of firstborn and divine avenger; cf. mansceaffa (37a)), CIV (Exodus as theme, selection of warriors and speech of Moses), CV (Exodus as theme), CXIII (Exodus as theme), CXXXIV.9-10 (death of firstborn), CXXXVIII (divine guidance), CXXXIX.ll (rain of coals) and CXLI.4 (guidance along paths). For echoes of Cantkum Moysi (Ex. XV.lb-19), see Irving, 'New Notes', p. 322. Citations of the Psalms follow the edition in Le Psautier romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins, ed. R. Weber (Rome, 1953). See esp. Exodus, ed. Irving, p p . 1 4 - 1 6 , and J. B. Trahern, J r , 'More Scriptural Echoes in the Old English Exodus', in Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Essays in Appreciation (for John C. McGalliard), ed. L. E. Nicholson and D. W. Frese (Notre Dame, 1975), pp. 291-8, as well as comments on individual books in articles by Helder, 'Etham' (II Kings and Ephesians); Trask, 'Doomsday Imagery' (Isaiah); E. G. Stanley, 'Notes on the Text of Exodus', in Sources and Relations: Studies in Honour of]. E. Cross, ed. M. Collins, J. Price and A. Hamer (Leeds, 1985), p p . 2 4 0 - 5 (I Corinthians); S. R. Hauer, 'The Lion Standard in Exodus', ASNSL 2 2 1 (1984), 3 0 6 - 1 1 (Numbers, Isaiah and Apocalypse); C. D . W r i g h t , 'Moses, manna mildost {Exodus, 550a)', N&Q ns 31 (1984), 4 4 0 - 3 (Numbers); and G. Wieland, 'Manna mildost: Moses and Beowulf, Pacific Coast Philol. 23 (1988), 8 6 - 9 3 (Numbers). See Irving, 'Exodus Retraced', p . 34. For further discussion of the parallels in Wisdom, see A. N . Doane, ' "The green street of Paradise": a Note on Lexis and Meaning in Old English Poetry', NM 7 4 (1973), 4 5 6 - 6 5 ; H . T. Keenan, 'Exodus 312a: Further Notes on the Eschatological "green g r o u n d ' " NM 74 (1973), 2 1 7 - 1 9 ; K. Sajavaara, 'The Withered Footprints on the Green Street of Paradise', NM 7 6 (1975), 3 4 - 8 ; and Helder, 'Etham', p . 18.

177

Old English biblical verse The refractory qualities of the verse of Exodus will probably always preclude an exhaustive summation of its biblically influenced diction. But it appears safe to conclude that the main narrative of Exodus witnesses to a deep knowledge of the Psalms by its poet, who was probably familiar as well with most of the other books of the Bible, including those of the New Testament. 29 In my view, it is most natural to conclude that this poet was an individual who was a competent Latinist and, in all likelihood, who participated regularly in the psalmody of the divine Office and privately fulfilled the obligations of lectio divina. Old Latin and Vulgate readings in the main narrative of Exodus We turn now from the general knowledge of scripture evinced by Exodus to the poem's renditions of specific biblical verses. Exodus exhibits a more sporadically periphrastic relationship to its biblical source than is observed in, say, some of the literalistic passages of Genesis A. Its value as a witness to the Anglo-Saxon circulation of the book of Exodus is thus limited. Few verbal parallels with Exodus extend continuously over two or more successive lines, though, as we shall see, several have been expanded in such a way that echoes of individual verses crop up repeatedly over the course of lengthy passages. Nevertheless, in many cases the poem's debt to the Latin vocabulary — and, surprisingly often, the syntax — of Exodus is unmistakeable. Citations of three brief passages, whose debt to Latin scripture has been confirmed by E. G. Stanley and other scholars, will illustrate the sort of biblical versification typically encountered in Exodus: ut ad se inuicem toto noctis tempore accedere non ualerent . . . J>aer gela5e mid him 29

30

31

l

leng ne mihton

Possible New Testament parallels are discussed by Speirs, 'The Two Armies'; Hall, l Niweflodas\ S. R. Hauer, T h e segl in the Old English Exodus', ASNSL 225 (1988), 334—9; Helder, 'Etham'; and Trask, 'Doomsday Imagery'. For an introduction to these subjects, see above, pp. 6 9 - 7 8 . For a recent discussion of the memorization of the Psalms in Anglo-Saxon England, see B. Ward, Bede and the Psalter, Jarrow Lectures 1991 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1992), with references. Ex. XIV.20: '. . . so that they [i.e. the Egyptians and the Israelites] could not come at one another all the night'.

178

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism geseon tosomne. . . . Haefde nydfara nihtlangne fyrst52 et ait Moses ad populum, 'Nolite timere' 33 Werodes wisa wurftmyndum sprcec. 'Ne beodge {>y forhtran . . . Ne willad eow andradan deade feSan . . .' ne unus quidem superfiiit ex eis . . . ne 5aer cenig becwom herges to hame56

The Latin biblical texts set out here for comparison with the Old English derive from the Vulgate. At first consideration, there seems no reason to doubt that the Latin text standing behind Exodus derived from a fundamentally Vulgate exemplar. The situation, however, is complicated by one major point of agreement with the Old Latin. The division of the Red Sea by a southerly wind

The exclusive use of a Vulgate exemplar for the composition of Exodus was called into question in a note published in I960 by James E. Cross and Susie I. Tucker, who adduce a convincing Old Latin source for the allusion in the poem to the blowing of a southerly wind — su&wind (Ex 289b), corresponding to auster in Old Latin texts — at the moment of the parting of the waves, as recounted at Ex. XIV.21. 7 Cross and Tucker note that this allusion almost certainly goes back to a single phrase in the text of that verse in the Septuagint, avejioc, voxoq ('southerly wind'). They 32

Ex 2 0 6 - 7 a and 2 0 8 : '. . . the [mutually] hostile ones could no longer see each other

33

Ex. X I V . 13: ' A n d Moses said to the people, "Fear not." '

there . . . T h e fugitives had a respite t h r o u g h the night.' 3

Ex 2 5 8 - 9 a and 2 6 6 : 'The leader of the host [i.e. Moses} spoke w i t h dignity: " D o not be any more frightened by that; . . . you m u s t not fear the dead foot-soldiers . .

35

Ex. X I V . 2 8 : '. . . neither did there so m u c h as one of t h e m remain'.

36

Ex 4 5 6 b - 4 5 7 a : '. . . nor did any one of that [Egyptian] army come back h o m e ' .

37

J. E. Cross and S. I. Tucker, 'Appendix on Exodus [lines] 2 8 9 - 9 0 ' , Neophil AA ( I 9 6 0 ) , 3 8 - 9 ; see also discussion by Irving, ' N e w N o t e s ' , p . 2 8 9 , Lucas {Exodus, ed. Lucas, p . 115) and Luria, 'The O l d English Exodus, p p . 6 0 3 - 4 w i t h nn. 2 1 - 2 .

179


surmise cautiously, however, that the commonplace of the southerly wind reached the verse of Exodus by way of an exegetical intermediary. They cite passages that mention the auster in the writings of Ambrose, in the Old Latin-based biblical poetry of Cyprianus Gallus and in works pseudonymously ascribed to Bede and Marius Victorinus.38 Irving finds the occurrence of the detail of the divinely controlled southerly wind in the writings of Philo Judaeus and notes an analogue of the tradition in Psalm LXXVII. 39 In the face of understandable critical scepticism concerning the possibility of the direct influence of an Old Latin exemplar on the verse of Exodus, I believe that two points deserve to be restated forcefully: first, no patristic source adduced to date as a possible intermediary for the transmission of the topos of the southerly wind contains a reproduction of the content of Ex. XIV.21 as full as that which we encounter in Exodus. In fact, as far as I can establish, no complete text of the Old Latin form of Ex. XIV.21 has yet come to light. Second, the lines alluding to the southerly wind in Exodus offer one of the poem's few examples of an apparent versification of Latin scripture extending over as many as two consecutive lines. The potential significance of Exodus as a witness to a rare reading in the Old Latin Exodus is great. The lexical evidence bearing on the relevant lines in Exodus may now be fully set out for the first time. In the absence of a satisfactory witness to the Old Latin, the following summary juxtaposes the text of Ex. XIV.21 as it appears in the Septuagint, the Greek source upon which the Old Latin version was based, with corresponding passages from the Vulgate and Exodus:

39

An Old Latin text of Ex. XIV.21 witnessed by pseudo-Marius Victorinus, De physkis xviii (PL 8, col. 1305), preserves the reading 'et induxit Dominus mare in uento austro ualido tota nocte; et fecit mare siccum' ('and the Lord pulled aside the sea with a strong southerly wind through the whole night; and He made the sea dry'). Cf. also Ambrose, Hexameron iii.9 (CSEL 32.1, 1—261, at 66): 'Moysi excitato austro ualido siccatum est mare' ('when Moses stirred up a strong southerly wind the sea became dry'); pseudo-Bede, Commentarius in Pentateuchum ii.14 (PL 91, cols. 310—11, at 310): 'uentus urens ex austro ('a burning wind from the south'); cf. also the Old Latin-based versification by Cyprianus Gallus, Heptateuchos II.480-2 (CSEL 23, 73): 'auster uentus adest' ('there appears a southerly wind'). See, for example, Exodus, ed. Irving, pp. 85-6. For the parallel with Psalm LXXVII, see above, pp. 176—7 with n. 25.

180

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism ai urcfiyayev K\3pioines cynnes

ond cneowmaga,

randwiggendra,

rim ne cunnon

yldo ofer eorSan,

ealle craefte

to gesecgenne soSum wordum, nymSe hwylc t>aes snottor in sefan weor5e t>aet he ana mcege ealle geriman

stanas on eorSan, scebeorga sand, ac hie gesittaS

steorran on heofonum, sealte y5a; be seem tweonum.

Ex 435—43: 'No men on earth can say in truth the number of your kin and successors, of those shield-bearing warriors, with all their skill unless such a one should have become so wise in mind that he alone may count all the stones on earth [and] stars in the heavens, the sand of the seashores {and] the salty waves; and they shall dwell between two seas.' Lucas (Exodus, pp. 130—1), following Irving, states that '[t]hese lines are an expansion of Gen. 22.17 under the influence of 13.16'.

190

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism These lines ostensibly render the reminiscence of the promise to Abraham in the denouement of the episode on the offering of Isaac (Gen. XXII. 17). Irving has argued that the passage in some respects more closely resembles the Old Latin text of Gen. XIII. 14—16. The crucial lines of the Old Latin text read as follows: [Gen. XIII. 14b] Vide a loco in quo nunc tu es ad aquilonem et africum et orientem et mare. . . {XIII. 16] Et faciam semen tuum tamquam harenam marts si potest quis enumerare harenam marts ita et semen tuum dinumerabitur.

Irving speculates reasonably that the explicit reference in the Old Latin passage to the western shore (mare) may have suggested the use of the 'between two seas' figure in Exodus ('be saem tweonum' (443b)) and that the Old Latin reading 'harenam maris' stands closer to the phrase 'saebeorga sand' in Exodus than does the Vulgate allusion to the dust of the earth ('puluerem terrae' (Gen. XIII. 16)). But it should be recalled that both sand and shore occur at Gen. XXII. 17 (the immediate source of the lines in Exodus) in both Old Latin and Vulgate witnesses. Moreover, the main innovation in the cited lines of Exodus is their informing concern with the innumerability of stars and sand (Ex 436b—442a: 'rim ne cunnon / yldo ofer eorSan . . . / to gesecgenne . . . / nymde hwylc J)aes snottor / . . .weorSe / {)aet he ana maege / ealle geriman / . . . steorran on heofonum, / saebeorga sand'; cf. the full passage set out above, with translation). The concern with innumerability is clearly implicit in all evocations of the metaphor of God's promise in Genesis, but it is never mentioned outright in standard Old Latin and Vulgate forms of Gen. XXII. 17, the immediate basis of the passage in Exodus. Scholars have thus been inclined to associate the appearance of the innumerability topos in Exodus with the phrasing of various other reminiscences of God's promise in both the Old and New Testaments. It has not been noted previously, 8

69

Gen. XIII. 14b and XIII. 16: 'Look up from the place where you are now toward the north, south, east and the sea to the west . . . And I will make your seed like the sand of the shore. If anyone is able to number the sand of the shore, he shall be able to number your seed as well.' Gen. XIII. 16 has been cited above. Cf. also 'numera Stellas si potes' (Gen. XV.5 (Old Latin and Vulgate): 'number the stars if you can'); 'multiplicabo semen tuum et non dinumerabitur [Vulgate enumerabitur}' (Gen. XVI. 10 (Old Latin): 'I shall multiply your seed and it will not be numbered'); 'quasi harena maris innumerabilis' (II Kings XVII. 11 (Vulgate): 'like the innumerable sand of the shore'); 'numerari non possunt stellae caeli et metiri harena maris' (Jer. XXXIII.22 (Vulgate): 'the stars of heaven

191


however, that in certain expanded, variant forms of the Old Latin text of Gen. XXII. 17, the innumerability topos is made explicit: 'sicut arena maris quae non potest dinumerarV. It is thus possible that the apparent reminiscence of Gen. XIII. 14—16 in Exodus was suggested to the poet by the content of an Old Latin exemplar. Here, as elsewhere, my own research suggests that Irving's fundamental conclusions regarding the influence of Old Latin scripture on the patriarchal narrative of Exodus are sound. Further scrutiny of the evidence only serves to bear out these conclusions. Four new items of corroborating evidence may be noted briefly. First, Gen. XXII.6 records that Abraham carries fire and a sword ('ignem (. . .) et gladium' (Old Latin (with ellipsis) and Vulgate)) to the appointed place of sacrifice. In describing Abraham's intended sacrifice of his son, the Old Latin text of Gen. XXII. 10 employs a form of the verb iugulare ('to cut the throat'), referring specifically to death by the sword, where Jerome employs a form of immolare, suggesting a burnt offering or the general notion of sacrifice. The account in Exodus is clearly in line with the tradition that Isaac is to die by the sword.71 Second, in the versification of Gen. XXII. 11 in Exodus, the interruption of the sacrifice is attributed to a voice from the heavens: 'Pa him styran cwom / stefn of heofonum, / wuldres hleoSor, / word aefter spraec.'72 Stress is laid in the Vulgate on the role of visual perception in the miracle, as indicated in the text of Gen. XXII. 11 by the use of ecce ('behold'). This cannot be numbered and the sand of the shore cannot be measured'); and 'sicut arena maris innumerabilis' (Heb. XI. 12 (Old Latin): 'like the innumerable sand of the shore'; cf. Vulgate 'sicut harena quae est ad oram maris innumerabilis' ('like the sand which is innumerable at the edge of the sea'); cf. also II Kings XVII. 11). Tolkien suggests that 'the idea of numbering comes from [Gen. XV.5}' {Exodus, ed. Tolkien, p. 68). Fischer lists witnesses to the variant text in Augustine, Contra Cresconium grammaticum et Donatistam II.xxxvi.45 (CSEL 52, 476); Origen, Homilia in Genesim, trans. Rufinus, as ed. in Origen, Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins U bersetzung, ed. W. A. Baehrens, 2 vols., Origenes Werke 6—7, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 29—30 (Leipzig, 1920—1) I, 87 and 90; and other sources (see Genesis, ed. Fischer, pp. 241-2). See, for example, the phrases 'geteag ealde lafe / (ecg grymetode)' (Ex 407b-408: 'he [i.e. Abraham] drew the old heirloom [i.e. his sword]; the edge roared') and 'Ne sleh t>u, Abraham, / t>in agen beam, / sunu mid sweorde!'(4l9-20a: 'Abraham, do not slay your own son with the sword'). Ex 417—18: 'Then a voice from the heavens came to restrain him, wondrous speech, which afterwards uttered these words . . .'

192

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism emphasis finds no equivalent in the Old English text, which rather emphasizes the auditory qualities of the speech from the heavens. The stress laid on auditory aspects of the miracle in Exodus, however, finds precedent in the Old Latin form of the verse, *et uocauit eum angelus Domini de caelo et dixit', 7 which agrees with the Old English text in several minor points of syntax (him and sprczc agree with eum and dixit). Third, the unusual use of the compound medelstede (Ex 397a: 'speechplace') in reference to the appointed place of sacrifice might be seen to offer an apt compression of the Old Latin phrase 'ad locum quern dixit illi deus'. 7 The term is used elsewhere in the Old English corpus to refer to a senate-house, palace or place of battle. On the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon poet will have recognized the etymological connection between OE mce&el ('(formal) speech') and maSelian ('to speak'; cf. the use of Latin dicere at Gen. XXII. 3, as against praecipere in the Vulgate), the verse of Exodus may be taken to render a phrase in its Old Latin source by way of a kenning. Fourth, Old Latin texts of Gen. XXII. 17 refer explicitly to the Israelites' right of inheritance (hereditas) in regaining their homeland, a concern that is not mentioned in the Vulgate text of the verse but might be associated with the emphasis on land-right and inheritance in the patriarchal narrative (for example, at Ex 351b-353a, 435-6 and 443-5). 7 6 None of these items of evidence greatly strengthens Irving's already convincing case for Old Latin influence in the patriarchal narrative, but it is remarkable that at nearly every detectable point of divergence in 7

74

75 76

Gen. XXII. 11 (Old Latin): 'And an angel of the Lord spoke to him from the sky, and said . . .' There is no suggestion in the Old Latin that Abraham sees the angel appear in the sky. Gen. XXII.3 (Old Latin): '[Abraham went] to that place which God told (dixit) to him.' See An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ed. Toller, and Supplement\ ed. Toller, s.v. Cf. also 'Hereditate possidebit [variant hereditabit] semen tuum . . .' (Gen. XXII. 17 (Old Latin): 'Your seed will possess [the gates of their enemies] by right of inheritance . . .') and 'Possidebit semen tuum . . .' (XXII. 17 (Vulgate): 'Your seed will possess [the gates] . . .'). The bilingual (Greek—Latin) Exodus lection in Bodleian Auct. F. 4. 32 (see above, pp. 81—2, n. 165) preserves an Old Latin text of the verse in question; see Saint Dunstan's Classbook, ed. and introd. Hunt, pp. x—xi. The lection is entitled 'lectio Exodi cum cantico', but the copy includes only the opening verses of Canticum Moysi (Ex. XV. 1—3), which was presumably meant to be consulted in another source (or recited from memory). On the Greek texts of the Old Testament standing behind Old Latin lections in Exodus, see further A. Rahlfs, 'Die alttestamentlichen Lektionen der griechischen Kirche', NachrGott 1915, 28-136, esp. at 165-8.

193


the Old Latin and Vulgate texts of Gen. XXII. 1—17 the verse of Exodus seems to stand closer to the Old Latin.77 Preliminary conclusions

The preceding discussion of the Latin sources of Exodus may be seen to justify the structural distinction maintained in the present study between the main narrative of the poem - the accounts of the death of the Egyptian firstborn, the departure of the Israelites, the journey across the desert, the parting of the waves and the drowning of Pharaoh's army (Ex 32—353a and 446—590) — and what has been termed its patriarchal narrative (the Genesis-based verse of Ex 353b-446). In particular, the varying debt of these two components of Exodus to Old Latin and Vulgate scripture suggests a variety of sources even beyond that indicated by the poem's synthesis of material drawn from separate books of the Old Testament. Moreover, the very fact that we find a sufficient number of biblical allusions in the patriarchal narrative to undertake so close a comparison with Latin sources points up the distinctive style of the passage. The versification of Latin scripture in the main narrative of Exodus tends to be nonlinear and imagistic, while the treatment of Gen. XXII in the patriarchal narrative is primarily sequential and discursive. The definition of the sources of the patriarchal narrative to a great extent allows us to define its structure as well. The narrative comprises a sequential treatment of Gen. XXII. 1-18 (Ex 380-442: the interrupted sacrifice) framed by expository comments on the land-right of the Israelites (353b—361 and 443-6) and a compressed account of the Flood (362-79). Despite the expository frame, the episode of Abraham's offering of Isaac clearly remains the centrepiece of the account. This is an especially intriguing aspect of the patriarchal narrative, because, as we shall see below, discrete texts of Gen. XXII. 1—19 (or thereabouts) have been regularly employed as lections for the Easter Vigil since the earliest days of the church. Moreover, the dissemination of discrete copies of vigil readings 77

The only possible point of agreement with the Vulgate I have noted involves the allusion in Exodus to Abraham's exile from his homeland: 'he on wraece lifde' (Ex 383b: 'he lived in exile'). The phrase conceivably agrees with the Vulgate text of Gen. XVII.8 ('terram peregrinationis tuae' ('the land of your wandering')) against the Old Latin form of the verse ('terram in qua inhabitas' ('the land in which you will dwell')).

194


provides one of the few securely identified contexts for the continuing circulation of Old Latin texts of Genesis XXII in the early Middle Ages. Before we consider the full implications of these observations for the structure and sources of Exodus, however, we will undertake a further clarification of the structure of the main narrative of the poem. THE STRUCTURE OF THE MAIN NARRATIVE OF EXODUS

The verse of the main narrative of Exodus offers a treatment of the departure of the Israelites that stands in all probability at one or more removes from canonical scripture. Despite the apparently comprehensive knowledge of the Bible manifested by its text, there are only a few points at which it is possible to associate the words of Exodus convincingly with specific readings in Old Latin or Vulgate scripture. Malcolm Godden has remarked that *{r}ather than tell the whole story of the book of Exodus the poet limits himself to a few central episodes: the Hebrews' escape from Egypt, their crossing of the Red Sea and the destruction of the Egyptians. The literal aspect of the narrative is not the poet's central concern.'78 When the poem does accommodate words or phrases from specific biblical passages, it typically treats this matter in a periphrastic or expansive manner. The narrative on the Israelites' departure from Egypt in Exodus manages nonetheless to reproduce the basic episodic structure of Exodus XI—XIV with remarkable fidelity. The sequence of scenes mentioned by Godden (to which I would preface the vivid account of the death of the Egyptian firstborn) amounts to a concatenation of the most striking narrative passages in these four biblical chapters. In spite of the poem's proclivity to foreshadow, recall and interweave individual events, at its deepest level the verse of Exodus embodies a treatment of the major episodes of Exodus XI-XIV that is sequential and essentially complete. An analysis of the relationship of Exodus to the content of Exodus XI—XIV will be facilitated by the summary in Table 4. This information may profitably be consulted by readers in tracing the course of the following discussion. It provides access to many Latin and Old English parallels that have contributed to the formulation of opinions offered here, some of which do not otherwise receive separate notice. Nonbiblical material of every kind has been excluded from consideration, as have verses 78

Godden, 'Biblical Literature', pp. 217-18.

195

Old English biblical verse Table 4. A summary of the biblical (Exodus-based) narrative, subordinate detail and floating imagery of Exodus Topic

Ex. XI-XIV Exodus Ex. XI-XIV Exodus (narrative) (narrative) (detail) (detail) (1-32)

{exordium)

XI.4-6 XII.29-30

Exodus

(imagery)

(1-32)

30-2: Egyptians departure

33-47a

41b: departure

1 Death of firstborn

33-47a XI.1-10 XII.29-33

2 Departure Encampment

XII.34-42 47b-71a XII.36r>-37 47b-48 XII. 51 52b-71a XII. 51 XIII. 17-20 XIII. 17-20

47b-53: firstborn departure Egyptians 69-7 la: fire

3 Pillars offireand cloud

XIII.21-2 71b-97 XIV. 19-20 XIV.24

4 Subsequent encampment XIV. 1-3

98-134

5 a Egyptian pursuit

XIV.4-9a 135-41 XIV.9c-10 XIV. 17

(lacuna)

(as above?) (lacuna)

5 b Egyptian pursuit

(as above)

XIII.21-2 XIV.20 XIV.24

71b-78a 79b-87a 88b-97

XIV.2-3

100a-103a 103b-124: 107a pillar 113a speech 125-34

XIV.5-9a 135-4la XIV.9c-10 (lacuna)

142-210 (as above)

6 Subsequent encampment XIV.9b 211-51 XIV. 19-20

196

87b-92: encampment

154-7 170-1 178b-179 204-10

XIV.9b 211-15a 215b-220a: XIV. 19-20 220b-251 dawn 250-1: pillar dawn

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism Table 4 (contd) Ex. XI-XIV Exodus Ex. XI-XIV Exodus (detail) (narrative) (narrative) (detail)

Exodus

7 Speech of Moses

XIV. 13-14 252-98

278-98: speech parting drowning

8 Parting of Red Sea Crossing of Red Sea

XIV.21-2 XIV.29

299_344a XIV. 16 XIV.22 XIV.29

9a Dawn

XIV.24a

344b-353aXIV.24a

344b-346a 346b-353a: crossing

(353b-446)

(353b-446)

Topic

(patriarchal narrative) (lacuna)

(XIV.21?) (lacuna) (XIV.24b?) (XIV.25-8a?)

XIV. 13-14 256-77

(imagery)

300b 3O2b-3O4a 310-11 332b-335a 343b_344a

(lacuna)

9b Drowning of Egyptians XIV.23 447-564 XIV.24b 448b XIV.24b-28 XIV.27-8 452 XIV.31a 455b-456a 458-60a 465 472b-476 478a 479b-483a 485b-487a 490b-491a 494b_496 5OOb-5O2a 5O8b-511 513 516-19a: speech 549-64: speech 197

Old English biblical verse Table 4 {contd) Topic

Ex. XI-XIV Exodus Ex. XI-XIV Exodus (narrative) (narrative) (detail) (detail)

10 Final liberation XIV.30-1 Egyptian dead at shore XV. 1 Song of praise

565-90

XIV.31 XV. 1

Exodus (imagery)

565b-566a 568-9: 574-9 pillar 589b-59O 570-2a: drowning 572b-573: parting crossing

of biblical chapters other than Exodus XI—XIV. The first two columns of references establish the basic sequence of episodes in Exodus XI—XIV that appear in the main narrative of Exodus. The first column summarizes the most important biblical episodes and the second indicates the placement of their reflexes in the poem. There is no suggestion here that every verse of the cited episodes is rendered in Exodus or that all of the lines in the associated poetic passages address an episode's designated theme. The information contained in these columns, generally considered, relates to the narration of the Exodus, to the broad sweep of the Latin and Old English accounts of the liberation of the Israelites and the crossing of the Red Sea. A complementary effort is made in the entries of the next two columns to reflect the nuance of the Latin text and its Old English versification, setting out the biblical verses that actually find unambiguous counterparts in the poem. Here the numbers of individual verses in Exodus XI—XIV are set out adjacently to the specific lines in Exodus containing apparent reflexes of biblical detail. Finally, an additional column of references addresses the poem's deployment of floating images, notably in passages where previously identified major episodes are foreshadowed or reprised as well as some transitional passages. To judge by the summary in Table 4, the most notable feature of the versification of Exodus XI-XIV appears to be the poem's omission of the bulk of the non-narrative biblical material. There is no trace in the poem of the instructions for the preparation of the paschal lamb (Ex. XII. 1-28), the performance of the service of the Phase (XII.43-50) or the observance 198


of the paschal solemnity (Ex. XIII. 1-16). We may suspect at once that the representation of scripture witnessed by Exodus was undertaken with an eye toward improving the narrative flow of passages relating directly to the fortunes of the Israelites and their captors. Prominent omissions may also be detected at the beginning and end of the sequence of episodes. The failure of the verse of Exodus to allude to any of the first nine plagues is noteworthy in this regard, as is the poem's fairly sudden conclusion after its treatment of the Israelites' jubilation on the shore. The biblical model would lead us in the latter case to expect a rendition of the Song of Moses, the canticle of thanksgiving offered to God by the liberated host, often titled Canticum Moysi in medieval sources. Again we may suspect, with other critics, that artistic considerations played a role in the demarcation of material. The narrative of the Exodus proper is effectively framed by symmetrical accounts of the death of the Egyptian firstborn and the drowning of Pharaoh's army. It is an open question whether the treatment of the departure narrative in Exodus should be attributed entirely to the ingenuity of a vernacular poet or associated with a specific but, as yet, unidentified source. A definitive answer may never be provided. Here, however, I endeavour to explore the possibility that the scope and the structure of the narrative of Exodus has been influenced by some previously unidentified, fundamentally extrabiblical version of the departure legend that was current in AngloSaxon times. The term 'version', as used here, would include a hypothetical treatment of Exodus that circulated orally, or in writing, or in both ways; that was employed in the elementary instruction of Christians or invoked at high mass; that was recorded in liturgical documents or arose ad libitum in the course of a recitation from a biblical exemplar. Extrabiblical analogues of the main narrative of Exodus

It is intriguing that each of the biblical passages identified above as failing to find a counterpart in the narrative of Exodus possesses its own clearly defined textual or codicological identity in early medieval biblical and liturgical documents. The sequences of verses on the service of the Phase (Ex. XII.40-51) and the paschal requirements of XIII.1-16 are regularly marked out at discrete divisions in medieval Bibles. 7 The verses of 79

See below, pp. 208-10. 199


Exodus XII — especially those presenting instructions for the preparation of the paschal lamb, which precede the account of the death of the Egyptian firstborn — are variously excerpted for the services of Holy Week and other liturgical celebrations. The independent circulation of the Song of Moses as a canticle of the liturgy is well documented. 81 In other words, all of the passages of Exodus XI-XIV that are unrepresented in the verse of Exodus circulated in the early Middle Ages in independent versions. It holds to reason that the matter that is represented in the verse of Exodus may similarly have attained a familiar extrabiblical identity. Simply put, a separate treatment of the book of Exodus excluding all matter but the account of the death of the firstborn, the departure from Egypt and the miracle at the Red Sea would seem to provide a plausible model for the structure of the main narrative of Exodus. After all, the fairly brief attention accorded the accounts of the death of the firstborn and the Egyptian army in Exodus might be seen to belie their supposed status as artistically deployed framing scenes. The rough symmetry of the material on the Egyptian mortalities has long been recognized, but nearly every major study of Exodus still sees fit to pass comment on the poem's uncertain structure and lacunose treatment of biblical narrative. The identification of a familiar scriptural analogue to the poem's structure in early medieval devotional tradition would obviate this problem. It would point to at least one strong branch from which the poetic flights of Exodus might be seen to have taken wing. The project described here has already begun in the work of Old English scholars seeking to identify special As celebration of the Eucharist on Good Friday had been forbidden in honour of the fast of the apostles, the dietary restrictions of Ex. XII. 1—11 were regularly rehearsed in Roman practice in a lection for the day; see Tyrer, Historical Survey, p. 120. For the standard Roman use of Ex. XII. 1-11 as a lection of the Easter Vigil, see, for example, Frere, Studies III, 9-10 (no. LXVI*.). For the adaptation of Ex. XII as a weekday reading, see G. Morin, Xe plus ancien comes ou lectionnaire de l'eglise romaine', RB 27 (1910), 41-74, at 54, and Wilmart, Xe ernes', p. 4 1 . The use of Ex. XII.1-24, X I I . l 26 and other configurations of verses as discrete lections comprising the bulk of the matter preceding the verses on the firstborn is well attested even in the earliest sources; see, for example, Burkitt, 'Early Syriac Lectionary System', p. 325, and Rituale Armenorum, being the Administration of the Sacraments and the Breviary Rites of the Armenian

Church, ed. F. C. Conybeare (Oxford, 1905), p. 522. Mearns, Canticles, pp. 51—61, 65—7 and 69, and Schneider, Die altlateinischen biblischen Cantica, pp. 8, 2 0 - 1 , 27, 46, 66-9, 94, 100, 104, 143, 160-3, 167-8, 172 and 178—80; cf. also Korhammer, Die monastischen Cantica, pp. 2—5.

200

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism connections drawn between the death of the firstborn and the departure narrative in the writings of biblical exegetes. I set out below a representative selection of the medieval texts — all of which offer substantially recast versions of Exodus XI—XIV — that have helped me most substantially to appreciate the structure of the main narrative of Exodus. I feel strongly, however, that the temptation to posit a single, monolithic source for the poem must be resisted. Several possible candidates for this distinction are in fact adduced below, but I would maintain that an effort to view any one of them as an immediate template for the poem would run contrary to the spirit of the scriptural synthesis evinced by Exodus itself. For this reason, the examples set out below are best regarded as analogues or, in one or two cases, possible indirect sources, of the poem. The examples include representative examples of the following three categories of texts: (1) expositions of Exodus in the practice of pastoral care, (2) copies of Exodus XI—XIV in medieval Bibles and (3) adaptations of Exodus XI—XIV for lectionary use in Office and mass. /Elfric's treatment of Exodus in the Letter to Sigeweard We have already introduced the figure of Sigeweard, the secular landowner in whose home Êlfric had occasion to discuss biblical topics over a social glass of wine. When in 1005 or the following year yElfric composed the letter to Sigeweard that would eventually provide a preface to his translations of books of the Old and New Testament, he determined to supply his friend with a suitable introduction to the matter of Exodus. As noted above, Virginia Day has discussed the possibility that Elfric's paraphrase of Old Testament scripture in the Letter to Sigeweard witnesses

83

See, for example, Isidore, De ecclesiasticis officiis I.xxii.l—2. See also Exodus, ed. Irving, pp. 69—70, and Irving, 'New Notes', pp. 293—5. For an introduction to yElfric, his biblical writings and his conversations with Sigeweard, see above, pp. 87-90. For the date, see Clemoes, 'The Chronology', p. 245. White, JElfric, pp. 66-7, had previously accepted a range of dates from c. 1005 to 1012. On Elfric's letter, see Morrell, A Manual, pp. 3-18, and Cameron, 'List', p. 85 (item B.I.8.4). For additional Old English prose parallels to the matter treated in Exodus, see also Biblical Quotations, ed. Cook I, 5, and II, 46 and 181; cf. also the text of the ^lfrician prose Exodus, as ptd in The Old English Version, ed. Crawford, pp. 212-85, esp. pp. 241-51.

201


Anglo-Saxon techniques of catechetical narratioP In other words, the content of yElfric's remarks might be seen to ofifer a rare glimpse of the sort of biblical commentary that was employed in the instruction of catechumens in preparation for baptism - the very individuals with whom Bright and others have associated the Easter Vigil lections hypothesized to stand behind Exodus. Day suggests that the 'catechetical context is exactly that in which /BXinc might well have decided to compose his own accounts' of these Old Testament episodes, while she acknowledges that *[n]o exact sources have been discovered for any of ^lfric's versions of the narratio, and it seems to me possible that none existed'.8 The Letter to Sigeweard may still be seen to provide a reliable guide to the sort of treatment of Exodus that was deemed appropriate for pastoral care. It is thus interesting to note that the letter presents a version of the Exodus legend which, despite its restricted length, manifests a pattern of narrative abridgement similar to that encountered in Exodus: Deo o6er boc is Exodus ihaten, l>e Moyses wrat be t>am micle tacnum ond be 6am tyn witum, 5e wurSon 5a gefremode ofer Pharao 5one kyng ond ofer his folce t>urh Sonne aelmihtiga God on Moyses timae. Pe wear5 acenned, swa swa us cu5 5eos boc, ond his broSor Aaron, Amrames sunu, on Pharaones daege, Gode swiSe deore, swiSe mihtige mon on monige wundrum. Da wolde God habben {>aet folc of J>am londe Abrahames cynnes eft to heora earde. Ac f>e Pharao nolde Set folc fram him laeten, aer Sam Se God him sende swiSlicne ogan tyn cynna wita for his teonreddenne. Ond Moyses \>a. sySSan Set moncyn laedde of Pharaones Seowte aefter feowerhund gearum, sySSan Iacob Sider com mid Sam Ebreiscan cynne. On t>are fyrde weron, Se ferdon fram Egypte, sixhund l>usend monnae buton wifiim ond childum ond buton Sare maegSe Leui, Se naes inamod {>erto. Moyses heom laedde £>a Surh Godes mihte ealle ofer Sa readaen sae, swa swa we raedaS on bocum. Ond Pharao f>e kyng ferde him aethindan on gyt mid mare ferde, wolde |>et folc habben ongean to his lande ond to his laSum )>eowte. Da openode Seo sae togeanes Moyses ond J)et water him stod swylce stanweallaes bufon heorae haefdum, ond heo eodon be {>am grunde, oS Set heo up comen ealle isunde, herigende mid sangum Sone heofenlice God. Moyses Sa sloh f>a sae mid his gyrde, ond J)et water Sa feol ofer Pharaones fyrde ofer his manigfealdum craetum ond his maerlicum riddum ond adrencte heom ealle Ipet Ser an mon ne belaf. 85 86

Day, 'The Influence'; and above, pp. 88-9. Ibid., p. 59. 'The second book is called Exodus, which Moses wrote concerning the great miracles and ten afflictions which almighty God brought to pass on king Pharaoh in Moses's time. He and his brother Aaron, sons of Amram, men very dear to God, greatly

202


Despite the slightly greater scope of its narrative — jElfric's account takes in the first ten chapters of the book of Exodus, albeit in a single sentence — the proportional emphasis laid on the main episodes of Exodus XI—XIV bears comparison with Exodus. Êlfric parallels the exordium of the poem in his celebration of Moses and Aaron as practitioners of miracles.88 Êlfric omits from his account precisely the same group of topics that are absent from Exodus: the paschal instructions of Ex. XII. 1—28, XII.40—51 and XIII. 1—16. He has clearly seen fit to exclude from this elementary account the technical aspects of the preparation of the paschal lamb and other dietary issues which are treated at length, perhaps for a more doctrinally sophisticated audience, in his sermons for Epiphany and efficacious in their many miracles, were born, as this book shows us, in the days of Pharaoh. At that time God wished to have that people of the race of Abraham [go} back to their native land. But the Pharaoh did not wish to let that people [go] from him, up until the time when God violently sent him terror, ten afflictions of his race, for his stubbornness. And after that Moses led that race of men from the bondage of Pharaoh, four hundred years after Jacob had come to that place with the Hebrew race. In the army that went out of Egypt there were six hundred thousand persons in addition to women and children and in addition to the tribe of Levi, which was not mentioned in it. Moses led them all by the power of God over [i.e. as far as?] the Red Sea, as we read in the Scriptures; and the king Pharaoh came yet again from behind with a great army [and] he wished to have that people [come] back to his land to his hateful bondage. Then the sea opened up before Moses and the water stood up for them as stone walls above their heads, and they went along the ground until they had all come up safely, praising the God of heaven with songs. Then Moses struck the sea with his rod, and the water then fell over Pharaoh's army on his many chariots and his famous riders, and drowned them all so that there was not one man left'; see text ptd in The Old English Version, ed. Crawford, pp. 28-30, lines 312-59Aaron and Moses are said to have been 'Gode swiSe deore, swiSe mihtige mon on monige wundrum ('much beloved by God, very mighty men in their many miracles'; cf. Ex 10b-ll: 'ond him wundra fela / ece Alwalda / in aeht forgeaf. - He wses leof gode' ('and the eternal Lord put many miracles under his control. He [i.e. Moses] was dear to God')). Similar evocations of the commonplace occur in Old English prose at Or (Bately): 24.5—7 'Moyses . . . monige wundor worhte' ('Moses performed many miracles') and 25.14—16: 'Moyses laedde Israhela folc of Egyptum aefter t>aem manegum wundrum' ('Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt after those many miracles'). JEltnc also parallels the exordium of Exodus in his report earlier in the letter that 'Moyses wrat' the Pentateuch at God's command; see esp. lines 126-30. The tradition goes back to Deut. XXIX.9 and XXIX.24-6; see Exodus, ed. Irving, pp. 6 7 8. For additional discussion of the exordium, see A. Bammesberger, 'Die syntaktische Analyse von Exodus l-7a', in Festgabe fur Hans Pinsker zum 10. Geburtstag, ed. R. Acobian (Vienna, 1979), pp. 6-15.

203


Easter. Arriving quickly at the same climactic moments of Old Testament history treated in Exodus, yElfric mentions the liberation of Moses and his people, their departure from Egypt, their arrival under the guidance of Moses at the Red Sea, the pursuit of Pharaoh's army, the opening of the sea, Moses's striking of the sea with his rod and the closing of the waters over Pharaoh's army. Intriguingly, Êlfric displays knowledge of the enumeration and division of the tribes of Israel that cannot derive from Exodus XI—XIV. His comment that the tribe of Levi was not named in the reckoning of the Israelite host is especially striking, as this tribe is the only one left out of the elaborate treatment of this topic in Exodus (lines 310—51a). The temporal dislocation evident in the paraphrase may also remind us of the meandering narrative of Exodus. yElfric's account resolves an incongruity in its biblical source by recording the safe arrival of the Israelites on dry land before recounting Moses's 89

90

See JECHom II.iii.79-85 ('God sette on Saere ealdan ae . . .') and II.xv ('Sermo de Sacrificio in Die Pascae'); additional iElfrician allusions to the matter of Ex. X-XFV are listed in Biblical Quotations, ed. Cook I, 87—88. See also discussion by Earl, 'Christian Traditions', p. 559, and Godden, 'Biblical Literature', p. 216. For a comparable parallel to Exodus, see y^lfric's sermon for mid-Lent (JECHom Il.xii.78-96), where the account of the death of the firstborn runs together with treatments of the departure and parting of the waves, albeit in the context of a full rehearsal of the matter of the book of Exodus. Irving comments: 'There is no mention of individual tribes in the account in Exodus. It is certain that the poet had some authority in legend or commentary for his version of the crossing' (Exodus, ed. Irving, pp. 86—7). The Levites are in fact mentioned in the second chapter of Numbers, which contains one of the few extended biblical passages that might be construed as an enumeration of the tribes who marched on the Exodus (at Num. 11.17: 'singuli per loca et ordines suos profiscentur' ('every one shall march according to their places and ranks')). The four tribes mentioned as having participated in the departure from Egypt - those of Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah - are descended from the patriarchs mentioned in the Jahwist treatment of the line of Jacob at Gen. XXIX.32-5. The Elohist account names nine offspring of Jacob (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, etc.) at Gen. XXX. 1-24, XXXV.16-20, and elsewhere; none of these lines figure in the additions to Exodus; cf. Peter Comestor, Historia scbolastica in Exodum xxxi (PL 198, cols. 1157-8, col. 1158: 'Et aduocans Moyses singulas tribus secundum ordinem natiuitatis suae hortabatur eos . . . Cumque timuissent intrare Ruben, Simeon et Leui, Judas primus aggressus est iter' ('and Moses, summoning every one of the tribes according to the rank of its birth, exhorted them . . . And when Ruben, Simeon and Levi were afraid to enter the path, Judas made the first approach'), as cited in Exodus, ed. Irving, p. 86. An early medieval source for the fourfold demarcation expounded by the Comestor has not yet come to light.

204

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism closing of the waves with the stroke of his rod. (The ascent onto dry land is only mentioned in the scriptural narrative at Ex. XIV.29-30, at a point following the description of the closing of the waves.) And ^lfric (in parallel with Exodus) alludes to the singing of hymns of praise by the liberated host before the report of the drowning of the Egyptian forces. (It is not clear whether ^lfric's statement that Moses led his people 'ofer 5a readaen sae' Cover [or 'over to?] the Red Sea'), which precedes an allusion to the Egyptian pursuit, parallels the temporal dislocation observed in Exodus, where a speech of Moses foreshadows the parting of the waves.) The two sources also include embellished forms of the biblical simile comparing the appearance of the standing water to a standing wall (Ex. XIV.22: quasi munis' (as a wall'); cf. Ex. XIV.29). iElfric's simile 'swylce stanweallaes' indicates that the walls in question are made of stone and the diction of Exodus does much to concretize the imagery in references to ramparts and similar constructions (for example at Ex 283a (on wealfcesten), 297a (foreweallas), 302b (saweall), 468b (holmweall), 484a (weallfasten) and 572b ('gesawon . . . weallas standan')). In certain respects the example of Êlfric's pastoral conversations must be viewed with caution in addressing the sources of Exodus. Condensation of the matter of Exodus similar to what we find there might well have been undertaken on an ad hoc basis by any ecclesiastic addressing the concerns of the book. Some parts of Exodus lend themselves more readily to an impromptu rehearsal than do others. Such prescriptive passages as the instructions for the celebration of the paschal feast do not adapt well to narrative exposition and without doubt were often left: out of account. A spirited retelling of the events surrounding the liberation of the Israelites would naturally emphasize the more striking details of that episode. Nevertheless, the opinion that Exodus in some sense offers a 'catechetical' retelling of the matter of Exodus XI—XIV continues to find adherents, and the rare glimpse provided by JElirics letter of an exposition of these chapters in a pastoral context would tend to support such a view.

92

93

Critics have sometimes detected verbal reminiscences of the Canticum Moysi (Ex. XV. 1-19) at various points in Exodus in lines preceding the description of the drowning of the Egyptians. See, for example, Exodus, ed. Tolkien, pp. 64 and 69, and above, p . 177 with n. 25. See esp. the criticism of Garde, Old English Poetry, pp. 4 2 - 8 and 53-

205

Old English biblical verse The punctuated copy of Exodus XI-XIV

in BL, Royal 1. E. VII

To turn to a different sort of evidence altogether, two complete AngloSaxon texts of Exodus XI-XIV survive. One is preserved in the first volume of London, British Library, Royal 1. E. VII-VIII (s. xex; provenance Christ Church, Canterbury), at VII, 20va—21va. Richard Marsden has recently described this document as 'the most important source of information about the form and text of the Old Testament in late AngloSaxon England'. Although the manuscript was produced in the later Anglo-Saxon period, it serves well to illuminate one of the most common medieval series of sectional divisions and capitula (division-titles) in Exodus XI—XIV. These divisions bear only limited resemblance to the modern series of chapter divisions cited in all discussions of Exodus to date. I am convinced that any future attempt to make sense of the received text of the poem will do well to take these divisions into account. The decision to use the text in Royal I . E . VII as the basis of the summary below rather than the earlier witness of Amiatino 1 reflects several considerations.95 First, although the division-headings in Amiatino 1 represent a specific text-type (De Bruyne's series D, Quentin's series F), the Vulgate-based divisions and capitula in the Amiatino copy of Exodus XI—XIV exemplify an idiosyncratic system whereby many two- and threeverse passages are set off in separate divisions, limiting the utility of this section of the text for analysis of the broad structural demarcations of these chapters. The Old Latin-based divisions and capitula in Royal 1. E. VII—VIII (corresponding to Quentin's series A), however, enjoyed an extremely wide distribution from the eighth century onward, mainly in 'Alcuinian' Bibles and their post-Carolingian descendants, and Marsden notes that the copy of Exodus has 'headings which are textually extremely close to the consistent Alcuinian tradition'. Second, even if we assume a 94

See esp. the detailed description and textual analysis of the readings of BL, Royal I . E . VII by Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, esp. p p . 3 2 3 - 7 8 ; the cited c o m m e n t is by Marsden, 'The O l d Testament', p . 109-

95 96

O n Amiatino 1, see above, p . 101 w i t h n. 17. O n the capitula and system of sectional division, which conform to Quentin's scheme, see Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, p p . 3 3 4 - 7 ; the cited c o m m e n t is by Marsden, 'The O l d Testament', p . 1 1 5 . T h e earliest witnesses collated by Q u e n t i n exhibiting this O l d Latinbased, Alcuinian series of divisions and capitula in Exodus (his series A (form a)) are Amiens, Bibliotheque Municipale, 6 (s. viii ) and Tours, Bibliotheque Municipale, 10 (s. viii/ix); see Libri Exodi etLevitici, ed. Q u e n t i n , p p . 13—14 and 27—51, esp. p p . 31—3, and

206

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism date for the composition of Exodus before c. 800, in every case in which the divisions and capitula of the copy of Exodus in Royal I . E . VII throw light on the text of Exodus they in fact have the support of the copy of Exodus in Amiatino 1, if account is taken of the medial as well as the major divisions preserved in that codex. For this reason, I have included a full account of the divisions of the text in Amiatino 1 in footnotes but essay no account of their idiosyncratic capitula. It is probable that the bulk of the divisions and capitula set out below resemble those that would have been consulted by any Anglo-Saxon Christian who had recourse to a continuous text of Exodus. Moreover, the copy of Exodus XI-XIV in Royal I . E . VII offers a unique witness to the consultation of the biblical text by medieval readers in the form of the copious accentuation that has been added to all the verses, presumably to assist in the performance of liturgical ceremonies. We have seen that nearly all of the passages in Exodus XI-XIV find proprietary liturgical contexts in early medieval devotional practice. So it is perhaps not altogether surprising that on average one in every three words in this section of the manuscript has been marked with one or more diagonal accents or, occasionally, an added point or punctus elevatus?* Such accentuation is by no means universal in the manuscript; entire chapters and even books lack any added punctuation whatsoever. Moreover, the quantity of accentuation is not uniform throughout the cited text in Royal 1. E. VII. Additional layers of accentuation appear to have been added to the verses of Exodus on successive occasions, conveying the impression that certain passages have received more attention than others. I have thus seen fit to supply the percentages of accented words in each of the main divisions of the text in conjunction with the division numbers and capitula. (These percentages appear in the summary below in bold type.) These figures, however, are only intended to convey a general impression of a phenomenon that is best observed with the naked eye. CLA V I , 2 (no. * * 7 0 7 ) and V I , 39 (no. 837); see also above, p . 1 1 6 , n. 5 8 , for O l d Latinderived capitula in Genesis conforming to Q u e n t i n ' s series A (form a). 97

For introductory c o m m e n t s on early medieval biblical divisions and capitula, see above,

pp. 115-16. 98

For brief remarks on the accents and other marks of p u n c t u a t i o n in the manuscript, see Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, p p . 3 2 8 and 3 3 3 - 4 ; cf. also Clemoes,

Liturgical

Influence. 99

O n e caveat should be noted at once. In the present state of knowledge, there is no

207


10 (34%) Ex. XL 1-10: 'Dicit Dominus ad Moysen, "Adhuc unam 100 plagam ego induco in Pharaonem." ' 11 (35%) Ex. XII. 1-28: 'Loquitur Dominus Moysi et Aaron de sacramento paschae.'101 12 (44%) Ex. XII.29—39: 'De decima plaga in qua percussit Dominus omne primogenitum Aegyptiorum.' 13 (32%) Ex. XII.40-2: 'Habitauerunt filii Israhel in Aegypto annis quadringentis triginta.' 14 (41%) Ex. XH.43-51:Xegem paschae dat dominus.' 104

100

102

assurance that all (or even most) of the accentuation in question was added during the Anglo-Saxon period, although my own examination of inks suggests no clear reason to assume otherwise. The most that can be said for certain is that the addition of accentuation constitutes a phenomenon entirely separate from the systematic (if illinformed) emendation of the biblical text in the manuscript undertaken at Christ Church in the post-Conquest period; see Marsden, 'The Old Testament', p. 114, citing the opinion of Teresa Webber on the dating and localization of the emendations. Cap. 10: 'The Lord said to Moses, "I will now inflict a plague on Pharaoh."' The division numbers given here are those of critical texts ptd by De Bruyne, Sommaires, pp. 10 and 434 (De Bruyne's series A), and in Libri Exodi et Levitki, ed. Quentin, pp. 31-3 (Quentin's series A (form a)); the numbering of capitula in Royal 1. E. VII-VIII is irregular. The texts of the cited capitula follow Quentin's edition. The copy of the corresponding passages in Amiatino 1 comprises Ex. X.28-XI.10, as a medial division. Cap. 11: 'The Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron about the sacrament of the Pasch.' The copy of the corresponding passages in Amiatino 1 includes two medial divisions, comprising Ex. XII. 1—20 and XII.21—8. The division at Ex. XII. 1 also occurs among witnesses to the seventh-century Spanish revision of the Vulgate containing capitula conforming to Quentin's Vulgate-derived series A (form d)y marking a division comprising Ex. XII.1-XII.51, and witnesses to the Theodulfian series F (form a), marking a division comprising Ex. XII.1-XII.36. On these series, see above, pp. 116— 17, nn. 58 and 60 Cap. 12: 'Concerning the tenth plague in which the Lord struck all the firstborn of the Egyptians.' The copy of the corresponding passages in Amiatino 1 includes two medial divisions, comprising Ex. XII.29-36 and XII.37-9. The division at Ex. XII.29 also occurs in witnesses containing capitula conforming to Quentin's Old Latin-derived series Y (form a) (for which see above, p. 116, n. 58), marking the beginning of a major division comprising Ex. XII.29-XIV.l4. Cap. 13: 'The children of Israel lived in Egypt for 430 years.' So also in Amiatino 1, reflecting a medial division. Cap. 14: 'The Lord gives the law of the Pasch.' So also in Amiatino 1, reflecting a medial division.

208

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism 15 (33%) Ex. XIII.1—16: 'Dicit Dominus ut sanctificent omne primitiuum.' 16 (35%) Ex. XIII. 17—22: 'Quinta progenie ascenderunt filii Israhel de Aegypto.' 106 17 (38%) Ex. XIV. 1-31: 'Consecutus est Pharao filios Israhel et coop•

A

•

»107

emit Aegyptios mare. 18 (25%) Ex. XV.l-19:'Canticum.' 108 We now have a new and exceedingly natural way to describe the content of Exodus. It is no longer necessary to state that the poem passes over the first three quarters of Exodus XII and the first two-thirds of Exodus XIII while offering an amplified treatment of Ex. XIII. 17-22 and XIV. Rather, we may say that Exodus embodies a sequential treatment of the main contents of three medieval divisions of the book of Exodus, respectively recording the death of the firstborn (corresponding to division 12 in the copy of Exodus in BL, Royal 1. E. VII, with the associated capitulum 'De decima plaga in qua percussit Dominus omne primogenitum Aegyptiorum' (Ex. XII.29-39)), the departure from Egypt (division 16: 'Quinta progenie ascenderunt filii Israhel de Aegypto' (Ex. XIII. 17—22)) and the miracle at the Red Sea (division 17: 'Consecutus est Pharao filios Israhel et cooperuit Aegyptios mare' (Ex. XIV. 1—31)). The fact that passages in the cited divisions were subject to further excerption and reorganization in liturgical use will soon become apparent in discussion below. Given our lack of knowledge of a special connection between the copy 105

Cap. 15: 'The Lord said that all the firstborn should be sacrificed.' So also in A m i a t i n o 1, reflecting a medial division. T h e division at Ex. XIII. 1 also occurs in Bibles exhibiting capitula conforming to Quentin's Vulgate-derived, typically Spanish series A (form a) (see above, p . 2 0 8 , n. 101) m a r k i n g a division comprising Ex. XIII. 1-20.

10

Cap. 16: I n the fifth generation the children of Israel w e n t u p out of Egypt.' T h e

107

Cap.

corresponding medial division in Amiatino 1 comprises Ex. X I I I . 1 7 - X I V . 4 . 17: 'Pharaoh pursued the children of Israel and the sea overwhelmed

the

Egyptians.' T h e copy of the corresponding passages in A m i a t i n o 1 includes four medial divisions, comprising Ex. X I V . 5 - 1 5 , X I V . 1 6 - 2 0 , X I V . 2 1 - 5 and X I V . 2 6 - 3 1 . A n i m p o r t a n t division at Ex. X I V . 1 5 , not present in A m i a t i n o 1 or Royal 1. E. VII, occurs in m a n y Bibles exhibiting capitula conforming to Q u e n t i n ' s O l d Latin-derived series T (form a) (see above, p . 2 0 8 , n. 102) m a r k i n g the b e g i n n i n g of a major division comprising Ex. X I V . 1 5 - X V . 2 4 . 108

Cap.

18: 'Song [of Moses].' T h e corresponding medial division of A m i a t i n o 1

comprises Ex. X V . 1 - 2 1 . T h e single verse introducing the canticle (Ex. X V . 1) has been thoroughly accentuated, b u t the text of Ex. X V . 2 - 1 5 less so; accentuation stops abruptly w i t h X V . 16, still in the main body of the text of the canticle.

209


of Exodus in Royal 1. E. VII and the scriptural background of Exodus, it would be unwise to draw major conclusions about the prevalence of individual readings in Exodus XI—XIV solely on the basis of the manuscript's witness. But it is worth noting that the division on the death of the firstborn receives the heaviest accentuation observed in any part of the sequence. The quantity of accentuation here even exceeds that accompanying the narrative passages on the departure and the miracle at the Red Sea. It is also clear that the account of the firstborn from Exodus XII has received greater emphasis than the prediction of mortality in Exodus XL This emphasis corroborates evidence in liturgical sources to indicate that the account in Exodus XII was generally regarded as the locus classicus of the scene in the early Middle Ages rather than the prediction of the tenth plague in Exodus XI. The handling of the text of the Song of Moses in Royal 1. E. VII also deserves separate comment, as it throws light on the termination of Exodus at the moment of the jubilation on the shore. Heavy accentuation of the matter of Exodus XIV (division 17) continues through the final image of the bodies of the slain Egyptians lying on the shore (Ex. XIV.31). The first verse of Exodus XV, which is the final verse of most liturgical extracts on the miracle at the Red Sea employed in the Easter Vigil (there providing a cue to a recitation of Canticum Moysi), also receives especially heavy emphasis. With the commencement of the canticle proper, however, the quantity of accentuation decreases suddenly, and then, with the conclusion of Ex. XV. 16 in Royal 1. E. VII (at 21va) - still in the main body of the text of the canticle - the accentuation ceases altogether. It appears that the addition of accents to the text of the Song of Moses was judged to be otiose by most readers of Royal 1. E. VII, the most probable reason being that the verses of Canticum Moysi (Ex. XV. lb—19) were readily available in another type of book, such as a psalter or hymnal, or simply needed to be called up by celebrants from memory. The evidence of Royal I . E . VII (corroborated by witnesses to the use of Exodus XIV—XV in the Easter Vigil) here clearly helps make sense of the ending of Exodus in Junius 11. On the analogy of the Old English metrical Psalms, other liturgically derived alliterative verse, and perhaps the renditions of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel and Azarias, it seems possible if not likely that a vernacular rendition of Canticum Moysi was produced during the Anglo-Saxon period. But it is by no means clear that such a lyrically based text would have been included in such a document as Junius 11, the 210


bulk of whose verse is founded on biblical narrative. Moreover, if a connection is to be drawn between the text oi Exodus and the prose lections of the Easter Vigil, we would not expect its text to progress any farther than it does. An Exodus-based Office lection in the Liber commicus of Toledo

Theories regarding the influence of the liturgy on the text oi Exodus have so far exclusively addressed the possibility that some sort of liturgical document associated with the liturgy of baptism stands behind its text, such as a collection of lections for the Easter Vigil or a catechetical resource prepared for recent converts. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that the matter of Exodus XI—XIV also played a role in the fulfilment of the obligations of the daily Office. In particular, the comprehensive reading of the Pentateuch, commencing in the season of Lent, entailed full lectionary recitation of the matter under discussion in a period of days. This was often achieved by the excerption of long passages of Exodus as lections for Matins, Terce, Sext and Nones. The reputation of passages of Exodus XI—XIV as readings for mid-Lent is attested in JElirics sermon for the period, which has been seen to embody a structural analogue of Exodus. Full lectionary treatment of the matter of the Pentateuch amounts to quite an arduous schedule of biblical recitation. The witness of Êlfric in the Epistola ad monachos Egneshamnenses has been noted concerning the fact that in practice the complete lectionary requirements often remain unfulfilled, with Bible-reading in many cases being transferred to the monastic refectory.111 It is tempting to speculate about the possible adaptation of material from Exodus that a reduced schedule of Office observance would have entailed in Anglo-Saxon centres, but the fact remains that no certain example of a pre-Conquest Office lectionary is known to have survived.112 As we have seen, however, there is other evidence to suggest that such documents were in wide use, and this very fact may be reflected in their failure to survive. Office lectionaries in all periods have been quick to wear out and be replaced. We will probably never obtain a closer look at the problems and 109

See Chavasse, 'Le cycle pascal', p p . 7 0 2 - 1 3 .

110

MCHom I I . x i i . 7 8 - 1 0 1 ; see p . 2 0 4 w i t h n. 9 0 .

111

See above, p p . 7 2 - 3 .

112

See above, p p . 7 6 - 7 .

211


processes involved in the integration of Old Testament scripture into Office ceremonies than we find in a remarkable group of closely related Spanish liturgical texts most often treated together under the title Liber commicus (less precisely, Liber comicus or Liber comitis). It is the distinction of Liber commicus to preserve one of the earliest witnesses to the western European recitation of Old Testament lections in extenso in the course of the fulfilment of the daily obligation. The authority of Liber commicus has been held to extend back to the seventh-century florescence of Ildefonse, bishop of Toledo, a point that helps to establish the contemporaneity of these lections with the Anglo-Saxon period but is inessential for the present discussion. In order to appreciate the unique features of the Exodus material excerpted in Liber commicus, it is necessary to consider its early medieval codicological background. Liturgical scholars have long recognized the fact that continental European liturgical codices witness the use of adapted lections for Office reading instead of (or in addition to) complete, sequential passages of Old Testament scripture. These lections fall into the three main categories of liturgical adaptation established above: harmonization, centonization and abridgement. We have already encountered these differing modes of adaptation in connection with the Flood narrative 113

The arrangement of texts in Liber commicus is threefold: there are three series of readings (Old Testament or prophetic lectio; epistle; gospel). All of the readings are given in extenso. The use of the unusual adjective commicus reflects the fact that the lections in these Spanish sources are typically set out per cola et commata. There is no direct etymological link to the medieval liturgical term comes, regularly employed in reference to a mass lectionary containing epistles and gospels both as capitula and in extenso. For detailed discussion of the Liber commicus, see the introduction to the single-manuscript edition in Liber comicus, sive lectionarius missae quo Toletana ecclesia ante annos mille et

ducentos utebantur, ed. G. Morin, Anecdota Maredsolana 1 (Maredsous, 1893), and prefatory matter in the most recent, five-manuscript edition, Liber commicus, ed. Perez de Urbel and Gonzalez y Ruiz-Zorrilla. See also Enciso, 'El estudio biblico'; Rivera, 'El Liber comicus'; T. Ayuso Marazuela, 'La liturgia Mozarabe y su importancia para el texto biblico de la Vetus Latina Hispana, EB 10 (1951), 269-312, at 296-310; A. Mundo, 'El commicus palimsest Paris lat. 2269 amb notes sobre liturgia i manuscrits visigotics a Septimania y Catalunya', in Liturgica I: A. Schuster in memoriam [ = Scripta et Documenta 7} (Montserrat, 1956), 151-275; and Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 277-8 and 333-5. Liber commicus and other Hispano-Visigothic lectionaries are treated in CLLA, pp. 214-19 (nos. 360-77). 114 115

Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, p. 333. See above, pp. 127-8.

212

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism of Genesis A and we shall have further occasion to refer to them in discussing the sources of Daniel. For the moment it may suffice to note that an example of a lection of the last type, an abridgement, occurs in the Liber commicus tradition in a copy of a text of Exodus IX—XIV intended for ferial (weekday) recitation in mid-Lent, now preserved in Toledo, Biblioteca del Cabildo, 3 5 - 8 (Toledo, s. xii m e d ; 'Liber commicus of Toledo'). This lectionary is one of five main surviving witnesses to the Liber commicus tradition. 1 Clearly such abridgements will have arisen in accordance with local custom at many points of during the early Middle Ages. The exceptional value of the witness of Liber commicus inheres in its clear demonstration of the extremes to which such abridgement could be carried as well as in its concomitant provision of some interesting analogues to the verse of Exodus: [Ex. XII.29] Factum est autem in noctis medio, percussit Dominus omne primogenitum in terra Egipti, a primogenito Faraonis, qui sedebat in solio eius, usque ad primogenitum cabtibe [sc. captiuae] que [sc. quae] erat in carcere, et omne primogenitum iumentorum. [XII.30] Surrexitque Farao nocte, et omnes serui eius, cunctaque Egiptus. Et ortus est clamor magnus in Egipto, neque enim erat domus in qua non iacebat mortuus. [XII.31] Vocatisque Farao Moysen et Aaron nocte, ayt [sc. ait], 'Surgite et egredimini a populo meo, uos et filiis Srahel [sc. Israhel]. Ite, immolate Domino sicut dicitis. [XII.32] Obes [sc. oues] et armenta uestra adsumite ut petieratis, et abeuntes benedicite mici [sc. mihi]. [XII.37] Profectique sunt filii Srahel de Ramesse in Soccoth, sescenti fere milia peditum uirorum, absque paruulis. [XII.38a] Sed et uulgus promiscuum innumerabile ascendit cum eis. [XII.40] Abitatio [sc. Habitatio] autem filiorum Srahel 116

The lection provides the reading for Matins on the Wednesday of the second week of Lent. See Rivera, 'El Liber comicus', p. 342. On the Liber commicus of Toledo specifically, see CLLA, pp. 215-16 (no. 362), Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, p. 334, and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), ed. Thiele, p. 72 (item T 68 ). The full lection begins with the last two verses of the ninth chapter of Exodus (Ex. IX.34-5: The hardening of Pharaoh's heart in consequence of the rain and hail of the seventh plague) and continues through the whole of the tenth and eleventh chapters (the affliction of locusts in the eighth plague; the falling of darkness in the ninth plague; and the threat to the Egyptians of the death of theirfirstbornin the tenth plague). The distribution of biblical verses suggests that the whole reading for the ferial (weekday) celebration in fact consists of two shorter lections: (1) a complete lection describing the seventh through ninth plagues and (2) an abridged 'sub-lection' starting precisely at the point of the death of the firstborn and continuing through the miracle at the Red Sea. The beginning of the sub-lection falls immediately after the words of Ex. XI. 10, implying the deliberate omission of the whole text of Ex. XII. 1-28 by the abbreviator.

213

Old English biblical verse qua manserunt in Egipto, fu.it quadringentorum triginta annorum. [XII.41] Quibus expletis, in eadem die egressus est omnis exercitus Domini de terra Egipti. [XIII. 17] Igitur quum [sc. cum] dimisisset [Vulgate emisisset] Farao populum, non eos perduxit Dominus per uiam terre Filistim que uicina est, reputans ne forte peniteret eum, si uidisset aduersum se bella consurgere, et reuerteretur in Egiptum. [XIII. 18a] Sed circumduxit per uiam deserti, que est iuxta mare rubrum. [XIII.21] Dominus autem precedebat eos ad ostendendam uiam per diem in columna nubis, et per noctem in columna ignis, ut dux esset itineris utroque tempore. [XIV.5] Et nuntiatum est regi Egipti quod fugisset populus. Inmutatumque est cor Faraonis et seruorum eius super populum, et dixerunt, 'Quid uoluimus facere ut dimitteremus Srahel, ne seruiret nobis?' [XIV.6] Iunxit ergo currum, et omnem populum suum adsumsit secum. [XIV.9a] Quumque [sc. Cumque] persequerentur Egiptii uestigia precedentium, reppererunt eos in castris super mare. [XIV. 10b] Lebantes [sc. leuantes] filiis Srahel oculos, uiderunt Egiptios post se, et timuerunt ualde. [XIV. 13] Et ayt Moyses ad populum, 'Nolite timere. State, et uidete magnalia Domini que facturus est odie [sc. hodie]. Egiptios enim, quos nunc uidetis, nequaquam ultra uidebitis usque in sempiternum. [XIV.21] Quumque extendisset Moyses manum super mare, abstulit illut [sc. illud] Dominus flante uento ueementi [sc. uehementi] et urente tota nocte, et uertit in siccum; diuisaque est aqua. [XIV.22a] Et ingressi sunt filii Srahel per medium maris sicci. [XIV.23] Persequentesque Egiptii ingressi sunt post eos, omnis equitatus Faraonis, currus eius et equites per medium maris sicci. [XIV.24] Iamque aduenerat matutina uigilia, et ecce respiciens Dominus super castra Egiptiorum per columnam ignis et nubis, interfecit exercitum Egiptiorum, [XIV.25a] et subuertit rotas curruum, ferebanturque in profundum. [XIV.30] Liberabit [sc. Liberauit] autem Dominus in die illo Srahel de manu Egiptiorum. [XIV.31] Et uiderunt Egiptios mortuos super litus maris, et manum magnam quam exercuerat Dominus contra eos. Timuitque populus Dominum, et crediderunt Domino, et Moysi seruo eius. 117 117

Ex. XII.29-32, XII.37-8a, XII.40-1, XIII.17-18a, XIII.21, XIV.5-6, XIV.9a, XlV.lOb, XIV.13, XIV.21-2a, XIV.23-5a and XIV.30-1, as ptd in Liber commkus, ed. Perez de Urbel and Gonzalez y Ruiz-Zorrilla, pp. 177-8: '[Ex. XII.29] And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord struck down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on his throne, to the firstborn of the captive woman that was in the prison, and all the firstborn of beasts of burden. [XII.30] And Pharaoh arose in the night, and all his servants and all Egypt. And there arose a great cry in Egypt. For there was not a house wherein there lay not one dead. [XII.31] And Pharaoh, calling Moses and Aaron in the night, said, "Arise and go forth from among my people, you and the children of Israel. Go, sacrifice to the Lord, as you say. [XII. 32] Your sheep and herds take along with you, as you demanded. And departing, bless me." [XII.37] And the children of Israel set forward from Ramesse to

214


The content of this lectionary abridgement may be seen to provide the most proximate analogue of the structure of the main narrative of Exodus that has yet been identified in a Latin text. The possibility that the excerpted Exodus lection of the Liber commicus directly affected the text of Exodus can be ruled out on text-historical grounds, although this is not really at issue. It is inherently unlikely that any such idiosyncratic abridgement of scripture would have achieved a wide distribution in a fixed form. The existence of such a precedent in a Latin liturgical text, however, allows us to formulate a new and exceedingly natural explanation of the elusive 'structural principle* of Exodus. The importance of the parallel in the weekday lection of the Liber commicus lies in the particular Socoth, being about six hundred thousand men on foot, not counting children. [XII.38a] But a mixed multitude without number went up also with them. [XII.40] And the abode of the children of Israel that they made in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. [XII.41] Which being expired, the same day all the army of the Lord went forth out of the land of Egypt. [XIII. 17} And when Pharaoh had sent out the people, the Lord led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, which is near, thinking that perhaps they would not repent if they should see wars arise against them and would return to Egypt. [XIII. 18a] But He led them about by the way of the desert, which is by the Red Sea. [XIII.21] And the Lord went before them to show the way by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a pillar of fire, so that He might be the guide of their journeys at both times. [XIV.5} And it was told to the king of the Egyptians that the people had fled. And the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was changed with regard to the people, and they said, "What did we mean to do, that we let Israel go from serving us?" [XIV.6] So he made ready his chariot and took all his people with him. [XIV.9a] And when the Egyptians followed the steps of those who had gone before, they found them encamped beside the sea. [XIV. 10b] Lifting up their eyes, [the Israelites] saw the Egyptians behind them and they feared exceedingly. [XIV. 13] And Moses said to the people, "Fear not. Stand and see the great wonders of the Lord, which He will do this day. For the Egyptians, whom you see now, you shall see no more forever." [XIV.21] And when Moses had stretched forth his hand over the sea, the Lord took it away by a strong and burning wind blowing all the night, and turned it into dry ground; and the water was divided. [XIV.22a] And the children of Israel went in through the midst of the dry sea. [XIV.23] And the Egyptians pursuing went in after them and all of Pharaoh's horses, his chariots and horsemen through the midst of the dry sea. [XIV.24] And now the morning watch had come, and behold, the Lord, looking on the Egyptian army through the pillar of fire and cloud, slew their host [XIV.25a] and He overthrew the wheels of the chariots and they were carried into the deep. [XIV.30] And the Lord delivered Israel on that day out of the hands of the Egyptians. [XTV.31] And they saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore and the mighty hand that the Lord had used against them. And the people feared the Lord and they believed the Lord and Moses His servant.'

215


response to the heterogeneous passages of Exodus that it witnesses, that is, the reduction of the digressive account of the departure of the Israelites in Exodus XI—XIV to the fundamental details of its narration. The Old English poem and the liturgical abridgement discussed here encompass precisely the same range of material. The main narrative of Exodus begins with the destruction of the 'greatest of troops' (Ex 34b drihtfolca mcesi), that is, the firstborn of the Egyptians, and ends with the drowning of the 'greatest of troops' of the hostile army (590b drihtfolca mce[si\). The abridged section of the Exodus lection in the Liber commicus starts at the point at which Pharaoh and the Egyptians observe the death of their firstborn (Ex. XII.30: 'neque enim erat domus in qua non iacebat mortuus) and leads up to the moment at which the liberated Israelites see the Egyptian army lying dead on the shore (XIV.30: 'Et viderunt egiptios mortuos super litus maris'). The lection's heavy-handed excision of biblical material results in the emergence of many small alterations of narrative detail, notably in the concise itinerary it offers for the passage through the desert and the balanced account of the opening and closing of the waves. The Liber commicus is one of the few early monuments to preserve this range of material in precisely this order and sequence. The fact that an Office lection is in question, and not a text for the mass, is suggestive. But as we shall see, there may be grounds to suspect that the lectionary practice attested in this recitation for mid- Lent may ultimately reflect the pervasive influence of the baptismal readings of the Easter Vigil. THE ORDER AND CONTENT OF LECTIONS IN GENESIS AND EXODUS FOR THE EASTER VIGIL AND THE POSITION OF THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVE IN EXODUS

We have now reached a good vantage-point from which to assess the arguments of Bright and others regarding the possible direct influence of the lections of the Easter Vigil on the verse of Exodus. The arrangement of biblical episodes in the poem has been set out in detail and a range of early medieval scriptural sources have been adduced for comparison. In particular, we have a clear impression of the range of variation that occurs in liturgical reflexes of Exodus XI-XIV. As we turn now to examine for the first time the specific content of the Easter Vigil lections that have long been associated with the text of Exodus, several new textual considerations merit our immediate attention. Vigil lections differ fundamentally from 216

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism catechetical texts and Office lections in the fixity of their form. To be sure, notably different sets of lections are encountered in western practice among the various liturgical traditions broadly identified as 'Gallican', 'Gelasian* and reformed 'Gregorian', among others. And we may suspect that specialized usages will have arisen out of the vagaries of local custom in all phases of the Anglo-Saxon period. (Of course, we have no detailed description of the readings employed in Easter Vigil ceremonies in Anglo-Saxon England before Regularis concordia.119) But once a set of lections had been assigned for recitation on Holy Saturday its texts immediately attained a fixed, canonical stature. From this point on, every word of these lections would be studied by adult catechumens preparing to receive baptism on Holy Saturday, parents planning to accompany infants undergoing the rite and other participants. 120 Parallels between the obedience of Noah and of Abraham to God's command will have informed the exposition of moral points; connections linking the ceremonies of baptism to the water-imagery of lections on the Flood and the miracle at the Red Sea will have been acknowledged; and so on. In addition to such general catechetical issues, particular attention would be Anglo-Latin sources for the eighth-century Anglo-Saxon baptismal liturgy include Bede's Homilia Il.vi-vii (CCSL 122, 220-32), sermons for Holy Saturday and the Easter Vigil. Brief remarks on baptismal ordines occur in Alcuin's Ep. cxxxiv and cxxxvii (MGH, Epist. II, 202-3 and 214-15). In her thorough review of the problem, Foot, 'By water', advances the following rites for consideration: Celtic adaptations of Roman baptismal liturgy to include Gallican features, possibly transmitted to Northumbrian centres in the seventh century by Irish missionaries; Gallican practices introduced by Merovingian ecclesiastics early in the same century (Bede, HE III. 7 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 139^1)); pre-'Gelasian' Roman practices promoted by Augustine of Canterbury, Benedict Biscop and Theodore; and whatever eighth-century Roman customs, possibly of 'Gelasian' derivation, were stipulated by the canons of Clofesho and other councils. In any of these cases we have to reckon with the presence of lections extracted from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel. But only in the cases of the ten- and twelve-lection 'Gelasian' systems as well as the non-Roman systems do we encounter excerpted treatments of the matter of Genesis and Exodus that is versified in Exodus. 119

Gatch, 'Old English Literature', p. 245, observes that at all periods of the Middle Ages and in all areas 'the rites at the beginning of the paschal observance have been peculiarly and troublesomely subject to innovation'. On the persistence of adult baptism in Anglo-Saxon England, see Foot, 'By water', p. 186, and above, pp. 85-6. For additional suggestions concerning the influence of liturgical texts on the verse of Exodus, see E. McLoughlin, 'OE Exodus and the Antiphonary of Bangor', NM 70 (1969), 658-67.

217


paid in the course of the catechumens' study to the sequence of the lections, as this anticipates specific events in the order of service: the movement of the choir to the baptistery, the preparation of the font, the entry of the bishop and clergy to the baptistery and so on. 121 (In AngloSaxon England, the baptisms themselves were most often administered immediately after the conclusion of the lectionary recitation during a reading of a litany of saints. ) Our concern here, however, is with the specific content of the lections themselves and their arrangement in early medieval liturgies. In my view, only four of the attested western groups of Easter Vigil lections — eighth-century Frankish—Roman, Gallican, Milanese and Spanish — deserve consideration in connection with the text of Exodus. And only one of these, the eighth-century 'Gelasian' twelve-lection system (or, perhaps, its ten-lection predecessor), has a reasonable claim to have exerted an influence on the structure of the poem as a whole, and this claim rests largely on the order of readings that typifies the 'Gelasian' custom. (In Table 5, biblical passages treated in Exodus appear in bold type.) Tyrer, Historical Survey, p p . 149—62, notes that while the sequence of lections treating of aquatic themes is being read, the bishop and his clergy go to prepare the baptismal font. T h e entry of the bishop after the third of the paschal readings reflects the fact that the Spanish and Gallican rites did not have the litany of saints that follows the recitation of lessons and prayers in 'Gelasian' and other R o m a n usage and in the customs of Sarum, York and Canterbury. For discussion of works treating baptism that were k n o w n in Anglo-Saxon England, see J . E. Cross, 'Wulfstan's Incipit de baptismo (Bethurum VIII A): a Revision of Sources', NM 9 0 (1989), 2 3 7 - 4 2 , and Foot, 'By water'. 123

For introductory c o m m e n t s on these liturgies, see above, p p . 8 2 - 5 and 1 3 8 - 4 0 .

124

T h e exclusion from this summary of the older R o m a n six-lection system, the reformed 'Gregorian' four-lection system and the Spanish twelve-lection series A (represented by the Liber commicus) is explained below, p p . 2 2 1 - 2 . T h e table follows the summaries of lections by Baumstark, Nocturna laus, p p . 4 4 - 5 4 . Lections for the Vigil of Pentecost often include material from Genesis, Exodus and Daniel, b u t parallels between Exodus and the pentecostal sequence are not in evidence. T h e g r o u p of six lections accompanied by three canticles recited on Pentecost Sunday summarized by Frere, Studies III, 12 (no. L X X X V I ) , however, does maintain the juxtaposition of the account of the b i n d i n g of Isaac and the crossing of the Red Sea as its second and third items. See also Chavasse, 'Lemons', p p . 2 2 3 ^ , for a summary of early R o m a n lections (mainly in five- and sixlection series) for the Vigil of Pentecost. These do not exhibit the juxtaposition of t h e accounts of the Flood, the b i n d i n g of Isaac and the crossing of the Red Sea which has been associated here w i t h the verse of Exodus. For additional treatments of the R o m a n lections for the Easter Vigil, see above, p p . 1 3 7 - 4 3 .

218

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism Table 5. Lections for the Easter Vigil in early European traditions Spanish (series B)c

Frankish-Roman ('GelasianT

Gallican (Lectionary of Luxeuil)

I Gen. I.1-II.2 2Gen. V.31-VIII.21 (abridgement) e 3 Gen. XXII. 1-19 4 Ex. XIV.24-XV.la (with Ex. XV.lb-19) 5 Isa. LIV.17-LV.il 6 Baruch III.9-38 7 Ez. XXXVII. 1-14 8 Isa. IV. 1-6 (with Isa. V.1-V.2-V.7) 9 Ex. XII. 1-11 10 Jonah III. 1-10 II Deut. XXXI.22-30 (and Deut. XXXII. 1-4) 12 Dan. III. 1-24 (with Ps.XL.1-3)

1 [Gen. I] 1 Gen. I.1-II.4 2 [Gen. II} 2Gen.V.31b-VI.l3 Gen. ...VII. 10VIII.21 VIII.21 (abridgement) (abridgement) 3 Gen. XXII. 1-19 4 Gen. XXII. 1-19 4 Ex. XII.1-12 5 Gen. XXVII. 1-40 5Ex.XIV.l4-XV.2 and XV.20 6Ex.XII.l-5O f 6 Isa. II.1-IV.6 7 Ex. XIII. 18(abridgement) XV.21 g 8 Ez. XXXVII. 1-14 7 Ez. XXXVII. 1-14 8Hab. I.1-III.3 9 Isa. I.1-V.24 10 Joshua III.1-IV.25 (abridgement) 9JonahI.l-IV.ll HJonahI.l-II.3a (Vulgate), II.3b(abridgement) 11.10 (Old Latin) 10 Dan. III. 1-90 andll.ll-IILlO (Vulgate) 12 Dan. III. 1-40 ... and ... 111.64-100

Milanese ('Ambrosian') 1 Gen. I.1-II.16 2 Gen. XXII. 1-17 3 Ex. XII. 1-12 4 Ex. XIV. 1-XV. 1 5 Isa. LV.1-13 6 Isa. 1.1-31

For the normative form of the series given here, see above, p. 84 with n. 6. Fragments of Gallican lections in Genesis (apparently originally comprising Gen. I.1-II.6; II.7-III.24; V.31-VIII.21; and XXII.1-19 and later verses) intended for use in the Easter Vigil also occur in the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest (see p. 139, n. 101, and 303 with n. 190); see text ptd in Das dlteste Liturgiebuch, ed. Dold, pp. 1-6, with discussion at p. xxviii, and below, pp. 420—2 with n. 120. Further examples of Gallican lections for the vigil are ptd in PL 72, cols. 270, 366 and 497; see also Meyer, 'Das turiner Bruchstiick', p. 170. c The summary of the Spanish series B (by Bernal, Xecturas', p. 309), expanding the account by Baumstark, Nocturna laus, p. 47, refers to the following ten-lection series from the Missale mixtum (see above, p. 139, n. 102): (1) Gen. I.1-II.4; (2) V.31b and VI.1-VIII.21 (abridgement: see above, p. 139); (3) Gen. XXII.1-19; (4) Ex. XII.1-12; (5) Ex. XIV.14-XV.2 and XV.20; (6) Isa. II.1-4,11.10,11.17,11.20, III. 1-14 and IV.2-6; (7) Ez. XXXVII.1-14; (8) Hab. 1.1-6, 11.11-14, 11.18-20 and III.1-3; (9) Jonah I-IV (abridgement) and (10) Dan. III.1-90 (abridgement); see text ptd in PL 85, cols. 446-60, and Tyrer, Historical Survey, p. 159- See also R. E. Reynolds, 'Baptismal Rite and Paschal Vigil in Transition in Medieval Spain: a New Text in Visigothic Script', MS 55 (1993),

219

Old English biblical verse 257-72, with valuable comments on the dissemination of Spanish customs in the Supplementum Anianense (see above, p. 68, n. 134) and other collections. The summary of the Milanese series follows the summary (by Tyrer, Historical Survey, p. 159) of Beroldus, sine ecclesiae Ambrosianae Mediolanensis kalendarium et ordines, saec. XII, ed.

M. Magistretti (Milan, 1894), pp. 108-11; see also Bernal, Xecturas', p. 309- There is also a seven-lection Milanese system witnessed by the Sacramentary of Bergamo (see above, p. 139, n. 103), which includes Gen. VI.9-VIII.21 (with omissions); Gen. I.1-II.3; Gen. XXII.1-19; Ex. XII.1-12; Isa. LIV.17-LV.il; Ex. XIII.18-XIV.9; and Isa. 1.16-20; see text ptd in Codex sacramentorum Bergomensis, ed. Cagin, p. 199; cf. also Baumstark, Nocturna laus, p. 47, and Gamber, 'Die Lesungen', p. 131. Baumstark, Nocturna laus, p. 47, summarizes two other six-lection forms of the Milanese series, exhibiting variation in their choice of the fourth and fifth lections: (1) Gen. I.l-II.3a, (2) Gen. XXII.1-19, (3) Ex. XII. 1-11 or Ex. XIII.18b-XIV.8, (4) Isa. LIV.17b-LV.lla or Ex. XII. 1-11, (5) Ex. XIII.18b-XIV.8 or Isa. LIV.17b-LV.lla, (6) Isa. 1.16-19; see, for example, the six-lection text ptd in Manuale Ambrosianum ex codice saec. XI, ed. M. Magistretti, 2 vols., Monumenta Veteris Liturgiae Ambrosianae 2—3 (Milan, 1904—5) II, 202—5. Following the recitation of the lections, the usage of Milan specifies the singing of six canticles, including Canticum Moysi and Canticum trium puerorum.

For the readings of the abridgements of Gen. V—VIII, see above, pp. 136—43. The Gallican lection in Ex. XII. 1—50 is one of the few attested texts for early medieval Easter Vigil ceremonies that embodies the verses recounting the death of the Egyptian firstborn and the cries of the Egyptians (Ex. XII.28-33), concerns which are treated at the very start of the main narrative of Old English Exodus. It is a striking fact that the verses on the death of the firstborn are followed soon after (only in the sixth and seventh readings of the Gallican series, as far as I can establish) by all of the remaining verses of biblical narrative that inform the main narrative of Exodus (Ex. XII. 34-42 and XIII.18-XV.la: the departure, crossing of the desert, the miracle at the Red Sea, the final liberation and jubilation, discounting the non-narrative matter of Ex. XII. 1-17, XII.43-50 and XV.lb-19); see below, pp. 227-8. The lection in Ex. XII. 1-50 corresponds precisely to a biblical division occurring in Bibles containing capitula conforming to Quentin's Vulgatederived, typically Spanish series A (form a)', see above, p. 208 with n. 101. 8 The lection in Ex. XIII. 18—XV.21 corresponds approximately to a biblical division occurring in Bibles exhibiting capitula conforming to Quentin's Vulgate-derived, typically Spanish series A (form a) comprising XIII.21—XV.22.

On the basis of the evidence set out in Table 5, it is clear that the only western liturgy whose Holy Saturday lections embody a continuous parallel to the patriarchal excursus is that of the 'Gelasian' tradition. Only in the 'Gelasian' twelve-lection system (and its ten-lection predecessor) do we observe all three major episodic concerns of the climactic moments of Exodus gathered together in a coherent patriarchal subgroup (lections 2—4 in first column of Table 5): the Flood, the offering of Isaac and the drowning of the Egyptians. The congruence between these vigil lections 220

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism and the Old English versification involves both the sequence of episodes and, as we shall see, the specific spans of biblical verses treated by their texts. If any series of vigil lections deserves to be adduced in connection with the received state of the verse of Exodus, it is indeed that of the 'Gelasian' system, as all critics who have addressed the question seem to have assumed. The enduring popularity of the widely disseminated twelve-lection series, however, should not mislead us here. Its continuing use as an official text of the modern Roman Easter Vigil ceremony, which surely accounts for the critical tendency just noted, should not unduly influence our views of early medieval usage. In particular, we have no assurance that the twelve-lection series of vigil readings was in universal use in Anglo-Saxon centres over the centuries that saw the composition and transmission of the Junius poems, as the prescription of a four-lection recitation by the tenth-century Regularis concordia makes clear. If the 'Gelasian' readings could be tenably associated with the verse of Exodus to the exclusion of other early medieval lectionary systems, this conclusion would have implications for the dating of the poem — or, at the very least, the dating of the poem's integration of the patriarchal narrative. (The significance of these observations for questions surrounding the composition and textual integrity of Exodus will be taken up below.) To turn briefly to other traditions of early medieval lectionary practice set out here and in Table 1, the ancient Roman six-lection system (conceivably going back to the papacy of Gregory I) and the reformed Roman four-lection system (whose later Anglo-Saxon use is attested by y^lfric as well as Regularis concordia) offer little for comparison with Exodus. Both fail to include a lection on the Flood, and the four-lection series omits the episode on Isaac.1 5 The poem's main biblical sources in Genesis and Exodus are in fact well represented in Gallican and other non-Roman liturgies, but an attempt to connect these with Exodus would require that we ignore their ordering of lections. The twelve-lection series of the Gallican liturgy, nevertheless, is the only non-Roman system that stands a reasonable chance (given English contacts with Francia in the seventh and early eighth centuries) of having exerted an influence on early AngloSaxon devotional practice. The Gallican readings included, on the evidence of the Lectionary of Luxeuil, all of the non-narrative matter of Exodus XII, addressing the preparation of the paschal lamb and attendant concerns, as 125

See above, pp. 78-87. 221


well as an additional patriarchal reading on Jacob (drawing on Genesis XXVII). Gallican tradition thus wholly obscures the Flood—Offering of Isaac-Red Sea sequence that provides the climax of the patriarchal subseries in the 'Gelasian' recitations — and, arguably, of Exodus. The most noteworthy feature of the Gallican series is its very lengthy concatenation of episodes drawn from Exodus XII-XV in a climactic sequence of two Old Testament readings, treating (in addition to the paschal instructions noted above — a subject left wholly out of account in Exodus) the death of the Egyptian firstborn and the whole course of the Exodus. (These lections are indicated in the preceding table by the use of bold type.) It will be noted that the narrative matter of the substantial body of Exodus-based passages in Gallican liturgy offers yet another parallel to the formal structure of the main narrative of Exodus, ranging as it does precisely from the death of the firstborn to the drowning of Pharaoh's army. (Other analogues of this arrangement, discussed above, have been detected in the entry of accentuation in Royal 1. E. VII, the course of excerption undertaken in the Liber commicus and ^lfric's treatment of material in his sermon for mid-Lent. ) The Exodus-based lections of the Gallican system might be seen to offer a locus classicus for this precise configuration of material from Ex. XII—XIV, at least in non-Roman usage. (The possible significance of this observation for our comprehension of the structure of Exodus will be taken up again below.) Among the other non-Roman systems treated here, the Spanish and Milanese liturgies only include the opening verses of Exodus XII, which treat the preparation of the paschal lamb, and omit the account of the death of the firstborn altogether. The Milanese series, moreover, fails to include a lection on the Flood. The kernel of Bright's argument regarding the influence of the Roman twelve-lection system on Exodus thus appears more plausible than has been generally acknowledged, even without the support implicit in continuing speculation by critics about the possible baptismal associations of Exodus. Several scholars have noted that the three most prominent biblical sources The compass of these lections may also bear comparison with the opening verses of the Celtic analogue to Exodus treated in Sources and Analogues of Old English Poetry II: the Major Germanic and Celtic Texts in Translation^ trans. D. G. Calder et ai (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 21—2, which begin with an allusion to the ancestry of the Israelites before turning to the death of the Egyptian firstborn and the liberation of the Israelites; note also comments there (by Daniel F. Melia) regarding possible connections with the Good Friday liturgy.

222

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism of the Junius collection — Genesis, Exodus and Daniel — are well represented in the Roman set of lections. It does not appear to have been noted previously, however, that the climactic patriarchal readings of the 'Gelasian' system appear in precisely the same order as in lines 353b-582 of Exodus: Noah—Abraham—Moses (or, viewed episodically, Flood—Offering—Red Sea). There are also two additional, hitherto unnoticed points of episodic congruence between the Roman lections and Exodus. First, the treatment of the episode of Abraham and Isaac, discussed at length above, spans the same series of verses as the excerpted Roman lection in Gen. XXII. 1—19- Second, a more remarkable parallel, in my view, exists between the restricted span of verses included in the fourth Roman lection (Ex. XIV.24—XV.la) and the climactic matter of the main narrative in Exodus. (The climactic moments of the poem, of course, are interrupted — or, perhaps, enhanced — by the interposition of the patriarchal narrative.) Roman usage here stipulates the use of a notably circumscribed form of lection (vis-a-vis the readings in Gallican, Milanese and other non-Roman liturgies) recounting only the arrival of the dawn, the drowning of the Egyptian army and the final liberation of the Israelite host. The versification in lines 353b—582 of Exodus (treating Noah, Abraham and the concluding moments of the miracle at the Red Sea), viewed as a continuous, albeit heterogeneous, narrative, thus exhibits the same episodic sequence as this Roman group of Genesis- and Exodus-based lections and it addresses the same restricted set of biblical topics drawn from the episodes in question. Simply put, the matter treated in the climactic passages of Exodus corresponds precisely to that which occupies the climactic patriarchal lections of the ten- and twelve-lection Roman series, right down to the level of the specific spans of the verses included in the Latin texts and informing the Old English versification. This explanation of the position and arrangement of the patriarchal material in Exodus admittedly leaves out of the account a great deal of verse in the main narrative of the poem. The biblical matter treated in Ex 33—353a (the death of the firstborn, the departure of the Israelites, the passage through the desert and on through the initial allusion to the crossing of the Red Sea (Ex. XIV.22)) finds no place in the Roman baptismal ritual. There can be no suggestion that the verse of Exodus, regarded as a whole, contrives to offer a literal-minded reproduction of a series of Holy Saturday lections. The lack of any counterpart to the prayers and other liturgical texts accompanying the Easter Vigil lections would 223


seem to rule this possibility out a priori. The main value of the series of Frankish—Roman vigil lections for our appreciation of the received text of Exodus, I would maintain, lies in the rationale that it offers for the position of the patriarchal narrative within the sequence of the main narrative. If the patriarchal narrative represents some sort of insertion — to choose an intentionally neutral term — into the main narrative of Exodus, as most critics have accepted, then it is natural to ask why this insertion was made at this particular point in the poem. The opening words of the Roman lection from Exodus XIV—XV refer to the morning watch (Ex. XIV.24: 'Iamque aduenerat uigilia matutina . . .'). The context in Exodus involves the passage of a long night in which the opposing forces of Egyptians and Israelites cannot see one another (Ex. XIV.20). The uneasy darkness is followed by the arrival of the dawn, the drowning of the Egyptians and the final liberation of the Israelite host. The report of Moses's extension of his hand at Ex. XIV.27 also states that the closing of the waves occurs at daybreak ('primo diluculo'). 128 So, for an early medieval Christian acquainted with either the ten- or twelve-lection system of vigil lections, the recitation from Exodus constituted a dawn-scene on the drowning of the Egyptians and the final liberation of the Israelite host. It is thus interesting to note that the main narrative of Exodus includes a climactic allusion to the dawn shortly before the commencement of the patriarchal narrative: Daegwoma becwom ofer garsecge, Godes beacna sum, morgen meretorht.129 127 128

129

Ex. XIV.24: 'And now the morning watch had come.' Ex. XIV.27: '. . . at the first break of day'. For the traditional view of the description of the closing of the waves as a dawn-scene, see, for example, the brief paraphrase of the narrative sequence of Ex. XIV.24-31 in the so-called Old English Benedictine Office (Cameron, 'List', p . 131 (item B.I2.7)): 'On daegred hit gewearS fraet 6urh Godes mihte Moyses gelaedde J>aet Israhelitisce folc of Egipta lande eall unwemme ofer 5a Readan Sae, and aefter 6am sona seo sylfe sae besencte and adrencte Godes wi5erwinnan, Pharaonem and eall his gegenge' ('At dawn it came about that Moses led the Israelite people completely unharmed out of the land of Egypt, and immediately after that the sea itself flooded in and drowned God's enemies, Pharaoh and all his company'; see text ptd in The Benedictine Office: an Old English Text, ed. J. M. Ure (Edinburgh, 1957), p. 82). Ex 344b-346a: 'The day-roar [i.e. morning watch?} arose over the warriors, [and] one

224


There are, as I have noted above, several references to daybreak at earlier points in Exodus, often at transitional points in the narrative, which have no basis in the poem's biblical sources. (See, for example, entries under Ex 215b-220a and 250-1 in Table 4. 130 ) The structural analysis offered above, however, might be taken to indicate that lines 344b—346a of Exodus comprise the poem's only scripturally derived dawn-scene, suggested by the matter of Ex. XIV.24 and XIV.27. The common sequence of the patriarchal lections in the 'Gelasian' systems of Easter Vigil recitation - that is, lections 2-4 in the normative sequence set out above thus might suggest that the patriarchal narrative in Exodus interacts with the progression of the poem's main narrative in a manner that will have seemed exceedingly natural to Anglo-Saxon celebrants who knew these texts: it is implicated in a subsidiary narrative approximating to the familiar Noah-Abraham-Red Sea sequence of the Holy Saturday liturgy. The full significance of the position of the patriarchal narrative in Exodus has been obscured hitherto by physical losses from Junius 11. The lines lost to the lacuna after p. 164 of Junius 11 — the lacuna which incurs a textual break after Ex 466, the last extant line of the patriarchal narrative — may well have treated such topics as the overturning of the Egyptian chariots (see Ex. XIV.25-6 and XIV.28), the final appearance of the pillar of fire and cloud (XIV.24), Moses's extension of his hand over the waters (XIV.26-7) and the safe ascent of the Israelite host (XIV.30-1 and XV. 1). These topics are in fact precisely the ones that critics have most often conjectured were included among the verse that once appeared on the leaf lost after p. 164, in the course of a treatment of the matter of Ex. XIV.24—28. The allusion to the dawn and the other matter of lines 344b—353a of Exodus thus once may have marked the commencement of the final, climactic sequence of the poem's main narrative: the closing of the waves, the drowning of the Egyptians and the jubilation on the shore. Such a conjecturally restored sequence would indeed offer a formal analogue to the patriarchal readings of the 'Gelasian' series of Easter Vigil lections. But that is not the main point advanced here. Rather, it may appear that the decision to include a Genesis-based narrative at this point in Exodus - whether we choose to see it as a decision by the poet of the main narrative or a later reviser - was influenced most profoundly by the

130

of God's beacons, a sea-bright [meretorht; Junius 11: maretorht ('gloriously bright')] morning.' See above, p. 196.

225


narrowly defined subject matter of the first Exodus-based prose lection of the 'Gelasian' series (Ex. XIV.24—XV. 1, ranging from the dawn to the final ascent). Allusions to the drowning of the Egyptians (and, perhaps, the dawn and other matter of the closing verses of Exodus XIV), already in place in the main narrative of Exodus, will have caused the poet to recall the central themes of two proximate lections (the Flood and the offering of Isaac). With the advent of the final dawn-scene of Exodus, the poet's thoughts will have turned back quite naturally to earlier, Genesis-based lections of the patriarchal matter of the 'Gelasian' series. This may have suggested the inclusion of a genealogically informed narrative on Noah and Abraham, forming a prelude to the climactic scenes depicting the drowning of the Egyptians and the triumphant liberation of the host. In this view, however, it is the final sequence — recounting the arrival of the dawn, the drowning of the Egyptians and the ascent of the Israelites — which serves to anchor the excursus on Noah and Abraham, and not vice versa. If we view the patriarchal narrative in Exodus as a reminiscence addressing the lineage of the Israelites from Noah to Moses, then the text of Ex. XIV. 24 employed in the Roman ritual provides a very plausible rationale for the introduction of such a recollection at precisely this point. A Christian who had prepared for and received baptism according to the well-known twelve-lection system sanctioned by the Roman church would readily recall the patriarchal sequence of the Easter Vigil in response to the commencement of the closing sequence of the main narrative of Exodus. It should be stressed that the suggestions offered here are not intended to impose a specifically Latinate construct on the text of Exodus. The most striking analogues of the sort of abruptly inserted genealogical reminiscence I have in mind probably occur in Beowulf. Questions of Germanic influence notwithstanding, it seems reasonable to infer that the matter of Ex. XIV.24-XV.1 (the dawn, the drowning and the liberation) and its reflex among the lections of the Easter Vigil stimulated the poet to recall the episodes on Noah and Abraham at precisely this point in the narrative. If so, then the widely disseminated ten- and (especially) twelve-lection recitations for Holy Saturday offer a new key to one of the most difficult structural problems in Exodus scholarship. 131

R. le Deaut, La Nuit pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Paque juive a partir du Targum d'Exode XII 42, Analecta Biblica 22 (Rome, 1963), 110-15, offers a very detailed discussion of the connection between the matter of Gen. XXII and the other lections of the Easter Vigil.

226

Exodus and the liturgy of baptism CONCLUSIONS

Any attempt to peer into the inner workings of verse as convoluted as the received text of Exodus is fraught with peril. Enough evidence has been set out here, however, to support some specific conclusions regarding the relationship of the pre-baptismal lections of the Easter Vigil to the verse of Exodus. It should be stressed at the outset that the preceding discussion has in fact identified three related but essentially separate aspects of Exodus that bear comparison with various early medieval lectionary series for Holy Saturday: the structure and narrative compass of the poem's main narrative; the structure and compass of the treatment of the offering of Isaac, as well as the context of that episode within the patriarchal narrative; and the position of the patriarchal narrative within the main narrative. All three of these in different ways involve the most significant demarcations of the text of Exodus sketched out above: the boundaries between the main narrative and the patriarchal narrative. The important point to be taken regarding these boundaries (or sets of boundaries) is that, despite the textual losses from Junius 11, there is small indication that any material is missing from the opening and concluding lines of these narratives. The inclusion of transitional lines introducing the matter of the Egyptians (Ex 30—2) leaves little room to doubt that the main narrative offers a biblical treatment of events extending from the death of the firstborn to the drowning of Pharaoh's army. The account of the offering of Isaac is introduced in several stages (for example, at Ex 358b—361 and 380—3) and the conclusion of the narrative is indicated by the amplified reminiscence of God's promise to Abraham (432—42). The following conclusions may now be advanced regarding the varying ways in which the lections of early medieval Holy Saturday services might be seen to throw light on the received form of the verse of Exodus: (1) The main narrative: it is clear enough that the account of events from the death of the firstborn to the drowning of the Egyptians and its aftermath constitutes a self-contained and apparently deliberately implemented narrative sequence. The possible connection with early medieval vigil lections involves the presence in the twelve-lection Gallican series of a very lengthy set of excerpts from Exodus XII-XIV whose narrative component approximates to that of the main narrative of Exodus. I know of no comparable structural analogue of the main narrative of Exodus whose early medieval distribution was as wide as that of these non-Roman 227


lections. Nevertheless, in the face of uncertainty about the knowledge of non-Roman baptismal customs in Anglo-Saxon England, the influence of these Gallican lections on the structure of the main narrative of Exodus must be regarded as doubtful at best. (It is interesting to note, however, that viewed in broadly literary-historical terms, the insertion of the patriarchal narrative introduces an apparent reflex of Roman liturgical custom into a typically non-Roman narrative setting.) We have, in any case, seen a number of other analogues of the structure of the main narrative that have little if anything to do with the Holy Saturday services: the accentuation in Royal E. 1. VII, which is heaviest in the copy of the text treating the firstborn and trails off after the arrival of the Israelites at the shore; the scope of the abridged part of the ferial lection for mid-Lent in the Liber commicus of Toledo; and the paraphrase of the legend of the Exodus in ./Elfric's sermon for mid-Lent. (2) The source of the patriarchal narrative: the primary concern of the patriarchal narrative is the account of Abraham's offering of Isaac. As I have noted, the narrative compass of this account is clearly indicated by surrounding material on the land-right of the Israelites and the Flood (Ex 353b—73 and 443—6). It follows that the content of the main biblical source of this passage can also be established with some precision. The patriarchal narrative certainly draws on Gen. XXII. 1—18 and thus reproduces (at least in effect) the main contents of the vigil lection employed on Holy Saturday in nearly every western liturgy, generally comprising Gen. XXII. 1—19. The main value of the patriarchal narrative for the present discussion, however, resides in the clear evidence it provides for the direct influence of a very specific type of liturgical text on the received text of Exodus: an Old Latin lection for the Easter Vigil based on Genesis XXII. The convergence of several types of evidence serves to place this conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence includes the passage's narrative compass (Gen. XXII. 1—18 or thereabouts); its apparent dependence on an Old Latin source (setting it apart from the ostensibly Vulgate-based main narrative); its quantity of specific parallels with the diction of Latin scripture (again in contrast to the main narrative); and its juxtaposition with an episodic abridgement on the Flood. In my view, the influence on the patriarchal narrative of Exodus of some form of early medieval vigil lection based on Genesis XXII might well be regarded as almost certain. But I should acknowledge that this conclusion pertains primarily to the source of the passage on the offering rather than its 228


meaning. As in the case of the abridged treatment of the Flood in Genesis A, one may suspect a specific sort of textual influence on the received form without assuming any attempt at a paraliturgical versification by the poet of the verse on Noah and Abraham. The informing theme of the patriarchal narrative, as far as I can ascertain, is the land-right of the Israelites, which only tangentially intersects with the early medieval theology of the liturgy of baptism. On the whole, the evidence of the Easter Vigil lections relating to the episodes on Noah and Abraham only serves to intensify our view of the conspicuous placement of the patriarchal narrative in Exodus. These considerations in and of themselves, however, do not amount to proof of multiple authorship. A single poet may well have been in possession of both Vulgate and Old Latin scriptural texts. (3) The position of the patriarchal narrative: critics who have sought to explain the undeniably heterogeneous biblical content of Exodus by recourse to patristic commentaries treating the episodes on the Flood, the offering of Isaac and the crossing of the Red Sea - whose frequent collocation often may be seen as another reflex of the baptismal liturgy — have generally stopped short of advancing an exegetical model for the seemingly awkward position occupied by the patriarchal narrative of Exodus within the poem's main narrative. As far as I can ascertain, no convincing explanation for the arrangement of material in this part of the poem has previously appeared in print. I leave it to others to judge whether the hypothesis advanced here bears further scrutiny. In particular, I have argued above that the distinctive order of the patriarchal lections in the twelve-lection 'Gelasian' series in the Roman (originally Frankish— Roman) baptismal liturgy provides a plausible model for lines 353b-59O of Exodus. More significantly, the span of the verses of the Exodus lection in this series — recounting the drowning of the Egyptian army and the arrival at the shore — as well as the status of the lection as a dawn-scene offer suggestive parallels with the verse of Exodus and, perhaps, a rationale for the insertion of the patriarchal narrative precisely where it now stands. The suggestions regarding liturgical influence submitted here cannot be regarded as offering more than one possible (but, in my view, eminently reasonable) approach to explaining the received state of the verse of Exodus. I should stress that the rationale offered here for the state of the text presumes an easy familiarity with the content of the pre-baptismal lections of the Easter Vigil on the part of an Anglo-Saxon poet. As such, it represents the only one of the three areas of possible influence of the Holy 229


Saturday ceremonies discussed here in which there is a likelihood that the treatment of biblical material in Exodus is bound up intimately with the meaning of the vigil texts. If this undeniably speculative conclusion were to find general aceptance, it might be seen to provide a new basis for a doctrinally informed approach to the biblical content of Exodus.

230

4 Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition

The course of scholarship on the biblical sources of Daniel represents an aberration in the critical history of the Junius poems. For more than one hundred years scholars have speculated that the main source of Daniel is not the Vulgate text of the Old Testament book that lends the poem its name but rather a rare, Old Latin text conforming to the model of Greek scripture.1 Oscar Hofer, in the first full-length article exclusively devoted to a study of Daniel, published in 1889, cites several verses from a Greek text of the book of Daniel to explain certain non-Vulgate aspects of the poem. His main example adduces the fantastic imagery of the poem's rendition of Nebuchadnezzar's second dream, in which a tree-trunk bound in chains betokens the lapse in governance incurred by the Babylonian tyrant's divinely imposed madness. Hofer's brief remarks anticipate an independently derived suggestion by Robert T. Farrell, who maintained in 1968 that the 'poet [of Daniel] probably did not use the Vulgate, but rather some Old Latin text'. 3 Farrell's views, circulating more widely than Hofer's, have found some acceptance among Old English specialists. It may be noted further in this regard that scholars have long called attention to the similarity of certain lines in the central section of Daniel, treating 1 2

On the distinction between Old Latin and Vulgate scripture, see above, pp. 98-101. See Hofer, 'Entstehung', esp. pp. 193-5, and below, pp. 236-8 and 304-11. For bibliographical references to Daniel through 1972, see GR, pp. 210—11 (nos. 3409-21) and Greene, 'Critical Bibliography', pp. 695-900. Unless noted, citations of the poem follow the edition in Daniel, ed. Farrell, whose readings have been compared throughout with those of the edition in Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp. For comments on some limitations of Farrell's edition, see Sisam, review of Daniel, ed. Farrell. Farrell, 'Structure', p. 535 with n. 2. Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p. 213, n. 2, for instance, states that the 'poet probably had access to an Old Latin version of the Bible, not the Vulgate'.

231


the tribulation of the three youths in Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace, to an Anglo-Saxon text of Canticum trium puerorum — the liturgical version of the biblical canticle attributed to the three youths. This text is preserved in the famous Vespasian Psalter (London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. i (PCanterbury, s. viii 1 ; later provenance St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury)).5 As far as I can ascertain, however, there has been no critical acknowledgement of the full significance of the verbal parallels in question for establishing the influence of Old Latin scripture on Daniel. Cotton Vespasian A. i is perhaps the most important of our early witnesses to the Old Latin-based texts of the Roman psalter and its canticularium. It will be demonstrated in the next chapter that the readings of the copy of Canticum trium puerorum in Vespasian A. i are those of one of several Greek-derived texts of the canticle found in Roman psalters. A connection securely drawn between the texts of these canticles and Daniel offers previously overlooked proof of Old Latin influence on the latter. The defining characteristic of Old Latin scripture, as noted, is its direct reliance on the readings of Greek texts, in contrast to Jerome's Vulgate text, which was revised in the light of its editor's recourse to Hebrew sources. The observations set out so far thus collectively raise the question of the extent of the borrowing in the Junius Daniel from Greek scriptural tradition. The proper assessment of this debt forms the central concern of the present chapter. Neither the broad claim for an Old Latin source for Daniel nor the specific evidence adduced by nineteenth- and twentiethcentury scholars in support of their hypotheses regarding the Old Latin has ever received careful scrutiny. Indeed, in the absence of any systematic research into the question, the enthusiasm with which critics have greeted the notion that Daniel follows an Old Latin source is remarkable. The text of the Vulgate, as we have seen, has been adduced most often in discussions of the sources of Genesis and Exodus. By contrast, the theory of See CLA II, 21 (no. 193); CLLA, pp. 580-1 (no. 1612); Gneuss, Hymnar und Hymneny pp. 17-19; Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C.I 1.6); Gneuss, 'List', p. 26 (no. 381); and Esaiasy ed. Gryson II, 834-5 (no. 372). The text has been edited in Vespasian Psalter, ed. Kuhn, p. 156; see also P. Mertens-Fonck, A Glossary of the Vespasian Psalter and Hymns (Brit. Mus. Ms. Cotton Vespasian A 1) with a Latin—Mercian Index I: the Verb, Bibliotheque de la Faculte de philosophic et lettres de l'Universite de Liege 154 (Paris, I960) and The Vespasian Psalter: British Museum, Cotton Vespasian A. /., ed. and introd. D. H. Wright, with a contribution on the gloss by A. Campbell, facs. ed., EEMF 14 (Copenhagen, 1967).

232

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition

Old Latin and, by implication, Greek influence on Daniel spans the entire history of scholarship on the poem. The analysis set out below offers the first systematic comparison of the special features of Daniel with readings from genuinely early witnesses to the non-Vulgate biblical texts of the book of Daniel. These include both the earliest Greek text of Daniel properly ascribed to the canon of the Septuagint and that of the so-called Theodotionic revision. (These two discrete and very different texts are often confused, since the Theodotionic version regularly circulated with books of the Septuagint proper in the Middle Ages.6) In addition, the present study takes note of surviving fragments of Old Latin texts as well as liturgical extracts from the book of Daniel transmitted apart from the main currents of the textual tradition of the Vulgate. 7 All of these materials are addressed below under the broad rubric of 'Greek scriptural tradition'. 8 (The phrase 'non-Vulgate tradition' may offer a more precise if no less awkward alternative.) The argumentation set out in this chapter and the next draws in roughly equal measures on literary, source-historical and codicological evidence. The final result is intended to provide a new For an introduction to the various Greek and Latin versions of the book of Daniel, see below, 289—91. Broadly considered, all continuous Old Latin texts of the book of Daniel and all independently circulating, non-Vulgate forms of the Song of the Three must be viewed first and foremost as Latin reflexes of Greek sources. The body of Greek and Latin texts discussed in the present chapter formed a bridge between the earliest, Aramaic and Hebrew texts of Daniel, where they existed, and the Latin versions which prevailed in the western churches of the Middle Ages. It is possible, moreover, that several of the apocryphal (or deuterocanonical) additions to the book of Daniel were originally composed in Greek. For a summary of surviving witnesses to the Old Latin text of Daniel, see below, pp. 302-4. The adjective 'Greek' is used here perforce in a slightly awkward sense to describe a range of scriptural traditions arising in communities that rimmed the Mediterranean in the pre-Christian and early Christian centuries. (For purposes of the present discussion, it is of secondary concern whether certain centres might be identified more precisely as West Asian, North African, Near or Middle Eastern or, in an ecclesiastical sense, Byzantine communities.) Caution must therefore be observed, as the Greek texts and Latin reflexes that demand consideration arose in a variety of milieux. It is by no means clear, moreover, that any absolute distinction between Greek and Latin (or eastern and western) sources can be sustained in a discussion of the derivation of Old English biblical verse, including Daniel. Plainly put, a significant proportion of the matter of Daniel that was available to western Christians exclusively in Greek versions during the early Middle Ages had given rise to Latin reflexes by the Anglo-Saxon period.

233


elucidation of the received text of Daniel that may account for the bulk of its episodic idiosyncrasies in a manner that is both plausible and economical. Two possible objections to a search for Greek sources in Daniel must be acknowledged at the outset. First, evidence for competence in the Greek language in Anglo-Saxon England is limited at all periods. Second, the very structure of the Theodotionic version of Daniel, the Greek text achieving the widest circulation throughout the Middle Ages, would suggest that any view of Daniel as a continuous versification of an Old Latin translation of this version is highly doubtful.10 The Theodotionic version of Daniel includes as its first chapter the exceptionally popular deuterocanonical text known as Historia Susannae, a lively narrative recounting the young lawyer Daniel's defence of Susanna, a pious Jew (resident in Babylon), who is accused of sexual misconduct by two corrupt judges.11 Susanna's story appears in Theodotionic scripture as the first of the unbroken series of 'visions' — encompassing even the chapters elsewhere identified as 'histories', that is, Daniel I—VI — that constitute that version's distinctive arrangement of the text. The story is no mere appendage to the book of Daniel. As the first in the series of visions it is integral to the very structure of the book. The prominent placement of the text in Theodotionic scripture is reproduced in surviving Old Latin sources. The 9 10

11

12

See below, pp. 330-2. See Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 9-11, and Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 35-50 and 56. See Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 420-39, and Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 5-6, 8 and 99, and Daniel, trans, and introd. Moore, pp. 77-116. See also D. De Bruyne, 'Deux notes sur les prophetes en ecriture onciale provenant de Constance', RB 43 (1931), 159-60, at 159, for the structural position of the apocryphon in collections of Old Latin scripture. This can be seen clearly in the Old Latin text preserved in Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 1398b (Pnorthern Italy, s.ix/x), p. 151, where the words 'incipit Daniel' precede Historia Susannae and the phrase 'I explicit: incipit IF precedes the verse corresponding to the modern Dan. I.I; see Dold, 'Die vorhieronymische Prophetentexte', pp. 250-2. In the early Middle Ages, Daniel was, above all, viewed as a book of visions. A conspicuous feature in Latin texts of Daniel is the frequent recurrence of the term visio and its equivalents, which is employed more than thirty times, for example, in the Vulgate. See discussion by Bogaert, 'Le temoignage de la Vetus Latina', pp. 384-95. Scholars of Old English biblical verse, however, have long recognized the marked divergence of Daniel from the tradition of interpretation that treats the biblical text as a book of visions. See, for example, Caie, 'Old English Daniel', p. 1, who notes

234


absence of any allusion to Susanna in the poetic Daniel would seem prima facie to rule out the possibility of viewing the poem as a continuous rendition of the most common medieval form of the Old Latin text of the book of Daniel. An additional objection might centre on the poem's marked divergence from the early medieval exegetical tradition that also viewed Daniel primarily as a collection of visions. This tradition finds its locus classicus in the standard configuration of the Theodotionic Greek text and its derivatives. Finally, the absence of an extant Anglo-Saxon copy of an Old Latin text of Daniel derivative of the Septuagint proper, or of another Greek version, such as the Theodotionic text, might well be regarded as an argumentum ex silentio against viewing Daniel as a rendition of such a source. And we must reckon further with the evident prevalence of the Vulgate in England through all attested phases of Anglo-Saxon literary history. Despite the objections raised above to the likelihood of the direct influence of Greek (or Greek-derived) texts on the verse of Daniel, a systematic comparison of the content of the poem with Greek and Old Latin sources remains a desideratum. The conjectures of Hofer and Farrell, if they could be substantiated, would establish Daniel as a unique witness to the circulation of continuous Greek or Greek-derived texts of Daniel in Anglo-Saxon England. Moreover, almost every critic of Daniel has noted the poem's frequent divergence from the model of Vulgate scripture. It remains to be seen how well this divergence can be explained by recourse to non-Vulgate biblical texts and other Greek-influenced

13

14

that the poem 'omits most of the prophecies on which Jerome concentrates in his Commentari{t] in Danielem . The Old English versification more often addresses the ethical and historical ramifications of the episodes it treats. Generally speaking, the ethos of the Old English Daniel shows affinities with a well-defined body of medieval exegesis that is concerned mainly with political and historiographical aspects of the court-tales of the book of Daniel. See below, pp. 240-52. It might be maintained that Daniel has been rendered incomplete at its beginning by the removal of the deuterocanonical material on Susanna. But this is doubtful in view of a carefully structured exordium at the start of the poem and the inclusion of deuterocanonical material later in the account of the three youths in the fiery furnace. See below, pp. 241 with n. 25, 291^4 and 310-13. The verse of Daniel exhibits notably restrained treatments of the most prominent visions in the biblical text of Daniel I—V. The poem omits nearly all of the imagery of Nebuchadnezzar's first dream of the statue and the miraculous inscription of the Writing on the Wall at Belshazzar's feast. Additionally, the poem drastically alters the content of the central vision of Daniel IV, Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the tree.

235


Latin sources. In developing their conjectures regarding the possible influence of Old Latin readings on the poem, both Farrell and Hofer succeeded in identifying some undeniably striking parallels between certain passages in Daniel and Greek sources. These include various works of early Greek biblical exegesis as well as items of biblical lore (such as the tradition that an obscure king ascended to the rule of Babylon between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar) that circulated in the works of Greek encyclopaedists. Taken together, these observations — despite the sometimes questionable conclusions that have been drawn from them — raise enough doubts about the exclusively Vulgate derivation of the poem to justify the inquiry that follows. The present chapter attempts to provide a new approach to the problems sketched out above by reformulating the main question. We should no longer ask whether Daniel draws directly on a single, continuous Old Latin exemplar. Rather, we should consider whether the various occurrences of extrabiblical detail in the poem might be adduced collectively to show that the composition of Daniel — and, perhaps, certain stages in its transmission as well — took place in one or more Anglo-Saxon centres where traditions of biblical learning derived from Greek texts might be communicated to vernacular poets. Apart from the learned interlocutor, liturgical works, sermons, school-texts and biblical exegesis perhaps have the strongest claims to consideration as possible channels for the transmission of exotic traditions of biblical learning in Anglo-Saxon England. And the possibility that some poets may have been familiar with continuous Old Latin texts should not be ruled out of the question. No final judgement, however, will be offered here concerning the large question of the relative frequency of such Greek or Old Latin materials in these various sources. The main intention of the following survey is to establish the extent of observable parallels between Daniel and surviving early medieval texts witnessing the Greek scriptural tradition.

THE BIBLICAL SOURCES OF DANIEL: THE STATE OF THE QUESTION

As noted above, Hofer's nineteenth-century study cites apparent points of lexical and narrative congruence between several Greek passages in the book of Daniel and the Old English poem of the same name. Hofer offers one or two examples from nearly every major episode of Daniel I-V 236


treated in the poem. These include the initial accounts of the arrival of Daniel and his three friends at the Babylonian court; the darkly portentous dream experienced by Nebuchadnezzar, which occasions Daniel's first recorded feat of interpretation; the Babylonian ruler's idol-building on the plain of Dura; the tribulation of the three youths; and Nebuchadnezzar's second dream of the tree and ensuing madness in the wilderness. Hofer concluded that the verse of Daniel as we have it is founded in toto on an Old Latin exemplar. Hofer's conclusions, though ignored almost entirely since the 1920s, attracted supporters in the decades immediately following their publication, when Edward Fulton and Wilhelm Schmidt reasserted the Old Latin derivation of Daniel}** Israel Gollancz, while offering no specific comment on the question of Old Latin influence, noted the essentials of Hofer's analysis in the introduction to the 1927 British Academy facsimile of Junius 11. 7 Problematically, while Hofer refers to the Greek source of the hypothetical Latin exemplar of Daniel as 'Septuaginta', all of his citations of Greek scripture reproduce a text from the Theodotionic revision rather than that of the older Greek text of the Septuagint proper. Perhaps Hofer meant to refer to the Theodotionic version, reproducing a text which he found printed among the canon of the Septuagint, and identified his text by the title printed on the volume before him. Such problems in the handling of sources do not inspire confidence in the fairly spectacular conclusion that Hofer draws regarding the date of Daniel. He maintains that the use of an Old Latin exemplar places the composition of the poem before the middle of the ninth century, arguing that its rendition of a Latin text that fell out of general use in the wake of the

15

16

Hofer, 'Entstehung', pp. 169-73 and 193-5. The specific examples adduced by Hofer are examined below, pp. 304-11. See E. Fulton, The Anglo-Saxon Daniel', MLN 16 (1901), 61-2, at 61, n. 1, and W. Schmidt, in Die altenglischen Dicbtungen Daniel und Azarias, ed. Schmidt, p. 2. The possible influence of the earlier Greek text of the 'Septuagint' is also noted by Sarrazin, Von Kddmon bis Kynewulf, p. 43Gollancz, while referring once to 'apocryphal matter included in the Vulgate' (Ccedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz, p. lxxxv), appears to accept Hofer's arguments for the use of a continuous Old Latin text, acknowledging (pp. lxxxvii—lxxxviii) the affinities of lines 362—408 of Daniel to the text of Canticum trium puerorum preserved in the Vespasian Psalter.

237


Carolingian reforms offers sure evidence of a pre-Alfredian origin. 18 Despite the gravity of this conclusion regarding the poem's date, Hofer offers no clue — other than a brief allusion to the modern Breviarium Romanum in connection with the canticle — as to the specific type of document he takes to have provided an Old Latin model for Daniel, and none of his followers elaborate on this initial speculation. A long hiatus in work on Daniel followed Hofer and his immediate successors. The bibliography of Greenfield and Robinson lists no study exclusively devoted to the poem appearing between 1907 and 1966. But Hofer's observations, as noted earlier, find independent support in a study by Robert T. Farrell published in 1968, who also posits an Old Latin model for Daniel and argues, again in line with Hofer's conjectures, that the availability of an Old Latin exemplar indicates a ninth-century terminus ante quern for the composition of the poem. Farrell maintains that 'Old Latin versions of the Old Testament would have been most common in English and Irish churches up to the ninth century, though readings from the Vulgate would have influenced these texts more and more as time went on.' 19 Farrell, moreover, is the first scholar to speculate about the codicology of the scriptural document held to stand behind the poem. Describing the arrangement of texts in the hypothetical scriptural exemplar of Daniel, Farrell envisages a single, continuous copy of a Latin text of the book of Daniel in a full Bible, commencing with matter corresponding to the modern chapters I-V of the book and including texts 18

19

Hofer's thesis is stated in unambiguous terms: 'Die angefuhrten Ubereinstimmungen beweisen also, class unserem Gedichte als Quelle Septuaginta diente, welche lateinisch iibersetzt als Versio antiqua Latina, oder Vetus Latina, oder Itala vor der Vulgata im Gebrauche der Kirche war. Im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert nun wurde diese Vetus Latina von des Hieronymus' Bibeliibersetzung mehr und mehr verdrangt, welche ihrerseits von der Mitte des ^. Jahrhunderts ab ausschliesslich iiblich war. Dieser letzte Zeitpunkt ist demnach als ausserster terminus ad quern fur die Entstehung unseres Gedichtes anzusetzen' (Hofer, 'Entstehung', pp. 194-5). (Punctuation and capitalization in this and subsequent citations of nineteenth-century German studies have been adapted to conform to modern conventions.) Farrell, 'Structure', p. 535 with n. 2. Farrell cites Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, in support of his dating of the Old Latin. Although Farrell includes the title of Hofer's study once (in the bibliography in Daniel, ed. Farrell, p. 101), his opinions on these points appear to be independently derived. Additional remarks on the Old Latin basis of Daniel are given by Farrell, 'Unity', p. 123 with n. 3, and in Daniel, ed. Farrell, p. 24 with n. 63.

238

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition of both the Prayer of Azarias and Song of the Three Youths. 20 Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell precisely what reading of biblical texts led to this opinion. Farrell notes that 'there are fragments of the Old Latin Book of Daniel extant, collected by Alban Dold' but cites no readings from the texts established by Dold, nor does he cite the handful of witnesses collected in the eighteenth century by Sabatier.21 This state of affairs has left Daniel scholars who would depend on received opinion for their knowledge of the poem's biblical sources in a fairly precarious position, since it is evident that neither Hofer nor Farrell made any extensive use of either Greek or surviving Old Latin texts in developing their arguments. Nevertheless, their conjectures regarding the Old Latin have had a salutary effect on Daniel scholarship by encouraging critics to treat the questions of the source of the poem with caution.22 Also disconcerting is the fact that the configuration of prose and verse attributed by Farrell to his hypothetical exemplar, commencing with Daniel I—V and including both of the recitations ascribed to Azarias and his companions, seems virtually indistinguishable from the arrangement found in the Vulgate. 23 The most telling indication of the state of the question regarding the biblical sources of Daniel, however, may be seen in the fact that virtually all Daniel scholars - including Hofer and Farrell - have invariably continued to cite the text of the Vulgate in their studies of the poem. Daniel, ed. Farrell, p. 24; Farrell here remarks that although 'it is not possible to state with assurance that the OE poet had a version of the Vulgate as his source, it is almost certain that the text of the Bible given to him would have included both of the songs'. Farrell, 'Structure', p. 535. The single monograph cited by Farrell, Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten- und Evangelien-Brucbstucke, ed. Dold, includes a fraction of the

23

surviving texts. The eighteenth-century collection in question is Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier. Manuscripts witnessing to the Old Latin text of Daniel are listed in Vetus Latina Hispana I, ed. Ayuso, p. 222; see also below, pp. 302-4. It should also be acknowledged that reliable editions of extant Old Latin witnesses to Daniel have never been readily available to Daniel scholars. The Old Latin text has yet to be treated among the volumes of Vetus Latina, ed. Fischer et al. Apart from the Vulgate model, the older Greek version of the book of Daniel in the Septuagint is thought to have ceased to circulate by c. 400. Perhaps Farrell was thinking of an Old Latin text following the hexaplaric Greek recension of Origen. The circulation of this recension was extremely restricted in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and no complete Old Latin translation survives, but the hexaplaric text would evince a configuration of matter similar to that described by Farrell.

239


Farrell justifies the practice with his statement that 'a comparison of the extant fragments of the Old Latin with the Vulgate reveals no difference in the order of events or in other essentials'. 24 Thus, now as ever, there seems to be a consensus that the biblical source of Daniel (whether assumed to be Old Latin or Vulgate) is best taken for granted. Accordingly, most studies of Daniel issued over the past fifty years have addressed the extrabiblical content of the poem. The majority of comments to date have considered Daniel's departures from the Vulgate model: the concise rhetoric in the poem's speeches, the uninterrupted flow of incident in its narration and its rare stylistic flourishes. Above all, the ethical dimension of the poem has attracted an enormous amount of attention, particularly in the portraits of a proud and idolatrous Nebuchadnezzar and of Daniel as an embodiment of good counsel. The verse of Daniel undoubtedly performs its own sort of exegesis on the biblical narrative, as evinced by the poem's explicit comments on a variety of ethical thematic concerns. It may prove useful to review the main conclusions of recent scholarship on the thematic element in Daniel before undertaking a textual analysis of possible Vulgate and Greek sources. As we shall see, the ethical dimension of the poem provides an important key to interpreting Daniel as a peculiarly Anglo-Saxon response to scripture emerging before the year 1000 in some as yet unknown Christian locale. Moreover, the poem's apparent parallels with Greek and Old Latin texts of Daniel, to be set out below, often involve variation in content and emphasis whose significance is best evaluated in the light of the didactic argument of the verse. EXTRABIBLICAL ASPECTS OF

DANIEL

The immediate objection to proposals championing a single biblical source for Daniel is that the poem constitutes anything but a sequential, literal-minded paraphrase of Old Testament scripture. Simply stated, with the single exception of the concise rendition of the Song of the Three, no section of Daniel offers the sort of close biblical paraphrase observed in, say, the genealogical sections of Genesis A. In short, the occasionally diffuse text of Daniel might seem to belie the possibility that a single biblical exemplar of any kind, let alone an Old Latin one, stands behind its text. Beyond the nuance of its versification, however, the episodic structure Farrell, 'Structure', p. 535. Given dissimilarities observed among the Greek and Old Latin passages set out below, this position perhaps requires a stronger defence.

240


of Daniel adheres fairly closely to the model of the first five chapters of its Old Testament namesake. The poem presents none of the problems of continuity observed, for example, in the opening sections of Genesis A, or throughout Exodus. Moreover, the material treated in the extant verse of the poem coincides precisely with the sequence of episodes that treat the reigns of the Babylonian rulers in scripture, forming a discrete unit among the so-called 'histories' which, in the modern configuration of the text, occupy the first six of the twelve chapters of the book of Daniel (contrasting with the Visions' of the book's second half).25 These features of the poem encouraged an initial impression among early critics that Daniel comprises a fairly unremarkable versification of biblical narrative. In 1907, Francis Blackburn characterized the poem as offering little more than a routine exercise in biblical paraphrase, stating confidently that Daniel follows the scriptural account 'rather closely and to the exclusion of all outside matter'. Twenty years later, Israel Gollancz could still characterize the poem, including the rendition of the Song of the Three, as a 'paraphrase of the book of Daniel'. Given the many points of divergence from the words of scripture in Daniel outlined in studies of the second half of this century, to be elaborated below, these comments appear, at least in retrospect, to betray a pattern of critical nonchalance which deserves some explanation. The short answer is that by maintaining the narrative sequence of Daniel I-V the poem offers something that is rarely encountered in homiletic or exegesis - a concise, sequential retelling of a biblical story without any major episodic digressions. The verse of Daniel, then, may appear intended to provide an approximate rendition of its main biblical sources, to constitute (in a sense) a paraphrase of the continuous Old Testament scripture. But at least since the appearance in 1959 of Bernard F. Huppe's groundbreaking 'Augustinian' reading of Daniel, it has been widely recognized that the poem also 25

On the structure of the book of Daniel, see Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 2 4 - 5 , 35-7 and 5 2 - 6 1 , and A. Lenglet, 'La structure litteraire de Daniel 2-7', Biblica 53 (1972), 169-90. Exodus and Daniel, ed. Blackburn, p. xix; cf. also Ccedmoris Exodus and Daniel Edited from Grein, ed. T. W. Hunt (Boston, 1883), p. 13, for a characterization of the poem as 'a faithful paraphrase of the first five chapters of the book of Daniel'. See also Caie, 'Old English Daniel'y p. 1, for a dismissal of the view that Daniel offers little more than 'an unimaginative, prosaic paraphrase of the first five chapters of the biblical Daniel'; cf. Anderson, 'Style and Theme', pp. 6—7. See Ccedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz, p. lxxxviii.

241


possesses a cogent and carefully delineated ethical argument that is arguably extrabiblical in origin. The case for any direct or pervasive influence of the theology of Augustine (or any other early medieval biblical exegete) on the content of Daniel remains unproven, but David Jost conveyed what has now become the nearly unanimous opinion of critics who have studied the poem's thematic content in asserting that the 'Daniel poet did not compose a strictly literal paraphrase of Daniel 1—5\28 Nearly every critic would now accept that Daniel embodies extrabiblical comments on moral issues ranging from the sins of pride and inebriation to the virtues (and necessity) of conversion. This dramatic reversal of critical opinion reflects a genuine advance in the understanding of the poem that has occurred in the second half of the present century. Daniel supplies some of the most notable moments in the Junius collection — or, for that matter, the entire Old English corpus — of passages where the extraction of moral meaning from a biblical text is explicitly sounded. Four brief examples may suffice to establish the point. The book of Daniel contains a laconic chronographical allusion to the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar ('in anno secundo regni Nabuchodonosor'). The poem, however, explicitly records the tyrant's moral failings: 'No he ae fremede, / ac in oferhygde / aeghwaes lifde.' Further, where the Vulgate account refers only briefly to the virtues of the captives from Israel, the Old English rendition celebrates their lineage and constant faith: Da waeron aeSelum Abrahames beam, waeron waerfaeste; wiston drihten ecne uppe. 28

29 30

Jost, 'Biblical Sources', p . 262. The 'others' mentioned by Jost include Farrell, Shippey and Whitney. For a recent discussion of Daniel containing many valuable references to earlier scholarship, see Anderson, 'Style and Theme'. Even critics who have taken issue with specific interpretations of Daniel offered by critics from Huppe to Farrell, such as Finnegan, have discerned a prominent didactic argument in the poem. Anderson, 'Style and Theme', p . 7, for example, contrasts the didactic verse of Daniel with the meditative content of the Advent lyrics, whose style he terms 'illuminative'. Dan. II. 1: 'In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar'. Dan 106b-107: 'He [i.e. Nebuchadnezzar} did not uphold the Old Law and he always lived in pride.' Translations of Daniel generally follow the rendition by R. T. Farrell, 'Old English Daniel: a Translation Based on a Reconsideration of the Text, with Notes and Commentary' (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Fordham Univ., 1968), with abstr. in DA(1) 29A (1969), 2 6 7 1 - 2 , but I remain responsible for errors and infelicities. Dan 193—5a: 'These were children of Abraham in lineage, faithful to the Covenant; they knew the eternal Lord on high.'

242


The first mention of Belshazzar in the poem adduces the sin of pride as the cause of the Babylonian ruler's downfall: Waes Baldazar weold wera rices oferhyd egle.

burga aldor, o5J)aet him wlenco gesceod,

Whatever doubts we may harbour regarding the cogency of some of the arguments advanced by exegetically informed (or 'neo-exegetical') critics of Old English poetry, it is clear that the critical tendency to discern an ethical or didactic dimension in Daniel represents more than a case of collective wishful thinking. 33 Some familiarity with the thematic concerns of Daniel is essential for an understanding of the patterns of addition, omission and alteration that will be established below when its verse is compared with Vulgate, Old Latin and Greek biblical texts. To this end, some of the major themes treated in the poem may be reviewed briefly. Theme and structure in Daniel: binaristic opposition and narrative process

Enough studies have appeared since 1950 addressing the thematic content of Daniel to permit the identification of two broad and largely incompatible schools of criticism. One school favours a lexical approach and has been concerned mainly with the identification of binary couplings of terms or concepts that stand in opposition: humility (represented by Daniel and other refugees from Judah) versus pride (mainly charged to Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians); loyalty to the Covenant (and the Lord) versus idolatry; good counsel versus drunkenness or foolishness; observance of the Old Law versus the 'devil-worship' of the Gentiles. This line of inquiry has traditionally stressed the analysis of lexical data and the establishment of groups of related terms pertaining to the concepts in question. 35 An obvious criticism of the 'binaristic' approach to Daniel is that it promotes a rigid, 'static', and arguably insensitive interpretation of the poem. It

33

35

Dan 676—8a: 'Belshazzar was a ruler of cities, he controlled the kingdom of men until his pride overcame him, his loathsome arrogance.' On 'neo-exegetical' criticism, see above, pp. 8-9 with n. 12 and 23, n. 36. See Anderson, 'Style and Theme', esp. pp. 1 and 23. See the studies of Farrell, 'Structure', Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel' and Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews'.

243


ignores the fact that contents of the poem are mainly conveyed in a narrative mode. The broad sweep of Daniel follows the progress of the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar through a series of visions and on to salvation. It traces the course of ancient empires from the fall of Jerusalem through the period of Babylonian ascendancy to the legendary conquests of the Medes and Persians. The movement (or, in the terminology of modern rhetoricians, 'process') of the narrative in these episodes constitutes what has most often been termed the 'dynamic' element in Daniel. There are three broad thematic areas that bear directly on questions concerning the treatment of source-material in the poem. Abasement of the proud in Daniel

The sin of pride (superbia) is perhaps the single ethical concern that sounds most clearly in both the Junius Daniel and its biblical source. The concluding words of the Vulgate text of Daniel IV are 'omnia opera eius uera et uiae eius iudicia et gradientes in superbis potest humiliare'. 7 It must thus be borne in mind when reading Daniel that the emphasis on the theme of pride in the poem does not strictly qualify as an extrabiblical moralization. This single biblical mention of superbia in connection with Nebuchadnezzar's fallen state, however, gives rise to no fewer than fifteen passages in the Old English versification charging the tyrant with the sin of pride. These denunciations invoke a carefully deployed matrix of Old English terms such as wlenco and oferhygd. The poem's concern with

37

For a discussion of 'static' and 'dynamic' elements in Daniel, see Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel', p. 194. Dan. IV.34(37): 'All His works are true and His course judicious and humbling to those who walk in pride.' (Variant verse-numbers in references to Daniel III and IV may be used to locate corresponding verses in certain editions of the Greek texts of the Septuagint and the Theodotionic version.) Godden, 'Biblical Literature', p. 223, notes that Nebuchadnezzar is also 'seen as a figure of grandiose pride in Alfred's Pastoral Care. J. G. Gammie, in his articles 'The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions of the Book of Daniel', JBL 95 (1976), 191-204, and 'On the Intention', p. 284, notes passages in other Old Testament books invoking the theme of God's treatment of kings guilty of the sin of pride. Sarrazin, Von Kddmon bis Kynewulf, p. 42, made an interesting attempt to draw a connection between the amplified accounts of Nebuchadnezzar's pride and the reigns of the 'proud kings' Ceolred and Osred in the early eighth century, which he uses to date the poem to the period 700-20. But this hypothesis is clearly not susceptible of

244


pride, however, is by no means limited to allusions to Nebuchadnezzar. All told, charges of pride are raised in Daniel against three different groups: the Israelite nation, viewed in its period of decline (Dan 16a); Nebuchadnezzar and his court of idolaters (106b-107, 297b-299,488b-489, 492-4 and 612—14), and Belshazzar and the guests at his feast (especially at lines 695-711 and 743-64). The most striking instance of the evocation of the theme of superbia in Daniel may be found in the explicit contrast drawn between the role of pride in the destruction of Jerusalem (recalled at the end of the poem in a vivid reminiscence of the plundering of Solomon's temple) and the fall of Babylon. These parallel passages serve to form an effective literary frame or 'envelope* for the versification of the historical narrative.39 Not surprisingly, Graham Caie, in his analysis of the theme of pride in the poem, concludes that 'Daniel is . . . unified in theme and structure, and . . . the implicit moral lesson concerns the danger of superbia, the origin of all sins.' 40 The Old English account, however, also charges its various subjects with other misdeeds, drunkenness and idolatry perhaps foremost among them. l (See, for example, Dan 17b winpege and 18b druncne ge&ohtas\ 18a deofoldcedum and 32b deofles craft; and so on.

) The

important point here is that Daniel, in its ethical stance, addresses a wide spectrum of single misdemeanours. While the presence of a didactic element in Daniel is not in question, it is perhaps less clear that these moral concerns are arranged

40 41

proof. On Nebuchadnezzar's pride, see also the comments of B. Ten Brink, Geschicbte derenglischen Litteratur, ed. A. Brandl, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Strassburg, 1893-9) I, 5 4 - 5 . For discussion of the balanced accounts of the desecration of the temple and the reminiscence at the end of the poem, see Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 179. Moreover, Neil Isaacs has argued (convincingly, to my mind) that the handling of the episodes in Daniel manifests a carefully deployed and nearly symmetrical pattern of rhetorical 'doubling'; see his Structural Principles, pp. 145-51. There can be little doubt that lines 224—82 of Daniel serve to complement lines 333—61. Caie, 'Old English Daniel', p. 1. Again, three separate parties - the Israelites, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar - are all charged explicitly in Daniel with drunken behaviour. For a discussion of the theme of inebriation in Daniel, see Hofer, 'Entstehung', pp. 197—9, and Anderson, 'Style and Theme', p. 9, with references. Both scholars draw comparisons with feasting scenes in Judith. Charges of witchcraft or devil-worship {wiccingdom, deofles craft, etc.) are raised in Daniel against four separate groups: the fallen Israelites; the Chaldean rovers who initiate the sack of Jerusalem; the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar; and Belshazzar and his court. On the witchcraft theme, see also Farrell, 'Structure', pp. 544-5.

245


systematically. There is no matrix of terms relating to humility to balance out the allusions to pride. Indeed, the confessor Azarias is said to be dceda georn ('eager for [glorious] deeds'), a heroic epithet, and there is no reflex in the poem of a form of the Old English eadmod ('humble [one]'), one of the few terms that can be confidently attributed to the glosses of the reconstructed exemplar of Canticum trium puerorum. Nor is there any attempt, say, to reproduce all of the seven deadly sins or to praise sobriety in contrast to inebriation. In short, critical attempts to establish the deployment of regular patterns of binaristic opposition in Daniel as the poem's characteristic didactic strategy may appear excessively reductive. Moreover, as we shall see, all of the individual concerns cited here (pride, drunkenness and idolatry) receive greater emphasis in Greek scripture than in the Vulgate, a clue to be borne in mind when weighing evidence for sources. The figures of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar

The poem Daniel did not receive its modern title until the nineteenth century. The title seems to be a reasonable choice insofar as the poem offers a versification of Daniel I—V but may appear less appropriate if taken as a specific reference to its characterization of the prophet Daniel. As several critics have pointed out, the figure of the prophet is subordinated in the poem to that of Nebuchadnezzar. The depiction of Nebuchad-

45

Solo, 'Twice-Told Tale', p. 363, and several other commentators have suggested that Daniel develops its treatment of the themes of pride and drunkenness in the light of the frequently encountered etymology of Babylon as confusio (moral confusion). But I find no direct indication of this in the text. Isaacs, Structural Principles\ p. 145, states succinctly that 'Daniel is an episodic-narrative exemplum on the sin of pride and the virtue of humble obedience' (italics his). See a summary of similar positions taken by Bernard Huppe (arguing from wordplay), John Gardner and Alvin Lee, with a rejoinder by Anderson, 'Style and Theme', pp. 7—8. The term eadmodheorte ('those humble of heart') does appear at Az 152, but the assertion of Kirkland and Modlin, 'Art of Azarias, p. 10, that 'the virtue of humble obedience to God' is the 'basic theme' of Azarias (and so, it would seem, the corresponding passage in Daniel) seems inconclusive. The case is put most forcefully by Caie, 'Old English Daniel', p. 2: 'Daniel's role is the very minor one of spelboda, the official interpreter of God's ways to Nebuchadnezzar. He is not mentioned among the oeSele cnihtas ([Dan] 89[a: "noble young men"]) who were sent from amongst the youth of Israel to be trained as the king's advisors (91-2), and he appears only briefly at line 150 and on two other occasions in order to interpret God's signs. The emphasis has shifted from Daniel to the proud, prosperous

246


nezzar as a figure of sin (traced above) lays the ground for the poem's full account of his conversion to the God of the Israelites. In a clear case of oppositive characterization — albeit one that has its immediate source in the biblical account — Daniel emerges in the poem as a figure of judgement and good counsel. The first mention of the prophet by name in the Old English account is typical: Daniel to dome, snotor and sodfaest.47

. . . witga cwom, se waes drihtne gecoren,

Collocations of poetic vocabulary running through the entire poem further celebrate the prophet's acumen, drawing on terms relating to counsel and wisdom {rcedy wisdom, lar, etc.) and law and covenant (ce, war, etc.). Daniel's virtues are construed as qualities of his people as a whole, as are Nebuchadnezzar's failings.

48

Nebuchadnezzar whose name alone is capitalized in the manuscript (618) and who . . . is undoubtedly the central figure in the poem.' Some caution should be observed on this point, however, as it has recently been argued that the unnamed councillor (raswa) who delivers an important speech to the ruler at the point of his conversion is Daniel himself; see J. A. George, 'Daniel 416-29: an "Identity Crisis" Resolved?', MJE 60 (1991), 73-6. The vagueness of referents in Daniel precludes any final judgement; see below, p. 277 with n. 138. Dan 149b—151a: '. . . a wise man came to judgement, Daniel, who was favoured by God, a wise a truthful man'. See also Dan 531—7 and 546—50 for expansive summaries of Daniel's virtuous qualities. For a discussion of the figure of Daniel in scriptural sources, see J. Day, 'The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the Book of Daniel', VT 30 (1980), 174-84, LaCocque, Daniel in his Time, pp. 182-98, and the excursus 'The Skill of the Wise Courtier' by Collins, in his Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 34-6. For a detailed analysis of the lexical evidence, see Farrell, 'Structure', pp. 541-3. See also Farrell, 'Structure', p. 548 (on reed) and pp. 549-52 (on ce and war). Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', pp. 215-16, discusses the terms ce and reed, arguing against Farrell's assertion of 'aette rices gehwaes eor5an dreamas,

so5 gecySed, re6e sceolde gelimpan, ende wurSan.

Anderson's central assertion thus appears to be tenable. The theme of translatio imperii is present in the text of Daniel and occurs precisely where its treatments in early medieval sources would lead us to expect it, in the narrative of Daniel II. But it is less clear whether the poem promotes this concern in order to eclipse all other themes.

5

For discussion of the compositional milieu of the biblical Daniel, see Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 33-8, H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York, 1948) and H. H. Rowley, 'The Composition of the Book of Daniel', VT 5 (1955), 272-6. On the elemental imagery of Daniel II, see the detailed excursus by Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentaryr, pp. 185—92; see further Davies, 'Daniel Chapter Two'. Dan 113—15: 'The truth was revealed to him in his sleep, that in each reign a cruel end should impinge on joys on earth.' Before leaving the subject of the thematic matter in Daniel, a theme (or central image) whose ethos is closely related to that of translatio imperii may be noted briefly: Godden, 'Biblical Literature', p. 224, states that one 'is also struck by the importance of the walled and secure city as a symbol in the poem'. Such a view also informs the remark

250


The same general points may be made concerning two other frequently discussed aspects of Daniel, the poem's syncretism and its treatment of the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar. The Old English account celebrates the fortitude of Daniel and his companions in maintaining their faith in the Lord of the Israelites while gaining political promotion under the tyranny of a pagan ruler. The possible significance of the poem's delineation of the lord—retainer relationship in both its divine and earthly manifestations has not been lost on students of Old English poetry. In his role as advisor to Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel fulfils the formal requirements of an Anglo-Saxon subject in a lord—retainer relationship. This syncretic theme seems to have given rise to certain patterns of vocabulary (dryhten, etc.) that run throughout the poem. But caution is necessary here. A consensus seems to have emerged in Daniel scholarship since 1950 that the fundamental purpose of the original biblical account is, itself, essentially syncretic (in strictly literary-historical terms). The biblical account provides a model of behaviour for Jews of the diaspora who wished to advance in social status without wavering in their faith to the monotheistic God. 59 The same may be said regarding the extraordinary account of the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel (and, as we shall see, some unique passages in the Greek text of the Septuagint). The period of so-called Hellenization in the second century BC that formed a backdrop to the codification of the book of Daniel saw the emergence of a proselytism through which by Finnegan, ' O l d English Daniel1', p . 2 0 4 , that 'Daniel, in a sense, is a p o e m about cities, about Jerusalem and Babylon. It is a work, as Robert Farrell suggests, in which the happiest state of m a n is an urban one.' Finnegan supports his view w i t h an analysis of such terms as burh ('fortress, city') and burhsittend ('city-dweller'). 57

Finnegan, ' O l d English Daniel', poem

is Nebuchadnezzar's

p p . 2 0 0 - 1 , maintains that the m a i n t h e m e of the

conversion.

See further

Overing,

'Nebuchadnezzar's

Conversion', and below, p p . 2 8 2 ^ 4 and 3 1 7 - 2 0 . 58

Farrell, 'Structure', p p . 5 4 5 - 7 , discusses this aspect of the poem's vocabulary, which he sees as essentially G e r m a n i c in character. See Kirkland and Modlin, 'Art of

Azarias\

p p . 12—13, on the relevance of the lord—retainer relationship to Daniel. 59

Davies, 'Daniel Chapter T w o ' , p p . 3 9 6 - 7 , discusses the book's suitability as a model for behaviour d u r i n g t h e diaspora. For further discussion of syncretic elements in the book of Daniel, see D . W . G o o d i n g , 'The Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel and its Implications', Tyndale Bull. 32 (1981), 4 3 - 7 9 , esp. at 4 8 . O n the status of the book of Daniel as a Maccabean pseudepigraph rather t h a n a contemporary witness to events of the sixth century B C , recognized as early as the t i m e of Porphyry, see P. M . Casey, 'Porphyry and the O r i g i n of the Book of Daniel', J T S ns 27 (1976), 1 5 - 3 3 .

251


Gentiles frequently came to acknowledge the truth of the Jewish religion and to join synagogues. The characterization of Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel is exemplary in this regard. Thus, while it will always remain tempting to speculate about the affective impact of these concerns on members of an Anglo-Saxon society that had in recent centuries seen a similar shift in official religion, it must be borne in mind that they involve the expansion of elements already present in the scriptural model and cannot properly be regarded as specifically Germanic innovations. DANIEL

AND THE TEXT OF THE VULGATE! A COMPARATIVE SURVEY

More than a half a dozen comparisons of the text of Daniel with the readings of the Vulgate have appeared to date. All of these studies conclude that the Old English versification departs from the Vulgate in many major and minor points, and none has succeeded in proving that the model for the Old English poem may be identified as Jerome's revision. Uncertainties about the biblical source of the poem notwithstanding, the text of Daniel deviates from the model of scripture in three major ways: it consolidates many repetitive biblical verses into single passages, elaborates certain laconic scriptural allusions and, in some cases, simply omits problematic details. The particulars of these changes are generally in line with the poem's handling of extrabiblical themes, as outlined above, and they will be discussed collectively at the end of this survey. It is my view, moreover, that questions of theme and content in Daniel cannot properly be considered apart from questions of style. Before embarking on a systematic comparison of the Old English Daniel and the Latin Vulgate it may thus prove useful to offer a few remarks on the main stylistic features of the verse of the former. Daniel has rarely, if ever, been adduced as offering a prime example of

0

See, for example, some cogent remarks in this regard by Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel', p. 199, n. 11.

62

Detailed remarks concerning the evident relationship of Daniel to the Vulgate appear in studies by Gotzinger, 'Uber die Dichtungen', pp. 29-34; Balg, 'Der Dichter Caedmon', pp. 27-8; Ebert, Allgemeine Geschicbte, pp. 2 1 ^ ; Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p. 214; and Anderson, 'Style and Theme', pp. 13—16. See below, pp. 291-5.

252

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition Old English alliterative prosody. Discussing the 'stark' and 'sparse' stylistic techniques employed in Daniel, Neil Isaacs remarks that at Very few points is there anything which can be analyzed profitably as imagery*. As Isaacs and others have affirmed, the pervasive sense of movement in Daniel reflects the poem's preference for narrative dynamism over static description and involves a wholesale elimination of incidental detail. 5 The nebulous style of Daniel sometimes seems to engender a certain amount of syntactic confusion as well. Surprisingly often, it is difficult to identify the subject or object of a sentence. As will become clear in a comparison of Daniel with the biblical text, it is often a frustrating exercise to search in the poem for traces of distinctive variants from Aramaic—Hebrew, Greek or Latin scripture, since in many cases the biblical passages find no counterpart of any sort in the Old English versification. A more profitable approach might involve comparison of the style of Daniel with the style of its biblical source. Here we may find a rationale for all three of the major aspects of stylistic recasting noted above (consolidation, expansion and omission). The principle of rhetorical doubling found in the Aramaic—Hebrew text involves the precise repetition of formulaic refrains in successive verses. This technique finds no equivalent in the Old English versification. While the text of Daniel misses no opportunity to point up the powerlessness of Nebuchadnezzar's pagan advisers, the call-and-refrain exchanges undertaken by the two parties in Daniel II and IV are nowhere in evidence. Rather, the poem greatly 3

5

7

For discussion of the style of Daniel, see Gotzinger, 'Uber die Dichtungen', pp. 30-2; Hofer, 'Entstehung'; Heinzel, Uber den Stil; and Isaacs, Structural Principles, pp. 145-8 and 151. Isaacs, Structural Principles, p. 146. Isaacs here notes in particular the omission of all details relating to Nebuchadnezzar's dream-vision of the statue. He concludes that 'the rush of incident seems to be the dominant trait of the Daniel-pott's style' (p. 151). Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p. 219, n. 20, notes the 'poet's practice of eliminating material from the scriptural account extraneous to his theme'. Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel, p. 205, comments on the poem's tendency to suspend 'the adequate referent of terms'. He continues: 'One is not sure, for example, who the witgan of {Dan] 41 b are, Israelites or Babylonians, until [line] 42a defines them as the latter.' See Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 175-6, 198, 201, etc. For further discussion of some of these doublets, see A. Jepsen, 'Bemerkungen zum Danielbuch', VT 11 (1961), 386-91.

253


expands a single exchange: the dialogue of Daniel with the Babylonian ruler. There is, however, one additional concern that greatly complicates this inquiry: the structure of the poem. It matters little whether we regard the received text of Daniel as an impromptu composition produced by an Anglo-Saxon poet in a single performance or as a composite text altered by scribes and redactors over the course of centuries. It is an undeniable fact that the structure of the poem corresponds closely to that of the nonTheodotionic (Aramaic-Hebrew, old Greek (Septuagint) and Vulgate) forms of Daniel I—V and that it embodies a rendition of the narrative content of those chapters that is notably sequential and in all essentials complete. This is to a large extent the source of the impression of early commentators such as Blackburn that the verse of Daniel amounts to unimaginative mimicry of the biblical narrative.69 However, the poem's diffuse, notably unbiblical mode of rendition is hard to reconcile with its sequential adherence to the scriptural model. The fairly contradictory critical impressions of Daniel summarized above have neglected implications for the study of the poem's sources. On the one hand, the ethical dimension of Daniel might be taken to suggest the influence of a tradition of sermons or biblical commentaries. But I know of no other expository treatment of the biblical material addressed in the poem that so assiduously preserves the rigidly sequential scriptural template evinced by the poem. This adherence to the basic sequence of Daniel I—V, in my opinion, provides the strongest evidence that some form of continuous biblical exemplar does in fact stand behind the Old English text and that many of the changes in emphasis noted above are best seen to represent ad hoc responses to this scriptural model. This conclusion, as the following comparisons with Latin and Greek scripture will show, remains tenable even if no final judgement can be offered as to whether the exemplar existed in some specific physical document. It is possible that the exemplar in question was simply a version, or a conflation of versions, of the matter of Daniel fixed in the mind of a biblically informed Anglo-Saxon Christian.

69

Even Anderson, 'Style and Theme', p. 23, while championing translatio imperil as the poem's controlling ethical concern, admits that '[a]bove all else, the poet aims for a faithful representation of the first five chapters of the Vulgate Daniel'. Anderson goes on to note, ibid., that 'faithful representation' is not the same as 'biblical paraphrase'. See above, pp. 240-1.

254

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition The fall of Jerusalem (Daniel I)

The first hundred or so lines of Daniel, generally speaking, treat the victory of Babylon over Israel. The opening passages of the poem have attracted more detailed critical scrutiny than any other section of its verse, with the possible exception of the episode of the three youths in the fiery furnace.70 The narrative sequence of these passages may be divided conveniently into three main parts: (1) a prefatory exordium of thirty-two lines recounting the rise and fall of Israel (Dan 1—32); (2) fifty-five lines given over to a detailed account of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem described in Daniel 1.1-2 (33-87); and (3) fifteen lines treating the arrival of the Israelite refugee Azarias and his companions at the court of Nebuchadnezzar (88—103), which do duty for the remainder of the contents of Daniel I. 71 Exordium on the fortunes of Israel

All of the thematic concerns identified in the foregoing discussion are present in the opening lines of Daniel. This observation is of some importance, as commentators since the inception of criticism of the poem have often suggested that the thirty-two lines of the poem's exordium manifest an independent artistic identity. Adolf Ebert, writing in 1887, developing suggestions made nearly thirty years earlier by Ernst Gotzinger, described the exordium as 'selbstandig'; two years later Oscar Hofer would characterize it as a separate poem altogether. It has been suggested more recently that the unique features of the exordium mark it as the result of a discrete act of composition.7 Clearly, the debt of these opening lines to the content of Daniel I is limited in the extreme. As Robert T. Farrell notes, 'the first thirty-two lines have no immediate 70

71

Earlier discussions of the rendition of Daniel I in Daniel include Gotzinger, 'Uber die Dichtungen', pp. 3 0 - 1 , and Hofer, 'Entstehung', pp. 192-3. For discussion of the exordium, see, for example, Bammesberger, Linguistic Notes, pp. 4 2 - 3 , Shepherd, 'Scriptural Poetry', pp. 3 1 - 2 , and Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel', pp. 207-10. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte, pp. 21—2, following Gotzinger, 'Uber die Dichtungen', pp. 2 9 - 3 0 , and Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 192. See, for example, Anderson, 'Style and Theme', p. 2, for speculation that the alliterative poet (whom he identifies as the main poet of Daniel) 'improvised details in the prologue'.

255


source in the Vulgate', and his view is in line with comments by a number of other critics.7 It has not, however, been sufficiently appreciated that the exordium displays a rigidly symmetrical structure. 7 It contains precisely thirty-two lines; the first sixteen of these celebrate the glory of Israel and the next sixteen deplore its eventual decline. The whole account turns on the conjunction oppcet, which introduces the shift in tone of the exordium at its midpoint, the start of the second group of sixteen lines: 77 o5J)aet hie wlenco anwod aet winl>ege deofoldaedum, druncne geSohtas. Pa hie aecraftas ane forleton. The symmetrical balance of the lines in the exordium may suggest that this section of Daniel may be associated with a group of early medieval compositions, ranging in the case of Anglo-Saxon sources from the Rhyming Poem to Alcuin's 0 mea cella, in which celebrations of prosperity are superseded within a single composition by expressions of sorrow and grief.7 The loci classici for this sort of bipartite composition occur in the 7

Daniel, ed. Farrell, p . 34. Similarly, Jost, 'Biblical Sources', p . 2 5 7 , remarks that the 'opening lines of Daniel are t h o u g h t by critics to have almost no source'. See also additional c o m m e n t s by Farrell, 'Structure', p . 5 4 1 , Caie, 'Old English Daniel',

p. 3,

and Finnegan, ' O l d English Daniel', p p . 2 0 4 - 5 . 75

For some general c o m m e n t s on the p a t t e r n i n g and symmetry of the diction in the exordium, see Huppe, Doctrine and Poetry, pp. 2 2 3 - 7 .

76

Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', discussing the exordium, remarks that the 'polarity of good and evil, shown by Farrell to run t h r o u g h the entire poem, certainly manifests itself in the first thirty-two lines' (p. 215).

77

For example, Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel',

p . 1 9 5 , situates the m a i n break in the

description of 'the conditional felicity of the Israelites and the destruction of their city after they break the Mosaic compact' precisely at lines 1 7 - 1 8 , supporting m y view. 78

Dan 1 7 - 1 9 : ' U n t i l pride attacked t h e m in their feasting for their devilish deeds, [and] d r u n k e n t h o u g h t s . T h e n they at once abandoned those powerful tenets.' Hofer, ' E n t s t e h u n g ' , p . 1 9 7 , notes that the phrase 'wlenco onwod' ('pride attacked [them]') also occurs at GenA 2581a. In the O l d English Rhyming

Poem, forty-two lines recount the glorious career of a

warrior (or warrior-king), followed by forty-four lines reflecting on deprivation and death. T h e p o e m is ed. at A S P R III, 1 6 6 - 9 . T h e symmetrical structure is discussed in The Old English Riming Poem, ed. O . Macrae-Gibson (Cambridge, 1983), p p . 7 - 1 1 . In Alcuin's Latin p o e m , sixteen lines celebrate a life of abundance in an unidentified locale (the cella) and the next eighteen lament the poet's subsequent losses and the decline of his former milieu. T h e p o e m concludes w i t h six lines of theological

256

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition Old Testament tradition, for example, at Job XXIX-XXX, where the narrator recalls Job's former happiness before turning to the calamitous decline in his temporal estate. 80 Biblical sources for the description of the Israelites' period of prosperity include Deut. XI.2 and XXVIII and Jer. VII.23, XXXI.3, XXXI.32 and XXXII.21-2. 81 The allusions in Daniel to drunkenness, idolatry and other unnamed offences (Dan 22b 'in gedwolan hweorfan', 23b unriht and 24a wommas) bear comparison with abominationes of the Israelites specified at IV Kings XXIII.24 and II Par. XXXVI. 14—16, among other passages. The exordium of Daniel may thus be viewed as a synthesis of these and similar passages of Old Testament moralization. The most provocative suggestion I have encountered regarding the sources of these lines, however, occurs in an unpublished dissertation by Russell L. Whitney. Whitney suggests that the basis of the thematic content of the exordium is specifically lyrical. He notes the wide dissemination of its themes in psalms and canticles. Examples include verses of Deuteronomy XXXIII, Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum (Dan. 111.26-45 and 111.52-90, discussed below) and Psalms LXXVII, CV, CVI, CXXXV and CXXXVI. Prayers and verse at Baruch I-III, I Esdras IX.6-15 and II Esdras 1.5-11 and IX.5b-38, all employed as canticles in early medieval usage, also advert to the fortunes of Israel.83 Given the certain reproduction of an extrabiblical canticle within the text of Daniel (demonstrated below) and the likelihood that any devout AngloSaxon Christian would have encountered these texts hundreds of times in fulfilling the obligations of the daily Office, it is thus possible that the commonplace. See Alcuin, Carmina,

ed. E. Diimmler, M G H , Poet. Lat. 1 (Berlin,

1881), 2 4 3 - 4 (no. 23), and literary analysis by P. G o d m a n , 'Alcuin's Poetic Style and the A u t h e n t i c i t y of 0 mea cella, SM 3rd ser. 2 0 (1979), 5 5 5 - 8 3 , esp. 5 7 6 - 8 2 . W h i t n e y / T h e O l d English Daniel',

p . 136, compares II Paralipomenon X X X V I and

IV K i n g s X X V . 81

See Jost, 'Biblical Sources', p p . 2 6 1 - 2 . See further W h i t n e y , T h e O l d English

Daniel',

p . 1 3 9 , w h o argues for t h e influence of Deuteronomy X X V I I and the description of the Promised Land in J o s h u a (chs. I and X X I V ) . Another possible source is Baruch I, esp. in verses 1.2 and 1.8-22. 82

For other O l d T e s t a m e n t treatments of the t h e m e of God's j u d g e m e n t of the wicked, see G a m m i e , ' O n the I n t e n t i o n ' , p . 2 8 4 . For additional parallels to the content of the exordium in O l d T e s t a m e n t historical books, see discussion by Jost, 'Biblical Sources',

pp. 257-9. Whitney,'The Old English Daniel', 136—7. Whitney also notes the occurrence of the theme of the changing fortunes of Israel in prose passages of Deuteronomy XXVI, XXVIII and XXXI; Joshua XXIV; Isa. LXIII, and at Jer. XXXII. 17. 257


resonances of this problematic exordium (similar to the apparently psalmic phrasing of Exodus) ought to be characterized as specifically hymnodic or psalmodic in inspiration. It might be argued, then, that the exordium constitutes a distinct composition, first joined to Daniel in the course of the transmission of the verse now preserved in Junius 11 and subsequently perpetuated in all modern critical editions. Its author may have intended it to bridge the subject matter of Daniel with that of Exodus and to introduce the themes of translatio imperil and gesta Dei that figure so prominently in the subsequent treatments of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar.8 But this sort of speculation will of course never be capable of proof, and given the clear thematic links of the exordium with the main part of Daniel, the question of its separate composition may appear largely irrelevant to our appreciation of the received text. It is clear enough that the exordium possesses its own distinctive artistic identity, but it also anticipates the ethical argument of the verse that follows. And, as we will see shortly, the verse of Daniel elsewhere effects a remarkable synthesis of Old Testament verses. Daniel 33—103 as a rendition of Daniel I Regardless of the possible status of the exordium as a self-contained composition, its integrity within the main text of Daniel may be indicated by its synthesis of material drawn from a diverse range of Old Testament books. This tendency is also apparent in the poem's treatment of the fall of Jerusalem. The lines of Daniel corresponding to the matter of Daniel I — the Babylonians' conquest of the Jews and the arrival of Daniel and his companions at the court of Nebuchadnezzar - comprise an extraordinary amalgam of material on the fortunes of the Israelites drawn from several The words of the exordium include an unambiguous allusion to the liberation of the Israelites at Dan 4—7: siS6an l>urh metodes maegen on Moyses hand wear5 wig gifen, wigena maenieo, and hie of Egyptum ut aforon maegene micle. J*aet waes modig cyn! ('a [victorious] battle then came to be given through the power of the Lord into Moses's hand, a troop of warriors, and they went forward out of Egypt with a large force. That was a brave race!') Caie, 'Old English Daniel', p. 3, also maintains that the '[mjention of Moses and the Egyptian captivity (lines 1—7) provides a link with the preceding poem, Exodus'.

258


different historical and prophetical books. In fact, under the scrutiny of a close reading and biblical comparison, I believe these lines emerge as one of the most remarkable surviving witnesses to scriptural ruminatio in Old English poetry.8 This involves an impressive feat of poetic amplification wherein several dozen lines in Daniel may be seen to draw directly on no more than two brief verses from the book of Daniel: [1.1] Anno tertio regni Ioachim regis Iuda, uenit Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonis Hierusalem et obsedit earn. [1.2] Et tradidit Dominus in manu eius Ioachim regem Iudae et partem uasorum domus Dei. Et asportauit ea in terram Sennaar in domum dei sui et uasa intulit in domum thesauri dei sui.8 Scholars who have examined the question agree that lines 33—78 of Daniel embody an amplification of the matter of these two biblical verses — Dan. 1.1—2 — centring on the plundering of Solomon's temple. The analysis presented below suggests that this expansion should in fact be viewed as continuing from the very beginning of the poem through line 103. I would also maintain that the embellished account in the verse of Daniel offers descriptions of two distinct phases of aggression directed by the Babylonian king against Jerusalem: a siege and the destruction of Solomon's temple. A third phase in the conquest, involving the transport of Israelite survivors to captivity in Babylon, is described in subsequent lines of Daniel (79—103). The verse of this passage recalls the content of several verses of Daniel I, notably Dan. 1.4 and 1.19—20, but, as we will see, there may be no direct dependence on the wording of the Latin texts of these verses. The laconic phraseology of only a handful of verses from 85

As W h i t n e y / T h e O l d English Daniel',

p . 1 4 5 , comments, T a r from ignoring the first

two verses of Daniel I, the poet has gone to their heart.' 86

D a n . 1.1-2: 'In the third year of the reign of J o a k i m , k i n g of J u d a h , Nebuchadnezzar, k i n g of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it. A n d the Lord delivered into his hands J o a k i m the k i n g of J u d a h and part of the vessels of the house of God. A n d he [i.e. Nebuchadnezzar] carried t h e m away into the land of Sennaar, to the house of his g o d , and he b r o u g h t the vessels into the treasure-house of his god.' Jost, 'Biblical Sources', p . 2 5 7 , suggests that the sack of Jerusalem 'is narrated in order to set the scene for later encounters in Daniel between the Hebrew captives and their Babylonian captors'. T. A. Shippey, in his Old English Verse, Eng. Lit. (London, 1972), p . 1 4 4 , notes that by the end of the scene of the conquest the poem 'has already expanded the first couple of verses into some eighty lines'. T h e specific source in Daniel 1.1-2 is also noted by Farrell, 'Structure', p . 541 w i t h n. 1. H e remarks that the b u l k of the material in lines 3 3 - 7 8 of Daniel 'corresponds to verses 1 and 2 of the first chapter of the O l d Testament Daniel'.

259


Daniel I thus occupies the Old English versification for more than one hundred lines, or for nearly an eighth of the extant text. What is most remarkable here, however, is not the fact of the expansion itself but rather the means through which it has been effected. The first hundred or so lines of the Junius Daniel in fact constitute a deft harmonization of a diverse assortment of Old Testament passages on the fall of Jerusalem that to my knowledge finds no close parallel anywhere else in the corpus of Old English verse. The changes effected in the verse of Daniel have the force of making good a frustratingly succinct passage of scripture. But it should be remembered that the text of Daniel 1.1—2 itself offers a late conflation of several passages of Old Testament scripture. The poetic expansion here may well have been suggested by the composite form of the opening passage of Daniel. Scriptural synthesis in the rendition of Daniel I

The versification of Daniel I in lines 33—103 of Daniel exhibits a far more complex structure than the renditions from Daniel II—V later in the poem. As the summary of biblical allusions below illustrates, the synthesis of Old Testament reminiscences in these early lines nearly defies presentation in a coherent apparatus. Fortunately, four summations of the biblical sources of these lines have been undertaken in the present century and the last. All of these studies show that the Old English verse in questions treating the destruction of Jerusalem, the plundering of Solomon's temple and their aftermath draws on a fairly restricted set of verses in parallel passages of several Old Testament books, notably IV 88

89

90

91

The matter of Dan. 1.7-16 and 1.21 finds no equivalent in the Old English text. Among the scriptural details that have been omitted are allusions to the change of the names of Ananias, Misahel and Azarias to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and of Daniel to Baltassar. The fast undertaken by Daniel and his companions at the Babylonian court to protest their captivity is also omitted, as is a chronographical reference to the reign of Cyrus. Dan.I.1-2 exhibit verbal parallels with Jer. XXV. 1 and XXV. 11 and II Par. XXXVI.6, XXXVI.9-10 and XXXVI.21; cf. also IV Kings XXIV. 1. The possible exception occurs in the material derivative of Daniel III, that is, the poem's integrated (and problematic) versifications of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum and their prose-based settings. See the studies of Steiner, 'Uber die Interpolation', pp. 5-10; Hofer, 'Entstehung', pp. 178-82; Whitney, 'The Old English Daniel', pp. 1-6; and Jost, 'Biblical Sources'.

260


Kings, II Paralipomenon, Jeremiah and Baruch.92 Under close scrutiny, nearly every detail in the treatment of Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns in Daniel finds a notional source and a plausible verbal template among the contents of these books. Some of the verbal parallels in question may initially appear slight, but I have included here only such parallels as have struck a majority of scholars as plausible and are well supported by the context of their Old Testament narration. For example, a single-term reference to 'Caldea cyn* in Daniel (42a) is firmly associated with the biblical allusion in Baruch 1.2 to Chaldei when both terms are employed in the narration of the same event (here, the attack on Jerusalem). The Old English text may be set out as follows, accompanied in footnotes by a critical summary of the Latin biblical parallels advanced to date by scholars ofDaniel'94 92

For a synoptic arrangement of Greek and Latin texts of O l d Testament passages treating the destruction of Jerusalem and the p l u n d e r i n g of Solomon's temple, see Libri synoptici Veteris Testamenti, seu Librorum Regum et Chronicorum loci parallels,

ed.

P. Vannutelli, 1 vol. in 2 (Rome, 1 9 3 1 - 4 ) , p p . 6 7 6 - 9 3 . For the O l d Latin text of II Paralipomenon, see Les anciennes versions, ed. W e b e r , esp. p p . 77—993

T h e following analysis embodies passages cited in studies by Hofer, 'Entstehung', p p . 1 9 1 - 3 ; W h i t n e y , ' T h e O l d English Daniel',

p p . 1-6; and Jost, 'Biblical Sources';

and in Daniel, ed. Farrell, p p . 2 9 - 3 2 . See also t h e c o m m e n t s of Anderson, 'Style and T h e m e ' , p . 2. 9

Dan 3 3 - 7 8 : 'Then the Lord of the k i n g d o m [of Israel] became angry, a hostile Lord toward those to w h o m H e had given possessions. [ 3 5 ] H e had directed t h e m in the b e g i n n i n g , those w h o in an earlier t i m e before t h e n were the most precious of the races of m e n to the Lord, most cherished of warriors, most beloved of God. [ H e pointed o u t ] t h e p a t h of war to the high city in the homeland to the foreign lords, [ 4 0 ] where Salem stood, established w i t h skill, adorned w i t h walls. Magicians [or "wise ones"], people of the Chaldeans, went to that [place], [ w e n t ] u p to that fortress, surrounded by fortifications [or "earthworks"], where the possessions of the Israelites were. T h e army, [ 4 5 ] the well-known battle-force, arrived in that place, anxious for evil slaughter. Nebuchadnezzar, prince of the Babylonians, chief ruler over m e n , had stirred u p that deadly hostility in his h o m e fortress because of dire hatred, so that he began to consider in his m i n d ' s t h o u g h t s [ 5 0 ] how he m i g h t most easily carry off m e n from the Israelites] t h r o u g h an attack of fierce warriors. H e then assembled an army, eager for slaughter, from south and north, and they went to the west w i t h a host of pagan kings to the capital city; [ 5 5 ] the guardians of the ancestral lands of the Israelites had love, prosperity, as long as the Lord p e r m i t t e d t h e m ! T h e n I have heard in addition that the race of ancient enemies laid waste the wine-city [or "friend-city"] of m e n ; those warriors did not believe [in G o d ] . T h e n they despoiled the glory of buildings, [ 6 0 ] Solomon's t e m p l e , of red gold, treasure and silver. They plundered the treasures beneath the stone ramparts, all such t h i n g s as princes should have, u n t i l they had

261

Old English biblical verse Da wearS reSemod rices Seoden, unhold t>eoden95 ^ \>e aehte geaf. Wisde him aet frym5e, 5a 5e on fruman aer Son waeron mancynnes metode dyrust, dugoSa dyrust, drihtne leofost, herepoS [taehte] to t>aere hean byrig, eorlum elSeodigum, on eSelland t>aer Salem stod searwum afaestnod, weallum geweorSod.9 To {)aes witgan foron, Caldea cyn,97 to ceastre for6, l>aer Israela aehta waeron, bewrigene mid weorcum. To l>am t>aet werod gefor, maegent>reat maere, manbealwes georn. Awehte bone waelniS wera aldorfrea,

35

40

45

destroyed every one of the strongholds which had stood for the security of the people. [65] They heaped up as booty the treasure of kings, [gathered up] wealth and princes such as were to be found there, and then travelled home with the possessions and brought along also the race of Israel, [70] a countless number of young men on a long journey along the eastward roads to Babylon, in subjection to a heathen judge. Nebuchadnezzar put them into hardship, the children of Israel, without any joy; [he made] the battle remnant toiling slaves. [75] Then he sent off many of his servants from the band of warriors to travel westwards, to occupy the land of the people for him, the unpeopled fatherland, after the Hebrews.' 95

W i t h 'wear5 . . . unhold t>eoden' (Dan 3 3 - 4 a ) , cf. (esp. w i t h Krapp's emendation to 'unhold peodum)

II Par. X X X V I . 16 '. . . ascenderet furor Domini in populum eius'

(\ . . the wrath of the Lord arose against his people'; cf. Old Latin 'ascendit indignatio Domini super populum eius'); Jer. XVII.4 'quoniam ignem succendisti in furore meo' ('for you have kindled a fire in My wrath') and LII.3 furor Domini erat in Hierusalem' ('the wrath of the Lord was against Jerusalem'); and Baruch 1.13 *et non est auersus furor eius a nobis' ('and [God's] wrath is not turned away from us'). In this and subsequent notes it may be assumed, unless specifically noted, that there are no substantive variants between the Old Latin and Vulgate forms of verses and that a given citation and translation follows the Vulgate. References to Old Latin texts, unless noted, derive from Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier. 96

W i t h 'Salem . . . weallum geweorSod' (Dan 4 0 - 1 a), cf. II Par. X X X V I . 19 'destruxerunt [ O l d Latin demolierunt] murum Hierusalem ('[the enemies] broke down the wall of Jerusalem'); Jer. X X X I X . 8 'murum Hierusalem subuerterunt' ('they toppled the wall of Jerusalem'); and IV K i n g s X X V . 10 'muros Hierusalem in circuitu destruxit' ('[the army] broke d o w n the walls of Jerusalem in their compass').

97

W i t h 'Caldea cyn' (Dan 42a), cf. esp. IV K i n g s X X V . 10, Jer. X X X I X . 5, LII.8 and LII.14

'exercitus Chaldeorum

('an army of the Chaldeans'); Jer. LII.7

'Chaldeis

obsidentibus u r b e m ' ('when the Chaldeans were besieging the city'); and Baruch 1.2 'ceperunt Chaldei Hierusalem' ('the Chaldeans took Jerusalem').

262

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition Babilones brego, on his burhstede, Nabochodonossor, £>urh niShete, t>aet he secan ongan sefan gehygdum hu he Israelum ea5ost meahte Jmrh gromra gang guman o5t)ringan. Gesamnode J>a suSan and norSan waelhreow werod, and west foran herige haeSencyninga to t>aere hean byrig. 98 [haefdon] Israela e6elweardas lufan, lifwelan, J>enden hie let metod! I>a eac e5an gefraegn ealdfeonda cyn winburh wera. Pa wigan ne gelyfdon, bereafodon J)a receda wuldor readan golde, since and seolfre, Salomones tempi. 98

99

100

50

55

60

W i t h 'Babilones brego . . . to t>aeie hean byrig' (Dan 47-54), cf. II Par. XXXVI. 10 'misit Nabochodonosor rex ('King Nabuchodonosor sent [for Joachin]'); Jer. XXXIV.2 'ecce ego tradam ciuitatem hanc in manu regis Babylonis' ('behold, I will deliver this city into the hands of the king of Babylon'), XXXIV.7 'et exercitus regis Babylonis pugnabat contra Hierusalem' ('and the army of the king of Babylon fought against Jerusalem'), XXXIX. 1 and LII.4 'uenit Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonis et omnis exercitus eius' ('Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and all his army'), and LII.27 'percussit [Old Latin ?interfecit] eos rex Babylonis' ('the king of Babylon struck them'); and Baruch 1.9 'posteaquam cepisset Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonum Iechoniam et principes' ('after that Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Jerusalem, seized Jechonias and his princes'). W i t h 't>a eac . . . winburh wera' (Dan 57-8a), cf. Deut. XXVIII.52 'et conterat in cunctis urbibus tuis ('and [a nation from afar] will destroy you in your cities'); II Par. XXXVI. 19 'incenderunt [Old Latin succenderunt] hostes [not in Old Latin} domum Dei, destruxerunt [Old Latin demolierunt] murum Hierusalem ('the enemies set fire to the house of God, they broke down the wall of Jerusalem'); and Baruch 1.2 lceperunt Chaldei Hierusalem et succenderunt earn igni' ('the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and they burned it with fire'). W i t h 'bereafodon . . . tempi' (Dan 59-60), cf. II Par. XXXVI. 10 'asportatis simul pretiossimus uasis domus Domini ('. . . [Nebuchadnezzar was} carrying away at the same time the most precious vessels of the house of the Lord'; cf. Old Latin ladduxit eum in Babilonia cum uasis concupiscendis, domus domini') and XXXVI. 18 'thesauros templi et regis et principum [Old Latin potentium] transtulit' ('the vessels of the temple and of the king and of the princes'); Jer. LII.19 'quotquot aurea aurea et quotquot argentea argentea ('as many as were of gold, in gold; and as many were of silver, in silver [were plundered}'; cf. the conjectural Old Latin reading 'argentum et aurum (ptd in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier II, 720, in note)); Baruch 1.8 'cum acciperet uasa templi Domini quae ablata fuerunt de templo ('at the time when he received the vessels of the temple of the Lord, which had been taken away out of the temple . . .') and 'uasa argentea ('vessels of silver'); and IV Kings XXV. 15 'aurea aurea

263

Old English biblical verse Gestrudan gestreona

under stanhliSum,

swilc eall swa \>3. eorlas

agan sceoldon,

abrocen haefdon,103

o5J)aet hie burga gehwone J>ara t>e t>am folce

to friSe stodon.

Gehlodon him to hu5e fea and freos104

hordwearda gestreon,

and gelaeddon eac to Babilonia,

65

swilc j>aer funden waes,

and f>a mid {>am aehtum Israela cyn,

101 102

eft siSedon, on langne si 5

on eastwegas beorna unrim,

70

et quae argentea argentea tulit princeps' ('such as were of gold, in gold; and such as were of silver, in silver, the general of the army took away'). On the allusions to the sacred vessels of Solomon's temple, see below pp. 287 and 324 with n. 240. 101

With 'under stanhlidum' (Dan 6lb), cf. Deut. XXVIII.52 'et destruantur muri tuifirmi atque sublimes'; II Par. XXXVI. 19 'destruxerunt [Old Latin demolierunt] murum Hierusalem ('[the enemies] broke down the wall of Jerusalem'); Jer. XXXIX.8 'murum Hierusalem subuerterunt' ('they toppled the wall of Jerusalem') and LII.14 'et totum murum Hierusalem per circuitum destruxit' ('and [the army] broke down the wall of Jerusalem all around it'; cf. the conjectural Old Latin reading 'et murum Jerusalem in circuitu demolitus esf (ptd in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier II, 7 2 0 , in note)); a n d I V K i n g s X X V . 10 'muros Hierusalem in circuitu destruxit' ('[the army] broke d o w n t h e walls of Jerusalem in their compass').

102

W i t h 'swilc eall . . . agan sceoldon' (Dan 6 2 ) , cf. II Par. X X X V I . 18 'uniuersaque uasa d o m u s D o m i n i tarn maiora q u a m minora et thesauros templi et regis et principum [ O l d Latin potentiumY ('all of the vessels of the house of t h e Lord, great and small, and t h e treasures of the temple and of the k i n g and of the princes he carried away t o Babylon'); and a notional parallel in II Par. X X X V I . 19 'quicquid pretiosum fiierat demoliti sunt' ('whatever was precious they destroyed').

103

W i t h 'hie . . . abrocen haefdon' (Dan 6 3 ) , cf. II Par. X X X V I . 19 'uniuersas turres conbuserunt' ('they b u r n t all t h e towers') and Jer. LII.7 'et disrupta est ciuitas ('and t h e city was broken up').

104

W i t h 'Gehlodon . . . freos' (Dan 6 5 - 6 a ) , cf. II Par. X X X V I . 18 'thesauros templi et regis et principum [ O l d Latin potentium\ transtulit1 ('he carried away the treasures of the t e m p l e a n d of t h e k i n g and of the princes'); I V K i n g s X X I V . 14 'et transtulit

omnem

Hierusalem et uniuersos principes et omnes fortes exercitus decem milia in captiuitatem ('and h e carried away all Jerusalem; and all t h e princes; and all t h e valiant m e n of the army, t o t h e n u m b e r o f t e n thousand into captivity'); a n d Baruch 1.8 'cum acciperet uasa templi . . . reuocare in terram luda ('at the t i m e w h e n he had received the vessels of the t e m p l e . . . t o return t h e m into the land of J u d a h . . .') and 1.9 'Nabuchodonosor rex . . . principes et uinctos . . . duxit

eos in Babyloniam

('Nebuchadnezzar seized t h e

princes a n d led t h e m b o u n d into Babylon'). T h e allusions to principes ('princes') in these verses m i g h t b e adduced in support of t h e manuscript reading freos (Dan 66a: 'noblemen') in J u n i u s 1 1 .

264

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition under hand haeleS haeQenum deman. Nabochodonossor him on nyd dyde Israela beam ofer ealle lufen, waepna lafe to weorcêowum.10<S Onsende J)a sinra t>egna worn t>aes werudes west to feran, l>aet him t>ara leode land geheolde, e6ne e5el, aefter Ebreum.

The influence of IV Kings XXIV-XXV

75

on lines 33-103 of Daniel

My own analysis of the lines in question suggests that the contextually based definition of sources summarized in the preceding apparatus can be augmented in two important ways. First, I would argue that the treatment of the attack and its aftermath in Daniel makes far greater use of the verses of IV Kings XXIV—XXV than has been hitherto suspected. These chapters may be regarded as serving an 'anchoring' function in the poem's expansion of Daniel 1.1—2. Second, the arrangement of the borrowings from IV Kings XXIV—XXV shows that the criterion most commonly adduced for assessing the validity of apparent biblical allusions in Daniel — the appropriateness of the context of the Old Testament narrative to the events described in Old English Daniel — is, in the present case, untenable. 105

With

gelaeddon . . . u n d e r hand' (Dan

6 8 - 7 1 a ) , cf. II Par. X X X V I . 1 7

'tradidit

[variant adds in) manibus eius' ('he delivered [ t h e m ] into his hands'; cf. O l d Latin 'tradidit

in manus inimicorum eorum') and X X X V I . 2 0 'ductus in Babylonem seruiuit

regi' ('[any captive} w h o had been led into Babylon served the king'); Jer. XXXIV.2—3 'ecce ego tradam ciuitatem hanc in manu regis Babylonis . . . et tu non effugies de manu eius sed conprehensione capieris et in manu eius traderis' ('behold, I will deliver this city into the hands of the k i n g of Babylon and you shall not escape out of his hand, b u t you will surely be taken and you will be delivered into his hand'); and Baruch 1.9 'duxit eos in Babylonian? ('he led t h e m into Babylon'). 106

W i t h 'Nabochodonossor . . . to weorcfcowum' (Dan 7 2 - 4 ) , cf. II Par. X X X V I . 2 0 'si quis euaserat gladium ductus in Babylonem seruiuit regi' ('whosoever escaped the sword, having been led into Babylon, served the k i n g ' ; cf. O l d Latin 'et quod superfuit gladio translatum est in Babilonia, et erant illi et filiis eius in seruos') and IV K i n g s X X V . 2 2 'populo a u t e m qui relictus erat in terra Iuda' ('[but over] the people w h o remained in the land of J u d a h [he appointed Godolias}'); Jer. X V I I . 4 'et seruire tefaciam inimicis' ('and I will m a k e you serve your enemies'); and Baruch 1.9 'posteaquam cepisset Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonum . . . principes et uinctos et potentes et populum terrae ab Hierusalem' ('after that Nebuchadnezzar, k i n g of Babylon seized princes and powerful m e n and the people of the land [and led t h e m ] b o u n d from Jerusalem').

265

Old English biblical verse The first probable borrowing from IV Kings XXIV occurs in the description of God's anger toward the Israelites: Pa wear5 reftemod unhold {>eoden

rices Seoden, j>am {>e aehte geaf.107

It is specifically stated in IV Kings XXIV that the attack on Israel is a result of God's anger {'irascebatur enim Dominus contra Hierusalem'), 108 the theme that arguably informs the whole chapter, right through to its final verse. As in Daniel, the account in IV Kings also makes it clear at the outset that the hostilities are initiated under God's direct command (XXIV.2: 'inmisitque ei Dominus latrunculos . . .'). This specific reference to rovers {latrunculos) may have led to the suggestion in Daniel that the initial phase of the attack is carried out by roving bands (cf. Dan 44b werod, 45a mcegenpreat, 51a gromra gang, etc.). The parallels with the matter of this chapter continue in the poem's allusions to the initial attacks, apparently carried out by Chaldean sages or magicians (witgari), and to the second phase of aggression, undertaken by Nebuchadnezzar himself: To [>aes witgan foron, Caldea cyn, to ceastre for5, |>aer Israela aehta waeron, bewrigene mid weorcum. To [)am {>aet werod gefor . . . Awehte J>one waelniS wera aldorfrea Babilones brego, on his burhstede, Nabochodonossor.no

109

Dan 33—4' 'Then the Lord of the kingdom [of Israel} became angry, a hostile Lord toward those to whom He had given possessions.' IV Kings XXIV.20: Tor the Lord was angry against Jerusalem.' God's anger is also indicated in IV Kings XXIV at verses 3, 4, 9 and 19. It is worth noting that the theme is not ubiquitous in this part of IV Kings. There is not so much as a single such reference, for instance, in any of the thirty verses of IV Kings XXV. The parallel, noted by Hofer, 'Entstehung', pp. 159-60, is rejected by Jost, 'Biblical Sources', pp. 259—60, on the grounds that the verses refer to the invasion of Jerusalem under King Joachim. Dan 4 l b - 4 4 and 46-8a: 'Magicians [or "wise ones"}, people of the Chaldeans, went to that [place}, [went} up to that fortress, surrounded by fortifications [or "earthworks"}, where the possessions of the Israelites were. The army [of Chaldeans} arrived in that place . . . Nebuchadnezzar, prince of the Babylonians, chief ruler over men, had stirred up that deadly hostility in his home fortress.'

266

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition In tempore illo ascenderunt serui Nabucbodonosor regis Babylonis in Hierusalem et circumdata est urbs munitionibus. Venitque Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonis ad ciuitatem cum serui eius obpugnarent earn. Further recourse to the text of IV Kings XXIV may throw new light on these lines of Daniel. For example, the curious and previously unexplained phrase 'bewrigene mid weorcum' {Dan AA&: 'surrounded by earthworks') may refer to the temporary fortifications built by the Babylonians during their siege of Jerusalem, as it does in the biblical phrase lcircumdata est urbs munitionibus (IV Kings XXIV. 10). Most critics, construing bewrigene ('surrounded (by earthworks)') with the phrase 'Israela aehta' ('possessions of the Israelites') rather than the term witgan ('wise ones' or 'magicians'), have assumed that the allusion is to walls around Jerusalem rather than fortified bases built by Nebuchadnezzar's forces in the course of their siege. 112 But absolute certainty on this point is unattainable, given the ambiguous syntax of the Old English and the decontextualization of the matter of IV Kings XXIV-XXV sketched out below. Nevertheless, reference to the text of IV Kings XXIV may also help to resolve several other long-standing textual cruces in these lines. 111

112

113

IV Kings XXIV. 10-11: 'At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up against Jerusalem and the city was surrounded by their [i.e. the Babylonians'} forts. And Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to the city with his servants to assault it.' A partial citation by Ambrose of the Old Latin text of IV Kings XXIV. 10 reads: 'Et in diebus eius ascendit Nabuchodonosor; rex Babylonis, in Hierusalem (Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam iii.46 (CCSL 14, 102: 'And in those days . . .', etc.)). For IV Kings XXIV. 11, cf. Cyprian, De dominica oratione xxv, perhaps witnessing to an Old Latin form of Dan. I.l-2a: 'uenit Nabuchodonosor rex Babyloniae in Hierusalem, et expugnabat earn. Et dedit earn Dominus in manu eius' ('Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and took it by assault. And God gave it into his hands'); see text ptd at CCSL 3A, 106. See also Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier II, 626, and below, p. 306 with n. 196. See also a related passage at the start of the next chapter of IV Kings, ' circumdederunt earn et extruxerunt in circuitu eius munitioned (IV Kings XXV.l: '[Nebuchadnezzar's army} surrounded it [i.e. Jerusalem} and raised forts around its compass'), as well as phrases at Jer. LII.4 ('aedificauerunt contra earn munitiones in circuitu ('they [i.e. Nebuchadnezzar's forces} built forts against it [i.e. Jerusalem} all around its compass')) and LII.7 ('Chaldeis obsidentibus urbem in gyro ('when the Chaldeans were besieging the city in its compass')). Explicit allusions in these verses to Jerusalem and Judah support Blackburn's suggestion that the reading 'unhold t>eoden {sc. J)eodum?}', involves 'a careless spelling for -an, -on, -um, dat. pi.' rather than a formulaic variation on the phrase 'rices Seoden'

267


The connection of Nebuchadnezzar's unnamed serui (IV Kings XXIV. 10) with Chaldean magicians also deserves some explanation. As Farrell has noted, *{i}t is somewhat unusual for a group of magicians to attack a city', 11 but the crux can be resolved by reference to the text of IV Kings XXIV and the vocabulary of the biblical Daniel. James Montgomery notes that '[according to the diction employed regularly in the book of Daniel, the term "Chaldeans" comprised the classes of wise men, magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and diviners'.115 The first occurrence in the book of Daniel occurs in a phrase at Dan. II.2 Cpraecepit ergo rex ut conuocarentur arioli et magi et malefici et Chaldei').11 The important point here is that while a bare reference to the Chaldeans is made in IV Kings XXIV, the diction associating the Chaldeans with magicians in Daniel reflects the continuing influence of the text of the book of Daniel as the fundamental basis of the amplification. There is no reason to suspect that the text of Daniel witnesses the substitution of, say, a lost Old English poem treating the matter of IV Kings. Continuing with the account of the second and third phases of the Babylonian campaigns, the text of Daniel, as in the account in II Kings XXIV, quickly turns to the dismantling of Solomon's temple: bereafodon J)a receda wuldor readan golde, since and seolfre Salomones tempi. Gestrudan gestreona under stanhliSum, swilc eall swa J>a eorlas agan sceoldon, o6{>aet hie burga gehwone abrocene haefdon.117

114

11

117

in the half-line immediately preceding {Exodus and Daniel, ed. Blackburn, p. 109). The emendation of witgan ('magicians') to wigan ('fighters'), proposed by several editors, must certainly be rejected. And the phrase 'eorlum elSeodigum', taken by different critics to refer either to the Chaldean rovers or the wandering Israelites themselves (eldeodig thus rendering Latin peregrinus), almost certainly refers to the former. Daniel, ed. Farrell, p. 49Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 73—4; see also pp. 143—4. On the reputation of Chaldeans as magicians, see further Daniel, ed. Farrell, p. 49, Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 31-2 and Delcor, he Livre de Daniel, p. 109. An Old Latin form of the verse is 'et iussit rex uocari incantatores magos et reneticos et Chaldaeos', as ptd in Parpalimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, pp. 377—8. Dan 59-63: 'Then they despoiled the glory of buildings, Solomon's temple, of red gold, treasure and silver. They plundered the treasures beneath the stone ramparts, all such things as princes should have, until they had destroyed every one of the strongholds.'

268

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition Et protulit inde omnes thesauros domus Domini et thesauros domus regiae. Et concidit uniuersa uasa aurea quae fecerat Salomon rex Israhel in templo Domini. The verse of Daniel agrees with the diction of IV Kings against other Old Testament accounts in mentioning the plunder of royal possessions in addition to the treasures of the temple. The association is strengthened in the cited lines by the explicit mention of Solomon, gold and the dismantling or 'strewing' of treasures in the Old English phrase 'gestrudan streona'. The stone ramparts or walls mentioned in the scene, though linked here unbiblically with the temple, may well follow the wording of IV Kings XXV.4 and XXV. 10 ('interrupta est ciuitas and 'et muros Hierusalem in circuitu destruxit omnis exercitus Chaldeorum'). 119 Similarly, the notion that Nebuchadnezzar's 'booty' included illustrious Hebrew princes (freos (Dan 66a)), a seemingly curious statement that has occasioned editorial emendation in critical editions, quite naturally follows the very next verse of IV Kings XXIV ('Et transtulit omnem Hierusalem et uniuersos principes et omnes fortes exercitus . . .'). 1 2 0 The same biblical verse might also provide a basis for the statement immediately following in Daniel that a large number of Israelites ('beorna unrim' (Dan 70b)) were taken captive: 'transtulit . . . decem milia in captiuitatem'.

118

119

IV Kings XXIV. 13: 'And he [i.e. Nebuchadnezzar] brought out from there all the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king's house. And he cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon, king of Israel, had made in the temple of the Lord.' See also comparable verses in II Paralipomenon and Jeremiah, esp. l destruxerunt murum Hierusalem' (II Par. XXXVI. 19: '[the enemies] broke down the wall of Jerusalem'; see also the Old Latin text ptd in Les anciennes versions, ed. Weber, p. 78) and 'et totum murum Hierusalem per circuitum destruxit' (Jer. LII.14: 'and [the army of the Chaldeans] broke down all the wall of Jerusalem in its compass'; cf. the conjectural Old Latin text 'et murum [H]ierusalem in circuitu demolitus est exercitus Chaldaeorum' (as ptd in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier II,

720, in note)). IV Kings XXIV.14: 'And he carried away all Jerusalem and all the princes and all the strong men of the army.' The biblical phrase weighs against Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 200, who would emend to feo ('livestock' or 'belongings'); cf. also IV Kings XXIV. 13 and XXV. 13-17, Jer. LII.17-19 (including the conjectural Old Latin text ptd in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier II, 7 2 0 , in note) and

II Par. XXXVI.7 and 18-19. See also the commentary in Daniel, ed. Farrell, pp. 5 0 - 1 .

269

Old English biblical verse Daniel 33—103 as a witness to ruminatio on the Old Testament

Thus far, the verbal parallels under examination have come from passages in IV Kings treating Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns. At this juncture in the analysis, we arrive at a previously unnoticed and, in my view, quite remarkable group of parallels involving the verses of the last chapter of the book, IV Kings XXV, which treat events falling outside of the chronological sweep of Daniel I and its Old English reflex. A close comparison of the diction of IV Kings XXV and the passage in Daniel (at lines 79-103) recounting the arrival of the youths of Israel at Nebuchadnezzar's court suggests that the verbal congruence of the two texts in fact continues over at least twenty-four more lines of the Old English versification than have been hitherto adduced in connection with the text of IV Kings. The parallels set out here for the first time can be used to make sense of a series of some obscure allusions in the versification of Daniel I that have previously been viewed as extrabiblical in origin. The inspiration for what appears to be a third and final phase of aggression inflicted on Judah by the Babylonian forces may well be the description of the siege led by Nebuchadnezzar against the renegade leader Sedecias in IV Kings XXV.1-7. 1 2 1 The reference to the recruitment of the most promising youth to be found among the 'wretched remnants' (eanne lafe) by an unnamed deputy (gerefa) of Nebuchadnezzar may go back to the report of a mission to enslave survivors of the battle carried out by the Babylonian leader Nabuzardan at IV Kings XXV.8-21. The diction of any of several following verses could account for a previously unexplained reference to the earlier report of the captives' subjection to an unnamed 'heathen judge' (68a-71: 'gelaeddon . . . / under hand haele5 / hcedenum deman). In verses describing Nebuchadnezzar's appointment of Godolias as a puppet ruler in Judah (IV Kings XXV.22-6), the Vulgate contains the difficult phrase 'iurauitque eis Godolias' (XXV.24). Precisely interpreted, the phrase should be taken to mean 'and Godolias swore to them', but the text of Daniel seems to reflect a misreading of the verbal form iurauit in a juridical sense, apparently with the meaning 'passed judgement on'. A final, and in my view, extremely suggestive Old Testament parallel with 121

See, for example, IV Kings XXV. 1: 'Venit Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonis ipse et omnis exercitus eius in Hierusalem. Et circumdederunt earn et extruxerunt in circuitu eius munitiones' ('Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army against Jerusalem. And they surrounded it and raised works around it').

270


IV Kings involves the wording of IV Kings XXV.29—30 ('mutauit [sc. Joachin] uestes . . . et comedebat panem semper in conspectu eius cunctis diebus uitae suae)}22 The corresponding passage in Daniel seems to suggest that Nebuchadnezzar provided food and clothing to the three youths throughout their life Cgad ne waere / wiste ne waede / in woruldlife'). 23 But this version actually contradicts the account in Daniel I, where the youths refuse to eat any food provided by the king. The biblical context of these lines in fact reflects the kind treatment later accorded to the captive Israelite king Joachin by the Babylonian ruler Evil-Merodach — after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar has ended. 124 This aspect of the verbal parallels adduced from IV Kings XXV demands critical elucidation. How could the diction of a wholly unrelated sequence of verses in IV Kings come to influence the wording of an Old English versification recounting the arrival of the youths of Israel at Nebuchadnezzar's court? The subtle interweaving of wide-ranging Old Testament verses outside of IV Kings XXIV—XXV in the opening passages of Daniel also calls for an explanation, but to my knowledge the problem has never been addressed at length. Had these thematically and lexically linked passages of scripture been brought together in a single document, such as a florilegium or a personal devotional compilation as described by Asser? Had a collocation of related texts from IV Kings, II Paralipomenon, Jeremiah and Baruch been effected in a sermon or set of readings for mass 122

See, for example, Jer. LII.33-4: 'Et mutauit uestimenta eius . . . et manducabat panem semper ante faciem eius, omnibus diebus uitae suae' ('And he changed his garments and he ate bread before him always all the days of his life'; conjectural Old Latin text ptd in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier II, 7 2 0 , in note. Cf. Vulgate: 'et mutauit uestimenta . . . et comedebat panem coram eo semper cunctis diebus uitae suae).

123

Dan 102b-103'.'[Nebuchadnezzar decreed} that there should be no lack of food or clothing [for Ananias, Misahel and Azarias] during their life in this world.' On the scene treating the appearance of the three youths at Nebuchadnezzar's court, see also Bammesberger, Linguistic Notes', p. 44.

12

Examples set out above show, moreover, that the poem joins together references to campaigns against the rulers Joakim (IV Kings X X I V . 2 - 5 ) ; Joachin ( X X I V . 8 - 1 6 ) ; Sedecias ( X X V . 1-7); and the subsequent mission led by the military commander Nabuzardan to gather captives and confiscate property (XXV.8—21).

125

Jost, 'Biblical Sources', p. 2 6 2 , comments: 'How the poet realized the existence of the other biblical accounts which he used I cannot say . . . Perhaps he found ready-tohand a synthesis in another narrative or a commentary; perhaps a gloss or commentary led to further material related to Daniel [I}. 1—2.'

271


or Office? Such a sermon or liturgical text, if it ever existed, seems to have been lost to posterity. As far as I can tell, these separate biblical passages simply do not occur together in any one area of the liturgy apart from a yearlong reading of the whole Bible according to the requirements of lectio continua and the lectio divina. We may need to reckon simply with the mind of an Anglo-Saxon Christian possessing a compendious knowledge of the historical books of the Old Testament.126 I would argue that lines 33-103 of Daniel preserve a fossilized witness, as it were, to the Anglo-Saxon practice of ruminatio.121 At first consideration, such a hypothesis would seem to be wholly incapable of substantiation. Any phenomenology of meditation from a distant era is arguably irrecoverable. Nevertheless, my own view is that the lack of contextualization in the lines discussed above is explained most plausibly by reference to surviving descriptions of Anglo-Saxon ruminatio on the words of the Bible. I simply can think of no other process which could account for the expansion of the treatment of the arrival of the three youths at Nebuchadnezzar's court through the introduction of phrases drawn from verses in IV Kings which are properly seen to refer to wholly distinct biblical scenes. The text of Daniel here may offer a unique illustration of the process of meditation on scripture (in the lectio divina and other contexts) described by Jean Leclercq as occurring when the 'hearing [of] certain words [of the Bible], which happen to be similar in sound to other words, sets up a kind of chain reaction of associations which will bring together words that have no more than a chance connection . . . and, in turn, a scriptural phrase will suggest quite naturally allusions elsewhere in the sacred books'. In sum, lines 1—103 of Daniel bear the stamp of the mind of an early medieval Christian who possessed a comprehensive 126

128

Whitney,The Old English Daniel', pp. 136 and 140, has noted that the opening lines of Daniel are evidently the product of 'a memory well-stocked with Old Testament lore'. The possibility of the influence of ruminatio was broached as early as I860 by Gotzinger, 'Uber die Dichtungen', pp. 3 0 - 1 . Anderson, 'Style and Theme', p. 13, notes an instance of a contextual shift comparable to the phenomenon described here. The colour purple (purpura) applied in scripture to Belshazzar's clothes describes the colour of the letters of the Writing on the Wall, which Anderson attributes to 'a compositional accident . . . [or] loose association of ideas . . . or trompe I'ceil as the poet's eye glanced over the Latin text'. It is also possible, of course, that the text in question was called up from memory. Leclercq, The Love of Learning, pp. 71-88, citing here at pp. 73-4.

272

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition knowledge of Old Testament scripture, was adept at the sort of scriptural ruminatio recommended by Aldhelm to his readers and ascribed by Bede to Caedmon, and who could reproduce the nuance of certain phrases in new contexts in the course of composing alliterative verse. The court-tales (Daniel II-V) Each of the final four episodes of Daniel exemplifies the type-scene of the court-contest.129 These include passages depicting Daniel's successful interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's two prophetic dreams (lines 104—67 and 495—674, following Daniel II and IV), the trial of the three youths in the fiery furnace (178—494, following Daniel III), and Daniel's decipherment of the Writing on the Wall (lines 675-764, following Daniel V). An element of competition emerges in each of these scenes when Daniel or his faithful companions prevail over the pagan associates of their Babylonian overlord. All four of the episodes in question - in both their biblical versions and Old English reflexes - contain explicit statements recounting the failure of Nebuchadnezzar's advisers to make sense of the dream or miraculous occurrence with which they have been confronted. In the accounts of the two dreams, Daniel's force of judgement verges on clairvoyance, since he is able to relate a dream whose contents remain unknown even to Nebuchadnezzar himself, succeeding in a test that had previously defeated all of the monarch's advisers.130 The victory is even more decisive in the accounts of the tribulation of the three youths. 129

130

For discussion, see Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 3 8 - 5 2 ; J. J. Collins, 'The CourtTales in Daniel and the Development of the Apocalyptic', JBL 94 (1975), 2 1 8 - 3 4 ; Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 2 7 - 6 5 , with references; S. Niditch and R. Doran, 'The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: a Formal Approach',yBL 96 (1977), 179-97; and Gammie, 'On the Intention', pp. 2 8 2 - 3 . O n the characterization of Daniel as a prophet with mantic powers, see H. Miiller, 'Magisch-mantische Weisheit und die Gestalt Daniels', Ugarit-Forschungen 1 (1969), 7 9 - 9 4 . For general discussion of dream-lore in the Old Testament and other ancient sources, see E. L. Ehrlich, Der Traum im Alten Testament, Z A W ss 73 (Berlin, 1953); A. L. Oppenheim, 'The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book', TAPS 46 (1956), 1 7 9 - 2 5 5 , esp. 184-255; and the excursus by LaCocque, 'Symbolic Language, Dream and Vision', in his Daniel in his Time, pp. 121-37. See also J. L. Crenshaw, 'Wisdom', in Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. Hayes, pp. 225—64, esp. at 243, on the generic affiliations of the dreams in Daniel II and IV.

273


Nebuchadnezzar's servants perish in a surge of flame after they attempt to incinerate the Three by throwing more fuel on the fire. Finally, the inability of Belshazzar and his advisers to interpret the Writing on the Wall sets the scene for Daniel's final triumph in the extant verse of Daniel.

The relationship of the renditions in Daniel to their biblical counterparts in Daniel II—V can be set out more concisely than the poem's connection with Daniel I. The verse here (at least when judged according to the model of the Vulgate) does not augment its narrative by recourse to passages from other books of the Old Testament. Rather, it achieves coherence by the expansion and omission of specific sequences of biblical verses. A comparable treatment of these episodes, as I shall show below, occurs also in Greek scripture. It may therefore prove useful to summarize the main points of divergence in the Old English poem from the readings of the Latin Vulgate in order to facilitate comparison with the Greek sources. Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue (Daniel II)

The centrepiece of the biblical account of Nebuchadnezzar's first dream is the image of a hideous composite statue whose head, breast, belly and legs are respectively formed of gold, silver, bronze and clay. As we have seen, the treatment of this material in the Old English Daniel is an exercise in both compression and expansion. The most conspicuous feature of the rendition in Daniel is the elimination of repetitive detail, as found in the successive verses of Daniel II that recount the failure of the ruler's pagan advisers. The grotesque details of the description of the statue also find no counterpart whatsoever in the Old English account. And the interaction of material aspects of the dream-vision with the theme of translatio imperii, wherein the four elements in the statue's composition represent a succession of empires (traditionally held to be those of the Babylonians, Medes, 131

See Montgomery, Critical and Exegetkal Commentary, pp. 139-84, Harrington, Old Testament, p. 376, and LaCocque, The Book of Daniel, pp. 34-55. Most commentators agree that the episode goes back to the episode in Genesis in which Joseph interprets two dreams of Pharaoh (Genesis XLI). This identification is bolstered by the presence of specific verbal parallels (for example, between Gen. XLI.8 and Dan. II. 1). In terms of diction and imagery, the first dream of Nebuchadnezzar has close connections with the vision described in Daniel VII.

274

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition Persians and Greeks) is omitted. 132 However, the account of Daniel's exposition of the ethical signification of the dream is expanded significantly (lines I49b-162). The biblical account of the aftermath of the dream, no less awkward than the dream-vision itself, is also altered greatly in Daniel. The scene in which Nebuchadnezzar improbably falls on his face and, burning incense as if worshipping an idol, acknowledges Daniel as a divinity (Dan. 11.46) does not appear.133 There is no trace of the report in the next verse of the tyrant's acknowledgement of the God of the Israelites (11.47), a biblical passage that is proleptically redundant with the fuller account of his conversion in Daniel IV. Rather, the text of Daniel, by the inclusion of a single extrabiblical phrase, indicates explicitly that no such conversion has taken place: No hwae6ere J>aet Daniel l>aet he wolde metodes

gedon mihte mihte gelyfan.134

Finally, the verse of Daniel appears to resolve a related crux that arises from a statement (11.48) indicating that Daniel and his companions were elevated politically in Babylon (Dan. 11.48: 'constituit eum principem super omnes prouincias Babylonis', etc.). This assertion was, even in the earliest commentaries, challenged as an anachronistic impossibility. The Old English account makes no reference to political advancement, reporting only that Daniel received great acclaim (dom (Dan 163b)) among the Babylonians and reducing the status of Daniel's peers to that of scholars (Daniel excels 'mid bocerum' (164b: 'among scholars')). In sum, if

134

Daniel also eliminates the prophet's initial prayer for divine guidance (Dan. 11.20—3). For discussion of these and other changes, see Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel'', p. 198, and Bammesberger, Linguistic Notes, p. 45. Scriptural authorities have long recognized the improbability of the whole scene, observing that no pious Jew would accept such worship. Porphyry was among the first to query the passage, whereas Josephus was among the first to defend its integrity, arguing that Nebuchadnezzar recognizes Daniel's divinely inspired wisdom. Jerome later extended these arguments, citing further parallel type-scenes involving Joseph and Mordecai. See Montgomery, Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryp, pp. 180-2. Dan 168-9: 'And yet Daniel could not bring it about that he would believe in the power of the Lord.' Dan. 11.48: '[The king] made him governor over all the provinces of Babylon . . .' But note that in the Old English there is no trace of this political elevation, unless 'mid bocerum' {Dan 164b) should be taken to mean 'among the clerics [or administrative officials]'.

275


the rendition of Daniel II in Daniel follows a Vulgate text, then it appears that nearly every crux and awkward passage in the biblical account has been resolved or eliminated in the course of the composition of the Old English version. The trial of three youths of Israel in Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace (Daniel 111)

The rendition of Daniel III in Daniel occupies fully 327 of the 764 extant lines of verse. This represents a huge fraction of the surviving text — about forty-three per cent altogether. This figure may appear all the more remarkable when it is recalled that a leaf has been lost between pp. 180 and 181 of Junius 11. It seems certain that some additional lines — perhaps as many as eighty-two — should be added to the total length assigned to treatment of the trial of the Three in Daniel. This would increase the ratio of lines occupied by the matter of Daniel III to fifty-four per cent. In other words, more than a half of the verse Daniel in its previously unmutilated state — and nearly two-thirds of the verse treating the court-tales - will have been given over to the story of Nebuchadnezzar's torment of the three refugees from Jerusalem recounted in Daniel III. The bare statistics seem all the more impressive in view of the literary qualities of the poem's intricate recasting of the episode. Also significant is the prominence in early medieval liturgy of the matter of Daniel III, especially the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three, the book's two striking excursions into sacred lyric. (As the lyrically derived element in Daniel forms the main subject of the next chapter, the following remarks mainly address its treatment of the narrative matter of Daniel III.) On the The maximum figure assumes the loss of two full pages of text of twenty-six lines each. The verse of Genesis A occurring in sects, xviii and [xxvi] of the Genesis-based verse of Junius 11, for example, comprises eighty-six lines of verse in fifty-seven and fifty-six manuscript lines respectively; see Bradley, 'The Numbered Sections', p. 167. No other comparable textual loss occurs in Daniel as the result of a physical defect in Junius 11, except perhaps at the end of the extant verse (that is, after Dan 764). This final passage fills out the first written page of the seventeenth quire of Junius 11 (p. 212) and is followed abruptly by the beginning of Christ and Satan at the top of next page; see above, pp. 21-2 with n. 34. Critics who argue for the loss of some lines of Old English generally presume only a very small loss of text treating the content of the last verses of Daniel V; see, for example, Lucas, 'On the Incomplete Ending', p. 56. The points set out in the present study, however, would not be affected even if we were to assume the loss of a full rendition of Daniel VI-XII from the end of the poem.

276


basis of the figures set out above, however, it is already safe to conclude that the rendition of Daniel III forms the centrepiece of the Junius text of Daniel^ even if the expansive treatment of Nebuchadnezzar's conversion, following Daniel IV, arguably embodies its climax. Robert Bjork has remarked that the central section of Daniel is one of the only sections in the poem that 'displays strict fidelity to the Old Testament narrative'. 137 Bjork's comment is accurate insofar as the rendition of Daniel III includes sequentially narrated and fairly detailed accounts of Nebuchadnezzar's initial idolatrous state, his oppression of the youths and, after the miracle in the furnace, his stunned acknowledgement of the God of the Israelites. Beyond its perpetuation of the general pattern observed in scripture, however, the text of Daniel once again appears to depart from the model of Vulgate scripture in a range of major and minor details. As Bjork himself recognizes, this section of the poem contains one of the most notable additions to biblical narrative in Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar's acknowledgement of the God of the Israelites is preceded by the speech of the unnamed councillor (rceswa), commending to the ruler the monotheistic deity of the three youths. Appreciation of this scene and related moments requires some general familiarity with the nuance of Daniel III, a chapter that is notably fragmented even in Jerome's revision. It may thus be worth while to set out a concise guide to the main sequence of verses in the Vulgate text and their Old English reflexes in Daniel. Daniel III opens with a long account of Nebuchadnezzar's command to the citizens of Babylon that they worship a huge idol he has erected on the plain of Dura (Dan. III. 1-19a, treated at Dan 170-208 with the codicologically predicated lacuna falling between the present lines 177 and 178). One notable feature of all Latin and Greek texts of Daniel III is the circumstance that Daniel himself does not appear in this scene as a 137

Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p. 2 2 2 .

138

To my knowledge, no one has noted the resemblance of the passage recounting the intrusion of this unnamed royal counsellor (Dan 4 1 6 b : 'cyninges raeswa') to the form and tenor of the famous speech on the flight of the sparrow attributed by Bede to a similarly anonymous retainer of King Edwin at the moment of his conversion (HE 11.13: 'alius optimatum regis' ('another one of the king's retainers'; see text in Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer I, 111—13, at 112)). On the addition involving the rceswa, see Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 182; Ccedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz, p. lxxxvii; Farrell, 'Structure', pp. 5 4 6 - 7 ; Kirkland and Modlin, 'Art of Azarias\

p. 11; Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', pp. 2 1 4 and 218—20; and Anderson,

'Style and Theme', pp. 9—10.

277


protagonist (in contrast to Daniel II, IV and V). The element of contention in this sequence emerges out of the refusal of three youths, Ananias, Misahel and Azarias (whose adoptive names are Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) to worship Nebuchadnezzar's idol, an act of defiance that greatly angers the ruler. The Old English versification omits most of the formulaically repetitive verses associated with Nebuchadnezzar's decree (a pattern that goes back to the style of the Aramaic—Hebrew version). But, despite the textual loss occasioned by the loss of a leaf, the poem agrees with the biblical account in most respects, diverging mainly in minor details. (Rather than falling prostrate as in the biblical account, the citizens of Babylon kneel obediently before the idol; the place-name of the field — 'Dura' in the Vulgate — is given as Dira {Dan 171b), etc.) At this juncture in the book of Daniel begins the extremely complex but essentially symmetrical sequence of verses that treat Nebuchadnezzar's torment of the youths for their disobedience, the miraculous rescue of the Three and their hymnody in the furnace. This sequence consists of six main elements: (1) an initial report of Nebuchadnezzar's anger, the heating of his furnace, and the miraculous preservation of the youths therein (see Dan. III.19b-24 and its lengthy counterpart in Old English verse at Dan 224-78); (2) a single verse stating (in the Vulgate version) that the confessor Azarias alone offers a prayer to God in the furnace (111.25 and 279-82); (3) the text of the prayer of Azarias (111.26-45 and 283-332); (4) a second, partly redundant account of the preservation of the youths, with additional comments attributing their divine rescue to the intervention of an angel and, in a well-known simile, likening the surge of the flames in the furnace (from the youths' perspective) to a dewbearing wind (111.46—50 and 333—56a); (5) another single verse introducing a choral invocation of the forces of creation, attributed to the youths' collective hymnody (III.51 and 356b-6l); and (6) the text of the 139

The final verse of the preceding chapter, describing Daniel's elevation in Babylon, is sometimes cited to explain the form of the received text; see Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 182-4. The verse is taken to suggest that Daniel might have been away on business. The more likely explanation is that by the time of the compilation of Daniel III, the story had taken on a traditional life of its own, circulating as a separate anecdote concerned with the virtues of the three youths rather than Daniel. See further W. H. Shea, 'Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura', Andrews Univ. Seminary Stud. 20 (1982), 29-52, some of whose conclusions regarding the historicity of the episode must be treated with caution.

278

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition Song of the Three (III.52-90 and 362-408). l 4 ° Jerome himself further serves to complicate the sequence by calling attention to the deuterocanonical status of much of the material (Dan. III.24—90) in two obtrusive textual annotations inserted into the main body of the Vulgate text. (His warnings did not affect the tendency of early medieval readers of Daniel to regard the verses recounting the trial of the Three and their hymnody as integral parts of the book.) With the exception of Jerome's textual notes, which have no counterpart in Daniel', every one of these elements in the Vulgate finds a reflex in the Old English versification, and the biblical sequence of prose-based and lyrically derived passages appears to be reproduced in the poem. This apparent approximation of Daniel to the model of Vulgate scripture, however, does not hold up under scrutiny. As we will see in the next chapter, the exemplar of the rendition of the youths' song (see item (6) above) can be shown to go back to the words of the liturgical canticle derivative thereof (Canticum trium puerorum). The brief verses introducing the hymnody of Azarias and his companions (items (2) and (5) above), however, do not occur in any Anglo-Saxon psalter; the treatment in Daniel probably recalls the model of continuous scripture (Vulgate or otherwise). Moreover, the unique details of the second biblical account - the descent of the angel and the simile of the wind (see item (4)) - also occur in the initial rendition of the scene in Daniel (see lines noted under item (1)), occasioning the long-standing theory - disputed in the next chapter - that the central lines of the extant text of Daniel embody an intrusive interpolation known as Daniel B. These preliminary observations in and of themselves clearly call into question the validity of an attempt to account for the state of the text of Daniel by reference to any single biblical exemplar. They will figure large in the specifically codicological hypothesis regarding the structure of Daniel set out at the end of the next chapter.

141

The passages in question (in Daniel as well as in the Vulgate) rather awkwardly juxtapose material resembling a hymn or prayer with dubiously relevant narrative material. W. S. Towner, 'The Poetic Passages of Daniel 1-6', CBQ 31 (1969), 317-26, at 323, suggests that these are 'imitations of liturgical forms rather than authentic examples of liturgical prayer' insofar as 'they appear to be composed ad hoc. Jerome cautions 'Quae sequuntur in Hebraeis uoluminibus non repperi' (Dan. III.23b: 'Those things which follow are not to be found in the Hebrew codices') and 'Hucusque non habetur in Hebraeo et quae posuimus de Theodotionis editione translata sunt' (Dan III.90b: '[The text] up to this point is not to be found in the Hebrew and these things which we have put down are translated from the version of Theodotion').

279


The final ten verses of Daniel III are notoriously problematic, offering nearly as many problems of interpretation as are encountered in the preceding ninety, including an apparent typology referring to God's son and a proleptic depiction of Nebuchadnezzar's apparent conversion. The Old English version enhances the believability of this episode by effecting a number of minor changes, such as elaboration of brief references to Nebuchadnezzar's observation of the youths and interaction with his advisers (at Dan. 111.91—4(21—7)). Absent from the Old English account is a typologically egregious simile likening the angelic saviour of the Three to a son of God (Dan. 111.92(22): filio Dei in the Vulgate), which contributed to the evolution of a major body of Old Testament christological premise in the early Middle Ages. 142 Further, the biblical account awkwardly includes both a prayer to God and a threat of perdition to blasphemers issuing from the mouth of a ruler who is subsequently characterized as pagan (at Dan. 111.95(28)). This passage offers a parallel to the similarly proleptic admission of faith (at 11.47) noted earlier. 1 The incongruity would seem to be exacerbated by the appearance of an edict praising God in the voice of Nebuchadnezzar in the final three verses of Daniel III (Dan. III.97-100(111.37-IV. 1-3)). But it is a frequently neglected fact of Old Testament text-history that this whole passage properly belongs at the head of Daniel IV, where it serves to foreshadow the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar at the end of that chapter. Taken together with the verbally similar final verse of Daniel IV (IV.24(27)) the edict in praise of God provides an artistic 'frame' for the conversion narrative. (The passage has been connected with Daniel III solely as a result of erroneous medieval verse-division.) Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the tree (Daniel IV)

Few passages of the Old Testament achieve the imagistic force of the account of Nebuchadnezzar's second dream in Daniel IV. The biblical

143

See the discussion by Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 79-82 and 90-7, Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 214-17, and LaCocque, The Book of Daniel, pp. 67-70. See Dan. 11.47, 'Vere Deus uester Deus deorum est' ('In truth your God is the God of gods'). Compare also the diction of Dan. IV.31(34). The words of the prayer are perhaps best set out as verse, as by Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel, p. 124. The elevation of Daniel and his companions at II.48-9 also finds a counterpart in 111.97(30).

280


account describes an immense tree providing shelter to a veritable locus amoenus of animals in nature (Dan. IV.7-9(10-12) and 17-19(20-2)), which, in the course of the ruler's dream, is stripped of its branches and reduced to a dewy stump bound in chains of iron and brass (IV. 10— 13(13-16) and IV.20-3(23-6)). l44 In contrast to the laconic treatment of Nebuchadnezzar's first dream in Daniel, where the image of the statue is entirely absent, the Old English treatment of the phantasmagoria of the second dream (at Dan A91-522) is even more elaborate than its biblical source. Here, the tree not only reaches the heavens (as in the Vulgate texts of Dan. IV.8(11) and IV. 17(20)) but displays branches that extend from sea to sea. The metal chains that confine the tree in its reduced state encircle not only the stump but the entire trunk. Abandoning its tendency to avoid repetitive detail, the text of Daniel reproduces and in fact amplifies nearly all of this imagery in the course of a long account of Daniel's interpretation of the dream {Dan 551-92). 145

145

The image in question is related to the topos of the axis mundi as well as an ancient commonplace likening a king to a sturdy tree. Two passages in Ezekiel (XVII.2-24 and XXXI. 12-18), in which both Pharaoh and the house of Judah are compared to an immense cedar, provide a more immediate biblical context for the figure. See discussion by Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 226—7 and 229; Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 220-49; L. F. Hartman, 'The Great Tree and Nebuchodonosor's Madness', in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought, ed. J. L. McKenzie (New York, 1962), pp. 75-82; in Book of Daniel, trans, and introd. Hartman and DiLella, pp. 168-80; and by LaCocque, The Book of Daniel, p. 77. It is of course tempting to speculate that the natural imagery of the second dream possessed an appeal for an Old English poet that the elemental grotesquerie of the statue did not, perhaps in part because of the prevalence of the immense tree of Germanic myth. In any event, the two passages (that is Dan 496-522 and 551-92) are linked by common diction ultimately derivative of the biblical account (in response to Latin caelum ('sky') there appear Dan 500b heofontunglum, 553a heofonheane and 563a heofonum, with complementary allusions to the earth in 497a on foldan, 501b foldan sceatas, 502a middangeard and 559a foldan; cf. Dan. IV.7(10), IV.12(15), IV. 17(20) and IV. 19-20(22-3) terra ('earth')). The two accounts are further linked by recurring imagery of the enormous tree (498a wudubeam, 504a wudubeam, 507a beames, 510b treow, 515b wudubeames, 553a beam, 555a treow and 562b beam; cf. IV.7(10), IV. 17(20) and IV.20(23) arbor ('tree')), its leaves and branches (503a twigum and telgum, 514a twigum and telgum and 555b telgum; cf. IV.9(12), IV. 11(14) and IV.18(21) rami ('branches')), fruit (or 'prosperity'; 499a blatdum, 507b bledum, 513b blcedum and 562a bleed; cf. IV.9U2), IV. 11-12(14-15), IV.18(21) and IV.20(23) fructus, germen, etc. ('fruit', 'seed', etc.)), roots (498b wyrtum, 515a wyrtruman [Junius 11 ivyr \ trumam\, 558b wyrtruman, 580b wyrtruma; cf. IV.12(15), IV.20(23)

281


The defoliation of the tree in Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel's subsequent interpretation set the scene for the account of the ruler's reduction to a bestial state, his exile to the wilderness and eventual rehabilitation (Dan. IV.27-33(30-6) and Dan 598-658). 146 Whereas various scriptural traditions liken the debased ruler's physical state to that of an ox subsisting on the grass of the field, a wild ass, lion or eagle, 147 the Old English account avoids all such homely detail: Nebuchadnezzar is simply a 'wundorlic wraecca / and waeda leas'. 1 8 The text of Daniel, amplifying a brief mention of superbia, in Dan. IV. 34(37), recasts the episode as an exemplum on pride and it treats the conversion of the ruler to belief in the God of the Israelites (only hinted at in the Vulgate account) as the main concern of the episode. 149 The moment of Nebuchadnezzar's

1

147

and IV.23(26) radix ('root')) and the wild animals that live under its protection (504b wilddeor, 511a wildan deor [Junius 11 wildeor], 557a deorum, 571b wildeora, 573* beorta and 576b wildu deor\ cf. Dan. IV.9(12), IV. 11-13(14-16), IV.18(21), IV.20(23), IV.22(25), IV.29-3O(32-3) and V. 21 bestiae, ferae, etc. ('beasts', 'animals', etc.)). Other terms going back to scriptural diction include references to birds (506a fuglas and 512a fugolas; cf. IV.9(12), IV.ll(l4), IV.18(21) and IV.3O(33) uolutm, aues, etc. ('birds')), dew or rain (575b regna scur; cf. IV.12(15), IV.20(23), IV.22(25), IV.3O(33) and V.21 ros ('dew')) and grass (517a grene bleda, 574b gras; cf. IV.12(15), IV.20(23), IV.29-3O(32-3) and V.21 faenum, herbae, etc. ('grass', etc.)). Only the dream of the tree alludes to the 'seven times' of Nebuchadnezzar's exile (56la seofon tida, 577a seofon winter and 582a seofan tide; cf. IV.13(16), IV.20(23) and IV.29(32) septem tempora, etc. ('seven times', etc.)). The most notable addition to the narrative, whose source is uncertain, is the mention of a royal 'seed' (that is, progeny?) at Dan 56lb and 582b (sade). Cf. also the reminiscence at Dan. V.21 and below, pp. 310-20. On a formal level, the account of Nebuchadnezzar's madness and exile provides an example of an ancient form known as the treaty-curse. See, for example, D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, Biblica et Orientalia 16 (Rome, 1964), 16-17 with n. 14. The most important ancient analogue occurs among the legends of Nabunai, held in some documents to have been the last king of Babylon, who is said to have suffered seven years from an inflammatory skin disease before achieving repentance and conversion. See Delcor, he Livre de Daniel, pp. 120-4 with references, and Book of Daniel, trans, and introd. Hartman and DiLella, pp. 178-80. The bestial imagery gives rise in the Middle Ages to the folk-motif of the Wild Man, whose fall from a civilized state and eventual rehabilitation is often connected with careers of aristocratic figures. Dan 633: 'a strange exile, lacking in clothes'. Nebuchadnezzar's conversion, which in medieval tradition comes to represent the most important event in the ruler's career, is in fact never mentioned explicitly in the Vulgate. As noted above, the doctrine derives from two biblical passages that resemble

282

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition conversion in Daniel is particularly striking. The celestial summons that reaches the king is assigned in Daniel to an angel (554b engel) rather than the disembodied voice of the biblical text, and the fact of his conversion is made explicit at the outset: ... haefde beteran 5eaw, leohtran geleafan in liffruman, {>aette god sealde gumena gehwilcum welan swa wite, swa he wolde sylf. Nebuchadnezzar, once converted to his new faith, praises the God of the Israelites in a remarkable amplification that occupies more than twenty lines in Daniel (lines 640—61). The Old English version goes farther than most scriptural accounts in having Nebuchadnezzar appear after his conversion as an active proselyte. The poem even risks effecting a typological absurdity by characterizing the rehabilitated ruler as a virtual precursor of St Paul. In a peculiar addition to this section of the poem (Dan 645—58), a passage wholly unsupported by the Vulgate recounts how Nebuchadnezzar preached a gospel message (godspellode), travelling far and wide among the nations: ... ac he wide bead metodes mihte J)aer he meld ahte... Swa he ofstlice godspellode metodes mihtum for mancynne.

150

151

prayers of liturgical praise for the God of the Israelites, which serve to frame the account of the dream of the tree and the ruler's zoanthropy (Dan. III.98-100(IV. 1-3) and Dan. IV.31-2(34-5) and IV.34(37)). The last of these provides the clearest indication of Nebuchadnezzar's conversion in a first-person quotation: 'Nunc igitur ego Nabuchodonosor laudo et magnifico et glorifico regem caeli' (Therefore I Nebuchadnezzar do now praise and magnify and glorify the King of Heaven'). Dan 6 4 l b - 6 4 4 : 'he had better conduct [and a} clearer belief in the creator of life, [knowing] that God would give prosperity or torment to each man as He Himself might wish.' Dan 646b-647 and 657-8: 'and he [i.e. Nebuchadnezzar] announced the power of God far and wide wherever he had the power to speak . . . He zealously evangelized {godspellode) the powers of God before the race of men.' As Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel\ p. 203, remarks concerning Nebuchadnezzar's evangelical efforts, '[t]here is nothing comparable in the [biblical] source or in Jerome'. A typological argument may be implicit in the Old English account of the conversion. As Godden, 'Biblical Literature', p. 223, notes, '^lfric singled [Nebuchadnezzar] out as one of the few

283


According to Daniel, the main exemplum in Nebuchadnezzar's homiletic repertoire appears to be his own experience in the wilderness.152 Not surprisingly, several articles have argued at length for a view of Nebuchadnezzar's conversion as the informing theme of the poem. 153 The fall of Babylon (Daniel V) After recounting the conversion of Nebuchadnezzar, the text of Daniel seems to diverge abruptly from the familiar model of Vulgate scripture. Neither the structure nor the detail in the Old English rendition bears any close resemblance to the closing verses of Daniel IV. We find additional items of evidence here indicating knowledge of a diverse range of Old Testament lore on the part of an Anglo-Saxon poet. 15 These include a brief allusion to Nebuchadnezzar's successful rule of Babylon until his death (Dan 667b—70), mentioned nowhere in the Vulgate account; a reference to the continuing prosperity of the Babylonians under an unnamed ruler (671-4), perhaps an allusion to the reign of Evil-Merodach (IV Kings XXV.27-30 and Jer. LII.31-4); 155 and a reference to the ascent of Belshazzar in the 'third generation' (pridde cneow (675b)) of Babylonian rule, also corroborating the impression that the poet knew some unidentified tradition concerning an intermediary ruler.156 The most striking addition of all, however, is a peculiar passage that pagans granted a perception of Christ before his coming.' See also the c o m m e n t s on the christology of Daniel by Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p . 2 1 9 , n. 2 0 . Dan 648—9a: 'sidfaet saegde / s i n u m leodum / wide waSe' ('he told his peoples of his wandering, his far journeys'). 153 154

See above, p . 2 5 1 w i t h n. 57. Farrell, 'Structure', p p . 5 3 9 - 4 1 , offers a detailed analysis of the rendition of Daniel V. T h e crucial phrase is 'si65an t>aer his aferan / ead bryttedon' (Dan 6 7 1 : 'After [his d e a t h ] his descendants [sons?] enjoyed prosperity'). It is not entirely clear to which individuals the term aferan refers. It is clear, however, that the poem knows n o t h i n g of the tradition t h a t held that Daniel himself became the third ruler after Belshazzar, based largely on an overly ingenious reading of a phrase in Dan. V.7 'tertius in regno m e o ' ('third m a n in m y k i n g d o m ' ) .

156

'Da in 5aere 6eode awoc / his t>aet pridde cneow . . .' (Dan 6 7 5 : 'Then in that nation arose the third generation after h i m . . .'). It is also possible that the p u n c t u a t i o n of m o d e r n editions has misled us. T h e whole crux may reflect a misreading of the O l d English. Inserting a full stop after cneow, the allusion to the 'third generation' m i g h t be taken to refer to the ascendancy of the Medes.

284

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition serves as a prologue to the account of the fall of Babylon and appears to be wholly non-Vulgate in derivation. Da waes endedaeg 5aes 5e Caldeas cyningdom ahton. Da metod onlah Medum and Persum aldordomes ymb lytel faec, let Babilone blaed swi5rian t>one t>a haele5 healdan sceoldon... Da J)aet gehogode hamsittende, Meda aldor, f)aet aer man ne ongan, t>aet he Babilone abrecan wolde . . . Paet waes f>ara faestna folcum cu6ost, maest and maerost J)ara l>e men bun, Babilon burga, o5})aet Baldazar tmrh gylp grome godes frasade. Saeton him aet wine wealle belocene, ne onegdon na orlegra ni5, {>eah 5e feonda folc feran cwome herega geraedum to {>aere heahbyrig t>aet hie Babilone abrecan mihton.1 7 This proleptic account of Belshazzar's drinking, boasting and imminent fall finds no counterpart in Aramaic, Theodotionic or Vulgate scripture. Several commentators have noted that these lines, specifically in the reference to Belshazzar's endedag and the imminence of the Median assault, anticipate the gist of Daniel's interpretation of the Writing on the Wall. 8 157

158

Dan 6 7 8 b - 6 8 3 , 6 8 6 - 7 and 6 9 1 - 9 : 'That was the last day that the Chaldeans possessed their kingdom. Then God granted princely power to the Medes and Persians in a short space of time. H e caused the prosperity of Babylon to decline, which those people ought to have kept. Then the ruler of the Medes, sitting in his home, contemplated something which no one had ever attempted before, that he would destroy Babylon. That was the most famous fortress among men, the greatest and most renowned of those which men inhabit, Babylon of strongholds, until Belshazzar through boasting severely made trial of God. They sat at wine surrounded by walls, they did not fear the oppression of enemies at all, yet a band of enemies came marching to the high city, with the trappings of armies, in order that they might conquer Babylon.' T h e Vulgate texts of Dan. V.26 and V.28 include the phrases 'numerauit Deus regnum t u u m ' ('God has numbered your kingdom') and 'diuisum est regnum t u u m et datum est Medis et Persis' ('the kingdom is divided and is given to the Medes and Persians'). For discussion of the proleptic account of the fall of Babylon in Daniel, see

285


These passages serve to precede a reworked version of Belshazzar's feast, in the course of which nearly every major thematic concern and structural enhancement in Daniel achieves closure. Several important structural and thematic enhancements in these lines attest to the artistic integrity of the text of Daniel. As Graham Caie has noted, 'The poem has an apt and artistically successful conclusion with Belshazzar's feast, which parallels the initial scene of the Israelites' drunkenness.' The entire treatment of the episode in the poem stands as a negative exemplum providing a warning against boasting, pride and drunkenness. Strictly speaking, the concern with inebriation represents a misreading of scripture. The biblical passage, in fact, refers to the taking of wine at a royal feast, and the sacrilege involves the misuse of sacred vessels and not drunkenness specifically.160 Nevertheless, Belshazzar is described in the Vulgate text of Dan. V.2 as being in a drunken state (temulentus) and the Old English account perpetuates this tradition insofar as it contains many more references to drunkenness and feasting than are found in scripture ('saeton him aet wine' (Dan 695a: '[Belshazzar and his associates] sat at their wine'), 'medugal wearS / maegenes wisa (702: 'the leader of that host became merry with drink'), 'ge deoflu[m} / drincan ongunnon' (749: 'y° u [i.e. Belshazzar and associates] began to drink to devils') and 'windruncen gewit' (752a: '[their] wine-sodden thought')); so also vocabulary relating to the sin of pride (wlenco (Dan 677b), oferhyd (678a), gylp (694a), 'swiSe gulpon' (711b: '[the Babylonian pillagers] boasted much'), 'gealp gramlice' (713a: '[Belshezzar] boasted angrily'), 'hie gylp beswac' (751a: 'boasting betrayed them [i.e. the Israelites]') and 'no . . . / wolde . . . / in gylp

Hofer, ' E n t s t e h u n g ' , p p . 179 and 1 9 6 - 7 ; Farrell, 'Structure', p p . 5 3 9 - 4 1 ; Daniel, ed. Farrell, p . 3 3 ; Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p . 2 2 0 ; and Lucas, ' O n the Incomplete E n d i n g ' , p . 5 5 . See also below, p p . 3 2 0 - 5 . 159

Caie, ' O l d English Daniel', p p . 1-2.

160

Biblical scholars maintain that if Belshazzar were deliberately portrayed as a d r u n k a r d , the sacrilege would have proved offensive to Jews and non-Jews alike in the Hellenistic period. See c o m m e n t s in Book of Daniel, trans, and introd. H a r t m a n and DiLella, p . 187. For discussion of passages alluding to feasting and drunkenness, see Farrell, 'Structure', p . 5 5 7 , Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p p . 2 1 4 - 1 7 and Anderson, 'Style and T h e m e ' , p . 9- Similar problematization attends the allusions to Belshazzar's concubines. T h e presence of the queen, w h o was usually not present at feasts, would have seemed surprising to the book's earliest readers, whereas the attendance of concubines would meet the expectations of an ancient audience.

286


beran' (753—754b: '[Nebuchadnezzar] would never bring out [the sacred vessels] while boasting')). The most striking enhancement in the Old English account, however, is a lengthy reminiscence of the plundering of Solomon's temple at lines 705—11, serving to recall the elaborate treatment of that scene in the opening lines of the poem. Some caution is required in addressing this point, since there are in fact scriptural references to the seizing of the treasures of Solomon's temple at Dan. V.2 and V.23. But in the final tally the Old English Daniel clearly reflects knowledge of the essentially extrabiblical tradition that Nebuchadnezzar treated the seized vessels with respect while Belshazzar deliberately desecrated them. This seems to be the main point of Daniel's final speech to Belshazzar, where, in place of the reminiscence of Nebuchadnezzar's sojourn in the wilderness in Vulgate scripture (at Dan. V.I8—22 in the Vulgate), we find mention of Nebuchadnezzar's avoidance of boasting (gylp) and respect for the vessels (goldfatu), allusions which involve an act of scriptural synthesis that appears to be wholly without biblical precedent. All told, the verse of Daniel reaches an artistically successful conclusion, despite the apparent loss of some lines near the end of the poem as the result of the mutilation of Junius I I . 1 Daniel as a response to problems of biblical interpretation

The text of Daniel displays many points of divergence from the template of Vulgate scripture - enough to call into question the exclusive use of 161

Given the impression of thematic and structural closure conveyed by these lines of the poem, it is difficult to consider the spirited account of Belshazzar's feast without recalling the question of the completeness of the poem and the disposition of the final quire of Junius 11. As noted earlier, p. 22, arguments mounted by Farrell to show that Daniel is complete in its present form have not been successful. Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel', p. 210, n. 25, remarks that 'Ker's argument for incompleteness in his Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon remains strong despite Robert Farrell's statements to the contrary.' In this regard, the absence of an explanation by Daniel of the appearance of the hand seems surprising, given his previous statement that he will interpret the mysterious words for the king: '\>e . . . orlaeg secge, / worda gerynu' (Dan 745a and 745b-746a: 'I will tell you [your} fate, the mystery of the words'). Nevertheless, even critics who have reasserted the view that the text is incomplete at the end have been inclined to suppose that not much has been lost. See further Ccedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz, pp. lxxxv-lxxxix; Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp, p. xxxi; Lucas, 'On the Blank Daniel-Cycle', pp. 54-8; and Anderson, 'Style and Theme', pp. 1-2.

287


Jerome's text over the course of the composition of the poem. The concluding part of this chapter will discuss a range of specific non-Vulgate texts, many of them implicated in Greek scriptural tradition, that might be taken to account collectively for many or, perhaps, most of the poem's special features. Before turning to this analysis, however, it may be appropriate to address one pervasive objection that could be raised against any fundamentally source-critical approach to the biblical versification in Daniel. Given the poem's frequently idiosyncratic treatment of the episodes involving Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar and the three youths, it is difficult to avoid suspicion that no continuous source (biblical or otherwise) exerted a direct influence on the verse of Daniel.162 The characteristically periphrastic and frequently diffuse style of Daniel might be taken to suggest that little more than a vague recollection of some fragments of the Daniel legends, recast ad libitum, stands behind the text. The analysis offered below argues against any such view of Daniel as a fundamentally extrabiblical composition. The most telling evidence to the contrary, in my opinion, inheres in the very structure of the poem. Despite its many unique details and special features, the narration of Daniel in the main follows the progression of events recounted in Daniel I-V with remarkable fidelity. In many cases, the tally of both incidental scriptural details and major narrative events in sections of the Old English is nearly complete. As we have seen, the tenor of important passages of direct speech is often reproduced in the poem in loco. There are many specific verbal and rhetorical parallels to be reckoned with as well. Moreover, if we assume that one main poet is responsible for the bulk of the verse of Daniel as we have it, there is a concomitant unlikelihood that a devotee possessing the compendious knowledge of Old Testament material exhibited in the rendition of Daniel I would need recourse to a secondary version of the matter of the book. Finally, as noted above, I have not managed to discover a similarly sequential treatment of the matter of the book of Daniel in a sermon, exegetical commentary or devotional paraphrase, or in any other nonbiblical source. Without denying the possibility that the template of Daniel was fixed in a poet's mind rather than copied out on parchment, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the bulk of the matter of the poem derives from some sort of continuous biblical exemplar. The special 162

Such an extreme view is articulated by Solo, 'Twice-Told Tale', p. 348, n. 1, who cites 'important differences in the syntax and art of the Old English and Old Testament works', effectively denying that the poem has any immediate biblical source.

288


features of Daniel\ in my view, can only be evaluated properly in the light of such a continuous biblical source, and it is my intention below to illuminate as far as possible the exemplar's probable content. The special features of the verse of Daniel reflect the fortunes of the biblical text of Daniel itself. Before any aspect of the Junius Daniel can be declared incontrovertibly extrabiblical, cognizance must first be taken of readings in fully six different versions of the book exerting varying degrees of influence on western Christian tradition: the ancient witnesses to the Aramaic-Hebrew text; two widely diverging Greek texts; two distinct Old Latin translations deriving therefrom; and, of course, the Vulgate revision. Largely as a result of the famous discoveries at Qumran cave the present century has seen a revolution in knowledge about the preChristian texts of Daniel, but as the Aramaic—Hebrew text of Daniel had no unmediated influence on Anglo-Saxon biblical scholarship it remains beyond the compass of the present study. Since the remainder of this chapter will have frequent cause to refer to the Greek texts of Daniel, however, a few remarks introducing these versions are in order. 1 3

For general introductions to the versions of the book of Daniel, see J. Leclercq, 'Daniel', in DACL IV, cols. 221-48, and more detailed discussion of the text in Collins, Daniel:

164

a Commentary\

pp.

1—123; Montgomery, Critical

and

Exegetical

Commentary; Hartman and DiLella, trans, and introd., The Book of Daniel; LaCocque, The Book of Daniel; and Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, pp. 512-29. For critical summaries of scholarship, see W. Baumgartner, 'Ein Vierteljahrhundert Danielforschung', Theologische Rundschau ns 11 (1939), 59-83, 125-44 and 201-28; J. C. H. Lebram, 'Perspektiven der gegenwartigen Danielforschung', Jnl for the Stud, of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods 5 (1974), 1-33; and Miiller, 'Marchen'. The bilingual constitution of the ancient Aramaic-Hebrew recension deserves brief mention. In this version of Daniel the language of the narration abruptly shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic in the middle of an otherwise undistinguished verse (Dan. II.4) and it goes back to Hebrew just as abruptly in the book's second half. (The most commonly accepted division adduces a Hebrew base-text at Dan. I.I—II.4a, Aramaic at II.4b—VII.28.) Modern scholarly consensus holds that the shift in language reflects an early attempt to earn canonical status for the Aramaic Daniel legend by freshening up the beginning and end with a Hebrew translation. The bilingualism of the ancient text of Daniel thus serves to reflect the syncretic origins of the book noted above. It is partly responsible for the anachronistic impression (perpetuated by the versified Daniel) that Chaldean was the special language of Nebuchadnezzar's diviners; see Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 2 - 3 , 12-24 and 33-8, and F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible, rev. ed. (Westwood, NJ,

1963), pp. 48 and 51, and LaCocque, Daniel in his Time, pp. 8-15.

289


Recent discoveries have gone far to clarify the mysterious origins of the so-called Theodotionic recension of the Greek text of Daniel, which formed the basis of the most popular Greek and Old Latin texts of the book circulating throughout the Middle Ages. Such Theodotionic texts might be seen as the most probable source of Old Latin readings in Daniel. Theodotion is generally believed to have been a Jewish proselyte active in an unknown milieu in the second century, but it has long been recognized that certain quotations from Daniel in the first-century writings of Paul stand closer to Theodotion's text than to the only adequately attested preTheodotionic Greek text, the pre-Christian Greek redaction properly attributed to the Septuagint. Only in the present century have fragments of the lost, proto-Theodotionic Greek text of Daniel known to Paul and others come to light. Nevertheless, detailed arguments have been mounted to show that the revision of this proto-Theodotionic text of Daniel commonly transmitted under the name of Theodotion is stylistically irreconcilable with the other writings regularly ascribed to the proselyte.1 Continuous texts of the earlier Greek version I have just mentioned (that of the Septuagint proper) are believed to have dropped out of On the Greek texts of Daniel generally, see Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 35—50 and 51—6, and Grelot, Xes versions'. See also detailed discussion by Swete, An Introduction, esp. pp. 122-70; Jellicoe, The Septuagint, pp. 1 7 5 - 2 4 2 ; S. Jellicoe, Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions and Interpretations ( N e w York, 1973); P. Walters, The Text of the Septuagint: its Corruptions and their

Emendation, ed. D. W. Gooding (Cambridge, 1973); F. G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, rev. A. W. Adams, 3rd ed. (London, 1975), pp. 13-62; G. Dorival, M. Harl and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: du judai'sme hellenistique au

christianisme ancien, Initiations au christianisme ancien (Paris, 1988). On the three surviving manuscripts witnessing the older Greek version of Daniel, see Koch, Deuterokanonische Zusdtze I, 13—17, and Munnich, 'Origene'. See the important study in A. Schmitt, Stammt der sogenannte "®'"-Text bei Daniel

wirklich von Theodotion?, Mitt, des LXX-Unternehmens 9 (Gottingen, 1966), and the comments of K. Koch, 'Die Herkunft der Proto-Theodotion-Ubersetzung des Danielbuches', VT 23 (1973), 362-5. For the import of the Qumran fragments and, especially, the witnesses to the so-called Kaiys recension of the writings of the minor prophets from a scroll found at Nahal Hevel, for knowledge of the text-history of the book of Daniel and the origins of the Theodotionic text, see Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 9—11 and 72—9; D . Barthelemy, Les Devanciers d'Aquila:

Premiere

publication integrale du texte des fragments du Dodecapropheton trouves dans le desert

dejuda,

VT ss 10 (Leiden, 1963), esp. 148-56; Grelot, Xes versions', pp. 391-6; and R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: the Septuagint after Qumran (Philadelphia,

1974), pp. 23-4.

290


circulation after the fourth century, despite the continuing availability of patristic witnesses. Paradoxically, the chronologically earlier text of Daniel in the Septuagint is more discursive and homogeneous than the laconic, crux-laden Theodotionic and Vulgate versions of the book. The earlier Greek text thus at points conveys an impression of being later' than the Theodotionic version circulating in the Christian era and has occasionally been classified as 'midrash'. Beyond the various versions of the book of Daniel proper, there are also five major apocryphal (or deuterocanonical) narrative and hymnodic additions that contributed to various configurations of Greek and Latin texts of the book. The most familiar additions are the apocryphal accounts of Susanna and of the tribulation of the three youths in Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace. The existence of these texts further complicates inquiry into the possible non-Vulgate sources of Daniel. Finally, any thorough consideration of non-Vulgate sources will have to address a range of materials that traditionally resisted Jerome's efforts to define a canon of scripture: liturgical versions of texts from Daniel, continuous glosses on the book, devotional paraphrases and the like. Within the canon of the Old Testament, then, the problematic and (especially in the cases of the Greek texts and their reflexes) historically indeterminate position of the book of Daniel endures to the present day. Nevertheless, the full range of variants evinced by the heterogeneous group of witnesses sketched out above has been taken into account in the following study. The important point that needs to be taken here is that the multiplicity and diversity of texts of Daniel may be viewed as both a symptom and a partial cause of the many problems of interpretation posed by the received text of the book. The book of Daniel, largely because of its reputation as a book of visions — including detailed accounts of pagan visions, such as the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar before Daniel's interpretations - was regarded with deep suspicion in certain strands of early Christian interpretation. Daniel 7

See Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 72-126, esp. at 112-26 for the medieval period. A vernacular treatment of the miracle in the fiery furnace occurs in lines 292-9 of vElfric's Defalsis diis in conjunction with other episodes from the book of Daniel. The fact that yElfric spends nearly a quarter of De falsis diis treating material from Daniel confirms the view that in the early Middle Ages the book was viewed as a major source for knowledge about pagan practices. The material on Daniel in De falsis diis is excerpted and appended to Nebuchadnezzar's sermon for the twelfth Sunday after

291


himself was sometimes demoted to the ranks of the minor prophets, and the book bearing his name is often relegated to the histories. Many conceptual difficulties were engendered by scenes depicting foreign and ancient practices whose ethical signification, for many readers in the Christian West, lay far beneath the surface of the biblical text. Under the scrutiny of a close reading, moreover, the chapters of Daniel reveal many seemingly disconnected strands of narration. Important figures, including the prophet himself, may enter or drop out of a particular episode without explanation. The Hebrew names of central characters seem to alternate with Babylonian cognomens containing names of pagan deities. Chronological references to the reigns of Babylonian kings do not tally, and there are many other instances of apparently contradictory detail. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar places Ananias, Misahel and Azarias under the supervision of a eunuch was often taken to indicate that the captive youths of Judah had been castrated, an interpretation against which Aldhelm argued vociferously in the early period of Anglo-Saxon letters.1 9 The youths' refusal to eat food at court is never explained and it posed problems of interpretation to the medieval mind. A reference to the second year

1 8

9

170

Pentecost in London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xiv, and is later translated into Old Icelandic. See A. Taylor, 'Hauksbok and ^lfric's De falsis diis, LSE ns 3 (1969), 101-9. See Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary; pp. 76-9, 113-24 and 247-9, and T. Ayuso Marazuela, 'Los elementos extrabfblicos de los Profetas', EB 6 (1947), 347-402, at 389. Aldhelm, De uirg. xxi (Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, pp. 250-2, here at 252): 'in arto spontaneae uirginitatis proposito permansisse memorantur, quamuis importuna Iudeorum garrulitas fribula falsitatis deleramenta confingat asserens, nequaquam eosdem puberes aut praefatum collegam . . . ultroneos castitatis caelibes, sed inuitos spadones' ('. . . [the Three] are said to have persisted in the strict resolve of voluntary virginity, even though the troublesome chattering of the Jews fabricates frivolous absurdities of falsehood, asserting that in no way were these youths or their aforementioned colleague {i.e. Daniel] voluntary devotees of chastity, but rather unwilling eunuchs'). On the tradition, see Montgomery, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 119—22, and Lattey, The Book of Daniel, p. 59- The concern of these early authorities was probably misdirected. The ancient term now rendered as 'eunuch' may mean only 'official'; the eunuch Potiphar is described as having a wife (see Gen. XXXVII.36 and XXXIX.7). See esp. the discussion of W. S. Towner, 'Daniel 1 in the Context of the Canon', in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor ofBrevardS.

Childs, ed.

G. M. Tucker, D. L. Petersen and R. R. Wilson (Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 285-98.

292


of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in the first verse of Daniel II contradicts the statement in Daniel I that the youths spent three years at Nebuchadnezzar's court at the start of their captivity, and the book is riddled with other chronological inconsistencies.171 For example, Daniel and the Three are present as a foursome in the opening sequence, but in the second chapter Daniel is introduced as an unknown. Then, in the central scene of the historical narratives, when the Three are persecuted, he has dropped out of the account altogether. The monstrous statue of Nebuchadnezzar's first dream and even the appearance of the Writing on the Wall, although providing a source of intrigue to modern readers, were frequently condemned by medieval commentators as dangerously explicit reports of pagan visions. In the account of the dream of the tree, there are many internal inconsistencies between the initial report of the dream and its later recapitulation in Daniel's interpretation. 7 The ruler's extraordinary behaviour in the wilderness, foraging like an ox, presented similar challenges to medieval readers. And the various allusions to Nebuchadnezzar's conversion appear incoherent. The tyrant seems to acknowledge a monotheistic deity at Dan. II.46-7 and III.98-100(IV.l-3) but has lapsed back to his idolatrous state without explanation at III. 1—14 and at IV. 1—5(4—8). Finally, even the exotic text of the Writing on the Wall sometimes served to affront the sensibilities of medieval theologians with the result that, in the memorable phrase of James A. Montgomery, 'the mystic words were probably dropped as unnecessary antiquarian ballast'. 174 Many of the episodes in the book are incapable of easy generic classification. Beyond the episodic intricacies of its text, Daniel also exhibits many ostensible stylistic infelicities. These include the monotonous repetition of certain phrases over the course of long passages, as in the lists of instruments played by Nebuchadnezzar's minstrels and in the king's call-and-refrain exchanges with his diviners. The biblical text manifests abrupt shifts from first-person narration to third-hand accounts, from prose to verse and from progressive narration to static interludes of 171

See Davies, 'Daniel Chapter T w o ' , p . 3 9 3 . Further examples: the allusion to a siege in the final year of the reign of J o a k i m (Dan. I . I ) contradicts the record of II K i n g s X X I V . 1-2. T h e reference to the first reign of Cyrus at D a n . 1.21 contradicts a chronological allusion at D a n . X . 1.

172

See Davies, 'Daniel Chapter T w o ' , p . 3 9 3 .

173

Ibid yesp. pp. 3 9 6 - 7 .

17

M o n t g o m e r y , Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p . 2 6 7 .

293


prayer. Finally, as Josephus, Origen and other early authorities were among the first to charge, where we have evidence for the sixth-century historical background ascribed to the events recounted in Daniel, the text seems culpable of factual inaccuracy.175 The verse of Daniel appears to respond to these cruces in the most direct manner possible: it leaves most of them entirely out of its account. The poem does not refer to Daniel at all in its treatment of the first chapter. It makes no mention of a royal eunuch. It also fails to record the cognomens of the youths (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) or Daniel's adoptive name Baltassar. The poem omits all of the imagery of the first dream, the later description of Nebuchadnezzar's bovine physique and all of the mystic words at Belshazzar's feast. Specific chronological references and all but a few of the historical allusions drop out of the Old English rendition. Doublet verses and other repetitive matter appear to have been deliberately avoided. Changes of emphasis serve to smooth over many other awkward points: the youths partake of feasts at court; an adviser lectures Nebuchadnezzar at the point of his conversion; succinct biblical references to superbia, inebriation and other moral concerns are elaborated at length; and so on. Simply stated, Daniel's observed deviations from biblical precedent have the cumulative effect of producing a more homogeneous version of the frequently hidden narrative kernel of Daniel I—V. The changes thus effected are perhaps most easy to understand if viewed as collectively offering a coherent set of responses to the problems engendered by some single, continuous exemplar of the book of Daniel. In most cases the interpretative problems resolved by the verse of Daniel are the same ones confronted by early revisers and translators of the book Regarding Dan. 1.1—2, Harrington, Old Testament, p. 377, states that 'a captivity in the third year of Jehoiakim is unknown', and Jost, 'Biblical Sources', p. 262, n. 10, recalls that 'Jerusalem was not, of course, [the Israelites'] capital until much later'. The very existence of a son of Nebuchadnezzar named Belshazzar is disputed. Some critics have asserted that the ruler Evil-Merodach followed Nebuchadnezzar, and that the Belshazzar figure properly should be associated with a legendary ruler named Nabunai, accounts of whose grotesque appearance, banishment and conversion seem also to have influenced the account in Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar's exile. Finally, Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian are entirely obscure and possibly represent anachronistic fabrications by a second-century redactor. Harrington, Old Testament, p. 377, notes that no known Median empire intervenes between the periods of Neo-Babylonian and Persian ascendancy, suggesting that the reference to Darius the Mede is in fact probably a confused reference to Darius III (c. 338-330 BC).

294


of Daniel. In the course of the transmission of the biblical book, these responses led on occasion to the drastic rewording of readings in individual verses, the addition or omission of entire scenes, the absorption of marginal glosses into the main text, the wholesale excision of so-called 'doublet verses' and similar changes. These transmissional considerations, taken together with the outright textual cruces summarized above, point to some general principles that should be borne in mind in the second part of this study. Apparent innovations in the handling of biblical narrative in Daniel often bear comparison with analogous responses by biblical redactors, medieval scribes, exegetes and others to problematic readings in Daniel. It will thus always be necessary to consider whether, say, a parallel drawn between a variant reading of Old Latin scripture and a passage of Old English does in fact reflect knowledge of a non-Vulgate source on the part of an Anglo-Saxon poet or simply represents an independent response to a known textual problem. As we shall see, it is seldom if ever possible to resolve any single query of this nature conclusively. Final judgement regarding the influence of a continuous Old Latin (or otherwise nonVulgate) biblical source on Daniel will ultimately have to be based on consideration of a full accumulation of evidence, the establishment of which forms the main project of the discussion that follows below and in the next chapter. NON-VULGATE READINGS IN DANIEL

The use of the term 'non-Vulgate' has been discussed above. Generally speaking, it is taken here to describe both the evidence of continuous biblical texts — readings of Old Latin translations of the book of Daniel or (especially where no Old Latin exemplar survives) Greek versions known to have spawned Old Latin reflexes in the early Middle Ages - as well as texts, such as liturgical lections, that are non-Vulgate in the sense that they stand apart from Jerome's efforts to codify a canon of the Bible. In the case of Anglo-Saxon devotional usage, the latter category of readings may be seen to offer the most likely medium for the influence of non-Vulgate texts on the verse of Daniel. No continuous Insular witness to the Old Latin versions of Daniel is extant and, in my view, the likelihood that a continuous Greek text was consulted by any poet or redactor involved in the composition or transmission of the text of Daniel is small. The direct influence of non-Vulgate liturgical usage on Daniel, however, is beyond 295


question, as shown by the derivation of the rendition of the Song of the Three from an Old Latin canticle of the psalter. It thus holds to reason that liturgical extracts from Daniel may have exerted influence on other parts of the vernacular rendition. The following comments offer a preliminary approach to this problem. Liturgical extracts of Daniel I—V

The main obstacle to a full treatment of the question of possible liturgical influence on the prose-based sections of Daniel is the same one we encountered above in connection with readings in Exodus: the inaccessibility of reliable evidence for the position of Old Testament lectionary extracts in early medieval liturgical practice generally. Daniel, however, was one of the most popular prophetic books from the earliest period of Christian celebration and thus there is more surviving documentary evidence for its use as a source of lections in the early Middle Ages than for many other books of the Old Testament. One remarkable survivor that does in fact provide some detailed information about the form of early medieval lections in Daniel occurs among marginalia in a group of Veronese books. The jottings owe their preservation in large measure to the presence in the collection of a number of rare texts, including some rare Greek classical material as well as Greekderived patristic writings. 176 The following extract has been entered in a rough cursive minuscule in some blank space in the present Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, XXXVII(35) (Verona, s. viii; marginalia (olim in partem in Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare IV(4)), Verona, s. viii): 176

See notices of t h e Verona lections by Reifferscheid, Bibliotheca Patrum I, 5 2 - 3 , 104 and 1 9 3 - 4 ; W i l m a r t , T r o i s nouveaux fragments'; M. V e n t u r i n i , Vita ed attivita

dello

scriptorium Veronese nel secolo XI (Verona, 1930), pp. 106—7; Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 22

(nos. 182—3); A. Dold, 'Ein bisher unentzifferter Eintrag in einem veroneser Codex und seine Bedeutung fur das Problem der Datierung einiger veroneser Handschriften', in Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Diretto Romano e di Storia del Diretto, Verona

27-28-

29-IX- 1948, ed. G. Moschetti, 4 vols. (Milan, 1951-3) I, 233-42, at 237-9; CLA IV, 21 (no. 477), 26 (nos. 493-4) and 29 (no. 504); CLLA, pp. 179-80 (no. 276); and R. Gryson, Le Recueil arien de Verone (MS LI de la Bibliotbeque Capitulaire et feuillets inedits de la collection Giustiniani

Recanati): Etude codicologique et paleographique, IP 13

(The H a g u e , 1982). 177

T h e m a n u s c r i p t is treated at CLA IV, 2 6 (no. 4 9 3 ) , and by Fischer, Verzeichnis, p . 22 (no. 182), w h o provides the clearest summary of the convoluted foliation and library-

296

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition Contulimus: f Lectio Danieles profetae cum cantico. [Dan. I.I] Anno tertio Ioachim [Vulgate regni Ioachim] regis Iudae uenit Nabochodonosor rex Babilonis Hiaerusalem et obsedit earn. [1.2] Et tradedit Dominus in manus [sic] eius Ioachim regem Iudae et partem uasorum domus Domini [Vulgate Dei; Vulgate variant Domini]. Et asportauit ea in terram Senaar in domum dei sui et uasa intulit in domo [sic] thesauri dei sui. [III.l] Tune [not in Vulgate] Nabocodonosor [sic] rex fecit statuam auream . . , 1 7 8 history of the Verona entries. The text here offers a transcription of l69va20—I69vb4; cf. text ptd with facs. in Vari tipi, ed. Carusi and Lindsay I, 7-15, here at 12, transcribing pi. 25, with silent expansion of abbreviations and adjustment of capitalization. The entry is treated by E. A. Lowe, 'Membra Disiecta [II]', RB 37 (1925), 165-80, who notes (p. 180) that the 'liturgical lessons from Daniel were added in local cursive minuscule of the eighth century on fol[s]. I69v [and] 231[v-] 231[r] . . . The same unmistakeable hand entered the lesson from Ezechiel on fol lv of Verona 11(2).' In the entry reproduced here, the direction 'contulimus' was entered — possibly by the same hand as the main lection - in an ink lighter than that used to copy the surrounding text. Similar Old Testament material has been entered in three other Veronese codices, comprising additional lections from Daniel and lections from Jeremiah and Ezekiel. These are (1) Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, 11(2), lv (s. vii in ; marginalia, Verona, s. viii), containing the lesson from Ezekiel XXXVI noted by Lowe, which has been copied out by the same hand that is responsible for the Ezekiel and Daniel extracts; see Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 22 (no. 182), CLA IV, 21 (no. 477) and CLLA, pp. 180-1 (no. 267a); (2) Verona, XXXVIII(36) (s. vi; marginalia, Verona, s. viii 1 ), citing texts from Isaiah XXVII and XXXIII and Jeremiah IV ('In coena domini, in epiphaniorum mane') at 117v-118r; the hand of the entries differs from that of those taken from Daniel and Ezekiel; see Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 22 (no. 181), CLA IV, 26 (no. 494) and CLLA, pp. 180-1 (no. 267c); and (3) Verona, LI(49) (?Verona, s. v/ vi; marginalia, Verona, s. viii); see CLA IV, 29 (no. 504), CLLA, pp. 180-1 (no. 267b); C. H. Turner, 'On MS Verona LI (49) of the Works of Maxim(in)us\/T5 1 24 (1922-3), 7 1 - 9 ; the study by R. Gryson cited in the preceding note; Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 817-18 (no. 183); and Bischoff and Brown, 'Addenda' I, 354 (item **IV.504). Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 22 (no. 183), first disputed Lowe's identification of the hand of the entry from Jer. IV.3—4 ('Lectio Hierimie profetae in epiphaniorum mane') in Verona, LI(49) with the hand which entered texts in Verona, 11(2) and Verona, XXXVII05), including the Daniel extracts. 178

Dan. 1.1-2 and III.l: 'We have brought together [the following] - a reading in the prophet Daniel with canticle: "[I.I] In the third year of the reign of Joakim, king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it. [1.2] And the Lord delivered into his hands Joakim the king of Judah and part of the vessels of the house of the Lord. And he [i.e. Nebuchadnezzar] carried them away into the land of Sennaar, to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the

297


The specific liturgical context of this extract from Daniel is unknown. To my knowledge, the only direct comment on the question to date is by Andre Wilmart, who speculates that the Veronese marginalia (which Wilmart is prepared to assign to either a monastic or secular milieu) were collectively intended either for recitation in the night Office or formed part of a series of lections used at mass in the course of some unidentified vigil(s). My own research might be taken to support the latter view. A similar arrangement of scriptural passages for mass occurs in old Milanese usage, where material from Daniel I serves to introduce a liturgical setting (again for unspecified use) on the trial of the three youths Cpassio trium puerorum'). The establishment of the precise liturgical context of these lections, however, is largely irrelevant for the present discussion, as are the vexing questions surrounding the relative influence of various early Italian liturgical practices on Anglo-Saxon usage. What is at issue here is the common response to the difficult matter of Daniel I (or I—II), evinced by these early aids to worship. The Veronese excerptor, copying in extenso, allows the text of Daniel 1.1—2 to suffice for the whole of the first chapter treasure-house of his god. [III.l] Then King Nebuchadnezzar made a statue of gold . . ." ' The Latin text essentially follows Vulgate rather than Old Latin usage, but the extract is best regarded as standing apart from the Vulgate tradition insofar as it evinces a number of textual variants apparently introduced ad libitum by the liturgist. Furthermore, it is found in proximity to other lections that do follow the Old Latin. Wilmart, 'Trois nouveaux fragments', pp. 161—2: 'Les trois textes ont done pu trouver place durant "le temps" du Careme, plutot qu'a toute autre epoque de l'annee ecclesiastique. Main enfin seront-ce des cantiques, ou simplement des lecons?' The text, which diverges from the wording of the Vulgate, is preserved in Bergamo, Biblioteca di S. Alessandro, 242 (see p. 139): Passio trium puerorum de Yerusalem [sc. Hierusalem] in Babylonia captiuorum: "[Dan. I.I] Anno tertio regni Ioachim regis Iuda uenit Nabuchodonosor rex Babylonis Iherusalem et obsedit [Vulgate 'obsedit earn']. [III.l] Post haec autem [Tost . . . autem' not in Vulgate] Nabuchodonosor [Vulgate has 'Nabuchodonosor rex'] fecit statuam auream"' ('The suffering of the three captive youths from Jerusalem in Babylon: "[Dan. I.I] In the third year of the reign of Joakim, king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged [it]. [III.l] After this, moreover, Nebuchadnezzar made a statue of gold . . ." '); see text ptd in Codex sacramentorum Bergomensis, ed. Cagin, pp. 206-7; see also Gamber, 'Die Lesungen', p. 131. Although the Veronese evidence might suggest otherwise, Cagin's conjecture that the opening words of Daniel I serve as a direction for a reading of the whole chapter cannot be ruled out of the question. In any case, the Milanese lection provides further support for the conclusion that texts from Daniel I (especially the chapter's opening verses) were copied out as discrete extracts in early medieval devotional books.

298


of the book. The heading characterizing this composite text as a (single) lectio cum cantico shows that the first two verses of Daniel I were viewed by early medieval liturgists as providing a suitable precis of the matter of the fall of Jerusalem and a historical context for the matter of Daniel generally. As we have seen earlier, the main narrative of Daniel presents a lengthy elaboration of these same two verses in recasting the opening matter of Daniel I. At the very least, it can be concluded safely that the isolated and amplified text of Dan. 1.1—2 that forms the basis of the verse of Daniel 33—103 finds an identifiable congener in early medieval devotional practice. This might in turn allow us to entertain speculation that a meditation on the content of these two verses that inform the remarkable pastiche of Old Testament passages analysed earlier was inspired by a devotional extract from the book of Daniel, possibly found standing on its own in some private religious manuscript or simply recalled from memory by a Christian alliterative poet. The preceding remarks may suffice to broach the question of the possible influence of liturgical lections on the prose-based sections of Daniel, although we will have cause to return to the topic again later in connection with the narrative settings of the renditions of the lyrical pieces from Daniel III assigned to Azarias and his companions. The subject is vast, and solid evidence is extremely scarce, particularly in the case of Anglo-Saxon devotional practice. More to the point, the continuous rendition of the narrative matter of Daniel I—V has already been established above as the defining characteristic of the structure of Daniel and thus there is no question of the poem having simply been cobbled together out of vernacular reflexes of liturgical excerpts. We ought to reckon rather with the possibility of the secondary influence of Old Testament lections on the text of Daniel or, at most, the occasional primary substitution of familiar liturgical texts for certain awkward passages in Daniel I-V. Nevertheless, as my own research suggests, such secondary influence (or substitution) may be suspected to have occurred in the cases of Daniel I and III. Indeed, in the latter case, the evidence appears to be incontrovertible. A few additional comments summarizing the known early medieval liturgical contexts for the prose sections of Daniel may thus be in order. The most important catalyst for the lectionary excerption of the book of Daniel in early western liturgical usage was the system of reading three consecutive lections at mass, one from the Old Testament and two from 299


the New, which specified that the first reading should be drawn from among the books of the prophets. Since this first lection was intended to be read out by a designated participant in the mass, this practice encouraged the excerption of passages from many prophetic books, Daniel prominent among them, in a private volume, for convenient consultation by such a celebrant. The practice also resulted in the frequent annotation of favoured Old Testament lections in biblical codices. The consistency with which this process is seen in early witnesses to continuous Old Latin texts of Daniel is especially striking. 182 The early medieval practice also may account for other known instances of the transcription of Old Testament extracts in extenso, such as have been seen above in the usages of Verona and Milan. Despite the systematic elimination of the use of Old 1

See Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, pp. 303—4. The first lection of the Benedictine system of readings was also derived from the Old Testament. The inclusion or exclusion of prophetical readings continues to be one of the main criteria for the classification of lectionaries. The fragments of Old Latin texts of prophetical books and gospels extant in Darmstadt, Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, 895 (fly-leaves) and 3140 (olim in 896) (?northern Italy, s. v; 'Constance-Weingarten fragments') and numerous membra disiecta at other locations, for example, although properly regarded as witnesses to a full liber prophetarum rather than a lectionary per se, contain markings among their copious marginalia indicating the use of the unmutilated codex as a liturgical document (for example, annotations reading 'in letania', etc.). The Darmstadt fragments are treated by Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 21 (no. 175), in CLA VIII, 43 (no. **1174), and in CLLA, p. 9 0 (no. 66). The texts from Daniel are ed. in Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten- und

Evangelien-Bruchstuckey ed. Dold. See also analyses by Ranke, 'Bericht'; K. Gamber, 'Die alteste abendlandische Perikopenliste, vermutlich von Bischof Fortunatianus von Aquileja', Munchener theologiscbe Zeitschrift 13 (1962), 181-201; M. Stenzel, 'Die Konstanzer und St. Galler Fragmente zum altlateinischen Dodekapropheton', SE 5 (1953), 27—85; in Neue St. Galler

vorbieronymische Propheten-Fragmente, ed. Dold,

pp. 7 - 1 1 ; and below, p. 303, n. 188. On the early medieval liturgical context of readings from Daniel, see further comments in Dold's cited edition of the ConstanceWeingarten fragments, pp. 24-5. 183

One such rare witness, in the former Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, F. VI. 1 (Italy (PBobbio), s. vi; marginalia, s. vii/viii), is known only from incomplete secondary reports. This once impressive gospel-book, destroyed by fire in 1904, contained a series of Old Testament lections for use at mass (at 90r-92v) as marginal additions. B. Peyron, 'Notizia d'un antico evangeliario Bobbiense che in alcuni fogli palimpsesti contiene frammenti d'un greco trattato di filosofia', Rivista difilologia 1 (1873), 53—71, at 55, in one of the few reports to address this aspect of the codex before its incineration, alludes to a series of 'lezioni tratte dai profeti' and suggests that the

300

Daniel and Greek scriptural tradition Testament readings as mass-lections in orthodox Roman practice from the eighth century on, certain passages from the books of the prophets managed to endure and eventually came to qualify as 'epistles' - selections mainly (though not exclusively) excerpted from the letters of Paul — that accompanied gospel readings at mass. Not surprisingly, lections from Daniel figure large among survivors from the prophetic books. Readings from the book find a prominent place in the comes of Alcuin; in the work of Amalarius, who follows Alcuin's entire scheme closely; and so on. Finally, examination of a representative selection of texts witnessing a spectrum of early medieval local practices reveals that nearly every verse of Daniel I—V finds some use in the ceremonies of medieval mass and Office.185 Moreover, public reading of the chapters of Daniel in the lectio continua and private reading in the lectio divina continued unabated thoughout the Middle Ages. Old Latin readings in Daniel Oscar Hofer conjectures that the use of an Old Latin exemplar restricts the dating of the composition of Daniel to the eighth century or earlier, citing lections in question were excerpted for feasts in honour of the birthdays of SS John, Peter and Paul. See also remarks in CLLA, pp. 118 (no. 85) and 1 7 9 - 8 0 (no. 267). 184

For the relevant passages of the comes of Alcuin, see Wilmart, Xe lectionnaire', p. 156;

185

A selection of witnesses may serve to illustrate the use of Daniel II and IV in liturgical

cf. also the reconstructed text ptd in Antiqui libri, ed. Tommasi, pp. 3 6 - 7 . ceremonies. The verses corresponding to the Old English rendition of Daniel's interpretation of the dream of the statue (Dan. 11.19-23) are sometimes excerpted as a liturgical lection in Syrian usage; see Baumstark, Nocturna laus, p. 4 8 . Dan. II. 1 - 4 9 and IV. 1 - 3 4 ( 4 - 3 7 ) occur as lections for mass in old Spanish usage on the first and second Sundays of Quadragesima; see Rivera, 'El Liber comicus\ p. 3 4 4 . In three of five witnesses to the Liber commicus (see above, pp. 2 1 1 - 1 3 with n. 113) the entire text of Daniel II is prescribed as a lection for mass on the first Sunday or Lent; see Liber commicus, ed. Perez de Urbel and Gonzalez y Ruiz-Zorrilla, pp. 1 3 6 - 4 0 . Liber commicus also includes a full text of Daniel IV as a lection for mass in the second Sunday of Lent in three witnesses; see ibid,

pp. 2 0 5 - 9 . T w o of five witnesses to the same source

include a text of Nebuchadnezzar's response to the miracle in the fiery furnace (Dan. III.91-100(24-30-IV.l-3))

as a special lection for an office in honour of St

Fructuosus; see ibid., pp. 4 9 - 5 0 . The text of Dan. IV. 1 - 3 4 ( 4 - 3 7 ) is divided into two lections (IV. 1 - 1 4 ( 4 - 1 7 ) and IV. 1 5 - 3 4 ( 1 8 - 3 7 ) ) for the feast of St Victor in the Sacramentary of Bergamo; see above, p. 1 3 9 , and text ptd in Codex sacramentorum Bergomensis, ed. Cagin, p. 2 0 2 .

301


Old English phrases that show an affinity with the words of Greek scripture - presumably pointing to the use of an Old Latin intermediary. Despite the significance of Hofer's assertion, if it could be substantiated, his examples have never been examined in detail. Farrell and other critics have independently speculated that a continuous Old Latin text was consulted directly by the Anglo-Saxon poet who is held to be solely responsible for the received text of the poem. But, as far as I can establish, not one passage from a Greek or Old Latin version of Daniel has been put forward for consideration since Hofer published his study in 1889. The survey that follows represents a first attempt to place discussion of these questions on firmer ground. The most serious hindrances to any consideration of the possible influence of Old Latin versions of Daniel on literature of the early Middle Ages are the paucity of witnesses and the lack of a critical edition of the continuous fragments that do survive. (An edition of the Old Latin text of Daniel under the supervision of the Vetus-Latina-Institut at Beuron has been announced, which, together with texts of the books of the twelve prophets, will occupy the fourteenth volume of the Vetus Latina.) Reliable editions of individual fragmentary witnesses, however, have in many cases been available for years, and it is possible to gain some impression of what a continuous Old Latin text of Daniel might have looked like by piecing together such readings in Daniel I-V as are extant. Reference is also made to original readings of the two main Greek texts (attributed to the Septuagint and Theodotion) in order to fill out deficiencies in the textual tradition. The following list summarizes the witness of continuous Old Latin texts of Daniel found in codices of the prophets as well as lectionary extracts copied out in extenso (some of them Vulgate-based) that preserve Old Latin or significant non-Vulgate readings: Dan. 1.1-9: Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 1398b, pp. 126-75 (Pnorthern Italy, s. ix/x), p. 151 (= quire 4, 2v) 186

186

Readings in Daniel preserved in Sankt Gallen, 1398b (see p. 234, n. 12) are cited from the texts ptd

in Neue St. Galler

vorhieronymische Propheten-Fragmente, ed.

Dold,

pp. 36—8, 40—1 and 44—5; and Dold, 'Die vorhieronymische Prophetentexte', pp. 252—5. Additional fragments of this collection of prophetical books survive in Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, C. 184 (389) frg. 23-4. See Fischer, Verzekhnis, p. 21 (no. 176).

302


Dan. 1.15-II.9: Wiirzburg, Universitatsbibliothek, M. p. th. f. 64a (palimpsest; lower script, PItaly, s. v), pp. 213-14 1 8 7 Dan. 11.18-33: Darmstadt, Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, 3140 (olim in 896), quire 36, 8r-v 1 8 8 Dan. III.l and III.4-5: Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 132 (palimpsest; lower script, Ireland or Irish centre, s. viii; Irish Priscian'), 101v 189 Dan. III. 12-18a, 20-4 and 49-52a: Wolfenbuttel, Herzog-AugustBibliothek, Weissenburgensis 76 (Heinemann 4160) (palimpsest; lower script, Psouthern or southeastern Gaul, s. v/vi or vi in ; later provenance Wissembourg; 'Wolfenbuttel palimpsest'), I6r—v190 Dan. III.15-5Oa: Wurzburg, M. p. th. f. 64a, p. 33 Dan. III.36-49a: Sankt Gallen, 1398b, p. 151e (= quire 4, 5r) 187

See H. Thurn, Die Handschriften der Universitatsbibliothek

Wurzburg III.l: die Perga-

menthandschriften der ebemaligen Dombibliothek (Wiesbaden, 1984), 4 8 - 9 , CLA IX, 51

(no. 1420), and Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 813-15 (no. 177). Readings cited here are ptd in Parpalimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, pp. 127—9 and 376—87. 188

See above, p . 3 0 0 , n. 182. Readings cited here are p t d in Konstanzer Propheten- und Evangelien-Bruchstucke, ed. Dold, pp. 1 0 6 - 7 ; see also Die

altlateinische Konstanz-

Weingartener Propbeten-Fragmente in pbototypischer Reproduction, introd. P. Lehmann, ed.

189

S. G. de Vries, Codices Graeci et Latini Photographice Depicti ss 9 (Leiden, 1912), pis. 7 4 - 5 . See Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 22 (no. 191), and CLA VIII, 19 (no. 1084), and cf. J. F. Kenney, The Sources for the Early History of Ireland, an Introduction and Guide I: Ecclesiastical, Records of Civilization: Sources and Stud. ( N e w York, 1929), p- 6 7 5 , and CLLA,

p . 136 (no. 110). Readings cited here follow exemplary readings p t d by

Bischoff, ' N e u e Materialien' p . 4 2 0 . 190

Vogel, Medieval Liturgy,

p p . 3 2 0 - 1 , notes that the 'lectionary [in the Wolfenbuttel

palimpsest} is a true comes w i t h all its lessons copied out in full . . . In accordance w i t h Gallican usage, it gives three lessons (Old Testament, Pauline letters, Gospel) for each celebration.' O n Dold's claim to have published the text of the oldest k n o w n western European liturgical book, see ibid, p p . 3 0 3 and 3 2 0 - 1 . Readings cited here follow the text p t d in Das dlteste Liturgiebuch, ed. Dold, p p . 8 - 9 and 6 8 . See treatments in CLA I X , 4 4 (nos. 1 3 9 1 - 2 ) ; Claris,

ed. Dekkers and Gaar, p . 4 4 3 (no. 1947);

CLLA,

p p . 174—6 (no. 250); Biblia Sacra, ed. Q u e n t i n et al. X V , xxvi ('s. v/vi'; the question of provenance has apparently now been reopened by the Vatican editors; cf. ibid. XIII, xxvi); and Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 8 0 8 - 1 0 (no. 32). See Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, p . 3 9 3 , n. 142, for corrections to Dold's text and discussion by Morin, Xe plus ancien m o n u m e n t ' ; L. C. Mohlberg, review of Das dlteste Liturgiebuch, ed. Dold, EL 51 (1937), 3 5 3 - 6 0 ; G. Berti, 'II piu antico lezionario della Chiesa', EL 6 8 (1954), 1 4 7 - 5 4 ; and Fischer, Lateinische Bibelhandschriften, p. 8 2 .

303


Dan. III.42-3: Wolfenbuttel, Weissenb. 76, 67 v Dan. III.5O-6Oa: Sankt Gallen, 1398b, p. 151f (= quire 4, 5v) Dan. III.56-7: Karlsruhe, Aug. perg. 132, 102v Dan. IV.20-2(23-5), IV.30-4(33-7), and V . l - 8 : Sankt Gallen, 1398b, p. 148 (= quire 4, 7r) Dan. V.8-24: Sankt Gallen, 1398b, p. 149 (= quire 4, 7v) Dan. V.25-31: Sankt Gallen, 1398b, p. 152 (= quire 4, 8r) The combined witness of the readings preserved in these manuscripts — supplemented by inferences from the Greek versions of Daniel, the readings of the Verona marginalia discussed above (Vulgate-based but witnessing to Old Latin influence) and a working set of patristic citations of the Old Latin - will allow us to make a fresh appraisal of claims for the influence of non-Vulgate biblical texts on the verse of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar and the three youths

In conjecturing that there are Old Latin echoes in Daniel, Hofer identifies passages treating the fall of Jerusalem, the fortunes of the three youths of Israel and Nebuchadnezzar's idolatry and visions. One of these passages, discussed earlier, is a vivid expansion of narrative detail typifying the poem's ruminatio on the fall of Jerusalem, as it refers to the Israelite captives' journey into slavery: ... and gelaeddon eac on langne si 6 Israela cyn, on eastwegas to Babilonia, beorna unrim ... Nabochodonossor him on nyd dyde ... waepna lafe to weorct>eowum.191 The notable use of a characteristic kenning here - the leavings of weapons' (wcepna lafe, that is, the Israelite survivors) are culled for slaves — might be seen to represent part of the attempt to recast the Latin phrasing of II Par. XXXVI.20 noted above, especially the crucial phrase 'quis euaserit gladium ductus in Babylonem'.192 But Hofer correctly observes 191

Dan 6 8 - 7 0 , 72 and 7 4 : ' A n d they also b r o u g h t the race of the Israel, a countless n u m b e r of m e n , on a long journey along the eastern roads to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar p u t t h e m into hardship, those survivors of weapons, as slaves.'

192

See above, p . 2 6 5 , n . 1 0 6 , for the O l d Latin, and similar readings in Ier. LII.16 ('de pauperibus . . .') and X X X I X . 9

('reliquias p o p u l i

304

quae remanserunt . . .'). T h e


that only in the Theodotionic Greek text (and Old Latin reflexes thereof) do we find an allusion to slave-taking in the biblical account of Daniel I. The suggestion for the reminiscence of II Paralipomenon and IV Kings, Hofer reasons, might be seen to go back to the Theodotionic phrase Kai 8i7i8v 6 PaaiA-eix; . . . eiaayayeiv arco TCOV i)ia>v ifjc, aixuataoaiac; Iapar|X, (Dan. I.3) 193 or to a corresponding reference to the captivity of the Israelites in an Old Latin translation. As corroborating evidence for this assertion of Old Latin influence, Hofer notes that the poem's alphabetic ordering of the names of Daniel's companions in captivity agrees with the variant Greek reading 'Avaviac, Kai Aâpiac; Kai Miaar|A, against the Vulgate reading of Daniel 1.19 ('Ananias, Misahel et Azarias'): An waes Annanias, Jjridda Misael,

o5er Azarias, met ode gecorene.

reference to the heathen judge in the lines intervening between those reproduced immediately above may recall a context in IV Kings XXV; see above, pp. 270—1. With the kenning, cf. Dan 80b earme lafe and 152b earmre lafe ('wretched remnants'), 452a leoda lafe ('remnants of those peoples') and GenA 2005b wcepna /^/('leavings of weapons'), all referring to the fallen Israelites. Dan. 1.3 (Theodotionic text): 'And the king told [his chief eunuch] to bring in [some] of the children from the group of captives from Israel'; cited by Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 193, who erroneously attributes the phrase to the Septuagint. An Old Latin equivalent (in Sankt Gallen, 1398b, as ptd by Dold, 'Die vorhieronymische Prophetentexte', p. 252), is 'dixit rex . . . ut introduceret de filiis captiuitatis Israhel' (an English translation would accord in all essentials with that of the Greek); cf. Jerome, Aduersus louinianum i.25 (PL 23, col. 255). The parallel passage in the Septuagint reads Kai siTiev 6 pacriA,ei)onne besnaedan seolfes blaedum, twigum and telgum, and £>eh tacen wesan, wunian wyrtruman J>aes wudubeames eorSan faestne, o5t>aet eft cyme grene bleda, J>onne god sylle. Het eac gebindan beam {>one miclan aerenum clammum and isernum. Hofer argues that the crux can be resolved by reference to certain readings of Greek and Old Latin scripture. He correctly notes that this account differs significantly from the report in the Vulgate: 'Verumtamen germen radicum eius in terra sinite et alligetur uinculo ferreo et aereo in herbis quae foris sunt et rore caeli tinguatur et cum feris pars eius in herba terrae.' 208 Whereas the Vulgate describes the chaining of the stump or Theodotionic addition is discussed by LaCocque, The Book of Daniel', p . 6 8 , w i t h references. T h e older Greek text of the Septuagint similarly emphasizes the administrative duties of the Three: eôucriav 5oi)one miclan'). By a fairly convoluted chain of reasoning, Hofer arrives at the conclusion that the imagery in the Old English poem reflects the influence of the Theodotionic phrase f) |iepiaes egesa stod' {Dan 523-4a: 'Then the earthly ruler awoke from his sleep; the dream was at an end. There was fear in him'). The earlier Greek text of Dan. IV.16(19) reads: Kai dMwOicoSeiarric, xfj.f|v copav uiav d7ro$ai)|idaa . . . [IV.34b(37)] eypa\j/e 8e 6 paoiXeix; NaPouxo8ovoaop tnxcxoXr\v eyKUicXiov 7cdai TOI-r|v ev r||iepqi eyKaiviauoo TCOV paoiXeicov auxoO Kai arco TCOV jxeyiaT&vcov auTou EKOXEGEV av8pa eaxiaxopiav xou; (piXoic, aou Kai enivsc, oivov, Kai i d aKeur) xou OIKOU TOO Seou TOO £a>vxoam ge deoflu[m] drincan ongunnon, 5a aer Israela in ae haefdon aet godes earce, o5J>aet hie gylp beswac, windruncen gewit, swa l>e wur5an sceal. ... and \>u lignest nu {>aet sie lifgende, se ofer deoflum duge{>um wealdeS. There is no trace in either source of the exemplum of Nebuchadnezzar's reduction to a bestial state and later rehabilitation, an account that occupies more than a half of the matter treating Daniel's interpretation in the Vulgate. Although condemnation of pride is of primary concern in the earlier Greek text and the Junius Daniel, both texts are silent about the homely details of the former ruler's sojourn in the wilderness. The desecration of vessels from Solomon's temple remains the central allusion in their accounts. Additional parallels with the Septuagint The series of parallels between the text of Daniel and the earlier Greek versions of Daniel IV and V may suffice to establish the general point of the congruence of the two accounts in their handling of the episodes discussed here. Further detailed comparison of the Old English poem with the readings of Daniel I, II and III in the Septuagint might well prove otiose, since the earlier Greek text diverges far less frequently in these chapters from the familiar model of the Aramaic—Hebrew, Theodotionic and Vulgate versions. It is nevertheless likely that a hypothesis asserting continuous influence of the Septuagint on the whole text of Daniel would be reinforced by the results of such a comparison. My own preliminary 241

Dan lAl—5\ and 763-4: 'Out of pride you brought to the hands of men the holy sacramental vessels in your possession. From these you began to drink to devils, from these vessels which the Israelites had for the observance of the Law in God's ark, until a boast brought about their end, their minds sodden with wine, as shall happen to you . . . and now you deny that He is living, He who rules in His power over devils.' The Vulgate and Old Latin (Theodotionic) texts record the Babylonians' worship of pagan deities ('laudabant deos suos aureos' ('they praised their gods of gold')) at Dan. V.4, but they do not mention either their failure to praise God or God's power here or at V.23- (For an Old Latin text, see Neue St. Galler vorhieronymiscke Propheten-Fragmente,

ed. Dold, p. 40.)

325


survey indicates that the two texts coincide frequently against the Vulgate usage in these chapters, especially in the narrative portions of Daniel III. 2 2 It is doubtful, however, that any accumulation of evidence would Daniel and the Septuagint evince a similar handling of repetitive detail. Neither version includes a full list of the musical instruments employed by Nebuchadnezzar's assistants (repeated in its entirety four times in Theodotionic-Vulgate tradition (at Dan. III.7, III. 10 and III. 15)); they mention only the sound of the trumpet. The most striking points of agreement here, however, emerge in the descriptions of the aftermath of the youths' rescue. The non-Vulgate detail in which the boys' hymnody is linked to Nebuchadnezzar's response is present in Daniel in the speeches of both the rceswa and of Nebuchadnezzar (see Dan 421b-426 and 473b-475). The point is specifically adduced in an additional passage of the Septuagint, at Dan. 111.91(24), which begins: Kai eyevexo ev xcj) aKoucrai xov PaaiXea unvoovxcov auxoov Kai eaxax; eOecbpei auxouc, £c5vxaxo5ovoaop T^KOuaev uuvoovxcov auxcov Kai eSaofxaae Kai e£aveorxr| ev cmoi>5fj Kai euie xoic, jieyiCTxacnv aikou (Dan. 111.91(24): 'And Nebuchadnezzar heard their singing, and he marvelled, and he rose up in haste and said to his nobles . . .')). The attribution of the rescue of the youths to an angel after the event also finds a parallel in the text of the Septuagint at Dan. 111.92(25). (The angel is only mentioned in Vulgate scripture in the prose interlude intervening between the deuterocanonical prayer and hymn.) This narrative moment in the Vulgate provides one of the most celebrated examples of the apparent foreshadowing of New Testament concerns in the Old Testament, when Nebuchadnezzar compares the youths' rescuer to a 'son of God' (Dan. 111.92(25): 'similis filio Dei' ('[the angel in the furnace is] like a son of God')), giving rise to a long tradition of typological exegesis. Neither Daniel nor the Septuagint contains any reference to a son of God at this point and both add further references to the angel. Furthermore, where the Vulgate records that Nebuchadnezzar threatens anyone who blasphemes the God of the Israelites with ruination and destruction of property (Dan. 111.96(29): 'dispereat et domus eius uastetur', that is, '[that people] shall be destroyed and its dwelling shall be laid waste'), Daniel indicates unambiguously that the punishment entails a sentence of death: 'se waere his aldre scyldig' {Dan 449b: 'he would be guilty [so as to forfeit] his life'). The Septuagint also clearly indicates that such blasphemy will be a capital offence (i.e. at Dan. 111.96(29): . . . Sc, av pA,ao~(prmf|O7| . . . 5iajieX,ia^f|cr6xai . . . (' . .whoever blasphemes [the true God] shall be torn limb from limb . . .')). Finally, Nebuchadnezzar's long speech in Daniel after the miracle shows him not only tolerating the worship of the God of the Three but participating in that worship (see, for example, Dan 476-80). This amplification parallels an important addition to Dan. 111.94(27) in the Greek text, as revised by Origen and Lucian, where Nebuchadnezzar is said to worship the God of the Three immediately after the miracle. The text (ptd in Daniel, ed. Ziegler, in apparatus) reads: 7CpoaeKUvf|asv evamiov auxcov 6 Paoiêix; xam hatan ofne, him eac J>aer waes an on gesyhSe,

Dan 271—3a: 'The unharmed youths moved about in the hot oven, all three of the pious ones; in their sight there was also an angel of the Almighty.'

334

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel Nevertheless, the ensuing prayer ascribed to Azarias has often been characterized by critics as a petition for deliverance from the fire issuing on behalf of the three youths. The second narration of the arrival of the angel, at first consideration, might be seen to describe a different miracle altogether: . . . 5a of roderum waes engel aelbeorht ufan onsended, wlitescyne wer on his wuldorhaman.2 The double report of the youths' preservation seems at a stroke to compromise the narrative continuity of the poem while violating its tendency to eliminate redundant biblical detail. Not surprisingly, several scholars have seen fit to account for this repetition by proposing theories of interpolation, viewing the received text of Daniel as falling into two discrete parts, commonly termed Daniel A and B? This hypothetical division of Daniel has not influenced modern editions in a manner comparable to the heterogeneous material in the earlier verse of Genesis A and B. But it must be said that no one has ever conclusively refuted the assertion that the dual account of the youths' rescue represents a textual disruption that impinges on the artistic integrity of the central section of Daniel. Robert T. Farrell, however, has offered formidable arguments for the integrity of this part of Daniel. (I examine these arguments separately below.) In brief, Farrell cites the presence of similarly redundant accounts of the rescue in the Vulgate and additional precedent in patristic exegesis Dan 335b—337: 'At that moment an exceedingly luminous angel was sent down from the heavens, a beautiful man in his wondrous attire.' The earliest example of such speculation apparently occurs in the scholarship of H. Morley, English Writers I: The Writers before Chaucer (London, 1864), pp. 316-18. We are concerned here mainly with verse set off as sects, [lii]—liii in Junius 11 (comprising lines 224-494 of Daniel), whose narrative extends from the initial report of Nebuchadnezzar's anger through the response of the ruler's court to the miracle in the fiery furnace. The sections are 'central' to Daniel in the sense that they constitute the third and fourth items in the series of six divisions given over in the manuscript to the poem's treatment of the matter of Daniel I-V. Even if it could be shown that the text breaking off at the foot of p. 212 of Junius 11 was once followed by a full treatment of the remaining chapters of the biblical book of Daniel, this would not substantially affect our view of the structural role of the episodes in question, as the latter part of the biblical book (Daniel VI-XII, omitting the deuterocanonical additions) is widely recognized to exhibit its own carefully defined narrative structure as well as a separate literary identity as a collection of visions.

335


for the notion that the youths' salvation took place at the moment of their immersion in the flames. But the present state of the question is indicated by a remark of Stanley Greenfield and Daniel Calder, in their response to Farrell's arguments: '[T]here are two related structural problems: (1) the salvation of the three youths is told twice; and (2) the "Song of Azarias," supplicating God for deliverance ([lines] 279-332), comes after the first account of deliverance ([lines] 271—8). Such anomalies suggest interpolation.' There is another body of evidence, neglected hitherto by critics, that would also tend to negate any impression of unity in Daniel. Given the poem's status as a rendition of the matter of Daniel I—V, it is natural to assume that whatever continuous biblical text underlies its verse will have been consulted in a single manuscript, presumably a complete Bible, a collection of the prophets or a separate copy of the book of Daniel. Even in the present state of knowledge, however, the text of Daniel can be shown to embody readings deriving ultimately from two distinct types of Latin text which circulated in medieval Europe in physically discrete documents. The presence of undeniable points of lexical correspondence between the text of Daniel and a copy of the Song of the Three Youths {Canticum trium puerorum) preserved in BL, Cotton Vespasian A. i was noted as early as 1889. A rendition of this canticle is central to the matter of the so-called Daniel B. As far as I am aware, however, no scholar has ever acknowledged outright either the codicological implications of this observation or the host of related textual questions that it raises. Within the extant corpus of early medieval liturgical documents, Canticum trium puerorum is most commonly encountered as a member of the collection of canticles that regularly form an appendix to the psalter, sometimes denoted collectively by the Latin term canticularium. The passages of prose-based narration 5 6

Greenfield and Calder, New Critical History, p. 217. See Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 171, n. 2; Die altenglischen Dicbtungen Daniel und Azarias, ed. Schmidt, p. 2; Anderson, 'Style and Theme', p. 3; and above, pp. 231-2 and 231, n. 17, and below, pp. 401-2 and 411-12. The canticle, in my experience, is identified in early medieval documents by several titles, including Hymnus trium puerorum; Hymnus Ananiae, Azariae et Misael; Benedictio trium puerorum\ and Canticum puerorum. Other codicological contexts for Canticum trium puerorum include hymnals, lectionaries and discrete collections of canticles {libri canticorum). The canticle is also found in psalters as a member of a group of three canticles inserted after Ps. L. For compendious studies of medieval hymnody and the recitation of canticles, see Mearns, Canticles; Schneider, Die altlateinischen biblischen

336

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel that frame the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel\ however, are never, to my knowledge, included in this sort of liturgical supplement. Liturgical settings of the prose and verse associated with the youths' tribulation are in fact fairly common in the liturgy, but the prose element almost invariably derives from one of two types of manuscript: a biblical codex containing a continuous text of the book of Daniel or a lectionary containing a sequence of prose readings extracted therefrom. The form of composite document that would have to be postulated as part of any argument championing a single written source for lines 333—494 of Daniel would be an exemplar of the prose sections of Daniel III into which an abbreviated liturgical form ok Canticum trium puerorum had been substituted for the full scriptural version of the youths' recitation. But such a dual exemplar is not known to have existed at any period of church history. Speculation about the mnemonic feats of celebrants notwithstanding,8 the verse of the central section of Daniel ultimately must be traced back to at least two discrete exemplars, one of which (the hypothetical source of the prose-based passages) may be described broadly as biblical — or, given the lack of an Aramaic or Hebrew source for many of the verses treating the miracle in the furnace, deuterocanonical — in nature, whereas the other (a copy of a distinctive, liturgical text of Canticum trium puerorum) is best viewed as a document proper to the liturgical recitation of canticles. Even in the light of these introductory remarks, which will be developed further within this chapter, it should be clear that any argument asserting the unity of the central section of Daniel will be misdirected, at

8

Cantica\ A. Michel, 'In hymnis et canticis', in Culture et beaute dans Vhymnique chretienne latine, Philosophes medievaux 20 (Louvain, 1976), esp. pp. 38-143; Korhammer, Die monastischen Cantica; and Gneuss, Hymnar und Hymnen. For treatments of individual canticles, their recitation in the early Middle Ages and codices wholly given over to canticles, see Mearns, Canticles, esp. pp. 68-9; Schneider, Die altlateinischen bibliscben Cantica, esp. pp. 94-5; F. Cabrol, 'Cantiques', in DACL III. 1, cols. 1975-99, where Canticum trium puerorum heads the list of major canticles; see also Venerabilis Baedae Opera, ed. Plummer II, 137, for comments on Anglo-Saxon customs; Enciso, 'El estudio biblico', pp. 2 9 3 ^ ; Fischer, Verzeichnis, pp. 11 (no. 7), 18 (nos. 109 and 111) and 24-34 (entries citing 'Cant'); J. Perez de Urbel, 'A Catalogue of Mozarabic Liturgical Mss. Containing the Psalter and liber canticorum\ Jahrb. fur Liturgiewissenschaft 14 (1934), 95-122; and J. M. Pinell, 'El oficio hispano-visigotico', HS 10 (1957), 385^427, at 390-1 (listing early Spanish manuscripts containing sets of canticles, some of which stand as discrete volumes). See above, pp. 59-60.

337


least when judged from the perspective of the poem's handling of its source-material. Nevertheless, the force of the analysis below will be to obviate the necessity of recourse to any theory of interpolation, textual corruption or multiple authorship in order to account for the state of the text. The discussion will proceed in three main stages. The first will offer a new refutation of existing arguments in favour of the hypothetical demarcation of Daniel A and By which, I think, can be put to rest on the evidence of literary features inherent in the verse itself. Next, a review of the early medieval use of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum as canticles of the liturgy will establish a basis for a thorough review of the Old English reflexes of these sacred lyrics in Daniel. Finally, in the light of the evidence so assembled, it will prove possible to offer some general remarks on the interaction of the prose and verse in medieval recitative practice and to propose a single, fundamentally codicological rationale to account for the appearance of incongruity in the versification of the narrative matter of Daniel III. THE HYPOTHETICAL DIVISION OF DANIEL A AND B

In one of the earliest thoroughgoing analyses of the Junius poems, a Bonn dissertation completed in 1882, Hugo Balg argued for a division in Daniel that consigned to a hypothetical Daniel B the whole sequence of material extending from the poem's introduction to the Prayer of Azarias, through the prayer itself and on through the end of the Song of the Three Youths (lines 279—408 of Daniel). Balg's arguments were mainly based on judgements of style. Without considering comparable stylistic shifts occurring in parallel passages of scripture, Balg felt that the poetically elaborate and polished style of the renditions of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum contrasted markedly with the plain and simple verse of the surrounding Daniel A. Balg's division, which will be termed the long interpolation' in the following discussion,

Balg, 'Der Dichter Caedmon', p. 27. Farrell (in Daniel, ed. Farrell, p. 23 with n. 60) states that 'the division was first made by Ernst Gotzinger' in an even earlier study of the Junius poems, Gotzinger's I860 dissertation 'Uber die Dichtungen', a claim that has been reproduced by Anderson, 'Style and Theme', pp. 2 - 3 . Gotzinger does include some general remarks on the treatment of the episode of the youths in Daniel (p. 33), but I do not find an argument for a particular division of lines.

338

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel found at least a half a dozen adherents in the decades following its publication. Balg himself noted what is perhaps the single most cogent objection to his hypothesis. It is hard to apprehend the characterization of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel as an interpolation when the speech subsequently attributed to Nebuchadnezzar's rceswa alludes directly to the youths' hymnody and even paraphrases some of their verse (Dan 421b—426a: 'Hie god herigaS, / . . . witig wuldorcyning', etc.). Balg dealt with this potential objection in the most direct possible manner, classifying the eleven half-lines in question — but no other part of the rceswas speech — as a similarly interpolated 'outlier' passage hovering about the main insertion. Though this aspect of Balg's analysis was not picked up by later scholars, his theory, on balance, has proved to be quite influential. A recent revision of a standard survey of English literature by Walter Schirmer still reproduces the division of Daniel A and B championed by Balg and his successors — including the obsolete line-numbers of their nineteenth-century editions. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the legacy of Balg's theory played a role in the development of George Philip Krapp's weighty opinion, expressed in 1931 in the normative edition of Daniel in the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, that '[lines] 279-439 [of Daniel] have the appearance of being an interruption'. The demarcation of lines specified by Krapp avoids the contextual problems noted above by including the whole of the rceswas speech within the body of the long interpolation. To my knowledge the only proposal for an 'interruption' longer than the 161-line sequence adduced by Krapp occurs in the early school-edition of Exodus and Daniel by Theodore W. Hunt, who suggests that lines 168—485 of Daniel, that is, the whole of the treatment of Daniel III, comprise the interpolation. (Hunt inexplicably excepts lines 10

See the detailed study of Steiner, 'Uber die Interpolation' and comments by Heinzel, Uber den Stil, pp. 9-10; Wiilker, Grundriss, p. 130, n. 1; Hofer, 'Entstehung', pp. 168-9; in Die altenglischen Dkhtungen Daniel und Azarias, ed. Schmidt, p. 2; Sarrazin, Von Kddmon bis Kynewulf, p. 39; P. G. Thomas, 'Beowulf and Daniel A\ MLR 8 (1913), 537-9, at 537; and H. Hecht and L. L. Schiicking, Die englische Literatur im Mittelalter, Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft (Wildpark, Potsdam, 1927), pp. 16—17. Cf. also Sources and Analogues, ed. and trans. Allen and Calder, pp. 220—1, where the integrity of the renditions of both the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three in Daniel is called into question. Schirmer, Geschichte, rev. Esch, p. 39. Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp, p. xxxii.

339


486—94, which recount Nebuchadnezzar's failure to convert.) As we shall see, Hunt's suggestion may in fact have greater merit than other proposals regarding the demarcation of Daniel A and B, as we do find comprehensive and self-contained treatments of Daniel III, exhibiting readings in common with Daniel against the Vulgate, in the early medieval liturgy. Of the dozen or so scholars who have credited the possibility that the transmitted text of Daniel embodies a major interpolation, no two have independently arrived at an identical demarcation of lines in the course of developing their arguments. In the early decades of this century, studies by William A. Craigie and Israel Gollancz argued for a 'short interpolation', taking in the whole of the rendition of the Prayer of Azarias but continuing only through the prose introduction to the three youths' group recitation. In the formulations of both scholars, the second and ostensibly redundant account of the angelic rescue is dismissed from the main body of the poem but the reflex of Canticum trium puerorum is allowed to remain, as are later allusions to the angel and the responses of Nebuchadnezzar and his advisers to these miraculous phenomena.13 Even here, Craigie and Gollancz disagree as to the precise division of lines. Craigie advances some virtually microscopic insights into the nuance of the narrative flow of Daniel to justify breaking off the interpolation (which he takes to comprise lines 279—364) precisely at the end of the third line of the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum, near the middle of its first grammatical sentence. This element of Craigie's argument was not picked up by Gollancz or later commentators, who championed a clean break immediately before the commencement of the lyrical rendition. This unsatisfactory proposal effectively leaves the youths' hymnody to begin unannounced, while consigning a series of dangling, if contextually appropriate, introductory lines to Daniel B ('Swa hie J>ry cwaedon, / modum horsce, / J)urh gemaene word'). Nevertheless, the kernel of Craigie's argument — that the material corresponding to Oratio Azariae is 13

See W. A. Craigie, 'Interpolations and Omissions in Anglo-Saxon Poetic Texts', Philologica 2 (1923-4), 5-19, at 11-12; Ccedmon Manuscript, ed. and introd. Gollancz, pp. lxxxv—xcviii; and later, influential comments by Malone, 'The Old English Period', pp. 65-7, and S. B. Greenfield, A Critical History of Old English Literature (New York, 1965), pp. 160-1. Dan 360b—361: 'And so the Three gave voice with common words, prudent in temperament.'

340

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel most conspicuously out of place in Daniel — has had a lasting influence on scholarship of the poem. One curious aspect of these proposals for interpolations both long and short is their common insistence on placing the commencement of the inserted matter precisely at line 279 of Daniel. This has the uniform result of leaving intact the awkward, ostensibly proleptic account of the angelic rescue (lines 224-78 of Daniel, approximating to Dan. III. 19-24), to be followed by inappropriate sequelae in a hypothetically restored text of Daniel A. In the long interpolation, details of the aftermath of the miracle (lines 409-94, corresponding to Dan. 111.91-100) are seen to follow the divine rescue, whereas, in the case of the short interpolation, there is a jarring shift to the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum (362—408, following III. 57—90). As no theorist of interpolation has ever to my knowledge proposed that the insertion of lines into Daniel was accompanied by any sort of 'freshening up' of existing verse, we are forced to conclude that the nineteenth-century proponents of the long interpolation regarded Daniel A as bearing a striking resemblance in its unrevised state to the version of the miracle of the youths' rescue found, say, in a modern Protestant Bible. There Dan. III.23 is indeed followed immediately by the matter corresponding in earlier texts to 111.91, as the result of the removal of both of the devotional pieces ascribed to Azarias and his companions along with the deletion of adjoining deuterocanonical passages in prose. Critics advocating a shorter interpolation, moreover, have apparently been prepared to view the hypothetical original text of Daniel A as an incoherent conglomerate of prose-based and lyrically derived alliterative verse, with no known biblical or liturgical analogue. Scholarly defence of the integrity of Daniel

This sort of speculation has enjoyed an exceedingly long run in the absence of linguistic or metrical evidence comparable to that adduced for the division of Genesis A and B. We cannot view the self-contained poem 15

Constructions with forms of onginnan and other verbs governing an infinitive in both parts of Daniel A (for example, at Dan A9&y 467, 538a, 598a and 749b) are cited by Balg, 'Der Dichter Caedmon', p. 32. The metrical analysis by Steiner, 'Uber die Interpolation pp. 42-55, shows that certain varieties of half-line, notably those involving the word-order substantive-preposition-substantive (for example, at Dan 150a: 'Daniel to dome') and substantive-adjective (for example, at Dan 173a: 'bresne

341


treating the youths' hymnody and rescue in the Exeter Book (known as Azarias) as evidence of the separate identity of corresponding passages in Daniel in the same way that we view the Vatican fragments of the Old Saxon Genesis as witnesses to the independent status of Genesis B with respect to the verse of Genesis A. Recent years have seen several attempts to affirm the artistic integrity of Daniel, and the present chapter, in the final analysis, will be seen to add to their number. The main goal in any such undertaking, here as elsewhere, is to offer a comprehensive refutation of the theoretical division of Daniel A and B. Happily, this must not lead inevitably to a mundane exercise in negative scholarship. As we have seen, internal inconsistencies in the various arguments for interpolation go a long way toward realizing their own disproof. But the question may be settled decisively, in my view, by adducing the sort of literary judgements that a sympathetic reading of the poetry itself may provide. Given the evidently awkward disposition of the double report of the youths' rescue, it is clear that any effort to vindicate the unity of the central section of Daniel — or, in a less positivistic formulation, simply to make sense of the received text of the poem - will necessitate a close examination of its verse. It may thus prove useful to begin the present survey by systematically setting out the discrete elements of the renditions of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum, many of which have already been mentioned at least in passing, and by summarizing the content of corresponding biblical and deuterocanonical verses in Daniel III. Readers Babilonige'), are twice as prevalent in Daniel A\ the order adjective-prepositionsubstantive occurs more than three times as often in Daniel A. (The term 'substantive' is here taken to refer either to a noun or to an adjective used in a nominal sense.) Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 164, notes the prominence of verbs exhibiting the prefix to-, citing Dan 300a (t&wrecene ('dispersed [in exile]')), 301a (tohworfene ('driven apart [by exile]')), 339b (tosceaf ('shoved aside')), 34la {tosweop and toswende ('swept away' and 'scattered')) and 352a (todrifen and todwaesced ('driven away' and 'extinguished')). There is no such verb in the lines assigned to Daniel A. It is by no means clear, however, that these figures arise independently of the sort of stylistic variation that might be attributed to a single poet. The shifts in the poetical style of Daniel often parallel similar points of stylistic variation in the poem's biblical source, notably in the prominent sequences of non-narrative material in Daniel III. In the final analysis, we must agree with the opinion of Anderson, 'Style and Theme', who, referring to the treatment of the matter of Daniel III in the composition Azarias (preserved in the Exeter Book), states: 'Daniel B may have stylistic affinities with Daniel A as against Azarias even in passages where the contents of Daniel B and Azarias are nearly identical' (p. 3).

342

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel who fix these divisions in mind now will gain an advantage in following the general course of the necessarily complex argumentation set out below, as each of the specified Old English passages fulfils a separate function in the narration of Daniel and each of the corresponding scriptural passages engenders its own reflexes in the diverging traditions of biblical and liturgical texts. The main elements of the treatment of the miracle of the fiery furnace in Daniel are as follows: (1) A lacunose account of the youths' refusal to worship Nebuchadnezzar's idol (Dan 168—208, with a substantial loss of text after line 177a in consequence of the loss of a leaf from Junius 11). This matter has been discussed in the previous chapter as part of the main narrative of the prosebased sections of Daniel. It warrants inclusion in the present schematization because of its literary significance as the episode on which the entire account of the miracle at the furnace ultimately rests and, as we shall see, its independent use in liturgical ceremonies. The canonical status within the Old Testament of the verses underlying these lines in Daniel (Dan. III. 1-12) is not in question. (2) A very full treatment of the tribulation inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar on the youths, occupying seventy lines of verse (Dan 209-78). The account in Daniel includes detailed descriptions of the ruler's anger ('Da him bolgenmod / Babilone weard / yrre andswarode . . .'), 16 his order to heat the furnace, the binding of the youths, their immersion in fire and the death of the Babylonians who stoke the flames (at lines 209—55a). All but the last of the verses corresponding to these passages of Daniel are universally regarded as canonical by biblical scholars (Dan. III. 13—23, with III.24 standing as a deuterocanonical outlier). By contrast, the account of the youths' salvation introduces a range of deuterocanonical matter drawing on Dan. 111.46-51, seen most conspicuously in an allusion to the miraculous rescue of the three by an angel of God (lines 255b-278: \ . . him eac l>aer waes / an on gesyhde, / engel aelmihtiges . . .', etc.).17 Despite the evident disjunction in the treatment of the scriptural source, Old English critics have accepted the reflex of this matter in Daniel as forming an integral part of the poem (or of Daniel A).

17

Dan 209—10a: 'Then the guardian of Babylon, swollen with anger in his mind, angrily made an answer.' Dan 271b-272 (ASPR): In their [i.e. the three youths'} sight there was also an angel of the Almighty.'

343

Old English biblical verse (3) A sequence of four lines {Dan 279—82) introducing Azarias's prayer ('Da Azarias . . . / word acwae6',18 corresponding to Dan. III.25). This narrative passage regularly serves to begin the matter attributed to Daniel B by theorists of interpolation. This and subsequent material, up to the aftermath of the miracle, derives from verses which find no extant precedent in the Aramaic—Hebrew tradition and whose collective canonical status is questioned by Jerome in annotations to the Vulgate (Dan. III. 24—90). The scriptural verses standing behind these lines of Daniel will thus be classified throughout the present study as deuterocanonical. (4) The putatively interpolated rendition of Oratio Azariae, comprising a stylistically heterogeneous intercession ascribed to Azarias that is by turns prayerful, penitential and homiletic in tone (283—332: 'Metod alwihta, / hwaet, J)u eart mihtum swi5 . . .', etc.). 19 The prayer (as it is most often termed) ranges over several disparate topics relating to the confessor's own circumstances, those of his companions and, most importantly, those of his fallen nation. The counterpart of this passage in deuterocanonical scripture occurs at Dan. III.26-45, but the fifty-line Old English rendition is notable, as we shall see, for the absence of material corresponding to the deuterocanonical verses at Dan. 111.38—41. (5) The controversial second account of the angel's rescue of the three youths in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace (lines 3 3 3-5 6a: \ . . 6a of roderum waes / engel aelbeorht / ufan onsended . . .', etc.).21 Corresponding formally to the prose interlude intervening between the renditions of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in deuterocanonical scripture (Dan. 111.46—51), the reflex of this passage in Daniel similarly serves to separate the poem's renditions of those canticles. Although this supposedly interpolated account of the rescue is only a scant third as long as the earlier treatment of the miracle (at lines 255b-278, treated above in item (1)), it alludes explicitly to nearly all of the narrative and doctrinal concerns addressed in the first account. A systematic comparison of this matter will be undertaken below.

19

Dan 279a and 282b: 'Then Azarias . . . said these words.' Dan 283: 'Lord of all creatures, lo, You are strong in Your powers . . .' See detailed summaries of the content of the rendition by B jork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', and earlier discussion by Farrell, 'Unity'; Kirkland and Modlin, 'Art of Azarias; Solo, 'Twice-Told Tale'; and Anderson, 'Style and Theme', pp. 2-3 and 19-20. Dan 335b—336: 'At that moment {pa) an exceedingly luminous angel was sent down from the heavens.'

344

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel (6) A second brief narratorial passage serving to introduce the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum (Dan 356b—361). All three youths are said to participate in the choral hymnody ('Swa hie J>ry cwaedon, / . . . Jmrh gemaene word', etc.).22 A deuterocanonical counterpart occurs at Dan. 111.51. (7) The rendition of Canticum trium puerorum, a sacred lyric invoking the forces of creation to the praise of God (Dan 362—408: 'De gebletsige, / bylywit faeder, / woruldcraefta wlite . . .', etc.). The rendition in Daniel occupies forty-seven lines of alliterative verse, one of which consists of a short line (396); the full text of the Song of the Three in the Vulgate occupies thirty-nine verses (Dan. III. 5 2-90). The Old English rendition is notable for the absence of any material corresponding to the opening sequence of benedictions in Daniel III addressed directly to God rather than to the forces of creation. (The sixfold benedictus es series in Daniel III occupies five numbered verses (Dan. III. 5 2—6), the first of which contains a double blessing.) In contrast to Oratio Azariae, the Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum embodies a long sequence of verses regularly beginning with an imperative benedkite (Dan. 111.57-90), the verbal form that still supplies the lyric's most familiar name in modern hymnals. The third major feature of the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel is wholly without scriptural precedent. This problematic passage, which lies at the very end of the rendition, offers direct praise of God in what amounts to a trinitarian doxology couched in an Old Testament context (the mention of 'faeder . . . sunu . . . halig gast' is explicit at Dan 400—2). (8) The unique and largely extrabiblical account of Nebuchadnezzar's response to the divine liberation of the youths, followed by comments on the departure of the angel and the ruler's failure to convert (Dan A09-9A, corresponding broadly to the canonical verses Dan. III.91-7: 'Da J>aet ehtode / . . . Nabuchodonosor', etc.). This narrative, which draws on matter occurring in the sequence of verses commencing after the deuterocanonical addition to Daniel III, has been treated in some detail in the preceding chapter. The strongest arguments to date that affirm the unity of this sequence in Daniel are offered by Robert T. Farrell, who stresses (correctly, in my

23

Dan 360b and 36lb: 'And so the Three gave voice [to Canticum trium puerorum] in a simultaneous recitation, [literally, "with common words"].' Dan 362-3a: 'Let the splendour of worldly creations bless You, glorious Father.'

345


view) the enormous importance of the presence of two accounts of the rescue in the canonical-deuterocanonical text of Daniel III (corresponding to items (2) and (5) above).2 The two passages in question have been dismissed frequently by commentators both ancient and modern as forming a spurious 'doublet' reflecting contamination of the text of Daniel in the course of its transmission. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that arguments for interpolation in Daniel involve a similar sort of reasoning.2 Farrell maintains that the seemingly proleptic rescue of the youths by the angel in fact accords well with certain comments on the matter of Daniel III in the writings of patristic commentators. These authorities maintain that in both empirical and tropological terms the moment of divine rescue must be taken to occur contemporaneously with the youths' immersion in fire, because otherwise they would perish immediately.2 There is even specific scriptural support for this view, as the first verse of the deuterocanonical addition — immediately preceding the text of Azarias's prayer — reads: 'et ambulabant in medio flammae laudantes Deum et benedicentes Domino'. Any strictly chronological reading of the sequence of verses in Daniel III is therefore impossible. In doctrinal terms, the pronouncements of proponents of both the longer and shorter interpolation, in Farrell's view, may thus appear somewhat underinformed. On the whole, Farrell's argument supporting the integrity of the

The full argument is set out by Farrell, 'Unity', with a succinct recapitulation of the main points in Daniel, ed. Farrell, pp. 22-6. In the former study, Farrell argues, p. 127, that the 'repetition of events [in scripture] . . . removes a large part of the basis for Gollancz's objection [to the inclusion of the second account]'. Farrell, in this earlier study (pp. 117-18), characterizes his arguments as 'not primarily based on textual considerations, but rather on aesthetic propriety', asserting that 'the lines most often called into question can be viewed as the dramatic centre of the poem'. See also the scholarship of Heinzel, Uber den Stil, p. 43, and Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 160, for early discussion of the precedent of the two scriptural accounts. For a discussion of Farrell's arguments, see Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p. 213. Farrell, 'Unity', p. 124, remarks that the objections of Daniel scholars 'sound very much like those brought up when modern commentators wish to relegate these verses to the Apocrypha'; cf. ibid., p. 130, where Farrell, citing the scholarship of Lattey, acknowledges that the Prayer of Azarias 'seems to be a prayer for deliverance which has already been granted'. Farrell, 'Unity', pp. 124 and 130, citing Theodoret, Hippolytus and Jerome. Dan. III.24: 'And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God and blessing the Lord.'

346

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel versified sequence has been fairly well received. It cannot be denied that Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum, as devotional texts, stand apart from the main narrative of Daniel III and serve to invoke the infinitude of liturgical time. In stressing these modal aspects of the Old English narration of the miracle, Farrell has made a lasting contribution to Daniel scholarship. The only obvious objection to his hypothesis is stated by Greenfield and Calder: '[T}he Vulgate says only . . . "And they walked . . ."; not until after Azariah's prayer . . . does the angel actually descend into the furnace and drive the flames away.' The statement that Azarias petitions God for mercy ('Geoca user georne nu . . .') after the extrabiblical allusion to the angel will indeed strike many students of Daniel as logically incompatible with the orderly progression of the narrative. The narrative disjunction in the dual account of the rescue, at least at its most immediately affective level, may still be taken to suggest that some sort of insertion of material has taken place. The identification of the precise nature of this insertion provides one of the main goals of the analysis undertaken below. In the second half of this century, several studies have defended the integrity of the twice-told account of the rescue in Daniel on structural and thematic grounds. A careful stylistic and structural analysis of Daniel by Neil Isaacs lays the foundation for such an undertaking. While characterizing the renditions of Oratio Azariae and Cantkum trium puerorum in Daniel as 'two hymns which intrude upon and impede its normal pace', Isaacs argues nevertheless that the passages may be viewed as 'set-pieces' in harmony with the episodic structure of the poem, which he sees as essentially constituting a series of tableaux. The awkwardness of the two accounts of the rescue is mitigated if they are seen as framing the rendition of Azarias's prayer in a manner analogous to other sections of the poem that Isaacs holds to be arranged in accordance with a specific doubling principle. He cites as examples the first and second accounts of the 28

31

Though elsewhere critical of many aspects of Farrell's edition, Celia Sisam is impressed by the argument that the rendition of Oratio Azariae 'is not, as Gollancz thought, an interpolation . . . [T]he repetitions and narrative disruptions that this passage involves are inherent in the Vulgate text of the Book of Daniel.' Sisam, review oi Daniel, ed. Farrell, p. 325. Greenfield and Calder, New Critical History, p. 217. Dan 291a: 'Now save us in earnest . . .' Isaacs, Structural Principles, pp. 145-50.

347


plundering of Solomon's temple, Daniel's interpretations of Nebuchadnezzar's two dreams, the tyrant's two-stage conversion and so on. Brief notice may also be taken in this connection of a study by Harry Jay Solo attempting 'to justify on stylistic and thematic grounds the inclusion in Daniel of what are in fact two complete accounts of the miracle of the fiery furnace'. Solo advances the valuable suggestion that there is a deceptively subtle use of the adverb pa at Dan 335b, where it appears as the first word of the second account of the arrival of the angel. According to the syntax of lines 333—6 of Daniel (as punctuated in Farrell's edition), pa must be taken to possess a certain conjunctive force, meaning something closer to 'when' than 'then' and thus serving to coordinate the two retellings of the angelic rescue. The main thrust of these arguments is to set off the rendition of the Prayer of Azarias from the balanced accounts that frame it, enabling it to be viewed as a self-contained literary entity with its own thematic concerns. The most eloquent 'thematic' defence of the prayer occurs in the scholarship of Robert E. Bjork, who notes that 'the Song of Azarias is not personal but communal — a prayer spoken through the surrogate Azarias for national deliverance'. 3 There is thus no necessary inference that Azarias's intercession redounds specifically to the present circumstances of the three youths. Greenfield and Calder again restate the case most concisely. They note that the problem of the placement of the Prayer of Azarias 'is obviated if one sees it, like the praise song of the three children after the (second) deliverance, as communal rather than personal, a prayer for the salvation of the Jews as a nation'.3 One possible objection to this line of argumentation is implicit in its formulation. Biblical scholars have long recognized that the words of Azarias's prayer, in their scriptural context, issue on behalf of the confessor's people. The thematic concerns emphasized by Bjork and their links to the surrounding prose-based narrative are in fact all anticipated in scripture. There is thus a certain circularity in arguing on this basis for the integral position of the Old English reflex of Oratio Azariae in Daniel, as we should expect the same result if (perhaps) an independently circulating rendition of Oratio Azariae had been interpolated into the text. A second possible objection might involve the explicit (and wholly uncanonical) allusion to fire in Daniel (lig 32

Solo, T w i c e - T o l d Tale', p . 3 4 9 .

33

Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', p . 2 2 3 .

3

Greenfield and Calder, New Critical History, p . 2 1 7 .

348

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel (Dan 295a)), which clearly refers to the youths' travail. On the whole, however, the arguments of Farrell, Isaacs, Bjork and others are germane to the arguments set out below. Conflation of scriptural detail in lines 224—82 and 333—61 of Daniel

The following analysis offers a wholly new defence of the integrity of the two prose-based passages containing the double account of the arrival of the angel. I believe that the two passages in question must be seen as forming a single, complementary set that is almost certainly the work of a single poet. The main source of the textual evidence to be considered here is the standard account of the miracle in the canonical-deuterocanonical text of Daniel III, which, it will be argued, may provide sufficient precedent in and of itself to account for the appearance of repetition in Daniel. The scriptural text will be cited in Latin, but, given the general congruence of the 'miracle' passages in all versions of Daniel III that include the deuterocanonical addition, it matters little whether we refer here to the Old Latin or the Vulgate. (Both will be considered in footnotes.) The point of departure once again is the fact that all commonly encountered medieval texts of Daniel III contain two separate series of verses recording the torment of the three youths in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace, their miraculous survival and their choral hymnody among the flames (Dan. III. 19-24 and 111.46-50). What does not seem to have been appreciated sufficiently in the past is that the two reflexes of these passages in Daniel must be viewed as independently witnessing to the conflation of scriptural diction in the course of the composition of the verse. We have seen in the preceding chapter that the rendition of Daniel I in Daniel, treating the fall of Jerusalem, attests to the ability of an Anglo-Saxon poet to bring together verbally and thematically linked verses drawn from widely separated books of the Old Testament. The canonical and deuterocanonical accounts of the salvation of the three youths would seem to offer an appropriate subject for a similar sort of synthesis. The passages exhibit an almost complete correspondence in the topics that they treat — with the crucial exception of the allusion to the angel — and, in many cases, they agree in their nuances of phrasing as well. In the context of Daniel III, the two passages serve to introduce the hymnody of Azarias and his companions; they offer descriptions of the continual heating of the

349


tyrant's furnace and the incineration of his servants as the flames surge back on them; and the two passages both include affirmations of the youths' continual praise of God. We only encounter material that might serve to distinguish the substance of the two passages in the allusions to the binding of the youths (Dan. III.20—1) and their initial immersion in fire (III.23) in the first passage and the report of the angelic rescue in the second (111.49-50). Close comparison of the verse of Daniel with its scriptural sources clearly indicates that lines 224-82 and 333-61 of the poem reflect an attempt to harmonize the canonical and deuterocanonical accounts of the youths' tribulation, presumably motivated at least in part by the notional congruence of the passages in question. In the poem's first series of lines on the miracle in the furnace, the varying debt to the two scriptural templates breaks down as follows: references in Daniel (at 224—68) to Nebuchadnezzar's anger, his order that the youths should be thrust into the hot furnace and the moment of their immersion derive from the first, canonical account in Daniel III. With the detailed description of the arrival of the angel, however, which occurs immediately after the treatment of the youths' immersion, it is clear that the poet's attention has already turned to the deuterocanonical matter of the second scriptural version of the miracle.36 Somewhat incongruously, the next concern addressed in the verse of Daniel is Nebuchadnezzar's command that the furnace should be stoked continu35

In lines 2 2 4 - 3 1 of Daniel-

especially in t h e phrases '{>a wearS yrre anmod cyning; / he

het ofn onhaetan . . .' {Dan 2 2 4 : 'then t h e resolute k i n g became angry, he ordered t h e furnace to be heated . . .'), 'gebindan h e t . . .' (228a: 'he ordered [the youths] to be b o u n d ' ) and 'hetfc>ahis scealcas / scufan J>a hyssas / in baelblyse . . .' ( 2 3 0 - l a : 'he then ordered his servants t o p u s h the youths into t h e blazing pyre') — the poem treats readings exemplified by t h e Vulgate text of D a n . III. 19—20: 'Tune Nabuchodonosor repletus est furore . . . et uiris fortissimis de exercitu suo iussit ut ligatis pedibus . . . mitterent eos in fornacem ignis ardentem ('Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury and he commanded the strongest men in his army that, having bound {the three youths'} feet, they should cast them into the burning furnace of fire'); cf. Old Latin text ptd in Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, p. 3 8 0 . 36

Lines 2 3 5 - 9 a n d 2 7 2 b - 2 7 3 a of Daniel

(for example, 'Engel in t>one ofn / innan

becwom . . .' {Dan 2 3 7 : ' T h e angel came into t h e furnace . . .')) ultimately g o back to a Latin text of Daniel 111.49 {'Angelus a u t e m descendit . . . in fornacem . . .' ('But the angel went down . . . into t h e furnace . . .') in t h e Vulgate text); for O l d Latin texts, see Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensiumy ed. Ranke, p. 3 8 7 , and Neue St. Galter vorhieronymische Propheten-Fragmente, ed. Dold, pp. 37—40.

350

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel ally. This detail only appears in the first, canonical account. The king's servants are then said to fulfil the king's command by throwing every available kind of fuel on the fire, an event which, by contrast, is reported explicitly only in the second, deuterocanonical account of the tribulation. The ensuing expansion of the scene, in which the flames slay Nebuchadnezzar's servants while the youths praise God from the flames, draws on material common to both versions of the miracle in scriptural sources, with the exception of the Theodotionic Greek text and its Old Latin derivatives.39 The verse oi Daniel next offers a remarkable conflation of details on 37

Lines 2 4 2 - 5 of Daniel (for example, in the phrases ' H e t hie hraSe baernan. / iEled waes ungescead micel' ( 2 4 2 b - 2 4 3 a : ' H e ordered t h e m to be b u r n t u p at once. T h e fire was exceedingly great')) treat the m a t t e r of Dan. III. 19 and 22 (cf. 'Et praecepit u t succenderetur fornax . . .' (III. 19: 'And he c o m m a n d e d that the furnace should be heated . . .') and 'nam iussio regis urguebat, fornax autem succensa erat nimis

(III.22:

'. . . f o r the king's c o m m a n d was u r g e n t and the furnace was heated exceedingly') in the Vulgate). T h e O l d Latin text of D a n . 111.22 p t d in Par palimpsestorum

Wirceburgen-

sium, ed. R a n k e , p p . 3 8 0 - 1 , merits comparison with the sense and syntax of the O l d English: 'quoniam sermo regis praeualuit et furnax succensus est plus quam oportef ('whereas the speech of the k i n g prevailed and the furnace was heated more than is appropriate'); cf. ungescead (Dan 243a, literally 'beyond reason') and '. . . swa h i m waes on w o r d u m g e d e m e d ' ( 2 4 6 b : 'as they had been ordered by {the king's] words'). 38

Cf. Dan 2 4 3 b - 2 4 5 a (for example, in the phrases '. . . {>a waes se ofen onhseted' ( 2 4 3 b : '. . . w h e n t h e furnace was heated up') and 'wurpon w u d u on innan' (245a: 'they threw wood in there'), etc.) and D a n . I I I . 4 6 - 8 : 'Et non cessabant qui inmiserant eos ministri regis succendere fornacem naptha et stuppa . . .' ('And the king's servants that had cast t h e m in d i d not cease to heat the furnace w i t h brimstone and tow . . .'). O l d Latin

texts are ptd in Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, p. 387, and Neue St. Galler vorhieronymische Propheten-Fragmente, ed. Dold, pp. 37-40. The corresponding passage in the Septuagint contains a very elaborate account of the stoking of the furnace, recording that, for example, oi uev . . . fjaav orcepdvco aoxaw, oi 8e . . . i)7tOK&TC0$£v (Dan. 111.46: 'some [assistants] were up above them and others underneath') and UTtOKaiouevric, . . . \)no (111.25: '[fire] that was being stoked from below'); cf. Dan 244a purbgleded ('heated throughout'), etc. With the extrabiblical notion that Nebuchadnezzar erects a wall of iron around the youths (Dan 247b: 'wall . . . iserne' ('a wall, an iron one')), cf. Ambrose, Expositio de Psalmo CXVIII xx. 11 'fornax aurea ilia, non ferrea' (CSEL 62, 450: 'that furnace [was] of gold, not iron'). 39

The treatment of the servants' death is greatly amplified in Dan 246-52a, 253b-255a and 266-8; see, for example, 'gesloh / micle mare / J>onne gemet waere' (Dan 249b50: '[the fire] slew many more than would be expected . . .') and 'fyr fyr scynde / to t>am \>e 5a scylde worhton' (266 [ = line 265 in ASPR I]: 'the fire drove farther forward against those who committed that crime')- Parallel readings in the Vulgate include 'porro uiros illos qui miserant Sedrac, Misac et Abdenago interfecitflammaignis'

351


the aftermath of the miracle, found in the first, canonical account and again, much later in the chapter (at Dan. III.91-3), where Nebuchadnezzar surveys the scene of the youths' perambulation in the furnace.40 Finally, the text of Daniel mentions repeatedly that the youths are not harmed by the flames, a detail deriving from the second account of the miracle. l The initial account of the angelic rescue in Daniel then concludes with a striking natural simile drawn from the same deuterocanonical passage, likening the effect of the fire on the youths to sunshine in summer and dew borne by the wind. The present analysis admits of only one possible (Dan. III.22: 'and the flame of the fire slew those men who had cast in Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego') and 'et efain&ehzxui flamma super fornacem . . . et erupit et incendit quos repperit iuxta fornacem de Chaldeis' (111.47—8: 'and the flame poured out above the furnace . . . and burnt such of the Chaldeans as it found near the furnace'). There is no mention of the fire's incineration of the oppressors at Dan. III.22 in the Old Latin text in Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, p. 381. For an identical omission in the exegesis of Hippolytus, also probably influenced by the Theodotionic text, see Farrell, 'Unity', pp. 124 and 130. The omission may reflect early suspicion that the phrase is a spurious doublet. Old Latin texts of Dan. III.47-8 are ptd in Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensiumy ed. Ranke, p. 3 8 7 , and Neue St. Galler

41

vorhieronymische Propheten-Fragmente, ed. Dold, pp. 37—40. The text of the Septuagint includes the detail of the death of the youths' oppressors at Dan. III.23 and 111.46—7. The youths' perambulation in the fire finds scriptural precedent only at Dan. 111.24 and 111.92(25). Cf. 'hyssas hale hwurfon / in l>am hatan ofne . . .' (Dan 271: 'the youths moved about safely in the hot furnace') and 'et ambulabant in medio flammae (Dan. 111.24: 'and they walked in the midst of the flame') and 'uideo uiros quattuor solutos et ambulantes in medio ignis (111.92(25): 1 see four men free and walking in the midst of the fire'). An Old Latin text is ptd in Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, p. 381. The text of the Septuagint refers to the youths' perambulation only at Dan. 111.92(25). See also the comments on the scene by Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 187. The locus classicus for the youths' preservation occurs in the Vulgate at Dan. 111.50: 'Et non tetigit eos omnino ignis neque contristauit nee quicquam molestiae intulit' ('And the fire

did not touch them at all nor did it trouble them nor did it cause them any harm'). The emphasized terms in particular seem to have given rise to a very complex matrix of passages in Daniel (at lines 232-4, 240-1, 252b-253a, 255b-263, 265, 269-70 and 277b—278) alluding to the preservation of the youths (for example, 'ne mihte t>eah heora / wlite gewemman / wylm {>aes waefran liges' (Dan 240-1 a: 'the welling of the surging flame could not blemish their beauty at all'), 'hyssas waeron / bliSemode' (252b-253a: 'the youths were in joyful spirits') and 'him . . . owiht ne derede' (273b: 'it did not injure them at all')). The Old Latin record is deficient. 2

See the phrase sunnan scima (Dan 264b: 'the light of the sun') and the fully developed simile '. . . gelicost / efne t>onne on sumera / sunne scineS' (274b-275: 'most precisely like when the sun shines in the summer'). The two wholly extrabiblical references to

352

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel conclusion. Lines 224—78 of Daniel embody a conflated version of the youths' rescue combining matter from both of the 'doublet' passages of the canonical-deuterocanonical text as well as details drawn from the biblical account of the aftermath of the miracle. The second treatment of the miracle in the poem also constitutes a conflation of canonical and deuterocanonical scripture. Lines 333—56a of Daniel interweave the conspicuous details of both accounts, albeit in a less thoroughgoing fashion. The verse here recounts the arrival of the angel, the dispersal of the flames, the death of the oppressors and the simile of the wind-blown dew in rapid succession. Though the bulk of this matter either appears in the second scriptural account or is common to both passages, the fact that some conflation of detail has occurred is established by the reference to the youths' perambulation ('geond {>one ofen eodon' (Dan 353a: 'they walked through that furnace')), which surely harks back to Dan. III.24 ('ambulabant in medio flammae' ('they were walking in the midst of the fire')) or perhaps anticipates Nebuchadnezzar's remarks at III.92 ('. . . ambulantes in medio ignis' ('[I see four men] . . . walking in the fire')). The most extraordinary aspect of the second account (which is, as far as I can tell, previously unremarked) is the proportionally greater emphasis given therein to the angelic rescue, supplying the matter of nearly a half of the passage. Also notable is its treatment of the natural simile, which appears in a strikingly elaborated form that seems to invoke an extrabiblical tradition concerning a fall of rain in the furnace attested in various Irish and Anglo-Saxon sources.43 Given the relative emphasis placed on the various scriptural topics analysed here, I would argue on

3

summer in Daniel (here and at 347a sumeres tid ('time of summer')) may reflect some confusion of aestus ('heat') with aestas ('summer'); see below, pp. 394-5 and 397. The dispersal of dew by the wind ('deawdryre / on daege weorSeS, / winde geondsawen' (276—7a: 'a fall of dew comes to be dispersed by the wind in the daytime')) clearly goes back to Dan. III.50 ('fecit medium fornacis quasi uentum roris flantem\ i.e. 'it made the midst of the furnace like a wind blowing with dew'). For the emendation of the manuscript reading deaw drias to deawdryre, see P. J. Lucas, 'Daniel 276', N&Q ns 23 (1976),390-l. The phrase 'dropena drearung / on daeges hwile, / wearmlic wolcna scur' (Dan 348-9a : 'the falling of droplets in daytime {and} the clouds' warm shower') may be associated with extrabiblical allusions to the falling of rain or showers (rather than dew) during the miracle in the furnace in Insular Latin sources. See Aldhelm's Cam. de uirg. (as in the cadence 'imbre superno' ('in the heavenly shower') at line 390 (MGH, Auct. Antiq. 15, 369)) and the B-text of the Hisperica famina ('trinos pio imbrium uapore obseruauit in

353

Old English biblical verse Table 6. A summary and analysis of the topics treated in the two accounts of the rescue of the Three in Daniel (Dan 232-78 and335b-354) Topic

First account (Dan 235-78)

Second account (Dan 335b— 354)

(lines in Dan) (total of

(lines in Dan)

(total of half-lines)

335r>-342a 345b 353b-354 342b-343a 351b-353a

18 (46%)

half-lines)

1 Appearance of angel

235-9 272b-273a

11 (12%)

2 Preservation of youths 232-4 240-1 252b-253a 255b-263

41 (44%)

6(15%)

265

3 Death of servants

4 Natural simile Total of half-lines

269-72a 277b-278 242-52a 253b-255a 266-8 264 273b-277a

31 (33%)

343b-344

3(8%)

10(11%)

345a 346-5la

12(31%)

93 (100%)

39 (100%)

literary grounds that the second treatment of the miracle in Daniel - the one most often relegated to Daniel B — must be viewed as a carefully deployed reprise of the first. The figures in Table 6 show clearly that in the tableau of divine retributive justice expounded by the first of the two passages in Daniel treating the tribulation of the Three, supposedly original to Daniel A, the details of the angelic rescue command only brief comment. Fully seventy-seven per cent of the verse is concerned with the preservation of the youths and the death of the servants. The content of this passage is evenly balanced by the distribution of matter in the second account, where a similar percentage of the verse is given over to the details of the rescue, with special emphasis fornacis estu natos', that is, '[God] preserved the three youths in the heat of the furnace with a holy vapour of rain'), as ptd by P. Grosjean, 'Confusa caligo: Remarques sur les Hisperica famina, Celtica 3 (1956), 35-85, p. 46 with note at p. 47. Cf. N. Wright, 'The Hisperica Famina and Caelius Sedulius', CMCS 4 (Winter 1982), 61-76, at 67, whose translation is followed here.

354

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel on the natural simile. In my view, it would require an extremely fortuitous act of interpolation to bring about the subtle poetical balance exhibited by these two complementary accounts. With the textual evidence supplied by Table 6 in hand, the refutation of the theory of Daniel A and B is effectively reduced to a simple problem in logic. There can be no reasonable question that in lines 224—82 of Daniel we have to reckon with the compositional efforts of an Anglo-Saxon poet who, for some reason, undertook to create a conflated treatment of the two accounts of the youths' tribulation essentially as they are encountered in a full canonical-deuterocanonical text of Daniel III. (As we shall see below, surviving early medieval liturgical documents offer some specific textual 'cues' that might be seen to provide a rationale for such a conflation, but this circumstance is inessential for the present argument.) The initial, seemingly premature appearance of the angel in the verse of Daniel may thus be viewed at least in part as a natural result of the process of conflation carried out during the composition of this section of the poem. The motivation for the inclusion of a second conflated versification of the angelic rescue, however, remains to be established. The next consideration in this regard must be the relationship of the two prose-based conflations to the adjoining renditions of sacred lyric in the verse of Daniel. Geoffrey Shepherd, in a fine departure from critical preoccupation with the relationship of the repeated matter in the poem to the intervening rendition of Oratio Azariae, has correctly noted that '[m]uch of the narrative [rendering the prose of Daniel III] serves as an integument to the [renditions of the] two canticles'. Whatever the precise circumstance of its composition, it seems almost certain that the first of the two conflated treatments of the angelic rescue in Daniel was conceived as an introduction to a rendition of Oratio Azariae, or of Canticum 44

45

46

The arrival of the angel immediately precedes the slaying of the oppressors - an opposite sequence to that which occurs in scripture. It might be concluded that the central theme of the recast version of the miracle in Daniel is the dispensation of retributive justice through divine intervention. For discussion of the first account in connection with the theme of divine retribution, see A. S. Napier, 'Zu Daniel 266—7', ASNSL 98 (1897), 397; Farrell, 'Unity, pp. 125-7; Solo, Twice-Told Tale', pp. 3 5 6 - 7 ; and Caie, 'Old English Daniel', pp. 5-6. This is in keeping with the poet's practice elsewhere. Examples of scenes in which angels appear unbiblically include the accounts of Nebuchadnezzar's madness and the inscription of the Writing on the Wall. Shepherd, 'Scriptural Poetry', p . 32.

355


trium puerorum, or (most probably, in my view) of both. Having completed such a conflated narrative, any poet who wished to include renditions of both Oratio Azariae and Cantkum trium puerorum would be faced with a special problem. Without the interposition of a second account of the miracle — or, perhaps, some sort of wholly extrabiblical invention introduced ad libitum — the two items in Daniel possessing the greatest lyrical and liturgical interest, that is, the renditions of Oratio Azariae and Cantkum trium puerorum, would run together without a break. As we shall see below, an identical problem emerges in the adaptation of Oratio Azariae and Cantkum trium puerorum for liturgical use. The poet responsible for lines 224—82 and 333—61 of Daniel (as Shepherd alone seems to have realized) attempted to make the best of an awkward situation by introducing a second, partly redundant versification on the rescue after the rendition of Oratio Azariae, balanced as far as possible to provide an appropriate literary counterpoint to the first account.47 The evidence set out above strongly suggests that after more than one hundred years of credibility the hypothetical division of Daniel A and B (at least as it has been formulated by critics to date) may now be laid to permanent rest. The redundancy that seems so jarring to a modern audience is a natural result of requirements imposed by the sourcematerials in the book of Daniel and their early medieval reflexes. The twofold treatment of the miracle may well have had a certain appeal for an Anglo- Saxon Christian who knew these texts from devotional use. It now remains to explore the interaction of the prose-based conflations of the two accounts of the angelic rescue in Daniel with the lyrically derived passages for which they supply a narrative setting. THE RENDITIONS OF ORATIO AZARIAE AND CANTICUM TRIUM PUERORUM

One of the least sufficiently appreciated aspects of the central section of Daniel is its unique status within the Junius collection as a reflex of a 47

Such a view of the two accounts as an integrated set of prefatory passages accords well with specific verbal parallels exhibited by the passages: 'sende him of hean rodore' (Dan 235b: '[God] sent him from the high heavens') and 'of roderum waes / . . . ufan onsended' (335b—336: 'from the heavens [an angel] was sent down'); cf. also 'ufan of roderum' (508b: 'down from the heavens'); 'on sumera' (275a: 'in summer') and 'on sumeres tid' (347a: 'in the time of summer').

356

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel prosimetrum. In strict terms, the poem's renditions of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum cannot be classified as versifications, because their immediate sources may themselves be regarded as compositions in verse. In their most ancient witnesses, both of the devotional pieces — even the seemingly ragged lines of the Prayer of Azarias — possess a regular metrical structure, and their medieval descendants were regularly recited as verse among the canticles of the liturgy. To the detriment of critical apprehension of the artistry of Daniel, the alternation of prose and verse in the Latin sources of lines 224-494 of the poem have been overlooked altogether or dismissed in a few words in previous studies. The punctuation and typography of modern editions offer nothing to distinguish the lyrically derived sections of Daniel from the rhetoric of the prose-based speeches in the poem. Indeed, every modern-language translation of Daniel has rendered the passages in question as rhetorical prose. Two circumstances in particular may be adduced to explain the frequent neglect of the alternation of prose and verse in Daniel III by scholars of Daniel. First, until recently there was no reliable guide to the complex issues surrounding the origin and nature of the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three. This situation changed abruptly in 1987 with the appearance of a valuable monograph by Klaus Koch addressing almost every aspect of the pedigree of these sacred lyrics and their narrative settings: their original language (arguably Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek), content and prosody as well as their transmission down to the time of their revision for the Vulgate. A second impediment to critical attention has been the lack of documentation of the circulation of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in the Middle Ages as canticles of the liturgy. Even with the appearance of Koch's learned study, this unfortunate state of affairs has yet to be rectified. It is clearly seen in both direct and indirect witnesses to medieval 48

Koch, Deuterokanoniscke Zusdtze. See also Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 195-207, C. Kuhl, Die drei Manner im Feuer (Daniel Kapitel 3 und seine Zusdtze), ZAW ss 55

(Giessen, 1930), and Daniel, trans, and introd. Moore, pp. 39-76. On Origen's role in the transmission of the deuterocanonical texts, see now the contention of Munnich, 'Origene', that 'dans les sections deuterocanoniques du chapitre 3 Origene disposait d'un texte de Dan-Theodotion qui nous est souvent mal atteste et ne nous est parfois meme plus conserve'; cf. J. Schiipphaus, 'Das Verhaltnis von LXX- und TheodotionText in den apokryphen Zusatzen zum Danielbuch', ZAW 83 (1971), 49-72, at 69-72.

357


liturgical practice that the deuterocanonical canticles of the book of Daniel form part of the earliest stratum of recitative texts in the western church. Both are found preserved among the most ancient surviving exemplars of a variety of western liturgical documents, including appendices in psalters (the previously mentioned canticularia), lectionaries and, rather less frequently, discrete chant-books (libri canticorum). In particular, the poetic diction of Canticum trium puerorum, whose popularity as the hymn Benedicite endures to the present day, pervaded many areas of medieval devotional practice. To cite one homely but representative illustration from the Navigatio S. Brendani, when the Irish abbot Brendan and his sea-going brethren disembark to complete their celebration of Holy Week on an 'island' (insula) that is revealed elsewhere to be the back of a whale named Jasconius, we read that 'sanctus Brendanus ascendens de naui cum suis fratribus cepit can tare \H]ymnum trium puerorum usque in finem'. Despite its whimsicality, this narrative provided its medieval audience with subtle (but accurate) instructions for the employment of Canticum trium puerorum — a liturgical text whose direct influence on Daniel is beyond reasonable question — in the ceremonies of the Easter Vigil. It will of course remain impossible to judge conclusively what prominence the alternation of prose

50

51

In exegetical commentaries, the recitation ascribed to the three youths in Daniel III emerges as a type of liturgical singing generally; see, for example, Nicetas, De psalmod. xiii ('Niceta of Remesiana IF, ed. Turner, p. 240). See also the comments of B. Capelle, 'Note sur le lectionnaire romain de la messe avant saint Gregoire', RHE 34 (1938), 556-9, at 558. An important indirect witness to the texts of the deuterocanonical canticles occurs in the comprehensive Commentarii super cantica ecdesiastka of the mid-sixth-century exegete Verecundus of Bordj Younga (near Gabes in modern Tunisia), ed. in CCSL 9 3 , 1-203Evidence for the adaptation of the prose and verse of Daniel III in early medieval liturgy occurs in the florilegium compiled by Alcuin, De laude Dei, preserved uniquely in Bamberg, Misc. Patr. 17 (see p. 53, n. 94), which includes verses excerpted from Oratio Azariae, a full text of Benedictio trium puerorum (Dan. III. 52—6) and some of the prose preceding the account of the three youths. See Constantinescu, 'Alcuin et les libelli precum , esp. pp. 46—8, Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, pp. 222—9, and below, p. 362 with n. 58. Navigatio S. Brendani xv: 'St Brendan, climbing out of the boat with his brothers, chanted the hymn of the three youths right through to the end'; see text ptd in Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis from Early Latin Manuscripts, ed. C. Selmer, Publ. in Med. Stud. 16 (Notre Dame, IN, 1959), 42; trans, adapted from that in The Voyage of Saint Brendan: Journey to the Promised Land, trans. J. J. O'Meara (Dublin, 1976), p . 37.

358

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel texts and sacred lyrics in Daniel III will have attained in the mind of an Anglo-Saxon poet faced with the prospect of undertaking their rendition into alliterative verse or the degree to which this modal variation will have been appreciated by a contemporary audience. Nevertheless, the discussion that follows represents a first attempt to place future speculation in these areas on firmer ground. Oratio Azariae as a canticle of the liturgy

The verbal affinity of the lines rendering Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel to the liturgical text of the canticle preserved in the Vespasian Psalter has long been acknowledged by critics of the Old English poem. It may thus seem odd that the possibility that the poem's treatment of Oratio Azariae also follows an excerpted liturgical source has not been considered previously. After all, knowledge that the immediate source of the rendition was an independently circulating canticle of the liturgy rather than a continuous scriptural text might account in part for the common impression among critics that the words ascribed to Azarias disrupt the orderly progression of the verse of Daniel. Once again, the neglect may be attributed largely to a lack of scholarly resources. To my knowledge, no separate study of Oratio Azariae as a canticle of the liturgy has ever appeared and there is no standard critical edition of the text in any of its several known liturgical embodiments. This circumstance may in turn reflect the relatively infrequent use of the text in early medieval devotional practice. Unlike the Song of the Three, the Prayer of Azarias is only occasionally extracted from its scriptural setting for use in the rituals of the church, and it is doubtful that its text ever gave rise to a proliferation of typologically classifiable texts comparable to that engendered by Canticum trium puerorum.

To a large extent, the limited fortunes of Oratio Azariae in the liturgical sphere may be attributed to difficulties inherent in the text itself. In marked contrast to the appealing hymnodic structure of the familiar benedictus es and benedicite series of the Song of the Three, the recitation ascribed to Azarias is formally and stylistically heterogeneous. It exhibits a On Oratio Azariae as a canticle of the liturgy, see Mearns, Canticles, pp. 24—9, 31—2, 36-9, 57-9, 6 1 , 77-8 and 87; Schneider, Die altlateinischen biblischen Cantica, 20-4, 108, 135, 167-8 and 172-3; and Gribomont,'Le mysterieux calendrier', p. 110.

359


variance in the length of its versicles ranging from three words to eighteen. The tenor of the prayer shifts abruptly, juxtaposing sentiments that are by turns benedictory, confessional and intercessory. Although settings of Oratio Azariae as a canticle of the choral liturgy are adequately attested from an early period, the mode of expression in the piece stands closer to prose than to verse.53 This accounts in large measure for the distinction between oratio and canticum in the familiar titles of the deuterocanonical texts. Finally, the verses of Oratio Azariae are pervasively mournful in tone and convey none of the sense of spiritual exaltation attending the invocation of the forces of creation in Canticum trium puerorum. Textual difficulties have also served to limit the popularity of Oratio Azariae. In yet another example of the sort of inconsistency that typifies the transmission-history of the book of Daniel, the narrative introduction to Azarias's prayer (at Dan. III.25) in Theodotionic and Vulgate scripture indicates that the confessor alone participates in the recitation, but the subsequent text of the prayer regularly employs plural forms in its handling of first-person pronouns and verbs. There is nothing whatsoever in the text of the prayer to indicate that it issues from the mouth of a single youth immersed in fire. The irregular placement of verse-divisions in all transmitted texts of Daniel III suggests that scribes and redactors alike found the syntax of the utterance confusing. A short citation from Oratio Azariae itself may serve to illustrate all of these points: [Dan. III.38] Et non est in tempore hoc princeps et propheta et dux neque holocaustum neque sacrificium neque oblatio neque incensum neque locus primitiarum coram te, [III.39a] ut possimus invenire misericordiam. [III.39b] Sed in anima contrita et spiritu humilitatis suscipiamur. [III.40a] Sicut in holocaustum arietum et taurorum et sicut in milibus agnorum pinguium, sic fiat sacrificium nostrum in conspectu tuo hodie ut placeat tibi.55 53

35

In one of the earlier post-Conquest Bibles - Lincoln, Cathedral Library, 1 (A. 1. 2) (s. xiex) - the copy of the youths' recitation (at 177v-178r) is laid out in the manuscript as verse. Each blessing or invocation occupies its own line and has a fully inscribed refrain (in laudate). The text of the Prayer of Azarias, however, is copied out continuously as a single block of text, without any regular system of line-breaks. This textual crux gives rise to a variant tradition witnessed by the Septuagint whereby all three youths participate in the recitation of the prayer (Dan. III.24-5: i3uvr|aav xq) KDpicp . . . Kai eurav . . . ('they sang hymns to the Lord and they recited [Oratio AzariaeJ)); see Lattey, The Book of Daniel, pp. 66-7. Dan. III.38-40a: '[111.38] Neither is there at this time prince or leader or prophet or holocaust or sacrifice or oblation or incense or place of firstfruits before You, [III.39a]

360

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel These obscure lines on animal sacrifice typify the problems of interpretation confronting medieval redactors of Oratio Azariae. Difficulties inherent in the text of Oratio Azariae regularly engender one of two common transmissional responses: (1) texts of the prayer are found copied out verbatim and in extenso from the Old Latin or Vulgate exemplar, perhaps suggesting limited familiarity with the prayer on the part of liturgists;5 that we may find Your mercy. [IIL39b] Nevertheless, in a contrite heart and humble spirit, let us be accepted. [III.40a] As in holocausts of rams and bullocks and as in thousands of fat lambs, [III.40b] so let our sacrifice be made in Your sight this day that it may please You.' Lengthy excerpts from Daniel III, including full texts of the Prayer of Azarias, form the final items in the series of lections used in the Easter Vigil in most eastern liturgies; see Baumstark, Nocturna laus, p. 46; cf. also Burkitt, 'Early Syriac Lectionary System', pp. 330-1. The prayer is encountered less frequently as a paschal reading in western usage. Sinai, St Catherine's Monastery, Slavonicus 5 (Mediterranean centre (Pnorthern Africa), s. x in or ix/x), includes a full text of Oratio Azariae (Dan. III.26-45) at 98r-99v; see CLLA, pp. 37-8 (no. 9), and Liber Danihelis, p. xvi, erroneously identifying the text as Canticum trium puerorum. A full, Vulgate-based text of Oratio Azariae is included as the eleventh and final item of the series of canticles iuxta Hebraeos in Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 11 (Paris, Corbie or Soissons (or Epernay), s. viii me ), 229r—230r; see text ed. by Tommasi, as ptd in his Opera, ed. Vezzosi II, 291-343, at 339-43; cf. also CLA I, 30 (no. 101); CLLA, p. 583 (no. 1617); Gneuss, Hymnar und Hymnen, pp. 19-20; and Liber Danihelis, p. xv (no. 330). The last item in the series of vigil readings in the Lectionary of Luxeuil (see above, p. 139 with n. 101) apparently contained a full text of the Prayer of Azarias, but the ending fails as a result of a physical loss in the manuscript; see text ptd in Le Lectionnaire de Luxeuil, ed. Salmon I, 113. A discrete copy of 'Canticum Azariae de libro Danielis' with antiphonal additions occurs in the canticulary of a Mozarabic psalter, the present BL, Additional 30851 (Silos, s. x/xi), and there is a copy of the prayer, prescribed as a text for Matins, in Silos, Archivo del Monasterio, Cod. 6 (Silos, s. xi). See texts ptd in The Mozarabic Psalter (MS. British Museum, Add. 30,851), ed. J. P. Gilson, HBS 30 (London, 1905), 156-7, and in El Breviarium Gothicum de Silos (Archivo Mondstico, MS. 6), ed. I. Fernandez de la Cuesta, MHS 8 (Madrid, 1965), 83 (no. 349); cf. CLLA, pp. 199 (no. 309) and 211-12 (no. 352). A full text of Oratio Azariae for recitation at Sext during Lent appears in Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 10001 (olim Hh. 69; olim Toledo, 35,1; (s. ix/x; early provenance Toledo; 'Psalterium Mozarabicum'; 'Breviarium secundum regulam S. Isidori'; etc.), 176v; see J. Enciso, 'El breviario mozarabe de la Biblioteca Nacional', EB 2 (1943), 189-211, at 202 and 208, and cf. Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 32 (no. 410), CLLA, pp. 212-13 (no. 353), and Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, p. 278. (The text of the Breviarium, first printed by A. Ortiz in 1502 and revised by A. Lorenzana in 1775 is now accessible in PL 86, cols. 7 3 9 940, with a full text of Oratio Azariae at col. 410, and a second full text (from the manuscript's liber canticorum) ptd at cols. 860-1.) Another Spanish witness to the full

361


(2) the individual verses of Oratio Azariae are subjected to an unpredictable sort oiad hoc centonization for use in mass and Office, sometimes involving a re-ordering of the sequence of verses. I have noted examples including the sequences III.26-7-III.30-IIL34-41, IIL29-30-III.34-5-III.39-40, III.31-III.28-III.27, III.34-5,111.35-45 and III.42-3. 5 8 In brief, the text of Oratio Azariae does not achieve a ubiquitous position in early western liturgical practice nor does it give rise to independently popular

57 58

text of Oratio Azariae claimed for the Missale mixtum (see above, p . 139, n. 102) in the Vatican edition is an apparent ghost; cf. Liber Danihelis, p . xvi. There is a complete copy of the O l d Latin text of Oratio Azariae in B N , lat. 11553 (s. ix in ), l v ; see Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, p . 383 (apparatus), Esaiast ed. Gryson II, 807 (no. 7), and Liber Danihelis, p . xv (no. 7). A liturgical treatment of Oratio Azariae occurs in one of the famous 'Winchester tropers', the present Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 775 (Old Minster, Winchester, s. xi m e d ), 102r-103r; see SC Il.i, 4 2 5 - 7 (no. 2558). For introductory remarks on liturgical centonization, see above, p p . 1 2 7 - 8 with n. 7 3 . Alcuin's florilegium De laude Dei contains an abridgement of Oratio Azariae comprising Dan. 111.26-31, III.34-7 and 111.39-45; see Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, p . 2 2 7 . A juxtaposition of Daniel 111.29—30—111.34—5—111.39—40 in early medieval Milanese usage is attested in the Sacramentary of Biasca (Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, A. 24 bis inf. (Biasca, s. x)) in a special mass ad poscendam serenitatem\ see text p t d in Corpus Ambrosiano Liturgicum II: das Ambrosianische Sakramentar von Biasca. Die Handschrift Mailand Ambrosiana A 24 bis inf., ed. O. Heiming, 2 vols., LQF 51 (Minister, 1969) I, 196 (no. 1339A) and CLLA, pp. 266-7 (no. 515). Examples of the excerption of the latter part of the prayer (Dan. III.34—45, in a mixed, Old Latin—Vulgate form) occur in Milanese usage, notably in a text prescribed for the celebration of the feast of St Eustorgius in the Sacramentary of Bergamo (see above, p. 139, n. 103), as ptd in Codex sacramentorum Bergomensisy ed. Cagin, p. 202. Another example occurs in the normative edition of the Missale Ambrosianum duplex (proprium de tempore), ed. A. Ratti and M. Magistretti, Monumenta Sacra et Profana 4 (Milan, 1913), 366-7, where the centonization is used as a lection for the eleventh Sunday after Pentecost; cf. Liber Danihelisy p. xv. The same sequence of verses (III. 35-45) occurs in a text for the feast of St Apollinaris preserved in the comes of Corbie (see p. 82, n. 166), where the recitation of the canticle is said in a rubric to have been made by Daniel; see the edition by Frere, Studies III, 8 (no. 58). Two verses of Oratio Azariae (following the Vulgate form of Dan. III.42-3) are incorporated into a cento of passages drawn from the prophetical books which survive in the fragmentary text of the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest; see text ptd in Das dlteste Liturgiebuch, ed. Dold, p. 68, and above, p. 303 with n. 190. An Old Latin text of Dan. 111.43 is adapted for antiphonal use in celebration of the feast of the Maccabees; see Corpus Antiphonalium, ed. Hesbert and Prevost IX, 317 (no. 3618). A modern abridged text of Oratio Azariae (comprising Dan. 111.26—7—111.30—111.34—41) still occurs among texts for Lauds in the four-week scheme in use since the papacy of Pius X (1903-14); see Pascher, 'Die Psalmen', pp. 264-5.

362

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel liturgical adaptations comparable to those engendered by Canticum trium puerorum.

The prevalence of centonization among treatments of Oratio Azariae found in extant liturgical documents may be significant in resolving the question of the source of the rendition of the prayer in Daniel. The verse of the poem offers a treatment of Azarias's recitation that fails to provide any counterpart to much of the phrasing of the full deuterocanonical text of the prayer. For example, the three verses reproduced above that address animal sacrifice and attendant concerns (Dan. III.38-40a) are left entirely out of the account in Daniel. The rendition as a whole appears (at least initially) to offer a treatment of III.26—37—III.42—5, with many small omissions. It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that Daniel embodies a response to the interpretative difficulties posed by the text of the prayer that is in some respects comparable to the centonization observed in liturgical documents. Such a belief may receive striking corroboration when we turn to the single, fairly restricted area of liturgical usage in which Oratio Azariae does in fact find a regular recitative context. Benedict's Regula specifies that during the performance of Nocturns on Sundays, celebrants of the Office should, after the reading of Old Testament lections, recite three canticles from the prophets as accompaniments to the singing of the Alleluia (ch. xi). This requirement gave rise to a group of canticles frequently (if imprecisely) identified as 'monastic canticles', whose use in the early Middle Ages is unevenly attested. Oratio Azariae appears as the central item in one of two attested sets of early medieval Sunday canticles arising in response to Benedict's stipulation. The three-canticle sequence in question draws on the verses of Isa. XXX. 19-27, Dan. 111.26-45 and Jonah II.3-11. As no text of Oratio Azariae in the form in which it occurs among the 'monastic canticles' has ever been critically edited, I offer here a first edition based on a copy in Manchester, John Rylands University Library, Latin 116 (olim Crawford 59

60

For discussion of the rendition and its counterpart in the Old English Azarias, see the study by Bjork, 'Oppressed Hebrews', and treatments by Farrell, 'Unity'; Kirkland and Modlin, 'Art of Azarias'; Solo, 'Twice-Told Tale'; and Anderson, 'Style and Theme', esp. pp. 2 - 3 and 19-20. Benedict, Reg. xi.6 (CSEL 75, 5 7 - 9 , at 58): 'Tria cantica de prophetarum, quas instituerit abbas, quae cum Alleluia psallantur' ('Three canticles from the prophets, chosen by the abbot, are sung with the Alleluia'). See also Mearns, Canticles, pp. 81—9, and the full study by Korhammer, Die monastischen Cantica.

363


lat. 133; Sankt Maximin at Trier, s. ixex), 106v-107r, whose readings have been collated with those of the Vulgate and of another 'monastic' text of Oratio Azariae, preserved in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 13388 (Saint-Germain-des-Pres, s. x), 60v—6lv. (The division of verses here, indicated by the use of hanging indentation, reproduces the stichometry of the copy of Oratio Azariae in Rylands Library, Latin 116.) [Dan. III.26] Benedictus es, Domine, Deus patrum nostrorum et laudabilis et gloriosum nomen tuum in secula. [III.27] Quia iustus es in omnibus quae fecisti nobis et uniuersa opera tua uera et uiae rectae et omnia iudicia tua uera. [III.28a] Iudicia enim uera fecisti iuxta omnia quae induxisti super nos et super ciuitatem sanctam patrum nostrorum Hierusalem. [III.28b] Quia in ueritate et iudicio induxisti omnia propter peccata nostra. [III.29] Peccauimus enim et inique egimus recedentes a te et deliquimus On these manuscripts, see Mearns, Canticles, pp. 64 and 84. On Rylands, Latin 116, see further M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Latin Manuscripts in the John

Rylands Library at Manchester I (Manchester, 1921), 211-17, and Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 855-6 (no. 449), and on BN, lat. 13388, see E. K. Rand, A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours I, Med. Acad. of Amer. Publ. 3 (Cambridge, MA, 1929), 169; A. Wilmart, Precum libelli quattuor aevi Karolini, Bibliotheca EL (Rome, 1940); CLLA, pp. 612-13 (no. l698e); and Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 864 (item p p ). Capitalization of proper names has been regularized, punctuation has been supplied and abbreviations have been silently expanded. Instances of caudate e in the manuscript have been rendered as ae; medieval Latin e, however, has not been expanded to diphthongal ae even where a normalized orthography would demand it. A brief apparatus of nonorthographic variants may be set out as follows (where H = the text of the Hieronymian Vulgate, as ed. in Biblia Sacra, ed. Weber, and P = BN, lat. 13388, 60v-6lv): 111.27 et uniuersa: (thus H), in uniuersa P; uiae rectae: (not in P), uiae tuae rectae H; et omnia . . . uera: (thus H; not in P); III.28b iudicio: (thus P), in iudicio H; omnia propter: omnia haec propter PH; III.30 nee fecimus: nee obseruauimus nee fecimus PH; III.32 manibus: (thus H), manus P; pessimorumque: et pessimorum praeuaricatorumque PH; reg[i]: rege, Rylands, Latin 116, regi PH; III.33 [non] possumus: non possumus PH\ confusio: confiisio et obprobrium PH; alleuant: colebant P, colunt H; III.34a tradas {nos}: tradas nos PH; nomen tuum: nomen tuum et ne dissipes testamentum tuum PH; III.36-III.40a (not in P or Rylands, Latin 116; see discussion above, pp. 360-1, for H); III.4la tuam, Domine: tuam PH; III.42b fac: sed fac PH; iuxta: (thus H), secundum P; 111.45 scient: sciant PH; tu es Dominus: tu es Dominus Deus P, tu Domine Deus H; super omnem terram: super omnem orbem terrarum P, super orbem terrarum H.

364

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel in omnibus [III.30] et praecepta tua non audiuimus, nee fecimus sicut praeceperas nobis ut bene nobis esset. [III. 31] Omnia ergo quae induxisti super nos et uniuersa quae fecisti nobis uero iudicio fecisti. [III. 32] Et tradidisti nos in manibus inimicorum iniquorum pessimorumque et reg[i] iniusto et pessimo ultra omnem terram. [III. 33] Et nunc [non] possumus aperire os. Confusio [sic] facti sumus semis tuis et his qui alleuant te. [III. 34a] Ne, quaesumus, tradas [nos] in perpetuum, propter nomen tuum, [111.35a] neque auferas misericordiam tuam a nobis, [III. 3 5 b] Propter Abraham dilectum tuum et Isaac seruum tuum et Israhel sanctum tuum, [III.40b] quoniam non est confusio confidentibus in te. [111.41] Et nunc sequimur in toto corde et timemus te et quaerimus faciem tuam, Domine. [III.42a] Ne confiindas nos. [III.42b] Fac nobiscum iuxta mansuetudinem tuam et secundum multitudinem misericordiae tuae. [III.43} Et erue nos in mirabilibus tuis et da gloriam nomini tuo, Domine [III.44a] et confundantur omnes qui ostendunt semis tuis mala. [III.44b] Confundantur in omni potentia et robor eorum conteratur. [III.45] Et scient quia tu es Dominus solus et gloriosus super omnem terram.62 62

'[Dan. 111.26} Blessed are You, O Lord, the God of our fathers, and Your name is praiseworthy and glorious through the ages. [111.27} For You are just in all that You have done to us, and all Your works are true, and Your ways right, and all Your judgements true. [III.28a} For You have executed true judgements in all the things that You have brought on us and on Jerusalem, the holy city of our fathers. [III.28b} For in truth and judgement, You have brought all these things on us for our sins. [111.29} For we have sinned and committed iniquity departing from You and we have trespassed in all things [111.30} and we have not given hearing to Your commandments; nor have we observed nor done as You have commanded us, so that it might go well with us. [111.31} Therefore all that You have brought on us and everything that You have done to us, You have done in true judgement. [111.32} And You have delivered us into the hands of unjust and most wicked enemies and to a king unjust and most wicked beyond all that are on the earth. [111.33} And now we cannot open our mouths. We have become a confoundment to Your servants and to those who exalt You. [III.34a} Do not, we beseech [you}, for Your name's sake, consign us to eternity [or "give up on us forever"}, [III.35a} and do not take take away Your mercy

365


The adaptation of Oratio Azariae printed here supplies an intriguing parallel to the rendition of the prayer in Daniel insofar as it fails to reproduce any of the wording of the difficult passage on animal sacrifice (Dan. III.38-40a), whose verses, as we have seen, more often than not are preserved in the ad hoc abridgements occurring elsewhere in the liturgy. The evidence provided by the 'monastic' version of Oratio Azariae is perhaps insufficient to prove beyond question that the immediate exemplar for the rendition in Daniel was a liturgical text and that the lines at issue are similar to the reflex of Canticum trium puerorum insofar as they follow a liturgical source rather than a continuous text of the book of Daniel. Two specific concerns might be seen to indicate otherwise. First, no incontrovertible evidence has yet come to light for the employment of Azarias's prayer among the 'monastic canticles' in Anglo-Saxon England. None of the glossed Anglo-Saxon copies of these canticles edited by Michael Korhammer, for example, includes such a text. Second, the abridged text of the canticle omits one important verse, recalling God's promise that the offspring of Abraham will be as plentiful as the stars of heaven and the sand of the seashore ('sicut Stellas caeli et sicut harenam quae est in litora maris'), which is in fact treated in extenso in the Old English text. 64 This topos of innumerability, however, appears to have been exceptionally popular among Old English biblical poets, to judge by the fact that it is treated at length no fewer than three times in the poems of Junius 11 (here, and at GenA 2191b—2196a, following Gen. XV. 5, and Ex 432-46, following Old Latin texts of Gen. XIII. 14-16 and Gen.

3 64

from us, [III. 3 5 b] for the sake of Your chosen one Abraham and Your servant Isaac and Your holy Israel, [III.40b] for there is no confoundment to those who trust in You. [111.41] And now we follow You with all our heart and we fear You and seek Your face, O Lord. [III.42a] Put us not to confusion. [III.42b] Deal with us according to Your meekness, Lord, and according to the multitude of Your mercy. [111.43] And deliver us according to Your wonderful works and give glory to Your name, O Lord, [III.44a] and let all those who show evils to Your servants be confounded. [III.44b] Let them be confounded in all Your power and let their strength be broken. [111.45] And let them know that You are the only Lord and are glorious over all the world.' See Korhammer, Die monastischen Cantica, esp. pp. 1-72. The biblical text states that God will multiply the descendants of Abraham 'as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the shore of the sea' (Dan. III.36); cf. 'swa heofonsteorran / . . . o5f>e brimfaroês, / saefaroda sand' {Dan 320b-322a: 'like the stars of heaven or the sand of the ocean strands, [the sand] of the seashore)', etc. On the topos, see Kirkland and Modlin, 'Art of Azarias\ p. 12.

366

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel XXII. 17-18). Moreover, the natural simile in question provides one of the few affectively lyrical moments in the prayer ascribed to Azarias. Its absence from extant witnesses to the 'monastic' text of Oratio Azariae is arguably more remarkable than is its inclusion in Daniel. On the whole, the agreement of Daniel and the Sankt Maximin and Saint-Germain-desPres copies of the 'monastic' text of Oratio Azariae in omitting the verses on animal sacrifice is suggestive. Suspicion that a liturgical form of the prayer exerted an influence on the Old English verse seems reasonable, although it may remain impossible to judge whether we have to reckon with a Vulgate or Old Latin text.63 3

The use of an Old Latin exemplar specifically derivative of the Septuagint probably can be ruled out on the basis of the poem's statement that Azarias alone utters the words of the prayer ('Azarias . . . word acwaeS' (Dan 279—82: 'Azarias said these words . . .')), contrasting with the earlier Greek tradition that all three youths joined in the recitation. A witness to the Old Latin text by Cyprian, De lapsis xxi (CCSL 3, 238), reads: 'Stans, inquit, Azarias precatus est et aperuit os suum, et exomologesin faciebant Deo simul cum sodalibus suis in medio ignis' (Dan. 111.25: 'Standing up, Azarias prayed and opened his mouth and made a confession to God together with his companions in the midst of the fire . . .', to be followed, in continuous recitation, by a Latin reflex of the Greek text of the Prayer of Azarias in the version of the Septuagint); see also Cyprian, De dominica oratione xxxiv (CCSL 3A, 111) and above, p. 360 with n. 54). It is probable, moreover, that the exemplar of the Old English rendition contained the most common, long form of Daniel HI.27, which states that God's ways are right '[Dan. III.27b} . . . uniuersa opera tua uera et uiae tuae rectae et omnia iudicia tua uera' in the Vulgate, that is, '. . . all of Your works are true and Your ways are right and all of Your judgements are true'), probably reflected in the diction of Daniel (Dan 289—90a: 'syndon t>ine willan / . . . rihte and gerume' ('Your wishes are right and universal')) rather than the shorter form of the verse found in some Old Latin texts: '[Dan. III.27] Quoniam iustus es in omnibus quae fecisti nobis, opera tua ueritatis et iudicia ueritatis' ('For You are just in all that You have done to us, Your works are true and judgements are true . . .'); see text ptd in Anecdota, ed. Fleck, p. 345, citing a text of Oratio Azariae in Paris, Bibliotheque de 1'Arsenal, 8407 (SaintMihiel, s. ix m e d ); see also H. Martin, Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque de

VArsenal VI (Paris, 1892), 463-4, and Esaias, ed. Gryson II, 818-19 (no. 250). This text, whose scribe was Sedulius Scottus, here differs from Old Latin texts witnessed by Wiirzburg, Mp. th. f. 64a (as ptd in Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, p. 382; see p. 303 with n. 187). See also Old Latin readings witnessed by Augustine, Epistula cxi.3 (CSEL 34.2, 646) and Fulgentius, Epistula vii.22(l6) (CCSL 91, 253). In rendering the text of Daniel 111.32, where Azarias acknowledges God's commission of His people to the hands of unjust enemies, the explicit reference to the heathenism of the enemies of the Jews ('haedenra |>eowned' (Dan 306b-307a: 'servitude to the heathens')) stands closer to a reading found in certain Old Latin witnesses, 'inimicorum

367


Even if it could be established beyond doubt that lines 283—332 of Daniel follow an extracted text oiOratio Azariae intended for use as a canticle and do not follow a continuous scriptural source, this would not vindicate the position of theorists of the division of Daniel A and B. The employment of multiple exemplars need not be taken to indicate multiple authorship. The latter point may be reinforced by reference to contextual evidence in Daniel. The poem remedies the problematic absence in the deuterocanonical text of words or phrases connecting the prayer of Azarius with surrounding prose that treats the youths' predicament. The Old English text adds wholly uncanonical allusions that serve to link the prayer to other parts of the poem. When Azarias prays for his companions, he states that they are enveloped in flame (lige belegde' (Dan 295a: 'surrounded by fire')), recalling references to the immersion of the youths in fire (lig) appearing earlier in the poem ('in fae5m fyres lige' (233a: 'in the depth of the fire's flame') and '. . . gewat / lig ofer leofum' (248b—249: 'the flame flew up above the beloved ones'), 'se lig gewand' (251a: 'the flame turned [toward the oppressors]') and liges gange' (263a: '[they were released from} the surge of the fire')) and in prose-based passages that follow the rendition of the prayer ('Sone lig' (339b: 'the fire'), 'ligges leoma' (342a: 'the light of the fire'), 'se hata lig' (351b: 'the hot fire') and 'lacende lig' (475a: 'the flickering fire')).66 impiorum' ('of impious enemies'), as against the Vulgate phrase 'inimicorum iniquorum' ('of unworthy enemies'); see Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed.

6

Sabatier, under verse. Latin texts of Dan. III.35 commonly cite three beneficiaries of God's promise, that is, Abraham, Isaac and Israel: 'Neque auferas misericordiam tuam a nobis propter Abraham dilectum tuum et Isaac servum tuum et hrahel sanctum tuum' in the Vulgate (that is, 'And do not take Your mercy away from us for the sake of Your beloved Abraham and Your servant Isaac and Your blessed Israel'); cf. Old Latin readings ptd in Anecdota, ed. Fleck, p. 345, and in Parpalimpsestorum Wirceburgensium, ed. Ranke, p. 384, from Wiirzburg, Mp. th. f. 64a; cf. also Augustine, Ep. cxi.3 (CSEL 34.2, 647). Knowledge that the third name, Israel, refers in the Vulgate to Jacob (cf. Gen. XXXII.28: 'at ille nequaquam inquit Iacob appellabitur nomen tuum sed Israhel', that is, 'but He said "Your name shall not be called Jacob, but Israel"') seems to be reflected in the verse of Daniel: 'to Abrahame / and to Isaace / and to lacobe (Dan 313—14a). Cf. the variant form of the verse adduced in a discussion of the Old Latin text of the canticle by Verecundus: 'propter Abraham et Isaac et Iacob' (Super Cant. Az. iv.ll (CSEL 93, 92-3)). Cf. the comments by Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 167, who notes further that the paronomastic construction 'lige belegde' at Dan 295a bears comparison with subtle echoic effects occurring elsewhere in the poem, as in the phrases 'wig I . . . wigewz. maenieo' (Dan 5), 'to f>am gyldmn gylde' (204a), 'beot . . . in t>am beote' (265), 'fyr fyr

368

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel Another innovation in the Old English version of the prayer also serves to connect it with the larger context. This is its assertion that the Israelites have fallen into calamity as a consequence of pride ('for oferhygdum' (Dan 297b) and 'had oferhogedon / halgan lifes' (299))- The overarching theme in Daniel adverting to the role of pride in the fall of Israel has been mentioned above (see, for example, 'hie wlenco anwod' (Dan 17a)). Finally, the Old English treatment of Azarias's intercession cites the Chaldeans (Caldeas (Dan 327b)) by name as oppressors of his people. Although no individual race is specified in the Latin text of Oratio Azariae, this usage recalls similar embellishments at other points in Daniel (as in the phrases 'Caldea cyn' (Dan 42), 'in Caldea byrig' (95), etc.).67 The most surprising feature of the rendition of Oratio Azariae in Daniel, given the scholarly tendency to view it as a prayer for deliverance, is the absence of any trace of the only supplication for deliverance that appears in scriptural texts of the prayer (for example, in the versicle 'erue nos in mirabilibus tuis . . .'in the Vulgate). 8 Though the text of the prayer does not mention fire or any other oppression from which the supplicant seeks release, this is the only verse that might be adduced in support of the characterization of Azarias's utterance in Daniel as a prayer for deliverance of the youths by proponents of the division of Daniel A and B. But it finds no reflex in the rendition of the prayer in Daniel. Nor does the status of the prayer as an intercession on behalf of the confessor's race appear to receive special emphasis in the Old English treatment, where the concern is subordinated to the paganism of the youths' oppressors (as at lines 3OO-7a scynde' (266a) and '^rcraeftig ar (thus 550a in J u n i u s 1 1 ; Farrell and others e m e n d to acraftig). 67

Additional verbal parallels include preanied{Dan

2 1 3 b : 'great suffering') in the prayer

and 'for t>reaum / and for SeonydunV ( 2 9 3 : 'because of our sufferings and servitudes'), 'aehta gewealde' ( 3 0 5 b : 'possessions u n d e r the control {of earthly kings') and 'in his aehte geweald' ( 7 5 6 b : 'under the control of his possession'), etc., in the prose-based narrative. T h e rendition of Azarias's prayer resembles the opening narrative of Daniel in its inclusion of identical bisyllabic words in pairs of successive half-lines: metode dyrust (36b: 'dearest to the Lord') and dugoda dyrust (37a: 'dearest of troops'); and hrimfaropes ( 3 2 1 b : 'of the sea-shore') and safaro&a (322a: 'of the sea-strands'). 68

D a n . 111.43: ' A n d deliver us according to Your miraculous works.' For the O l d Latin text ('libera nos s e c u n d u m

mirabilia tua . . .', that

is, 'free us . . .', etc.), see

A u g u s t i n e , Ep. cxi.8 (CSEL 3 4 . 2 , 6 5 5 ) ; cf. also the reconstructed text p t d in Neue St. Galler vorhieronymische Propheten-Fragmente,

ed. D o l d , p . 3 8 . T h e exegete Vere-

cundus, who otherwise expounds nearly every word of Oratio Azariae at some length, does not mention the text of Dan. III.43a; see CCSL 93, 111-12.

369


and 326-32). Although detailed consideration of the thematic content of the rendition of Oratio Azariae in Daniel is beyond the scope of the present comments, my own impression is that the Old English treatment approximates to a prayer of thanksgiving, expressing gratitude that God has remained with His people and with Azarias even though He has inflicted suffering on them. This interpretation of the prayer is attested by a marginal annotation ('in tribulationibus nostris gratias Deo agamus') accompanying a citation of Oratio Azariae in some copies of a letter by Fulgentius of Ruspe, the phrasing of which may bear comparison with the text of Daniel: 'Paes J>e t>anc sie, / wereda wuldorcyning, / J>aet jsu us wrace teodest.' THE RENDITION OF CANTICUM TRIUM PUERORUM AND ITS LITURGICAL SOURCE

Critical emphasis on the rendition of Oratio Azariae as part of the interpolated matter of Daniel B notwithstanding, the rendition oi Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel arguably contains the only sequence of lines in the poem whose extraneous character is clearly signalized by several types of evidence. Many discrete copies of the canticle written in Anglo-Saxon England survive to the present day and the blessings and invocations of its most prominent components (the benedictus es and benedicite series) crop up in numerous indirect witnesses. The rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel will be seen to occupy a very specific position among the plethora of variant text-types emerging out of the ample supply of documentary evidence. Clearly, Canticum trium puerorum was one of the most popular lyrical pieces of the medieval church.70 As the witness of extant liturgical documents shows clearly, its prevalence across the span of centuries that may have seen the composition of Daniel is not in question. Simply put, Canticum trium puerorum will have constituted a familiar, fixed text in the knowledge of many if not most Anglo-Saxon Christians, many (or, perhaps, most) of whom will have committed every nuance of its Latin 69

Fulgentius, Ep. vii.22(l6) (CCSL 91, 253: 'Let us give thanks to God in our tribulations'), cf. Dan 307b-308 ('Let there be thanks to You for this, glorious king of hosts, that You inflicted suffering on us'). See, for example, Isidore, De ecclesiasticis ojficiis i.19, who connects the 'trinitarian' hours of Terce, Sext and Nones with the three youths: 'Horam tertiam, sextam et nonam Danihel et tres pueri supplicationibus deuouerunt' ('At the third, sixth and ninth hours Daniel and the three youths are consecrated with prayers').

370

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel phrasing to memory. That the familiar diction of the canticle even managed to exert an influence on Anglo-Saxon folk tradition is indicated by the incorporation of the first line of the benedicite sequence into the Old English charm known as 'Against elf-shot', intended to cure a certain distension of a horse's stomach held to be caused by elves: And awrit on f>aes seaxes home l>as word: 'Benedicite omnia opera Domini Dominum.' Sy l>aet ylfa {>e him sie, J>is him maeg to bote.71 In large measure accounting for this enormous popularity, the appealing lyric of Canticum trium puerorum possesses a phrasally repetitive structure that has little in common with the ragged intercessions of Oratio Azariae. In the case of Daniel, this metrical regularity seems to have given rise to a burst of alliterative composition whose style differs fundamentally from any of the matter of the prose-based versification of Daniel I—V.72 In the course of the transmission of the Latin texts on which this passage is based, the steady refrain of the canticle seems to have encouraged accurate copying in the preparation of liturgical documents. Although the textual issues that must be confronted in the following discussion are significantly more straightforward than those attending the investigation of Oratio Azariae, the independent popularity of Canticum trium puerorum has engendered a range of distinctive text-types that readers will need to bear in mind. The special features of these text-types will be better appreciated in the light of a review of the full content of the standard Vulgate form of the Song of the Three: 73

73

Lch II: 'And write these words on the horn of the knife: "Benedicite omnia opera Domini Dominum." Whatever elf has taken possession of [the horse}, this will cure him'; see text ptd by G. Storms, Anglo-Saxon Magic (The Hague, 1948), pp. 248-50 (no. 22); cf. also Dronke, 'Leiden Love-Spell', p. 70, n. 27. Farrell, 'Unity', p. 122, observes that the style of the rendition 'is almost entirely controlled by the order, content, and style of the Latin psalm on which it is based, while the remainder of the poem . . . is a narrative very freely developed from the first chapters of the Old Testament Daniel'. Dan. 111.52—90: '[111.52a] You are blessed, O Lord the God of our fathers, and worthy to be praised and glorified and exalted above all through the ages, [III.52b} and the holy name of Your glory is blessed and worthy to be praised and exalted above all through the ages. [111.53} You are blessed in the holy temple of Your glory and exceedingly worthy to be praised and exceedingly glorious through the ages. [111.54} You are blessed on the throne of Your kingdom and exceedingly worthy to be praised and exalted above all through the ages. [111.55} You are blessed, You who behold the

371


[Dan. III.52a] Benedictus es Domine Deus patrum nostrorum et laudabilis et superexaltatus in saecula. [III. 5 2b] et benedictum nomen gloriae tuae sanctum et laudabile et superexaltatum in omnibus saeculis. [III. 5 3] Benedictus es in templo sane to gloriae tuae et superlaudabilis et supergloriosus in saecula. [III.54] Benedictus es in throno regni tui et superlaudabilis et superexaltatus in saecula. [III.55] Benedictus es qui intueris abyssos et sedes super cherubin et laudabilis et superexaltatus in saecula. [III.56] Benedictus es in firmamento caeli et laudabilis et gloriosus in saecula. [III. 5 7] Benedicite omnia opera Domini Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.58] Benedicite angeli Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [HI.59] Benedicite caeli Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. depths and sit above the cherubim, and worthy to be praised and exalted above all through the ages. [III.56] You are blessed in the firmament of heaven and worthy of praise and glorious through the ages. [III.57] All you works of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.58] Angels of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [111.59} Heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.60] All you waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.61] All you powers of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.62] Sun and moon, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [111.63] Stars of heaven, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.64} Every shower and dew, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.65] Spirits of God, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.66] Fire and heat, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. £111.67} Cold and heat, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.68] Dews and hoarfrosts, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [111.69] Frost and cold, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [111.70] Ice and snow, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. £111.71} Nights and days, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.72} Light and darkness, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.73} Lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.74] Let the earth bless the Lord, let it praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. £111.75} Mountains and hills, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.76] All you things that spring up in the earth, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. £111.77}

372

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel [III.60] Benedicite aquae omnes quae super caelos sunt Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [111.61] Benedicite omnes uirtutes Domini Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.62] Benedicite sol et luna Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.63] Benedicite stellae caeli Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.64] Benedicite omnis imber et ros Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.65] Benedicite omnis spiritus Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [111.66] Benedicite ignis et aestus Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.67] Benedicite frigus et aestus Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.68] Benedicite rores et pruina Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.69] Benedicite gelu et frigus Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula.

Fountains, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.78] Seas and rivers, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [IIL79] Whales and all that move in the waters, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.80] Fowls of the air, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [111.81] Beasts and cattle, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.82] Sons of men, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. £111.83} Let Israel bless the Lord, let them praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.84] Priests of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. £111.85} Servants of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. £111.86} Spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. £111.87} You who are holy and humble of heart, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. [III.88a] Ananias, Azarias and Misael, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all through the ages [III.88b] for He has delivered us from hell and saved us out of the hand of death and delivered us out of the midst of the burning flame and saved us out of the midst of the fire. £111.89} Give thanks to the Lord, because He is good, because His mercy endures through the ages. £111.90] All you of faith, bless the Lord, the God of gods. Praise Him and give Him thanks, because His mercy endures through the ages.'

373


[III.70] Benedicite glacies et niues Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.71] Benedicite noctes et dies Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.7 2] Benedicite lux et tenebrae Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [111.73] Benedicite fulgura et nubes Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [111.74] Benedicat terra Dominum, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.75] Benedicite montes et colles Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.76] Benedicite uniuersa germinantia in terra Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.77] Benedicite fontes Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.78] Benedicite maria et flumina Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.79] Benedicite cete omnia quae mouentur in aquis Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.80] Benedicite omnes uolucres caeli Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [111.81] Benedicite omnes bestiae et pecora Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.82] Benedicite filii hominum Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.83] Benedic Israhel Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.84] Benedicite sacerdotes Domini Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [111.85] Benedicite serui Domini Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.86] Benedicite spiritus et animae iustorum Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.87] Benedicite sancti et humiles corde Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.88a] Benedicite Anania, Azaria et Misahel Domino, laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula. [III.88b] Quia emit nos de inferno et saluos fecit de manu mortis et liberauit de medio ardentis flammae et de medio ignis emit nos. 374

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel [III.89] Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus quoniam in saeculum misericordia eius. [111.90} Benedicite omnes religiosi Domino Deo deorum, laudate et confitemini quia in omnia saecula misericordia eius. Not surprisingly, considering the length of the full scriptural text of the Song of the Three and the quantity of its repetitive diction, any account of the recitation of Canticum trium puerorum in early Christian worship will amount in large measure to a study in abbreviation and adaptation. Canticum trium puerorum in liturgical use The immense popularity of Canticum trium puerorum as an item of hymnody in early medieval ceremonies of mass and Office has resulted in the survival of hundreds of witnesses to its use as a text of the liturgy.7 Generally speaking, liturgical treatments of the canticle may be seen to draw on one of two main types of text, which may conveniently be distinguished here as Variable' and 'fixed* texts. The variable texts, though among the more intriguing monuments of early medieval hymnody, need not detain us For a summary of liturgical contexts of the canticle in early medieval usage, see the note in Le Lectionnaire de Luxeuil, ed. Salmon I, 9- On the liturgical and iconographic associations of the canticle, see further W. H. Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel: a Study (Cambridge, 1906); W. H. Bennett, 'Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Children', in The Apocrypha andPseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2

vols. (Oxford, 1913) I, 625-37; Brou, 'Les benedictiones\ pp. 23-4; and H. Swarzenski, 'The Song of the Three Worthies', Bull, of the Museum of Fine Arts [Boston] 58 (1958), 30-49; and Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 204-7. One of the most prominent liturgical contexts for the singing of the canticle is in conjunction with the readings of the Easter Vigil; see above, p. 358, and, for an early witness with Insular connections, see Meyer, 'Das turiner Bruchstiick', pp. 175 and 186-7. For Lauds on Sunday, Roman usage prescribes the recitation of Dan. III.57-88 in an Old Latin version, first found in medieval antiphonal sources and still in use to the present day; see Liber Danihelis, p. xvi, Corpus Antipbonalium, ed. Hesbert and Prevost VIII.2, 226-7, 230-1, 232-3, 744-9 and IX, 88, and V. Raffa, 'L'ufficio divino del tempo dei carolingi e il breviario di Innocenzo III confrontati con la liturgia delle ore di Paolo VF, EL 85 (1971), 206-59, at 213-14. The hymnody ascribed to the the three youths also still forms the basis of canticles sung at Lauds in the daily Office in the modern four-week scheme. In current usage, Canticum trium puerorum (Dan. III.57-88 followed by III.51) is the first canticle in the first and third Sundays of the cycle and the Benedictio trium puerorum (Dan. III.52-7) is the first canticle for the second and fourth Sundays; see Pascher, 'Die Psalmen', pp. 264-5 and 276-7.

375


here. The carefully structured rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel has little in common with either the cyclic, virtually hypnotic concatenation of invocations of the forces of creation that takes place in old Spanish liturgy or with the ad hoc centonizations that emerge from numerous early medieval devotional milieux.7 Even in its 'fixed' form, the text of Canticum trium puerorum is rarely employed in the liturgy without significant departure from the scriptural model. Entire sequences of verses represented in the foregoing extract from the Vulgate drop out of the recitation, the order of remaining verses varies widely and new verses are often inserted into the main body of the canticle or substituted for existing verses.77 Liturgical documents also typically employ consistent 75

For evidence of the cyclic repetition of verse of Canticum trium puerorum in Anglo-Saxon ritual, see below, p . 3 8 9 , n. 9 4 . For the cyclic usage of the early medieval Spanish liturgy, see Antiphonarium Mozarabicum de la Catedral de Leon, ed. for the Benedictines

of Silos under the direction of J. Alvarez Miranda (Leon, 1928), esp. pp. 19-20, 29 and 235-7; W. S. Porter, 'Cantica Mozarabici officii', EL 49 (1935), 126-45; Antifonario

visigotico mozdrabe de la Catedral de Leon, ed. J. Vives, A. Fabrega and

L. Brou, 2 vols., M H S 5 (Madrid, 1 9 5 3 - 9 ) , esp. 6 1 5 - 1 6 ; and Brou, Xes benedictiones'; cf. also Shepherd, 'Scriptural Poetry', p . 3 2 , on cyclic variation in Byzantine use. A representative centonized text in the Spanish tradition occurs in BL, Additional 3 0 8 4 4 (Silos, s. x), 4 0 v and 1 5 8 r - v , exhibiting the sequences Dan. Ill.52—III.57—III.84—8 and III.51-2—111.55—9—111.82—8; cf. Schneider, Die altlateinischen biblischen Cantica, p . 8 7 . A n exotic centonized text (exhibiting the sequence D a n . III.70—III.73—6—III.78— III.77—III.79-88), clearly prepared for liturgical use insofar as it has been supplied w i t h a doxology, occurs in Sinai, Slavonicus 5 (see p . 3 6 1 , n. 56), 82r. T h e language of O l d Latin and Vulgate texts of the main series of invocations was often adapted for antiphonal use in the celebration of All Saints and other feasts; see Corpus lium,

Antiphona-

ed. Hesbert and Prevost VIII.2, 2 2 6 - 7 (no. 54b), 2 3 0 - 1 (no. 5 6 b : often

following the O l d Latin), 7 4 4 (no. 140), 7 4 8 (no. 143) and I X , 85 (no. 1699). 76

Rare examples of liturgical texts of Canticum trium puerorum including all three of the m a i n elements of the Vulgate text - benedictio, canticum and oratio (that is, the full text of D a n . 111.52-90) - occur in Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 193 + 567 (palimpsest; lower script,

? northern Italy, s. v), 1 9 3 , p p . 1 0 3 - 4 and

I I I . 5 2 - 6 4 ) , as p t d in Prophetentexte in Vulgata-Ubersetzung,

108 (failing

in

Dan.

ed. Dold, p p . 5 7 - 9 , for

which see CLA VII, 24 (no. 916); B N , lat. 11553 (s. ix i n ), l v - 2 r , treated in Liber Danihelis,

p . xv (no. 7) and by Fischer, Verzeicbnis, p . 11 (no. 7); and in BL, Royal

2 . A . X X , (s. viii 2 ), I 4 v - l 6 r ; see text p t d in Prayer Book of Aedeluald,

ed. Kuypers,

p p . 2 0 6 - 7 , and below, p p . 3 9 1 w i t h n. 9 7 . 77

A n O l d Latin text of the canticle including both the benedictus es and benedicite series, b u t o m i t t i n g the final oratio occurs in the seven-canticle Gallican series in R o m e , Biblioteca Vaticana, Reg. lat. 11 (see above, p . 3 6 1 , n. 56), 2 1 3 v and 2 l 4 v . (Reg. lat. 11 also includes a Vulgate text of D a n . III. 5 7 - 8 8 , that is, the main benedicite sequence

376

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel systems of abbreviation in their handling of repetitive diction (for example, the term benedicite and the refrains) and augment the text of the canticle with complex systems of punctuation. 78 The verses of Canticum trium puerorum that are most frequently subject to adaptation fall into three main groups: (1) the initial series of six blessings (distributed over five numbered verses) beginning as a rule with the words benedictus es (Dan. III. 5 2—6), which circulated as an independently popular canticle in the early medieval period, sometimes under the title Benedictio trium puerorum\ (2) the long series of invocations of the forces of creation, without the benedictus es series or the concluding oratio, on 2l4r-215r.) See texts ed. by Tommasi, as ptd in his Opera, ed. Vezzosi II, 291-6; cf. Liber Danihelis, p. xv (nos. 330a and 33Oh). Similar Old Latin texts occur in Sankt Gallen, 1398b, p. 151f ( = quire 4, 5v), the text all failing after Dan. III.60, see text ptd in Neue St. Galler vorbieronymiscbe Propheten-Fragmente, ed. Dold, p. 41 (see above, p. 302, n. 186); and Paris, Arsenal, 8407 (see above, p. 367, n. 65), as ptd in Anecdota, ed. Fleck, pp. 345-7. For the use of Canticum trium puerorum in Gallican and other non-Roman liturgies, where Vulgate-based texts of the canticle are most often encountered, see also The Bobbio Missal: a Gallican Mass-Book. MS Paris lat. 13246, ed. E. A. Lowe et al., 3 vols., HBS 53, 58 and 61 (London, 1917-24) I, 16 (no. 33); Missale mixtum (see above, p. 139, n. 102), as ptd in PL 85, col. 460; and the Expositio of pseudo-Germanus (1.8), as ptd in Expositio antiquae liturgiae Gallicanae, ed. E. C. Ratcliff, HBS 98 (London, 1971), p. 6 with n. See also discussion by A. Gastoue, 'Le chant gallican, 3. Le debut de la messe: du Trisagion aux benedictions', Revue du chant gregorien 42 (1938), 5-12, at 5-10; K. Gamber, Ordo antiquus Gallicanus, TPL 3 (Regensburg, 1965), 27-8 and 44; and M. J. Hatchett, 'The Eucharistic Rite of the Stowe Missal', in Time and Community, ed. Alexander, pp. 153—70, esp. p. 157 with n. 32. For discussion of the type of punctuation typically encountered in early medieval copies of Canticum trium puerorum, see Clemoes, Liturgical Influence, esp. pp. 4—5. The benedictus es series at the beginning of Canticum trium puerorum (Dan. III.52—6) is perhaps encountered most frequently in this context. It provides the basis of antiphons for choral pieces performed during Septuagesima and Sexagesima, at dedications of churches and on other occasions; see Corpus Antiphonalium, ed. Hesbert and Prevost VIII.2, 226-7 (no. 54b), and IX, 88 (nos. 1 7 2 6 - 3 0 ^ / J ) . Antiphonal settings of the benedictus es series were generally viewed as discrete compositions, standing apart from (though often serving to introduce) the main series of invocations in Canticum trium puerorum. BL, Royal 2. A. XX, I4v-15r (see below, p. 391 with n. 97), includes an eclectic text excerpting the benedictus es sequence, comprising Dan. III.52-3 and III.55—6. For additional examples of the liturgical use of Dan. III.52—6 as a discrete canticle, see Mearns, Canticles, pp. 21, 24, 53-5, 58-60, 67 and 77-8; Schneider, Die altlateinischen biblischen Cantica, p. 87; Gribomont, 'Le mysterieux calendrier', p. 110; and A. Hughes, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: a Guide to their Organization and Terminology (Toronto, 1982), pp. 35—7.

377


whose verses begin as a rule with the imperative benedicite and are followed by a regular refrain ('laudate et superexaltate eum in saecula' or, in Old Latin texts, 'hymnum dicite et laudate et superexaltate'), constituting in the vast majority of liturgical uses the text of Canticum trium puerorum proper (Dan. III. 57—88a); and (3) a prayerful expression of thanks to God for rescue from the fire. This section intrudes suddenly on the main benedicite sequence and concludes with additional admonitions to divine praise (Dan. III.88b-90). It is occasionally titled Oratio trium puerorum in extant monuments but more often omitted altogether or replaced with other types of prayers, blessings, antiphons and the like. 81 The vast majority of surviving copies of Canticum trium puerorum may be classified according to their treatment of these three main groups of verses, and further demarcation of subclasses is made possible by consideration of the content and ordering of individual verses within the larger groups. The content of the rendition

The rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel resembles a large number of liturgical monuments in its failure to include any counterpart to the benedictus es series and in its full representation of the main sequence of invocations (at Dan 362—405a: 'De gebletsige / . . . wurdaS in wuldra, / witig drihten', etc.), as well as in its inclusion of a benedictory passage (405b-408: 'Pu gebletsad eart, / . . . ofer landa gehwilc') in the place occupied by the final oratio in the scriptural model. Perhaps the single

81

On these and similar series of invocations, see G. S. MacEoin, 'Invocation of the Forces of Nature in the Loricae', Studia Hibernka 2 (1962), 212—17 and Dronke, 'Leiden Love-Spell', p. 70. For examples of prayers, blessings and secrets accompanying the performance of Canticum trium puerorum, see Sacramentarium Gelasianum mixtum von Saint-Amand,

ed. S.

Muller-Rehle and K. Gamber, TPL 10 (Regensburg, 1973), 37-8 (Easter Vigil). 'Let [creation] bless You . . . [we] praise You in Your wonders, wise Lord' {Dan 362—405a: rendition of Canticum trium puerorum, incipit and explicit) and 'You are blessed over every land' (405b-408: benedictory addition). Liturgical texts of Canticum trium puerorum regularly conclude the main series of invocations with an awkward verse (Dan. 111.88) in which Ananias, Azarias and Misahel - the supposed authors of the canticle — seem to address themselves in the vocative. They most commonly omit the latter part of the verse (Dan. III.88b) thanking God for His rescue of the Three from the burning fire. Also omitted are the next two verses (Dan. 111.89-90), which exhort celebrants to give further thanks to God. This liturgical usage corresponds precisely to the arrangement observed in Daniel, which includes the invocation of the Three but,

378

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel most remarkable moment in the rendition inheres in the silence intervening between the introduction of the youths' hymnody and the first line of the rendition proper: modum horsce, 'De gebletsige, woruldcraefta wlite

Swa hie J)ry cwaedon, J>urh gemaene word: bylywit faeder, and weorca gehwilc!'

The continuity of phrasing here may suggest that the lines in question were composed under the influence of a fairly unextraordinary scriptural exemplar — similar words introduce the recitation in deuterocanonical scripture — but under close scrutiny it becomes clear that owing to the omission of the matter of the benedktus es series (Dan. III. 52—6), the verse of Daniel diverges significantly from all canonical Old Latin and Vulgate texts of Daniel III. The poem's rendition of Canticum trium puerorum offers what amounts to a juxtaposition of III.51 and III.57. To my knowledge, such a juxtaposition does not occur in surviving early medieval liturgical settings of verses from Daniel III. For now it may suffice to note that the arrangement of the received text of Daniel raises difficult questions (par-

83

in contrast to the rendition of Oratio Azariae, offers no counterpart to the contextualizing reference to the flame or to other subjects mentioned in the following verses. Dan 36Ob-362: 'And so the Three gave voice, prudent in temperament, in a simultaneous recitation: "Let the splendour of worldly creations and every created thing bless You, glorious Father!"' A setting of Canticum trium puerorum in a bilingual (Greek—Latin) psalter, the present Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, I (1) (PVerona, s. vi/vii; later provenance Verona), does include the narrative introduction to the hymnody of the youths (III.51), but it does so in conjunction with all three major components of Canticum trium puerorum, including the benedktus es sequence; see text ptd in Vindiciae canonicarum Scripturarum, ed.

Bianchini, pp. 1-278, at 275-8; cf. Liber Danihelis, p. xv (no. 7), and Fischer, Verzeicbnis, p. 11 (no. 7). An excerpted reading in Daniel preserved in the Lectionary of Luxeuil (see above, p. 139, n. 101), now in a fragmentary state, did in fact embody a similar juxtaposition of Old Latin and Vulgate texts before its mutilation, but careful examination of the text convinces me that the lectionary (unlike the verse of Daniel) witnesses the integration of two continuous biblical texts (Old Latin and Vulgate texts originally extracted from proper Bibles) rather than the interpolation of an Old Latin canticle text into a continuous Vulgate biblical text, such as the rendition in Daniel would appear to witness. See text ptd in Le Lectionnaire de Luxeuil, ed. Salmon I, 111-15.

379


ticularly in relation to its sources) that will demand further comment below. After its abrupt start, the treatment of Canticum trium puerorum shifts immediately into an extremely concise mode of versification that constitutes, in my view, one of the most extraordinary achievements of the prosodists of Old English verse. Although, as we have seen, very few verses from Daniel I—V are rendered at all closely in the prose-based sections of Daniel, nearly every verse of Canticum trium puerorumfindsa close counterpart in the poem. To cite one representative example, the text of Daniel (at 364-6) reduces three successive Latin verses (Dan. 111.58-60), in a masterful display of poetic compression, to an equal number of alliterative lines, accommodating fully three elements of creation (heavens, angels and running water) in the first line alone: Heofonas and englas, l>a 5e ofer roderum wuniad in wuldre,

and hluttor waster, on rihtne gesceaft 5a {>ec wur5ia5.

Clearly, the formulaic repetition of clauses beginning benedicite in the canticle was conducive to the construction of compressed parallel clauses in the Old English. The stylistic concision of the comprehensive enumeration of the forces of creation in Daniel again points up the unique position of the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in the poem. No similar compositional feat is observed in any other sequence of lines of comparable length in Daniel or, to my knowledge, anywhere else in the Old English poetic corpus (save perhaps the genealogical sections of Genesis A). The significance of this poetical tour de force must not be understated. If, say, the eighth-century date for the composition of Daniel that might be inferred from its affinities to the text of Canticum trium puerorum in the Vespasian Psalter could be substantiated, the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum would rival the claim of the famous Wachtendonckse Psalmen to preserve the most ancient Old Testament translation extant in any West Germanic language. 85

Dan 564-6: 'Let the heavens and angels praise You in Your glory, and {so also] the clear waters which remain, according to their proper nature, above the skies!' See Dekkers, 'L'eglise devant la bible', and above, p. 232. Neither the deuterocanonical status of Canticum trium puerorum nor the liturgical derivation of the source in question needs mitigate against this view; the production of the Wachtendonckse Psalmen was to some extent paraliturgical in inspiration.

380

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel Table 7. A synopsis of readings in Greek and Latin versions of the Song of the

Three and in the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel (Dan

362-408) Daniel

Theodotionic text (with variants)

Vulgate text (with variants)

Daniel

(a) Benedictio trium puerorum (jbenedictus es series)

III.52b III.5 3

TO ovonot xfjq 56£r|C, aou sv x(p vcup xf\q dyiac, 56^r|q aou

111.54(55) 67ci Spovou ifjc, paoiXeiac, aou 111.55(54) 6 £7iiPA,£7tcov dpuaaouc,

III. 5 6

KaOfjuevoc, tni xepoupiv ev tcp axepecbuaTi xoC oupavoO

nomen gloriae tuae sanctum in templo sancto gloriae tuae (honoris) in throno regni tui (super sedem) qui intueris abyssos (cernens) sedes super cherubin in firmamento caeli (cf. Dan 406b: ofer worulde hrof)

(b) Canticum trium puerorum {benedicite series)

III.57

omnia opera Domini

Dan 363b: weorca gehwilc 364a: englas

... ETidvco TOC oupavou

angeli (angeli Domini) caeli aquae omnes (aquae) . . . super caelos

rcaaa r\ 5uvaui(; (naaai ai 5uvdueiec bletsiaS, faeder aelmihtig sawla nergend, and l>ec, halig gast, witig drihten!

frea folca gehwaes, so5 sunu metodes, haeleSa helpend, wurSiaS in wuldre,

The significance of this versified blessing of the Trinity has sometimes been lost on students of Daniel. Graham Caie, for example, has argued that the lines 'have no source in the Vulgate text or other versions of Azariah's Hymn [i.e. the Song of the Three]'. Caie offers a typological interpretation in which 'the Youths emerge, phoenix-like and regenerate, praising God who has become the merciful Christ of the New Testament'. 90 Though Caie's reading is perhaps still possible from a modern perspective, it cannot be said with any certainty to reflect the intentions of the AngloSaxon poet who composed these lines. The trinitarian doxology in fact renders a standard addition to the shortened, liturgical form of Canticum trium puerorum occurring in most medieval texts (as it does in Daniel) immediately after the conclusion of the main series of invocations: Benedicamus Patrem et Filium cum Sancto Spiritu, laudemus et superexaltemus eum in secula. Benedictus es Domine in firmamento celi laudabilis et gloriosus et superexaltatus in secula.91 Reminiscence of the benedictus es series

The versicle following the trinitarian doxology in the liturgical extract printed immediately above constitutes a reminiscence of the final blessing 89

90

91

Dan 3 9 9 b - 4 0 3 : 'We bless You, God of all nations, almighty Father, true Son of God, saviour of souls, helper of men, and we praise You in Your glory, O Holy Ghost, O wise Lord!' Caie, 'Old English Daniel, pp. 2 and 6. Cf. Finnegan, 'Old English Daniel', p. 198, characterizing Daniel as 'a poem that has its Old Testament heroes praise the Trinity by name'. 'Let us bless the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, let us praise and exalt Him above all through the ages. You are blessed, Lord, in the firmament of heaven and worthy of praise and glorious and exalted above all through the ages'; see text ptd in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier II, 862-4.

387


of the benedictus es series that normally stands at the head of the text of the Song of the Three in continuous scriptural sources: 'benedictus es in firmamento caeli et laudabilis et gloriosus in saecula'. Immediately following its paraphrase of the trinitarian blessing, the text of Daniel appends a series of lines evincing a similarly benedictory tone. This addition almost certainly reflects the influence of the same liturgical source accounting for the former addition: gewur5ad {wide]ferh5 heahcyning heofones, lifes leohtfruma,

Pu gebletsad eart, ofer worulde hrof, halgum mihtum, ofer landa gehwilc.

This passage offers a notable illustration of early medieval syncretism insofar as it involves the substitution of a characteristically Germanic circumlocution — the kenning worulde hrof ('roof of the world'), conveying the sense 'sky' — for a liturgical Latin form (firmamentum caeli). Beyond this, however, the text of Daniel seems to go its own way, offering two epithets for God ('heahcyning heofones' and lifes leohtfruma') and a topos adverting to God's universal presence ('ofer landa gehwilc') that, to my knowledge, find no precedent in the main body of a text of Canticum trium puerorum in surviving liturgical copies of the canticle. It is thus interesting to consider that the added matrix of terms might bear witness to the content of one of the many items of liturgical matter regularly appended to the end of the text of the canticle, which in my experience include prayers, antiphonal exchanges, collects and blessings. To initiate speculation in this area, I would note an occasional prayer (alia oratio) on the youths' tribulation in London, British Library, Harley 2892 (s. xi; provenance Christ Church, Canterbury). As the prayer in question is used for the celebration of the night-long Easter Vigil, it opens not surprisingly with imagery of lights, fire, lamps and torches. The text then continues: Tu Domine illuminasti omnem mundum. A te quesumus uero lumine accendamur et illuminemur igne claritatis tuae. Tu es ignis qui famulo tuo Moyse in rubo 92

93

Dan. 111.56 (see trans, above, p . 372). The reminiscence sometimes served as a cue to a full recitation of the benedktiones of Dan. III.52-6, as in Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 180 (PFrance, s. x; later provenance Salisbury), I 6 7 v - l 6 8 r . Dan 4 0 5 b - 4 0 8 : 'You are blessed, glorified forever above the world's roof for Your holy powers, high king of heaven, bright source of life, throughout every land.'

388

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel apparuisti. Tu es columna ignis qui tuum populum Israhel in nocte defendebas et illuminabas. Tu etiam tres pueros de fornace ignis liberasti Domine cum filio tuo Ihesu Christo et Sancto Spiritu tuo . . . Te humiliter petimus ut sicut eos omnes conseruasti et illuminasti, ita sensus nostros cordaque et animas nostras in hac paschali sollempnitate et omni utte nostre tempore illuminare igne Spiritus Sancti digneris, ut ad uitam aeternam peruenire mereamur in celis. The diction in question is of course universal in the liturgy, but the collocation of parallels between the allusions to the heavens, to light (especially given its prominence in the Easter Vigil) and to the regions of the world in the Latin (lumen and omnis mundus) and the Old English terms heahcyning heofones and leohtfruma as well as the phrase 'ofer landa gehwilc' are particularly suggestive. Preliminary conclusions

On the basis of the special features of the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum discussed so far — excepting the complex evidence associated with the invocations of Dan. III.67—70 (addressing the elements of winter) and the speculative comments regarding the concluding oratio — a number of categories of text can be eliminated from further consideration as sources for the Song of the Three in Daniel. Most notably the full scriptural texts 94

'You, Lord, have illuminated the whole world. In faith we ask of You that we may be kindled by the light and illuminated by the fire of Your brilliance. You are the fire which appeared to Your servant Moses in the bush. You are the column of fire which will defend and illuminate Your people of Israel by night. You also have liberated the three youths from the furnace of fire, Lord, with Your son Jesus Christ and Your Holy Spirit. We humbly petition You so that just as You have preserved and illuminated all of them so You will see fit to illuminate our senses and hearts and our souls and for the whole time of our lives in this paschal solemnity with the fire of the Holy Spirit so that we may deserve to enter into the eternal life in the heavens.' The text is adapted from that ptd in The Canterbury Benedictional, ed. R. M. Woolley, HBS 51 (London, 1917), 44-5; on BL, Harley 2892, see Gneuss, 'List', p. 29 (no. 429), and Gneuss, 'Liturgical Books', pp. 133—4 (item S.7). Two other liturgical treatments of the tribulation of the three youths occur in DuRitGl 1, as ptd in Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. A. H. Thompson and U. Lindelof, Surtees Society 140 (Durham, 1927), 100-2 and 184, the last including a gloss that provides our closest approximation to a contemporary vernacular title for the canticle: 'et in omni tempore prosperitatis semper "[H]ymnum trium puerorum" in laudem Dei decanta: in aelcum tiide eSnisses symle "Ymmon Sara 5rea cnehtana"' {'Canticum trium puerorum is always to be sung repeatedly in praise of God in every time of good fortune').

389


of the Song of the Three in Greek (Septuagint and Theodotion) and Latin (Old Latin and Vulgate) versions can be set aside as well as the relatively rare continuous liturgical extracts made therefrom. It is clear moreover that the exemplar witnessed by the Old English text has some affinity with a wide range of Old Latin and Vulgate texts of Anglo-Saxon 95

97

See above, pp. 371-7 with nn. 76-7. For the following analysis, I draw on Old Latin readings preserved in BL, Additional 37517 (s. x 2 and xex; provenance Canterbury; 'Bosworth Psalter'), lOOv-lOlr, as ptd by Lindelof, 'Die altenglischen Glossen', pp. 190-1, cf. Gneuss, Hymnar und Hymnen, pp. 104-5, Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C.I 1.3), and Gneuss, 'List', p. 20 (no. 291), Esaiasy ed. Gryson II, 834-5 (no. 383), and M. Korhammer, 'The Origin of the Bosworth Psalter', ASE 2 (1973), 173-87; BL, Cotton Vespasian A. i (see above, pp. 232 with n. 5), 15Or-151r; CUL, Ff. 1. 23 (s. xi med ; provenance Winchcombe), pp. 517-19, as ptd in Der Cambridger Psalter, ed. Wildhagen, pp. 392-5, for which cf. notices by Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C.I 1.1), Gneuss, 'List', p. 6 (no. 4), and Esaiasy ed. Gryson II, 835 (no. 376); BL, Royal 2. B. V (PWorcester or Winchester; s. x med and xi; provenance Christ Church Cathedral, Canterbury; 'Regius Psalter'), 180v—181v, as ptd in Regius-Psaltery ed. Roeder, pp. 292—4, cf. Fischer, Verzeichnisy p. 30 (no. 377), Gneuss, Hymnar und YLymneriy p. 112, Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C.I 1.9), and Gneuss, 'List', p. 30 (no. 451); and, finally, the inedited text in BN, lat. 8824 (s. xi med ; 'Paris Psalter'), 180v-181r, cf. Gneuss, 'List', p. 56 (no. 891). A distinctive, Old Latin-based treatment of Canticum trium puerorum supplied with musical notation occurs in Oxford, Bodleian, Bodley 775 (see above, p. 362 with n. 56), 89v—90v, with a congener in Durham, University Library, Cosin V. v. 6 (s. xiex; provenances Christ Church, Canterbury, and Durham), 49r-59r. The texts in these tropers are notable for their omission of the trinitarian blessing and the final reminiscence of the benedictus es sequence. Vulgate-based texts of Canticum trium puerorum consulted for the present study include the unedited copies in BL, Harley 863 (Exeter, s. xi2), 105r-v, cf. Gneuss, 'List', p. 28 (no. 425); CCCC, 272 (Rheims, s. ix2; provenance before 1100 England), I63r-v, for which cf. the notice of Gneuss, 'List', p. 10 (no. 77); CCCC, 391 (Worcester, s. xi2), pp. 214-16, cf. Gneuss, 'List', p. 11 (no. 104); CCCC, 411 (s. xex; provenance St Augustine's, Canterbury), 131v-132v, cf. Gneuss, 'List', p. 11 (no. 106); Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 296 (Crowland, s. xi med ), 112r-v, cf. SC IV, 584 (no. 21870), and Gneuss, 'List', p. 39 (no. 617); and Bodleian, Laud Lat. 81 (s. xi 2 ), 139v-l40v, cf. SC II. 1, 33 (no. 768), and Gneuss, 'List', p. 41 (no. 655). Readings preserved in the following manuscripts have been collated as a rule with those in existing editions: Cambridge, Trinity College R. 17. 1 (253) (s. xii med ), 268v-269r, as ptd in Eadwine's Canterbury Psaltery ed. Harsley, pp. 257-9, for which cf. notices by M. R. James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: a Descriptive Catalogue', 3

vols. (Cambridge, 1900-2) II, 402-10 (no. 987), Fischer, VerzekhniSy p. 30 (no. 378) and Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C.I 1.2); BL, Arundel 60 (New Minster, Winchester, s. xi 2 ), 125v-126r, as ptd in Arundel-Psaltery ed. Oess, pp. 244-5, cf. Fischer,

390

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel origin and provenance, which resemble the text of Daniel in their exclusion of the matter of the benedictus es series and the concluding oratio and in their addition of the trinitarian doxology and reminiscence of the benediction of Dan. III.56. The final feature, the benedictory reminiscence, allows us to remove from discussion five copies of Canticum trium puerorum displaying a characteristically Irish text-type but otherwise showing close affinity to the text in Daniel?21

98

Verzeichnis, p. 30 (no. 381), Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C.I 1.4) and Gneuss, 'List', p. 21 (no. 304); BL, Cotton Vitellius E. xviii (New Minster, Winchester, s. xi med ), 137r-v, as ptd in Vitellius Psalter, ed. Rosier, pp. 382-4, cf. Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 30 (no. 373), Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C.I 1.7) and Gneuss, 'List' p. 28 (no. 407); cf. BL, Royal 2. A. XX (?Worcester, s. viii2), I4v-l6r, as ptd in Prayer Book of Aedeluald, ed. Kuypers, pp. 206-7, cf. CLA II, 28 (no. 215), Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 24 (no. 258) and Gneuss, 'List', p. 30 (no. 450); BL, Stowe 2 (?New Minster, Winchester, s. xi med ), 177r— 178r, as ptd by Rosier, 'The Stowe Canticles', pp. 422—5 (cf. The Stowe Psalter, ed. A. C. Kimmens, TOES 3 (Toronto, 1979), 298-300), cf. Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 30 (no. 379), Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C.I 1.12) and Gneuss, 'List', p. 32 (no. 499); London, Lambeth Palace Library, 427, lr-202v (PCanterbury, s. xi1), 196r-197r, as ptd in Der Lambeth-Psalter, ed. Lindelof, pp. 248—50, cf. Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 30 (no. 380), Cameron, 'List', p. 227 (item C . l l . l l ) and Gneuss, 'List', p. 33 (no. 517); and Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 150 (Salisbury, s. x 2 ), I45v-l46v, as ptd in Salisbury Psalter, ed. Sisam and Sisam, pp. 298-9, cf. Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 30 (no. 382), Cameron, 'List', p. 228 (item C.I 1.12), and Gneuss, 'List', p. 46 (no. 740). On the liturgical use of the Vulgate form of the canticle, see also Liber Danihelis, p. xvi. These texts have descended from the Theodotionic Old Latin form of the Song of the Three by a route differing from that of the Theodotionic canticles preserved in AngloSaxon sources. These include the unedited copies in Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Hamilton 553 (Northumbria, s. viii), for which cf. the notices by Mearns, Canticles, p. 68, and in CLLA, p. 581 (no. 1613) and Liber Danihelis, p. xvi; Cambridge, St John's College, 59 (C. 9) (Ireland, s. x/xi; provenance before 1100 England), 35v-36v, cf. collation in Irish Liber hymnorum, ed. Bernard and Atkinson I, 195-6 (siglum £), and collation by Meyer, 'Das turiner Bruchstiick', pp. 184-7, Lapidge and Sharpe, Bibliography, p. 132 (no. 509), and Gneuss, 'List' p. 13 (no. 151); Dublin (Killiney), Franciscan House of Studies Library, A. 2 (Ireland, s. xi ; 'Liber hymnorum), 12v—13r, as ptd in Irish Liber hymnorum, ed. Bernard and Atkinson I, 195—6, cf. Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 24 (no. 257) and Lapidge and Sharpe, Bibliography, p. 143 (no. 557); Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, C. 5 inf. (Bangor, s. viiex; 'Antiphonary of Bangor'), 8v-9v, as ptd in Antiphonary of Bangor, ed. Warren I, facs. of 8v-9v and II, 8-9, cf. CLA III, 12 (no. 311), Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 24 (no. 254) and Lapidge and Sharpe, Bibliography, pp. 138-9 (no. 532); and Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, 882 (F. IV. 1), fasc. 9 (Ireland, s. vii/viii; provenance Bobbio), 2r-v, as ptd by Meyer, 'Das turiner Bruchstuck', pp. 184-5, cf. CLA IV, 15 (no. 454), Fischer, Verzeichnis, p. 24 (no. 255) and Lapidge and Sharpe, Bibliography, p. 211 (no. 786). A continental

391


The features recorded so far — omission of the benedictus es series, introduction of a trinitarian doxology and substitution of wholly uncanonical benedictory material for the oratio and the blessings of Dan. III.88b—90 — occur in hundreds of Greek and Latin texts containing verses of the Song of the Three excerpted for use as a liturgical canticle in Insular and continental usage. The field of possible exemplars for the alliterative rendition, however, can be narrowed considerably by examining the ordering of the verses in question. The order of the invocations

We have seen that the economy of expression in the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum is sufficient to allow as many as three consecutive verses from the Latin canticle to be accommodated in an equivalent number of alliterative lines. In the example provided above, moreover, the degree of compression is such that the subjects of two of the three invocations in question (addressing angels and the heavens, following Dan. III.58-9) are included in a single half-line {heofonas and englas {Dan 364a)). The order of the subjects in this half-line, however, reverses the sequence of terms observed in Vulgate-based texts ('benedicite angeli Domino . . . benedicite caeli Domino'), where the invocation of angels (at Dan. III.58) invariably precedes the invocation of the heavens (at III. 59). It might be argued that the alternation of subjects in Daniel arises in response to poetical considerations. As it stands, the initial term heofonas alliterates conspicuously with the phrase hluttor water ('clear waters', rendering aquae (Dan. 111.60)) at 364b. But an interchange of heofonas and englas in Dan 364a would not seriously disrupt either the alliteration or scansion of the line taken as a whole. Perhaps the ordering of topics in Daniel simply reproduces the sequence encountered in all Old Latin texts of Canticum trium puerorum derivative of the Theodotionic Greek text of the Song of the Three, where the heavens are addressed before the angels. The possibility is intriguing, as it implies that the scrupulousness observed by the poet in

congener of the Old Latin-based, Irish text of Canticum trium puerorum occurs in the Lectionary of Luxeuil (see above, p. 139 with n. 101), 128r-v (failing in Dan. 111.5763), as ptd in he Lectionnaire de Luxeuil, ed. Salmon I, 113-14. See above, p. 380 with n. 85.

392

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel reproducing the vocabulary of the liturgical exemplar may have carried over into the nuance of the arrangement of the rendition. Fidelity to the order of invocations observed in those Old Latin texts of the Canticum trium puerorum which are derivative of the Theodotionic recension, if it could be established beyond reasonable doubt, would narrow the field of probable liturgical templates for lines 362-408 of Daniel considerably. The following comments thus attempt to test the hypothesis of Old Latin derivation - implicit in all previous comparisons with the text of the Vespasian Psalter - by establishing the order of invocation witnessed by the text of Daniel as precisely as evidence will allow. The intended goal is to link the Old English text to copies of Canticum trium puerorum extant in manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon origin or provenance. The textual evidence affecting the point under discussion may be set out as follows: Dan. 11.59(58) 111.58(59)

oopavoi ayyeXoi

caeli angeli

Dan 364a: heofonas 364a: englas

Although it is reasonable to suspect that deviation from the order of Vulgate scripture in the handling of this pair of conceptually related subjects reflects poetic preference rather than the diction of a liturgical source - indeed, three verifiable instances of such as inversion will emerge below - three other sequences of lines in Daniel offer strong evidence to the contrary. As the evidence in each case is fairly complex, these passages will be discussed under headings denoting the broad categories of subjects addressed in the crucial verses of the invocations in question:

100

In this and subsequent comparisons of the order of invocations in Latin canticles and Daniel, the Greek vocabulary derives in the first instance from the critical text of the Theodotionic recension established in Daniel, ed. Ziegler, with variant readings from the Theodotionic text and the earlier Greek text of the Septuagint, as recorded by Ziegler, supplied in parentheses; citations of Old Latin texts follow the critical text established in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, ed. Sabatier II, 862-4, with variants deriving from the apparatus of this edition, as well as texts in Paris, Arsenal, 8407 (above, p. 367, n. 65), as ptd in Anecdota, ed. Fleck, pp. 345-7, and witnesses to Anglo-Saxon and Irish usage cited at pp. 390-2with nn. 96-8. The numbering of verses generally follows Ziegler's edition of the Theodotionic Greek, which agrees in most respects with the numbering of the modern editions of the Vulgate. Punctuation and orthography have been adjusted as necessary. On the varying order of the invocations, see also Daniel, trans, and introd. Moore, p. 71.

393


heat, light and darkness (Dan. III.71-2), wintertime elements (III.67-70) and seas, rivers and springs (III.77—8). Invocations of heat, light and darkness

Unambiguous agreement between the ordering of invocations in Daniel and in characteristic Greek and Old Latin forms of the canticle contrasts with the radical divergence of the Junius text's ordering of subjects from a sequence of seven successive Vulgate verses (Dan. III.66-72) that invoke various aspects of the physical universe, for the most part in alternate pairs:

Dan. 111.66

7U)p

KaCua

ignis aestus (calor) (aestas)

Dan 373a: fyr

noctes dies lux (tenebrae) tenebrae (lumen)

374b: niht 374b: daeg

373b: sumor

TTT fil lJLl.vJ / TTT 6 8

J.J.J.. U O

111.71 111.72

vuKxec, flliepai cpeostro' (light and darkness') in the Averse of the next line of Daniel {il ^b) corresponds either to the common Old Latin phrase 'tenebrae et lumen' or, assuming that there has been no interchange in the position of subjects, the rare but more faithfully Theodotionic variant 'lux et tenebrae'. The order of the Old English phrasing, where light precedes darkness, might suggest that the latter reading has indeed influenced the text of the rendition, but evidence to the contrary will be set out below. Wintertime invocations of Dan. HI. 67—70

It has not been noted previously that several readings in the text of Daniel bear directly on one of the most convoluted textual problems that has ever arisen out of the study of the deuterocanonical additions to the book of Daniel. The general observation has been made above that the treatment of elements associated with winter — snow, frost and so on — in the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum appears lacunose in the light of the Vulgate model. But consideration of the background of the passage elsewhere in the deuterocanonical tradition suggests that the appearance of irregularity is a function of source rather than content. A crucial sequence of eight verses (including the invocations of darkness and light analysed immediately above), conventionally numbered as Dan. 111.66—73 and standing near the centre of the Song of the Three, varies widely in both content and order of invocation in extant witnesses. I note no fewer than fifteen distinctive configurations in the Greek and Latin witnesses to Dan. III.66—73, many of which omit one or more verses or introduce wholly new (or conflated) verses. The textual diversification in question begins in the scriptural tradition, where early Greek texts exhibit the sequences III.66—8—111.71— 2—III.69— 70-111.73 (the standard Theodotionic order), III.66-III.71-2-III.69-70111.73 and III.66-70-III.73-III.72-III.71, among many others. The first two of these sequences are associated respectively with the normative Theodotionic text, attested by a substantial group of minuscule witnesses, and a variant form thereof, represented by Greek texts preserved in two famous uncial manuscripts (Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1209 (s. iv; 'Codex Vaticanus') and Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica, Vat. gr. 2125 (s. vi; 'Codex Marchalianus')). The order of invocations observed 395


in the latter verses of both of these text-types corresponds almost exactly to that observed in Daniel: 111.72

(pdog (cncoioq) OKOTOC,

(y&q) TTT Ceostro 375b: leoht

376b: ceald

376b: hat

377b: forstas 377b: snawas 379b: ligetu 378b: wolcenfaru

The numbering of verses in the preceding analysis follows the conventions of modern critical editions of the Vulgate, agreeing in most essentials with the numeration of the Theodotionic Greek text. Within the Latin tradition, especially the tradition of liturgical documents, the distribution of variant readings is so involved as to preclude the reliable assignation of standard verse-numbers. It may be most convenient to represent the situation as one in which all four of the verses in deuterocanonical Greek and Latin scripture that address wintry elements (Dan. 111.67-70) drop out of the liturgical tradition. They give way to three conflated verses, represented in the Old Latin tradition by invocations pairing various forces of creation. The crucial phrases in these verses are 'frigus et cauma' ('cold and heat'), 'pruina et niues' ('frost and snow') and 'ignis et aestas' ('fire and summer'), each of which, as we shall see, has exerted an influence on the verse of Daniel. These three conflated readings, moreover, may be seen to draw on the content of invocations in the Greek and Latin traditions emerging out of no fewer than six distinctive groups of variant readings. The six groups in question may be summarized as follows:

396

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel Dan. III.66 7rOp m i KaOjia ('fire and heat'): A normative Theodotionic reading in Dan. III.66, agreeing exactly with the diction of the Septuagint in that verse and giving rise to a corresponding reading 'ignis et aestus' in Old Latin texts in the Theodotionic tradition and in the text of the Vulgate. This Latin phrase, as a result of confusion of the terms aestas ('summer') and aestus ('heat'), gives rise to a variant reading, 'ignis et aestas' ('fire and summer'), which stands apart from the Greek tradition. (Cf. my comments on Dan. III.67-9 below.) This last reading is reflected in the verse of Daniel (for which see below). 111.67 yOôc, Kai Kauacov ('cold (or 'winter'; or 'frost') and heat'): A normative Theodotionic reading in Dan. III.67, diverging markedly from the corresponding reading of the Septuagint, pTyoc, Kai yuxoc, ('frost (or 'cold') and cold' (or 'winter'; or 'frost')). The alternation of Kauacov and Kauua ('heat') is frequent in Theodotionic texts. The nearest approximation to the phrase in the Latin tradition occurs in the reading 'frigus et aestus' in the Vulgate (at Dan. III.67), but the phrase also occurs in certain witnesses to the Old Latin verse corresponding to Dan. III.69 (against Vulgate 'gelu et frigus'). Another common Old Latin reflex, however, is 'frigus et cauma' ('cold and heat'), following the variant Theodotionic reading yuxoc, Kai Kauua, witnessed by the text in Codex Vaticanus and other sources. This is the reading that appears to be reflected in the verse oi Daniel (see below). 111.67 (Vulgate) and 111.69 (Old Latin) 'frigus et aestas' ('cold and summer'): A variant reading standing apart from the Greek tradition insofar as it arises out of confusion of Latin aestas ('summer') with aestus ('heat'). For its appearance at Dan. III.69 in Old Latin texts, see the preceding item. 111.68 5poaoi Kai VKpexoi ('dews and hoar-frost'): A normative Theodotionic reading in Dan. III.68, agreeing exactly with the diction of the Septuagint in that verse and giving rise to a corresponding Vulgate reading 'rores et pruina'. There is no corresponding Old Latin reading in Dan. 111.68. 111.69 nayoq Kai \|/0%OCJ ('ice (or 'frost') and cold (or 'winter'; or 'frost')): A normative Theodotionic reading in Dan. III.69, corresponding closely to the diction of the Septuagint in that verse and giving rise to a

397


corresponding reading 'gelu et frigus' ('frost and cold') in the Vulgate. The term gelu does not seem to occur in the Old Latin tradition. III.70 rcdxvai Kai yxovzc, ('hoar-frosts and snows'): A normative Theodotionic reading in Dan. III.70, agreeing exactly with the diction of the Septuagint in that verse and giving rise to a corresponding reading 'glacies et niues' ('ice and snow') in the Vulgate and, rarely, in Old Latin texts. The more common Old Latin reading at Dan. III.70, standing closer to the Greek than Jerome's rendition, is 'pruina et niues' ('hoar-frost and snow'). This last reading is reflected in the verse of Daniel (for which see below). Despite the complexity of the textual background of lines 374b—379a of Daniel, the alignment of readings with the order of verses in the Theodotionic tradition represented by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Marchalianus is straightforward. Moreover, the alignment of the diction of the Old English text - especially in the phrases 'fyr and . . . sumor' (Dan 373: 'fire and summer'), 'somod hat and ceald' (376b: 'heat and cold together') and 'forstas and snawas' (377b: 'frosts and snows') - with Old Latin readings treated immediately above (in comments addressing Dan. III.66-7 and 111.70) is nearly exact. The evidence set out so far thus allows the most precise definition of the liturgical source of the rendition of the canticum in Daniel yet achieved. The main series of invocations in the rendition of the benedicite series renders a text found in a liturgical document embodying a common Insular (Irish and Anglo-Saxon) form of an Old Latin canticle text. 101 This liturgical canticle springs from a well-defined, variant Theodotionic tradition which closes with the trinitarian doxology and benedictus es reminiscence. Taken together, these features allow us to exclude a huge number of witnesses, including all Vulgate and Vulgate-derived texts of Canticum trium puerorum, from further consideration as possible sources. It 101

The main features of the Old Latin-based text-type treated here occur in continental sources as well. A representative example (in Beneventan script) appears in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon. Lat. Patr. 88 (PCremona, s. xi 2 ), 229r-v; see SC IV, 328 (no. 19074). On the older Roman usage, see Mearns, Canticles, esp. pp. 50-61. B. Fischer, 'Zur Uberlieferung altlateinischer Bibeltexte im Mittelalter', Nederlands Archief voor Kerksgescbiedenis

56

(1975),

19-33,

repr.

in

his

Lateinische

Bibelhandscbriften,

pp. 404-21, discusses the preservation of Old Latin texts in series of canticles (pp. 414-15).

398

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel is also possible to eliminate several Irish exemplars of the Old Latin form of the canticle, as well as a small group of Anglo-Saxon hymnodic settings of the Old Latin text. The major conclusion that emerges is that the textual basis of the poem appears to be narrowly in line with the customs of the earliest attested, Old Latin-based Roman devotional usage. Liturgical documents associated with the Gallican church as well as the usage of Milan and other centres, commonly employing Vulgate-derived texts of the canticle, have exerted no detectable influence on the central section of Daniel. The liturgical custom in question, then, is the recitation from canticularia in psalters of the distinctive Old Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum accompanied by the trinitarian doxology and a reminiscence of Dan. III.56. As liturgical scholars have long recognized, the most reliable evidence dated before 1100 for such usage in European centres occurs in a select group of Anglo-Saxon witnesses, the Vespasian Psalter perhaps preeminent among them. The text of Daniel, I should argue, must now be numbered among these monuments, although its precise relationship to the readings of Vespasian A. i and other early sources remains to be established. Invocations of seas, rivers and springs

One final observation regarding the ordering of invocations in Daniel will serve to confirm the conclusions set out above. There is another notable example of extremely compact rendering in Daniel, in which invocations addressing three elements (seas, rivers and fountains) are accommodated in the ^-verses of three consecutive lines of the Old English verse: sealte saewaegas, so5faest metod, eastream ySa and upcyme, waetersprync wylla, 5a 5ec wurSiaS102 The order of the phrases 'sealte saewaegas', 'eastream y5a' and 'waetersprync wylla' corresponds precisely to the sequence of verses in Old Latin canticles derivative of the variant Theodotionic tradition. The lexical evidence again involves an interchange in the order of verses, as follows: 102

Dan 383-5: 'Let the salty waves of the sea praise You, trustworthy God, the watery current of waves and [its] rising, the springing of water from wells.'

399


Dan. 111.78 111.77

OaAaaaai 7ioxauoi ai Tcrjyai

maria flumina fontes

Dan 383a: saewaegas 384a: eastream 385a: waetersprync wylla

In sum, it is possible to conclude on the basis of the preceding analysis of the content and order of invocations in the Latin canticles and in their Old English counterparts in Daniel that the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum is founded on an Old Latin exemplar that contained the following characteristically non-Vulgate vocabulary: aestas ('summer') at Dan. III.66 (against Vulgate (and Old Latin variant) aestus ('heat')); the grecism cauma ('heat') at III.69 (against Vulgate frigus ('cold') and Old Latin variants treated below);103 pruina ('hoar-frost') at 111.70 (against Vulgate (and Old Latin variant) glacies ('ice')); the phrase 'tenebrae et lumen' ('darkness and light') at III.72 (against the similar, if reversed, Vulgate (and variant Old Latin) phrase 'lux et tenebrae'); the Old Latin phrase 'omnia nascentia terrae' ('all things that are born of the earth') at III.76 (against the similar Vulgate 'uniuersa germinantia in terra' ('. . . that sprout forth in the earth')); and Old Latin 'bestiae et uniuersa pecora' ('beasts and all herds of livestock') at III.81 (against the similar Vulgate 'omnes bestiae et pecora' ('all beasts . . .') and an Old Latin variant treated below). Moreover, following its counterpart to Dan. III.88a, the exemplar will have contained one of several wholly non-Vulgate additions commonly encountered in Old Latin texts of Canticum trium puerorum, exhorting celebrants who recite the canticle to the adoration of the Trinity ('. . . Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum' ('. . . Father and Son and Holy Ghost'), with similar variants '. . . Sanctum Spiritum' (reversed) and '. . . cum Sancto Spiritu' ('. . . with the Holy Ghost')). Finally, immediately after the preceding exhortation, the exemplar will have contained a second non-Vulgate benedictory addition, that is, a blessing of God in the firmament of heaven ('. . . in firmamento caeli'), drawing on the phrasing of Dan. III.56. Absent altogether were counterparts to the Vulgate verses conventionally numbered Dan. III. 5 2—6 (excepting the echo of the benedictory text of III. 5 6), III.67—8 and III.88b—90. Non-Vulgate ordering of invocations occurred in this exemplar in verses corresponding to Dan. III. 5 8-9 (in the Vulgate numeration), III.66—III.69—72 (and, within this sequence, III.72) and 103

B. Lofstedt, 'Cauma bei pseudo-Beda', Eranos 89 (1991), 6 1 - 3 , discusses the difficult medieval Latin term cauma at length; cf. also my comments on this study at OEN 26.2 (1993), 66.

400

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel III.77—8. The text of Daniel evidently undertakes its own re-ordering of the Old Latin sequence of subjects, presumably out of poetical considerations, in rendering the matter of Dan. III.69 (the phrase 'hat and ceald' (Dan 376b: 'heat and cold') effectively reverses the order of Old Latin 'frigus et cauma'); III.72-3 ('leoht and J)eostro' (375b: 'light and darkness') reverses the order of Old Latin 'tenebrae et lumen' and the whole phrase is involved in an interchange of position with the rendition of III.69 just treated and the words 'wolcenfaru . . . and . . . ligetu' (378b—379: 'scudding clouds and lightning-flashes') reverse the order of 'fulgora et nubes' ('lightning-flashes and clouds')); 111.75 (the phrase 'hyllas . . . and . . . beorgas' (382: 'hills and mountains') reverses the order of 'montes et colles'); III.79—80 (the lines containing the phrases 'hwalas [and] . . . J)a 8e . . . waeterscipe wecgaS' (386—8a: 'whales and those which stir bodies of water') and 'hefonfugolas lyftlacende' (386b—387a: 'birds of the sky flying in the air') conflate the matter of 'cete et omnia quae mouentur in aquis' ('whales and all those which move in the waters') and 'uolucres caeli' ('birds of the sky')); and, finally, 111.86 (the phrase 'soSfaestra gehwaes / sawle and gastas' (394: 'the souls and spirits of all the just') recasts the matter of Old Latin 'spiritus et animae iustorum' ('spirits and souls of the just')). It is thus clear that the poet felt free to depart from the syntax of the Latin canticle and, on occasion, to shift the position of certain invocations. But none of the poem's departures from the model of the canticle involves verses whose ordering of subjects is characteristic of the specific Old Latin text-type that may be associated with the exemplar in question. Moreover, the fact that the text of Daniel does precisely reproduce all of the distinctive features of the ordering of verses in this exemplar would seem to obviate the possibility of attributing the correspondences of the diction and order of the invocations in Daniel to those of the canticle simply to chance. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it is possible to associate the text of Daniel with a single, distinctive Old Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum, whose readings are witnessed by a group of five extant AngloSaxon psalters. These five psalters preserve early, characteristically Roman texts of Canticum trium puerorum, whose verses are arranged precisely as described above, in their appendices of canticles (canticularid). As these manuscripts will figure prominently in subsequent discussion, they may be listed briefly here and supplied with their conventional sigla:104 104

For the sake of convenience, this list reproduces information on dating, origin and

401


London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian A. i (PCanterbury, s. viii1; later provenance St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury; 'Vespasian Psalter'), 15Or-151r. C Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 1. 23 (s. xi me ; provenance Winchcombe; 'Cambridge Psalter'), pp. 517-19. D BL, Royal 2. B. V (PWorcester, PWinchester; s. x med and xi; provenance Christ Church Cathedral, Canterbury; 'Regius Psalter'), 180v— 181v. L BL, Additional 37517 (s. x and xex; provenance Canterbury; 'Bosworth Psalter'), lOOv-lOlr. P Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 8824 (s. xi me ; provenance before 1100 England; 'Paris Psalter'), 180v-181r.

A

The identification of this group of manuscripts concomitantly establishes a body of readings, encountered consistently in canticles conforming to the distinctive Old Latin text-type under discussion, which may allow an extremely precise definition of the non-Vulgate features of the Latin source of lines 362—408 of Daniel. It is probable that this exemplar contained the Old Latin reading angeli ('angels') at Dan. III. 58 (against Vulgate variant (and Old Latin variant) angeli Domini ('angels of the Lord')); aquae ('waters') at 111.60 (against Vulgate (and Old Latin variant) aquae omnes ('all waters')); imber ('shower of rain') at 111.64 (against Vulgate (and Old Latin variant) omnis imber ('every shower')); the plural phrase omnes spiritus ('all spirits') at III.65 (against the singular Vulgate (and Old Latin variant) reading omnis spiritus); uolucres ('birds') at III.80 (against Vulgate (and Old Latin variant) omnes uolucres)', and, finally, bestiae ('beasts') and uniuersa pecora ('all herds of livestock') at III.81 (against Vulgate omnes bestiae and pecora). provenance previously set out above, pp. 390 with n. 96. For a rare, early continental witness to this form of text - reinforcing the impression that we are dealing here with a characteristically Anglo-Saxon type of canticle - see the text preserved in Stuttgart, Wiirttembergische Landesbibliothek, Bibl. fol. 12a-c (Anglo-Saxon centre on continent, s. viii; ninth-century provenance Echternach), as ptd by A. Dold, 'Ein Stuttgarter altlateinischer Unzialpsalter', p. 75; see also CLA IX, 33 (no. 1353). See further K. Wildhagen, 'Studien zum psalterium Romanum in England und zu seinen Glossierungen (in geschichtlicher Entwicklung)', in Festschrift fur Lorenz Morsbach, ed. F. Holthausen and H. Spies, SEP 50 (Halle, 1913), 417-72, Gneuss, Hymnar und Hymnen, pp. 150-5 and 252-6, and S. L. Keefer, The Old English Metrical Psalter: an Annotated Set of Collation Lists with the Psalter Glosses\ Reference Lib. of the Humanities

189 (New York, 1979), 17-46.

402

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel Clearly, the bulk of the characteristic readings attributed here to the Old Latin exemplar of Daniel have the effect of producing a simpler lyric, a lyric more conducive to the exigencies of liturgical recitation as a result of the absence of forms of omnis and other inessential features of the canticle's scriptural sources. It is also possible on the same basis to clarify the relationship of the distinctive Old Latin text-type witnessed by Daniel to other texts encountered among other Old Latin witnesses to Canticum trium puerorum. It is probable that the exemplar rendered by the poem contained the common Old Latin reading uirtutes (Virtues' or 'powers') in its reflex of Dan. III.61 and not the roughly synonymous variant potentiae, encountered in Irish texts of the canticle; the reading 'sol et luna' ('sun and moon') in III.62, against the expanded, typically Irish reading 'sol et luna Domini' ('sun and moon of the Lord'); stellae caeli ('stars of the sky') in III.63, against similar Old Latin variants sidera caeli and (typically Irish) 'stellae caeli Domini'; aestas ('summer') or, perhaps, aestus ('heat'; cf. discussion below) in III.66, against typically Irish variants calor ('heat') and (expanded) '. . . calor Domini'; frigus ('cold') at III.69, against Old Latin variant hiems ('winter'); cauma ('heat'), following frigus in the same verse, against Old Latin variants hiems ('winter'), aestus ('heat') and aestas ('summer', sometimes expanded by '. . . Domini' in Irish texts); 'omnia nascentiae terrae' ('all things that are born of the earth') at 111.76, against truncated (and extended) 'nascentiae terrae Domini' in certain Irish witnesses to the Old Latin; cete ('whales') at 111.79, against beluae ('beasts') in Irish reflexes of the verse, some expanded by 'Domini'; and, finally, uniuersa pecora ('all herds of livestock') at 111.81, against Old Latin, typically Irish variants iumenta and iumenta Domini. The nearly complete agreement of the Old Latin readings of the reconstructed exemplar of the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel against those of Irish texts of the canticle is especially striking. In addition to the reflexes of verses already treated, the exemplar of the rendition in Daniel will have failed to include any counterpart to the expanded, typically Irish verse-endings in '. . . Domini' encountered at Dan. 111.59-60, III.64-5, III.7O-5, III.77-8,111.80,111.83 and III.86—8. And there will have been no counterpart in the exemplar of Daniel to the various prayers and other liturgical additions (termed 'post [H}ymnum trium puerorum', 'collectio post benedictionem puerorum' and otherwise in manuscripts) that do duty for the oratio of the scriptural (deuterocanonical) form of the recitation in Irish sources. Despite the 403


evident congruence of the Old English phrase wcetersprync wylla {Dan 385a: 'the springing of the water of wells', following Dan. III.77) and the typically Irish variant 'fontes aquarum' ('fountains of waters'), as against common Old Latin fontes, it seems probable that the exemplar of Daniel contained the latter, single-term reading. In sum, the evidence suggests that the verse oi Daniel draws on the readings of a characteristically AngloSaxon text of Canticum trium puerorum.

The most important implications of the results set out here are the fivefold increase in the amount of evidence available for assessing the textual basis of Daniel and the concomitant displacement of the Vespasian Psalter from its hitherto unchallenged position as the most proximate surviving congener of the usage observed in Daniel. It is now clear that the singular claim to affinity with Daniel that this psalter has maintained over more than one hundred years of scholarship on the poem can no longer be sustained. Critics who would adduce the early date of Vespasian A. i in connection with an eighth-century or earlier dating of Daniel must now contend with the counter-examples offered by four tenth- and eleventhcentury witnesses preserved in Cambridge, London and Paris. Nevertheless, it may prove possible at least in part to offset the negative evidence offered by these newly established witnesses by undertaking one final programme of textual analysis, a comparison of the readings of lines 362— 408 oi Daniel with interlinear Old English glosses preserved in four of the manuscripts listed above. The relationship of the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum to Old English psalter glosses

Four of the five witnesses to the Old Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum cited above (BL, Additional 37517; BL, Cotton Vespasian A. i; BL, Royal 2. B. V; and CUL, Ff. 1. 23) are supplied with Old English glosses. These glosses have been served with adequate critical editions and remain available for study in England. Even a cursory survey of the readings in question will reveal that there are many points of correspondence between the vocabulary of lines 362—408 of Daniel and the Old English glosses in these four sources. The evidence must be interpreted with care, as Daniel and the glosses both render an uncomplicated set of Latin lemmata - opera, angeli, caeli and so on - by a fairly predictable set of Old English equivalents. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable coincidence 404

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel of the diction of Daniel and the interpretamenta most commonly encountered in vernacular glosses to Canticum trium puerorum. The correspondence appears especially striking in cases involving distinctive readings. The possibility that the exemplar of the vernacular rendition of the canticle in Daniel was a glossed text does not seem to have been mentioned previously in print except perhaps implicitly in references to Cotton Vespasian A. i, whose preservation of a valuable Mercian gloss is well known. The correspondence of the diction of Daniel with Old English glosses accompanying the subjects of invocations in Old Latin texts of Canticum trium puerorum are set out in Table 8. (In cases of lexical agreement among glosses, phonological and orthographic variants have not been tabulated in Table 8.) The hypothesis that the poet of lines 362-408 of Daniel directly consulted a glossed copy of an Old Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum receives support from the evidence assembled in Table 8. In all but four of the forty-five instances in which the text of Daniel includes a reasonably close lexical equivalent to the subject of an invocation (that is, in all renditions but those treating Dan. 111.61, 111.76, 111.84 and 111.85), the poem incorporates one or more words accompanying the corresponding Latin subject in glossed copies of the canticle in the Cambridge and London manuscripts. In one of the four remaining doubtful cases the poem includes a term found standing above an.adjacent lemma {beorgas {Dan 382b)). And in two other cases (hat and ceald (both at Dan 376b)) we find adjectives that are etymologically related to nouns employed in the glosses (cyle and hcetu at 111.69). This leaves only a single instance in which the text of Daniel employs a term that is wholly without analogue in the glossed copies of the canticle. This is eastream (384a), where the term flumina at III.78 is glossed byflod(as)(PsCaACDL). Here the deviation may be plausibly attributed to the influence of poetic convention, as the poeticism eastream participates in alliteration with the terms yda and upcyme.105 The evidence of glosses also provides independent corroboration 103

Left out of account are the cases noted above in which the Old English fails to offer any equivalent whatsoever to the subject of an invocation (for example, in treatments of Dan. 111.61, III.67-8,111.76, III.84-5 and 111.87), either as a result of the absence of a given invocation in the Old Latin canticle or possible textual loss in the transmission of the text witnessed by Daniel. The influence of poetic convention may also be seen in the poem's handling of some of the more discursive invocations, as in the phrases *J>a Se ofer roderum / on rihtne gesceaft / wuniad in wuldre' {Dan 365-6a: 'those which

405

Old English biblical verse Table 8. A synopsis of readings in Old Latin versions of the Song of the Three and in the rendition 0/Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel fDan 362-408) and in Old English psalter glosses Daniel

Old Latin canticle (with variants)

Daniel

Old English glosses to Old Latin canticle

III.57

omnia opera Domini

ACDL: ealle weorc drihtnes

111.59(58)

Dan 363b: weorca gehwilc 364a: heofonas 364a: englas

caeli angeli (angeli Domini) aquae 364b: waeter . . . super caelos 365a: ofer roderum omnes uirtutes Domini (cf. 367a: aelmihtig)

111.58(59) 111.60 111.61

111.62 111.63 111.64

111.65

111.66

ACDL: heofonas AD: englas CL: englas drihtnes ACDL: waeteru ACDL: ofer heofonas ACL: ealle maegnu drihtnes D: ealle maegenu ACDL: sunne ACDL: mona ACDL: steorran heofones ACL: scur D: hagul ACDL: deaw C: ealle gast[as} godys AL: ealle gastas D: gastas

sol luna stellae caeli imber

369a: sunna 369a: monna 370b: heofonsteorran 371a: scur

ros omnes spiritus Dei (omnes spiritus)

371a: deaw 372b: gastas

ignis aestas (aestus)

373a: fyr

ACDL: fyr

373b: sumor

AC: sumur D: swoloQ L: haeto

111.67 TTT £ 8

dwell in glory above the heavens according to their proper destiny') and '\>a. 5e lagostreamas, / waeterscipe wecgaft' (387b-388a: 'those which stir the streams of the sea, the expanse of water'), where the glosses include 'l>a Se ofer heofonas sint' ('those who are above the heavens', glossing '. . . quae super caelos sunt' at Dan. III.60), 't>a 5e beoQ onstyrede on waeterum' ('those which are made to move in the waters', glossing '. . . quae mouentur in aquis' at III.79) and similar phrases. A full analysis of the treatment of clauses dependent on the subjects of invocations is beyond the compass of the present discussion. Numerous points of correspondence involving Old English epithets for God, forms of bletsian and other verbs rendering benedicite, and the like, may also warrant separate study.

406

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel Table 8 contd Daniel


Daniel


111.71

noctes

374b: niht

dies

374b: daeg

tenebrae lumen frigus cauma pruina

375b: t>eostro 375b: leoht 376b: ceald 376b: hat 377b: forstas

niues

377b: snawas

fulgora

379b: ligetu

nubes

378b: wolcenfaru

111.74 111.75

terra montes colles

381a: eorSan grund 382b: beorgas 382a: hyllas

A: naeht CDL: nihta A:deg CDL: dagas ACDL: t>eostro ACDL: leoht ACDL: cyle ACDL: hzetu AC: forstas D: gicelgebland L: hrim L: snawas ACD: snaw ACL: legetu D: ligraescas ACL: wolcnu D: genipu ACDL: eor5e ACDL: muntas ACL: hyllas D: beorgas

III.76

nmnia na^rpntia fprrap

111.72 111.69 111.70

111.73

111.78

maria flumina

111.77 111.79

111.80

fontes cete omnia quae mouentur . . . in aquis uolucres caeli

111.81

bestiae uniuersa pecora

111.82 111.83

filii hominum Israhel

ACT*yf * pal 1P nY*pnnpnHp

eor5an 383a: saewaegas DL: saeas ACss 384a: eastream ACD: flodas L:flod 385a: waetersprync wylla ACDL: wyllas 386a: hwalas ACDL: hwalas ACDL: t>a 5e beo5 onstyrede 387b-388a: t>a 6e... wecgaS 387b: lagostreamas ACDL:.. .on waeterum 386b: hefonfugolas ADL: fiiglas heofones C: ealle fiiglas hefynys ACDL: wilddeor 388b: wildu deor 389a: neata gehwilc ADL: ealle nytenu C: ealle wildeor 390a: manna beam ACDL: beam monna 391a: Israela AC: isra(helys) D: getreowfulnes

407


Table 8 contd Daniel


111.84

sacerdotes Domini

111.85

serui Domini

111.86

spiritus

394b: gastas

animae iustorum

394: so5faestra gehwaes sawle

111.87

sancti

Daniel

Doxology

Anania Azaria Misael Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum

AC: biscopas dryhtnes L: sacerdhadas drihtnes D: sacerdas ACL: J>eowas drihtnes D: 6eowas ADL: gastas Ogast

ACD: sawla rihtwisra L: sawla rihtwisnessa 393: haligra heortan... ACDL: halige

llU.illli.Co LU1UC

III.88a


TxLJL,. CaOIIlUtiC UI1 IlCUrLd.ll

397a: Annanias 397b: Adzarias 398a: Misael 400b: fieder 40la: sunu 402b: halig gast

C: eaftmode heortan L: Annanias L: Adzarias CL: Misahel ACDL: faeder ACDL: sunu AL: halgan gast CD: gast halig(ne)

of the conclusion that the source of the rendition embodied an Old Latin rather than a Vulgate text. Thus far, however, the evidence adduced for 10

The exemplar almost certainly contained the two terms scur ('shower of rain') and deaw ('dew') above Latin imber ('rain') and ros ('dew') at Dan. 111.64 (cf. deaw and deor scur {Dan 371: 'dew and beloved shower')), which is typical of Old Latin glosses (occurring in three of the four witnesses collated here (PsCaACL)) against the pair hagol ('hail') and deaw (in four of the six manuscripts containing Old English glosses to the Vulgate-based canticle (PsCaFGJK)). Similarly, the pairing of wolcenfaru ('scudding of clouds') and ligetu ('lightning-flash') at Dan 378b-379 in the rendition of Dan. 111.73 suggests that the terms ligetu and woken ('cloud') - three of four in the Old Latin group - appeared as glosses in the exemplar rather than ligrasc ('lightning-flash') and genipu ('cloud, mist') (three of six in the Vulgate group (PsCaFGJ); one of four in the Old Latin (PsCaD)). The use of the term hwalas {Dan 386a: 'whales') supports the assignment of an Anglo-Saxon rather than Irish origin to the exemplary text. The term more likely reflects the Latin reading cete ('whales'), found in all Anglo-Saxon copies of the canticle, than the more generic term beluae ('beasts') present in witnesses to the Irish text-type. Finally, confirmation that we have to reckon with an Old Latin

408

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel the direct consultation of a glossed copy of Canticum trium puerorum by the poet of the central section of Daniel remains inconclusive. We are, after all, confronted with a fairly unextraordinary display of Latin—Old English synonymy. Most remarkably, despite the relative paucity of the available lexical material, the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum shows discernible affinity with the readings of a subset of the corpus of glossed Old Latin canticles. The clearest indication is that the glosses in the exemplar underlying this section of Daniel diverged at several points from those preserved in BL, Royal 2. B. V while agreeing closely with the other three witnesses. There are four cases in which Daniel agrees with the readings of all three remaining witnesses against Royal 2. B. V (see listings for Dan. III.64, III.73a, III.73b and III.75b in the preceding tabulation). There are another three cases of agreement between Daniel and two manuscripts in particular — BL, Vespasian A. i and CUL, Ff. 1. 23 — against either or both of the witnesses of BL, Additional 37517 and BL, Royal 2. B. V. These occur in treatments of Dan. III.66b, III.70a and 111.83, which can be consulted conveniently in Table 8. Taken together with the previously noted points of agreement among various witnesses against Royal 2. B. V, this evidence shows that there are a total of seven clear cases of lexical alignment between the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel and the glosses of Vespasian A. i, or CUL, Ff. 1. 23, or both, against other witnesses. (A possible eighth case, involving the treatment of Dan. III.81b, will be considered below.) This is perhaps the single most momentous gleaning of the present survey. The clear pattern which emerges from these points of lexical agreement, despite the fairly unextraordinary nature of the vocabulary in question, in my view provides the strongest evidence for direct consultation of a glossed exemplar of Canticum trium puerorum by the poet who undertook to compose the Old English rendition. Moreover, it is clear that the hitherto unchallenged distinction of the Vespasian Psalter to preserve the most approximate extant counterpart to the exemplar of lines 362-408 of Daniel can no

exemplar containing the term aestas ('summer') rather than aestus ('heat') at Dan. III.66 occurs in the phrase 'and beorht sumor' {Dan 373b: 'and bright summer'), which corresponds more closely to a Latin-Old English gloss aestas: sumur (PsCaAC: 'summer' in each case) than either of the alternate pairings aestus: swolaS (PsCaDFGJK: 'heat' in each case) and aestus: hcetu (PsCaEIL: 'heat' in each case).

409


longer be sustained. The eleventh-century witness of the Cambridge Psalter deserves consideration in this regard. It does not follow necessarily that the exemplar of Canticum trium puerorum in question was consulted simultaneously with the composition of the rendition of the canticle. It is likely that any Christian poet who attempted to render this ubiquitous canticle in alliterative verse would draw on the text that was most familiar from private study and liturgical use. The poet, in all probability, will have committed this Latin text to memory. Granted, it may seem doubtful that a Latin text would be memorized by rote together with its glosses even by the most diligent participant in the ceremonies of mass and Office. The present discussion, however, assumes only that the English-speaking celebrant's understanding of the Latin text may have been influenced by its interlinear apparatus. The bulk of the evidence set out above, viewed collectively, may thus point toward the conclusion that a text preserved in some sort of liturgical document — almost certainly a canticularium appended to a psalter or a private copy made therefrom — was consulted before or during the composition of Daniel. Having examined dozens of neglected copies of Anglo-Saxon canticles in the course of my research, I find it remarkable that the well-publicized Vespasian Psalter is still in contention for the distinction of preserving the most proximate extant analogue of the Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum witnessed by Daniel, especially given the fact that no critic to date has cited specific readings in support of conjectures regarding the affinity of the Vespasian text and the Old English rendition. The weight that my findings here might be seen to lend to arguments for an early dating of the poem, and, perhaps, of Old English biblical verse generally, It is intriguing to speculate about the possible relationship of phenomena identified here with the apparent use of construe marks accompanying continuous vernacular glosses in Anglo-Saxon psalters to induce readers to interpret a sequence of interlinear insertions as approximations to grammatical sentences, suggested by F. C. Robinson, 'Syntactical Glosses in Latin Manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Provenance', Speculum 48 (1973), 443-75. See now P. P. O'Neill, 'Syntactical Glosses in the Lambeth Psalter and the Reading of the Old English Interlinear Translations as Sentences', Scriptorium 46 (1992), 250-6, who counters certain objections to Robinson's hypothesis raised by Michael Korhammer. O'Neill develops his conclusions in the light of an examination of London, Lambeth Palace, 427 (see above, p. 391, with n. 97), whose scrupulously punctuated glosses seem to have been construed syntactically by contemporary AngloSaxon readers.

410

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel is substantial. Nevertheless, the emergence of an estimable challenge to the distinction traditionally held by Vespasian A. i — in the form of the canticle gloss of CUL, Ff. 1. 23, whose distinctive features are revealed here for the first time — is perhaps of even greater significance. Speculative comments regarding a connection between Daniel and the eighth-century canticle gloss in the Vespasian Psalter have been in circulation long enough to achieve recognition in textbooks, but the existence of an eleventh-century congener of the latter from Winchcombe has not been suspected hitherto. As far as I can tell, the split of the lexical evidence supporting the special claims of the two monuments in question (BL, Cotton Vespasian A. i and CUL, Ff. 1. 23) with respect to Daniel is approximately symmetrical. There is one case in which the verse of Daniel agrees with multiple readings in glossed copies of the Old Latin canticle against CUL, Ff. 1. 23, that is, in the rendition of Dan. III.81. But here the atypical gloss in the Cambridge Psalter ('wildeor 7 wildeor' (rendering 'bestiae et uniuersa pecora')) appears to involve little more than a scribal slip. On the other hand, the phrase 'fyr . . . and . . . sumor' (Dan 373: 'fire and summer') clearly agrees with the reading 'ignis et estas' in CUL, Ff. 1. 23 (in Dan. III.66) against the Vespasian reading 'ignis et aestus' ('fire and heat'), but the force of this alignment may be negated by the (ostensibly inappropriate) gloss 'fyr 7 sumur' in BL, Cotton Vespasian A. i. The points of agreement between the readings of Vespasian A. i and CUL, Ff. 1. 23 may seem all the more remarkable when it is recalled that the continuous retranscription of the glosses that they jointly witness spans a period of nearly three hundred years. There is a small chance that the verse of Daniel can be associated more convincingly than it has been in the past with the earlier readings of the Vespasian Psalter, but this requires that we consider a range of minor points of vocabulary and of non-lexical data, such as grammatical and syntactic points. To turn briefly to this minor lexical and non-lexical evidence, it might be noted that there exist numerous - but extremely slight — points of agreement between the verse of Daniel and earlier readings in the Vespasian Psalter against the lemmata and glosses of CUL, Ff. 1. 23 in treatments of the Latin verses containing forms of omnis and Dominus as minor features of their invocations. These include treatments of Dan. 111.58(59) (Dan 364a: englas and Vespasian angeli with gloss englas, as against angeli Domini with gloss englas drihtnys in CUL, Ff. 1. 23); III.65 (Dan 372b: gastas and Vespasian omnes spiritus Domini with gloss ealle gastas All


(so agreeing with the Regius Psalter and the Bosworth Psalter), as against the gloss ealle gast[as] godys arising in response to the same lemma in CUL, Ff. 1. 23); and III.80 {Dan 386b: hefonfuglas and Vespasian uolucres caeli with gloss fuglas heofones (so agreeing with the Regius Psalter and the Bosworth Psalter), as against the gloss ealle fuglas hefynys arising in response to the same lemma in CUL, Ff. 1. 23). There is one point of agreement of word order between Daniel and the glosses of the Vespasian Psalter, occurring in treatments of the extrabiblical benediction addressing the Trinity {Dan 402b: 'and . . . halig gast' and Vespasian 'et Sanctum Spiritum' with gloss halgan gast, as against Old Latin 'cum Sancto Spiritu' and gloss gast halig in CUL, Ff. 1. 23 — albeit with the gloss 'et gast halig'). Alternations in the use of singular and plural forms of nouns provide five other examples of points of agreement and disjunction among the various witnesses, and in all five of these the verse of Daniel agrees with the glosses of the Vespasian Psalter against those of the Cambridge Psalter. Given our lack of knowledge about the force of influence (if any) that vernacular glosses exerted on the composition of Old English biblical poetry, the data set out here cannot individually or collectively resurrect the special association with the readings of Vespasian A. i that the verse of Daniel has long enjoyed. But it is remarkable that the minor lexical and non-lexical evidence considered here provides a total of nine additional points of agreement between the Old English poem and the eighth-century Vespasian Psalter against the readings of the eleventhcentury Cambridge Psalter, with no indications to the contrary. And I have endeavoured to set out all such evidence that has come to my attention. On balance, the weight of such minor lexical, grammatical syntactic data for purposes of associating the text of Daniel with either the earlier or later witness, in my view, remains slight. The lesson offered by the readings of CUL, Ff. 1. 23, and to a certain extent, the other tenth- and eleventh-century glossed Anglo-Saxon witnesses to the Old Latin canticle, is mainly cautionary. No conclusive case for an early dating of Daniel can be advanced solely on the basis of the prestige that the poem has long enjoyed in the light of its supposed association with the Vespasian gloss. The most important conclusion to emerge from the preceding survey for the argumentation to be set out in the remainder of the present chapter 108

See entries for Dan. 111.70b, 111.71a, 111.71b, III.78a and III.86a in Table 8. 412

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel concerns the codicological background of Daniel. This has particular relevance for our final consideration of the long-standing hypotheses regarding the division of Daniel A and B. It is evident that texts preserved in two physically separate Latin codices must underlie the received text of Daniel. The specific category of one of the documents has now been identified: a canticularium (possibly with glosses) or a private liturgical document copied from such a source. The continuous scriptural rendition arising in the central section of Daniel, however, is a result of the juxtaposition of prose-derived passages from the canonical and deuterocanonical sections of Daniel III with the matter of a problematic deuterocanonical passage (the Prayer of Azarias) and a securely identified Old Latin canticle. Such an interweaving of material finds no single precedent in surviving biblical or liturgical documents. It remains to be seen whether we can discover any sort of textual model for the central section of Daniel, a model that may have possibly comprised an assortment of scriptural documents — including (at the very least) copies of the prose passages of Daniel III treating the miracle in the fiery furnace and of one or more canticles — or, perhaps, nothing more tangible than a mnemonic or performative reflex thereof. The identification of such a textual model forms the main project of the discussion below. A CODICOLOGICAL RATIONALE FOR THE CENTRAL SECTION OF DANIEL

Irrespective of our final judgement regarding the hypothetical division of Daniel A and £, the essential heterogeneity of the received text of Daniel is confirmed by the fact that the poem rests on multiple exemplars. At the very least we have to reckon with two of these. The certainty of the use of an extrabiblical, and possibly glossed, text of Canticum trium puerorum as the basis of lines 362—408 of Daniel is now beyond reasonable dispute and there are good reasons to suspect that an abbreviated text of Oratio Azariae, similar to abridgements circulating in early medieval collections of 'monastic' canticles, stands behind lines 283-332 of the poem - the lines most commonly claimed for Daniel B. Both circumstances raise difficult questions about the form and content of the continuous text of Daniel III evidently underlying the prose-based sections of Daniel. And they raise questions about the Anglo-Saxon poet's unarguably selective use of this source. None of these problems, in my view, is separable from questions 413


about the codicological environment in which any such continuous scriptural text was consulted. Personal ownership of a complete Latin Bible or, say, a complete copy of the Old Testament by any of the poets responsible for the verse preserved in Junius 11 cannot be ruled out of the question absolutely but must be regarded as a remote possibility at best. Apart from the expense that the acquisition of such a resource would entail, the physical enormity of a biblical pandect (or bibliotheca in pre-Conquest Anglo-Latin terminology) would seem to argue against its often having been kept to hand by an alliterative poet. 109 We may suspect rather that the poet possessed a separate copy of the book of Daniel or a composite volume in which the book appeared as one item in a collection of Old Testament prophetic writings, visions or histories. (The last suggestion may seem especially appealing insofar as it offers a plausible documentary basis for the deft synthesis of Old Testament historical matter occurring near the beginning of Daniel.) In any event, the circulation of two of these types of documents — discrete copies of Daniel and prophetical collections including the book — in Anglo-Saxon England, at least by the end of the period, is proved by two surviving booklists. An Exeter inventory of religious materials, including books, procured by Bishop Leofric after 1050 contains an entry 'libri .iiii. prophetarum', apparently in reference to a composite manuscript, possibly occupying several volumes, gathering together full copies of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel in a sort of prophetic compendium; moreover, a Worcester booklist includes a discrete copy of 'Daniel propheta' as its first item — almost certainly a complete copy of the book of Daniel preserved in a single codex. No Anglo-Saxon

109

Marsden, 'The O l d Testament', p . 1 0 5 , p u t s the case as follows: 'Complete [Bjibles, where they existed, would have been p e r m a n e n t fixtures of the monastic churches.' O n the prevalence of part-Bibles at all periods of the Anglo-Saxon period, see further Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, p p . 444—5, w h o concludes that perhaps 'only a handful of complete Bibles existed in the whole of England before the end of the tenth century'.

110

See Lapidge, 'Surviving Booklists', p p . 66 (no. X . 3 0 ) , 6 8 , 70 (no. X I . 1) and 7 1 . Marsden, 'The O l d Testament', p . 1 0 5 , remarks that 'economic factors and the practicalities of production, transmission and use m u s t have meant that the smaller part-[B}ibles were more numerous, t h o u g h none has survived'. Boniface, Ep. lxiii, mentions a part-Bible containing the prophets in 'clear and distinct letters' ('sex prophete in u n o corpore claris et absolutis litteris scripti', that is, 'six books of the

414

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel manuscript representing either type of document has survived intact, 111 but it is clear that Daniel is one of the very few Old Testament books outside of the Pentateuch and Psalms to which wholly extrabiblical circulation during the Anglo-Saxon period can be securely assigned. One additional type of document must be acknowledged as a possible vehicle for the distribution of texts of Daniel in pre-Conquest England. Given the certain use of at least one liturgical text in the course of the composition of Daniel, it is possible, if not likely, that the text of Daniel III witnessed by the poem follows an exemplar drawn from the vast body of early medieval liturgical manuscripts and private devotional documents that have not survived to the present day, largely because of their intrinsically obsolescent physical and textual natures. Finally, the possible intervention of an oral or mnemonic stage between the consultation of the lost text of Daniel III and the composition of Daniel should be acknowledged, even if full discussion of the question is beyond the reach of the present argument. In brief, I assume here that any such oral or mnemonic text would have persisted as a 'fixed' rather than Variable' text in the mind of the Anglo-Saxon poet and that in terms of form and content such a text would be analogous to or, perhaps, identical with the texts contained in documents described here. Moreover, the responses necessitated by the special problems of interpretation posed by the prose and verse of Daniel III will have been essentially the same in addressing both oral and written texts.

111

prophets copied out in one volume in clear and distinct letters'); see text ptd in MGH, Epist. Select. I (2nd ed.), 128-32, at 131. Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepysian 2981(4) (?s. ixin) preserves a fragment of an originally complete copy of Daniel now reduced to a single strip of parchment measuring 190 x 129 mm, only one side of which (displaying most of Dan. III.2-7) is presently visible owing to its having been glued down as a specimen on a page. Nevertheless, it has proved possible to demonstrate that the lost Anglo-Saxon copy of Daniel witnessed by this scrap originally formed part of a part-Bible, most probably a compendium of Old Testament books similar to that recorded in the Exeter inventory; see Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, pp. 253-6, who concludes that the dimensions of the unmutilated leaves, ruled for about twenty lines, were c. 250 x 180 mm with a written area measuring c. 190 x 122 mm. If these estimates are correct, the Daniel fragment witnesses the smallest known Anglo-Saxon biblical compendium, whose format (about five-sixths as great as that of Junius 11) may yet have precluded true portability; cf. above, p. 10. See also Marsden, 'The Old Testament', p. 123, and Brown, 'A New Fragment', p. 4 1 , for a separate line-count.

415


The main intention here is twofold. First, the following comments endeavour to establish some textual principles governing the circulation of extrabiblical copies of Daniel III that will hold good for texts preserved in any and all of the codicological environments sketched out above. Second, an attempt will be made to develop a single, economical hypothesis to account for the received state of the episode of the fiery furnace in Daniel and, in particular, to account for the impression of interpolation motivating the demarcation of Daniel A and B by earlier critics. The treatment of the prose accounts of the miracle in the furnace

Geoffrey Shepherd's apt characterization of the narrative element in the rendition of Daniel III as an 'integument to the two canticles' has been noted. 112 The important point to be drawn from Shepherd's comment is that the prose passages accompanying texts of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in written texts and liturgical recitation play a subordinate, if practical, role by providing a setting for the hymnody. One result of this state of affairs is that neither of the prose passages on the miracle in the furnace (Dan. III. 19-24 and 111.46-51) is as likely to be treated as a fixed text as are the canticles. This point may be illustrated by a second consideration of the early medieval Daniel lections copied out in some of the blank space in Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, XXXVII (35). 113 This codex contains the previously discussed lectionary excerpt of Dan. 1.1-2, some congener of which - perhaps simply a devotional text that had been committed to memory - seems to have triggered the ruminative amplification of Daniel I near the beginning of Daniel. The entry discussed above, before the mutilation of its codex, continued with a liturgical setting for a recitation of Oratio Azariae and later in the same volume there appears a similar setting of Canticum trium puerorum. The most prominent feature of these two liturgical settings may well be the non-appearance of the canticles themselves. Rather, in the first instance, we find a full and mainly continuous text of the prose account of Nebuchadnezzar's interaction with the youths (Dan. III.5—25) filling out the written space of the page in question (the recto of Verona, XXXVII (35), fol. 169A, olim

112 113

See above, p. 46. See above, pp. 296-301.

416

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, IV (4), fol. 6 (after its excision from its original position between the present Verona, XXXVII (35), fols. 169 and 170), but now restored to its proper codex). This entry concludes abruptly with the words introducing Azarias's hymnody: [Dan. III.21] Et confestim uiri illi uincti cum bracis suis et thiaris [sc. tiaris] et calciamentis et uestibus missi sunt in fornace [jr. fornacem?] ignis ardentem [cf. Vulgate 'in medium fornacis ignis ardentis' and III.20], [III.22a] nam iussio regis urguebat fornax autem succensa erat nimis. [III.24] Et ambolabant [sic] in medio flamme laudantes Deum et benedicentes Dominum. [III.25] Stans autem Azaroas [sic in prima manu] orabit [sc. oravit] sic, aperiensque os suum in medio ignis, et [sic; not in Vulgate] ait . . . n The Veronese scribe allows his lection to conclude with the open-ended phrase 'et ait'. It is not clear whether the liturgist expected celebrants to consult the text of Oratio Azariae in a separate book or planned to enter the text elsewhere among the far-flung collection of excerpts now witnessed by the entries in Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, II (2) and XXXVII (35). (The concluding words 'et ait' are followed by several distinctive marks of punctuation, which are perhaps intended to serve a purpose comparable to that of a catchword.) In any event, the text of the prayer does not appear among the extant entries in Veronese codices that have so far come to light. The scribe has treated the Vulgate-based lection with a fairly free hand insofar as there are several nonorthographic textual variants and Dan. III.22b—23 are left wholly out of the account, which has the effect of eliminating all of the words of the first, partly redundant report of the death of Nebuchadnezzar's servants. Less ambiguous evidence concerning the intended use of these entries occurs in a separate entry later in the same volume (Verona, XXXVII (35), 23 lr), where the same scribe has supplied prose verses for a liturgical setting of Canticum trium puerorum. The central matter of this entry reads as follows:

114

Dan. III.21-2a and III.24-5, following the transcription in Wart tipi, ed. Carusi and Lindsay, p. 13'. '[Dan. III.21] And immediately these men were cast bound into the furnace of burning fire, with their trousers and their caps and their shoes and their shirts, [III.22a] for the king's command was urgent and the furnace was heated exceedingly. [III.24] And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God and blessing the Lord. £111.25} Standing up, Azarias thus prayed and, opening his mouth in the midst of the fire, he said . . .'

417

Old English biblical verse [Dan. III.50] Et fecit medium fornaces [sc. fornacis; sic in prima manu] quasi uentum roris flante. Et non tetigit eos omnino ignis neque contristauit nec quicquam molestiae intulit. [III.9U Tune Nabochodonosor {sic] rex obstipuit, et surrexit propere et ait optimatibus suis, 'Nonne tres uiros misimus in medio ignis conpeditos?'115

[111.51] Tune hi tres quasi ex uno ore laudabant et glorificabant [Vulgate 'glorificabant et benedicebant'} Deo in fornace, Vicentes . . .

The main entry on this page juxtaposes texts drawn from Dan. III.50 and 111.91, verses which are normally widely separated in continuous witnesses to the deuterocanonical and canonical matter of Daniel III. The only indication that Canticum trium puerorum has any place in this sequence occurs in the excerpt of the phrase that serves to introduce the youths' recitation in continuous scripture (at Dan. III. 51), printed above in smaller type. This excerpt, which seems to be a later addition insofar as it has been written in an ink lighter than that used for the main entry (but, perhaps, by the same scribe), appears in blank space to the right of the concatenation of deuterocanonical and canonical verses (Dan. III. 50 and 111.91), where it adjoins the final words of 111.50 (at 231ral5). The excerpt of Dan. III. 51 was evidently inserted in some haste, to judge by its prominently current script. Its text is clearly intended to serve as a cue to celebrants, drawing attention to a break in the narrative to be filled by a recitation of Canticum trium puerorum.116 (A distinctive mark of punctuation near the end of the excerpt from Dan. 111.50 reinforces this impression.) The full text of the canticle is presumably meant to be sought in a separate book, such as a psalter or another liturgical document, or called up from memory. It is interesting to speculate that the scribe was 115

Dan. 111.50 and 111.91(24) (col. 1); III.51a (col. 2), following the transcription in Vari tipi, ed. Carusi and Lindsay, p. 12: (col. 1) '[Dan. 111.50} And [the angel} made the midst of the furnace like the blowing of a wind bringing dew. And the fire touched them not at all, nor troubled them, nor did them any harm. [111.91(24)} Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished and rose up in haste and said to his nobles: "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?"'; (col. 2) '[111.51a} Then the Three as with one mouth praised and glorified God in the furnace, saying . . .' The entries from Daniel in Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, XXXVII (35), 231ral-231rb20, are described by Reifferscheid, Bibliotheca Patrum I, 5 2 ^ , at 53, as '[Dan.} 3, 46-96 mit Auslassung von 50-90'. The northern Italian lectionary now preserved as BN, lat. 9451 (see above, p. 82, 166), contains a similar cue leading to a text of Canticum trium puerorum after a lection in Dan. 111.55. See Gamber, 'Die Lesungen', p. 132.

418

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel familiar with an Old Latin series of liturgical canticles and that this circumstance provided at least part of the rationale for the omission of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum from the Vulgate-based liturgical entries from Daniel in Verona XXXVII (35) (at I69v, the recto of 169 A and 23 lr). Adherence to the stipulations of the lectionary text by a celebrant would thus result in the production (at least viva voce) of a continuous text formally resembling the sequence observed in Daniel. Be that as it may, the structure of the Veronese lection points to a universal textual (or codicological) principle that may account in and of itself for the alternation of exemplars in the poem's treatment of the miracle in the furnace — the prose and verse of Daniel III often circulated in physically separate documents. Despite their valuable illustration of textual exigencies involved in adapting Daniel III to liturgical use, the extracts in Verona XXXVII (35) still fail to provide a rationale for the narrative discontinuity encountered in the two conflated accounts of the angelic rescue in Daniel. They do bear witness, however, to a certain harmonizing tendency, which may be seen especially clearly in the removal of the first account of the slaying of the servants from the Vulgate-based lection. (This editorial excision effectively reproduces the silence attending this narrative moment in Theodotionic Greek texts of Dan. III.22 and their Old Latin descendants.117) Before looking farther afield for additional sources that may throw light on these problems it may prove useful to offer a short summary of the six main passages of prose and verse that are present in all medieval Greek and Latin scriptural texts of the miracle in the furnace:118 1 Dan. III. 19—24: First prose account of the miracle 2 Dan. III.25: Introduction to Azarias's recitation 3 Dan. 111.26-45: Prayer of Azarias 4 Dan. 111.46—50: Second prose account of the miracle 5 Dan. 111.51: Introduction to youths' recitation 6 Dan. 111.52-90: Song of the Three Part of the argument offered above opposing the traditional division of Daniel A and B on literary grounds involved an elementary sort of logic. Without a second account of the angelic rescue, the renditions of Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel would run together without 117

See above, p. 352 with n. 39. For discussion of the sequence, sequenc see Collins, Daniel: a Commentary, pp. 176—208; see also Miiller, 'Marchen', pp. 345-7.

419


a break. A similar logic obtains in the case of the handling of the prose passages in liturgical treatments of the miracle in the furnace. Without the intervention of the two recitative pieces (items 3 and 6 in the preceding summary) and the accompanying prefatory verses (items 2 and 5) — consultation of which, as we have seen, will sometimes have been carried out in the early Middle Ages by recourse to physically separate documents - the two prose accounts of the miracle (items 1 and 4) will also have run together without a break, forming de facto a sort of composite liturgical text. The existence of such composite texts of the prose accounts of the miracle is not conjectural. In fact, early medieval witnesses to the concatenation of prose drawn from Dan. III. 19—24 and III.46—50 (items 1 and 4 in the preceding summary) are surprisingly numerous. The famous eucharistic lectionary now preserved as Wolfenbiittel, Herzog-AugustBibliothek, Weissenb. 76, introduced above, is almost certainly the oldest surviving European manuscript to preserve liturgical prose lections from the book of Daniel. 119 This document contains a Vulgate-based passage still legible in the lower script of the palimpsest — which juxtaposes the verses of Dan. III. 12—24 and III. 49—51. That is, the lection links the continuous narrative extending from the refusal of the boys to worship Nebuchadnezzar's idol through the report of their perambulation amidst the flames with the account of the descent of the angel and the metaphor of the dew. The composite treatment of the miracle in the furnace emerging from this concatenation is intended to provide a setting for a recitation of Oratio Azariae passage reads as follows: 120

and Canticum trium puerorum. The crucial

[Dan. III.20] Et uiris fortissimis ex exercitu suo iussit ut ligatis pedibus Sedrac, Misac et Abdenago mitterent eos in fornacem ignis ardentem. [III.21] Et confestim uiri illi uincti, cum braccis [sc. bracis] suis et tiaris et calceamentis et uestibus, missi sunt in medium fornacis ignis ardentis. [III.22] Nam iussio regis urgebat, fornax autem succensa erat nimis. Porro uiros illos qui miserant Sedrac, Misac et Abdenago interfecit flamma ignis. [III.23] Viri autem hi tres, id est [Vulgate 'hii, id est tres'; Vulgate variant 'hii tres, id est'] Sedrac, Misac et Abdenago, ceciderunt in medio camino ignis ardentis conligati. [III.24] Et ambulabant in medio flammae, laudantes et benedicentes Domino [Vulgate 119

See above, p . 3 0 3 w i t h n. 190.

120

Vogel, Medieval Liturgy\ p p . 3 2 0 - 1 , notes that '[m]any of [the palimpsest's] lessons are centos, i.e. isolated passages of Scripture assembled as a literary whole'.

420

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel 'laudantes Deum et benedicentes Domino']. £111.49} Angelus autem Domini [Domini as in Vulgate variant] descendit cum Azaria et sociis eius in fornacem et excussit flammam ignis de fornace, [III.50] et fecit medium fornacis quasi uentum roris flantem. Et non tetigit eos omnino ignis neque contristauit nee quidquam molestiae intulit. [III.51] Tune tres [Vulgate 'Tune hii tres'] quasi ex uno ore laudabant et glorificabant et benedicebant Deum [Vulgate Deo] in fornace dicentes: [III.52] 'Benedictus es Domine Deus patrum nostrorum . . .'121 Although no comparable lectionary source from Anglo-Saxon England has survived, the continuous excerpt from the book of Daniel in the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest provides a very close approximation to the sort of conflated narrative observed in Daniel. Strictly speaking, the composite reading in the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest is neither a centonization nor a conflation. Rather, it embodies a distinctive sort of textual juxtaposition or concatenation that is more immediately attributable to textual and codicological factors than to any artistic inclinations on the part of a liturgist. This can be seen clearly in the apportionment of blank space right in the midst of the verse 'Et ambulabant in medio flammae laudantes et benedicentes Domino' (Dan. III.24: 'And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God and blessing the Lord'), presumably meant to accommodate a cue to a full text 121

Dan. III.20-4 and 111.49-50: '[Dan. 111.20} And he commanded the strongest men in his army that, having bound the feet of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, they should cast them into the burning furnace of fire. [III.21] And immediately these men were cast bound into the midst of the furnace of burning fire with their trousers and their caps and their shoes and their shirts, [III.22] for the king's command was urgent and the furnace was heated exceedingly. But the flame of the fire slew those men who had cast in Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. [III.23} But these three men, that is Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the furnace of burning fire. [III.24} And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God and blessing the Lord. [111.49] But the angel of the Lord went down with Azarias and his companions into the furnace and drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace, [III. 50} and made the midst of the furnace like the blowing of a wind bringing dew. And the fire did not touch them at all, nor did it trouble them, nor did it cause them any harm. [III.51] Then these Three as with one mouth praised and glorified and blessed God in the furnace, saying: [III.52a] "Blessed art thou O Lord the God of our fathers . . ."' The reconstructed text of the largely obliterated lection is ptd in Das dlteste Liturgiebucb, ed. Dold, p. 9- Dold's claim to have published the text of the oldest known western European liturgical book has been challenged, but the claim of the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest to preserve the oldest continuous copy of this type of Daniel lection is not in question.

421


of Oratio Azariae. In any case, the text of Oratio Azariae has been wholly omitted from the lection, unlike the lyric of Canticum trium puerorum, for which we have at least an incipit. (The damaged state of the surviving copy makes a final determination on this point impossible.) A certain tendency toward centonization, however, may be detected in the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest insofar as its lection wholly omits the second, partly redundant account of the slaying of the servants (Dan. 111.46—8). There is, as I have noted, no direct evidence for the use of a Gallican document resembling the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest in Anglo-Saxon England. But the general principle that the adaptation of the prose and verse of Daniel III to liturgical use tended to promote the production of composite texts drawing on the verses of Dan. III. 19-24 and 111.46—51 will have application, in my view, to any treatment of the miracle produced in early Christian Europe. Once again, the most abundant early medieval evidence on this point occurs where the evidence is most plentiful: in documents witnessing to the usage of the old Spanish liturgy. A nearly identical text juxtaposing the two accounts of the divine rescue owing to the omission of the Prayer of Azarias and Song of the Three, occurs in the Liber commicus as the final, climactic reading of the Easter Vigil. The early Spanish text reads: [Dan. 111.19} Tune Nabucodonosor rex [rex not in Vulgate] repletus est furore et aspectus faciei illius inmutatus est super Sidrac, Misac et Abdinago. Et precepit ut succenderetur fornax septuplum quam succendi consueuerat. [Dan. III.20] Et uiris fortissimis ex exercitu suo iussit ut ligatis pedibus Sidrac, Misac et Abdinago mitterent eos in fornace [sic; Vulgate 'in medium fornacis'] ignis ardentis [cf. Vulgate ardentem and III.21]. £111.21] Et confestim uiri illi uincti, cum braciis [sc. brads] suis et tibiariis [sc. tiaris] et calciamentis et uestibus, missi sunt in medium fornacis ignis ardentis. [III.22] Nam iussio regis urguebat, fornax autem succensa erat nimis. Porro uiros illos qui miserant Sidrac, Misac et Abdinago interfecit flama [sic] ignis. [III.23] Viri autem hii tres [Vulgate 'hii, id est tres'; Vulgate variant hii tres], Sidrac, Misac et Abdinago, ceciderunt in medio camino ignis ardentis conligati. [III. 24] Et deambulabant [Vulgate ambulabant] in medio flamme, laudantes et benedicentes Deum [Vulgate 'laudantes Deum et benedicentes Domino']. [III.46] Et non cessabant qui miserant [Vulgate inmiserant\ Vulgate variant miserani] eos ministri regis succendere fornacem napta et stupa [sic] et pice et malleolis, £111.47] et difrundebatur [Vulgate effundebatur] flamma super fornace [sic] cubitis quadraginta nobem [sc. nouem], £111.48] et erupit et 122

See above, pp. 211-13 with n. 113.

422

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel incendit quos repperit iuxta fornacem de Caldeis. [111.49] Angelus Domini simul descendit [Vulgate variant 'Angelus autem Domini descendit'} cum Acaria [sic] et sociis eius in farnacem [sic] et excussit flammam ignis de fornace, [III. 50] et fecit medium fornacis tamquam spiritum roris flante [sic; cf. Vulgate 'quasi uentum roris flantem']. Et non tetigit eos omnino ignis neque contristabit [sc. contristauit] nee quicquam moleste [sc. molestiae?] eis fuit [Vulgate intulit].125 It is striking that the composite vigil lection reproduced here serves as an introduction to a recitation of Canticum trium puerorum, whose text is not included in the Liber commicus and would presumably have to be consulted in a separate book or recited from memory. 1 2 4 Yet another example of the use of a composite text of the angelic rescue occurs in the Spanish Missale mixtum in an identical liturgical context (that is, near the conclusion of the Easter Vigil): [Dan. III. 19] Tune Nabuchodonosor rex [rex not in Vulgate] repletus est furore et aspectus faciei eius [Vulgate illius] immutatus est super Sidrac, Misac et Abdenago; et precepit ut succenderetur fornax septuplum quam succendi consueuerat. [Dan. III.20] Et uiris fortissimis ex exercitu suo iussit ut ligatis pedibus Sidrac, Misac et Abdinago mitterent eos in fornacem ignis ardentem. [III.21] Et confestim uiri illi uincti, cum brachiis [sc. bracis] suis et tiaris et calciamentis et uestibus, missi sunt in medium fornacis ignis ardentis. [III.22] Nam iussio regis urgebat, fornax autem succensa erat nimis. Porro uiros illos qui miserant Sidrac, Misac et Abdenago, interfecit flamma ignis. [III.23] Viri autem ii [sc. hii], id est tres, Sidrac, Misac et Abdinago, ceciderunt 123

12

Dan. 111.19-23 and 111.46-50: '[Dan. 111.19} Then King Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury and the countentance of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. And he commanded that the furnace should be heated seven times more than it had been accustomed to be heated. [III.20a: see trans, at p. 421, n. 121] . . . [III.20b] [Nebuchadnezzar commanded] that they should cast them into the furnace of burning fire. £111.21—4: see trans, at p. 421, n. 121] . . . [111.46] And the king's servants that had cast them in did not cease to heat the furnace with brimstone and tow and pitch and dry sticks, [111.47] and the flame poured out above the furnace forty-nine cubits, [III.48] and it burnt such of the Chaldeans as it found near the furnace. [III.49a] At that very moment, an angel of the Lord descended . . . [III.49b-50a: see trans, at p. 421, n. 121] . . . [III.50a (contd)] as if it [i.e. the fire] were a blowing breeze [?] bearing dew. [III.5Ob-5Oc: see trans, at p. 421, n. 121] . . . [III.50c (contd)] nor did it [i.e. the fire] become anything of harm to them.' The text is ptd in Liber commicus, ed. Perez de Urbel and Gonzalez y Ruiz-Zorrilla, pp. 386-7. For speculation that the text in question is an Old Latin canticle, see Liber Danihelis, p. xv.

423

Old English biblical verse in medio camino ignis ardentis [cf. Vulgate '. . . ardentis conligati']. [III.46] Et non cessabant qui miserant eos [Vulgate 'inmiserant eos ministri regis'] succendere fornacem, napta et stuppa, pice [Vulgate et pice] et malleolis, [III.47} et effundebatur flamma super fornacem cubitis quadraginta nouem, [III.48] et erupit et incendit quos reperit [sic] iuxta fornacem de Caldeis. [III.49] Angelus autem Domini descendit cum Azaria et sociis eius in fornacem et excussit flammam ignis de fornace, [III.50] et fecit medium fornacis quasi uentum roris flantem. Et non tetigit eos omnino ignis neque contristauit, nee quicquam molestie intulit. 125

The three composite texts set out here (from the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest and the Spanish Liber commicus and Missale mixturn) provide the most striking analogues to the conflated treatment of the miracle in the furnace that I have seen. It is worth noting that even though the three texts treat similar spans of deuterocanonical scripture the concatenation of passages in each case seems to have been undertaken ad libitum by individuals involved in preparing the texts for lectionary use. It thus seems safe to posit the general principle that liturgical adaptation of the prose and verse of Daniel III for liturgical use tended to promote the production of composite texts. Even if we discount the likelihood that the poet of lines 224—82 and 333—61 of Daniel was in possession of such a composite source, this principle goes a long way, in my view, toward accounting for the conflation of scriptural narrative observed in the central section of the poem. CONCLUSIONS

Readers who have followed the argument so far have been brought along a fairly circuitous route, and it is only reasonable that they should receive some reward for the effort. Such a reward may perhaps inhere in the economy of expression that is now possible in attempting to account for the state of the text of Daniel. The reliance of the poem on more than one exemplar may now seem perfectly natural. Multiple exemplars (including 123

Dan. 111.19-23 and 111.46-50: '[Dan. 111.19: see trans, at p. 423, n. 123] . . . [III.20-2: see trans, at p. 421, n. 121] . . . [111.23} But these men, that is the Three Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - fell down into the midst of the furnace of burning fire. [III.46a] And those that had cast them in . . . [III.46b-48: see trans, at p. 423, n. 123] . . . [111.49-50: see trans, at p. 421, n. 121].' The text is ptd in PL 85, cols. 459-60.

424

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel mnemonic texts) were often utilized in the recitation of settings of Daniel III for mass and Office. The poem's conflation of matter drawn from the canonical and deuterocanonical accounts of the miracle in the furnace approximates to what occurs when Oratio Azariae or Canticum trium puerorum or both are excised from texts of Daniel III in preparing documents for liturgical use. It is also true, however, that a similar juxtaposition of the two accounts of the miracle would arise in the mind of any Bible-reader who simply chose to disregard the recitative pieces while consulting a continuous exemplar of the book of Daniel, perhaps because of familiarity with the canticle versions. The principles governing the response to the text are in either case essentially the same. Finally, the apparent violation of narrative continuity in the two conflated accounts of the angelic rescue might seem less jarring to Christian celebrants who had frequently contemplated the prose and verse of Daniel III in the context of the meditative infinitude of liturgical time. 12 The devotional point, however, need not be pressed. The argument here is not that the text of Daniel should be seen as constituting a sort of paraliturgical treatment in alliterative verse of the matter of the angelic rescue and its attendant hymnody. Indeed, the handling of lines 224—82 and 333—61 of Daniel seems to suggest that the poet perceived some awkwardness in the repetition. The poet attempted to compensate for this by carefully balancing the main thematic concerns in the two passages (the slaying of the servants, the arrival of the angel and the simile of the wind-blown dew). What is at issue here is the common set of textual and codicological exigencies that will have produced a result similar to that observed in Daniel in any early medieval milieu in which the matter of Daniel III was accommodated to an extrabiblical setting. The present emphasis on liturgical sources to a great extent reflects the fact that some of the best evidence for the medieval response to scripture outside of the learned milieux of grammarians and exegetes occurs in the service-books of the early church. As Shepherd, 'Scriptural Poetry', p. 32, remarks, 'modern critics have very little right to object to the inclusion of what was so very important in the liturgy, and therefore in the poem related to this liturgy, on the grounds that a lyric passage offends our taste'; see also Farrell, 'Unity', p. 134, and Godden, 'Biblical Literature', p. 224, who remarks that '[b]oth the Song of Azarias and the joint song of the three youths were frequently used in the liturgy, and their part in the religious life of Anglo-Saxon Christians surely contributes to the resonances these speeches have in the poem'.

425


The present study has established some new facts about the text of Daniel, such as the certainty of the poem's reliance on more than one exemplar and the affinity of its text to glosses preserved in two surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts. Although we cannot yet resolve conclusively the problems of dating and authorship that have taxed scholars since the appearance of the earliest criticism on Daniel, part of the strength of the rationale for the state of the text offered here, however, inheres in its versatility. The textual and codicological explanations set out above allow readers to appreciate the artistry of Daniel in a new light without yet being forced to abandon conclusions they may have reached on other grounds. For example, proponents of an early dating of the poem (and of Old English scriptural verse generally) can now adduce the poem's affinity to the Latin and Old English readings of the Vespasian Psalter with greater authority than has previously proved possible. Sceptics of early dating, however, can note the continuous circulation of the Roman form of the Old Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum in tenth- and eleventhcentury manuscripts as evidence of later vintage. If, harking back to early formulations of the theoretical division of Daniel A and B, we still detect the presence of an interpolation in the treatment of Azarias's prayer, the evidence of the 'monastic' canticles provides a plausible compositional rationale for such an insertion. If we prefer on stylistic grounds to isolate the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum as the intrusive element in the central matter of Daniel, then justification for its inclusion in the received text of the poem is provided by the distinctive hymnodic style of the canticle; its independent, fundamentally extrabiblical transmission-history in liturgical and devotional spheres; and, perhaps, by the prospect that an Old English version of the Old Latin canticle circulated as a separate poem in Anglo-Saxon times. To the contrary, if we view Daniel as a unified There is insufficient evidence to prove assertions by Gotzinger, 'Uber die Dichtungen', p. 33, Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 178, and others who maintain that an Old English version of Canticum trium puerorum circulated as a separate item prior to the composition of Daniel. Nevertheless, the undocumented production of such a rendition would certainly be likely in a literary culture that produced no less than three vernacular treatments of the Lord's Prayer, two of the Gloria and multiple alliterative versions of Pss. XC—XCV. One possible argument against this view, however, might adduce the absence of any such alliterative treatment accompanying the text of Canticum trium puerorum preserved in BN, lat. 8824, 180v-181r (see pp. 390, n. 96, and 402). The canticularium of the Paris Psalter here includes an Old Latin text of the canticle of the type reflected in Daniel without any sort of vernacular gloss whatsoever. If an Old

426

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel work by a single Anglo-Saxon poet who was a capable practitioner of more than one style, then the certainties of the liturgically informed change of exemplar established above and the balanced artistry of the treatments of the prose passages on the rescue of the Three may now be employed in arguments championing single authorship. Similarly, if we choose to assign the exemplar of the prose-based passages in the versification of Daniel III to the same continuous text of Daniel I-V that underlies the surrounding poetic narrative, then the general principles governing the reception and interpretation of the matter of Daniel illustrated by early medieval liturgical texts will again go far to explain the poet's departure from the model of continuous scripture, which was perhaps undertaken on an ad hoc basis. This holds true whether we imagine the continuous exemplar to have comprised an authoritative Vulgate text or a rare reflex of the version of Daniel in the Septuagint — or, for that matter, to have comprised no more than a distinct memory of some form of comprehensive, expository treatment of Daniel I—V. If, on the other hand, we adduce the certain use of a liturgical document for the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel to justify suspicion that the poem's prose-based passages also rest on one or more excerpted and, perhaps, composite liturgical texts, it is possible to detect as many as four discrete exemplars as informing the English version of the identical Old Latin text of the Song of the Three was in common circulation by the ninth century, we might expect that this text or, more plausibly, an attempt at a new standard rendition by the poet of the vernacular treatments of Psalms LI—CL of the Paris Psalter, would appear in the appendix. We must finally conclude with Malone, 'The Old English Period', p. 66, that *[w}e have no evidence . . . that the poet's English version of the Song once existed free of its setting in Daniel'. No argument for multiple authorship is offered here, as it is possible that the stylistic idiosyncrasies of the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum reflect the similarly concise and otherwise anomalous character of the verse of the Latin canticle. Hofer, 'Entstehung', p. 163, notes that the phrase heabcyning heofones {Dan 407a: 'high king of heaven [i.e. God]') employs a singular noun in reference to the heavens, where Daniel elsewhere invariably exhibits plural forms, as in the phrase heofona heabcyning (625 a: 'high king of the heavens'). As noted, however (pp. 305—6), the lines 'Annanias Sec / and Adzarias I and Misael I metod domige' in the rendition of Canticum trium puerorum (at Dan 397-8: 'Let Ananias, Azarias and Misahel glorify You, God') may bear comparison with 'an waes Annanias, I oQer Azarias I £>ridda Misael, I metode gecorene' (91-2: 'the first was Ananias, the second Azarias, the third Misahel, chosen by God'). It is of course possible that some Old English verse was composed by schools of vernacular poets whose collaborations produced works of artistic integrity.

427


text of Daniel. These exemplars certainly included a continuous text of Daniel I—V (or parts thereof) and an Old Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum — or, conceivably, an existing Old English rendition thereof. These two sources may have been supplemented by a text of Oratio Azariae prepared for recitation among the 'monastic' canticles (or an existing Old English reflex) and a concatenated liturgical text drawing on the two divergent prose accounts of the miracle in the furnace. The complex character of the verse of Daniel — and all other Old English biblical verse in the Old Testament tradition - will undoubtedly continue to challenge scholars in the foreseeable future. We can best proceed with cautious scholarly method and respect for the poetic monuments of the Junius collection. The main intention in the present study has been to supply a useful analysis of the textual evidence on which future debates may be grounded, though the utility of this apparatus will undoubtedly be enhanced by the suggestions and corrections of other scholars. The prospect of setting out a dispassionate enumeration of facts, however, has been rejected here in favour of imparting a carefully arranged, if necessarily complex, argumentative structure to the preceding and present chapters. It is my hope that the complexity in question is not substantially greater than that evinced by the verse preserved in Junius 11 itself.

APPENDIX Lines 362-408

of Daniel and their relationship to Greek and Latin texts of the Song of the Three

The crucial evidence indicating the dependence of the rendition of the Song of the Three in Daniel on an Old Latin-based liturgical canticle inheres in the ordering of the subject matter of the invocations to the forces of creation in the Old English rendition. In the foregoing chapter, the attempt has been made to provide as detailed a review of the relevant evidence as possible. But my conclusions are grounded on personal collations of the readings of several dozen biblical and early medieval texts of the Song in both Greek and Latin. Rather than force readers to infer the full course of my survey from footnotes, I attempt below to summarize all of the witnesses that have been cited in the preceding study and to set out the data regarding their ordering of verses in a concise fashion. Further 428

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel information about particular manuscripts is available in my footnotes, which are accessible via the entry 'manuscripts' in the Index. Summary of witnesses collated in the course of research and cited in the present study

Septuagint (continuous Greek text): critical text, as edited in Daniel, ed. Ziegler. Vulgate (continuous Latin text): critical text, as edited in Liber Danihelis, and extracts and canticles conforming to the continuous Latin text: BL, Royal 2. A. XX, as ptd in Prayer Book of Aedeluald, ed. Kuypers, pp. 206-7; BN, lat. 11553; and Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 193 + 567 (failing in Dan. III. 5 2—64), as ptd in Prophetentexte in Vulgata-Ubersetzung, ed. Dold, pp. 57-9. Vulgate-based canticle: Anglo-Saxon witnesses without glosses: BL, Harley 863; CCCC, 272; CCCC, 391; CCCC, 411; Oxford, Bodleian, Douce 296; Bodleian, Laud Lat. 81; Anglo-Saxon witnesses with Old English glosses: Cambridge, Trinity College R. 17. 1, as ptd in Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter, ed. Harsley, pp. 257—9; BL, Arundel 60, as ptd in Arundel-Psalter, ed. Oess, pp. 244-5; BL, Cotton Vitellius E. xviii, as ptd in Vitellius Psalter, ed. Rosier, pp. 382—4; BL, Stowe 2, as ptd by Rosier, 'The Stowe Canticles', pp. 422-5; London, Lambeth Palace 427, as ptd in Der Lambeth-Psalter, ed. Lindelof, pp. 248-50; and Salisbury, Cathedral, 150, as ptd in Salisbury Psalter, ed. Sisam and Sisam, pp. 298—9; continental witnesses: Salisbury, Cathedral, 180; 129 text ptd among pseudo-Alcuinian liturgica at PL 101, cols. 521-2. Theodotionic text (continuous Greek text): critical text, as edited in Daniel, ed. Ziegler. Old Latin text (continuous Latin text, Theodotionic text-type): critical text, as edited in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae versiones, ed. Sabatier II, 862-4; extracts conforming to the continuous Old Latin text: Sankt

130

The reminiscence of the benedictus es sequence in Salisbury, Cathedral Library, 180 (reading '. . . caeli . . .') introduces a full recitation of the blessings of Dan. III.52-6. No primary witness to the continuous Old Latin text of Daniel preserving the verses of the Song of the Three extending from Dan. 111.61 to III.90, which would complement the summary of the order of verses in the Theodotionic text in the fourth column of the table which follows, has come to light in the course of the present study. The

429


Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 1398b (failing in Dan. III.60b-90), as ptd in NeueSt. Galler vorhieronymische Propketen-Fragmente, ed. Dold, pp. 40—4.

Old Latin-based canticle (Theodotionic text-type): Paris, Arsenal 8407, as ptd in Anecdota, ed. Fleck, p. 345. Theodotionic variant text (continuous Greek text): Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica, Vat. gr. 1209, and Biblioteca Apostolica, Vat. gr. 2125, as treated in apparatus of Daniel, ed. Ziegler, pp. 126—32 (cf. also pp. 7 and 28-9). Old Latin-based canticle (Theodotionic variant text-type): Anglo-Saxon witnesses without glosses: BN, lat. 8824; Durham, University, Cosin sequence of verses in Dan. 111.61—90 summarized in my fifth column thus derives from the reconstructed text established by Sabatier, as cited. (For Dan. III.52—60a, I follow the reconstructed text established by Dold; see above, p. 302 with n. 186.) Sabatier evidently founded his non-Vulgate text of the Song of the Three in whole or in part on discrete, extrabiblical copies witnessing to the Old Latin text of Canticum trium puerorum. His references in support of the non-Vulgate versions of the two verses which immediately precede and follow the Song of the Three in continuous biblical texts that is, Dan. III.51 and 111.91(24) - adduce patristic sources. The element in Sabatier's reconstructed text of the Song that does derive from manuscripts appears in the main to follow the readings of the present Paris, Arsenal, 8407 (Sabatier's 'Codex S. Michaelis'; see above, p. 367, n. 65), whose ordering of verses has been summarized in the sixth column of the following table, on the basis of a text printed by Fleck (see above, p. 377 with n. 77). Sabatier also apparently drew on the readings of a second manuscript, the present Paris, Bibliotheque National, lat. 11553 (his 'Codex Sangermanensis n. 15'). Sabatier's apparatus is equipped with variant readings deriving from patristic sources, manuscripts and printed texts reproducing the readings of lost manuscripts. Manuscripts cited by Sabatier include a triple (Hebrew-Latin (Roman, with appended Gallican readings)-Greek) psalter, the present BN, lat. 15198 (s. xii) (Sabatier's 'Psalterium Sorbonicum n. 459') and a certain 'Reginensis uncialibus litteris descriptus' (elsewhere termed 'Vaticanus, olim Reginae Sueciae') which, on the basis of the readings printed in his edition, has been identified as the present Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica, Reg. lat. 11 (see above, p. 361, n. 56), but whose readings Sabatier maintains to derive from another manuscript. In his use of printed texts founded on lost manuscripts, Sabatier collates variants from the text known to modern scholarship as 'Breviarium Mozarabicum'. The readings of this text should not be confused with those in a primary witness to the text of Canticum trium puerorum which was known to Sabatier, that is, the copy of the canticle in the liber canticorum section of the present Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 10001 (see above, p. 361, n. 56; Sabatier's 'Breviarium Mozarabicum'). On all of these points, see Fischer, Verzeichnisy pp. 11 (no. 7), 24 (no. 250), 27 (nos. 329-30), 32 (nos. 410 and 419), 41 (col. 2) and 42 (cols. 1—2), and B. Fischer, Ergdnzungen zu Band 1 'Verzeicbnis der Sigel', Vetus Latina,

ed. Fischer et al. 1.1 (Freiburg, 1950), p. 1.

430

Oratio Azariae and Canticum trium puerorum in Daniel V. v. 6; Oxford, Bodleian, Bodley 775; 131 Anglo-Saxon witnesses with Old English glosses: BL, Additional 37517, as ptd by Lindelof, 'Die altenglischen Glossen', pp. 190-1; BL, Cotton Vespasian A. i, as ptd in Vespasian Psalter, ed. Kuhn, p. 156; BL, Royal 2. B. V, as ptd in Regius-Psalter, ed. Roeder, pp. 292-4; CUL, Ff. 1. 23, as ptd in Der Cambridger Psalter, ed. Wildhagen, pp. 392—5; continental witnesses: Oxford, Bodleian, Canon. Lat. Patr. 88, and Stuttgart, Wiirttembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. bibl. fol. 12a—c, as ptd by A. Dold, 'Ein Stuttgarter altlateinischer Unzialpsalter', p. 75. Daniel, critical text, as edited in Daniel, ed. Farrell. Old Latin-based canticle (Theodotionic variant text-type): Irish witnesses: Cambridge, St John's College 59, as collated in Irish Liber hymnorum, ed. Bernard and Atkinson I, 195—6 (siglum £) and by Meyer, 'Das turiner Bruchstiick', pp. 184-7; 132 Dublin, Franciscan House of Studies, A. 2, as ptd in Irish Liber hymnorum, ed. Bernard and Atkinson I, 195—6; Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, C. 5 inf., as ptd in Antiphonary of Bangor, ed. Warren I, facs. of 8v-9v, and II, 8-9; Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, 882, as ptd by Meyer, 'Das turiner Bruchstiick', pp. 184—5; continental witness: BN, lat. 9427, as ptd in Le Lectionnaire de Luxeuil, ed. Salmon I, 113-14. 134

131

T h e texts in D u r h a m , Cosin V. v. 6, and Oxford, Bodleian, Bodley 775 do not include the extrabiblical trinitarian blessing (reading '. . . p a t r e m . . .') and the final reminiscence of the benedictus es sequence (\ . . caeli . . .').

132

T h e text of Canticum trium puerorum in Cambridge, St J o h n ' s College 5 9 , differs from Irish witnesses in the absence of two final benedictory additions that are characteristic of the Irish form of the variant Theodotionic text-type (reading 'te enim . . .' and 'exaudi . . .').

133

T h e text of Canticum trium puerorum in D u b l i n , Franciscan House of Studies, A. 2, displays anomalous readings in Dan. III.58 and in its p e n u l t i m a t e

benedictory

addition (reading '. . . sacerdotes . . .'). 134

T h e fragmentary text of Canticum trium puerorum in Paris, B N , lat. 9 4 2 7 , fails in Dan. I I I . 5 7 - 6 3 . It differs from Irish witnesses in the inclusion of full texts of Dan. III.88 and I I I . 8 9 - 9 0 and in the absence of the two additions t h a t are characteristic of other Irish witnesses (see preceding note).

431

Table 9. The sequences of verses in Greek and Latin texts of the Song of the Three and their relationship to lines

362-408

of Daniel Septuagint

Vulgate

Vulgatebased canticle

111.52 III. 5 3 111.54 III. 55

III. 5 2 III.53 111.54 III. 5 5

111.56 111.57 111.58 111.59

111.56 111.57 111.58 111.59

111.57 111.58 111.59

111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66

111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66

111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66

Theodotionic Old Latin text

Old Latinbased canticle

Theodotionic Old Latin-based Daniel variant text canticle (Theodotionic variant text):AngloSaxon and continental witnesses

Old Latin-based canticle (Theodotionic variant text): Irish and continental witnesses

111.52 III. 53

111.52 III. 53

III. 52 111.53

111.52 III.53

111.55 111.54 111.56 111.57

111.55 111.54 111.56 111.57

III.55 III. 54 111.56 111.57

111.55 III. 54 111.56 111.57

111.57

111.57

111.57

111.59 111.58 111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66

111.59 111.58 111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66 111.71

[!] 111.58 111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66 111.71

111.59 111.58 111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66 111.71

111.59 111.58 111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66 111.71

111.59 111.58 111.60

111.59 111.58 111.60 111.61 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66 111.71

i 111.62 111.63 111.64 111.65 111.66 111.71

111.72

111.72

111.72

111.72

111.72

111.72

III.67(piyo

Old English Biblical Verse: Studies in Genesis, Exodus and Daniel (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Interactions of Thought and Language in Old English Poetry (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Interactions of Thought and Language in Old English Poetry (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

The Old English Exodus

The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Images of Community in Old English Poetry (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark (Biblical Studies Library)

Old Icelandic Literature and Society (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature)

Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Daily Life in Biblical Times (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

Rousseau, Robespierre and English Romanticism (Cambridge Studies in Romanticism)

Ergativity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

Emotion (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy)

Varieties of English (Studies in English Language)

Anglo-Saxon Medicine (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Terry Riley's In C (Studies in Musical Genesis and Structure)

Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology in Biblical Studies Teaching (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

Methods for Exodus (Methods in Biblical Interpretation)

Galilean Christianity (Studies in Biblical Theology 16)

Assertive Biblical Women (Contributions in Women's Studies)

Old English Biblical Verse: Studies in Genesis, Exodus and Daniel (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Interactions of Thought and Language in Old English Poetry (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Interactions of Thought and Language in Old English Poetry (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

The Old English Exodus

The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Images of Community in Old English Poetry (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark (Biblical Studies Library)

Old Icelandic Literature and Society (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature)

Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Daily Life in Biblical Times (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

Rousseau, Robespierre and English Romanticism (Cambridge Studies in Romanticism)

Ergativity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

Emotion (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy)

Varieties of English (Studies in English Language)

Anglo-Saxon Medicine (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England)

Terry Riley's In C (Studies in Musical Genesis and Structure)

Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology in Biblical Studies Teaching (Archaeology and Biblical Studies)

Methods for Exodus (Methods in Biblical Interpretation)

Galilean Christianity (Studies in Biblical Theology 16)

Assertive Biblical Women (Contributions in Women's Studies)

Recommend Documents