The Medieval Translator. Traduire au Moyen Age French 2503504485, 9782503504483

Citation preview

The Medieval Translator Traduire au Moyen Age

The Medieval Translator Traduire au Moyen Age Editors Roger Ellis and Rene Tixier Volume 5

BREPOLS

©1996 - Brepols Printed in Belgium D/1996/0095/11 ISBN 2-503-50448-5 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

CONTENTS List of Plates

viii

Acknowledgements

ix

Notes about the Contributors

x

Abbreviations

xv

Introduction Roger Ellis

1

Introduction Rene Tixier

14

The Translations of Foy: Bodies, Texts and Places Kathleen Ashley and Pamela Sheingom

29

Translating Saints' Lives into the Vernacular: Translatio Studii and Furta Sacra (Translation as Theft) Florence Bourgne

50

Women's Words, Men's Language: Discretio Spirituum as Discourse in the Writing of Medieval Women Visionaries Rosalynn Voaden

64

"Comoun Mater and Hier Witt": the Preacher's Task Gloria Cigman

84

Latin Adaptation and German Translation: the Late Medieval German D-Translation of the Visiones Georgii and Its Source Text Bernd Weitemeier

99

La traduction impossible: l'exemple de Frane flesch here mai be vndirstonde pe bodili substaunce of a man, wip pe dedis of his membris. Vicis ben euele customs, wip hire dedis. Desiris ben lustis, whiche mouen hem a3en resoun. "I>ese pre it bihouep after pe apostle to fastene to pe cros, for pei pat ben Cristis araiep to hem first a cros in hire mynde whanne, fro pe myddul of hire soule (pat is, loue or wille), pei drawen his lyne into God aboue al pyngis to be loued; and anoper, on pe right side, pei dressen to hire frendes as hemselfto be loued; and pe pridde, on pe lifte side, to hire enemyes as hemself to be loued, for God hap ordeyned hem of pe same kynde; and pe fourpe lyne of loue, donward, for to loue dueliche hire

91

CIGMAN flesch and aper bodili creatures, in as myche as pei ben matere of knowynge, and of loue, and of preisynge of God. "In pis eras of loue, pe flesch is crucified whanne al pe werkis whiche pat ben don bi pe membris of pe bodi ben dresside after summe of pese foure forseid loues. And if pe werk of pe flesch passe forp bi none of pese foure weies, pe crucifyynge of pe flesch is left. And bi no weie mai not pe lyne of loue be dressid bi any of pese four weies, but in so myche he strecche him to alle; and so panne it folowep pat pe vicis of vnordynat lust pat moun not stonde wip pese louys been slayn, forsope, for per leuep not euele wille where pat pese foure ben strei3t oute. I>e desiris also of pe flesch in pis eras contynuli bep maad lasse, and so pei bep alweie in dyinge, ti! to goynge oute of pe liyf." (10/131-62, LS pp. 109-10) 7

The sermon-writer then shifts from the remoteness of the Grosseteste passage to the intimacy of direct address: I>is eras of loue made Crist to stie vp into pe eras of treo, in whiche he suffride his dep for mankynde. Whanne pou hast don piself vpon pis eras of loue, panne schalt pou rise after pe pridde daie, as Crist dide: I>e first dai, Crist suffride passioun and deep; pe secounde dai, he restide in pe sepulcre; and pe pridde dai, he raos wip a bodi glorified, whiche my3te no more suffre dep. (10/163-9, LS p. 110)

The sermon for the eighth day after Christmas opens by specifying two levels of audience, although what follows is predominantly addressed to only one: This day ... is clepid among pe comune peple "Newe 3eres Day" for as miche as, aftur pe cours pat cristen men vsen, pe 3er bigynnep pe firste day of Geneuer .... But letterid men clepen pis day "Circumsicjoun Day" for as miche as oure Lord Jesus Crist was circumsicid pat day. (6/1-7, LS p. 66)

Initially, the exposition on the theme of circumcision touches briefly on some "sotelteis of bier witt": ... for seuene resonable causis Crist was circumcidid. I>e firste cause: for to schewe in him pe trupe of flesche a3en pe erroure of Manicheijs, pat seiden pat he hadde a fantastik bodi; and also a3en Valentyne, heretik, pat seide pat he hadde an heuenli bodi. (6/72-7, LS p. 68)

An interesting contrast with this abstruse passage occurs in another vernacular sermon, where a simplification of phrasing renders the same point somewhat

92

COMOUN MATER AND HIER WITT

more - if not entirely - comprehensible. Christ, says John Mirk, was circumcised because he wyst well pat heretykes schuld come, pat wolden say pat Cryst had a 8 body of pe ayre by fantesy, and not veray flesch and blod as we haue ...

But, for the most part, the writer of the Lollard sermon on circumcision is composing at a level that the "comoun peple ... may wel perceyve." An animated extended metaphor gives his sermon its six subdivisions - the blood of Christ, shed six times as the price paid to redeem sinful mankind: I>e first payment was, as I seide bifore, pis dai whan he at pe eyte dayes of age schedde his blood in his tendere lyme. In pis dede he 3af vs gret matere of loue and also gret ensaumple of clannesse and chastite, and for to refreyne vs fro al maner of lecherie in pou3t, word, and dede; seppe he pat schulde neuere haue luste to any synne, yet he suffride so gret peyne in pat membre in whiche men fynden most stirynge to pat synne. (6/15864, LS p. 70)

The motif is elucidated through a sequential unfolding of the metaphor of payment. Explicit moral guidance is integrated with moving and evocative detail, transmitting the intensity of Christ's suffering to the "we" and "us" that together make up the preacher and his audience: I>e secounde paiment whas whanne he knelyng preyede to his Fader in wakynge, pe ny3t to fore he suffride dep ... he preiede so hertili pat his swot was maad as drapes of blood rennynge doun into pe erpe. In pis also he 3af vs gret matere of loue, and also gret ensample to traueile bisili, wip deuocion in preier, for oure owne synnes .... I>e pridde payment of pis blessid raunsum was pat tyme whanne his elopes weren strept of his blessid bodi, and he so al nakid was bounden to a piler, and wip scharpe schorges so beten his tender bodi pat pe blood barst ou3t at euery strook. .. . In pis dede 3et he schewide to vs more largere matere of loue, and also gret conforte and lernynge to suffre wilfulli gret penance in oure bodies for oure synne, and for to gete perwip pe rewme of heuene, seppe he pat was clene wipouten synne so wilfulli suffride for oper mennes synnes .... I>e fourpe payment of pis blesside raunsum was maad at pat tyme whanne pe cursede mynistres of Pilate token a coronne of scharpe pornes wripen togidere and, in scorn of his kyngdom and in stide of a corowne of golde, presten doun on his hed, poru whiche pe blood barst oute at pe veynes, and guschede out into his iyen, and so doun into al his face. And so, what poru pis blood and poru pe cursede spittynge of here moupes into

93

CIGMAN

his blessid face, he pat was tofore pe fairest in schap tofore al pe children of men he was maad after so horrible in si3t pat, as Ysaie seip, he was like to a mesel. In pis dede also, oure Lord Jesus Crist schewide to vs a gret matere of loue, and also gret ensaumple of mekenesse, pat we schulden no3t be prou3te, for no bieute of bodi, ne faire fetures of face, for a lite! sikenesse eper disese mai sone make it fade and foule to mannes si3te .... I>e fitpe payment of pis blessid raunsum was maad whanne pe bl es side hondes and armes of oure Lord Jesus Crist weren streytli streyned vpon pe cros and grete bustus nailes dryuen porn oute hem into pe tree, and oute of pe woundes, as oute of grete goteris, largeli pe blood ran oute on eueri side. In pis blesside dede oure Lord Jesus Crist 3et also schewide to vs alle a gret matere of loue, to sprede pus abrod his ri3t honde and his lifte hond bope, in tokenynge of loueli biclippyngis bope of his frendes and also of his enemies. And in pis he 3af to vs ensample to naile fast oure hondes wip pe drede of God fro al maner of sleynge and wrongful smytynge, extorcions, robberie, and lecherous handelynge, falce deceytes in wi3tes and mesures, and alle oper wrongful doynges in displesynge of God and harmynge of oure breperen; but to strecche out eper to loose oure hondes into large almesdedes to oure pore breperen, and euere redi to wirche wip hem sum good and profitable werk and so doyng to ablen vs self to ete of Goddes godes, and haue pe blessyng pat he hap hi3te to alle suche .... I>e sexte payment of pis blessid raunsum, as I seide tofore, was after his dep, whan oon pat was left of pe kny3tis wip a scharpe spere openede his side and cleefhis herte atwo, out ofwhiche wounde cam oute pe laste blood and watir also perwip. In pis blesside payment and ouerpassynge kyndeli dede, he shewide to vs pe moost and pe hiest cause of loue. For in pis dede he schewide to vs pat for al his benefetis pat euer he dide to man, and for his grete trauaile and peyne in his blesside passion, he desirep non oper reward but pe hool loue of oure herte .... (6/169-254, LS pp. 70-72)

The level of discourse throughout Sermon 6 is consistently clear and easily to assimilate. Like the passage from Sermon 10 quoted at length earlier (see above, pp. 90-91 ), and like the religious lyrics of the time, it relies on the power of eloquently-observed suffering to prompt men to piety: Thy wepynge & py woundes wide, I>e blode pat ran doun by thy syde, The shame, pe scorne, pe grete despite, I>e spottel pat defoulet py face so white, The eysel & pe bittyr galle,

94

COMOUN MATER AND HIER WITT And oper of py peynes alle For while I haue ham in my po3t I>e deuyl I hope shal dere me no3t. Ihesu, write pis pat I my3t knowe How mychel loue to pe I owe. 9

The last sermon that I shall cite here perhaps demonstrates more than any of the others an intense awareness of alternative levels of discourse. This sermon, for the Third Sunday in Advent, opens with Matthew 11.2-3, on John the Baptist and Christ. The preaching voice addresses "alle men pat han ani gouemaunce of peple, as lordes of tenauntis, faderes of childeres, householderis of here maynee, but speciali gostly curatis of here peple" (3/32-4, LS p. 32). The topic that the writer of Sermon 3 tackles is the phenomenon of miracles, perceived this time quite differently from the interpreted gospel narrative of Sermons 14 and 15. Miracles are now explored as an aspect of the faith that gives rise to controversial questions that baffle many of those who are expected to provide answers. The prevailing attitude to miracles is summarised on the level of reasonable commonsense: Men mi3ten axe panne here pis question: seppe Crist bad his apostlis and disciples, and in hem alle prestis, to preche his gospel to pe peple and no3t cese perof (as Ysaie seip: C/ama ne cesses) into pe Day of Doom, but euere be bisi (he seide) in pis werk as principal parte of her office, whi panne conferme pei no3t her wordes wip bodili miracles, as pei diden in pat tyme, seppe per ben 3et men hard of bileeue, as pei weren poo? (3/111-18, IS p. 34)

"Hereto", says the sermon-writer, "men moun answere bi diuerse doctoures sentencis, pat speken of this matere" (3/119-20, LS p. 34). The sample answers that follow are indeed diverse in style and content. Several learned authorities are cited and paraphrased; some of the arguments are clear, some are obscure. It does not seem at all feasible that so many levels of material have been incorporated for use as the text stands. I think it far more likely that, here as elsewhere, the preacher is expected to exercise judicious choice between "comoun mater" and "hier witt", according to his audience on a given occasion. 10 A passage translated from Bede, paraphrasing Gregory's Latin, is lucid "comoun matere":

"Signes or tokenes," he seip, "of miracles in pe biginnynge of holi chirche onli were necessarie pat it, norsched wip miracles, schulde wexe to pe

95

CIGMAN feip, ri3t as we, wanne we sette 3iynge trees, so longe we helde to hem watur into pe time pat we see hem wexe or pryue in pe erpe, but wanne pei haue ones fesned her roote, panne we cese forto water hem." (3/123-8, LS p. 34)

In striking contrast is the complex "bier witt" of the immediately following passage translated from Augustine: I>e Lord sumtime dide bodili miracles, for to meue men to pe feip; and now he worche grettere helpes, for pe whiche he degnep not now to shewe forpe poo lasse. Ri3t as pe soule is better pan pe bodi, ri3t so pe helpe of pe soule is better pan pe helpe of pe bodi. Now pe blynde fleysche openep no3t his i3en porou miracle of pe Lord, but pe blynde herte openep pe i3en to pe word of pe Lord. Now risep not vp pe dedli careyne, but pe soule arisep pat lay at now pe cherche of God anne wip outeward signes pe feip was strengped; now beynge in feip sechynge miracles, it sechep veyneglorie pat it be preisid. (3/148-55, LS pp. 34-5)

A passage attributed to Gregory, probably a paraphrase, is brief and, like the quotation from Bede, above, absolutely clear: Seint Gregorius seip in a Omelie pat ri3t as in time of pe apostles miracles confermede her prechynge, so now vertues lyf of holi prestis schal conferme her prechynge. (31156-8, LS p. 35)

The culmination of the argument is that preaching replaces miracles (3/159-66, LS p. 35). The preacher will find this demonstrated in the metaphoric interpretation of the loaves and fishes narrative of Sermon 15, which leads me to infer that Sermon 3 is addressed to the preacher of that sermon: the guardian

96

COMOUN MATER AND HIER WITT

of the pantry where the bread of the word of God is stored, and the distributor of this bread. The sermon-writer has selected his material with considerable thought - although, as has been shown here, the translations from Latin into English may not always have served his ends effectively, containing as they do many phrases are unlikely to be "well perceived by the common people" or by anyone else. The purpose of this sermon as a training and instruction text for preachers is further affirmed by frequent cross-references to material in other sermons and suggestions for possible expansions of matter within this one: I>e cause whi John sente on his message two disciples rapur pan moo or lasse is tretid, whoso lokep wel, in pe gospel of pe fyrste Sunday of Aduent .... Heere may men touche, whoso wole dilate pe matere, of symonient prestis and curatis pat fallen into pis gostli lepre porou doynge of pe seuene sacramentis for couetise of tempera) lucre ..... Hou3 perelous pis synne of flaterynge is and whi it schulde be enchewid pou mayst fynde more pleynli treted in pe xxiij Sundaies gospel aftur pe Trinite .... Hou3 perelous is pride of clopynge, and what harm comep perof, pou mayst see more plentili in pe fyrst Sunday aftur pe Trinite .... First, hou3 pei schulde be sente bope of God and man is schewid sumwhat bifore in pe firste Sunday of Aduente. (3/49-51, 230-33, 340-42, 477-9, 496-7, LS pp. 32-43)

These readings have led me to the conclusion that what we have here are preaching texts composed by a writer with an informed awareness that some preachers, who are not themselves learned, are nevertheless capable of grasping "hier witt". If I am right, the "comoun matere" is pitched at the level of the devout but simple preacher, offering him material for his own instruction and for dissemination to "comoun peple" whose level of knowledge is often not far removed from his own; the more complex matter is to extend the preacher himself intellectually and theologically, and to be used at his discretion for the edification of some lay audiences. NOTES 1. The eighteen texts that comprise Lollard Sermons, ed. G. Cigman, EETS 294 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). Texts are quoted from this edition, abbreviated LS, by sermon, line and page number. 2. See quotations from Sermon 15 below, pp. 88-9. 3. See many of the sermons in Mirk's Festial, and in Middle English Sermons, ed. W.O. Ross, EETS OS 209 (London: Oxford University Press, 1940). 4. See Ross, pp. xliii-lv: Sermon Construction.

97

CIGMAN 5. Examples abound: e.g. Brown XIV nos. 55, 76 (pp. 69, 92); Brown XV nos. 102, 109, 111 (pp. 151, 169, 177); and many others in these two anthologies. 6. A Latin passage corresponds very closely to this material in Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud misc. 200, fol. 93v, found by Christina von Nokken and discussed in her article "An Unremarked Group of Wycliffite Sermons in Latin", MPh 83 (1986), 233-49. The phrase "bounden as a sheep", written clearly in this Middle English version, is at odds with the context; the Latin passage has "ligabatur quasi maniplus", endorsing a suggestion made to me by Dr. T. Duncan of St. Andrew's University, that this scribe, or a previous one, miscopied the word "sheef'. See my note, N&Q NS 41 (March 1994), 15. 7. See Oxford, Magdalen College MS 202, fols 152v-3r, an exposition by Grosseteste of Gal. 5.24. For other manuscripts containing this, see S. Harrison Thomson, The Writings ofRobert Grosseteste (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), pp. 164 (17), 173 (17). 8. Festial, Sermon 11, p. 46/24-6. 9. From Lyric 91, dated c.1375 (Brown XIV, pp. 116-7). 10. See nn. on LS p.247, indicating some of the Latin sources. 11. See note to 3/146-55, LS pp. 247-8, and the Middle English translation of the Rosarium Theologie in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College MS 354/581, fol. 78v. Parts of the Rosarium have been edited by C. von Nokken, The Middle English Translation of the Rosarium Theologie, Middle English Texts 10 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitiitsverlag, 1979).

98

Latin Adaptation and German Translation: the Late Medieval German D-Translation of the Visiones Georgii and Its Source Text BERND WEITEMEIER

SUMMARY

En 1353 le chevalier hongrois Georges de Chrissaphan se rend au Purgatoire de Saint Patrick. Le recit de sa visite nous est parvenu en latin (21 MSS.) et en allemand (25 MSS.). On s'accorde areconnaitre que ces traductions des 14e et 15e siecles sont des adaptations abregees de l'original latin. Toutefois la comparaison de I' adaptation latine *A (2 MSS. benedictins) et de la traduction allemande D (3 MSS. dont un benedictin) fait apparaitre que la plus courte de ces traductions allemandes rend fidelement le texte-source. II s'ensuit que le remplacement d'une grande partie des exhortations et des commentaires theologiques par des passages faisant ressortir le caractere aventureux et miraculeux de ce voyage, n'est pas le fait d'un redacteur en allemand, mais en latin. Les Visiones Georgii ne constituent pas un ensemble homogene; a l'origine de leur transmission se trouvent plusieurs versions, longues ou

99

WEIIBMEIER

courtes, ce qui explique leur succes aupres d'un public varie. Leur transmission fait egalement apparaitre que la distinction entre litterature latine et allemande, clairement marquee a l'origine, s'estompait au cours du 15e siecle.

*

*

*

*

*

This story of translation and adaptation begins with a Hungarian knight, George, son of Grissaphan, 1 who was appointed captain over a large number of Italian cities under Louis I, "the Great", of the French house of Anjou. During his term of office, George committed heavy sins and slaughtered hundreds of people. When, one night, he became conscious of his crimes, he wanted to do penance and immediately went on a pilgrimage. First he travelled to the Curia Romana, then at Avignon, and from there to Santiago de Compostela and a secluded place nearl>y, where he finally undertook the laborious journey to the end of the world, to St. Patrick's Purgatory in the northwest of Ireland, which, according to his own account of events, he visited in 1353. Here, at last, he seems to have found the penance that matched his heavy sins. His account of the otherworld was later written down, presumably by an Augustinian monk of Provern;al origin. 2 The influence of the very popular Tractatus de Purgatorio S. Patricii - probably written by Brother H[enry] of Saltrey some 200 years earlier - is obvious. But while the Tractatus has come down to us in only a few German manuscripts, despite its rich Latin transmission all over Europe, 3 the Visiones Georgii (hereafter Visiones) survive in twenty-one Latin4 and twenty-five German manuscripts5, thus holding the second place among visionary texts of this kind in the German vernacular, behind - admittedly, far behind - the Visio Tundali. 6 In contrast to the popularity the Visio Tundali enjoyed in most European literatures, the Visiones only had a small geographical distribution centred in Bavaria, Austria and Bohemia, where most of the Latin and German manuscripts were produced. Nevertheless, the twenty-five German manuscripts belong to four independent

translations which are labelled A-D. 7 The Visiones were also translated into Czech, an interesting translation which cannot be considered here. 8 There must have been a circulation of manuscripts among the different scriptoria, and in some instances contamination leaves no doubt that a scribe had before him more than one manuscript. 9 Postulation rather than iIWestigation has led to the communis opinio that the translations are abridged adaptations of the Latin original. Max Voigt carelessly heads his chapter on the German manuscripts "Die deutschen Bearl>eitungen" [the German adaptations] 10 instead of speaking of translations, and this is not his only use of this ambiguous term. Elfriede Herdawesky

100

LATIN ADAPTATION AND GERMAN TRANSLATION

proceeds on the same assumption when (p. 112) she finds a visible reduction in quantity in the translated work, as Nikolaus von Astau (see above n 7) selects and abridges his source. The only undoubted fact is, however, that all translations of the Visiones are indeed shorter than the Latin text edited by Louis L. Hammerich in 1930. This fact, as well as Hammerich's indifference towards the short Latin versions - because they were of little importance for the reconstruction of the original textn - might be responsible for these hasty but widely accepted conclusions. But although Voigt and (indirectly) Herdawesky concede that the translators might have used an abridged Latin source text, 12 they are not reluctant to evaluate the translators' abilities. So we learn from Voigt (p. 187) that the translators of the Visiones in general were not able to reproduce the specific character of the work without reducing it; and "reducing" refers not only to the quantity of the work but also to its content as a whole, since, in Voigt's opinion, learned elements in particular are abridged or omitted. With Nikolaus von Astau, Voigt is less severe (p. 210): the length and difficulty of the Latin text induced the translator to make omissions, contractions and elisions; Nikolaus was capable of reproducing the specific character of the Visiones, but out of regard for his intended readership he refrained from doing so. According to Herdawesky (pp. 111-2), Nikolaus gave the story his personal stamp in his endeavour to make the work's content accessible to the laity, emphasising narrative rather than instructive elements, and being less careful in translating the latter. Herdawesky finally points out (p. 124) parallels such as a mistake shared by three Latin manuscripts 13 and the A-translation, namely "manibus" ("henden" [hands] in the translation) instead of "naribus" [nostrils], or the loss of the introductory sentence in two Latin manuscripts 14 and the translation. When Herdawesky in another instance (p. 120) states that Nikolaus reduced the Latin phrases "per omnes corporis partes, per oculos videlicet, per nares, per os et per omnes corporis partes" (Hammerich p. 149/15-17) [from all parts of the body, namely from the eyes, the nostrils, the mouth and from all parts of the body] into "in alien teylen ires leybes" (Herdawesky, p. 51 of the text edition, I. 15) [and in all parts of their bodies], she does not realise that the passage "per oculos ... partes" is omitted in the Latin manuscript W1, too. Therefore, her sparse findings are of no value at all and do not give us a notion of the translator's way of working. Over the years postulation of this kind has become fact, so that it is not surprising that even Nigel F. Palmer characterises Nikolaus' work as a word-for-word translation with abridgements and simplifications of some theological passages. 15 This may be true, but the proof remains to be given. In fact, interpretations, which - intentionally or not take the original Latin version as the standard of comparison, do not say anything about the transfer, about the relation between the Latin source text

101

WEITEMEIER

and the German target text. This is a general problem with editions of texts which aim to reconstruct an original text. So this paper is also a plea for acknowledging the literary value of manuscript and transmission studies. Even the few examples in the previous paragraph show us that the scribes of the Latin manuscripts did not produce true duplicates of the texts they were copying. Although this fact is hardly surprising, its significance has not always been recognised. The Latin tradition of the Visiones can be briefly characterised as follows: (1) Additions to, and expansions of, the source text or exemplar, by a scribe in his copy text, are exceptional. If major parts of chapter 27 were indeed subsequently included in the Visiones, this would be the only substantial addition (Hammerich, pp. 7 and 34). (2) On the other hand, omissions of single words, phrases and clauses are frequent and sometimes show the scribe's efforts to avoid repetitions. In general, the prose of the shorter versions is less digressive. Omissions of whole passages are frequent, too. (3) Abridgement is another common feature in the Latin tradition of the Visiones. (4) Lastly, a bare outline of the Visiones is given in two manuscripts which condense the story to fifteen hexameters by providing keywords, and which function, consequently, like a pupil's crib note. They are the only versified versions, if they may be called versions of the Visiones at all. 16 Overall, thirteen Latin versions out of twenty-one are abridged adaptations of the Visiones. 17 The relation between the Latin source text and the German target text - in this particular case the German D-translation - can be sketched thus: Latin adaptation and German translation. In 1961 K. Grubmiiller and H.-J. Haarnagell were the first (and, as far as I know, the only ones) to see a parallel between the Latin Admont manuscript (A) and the German Dtranslation when they described Munich University Library 4° Cod. MS 492. 18 While they had to rely on short extracts and a description provided by Hammerich (pp. 54-8), it is now possible on the basis of two Latin and three German manuscripts to clear any doubt that the D-translation, the supposedly shortest German adaptation, is a faithful rendering of its source text.

The Latin adaptation, which I call *A, is extant in two manuscripts of Benedictine provenance: A Admont, Benediktinerstift, Cod. 462. Fifteenth century. Containing mainly edifying texts; Visiones fols lr"-9v". 19 Kl Klagenfurt, Universitatsbibliothek, Pap. HS Nr. 154. Provenance: Benediktinerabtei, Millstatt. Late fourteenth century. Mainly religious texts; Visiones fols 22lr"-226vb.zo A and Kl derive from a lost text. At different points both present better readings of the text, but on the whole A seems to be closer to their ancestor. The filiation of manuscripts worked out by Hammerich is adapted here (not

102

LATIN ADAPTATION AND GERMAN TRANSLATION

including the other seven manuscripts unknown to him). x

v

IO

A

(cf Hammerich, p. 68) The D-translation has come down to us in three manuscripts and is best represented by e: 21 m Munich, Universitatsbibliothek, 4 ° Cod. MS 492. Provenance unknown. Fifteenth century. Containing a chronicle and edifying texts; Visiones fols lr"-35vb.22 w Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 3026 [Lunael. 8° 193). Provenance: Benediktinerkonvent, Mondsee. Mid or second half of fifteenth century. Among edifying texts, instructions on how to tan skins and to heal wounds; Visiones fols 86v-110r: text incomplete. 23 e Eichstatt, Universitatsbibliothek, Cod. st 384. Written in 1456. Origin unknown, but it was sold at Augsburg in 1578 to Hanns Schirmer and in 1589 to a corn trader in the same area; in the eighteenth century it was in the Dominican Monastery at Eichstatt; in the early nineteenth century it was in the (secular) Kreisbibliothek of Eichstatt. Containing prophecies, edifying texts; Visiones Part II, fols lr-39r. 24 The extracts of the Latin version printed here follow A, those of the Dtranslation follow e. Readings of Kl, m and w appear in the apparatus; where they represent better or fuller texts they replace A or e. 25 The dependence of the German D-translation on the Latin *A-adaptation is obvious, as it shares not only omissions of the same passages, but also passages designed to bridge such omissions, and, in addition, reveals deviations exclusive to this particular text tradition. (1) Omissions include the testimonial letters (left out in other manuscripts,

103

WEITEMEIER

too); the scene in the eighth vision in which the devil, in the form of George's father, threatens to decapitate George's youngest brother Stephan, if George does not deny God and his faith; the description of the purgatorial torment of the envious (invidorum); the passage in which detailed comments are given on the nature of the bodies and souls in purgatory, the relation between body and soul, hell and purgatory etc. (Hammerich, pp. 176/12-185/11). (2) "Bridging of omissions". After George has descended into the cave, he meets three men who give him useful instructions for his journey through the otherworld: 26 A et oracione facta affuerunt tres viri senes albissimi, ualde barbati et similes in effigie in persona, et habitum habentes candidum sicut nix, quorum vnus progrediens accessit ad Georgium dicens ... (fol. 2v")

e

vnd do er das pett volpracht, do 2 komen zw im in der selben cappellen drey alt man ausdermassen weis vnd 4 gar parttat, dy waren geleich an der gestalt vnd an der person vnd hetten 6 weysse klaider an als der schne, der gie ainer her for vnd gie zw dem Iorgen vnd sprach ... (fol. 6v)

1 affuerunt Kl] affuerut A; 2 albissimi senes et barbati valde Kl; 3-4 et candidum] et habitu candido Kl.

1 pett e m] gepett w; 2 komen m w] kam e; 3 ausdermassen e m] an der massen w; 4 parttat e w] partecht m; waren m w] om. e; 5 vnd ... person om. w; 8 vnd sprach m w] om. e.

[and when his prayer was finished, there appeared three men of age and great whiteness with immense beards and equal in appearance and dignity, wearing costumes as white as snow, and one of them stepped forth and approached George saying ... ]

Before his return from the otherworld, George makes four supplications: (1) that he might escape the torments of hell; (2) that the length of his life might be revealed to him; (3) that Archangel Michael, his guide through the otherworld, might tell him how he could help his mother's soul in purgatory; and (4) that the Archangel would assist him before God so to help his mother. To the third and fourth supplication Archangel Michael gives a copious answer (Hammerich, pp. 261/4-310/5), which is reduced to only a few lines. 27

104

LATIN ADAPTATION AND GERMAN TRANSLATION A Item tue peticioni tercie respondeo, quod oraciones et elemosine maxime et misse de cruciatibus animas habent releuare ac eas sanctorum consorcio sociare. Vnde legitur in libro Dialog[or]um Gregori[j], quod quidam monachus, pro furto quodam conmisso, post mortem quinque annis in purgatorio penitere debebat, quern alter frater eiusdem conuentus cum triginta missis, quas sibi deuote legerat, de huius modi penis liberauit. Item de quarta peticione scias sibi certe exauditum, dixit angelus Georgio. (fol. 9r')

e

Item deiner dreitten pett antwart ich, 2 das das pett vnd das almftssen vnd aller maist das ampt der mess haben 4 gewalt ze ledigen dy sel von pein vnd fugent sie zw der geselschafft 6der heyligen. Wann man veint geschriben an Sant Gregorgen puch 8 genant Dyalogus, das ain miinich von diebsals wegen, den er getan hett, 10 solt funf iar gepftsst haben in den weyczen. Den erloset von den selben 12 peinen seiner pruder ainer desselben conuents mit dreissick messen, dy er 14 mitt andacht sprach. Item do der engel sprach zw dem Iorgen: Dw solt 16 wissen, das dw vber dy virden pet auch erh6rt pist. (fol. 36r)

2-3 maxime et misse om. Kl; 3 for de ... animas] animas de cruciatibus Kl; 6 Dialogorum] Dialogum A, om. Kl; Gregorij] Georis A, Gregorio Kl (i.e. Gregory I, "the Great"); 7 furto] factu Kl; 13-15 ltem ... Georgio Kl] etc A.

2 pett e w] gepet m; das3 m w] om. e; 4 ledigen e w] leyden m; 5 sie m w] sich e; 7 an e m] in w; 9 den e w] dem m; getan] tan m w; 10 haben om. w; den] dem m, de w; 11-13 for den1 .. . messen e m] den erloset seiner prueder ainer mit dreissigist messen des selben conuents w; 12 peinen m] om. e w; 13 ere m] er im w; 14 do om. m w; 16 vber] vmb m w; 17 pist erh6rt w.

[Likewise, to your third supplication I reply that prayers and especially almsgiving and masses (translation: almsgiving and especially masses) can (translation: have the power to) liberate the souls and incorporate them into the communion of Saints. As we read in the book called Dialogues by Gregory, that a certain monk had to suffer after his death for five years in purgatory for a theft he had once committed, whom another brother of the same monastery liberated from such torments with thirty masses, which he himself read with devotion. Likewise, as to your fourth supplication, be informed that it is without any doubt granted, the angel said to George.]

Besides, only in *A and the D-translation was the afore-mentioned monk to suffer in purgatory for not more than five years; according to Gregory's Dialogues and to other Latin versions of the Visiones, he was to spend five

105

WEIIBMEIER 28

hundred years there. The A scribe also indicates that weariness induced him to abridge the description of the saints in paradise: " ... que scribere obmisi tedio suboneratus etc." (A fol. 81"). This avowal remains untranslated. (3) Deviations, which only occur in this particular text tradition, include the following. The cave is usually described as being more than two miles deep ("duorum miliarium et vltra" (Hammerich, p. 97/16-17)). In *A the cave is not only incredibly deeper, but the depth is also given in a different measure ("stadium": one stadium measures about 200 metres), which, accordingly, is 29 translated through the German equivalent "roslauff' : e Der selbenn weiczen einganck ist 2 aussdermassen teiff, wann vnder sich hat er tawsunt roslauff Jang (fol. Sv)

A Qui quidem introitus est puteus profundissimus profunditatis mille stadiorum (fol. 2r')

1 weiczen m w] om. e; 2 wann om. w; 3 lang] Ieng m w.

[The same entrance to purgatory is extremely deep, as it has beneath it one thousand roslaufj]

[The same entrance is an extremely deep pit of a depth of one thousand stadia]

In *A and the D-translation, and only here, George is made captain ("capitaneus"/"haubtman") by the most illustrious leader, the King of Hungary, over a great number of cities and settlements ("pluribus ciuitatibus, castris"/"vil stet vnd marckt") as well as towns and villages ("opidis et villis"/"vesten vnd dorffer"): 30 e

A ... constitutus in Apulie partibus capitaneus per illustrissimum principem dominum, regem Vngarie, super ibidem pluribus ciuitatibus, castris, opidis et villis. (fol. lrb)

... vnd ist geseczt word en von dem 2 durchlewchtigisten flirsten, kunig in Vngarn, zw ainem haubtman in 4 Pollen land vber vii stet vnd marckt, vesten vnd dorffer (fols lv-2r)

1 in Kl] om. A; 5 castris om. Kl; opidis opidis A.

1 geseczt e w] beseczt m; 5 vesten e w] vnd vest m.

Again, George is gripped and flung into the fire by terrible demons. He makes his prayer and is thus saved. But in no other version of the text except *A and the D-translation does he receive a "cooling" from the angel (cf Hammerich, pp. 110/19-111/19):

106

LATIN ADAPTATION AND GERMAN TRANSLATION

A refrigerium ab angelo recipiens (fol.

e vnd enphie ain kuliing von dem 2 ewigen gott (fol. 8v)

2v1')

2 ewigen gott] gott om. m, engel w. 31

In the third vision George encounters demons in the shape of virgins. Approaching them, he detects that their leader's feet are like those of an ox and a horse, respectively. His observation that the demons all had such feet is only mentioned in this text tradition. This passage also exemplifies the use of abridgement. 32 A Ad quam cum apropinquasset respiciens eius pedes, videns alterum eius pedem tamquam pedem bouis, et alterum tamquam equi. Et ex consequenti in omnibus uirginibus pedes similes apparebant. Que dixit Georgio: Carissime, bene ueneris. Ecce, regnum perpetuum michi subiectum que rege careo, et te in regem recipere sum parata. Quid aliud queris? (fol. 3rb)

e Vnd do ir der Iorg nahent, do sach er 2 ir an dy ftiss, do was ir ain fiiss gespalten vnd geschaffen als ains 4 ochsen f~ss, vnd der ander als ains phards fiiss. Vnd dy iuncfrawen all 6 hetten sulch fftss. Vnd sy sprach z;w dem Iorgen: Bis mir wilkomen, 8 liebster Iorg. Niem war daz ewig reich ist mir vndertan, ich han chain 10 kunig vnd ich pin berait, daz ich dich wil nemen z;w ainem kunig. Vnd was 12 sochstu anders? (fol. lOr)

2 videns Kl] om. A; 3 pedem 2 Kl] om. A; et Kl] om. A; 9 rege careo] regi cares Kl.

1 ir1 m w] om. e; 3 gespalten vnd om. w; 4 als m w] om. e; 5-6 vnd ... fftss om. w; 7 mir] om. m w; 8 liebster w] Ii ester e m; 10 ich1 m w] om. e; 11 vnd] nii m w; 11-12 was sochstu e w] waiss slichst m.

[When he had approached her, he took a look at her feet and saw that her one foot was (translation adds: cleft and made) like the foot of an ox, the other like the one of a horse. And consequently all virgins had such feet. She said to George: My dearest, you are welcome. Mark this, the eternal kingdom is subjected to me, but I have no king, and I am ready to receive you as my king. What else are you looking for?]

In *A and the D-translation chapter 21 is included in chapter 20 so that from then on the numbering of chapters lags behind by one. This feature also 107

WEITEMEIER

characterises Nikolaus' translation, though there the chapters are not llllmbered. But the heading of the final chapter is peculiar to this text tradition of the Visiones: A Vltimum capitulum xxviijm, in quo agitur de exitu Georgij de paradiso. (fol. 9r")

e Das leczt capitel vnd das acht vnd 2 czwainczigist, in dem wfrt gesagt von dem ausgang des Iorgen aus dem 4 paradiss. (fol. 37r)

1 vltimum ... xxviijm] 28 capitulum Kl.

1-2 vnd (om. m) ... czwainczigist m w] om. e.

[The final and 28th chapter, which deals with George's egress from paradise.]

There remain a few differences between *A and the D-translation, which are of no relevance at all to the question of dependence. Some examples will suffice. Thus, the Latin scribe leaves out the testimonial letters but promises to supply them at the end of the account: A Copie uero literarum predictorum vuorum [priorum Kl] in fine scribentur. (fol. Ir") [All letters of the aforesaid men (priors Kl) will truly be written down at the end.]

This unfulfilled promise is accidentally or deliberately (mis)translated and heads the chapter on George and his life, although this chapter is not a letter: e Hye her nach stet geschriben ain vrkund (fol. Iv) [In the following is written a testimonial letter]

At the very beginning of the prefacio the translation is more detailed than the Latin *A-version. But in the quotation below, whose opening words are based on Hebr. 1.1, the "etc" of the Latin is more likely to indicate abridgement by a Latin copyist than expansion by the translator or a later scribe: 33

108

LATIN ADAPTATION AND GERMAN TRANSLATION

A Multipharie multisque modis olym deus loquens per apostolos etc viam salutis, nouissime tamen diebus istis, videlicet anno domini millesimo trecentesimo quinquagesimo tercio eandem viam salutis ... (fol. Ir")

e Manigffeltiglich vnd mitt maniger 2 red hatt etwenn in der Al ten Ee gott der herr in lic-homa leohtra micle, pin gesceapu scenran; cwre3 pret pe reniges sceattes 3earf ne wurde on worulde. (499b-504a) [Then he ordered me to travel on this mission, ordered that you eat of this fruit, said that your might and strength and your intelligence would be made greater and your body much brighter, your form more beautiful; he said that you would lack no treasures in the world.]

The two shorter lines (501 and 502, in bold type above) result in an abrupt change of rhythm which does not reflect any change in subject-matter, since

133

STEVANOVITCH

they describe some of the gifts the tempter offers to Adam, while the other gifts are dealt with in long lines. Perhaps they correspond to a single line of the original, which the translator expanded into two by using compounds for the two nouns; in the Old Saxon text the words translated by "mod-sefa" and "lichoma" may have been part of one half-line and linked by and like "abal and crreft" (1. 500). Other possible instances of shortening of one sort or another are mentioned briefly below: deore wres he drihtne urum: ne mihte him bedyrned weor5an l>ret his engyl ongan ofer-mod wesan. (261-2) [He was dear to our Lord: it could not be concealed from him that his angel began to grow arrogant.]

The change from hypermetric to normal is unusually abrupt, and takes place in the middle of a sentence. brade synd on worulde grene geardas, and god site() on pam hehstan heofna rice. (SlOb-12) [Wide in the world are the green expanses, and God sits in the highest part of the kingdom of Heaven.]

After the ample rhythm of 510b, the next lines, which have the minimum number of unstressed syllables, are particularly inappropriate to describe something brad [broad, large]. heo dyde hit peah purh holdne hyge, nyste pret prer hearma swa fela, fyren-earfe()a fylgean sceolde monna cynne pres heo on mod genam pret heo pres la5an bodan !arum hyrde. (708-11) [Yet she did it in a loyal intent, she did not know that so many evils and misfortunes would ensue for mankind because she had made up her mind to listen to the teaching of the hateful messenger.]

The abrupt change of rhythm is perhaps more justified here, since the short lines describe the brutal reality of mankind's fall, whereas the longer lines surrounding them deal with Eve's illusions. On the other hand, lines like 286, "... rofe rincas. mid swilcum mreg man rred gepencean" [... brave warriors. With such people one can imagine a plan],

134

THE OLD ENGLISH GENESIS B

with excessive contrast between the two half-lines (respectively 4 and 9 syllables), are typically Old Saxon. Balance is not to be sought between halflines but between lines. To conclude, some of the most awkward changes of rhythm in Genesis B may be due to modifications introduced by the translator. However foreign long lines might have sounded to Anglo-Saxon ears, their use has a stylistic value in the poem; the translator, in his effort to anglicise the metrics, has not respected this.

ENVELOPE PATTERNS An aspect of Genesis B which strikes even the casual reader is its repetitiveness. This has been variously criticised or excused, but the stylistic function of many of these repetitions has been overlooked. A typical example is to be found in the passage on the creation of the angels: hrefde se al-walda engel-cynna purh hand-mregen, halig drihten, tene getrimede, prem he getruwode wel pret hie his giongorscipe fyligan wolden, wyrcean his willan: for-pon he him gewit forgeaf and mid his handum gesceop, halig drihten. (246-51) [The Almighty had established angelic orders by the might of his hands, the holy Lord, to the number of ten, of whom he trusted that they would

accomplish his service, work his will; therefore he gave them a mind and with his hands the holy Lord created them.]

The first reaction of most readers is probably unease at this repetition of "halig drihten", italicised in the above quotation, within five lines, when there are dozens of epithets that can be applied to God, which other poets take such care to vaiy. 9 Indeed the whole of 1. 251 appears barely more than a repetition of 1. 24 7, both in ideas and wording, and it could best be suppressed. Yet closer study reveals that the repetitions have a purpose, and that these almost identical lines are the two halves of an envelope pattern It can be displayed by rearranging the passage as follows: hrefde se al-walda engel-cynna purh HAND-mregen, HALIG DRIHTEN, tene getrimede, prem he getruwode we!

135

STEVANOVITCH

pret hie his giongorscipe fyligan wolden, wyrcean his willan: for-pon he him gewit forgeaf and mid his HANDUM gesceop, HALIG DRIHTEN. 10

Envelope patterns can be defined as the repetition of similar words or ideas at either end of a verse paragraph. 11 Their purpose is to give a structure to a passage and/or to bring specific notions into relief. The simpler patterns were no doubt easily apprehended by a trained listening audience, but the more complex ones, such as those discussed below, require close scrutiny of the text and must have been intended for readers. Envelope patterns are easily added in a translation - one merely needs to repeat at the end of a passage some words taken from the beginning. This practice is in no way exceptional in Old English poetic translations: the author of Genesis A constantly shapes his paraphrase into envelope patterns, and the versifier of the Meters ofBoethius adds several which do not exist in the prose version There is no a priori reason why the patterns of Genesis B should not have been added by the translator. 12 Conversely, they could easily have been preserved more or less intact even if the translator was unaware of their existence: since he worked almost word by word, he would keep any repetitions, and thus the patterns based upon them, without necessarily realising their purpose. It seems unlikely that the translator can have added the envelope pattern below (part of Satan's lament in hell), since it would have involved rewriting half the passage. On the other hand, however intricate the pattern may seem, it could easily owe its preservation to the literalness of the translation and not to conscious effort on the translator's part: 368 369 370 371 372 373 374

wa-la, ARTE IC MINRA RANDA GEWEALD, and moste ane tid ute weor3an, wesan ane winter-stunde, ponne ic mid pys WERODE ac LICGAB ME YMBE IREN-benda, ride3 racentan sal: ic eom rices leas, HABBAD ME swa hearde helle-clommas freste befangen. HER IS FYR MICEL

375 376

ufan and neooone: ic a ne geseah la3ran landscipe: LIG NE ASWAMAD,

377

hat ofer helle.

136

THE OLD ENGLISH GENESIS B 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388

ME HABBAD hringa gespong, sli6-hearda sal, si6es amyrred, afyrred me min fe6e; fet synt gebundene, handa gehrefte; synt pissa hel-dora wegas forworhte, swa ic mid wihte ne mreg of pissum lio6o-bendum. LICGAD ME YMBE heardes IRENes hate geslregene grindlas greate, mid py me god hafa6 gehrefted be pam healse. - swa ic wat he minne hige cupe, and pret wiste eac WERODA drihten pret sceolde unc adame yfele gewuroon ymb pret heofon-rice, prer IC AHTE MINRA RANDA GEWEALD.

[Alas, IF I HAD THE USE OF MY HANDS, and could for one moment be out of here, be it for a winter hour, then I with this ARMY - but my limbs ARE CLASPED in iron shackles, I am yoked by the trammels of a chain: I am powerless, so strongly and securely do the hell-knots HOLD ME. A strong FIRE burns here, above and under me: never have I seen a more hideous landscape: the hot FLAME never abates in hell. The fastening of the bands, the cruel links, prevent any movement, HOLD ME paralysed; my feet are tied, my hands manacled; the passage through these hell-doors is forbidden to me, since I can in no way shake off these bonds: my neck IS CLASPED in a great yoke of hard iron forged hot, with which God has fettered me. - Thus do I understand that he knew my heart, and that the Lord of ARMIES was also aware that strife would arise between Adam and me about the kingdom of Heaven, IF I HAD THE USE OF MY HANDS.] 13

Certainty as to the authorship of the envelope patterns can be reached when one of them is ruined by the translator. This is what happened in the passage below: 600 601 602 603

I>a MEAHTE HEO WIDE geseon purh pres la6an lren pe hie mid ligenum beSWAC, dearnenga bedrog, pe hire for his dredum com pret hire I>UHTE hwitre heofon and eor6e,

137

STEVANOVITCH 604 605 606 607 608 609

and eall peos woruld wlitigre, and geweorc godes mice! and mihtig peah heo hit purh monnes geI>EAHT ne sceawode, ac se scea5a geome SWICode ymb pa sawle, pe hire rer pa siene onlah, ret HEO swa WIDE wlitan MEAHTE fer heofon-rice.

[Then she COULD SEE FAR away, through the gift of the foe who betrayed her by his lies, who secretly DECEIVED her, and by his influence it so happened that she THOUGHT she saw heaven and earth brighter, and the whole world more splendid, and the work of God great and mighty, although she did not see it through human THOUGHT, but the foe eagerly DECEIVED her in her soul, he that had given her this vision, so that SHE COULD SEE SO FAR in the kingdom of Heaven.]

The repetition of the word "heofon" (underlined above) in the centre of the envelope, and in one of the outer rings, disrupts the pattern by superimposing upon it a second envelope pattern which does not coincide with the first one. Such clumsiness is exceptional in the poem, and several much more complex patterns are handled with great mastery. It is likely that the original text had two different words to express the idea of "heaven", himil and heban. The first one (Modem Dutch heme/, Modem High German Himmel) does not exist in Old English, and in the fragment which we possess the translator replaced it by "heofon" (OSGen 17, GenB 806). He has certainly done the same thing here, and in many other places in the poem: in the absence of an Old English equivalent it was perhaps difficult to do otherwise, yet here the envelope pattern has been sacrificed to convenience. The following example (the beginning of the tempter's speech to Eve) is even plainer, for the envelope pattern has been obscured by the addition of a whole line. 551 552 553 554 555

IC WAT INC waldend god ABOLGEN WYRD, swa ic him pisne BODscipe SELF A secge - ponne ic of I> YS SIDE cume ofer langne weg, pret git ne lrestan we! hwilc rerende swa

138

THE OLD ENGLISH GENESIS B 556 557 558 559

he easten hider on I> YSne SID sende3. nu sceal he SYLF faran to incre andsware; ne mreg his rerende his BODA beodan! I>y IC WAT pret he INC ABOLGEN WYRI>, mihtig on mode.

[I KNOW that the ruling Lord WILL BE ANGRY AGAINST YOU, when I mySELF report this MESSAGE - when I return from THIS MISSION after a long journey - that you do not obey well whatever errand he sends here from the east through THIS MISSION. He shall now have to come himSELF to have your answer, his errands cannot be delivered by his MESSENGER! Therefor I KNOW that the Mighty one WILL BE ANGRY AGAINST YOU in his heart.]

The pattern is made imperfect by the presence of "rerende" [errand], (underlined above), both at the heart of the envelope and in one of the rings. The problem seems to originate in 1. 555. Most of that line is unnecessary: "easten" [from the east] and "hider" [hither] are mere padding, and the only useful element in the line is the queried "rerende", or at least some sort of object for the verb. Perhaps the passage originally read something like swa hwret swa he on oysne sio sendeo [whatever he sends through this mission], with the object in 1. 556. To shorten the line the translator removed the object into a new line (555), which he filled up by padding. He was forced to use a noun, which could be stressed, instead of the unstressed pronoun, and he probably thought of "rerende" because it was used further down in the same speech - in a passage with so many repetitions he certainly felt no scruples about introducing a new one, without realising that the others had a purpose. So far this is mere reconstruction. Actual proof that 1. 555 is an addition lies in the use of the word "easten" [from the east]. Elsewhere in Genesis B God does not sit in the east but in the south-east. This is where Eve sees his throne in her vision: "le mreg heonon geseon II hwrer he sylf site6, I pret is su6 and east" (666-7) [I can see from here the place where he himself sits, that is in the south-east]. Lucifer's throne is correspondingly in the north-west: "cwre6 pret hine his hige speone II pret he west and nor6 I wyrcean ongunne, II trymede getimbro" (274-6) [He said that his mind impelled him to begin working in the north-west, to erect a building]. East is a more usual location for God's throne, but some logical mind must have been disturbed by the fact that with God in the east and Lucifer in the north there is no clear-cut division of territory, south and west being left unaccounted for. A handful of references has been produced

139

STEVANOVITCH

for this south-east I north-west division, 14 yet it remains exceptional in literature and patristic writings. The translator who wanted to add some word to fill a gap used the traditional eastern location unthinkingly, but the poet who had specifically placed God in the south-east and Lucifer in the north-west would not have contradicted himself in this way. The use of the word easten in a passage which on other grounds appears to have been tampered with brands the line as an addition. The fact that through this addition the translator spoilt the envelope pattern indicates that he was not aware of its existence, and that he preserved this particular one, and probably the others as well, by mere chance, thanks to the literalness of his translation. WORDPLAY Envelope patterns can easily be kept intact in a literal translation, but wordplay is a different matter. Since it is often lost in translation, any wordplay present in a text is more likely to have been added by the translator than to stem directly from the original. In this particular case, however, the problem is more theoretical than real. Old Saxon and Old English are closely related languages, and in many cases the words involved are sufficiently similar in the two languages for wordplay to remain in a literal translation, though at times one can wonder how far it was present in the original. Commonplace instances of paronomasia15 like those associating men and sin (451) (men/man in Old English, man/men in Old Saxon), or God and good (291, 657, 740, 779, 816-17, 849-50) (god, with short or long vowel, in both languages), are certainly derived from the original. 16 This also applies to the play on /of [praise] and /if [life] for the tree of life (468) (also /of, lifin Old Saxon), or on witan [know] and wite [torment] for the tree of death (479, 481) (witan, witi in Old Saxon). All this would remain in a literal translation, whether the translator was aware of the intended wordplay or not. The translator's awareness of wordplay is also debatable in the case of the pun on "wrerlice" [cunningly] (652, with short vowel) and "wrerum wordum" [in true words] (681, with long vowel), describing the tempter's speech from the author's point of view and then from Eve's. Old Saxon has the adverbs wiirliko [truly] and war(a)/iko [cunningly], both of which the translator would have rendered by "wrerlice". It is improbable that in authorial comment the tempter should be described as speaking "truly"; the Old Saxon text corresponding to 1. 652 must have had war(a)liko. As for 1. 681, wrer translates Old Saxon wiir [true], commonly used in the formula warun wordun [in true words] (seventeen occurrences in the Heliand and two in the Old Saxon Genesis). 17 The word does not exist in Old English, and the translator borrowed it. It is unlikely that he is using wc:er [cunning] with short vowel, as Bosworth

140

THE OLD ENGLISH GENESIS B

and Toller suggest. 18 The word bears an accent in the manuscript, which may or may not indicate vowel length, 19 but in any case if the vowel is short there must be resolution of stress and the half-line lacks one unstressed syllable though it is not certain that the translator was aware of such considerations. The translation has kept the similarity of the two Old Saxon words, and therefore the wordplay as well; yet by borrowing wrer [true] into Old English the translator has merely chosen an easy way out of a difficulty, and was not necessarily intent on retaining the pun. The paronomasia associating "ofret" and "ret" (500, 564, 599) involves a different problem, as the word ofret is not attested in Old Saxon writings. The wordplay is certainly traditional, since the ninth century German poet Otfried also uses it, saying of Adam: "themo alten det er sUa.zi, thaz er thaz obaz azi" (Ch II, 5, 1. 15). 20 It occurs three times in Genesis B: het pret pu pisses ofretes rete (500) [He ordered that you eat of this fruit]; ret pisses ofetes! (564) [eat of this fruit!]; heo pa pres ofretes ret (599) [she then ate of the fruit].

It implies that the fruit is meant to be eaten, since its name contains the word eat; and the poet comments: he ret pam wife onfeng belle and hinn-si3, peah hit nrere haten swa, ac hit ofetes noman agan sceolde (717-19), [From the woman he received hell and death, though it was not called so, but had to bear the name of "fruit"]

giving the impression that the fruit, whose real name was "hell and death", had only been called ofret to make this pun possible. Ute Schwab draws attention to the fact that ofret and etan are indeed etymologically related. 21 It is difficult to imagine that the translator can have departed from his text at this point and used oftet to introduce wordplay, since the word occurs at other points in Genesis B when there is no pun on ret. 22 Though the word ofret is not attested in Old Saxon, it must nevertheless have existed in that language, since Dutch has oofl and Old Low German ovet. Ofret, and the paronomasia itself, were certainly present in the Old Saxon Genesis. The three-term wordplay on (h)yldola in the description of the two trees of Paradise, involving the words ylde [men], yldu [old age], hyldo [favour], is more difficult to account for. Mankind (yldo bearn) must choose between good and evil, symbolised by the two trees of Paradise, the tree of life and the tree

141

STEVANOVITCH

of death: ... prer yldo beam moste on ceosan godes and yfeles., (464-5) [The children of men might choose there between good and evil.]

If a man chooses the tree of life, he thereby avoids yldo, old age, and wins hyldo, God's favour: him refter py yldo ne derede, ne suht sware, ac moste symle wesan lungre on lustum and his !if agon, hyldo heofon-cyninges her on worulde, habban him to wreron witod gepinge on pone hean heofon, ponne he heonon wende. (471-6) [After this, old age would not harm him, nor grievous illness, but he could always be forthwith in pleasure and he could keep his life and the favour of the King of Heaven here in the world, and honours would indeed be appointed to him high in Heaven when he departed from here.]

As for the man who chooses the tree of death, old age and then death will be his lot: sceolde bu witan ylda reg-hwilc yfles and godes gewand on pisse worulde ... swa hwa swa gebyrgde pres on l>am beame geweox; sceolde hine yldo beniman ellen-dreda, dreamas and drihtscipes, and him beon dea3 scyred (479-85).

[Of both any man would know, of evil and good, the difference in this world ... if he ate of what grew on that tree. Old age would bereave him of deeds of valour, of joys and of authority, and death would be his lot.]

By bringing together ylde [men] and yldu [old age], the poet focusses on man's mortal condition, which at that point in time Adam could still hope to escape. In the first quotation, the two words are repeated on either side of hyldo [favour], God's favour, the second alternative open to man This wordplay seems too elaborate to be due to chance. Yet it is not a straightforward translation from Old Saxon. The corresponding Old Saxon

142

THE OLD ENGLISH GENESIS B

words are huldi [favour], eldi [men], and eldi [old age]. The pun on the two eldi was certainly present in the original; huldi, however, was too different to be part of it. Either the pun on hyldo in the Old English version is to be explained by the accident of convergent phonetic development, or I. 474 has been added by the translator to bring hyldo (a key-word in Genesis B) into the network of wordplay. Yet though the translator has proved capable of minor additions to improve lines from a metrical point of view, the addition of a whole line to introduce a stylistic effect would perhaps be too bold a change, and the wordplay on hyldo is more likely to be due to chance. I end this analysis on yet another splendid instance of wordplay, that on hearran [higher; also master]. Lucifer refuses to have a lord, "hearran to habanne", and wants to be higher in Heaven, "hearran on heofne", implicitly, as the identical forms of the two words indicate, to become God's equal: pohte purh his anes crreft hu he him strenglicran stol geworhte, heahran on heofonum .... "nis me wihtre pearf hearran to habbanne .... le hrebbe geweald mice! to gyrwanne godlecran stol, hearran on heofne". (272-4, 278-9, 280-82) [Ile thought how through his own might he would build a stronger throne, higher in Heaven". "I in no way need to have a master .... I have great power and can build a more splendid throne, higher in Heaven.]

But in Old Saxon the two words involved are hohoro [higher] and herro [lord]. Herra is the comparative of her [noble], and cannot mean "high" in a physical, material way. The Old Saxon poet could not have used it to describe the location of Lucifer's throne. He might have used it with the meaning "nobler", parallel to godlecran and exceptionally applied to a thing (the throne) rather than a person; in that case the translation into English involved a change of meaning. Yet it seems more likely that the Old Saxon text had hohoron and if that is so, there was no pun in the original. Positing hohoron behind hearran [higher] explains the unusual spelling "heahran" the first time the word is used (274): the translator must have been influenced by the h in the original. Yet within a few lines he spells the word "hearran" (282), and though inconsistencies of spelling, whether authorial or scribal, are commonplace in this poem, as in the rest of Old English poetry, there may be an explanation for this particular one. When writing "hearran" [master] I. 279 the translator may have been struck by the potential pun, and

143

STEVANOVITCH

may in consequence have chosen the spelling "hearran" on the next occasion when he had to use the word "higher". The matter deserves further investigation, but it would appear that in this particular case at least the translator has exploited the possibilities of the target language in order to introduce additional wordplay into the poem. CONCLUSION We have come to the end of our study and are in a position to judge the achievement of the translator and the degree of independence of his text. Within the limits chosen for this study, most of the stylistic excellencies of the text have been seen to stem from the original. Paradoxically, the translator should be commended for the literalness of his wotk, since, at the cost of some awkwardness of language, it has enabled him to reproduce poetic effects, such as envelope patterns, which he did not himself understand. Yet it is clear that he occasionally departed from his text in minor points. A few instances have been suggested, and there are no doubt many more. They can usually be detected when they impair some effect intended by the poet, but improvements upon the original may simply be more difficult to trace. The translator has certainly tried to correct the metrics, though with debatable success. He also seems to have improved upon the original in the matter of wordplay. To answer the question implicit in the title of this paper, the translator's share in the final text (both positively and negatively speaking), though not great, is surprisingly more significant than could be expected from the painstaking literalness of much of the translation. NOTES 1. For the date, see C. Stevanovitch, La "Genese" du manuscrit Junius XI de la

2.

3.

4.

5.

Bodleienne, Edition, Traduction et Commentaire. Publications de !'Association des Medievistes Anglicistes de l'Enseignement Superieur, hors serie 1 (Paris: AMAES, Paris IV-Sorbonne, 1992), p. 153. For the date, see B.J. Timmer, The Later Genesis from MS Junius XI (Oxford: the Scrivener Press, 1948), p. 43; and for the nationality of the translator, Stevanovitch, La "Genese", p. 132. This fragment corresponds to II. 791-817 of Genesis B. See K. Zangemeister & W. Braune, Bruchstucke der altsiichsischen Bibeldichtung aus der Bibliotheca Palatina (Heidelberg: G. Koster, 1894). See E. Sievers, Der Heliand und die angelsiichsische Genesis (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1875), and, before him, J.J. Conybeare, Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry (London: Harding & Lepard, 1826). Timmer, The Later Genesis, pp. 25-39.

144

THE OLD ENGLISH GENESIS B 6. For example P. Bethel, "Notes on the Incidence and Type of Anacrusis in Genesis B: Some Similarities to and Differences from Anacrusis Elsewhere in Old English and in Old Saxon", Parergon NS 2 (1984), 1-24; D.J.G. Lewis, "The Metre of Genesis B", Anglo-Saxon England 16 (1987), 67-125; P.J. Lucas, "Some Aspects of Genesis Bas Old English Verse", Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 88 C (1988), 143-78. 7. Some critics have argued that the lines of Genesis B are long even by Old Saxon standards, but it cannot be denied that they sound more out of place in Old English. 8. The clause, "quao Adam", may have been translated by I. 790 ("adam gemrelde I and to euan sprrec") rather than suppressed altogether. 9. See A. Crepin, "Poetique vieil-anglaise: designations du Dieu chretien", These de lettres (Paris, 1970), for exhaustive study of this question. 10. The indentation separates the different parts of the envelope, and the capitals indicate the repetitions. 11. The notion of envelope pattern is due to A.C. Bartlett, The Larger Rhetorical Patterns in Anglo-Saxon Poetry, Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature 122 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1935). 12. The Old Saxon fragment can help us in no way, since it happens to contain no envelope patterns. 13. Here and in the following quotations the items in large capitals are repetitions of words, those in small capitals are repetitions of ideas. 14. See P. Salmon, "The Site of Lucifer's Throne", Anglia 81 (1963), 118-23, and T.D. Hill, "Some Remarks on 'The Site of Lucifer's Throne"', Anglia 87 (1969), 303-11. 15. See R. Frank, "Some Uses of Paronomasia in Old English Scriptural Verse", Speculum 41 (1972), 207-26; U. Schwab, "Ansatze zu einer Interpretation der altsachsischen Genesisdichtung II", Annali dell 'Istituto Universitario Orientate di Napoli, Filologia Germanica 18 (1975), 7-88 (pp. 17-25); Stevanovitch, La "Genese", vol. II "Commentaire". 16. U. Schwab, "Ansatze II", pp. 18-9, thinks that the paronomasia associating "good" and "God" was not intended by the Old Saxon poet, since the Old Saxon text has the spelling guod for god (with long vowel) "good"; or, alternatively, that the word may have been spelt with an o in the original dialect of the poem. This is an unnecessary inference, since the uo spelling reflects a phonetic difference which remains even when o is used. That is no obstacle to paronomasia, which more often depends on similarity than on absolute identity. 17. See E.H. Sehrt, Vollstiindiges Worterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsiichsischen Genesis (Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1925). 18. J. Bosworth & T.N. Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1898). 19. See Stevanovitch, La "Genese", pp. 106-20, on the use of accents in the manuscript. 20. Schwab, "Ansatze II", p. 23. 21. Schwab, "Ansatze II", p. 22. 22. That is to say, II. 461, 493, 518, 638, 655, 677, 723.

145

La coherence discursive et le temoignage des traductions: le cas de toutefois, cependa nt et neanmoins

MICHELE GoYENS

SUMMARY Cohesion in a French text can be obtained by different means, one of which is the use of a connective. In this study, we focus on the evolution of the expression of concession, and especially on the French connectives toutefois, cependant and neanmoins. Our analysis is empirical: we collect our material from a modern French translation of a Latin text - a source-text which had also been translated into Old French in 1282 - in order to analyse how the same relationship, expressed in Modem French by those three connectives, were rendered respectively in Latin and Old French. This method has several advantages: systematic comparison between the three connectives in the Modern French translation and their correspondents in the Latin source-text and the Old French version shows new elements not only concerning the use of concessive markers in Old French, but also regarding their use in Modern French. Moreover, it reveals interesting linguistic facts, like implicit concessive relations in the Latin text rendered explicitly in both the French translations.

*

*

* 146

*

*

TOUTEFOIS, CEPENDANT ET NEANMOINS

INTRODUCTION La coherence discursive d'un texte en fram;ais modeme est assuree par divers facteurs, notamment la repetition de certains elements, la progression thematique, la non-contradiction entre des elements de contenu et la relation entre les faits denotes dans le texte. Les connecteurs jouent un role primordial dans le discours, puisque ce sont eux qui marquent les liens entre les differents elements de la phrase, du paragraphe ou du texte entier. Parmi ceux-ci, certains, comme les connecteurs d'eIUlmeration ou les marqueurs d'integration lineaire, ne sont pas strictement necessaires pour exprimer la relation visee: en effet, les connecteurs d'enumeration permettent, dans un enonce, d'integrer de fae J:>ou here J:>yn holy uader", and in his poem "l>ou wommon boute uere" he devotes the first three stanzas to the exploration of this and other paradoxes typical of Mary, called "Dame, suster and moder". It is interesting to note that, although he was a preacher, and was writing an original vernacular poem, Herebert reveals himself more intellectually minded than Bishop Sheppey. This fact should make modern readers alert to the danger of making too easy generalisations, derived either from the situation (here preaching) or from the language (here English, supposed more "simple" than Latin). On Herebert's love of paradox see R. Woolf, The English Religious Lyric in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 131-4. 18. Index no. 2789. Text in Brown XV, no. 27, p. 49. 19. Brown XV, p. 49. In the phrase "lux, vita et laus'', "laus" is probably a scribal error for "salus", which appears confirmed by the English "heele" of 1.4. A parallel comment on the "alleluia" in The Myroure of oure Ladye confirms the suspicion that "laus" is an error for "salus" in the present quotation: see The Myroure of oure Ladye, ed. J.H. Blunt, EETS ES 19 (London: N. Triibner & Co., 1873), p. 83. 20. Minor Poems of John Lydgate, pp. 293-4. 21. See Pezzini, "Translation as Interpretation and Commentary" (n. 4 above). See also comments by Denis Renevey (pp. 265-6 below). 22. See The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, ed. M. Downey (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993), sv "Mary", p. 637: "Her mercy was often contrasted with Christ's harsh justice. She became a mediator between sinful humankind and a distant and sometimes vengeful Christ". Another version of Regina Caeli (Index no. 2802, in Brown XV, no. 29, pp. 52-3) follows Lydgate's procedure in turning each line into a stanza, while at the same time keeping the expansion within a sound theological framework; a fourth version (Index no. 2800, in Brown XV, no. 28, pp. 49-52) extends to seven stanzas using a highly aureate diction, but the connection it maintains with the original, except in the first stanza, is very thin. 23. Latin text of Ave Regina caelorum in H.A. Daniel, Thesaurus Hymnologicus, vol. (Leipzig 1855, repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1973), 11:319. 24. Index nos. 1032, 1056 (Lydgate), 2610. 25. Minor Poems of John Lydgate, pp. 291-2. The main emphasis of the poem is on Mary's beauty and glory, and in this sense we may say that what is translated is the "tone" of the original, as evinced in such phrases as "virgo gloriosa", "super omnes speciosa", and "valde decora". 26. D. Pearsall, Old English and Middle English Literature (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977), pp. 234-5. 27. Index nos. 1032 and 2610, in Brown XV, nos. 23-4, pp. 41-5.

259

PEZZINI 28. Index no. 1039, in Brown XV, no. 25, pp. 45-7. On MS Bodley 423 see Aelred of Rievaulx 's De Institutione Inclusarum, eds. Ayto and Barratt, pp. xix-xxiv. 29. Index no. 1073, in Brown XV, no. 26, pp. 47-8. On the manuscript see J. Hogg, An Illustrated Yorkshire Carthusian Miscellany. British Library Add. MS 37049, Vol. 3: The Illustrations, Analecta Cartusiana 95:3 (Salzburg: Institut fiir Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 1981). Vols 1 and 2 containing the text have not yet appeared. 30. See J. Leclercq, L 'amour des letters et le desir de Dieu (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1957), esp. chapter iv "La devotion au ciel", pp. 55-69. 31. Latin text of Ave maris stella in G.M. Dreves - S.C. Blume, Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi (Leipzig: O.R. Reisland, 1888), 11:40, and in Medieval Latin Verse ed. Raby, pp. 94-5. A long commentary is in B. Plaine, "Hymni marialis 'A.m.s.' explanatio", in Studien und Mittheilungen aus der Benediktiner Orden 14 (1893), 244-55. 32. Index no. 1054, in Reimer, Works of Herebert, pp. 120-1. 33. Index no. 3887, in Brown XIV, no. 41, pp. 55-6, II. 1-16. 34. Index no. 1082, in Brown XIV, no. 45, pp. 58-9. 35. On this manuscript see R.H. Robbins, Secular Lyrics of the XIVth and XVth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), pp. xxvi-xxvii, and H. Gneuss, Hymnar und Hymnen im Englischen Mittelalter (Tiibingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1968), p. 218 and other references there quoted. The poem is Index no. 454, in Brown XV, no. 18, p. 35. 36. Index no. 1079, in Brown XV, no. 19, pp. 35-6. 37. Woolf, English Religious Lyric, pp. 119-21. 38. See Bernard of Clairvaux: "In fine autem versus 'Et nomen', inquit, 'Virginis Maria'. Loquamur pauca et super hoc nomine, quod interpretatum 'Maris stella' dicitur, et Matri Virgini valde convenienter aptatur. Ipsa namque aptissime sideri comparatur, quia sicut sine sui corruptione sidus emittit radium, sic absque sui laesione Virgo parturit Fili um .... " [At the end of the verse he says: 'The virgin's name was Mary'. Let us say a few things on this name, which rightly interpreted means 'star of the sea'. This name is most conveniently given to a mother-virgin. In fact she is very aptly compared to a star, since as a star emits a beam without being corrupted, so the Virgin bore her son without any lesion]. In Laudibus Virginis Matris, Homilia II, no. 17, in Bernard, Opera, V:34-5. On Marian monastic theology in general see also another famous writer, Amedee de Lausanne, Huit homelies maria/es, eds G. Bavaud, J. Deshusses and A. Dumas, Sources Chretiennes no. 72 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1960). 39. See K. Brunner, "Kirchenlieder aus dem 15. Jahrhundert", Anglia 61 (1943), 144-5. 40. Index no. 1081, in Vernon MS, pp. 735-40. 41. Latin text in Analecta Hymnica 11:38, and in Medieval Latin Verse ed. Raby, no. 59, pp. 79-80. 42. Index nos. 1832 and 3887, in Brown XIV nos 38 and 41 (II. 16-24), pp. 53-6.

260

TRANSLATIONS OF MARIAN HYMNS AND ANTIPHONS

APPENDIX: Latin texts analysed in the paper 1. ANTIPHONS Alma Redemptoris mater Alma Redemptoris mater, quae pervia caeli porta manes, et stella maris, succurre cadenti, surgere qui curat populo: tu quae genuisti, natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem, Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore sum ens illud Ave, peccatorum miserere. Ave, Regina caelorum Ave, Regina caelorum, ave, Domina angelorum, salve, radix, salve, porta, ex qua mundo Jux est orta. Gaude, Virgo gloriosa, super omnes speciosa; vale, o valde decora, et pro nobis Christum exora. Regina caeli Regina caeli laetare, alleluia, quia quern meruisti portare, alleluia, resurrexit, sicut dixit, alleluia: ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia. Salve Regina Salve, Regina, mater misericordiae; vita, dulcedo et spes nostra, salve. Ad te clamamus, exsules filii Evae. Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac lacrimarum valle. Eia ergo, advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte. Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui, nobis post hoc exsilium ostende. 0 clemens, o pia, o dulcis Virgo Maria.

261

PEZZINI 2.HYMNS Ave maris stella Ave, maris stella, Dei mater alma, atque semper virgo, felix caeli porta. Sum ens illud Ave Gabrielis ore, funda nos in pace mutans nomen Evae. Solve vincla reis, profer lumen caecis, mala nostra pelle, bona cuncta posce. Monstra te esse matrem, sumat per te precem, qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus. Virgo singularis, inter omnes mitis, nos culpis solutos mites fac et castos. Vitam praesta puram, iter para tutum, ut videntes Iesum semper collaetemur. Sit laus Deo Patri, summum Christo decus, Spiritui Sancto honor, tribus unus.

262

TRANSLATIONS OF MARIAN HYMNS AND ANTIPHONS Quern terra, pontus, aethera Quern terra, pontus, aethera colunt, adorant, praedicant, trinam regentem machinam claustrum Mariae baiulat. Cui luna, sol et omnia deserviunt per tempora, perfusa caeli gratia gestant puellae viscera. Mirantur ergo saecula, quod angelus fert semina, quod aure virgo concipit et corde credens parturit. Beata mater munere, cuius supernus artifex mundum pugillo continens ventris sub area clausus est. Benedicta caeli nuntio, fecunda Sancto Spiritu, desideratus gentibus cuius per alvum fusus est. 0 gloriosa femina, excelsa super sidera, qui te creavit provide lactas sacrato ubere. Quod Eva tristis abstulit, tu reddis almo germine, intrent ut astra tlebiles, caeli fenestra facta es. Tu regis alti ianua et porta lucis fulgida; vitam datam per virginem, gentes redemptae, plaudite.

263

Anglo-Norman and Middle English Translations and Adaptations of the Hymn Dulcis Iesu Memoria DENIS RENEVEY

SUMMARY

L'hymne latin Jesu Dulcis Memoria a subi d'importantes modifications de la part de ses traducteurs et adaptateurs. Dans sa version originelle, cet hymne decrit avec precision le voyage mystique et resume tres bien la spiritualite cistercienne. Les differentes traductions et adaptations, en moyen-fran9ais, anglo-normand et moyen-anglais, repondent a des besoins nouveaux en matiere de piete personnelle et de liturgie, et temoignent d'une evolution du sentiment religieux ala fin du Moyen Age. Le lien entre cet hymne et le developpement de la devotion au Norn de Jesus a ete souvent souligne, ce qui a contribue a conditionner !'interpretation des contextes dans lesquels il apparait sous une forme ou une autre. L'etude d'autres adaptations et reemplois de l'hymne originel permet de reexaminer la question.

*

*

*

*

264

*

*

TRANSLATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS OF DULCIS IESU MEMORIA

Hope Emily Allen, the American scholar acclaimed for her work on the Yorkshire hermit Richard Rolle, regarded the Latin hymn Dulcis !esu Memoria as an important work in the development of the mystical tradition in medieval England. In "The Mystical Lyrics of the Manuel des Pechiez", published in 1918, she argues for the continuity of the medieval mystical tradition from Anselm to Rolle and his contemporaries by pointing to elements of the hymn inserted into the Anglo-Norman lyrics which conclude the Manuel. 1 One of the Anglo-Norman lyrics, given the title Dulcis Jhesu Memoria in London, British Library MS Harley 273, offers in its first thirty lines a close paraphrase of the first five quatrains of the Latin hymn. 2 Also, two of the Middle English lyrics in London, British Library MS Harley 2253 - one of them bearing the title of the hymn - are considered by Allen to be imitations of the original. 3 Her case study makes abundant use of the echoes, imitations and adaptations of Dulcis Jesu Memoria which pervade both her Anglo-Norman and Middle English material. She considers the hymn as an essential part of the cult of the Holy Name and, in a brief statement promising a thorough study on that subject, she makes serious claims for its influence: ... this hymn ... became immensely popular and influential in England, and was probably very active in setting the type of mysticism which was developed during the mystical movement of the fourteenth century .4

Allen only had at her disposal the Mabillon edition of the hymn which, apart from offering a corrupt version enlarged by several stanzas, presents the hymn as written by St. Bernard with the misleading title, Jubilus Rhythmicus, De Nomine Jesu. 5 Although Allen briefly questions the ascription to Bernard of Clairvaux, she follows the scholarly tradition which has regarded the hymn only in the context of the cult of, and devotions to, the Holy Name. In the light of more recent scholarship, this paper will study some translations, imitations and adaptations of the hymn in Middle French, Anglo-Norman and Middle English, many of them unknown to Allen The textual transmission of the hymn through the late medieval period and the different vernaculars is more complex and richer than Allen thought. In the course of this paper, I consider five specific forms of translation of the hymn. Each of them is defined in relation to the "pure" version presented below by Wilmart. The various versions of the hymn, in Latin and in the vernaculars, are part of an hermeneutic process. 6 The first form of translation is the gloss translation, which partners the original like an interlinear gloss. The second form of translation, the independent translation, parts company with the original version and presents itself as an authoritative version. At this level of translation, however, the hermeneutic process is restrained to a faithful

265

RENE VEY

rendering of the original in the vernacular. The third, and commonest form, the interpolated translation, keeps elements of the original version in a new context of verses or stanzas not necessarily inspired by the original. The fourth form of translation I call the veiled translation: the translating act is hardly visible, and borrowings from the original appear in a new textual context which neglects the original narrative structure. Finally, the fifth form of translation is the liturgical translation, in which a few stanzas are borrowed to make up the hymns for the hours of the office to the Name of Jesus. Each form of translation is revealing of the rich history of the transmission of this piece as well as of differences in the religious receptivity and mentality of the different audiences for whom they were first produced. By tracing in some detail the developments of this specific text, this paper aims to make a contribution to the broader issue of the history of the religious mentality of the late Middle Ages. In his edition of the hymn published in 1944, Andre Wilmart studied eightyeight manuscripts which led him to define a primitive or pure version of the hymn. 7 There is space here only for a brief summary of some of his conclusions most relevant to the topic of this paper. Wilmart defines an original anonymous poem of forty-two stanzas. The Latin versions of the hymn, however, confirm its complex transmission in the vernaculars by offering diverse versions of the hymn, some of them deserving special mention. In Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Bodley 57, an English manuscript of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, the poem is doubled in size by the accompaniment for each verse of a rhythmic gloss. Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud Misc. 668, an English manuscript from the twelfth or early thirteenth century, presents the original poem with a musical accompaniment in a collection of the works of Aelred of Rievaulx. Another manuscript of the thirteenth century, Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Digby 149, has the forty-two stanzas with an interlinear French translation The English manuscript tradition offers both the earliest examples of the hymn and the greatest number of original versions. Wilmart believes the hymn to have been composed in a twelfth-century Yorkshire Cistercian milieu. It is a work moulded by the

Bernardine spiritual tradition, although other voices, those of the Victorines or William of St. Thierry for example, may also have shaped it. St. 18 reproduces a passage from Bernard's sermon fifteen on the Oleum Effesum Nomen Tuum verse (Cantic. 1.2)8 The repetition of the name of Jesus, thirty-five times in the 9 forty-two stanzas, may have been inspired by the same sermon. The invocation of the name of Jesus in the West appears however earlier, in Anselm's 10 Meditatio ad concitandum timorem:

266

TRANSLATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS OF DULCIS JESU MEMORIA Invoca importune quern superbe provocasti. IESU, IESU, propter hoc nomen tuum fac mihi secundum hoc nomen tuum. IESU, IESU, obliviscere superbum provocantem, respice miserum invocantem. Nomen dulce, nomen delectabile, nomen confortans peccatorem et beatae spei! 11 [Without ceasing invoke him whom you have provoked by pride. Jesus, Jesus, for your name's sake, deal with me according to your name. Jesus, Jesus, forget the pride which provoked you, see only the wretchedness that invokes you. Dear name, name of delight, name of comfort to the sinner, name of blessed hope.] 12

One of the most common emendations in the manuscript tradition, the shift from Dulcis lesu to Jesu Dulcis, seems to follow the tradition which stresses the invocatory quality of the hymn, already present in the Anselrnian passage, and which became an essential component of the devotion to the Holy Name in the later medieval period. 13 In the light of the meaning of the term iubilus a state of joy caused by the repetition of a name - the title of the hymn in the Mabillon edition, Jubilus Rhythmicus, De Nomine Jesu, attests to its appropriation in the context of the Holy Name. This paper considers the role the vernaculars had in making the hymn a support and element of the devotion to the Name of Jesus. Indeed, the original version stands more as an admirably concise account of the mystical journey as expounded by the medieval Cistercian tradition. 14 The meditation describes the endeavours of the soul to gain the favours of Jesus. The Passion incidents, although not depicted in the hymn - a point worth remembering when we consider the accretions to the hymn - are shown to be evidence of the love of Jesus for the soul. They are therefore the catalysts of the desire for the mystical union. The first five stanzas of the hymn describe the calls of the soul for Jesus and the inner state which precedes the awakening to such a desire. The first verse of the first stanz.a stresses the introspective nature of the whole exercise and assumes the Passion to be part and parcel of the spiritual horizon of the meditative. Experience, here felicitously blended into the inexpressibility topos, has a critical function in the mystical system couched in the hymn: Nee lingua potest dicere Nee littera exprimere Expertus novit tenere Quid sit Iesum diligere. (st. 5) [No language can tell, nor letter express - the one who has experienced it understands - what it is to love Jesus tenderly.]

267

RENE VEY

Spiritual love and its effects on the soul cannot be cognitively passed on to the reader. Rather, the joy and desire which they provoke may be recorded in words and affectively awaken the reader. The hymn therefore is devoid of didactic devices and appeals to readers who are already advanced on the path of spiritual love. From st. 6 onwards, the narrative voice comfortably endorses the account of the relationship which the "I" voice has established with Jesus. A brief evocation of the places where some of the Passion incidents took place testifies to the importance of the humanity of Jesus in this quest: Cum Maria diluculo Iesum queram in tumulo; Cordis clamore querulo, Mente queram, non oculo. Turnham perfundam fletibus Locum replens gemitibus; Iesu provoluar pedibus, Strictis herens amplexibus. (sts. 7-8) [With Mary I will seek Jesus in the sepulchre at dawn; I will lament with the cry of the heart, I will seek with the soul, not the eye. I will moisten the sepulchre with tears, filling the place with wailing; I will hasten to the feet of Jesus, clinging closely to his embrace.]

As in st. 5, the narrative voice again addresses part of the audience as experti (st. 12), thus assuming among its readership various levels of expertise in the spiritual life. The inexpressibility topos is also one of the recurring themes of the hymn; it appears again in st. 14. Although the hymn is quite adaptable in the arrangement of its stamas, it is built upon a subtle narrative structure, not always recognised by its later adapters and translators. Indeed, the initial invitations, from sts 6-18, precede a second set, from sts 19-25, which not only invite Jesus to visit the soul, but become supplications and invocations, and thus demonstrate the judicious progression in the strength of the demands made by the narrative voice. Sts 26-7 constitute the spiritual climax of the narrative. The invitations, calls and invocations have been positively answered: the mystical union - however briefly - is experienced and described from the viewpoint of the soul: lam quod quesivi video Quod concupii teneo; Amore Iesu langueo Et corde totus ardeo.

268

TRANSLATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS OF DULCIS IESU A1EMORIA Hie amor ardet dulciter Dulcescit mirabiliter, Sapit delectabiliter, Delectat et feliciter. (sts 26-7) [I see now what I have sought, I hold what I have desired; I languish for the love of Jesus and I burn completely in my heart. This love bums agreeably, becomes sweet wonderfully, savours delightfully, and pleases happily.]

The fourth part of the hymn concentrates on defining and characterising this spiritual love and also shows the soul languishing for it. Apart from a reference in st. 31 to Jesus as "flos matris virginis", the references to Jesus are remarkably abstract. Superlatives add to this depiction of Jesus as an ineffable being. The remaining stanzas (sts 37-41) describe the heavenly kingdom as Christ's true abode and the angels as the natural members of his court. By reason of the ineffability of the person of Jesus, the narrative voice in the last stanza invites the audience to the practice of individual and liturgical devotions. This short summary does not give full credit to the poetic quality of some of the stanzas. However, I hope to have highlighted the logical continuity of the hymn in terms of its mystical aspirations. It is a hymn which makes the person of Jesus a fundamental element of the mystical quest. Yet, to claim that it is a hymn on, and an invocation of, the Name of Jesus, is erroneous. The literal mention of the name which we find in Anselm (" ... nomen duke, nomen delectabile, nomen confortans peccatorem ... ")and Bernard's fifteenth sermon on the Oleum Effusum is notable by its absence in this work. Some of the translations, adaptations and imitations of the hymn in AngloNorman and Middle English demonstrate the output of the hermeneutic process coding the medieval text to satisfy new requirements, according to new devotional trends. 15 Whether some of the interpolations were present in unrecorded and now destroyed Latin versions is a question that cannot be addressed. However, two Anglo-Norman gloss translations point to some of the difficulties raised by the disappearance of some versions of the hymn. The interlinear Anglo-Norman translation of Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Digby 149 dates, like the mystical lyrics of the Manuel des Feches, from the thirteenth century. 16 This translation, possibly not dependent on its companion Latin version, otherwise follows and respects the logical progress of the mystical journey as described in the original. Occasionally however, the Anglo-Norman version, written in the same hand as the Latin version, departs drastically from the Latin The last three lines of st. 1 are a good case in point. Are they an adaptation of the original, or rather, as Wilma.rt suggests, the literal translation of another Latin version?

269

RENEVEY Dulcis Iesu memoria Dans uera cordi gaudia Sed super me! et omnia Eius dulcis presentia. (ll. 1-4) [Sweet the remembrance of Jesus, giving true joy to the heart. And his presence sweet beyond honey and all other things.] Dulce memorie de lhesu Crist qui eel et tere et tut ben fist nest altre ren en tut le munde que veire ioie a home dunt. (II. 1-4) [Sweet remembrance of Jesus Christ who created heaven and earth so weli. There is nothing else in the whole world which gives true joy to man.]

Another Anglo-Nonnan interlinear gloss translation of Dulcis Jesu Memoria, in London, British Library MS Harley 505, written in a fourteenth-century hand, also presents some points of departure from the original. 17 St. 42 offers an interesting insight into the creative role used in the translation process: lam prosequamur laudibus Iesum, hymnis et precibus, Ut nos donet celestibus Cum ipso frui sedibus. [Now let us follow Jesus with praises, hymns and prayers, so that it will be granted to us to enjoy with him the heavenly thrones.] Siw[u]m ihesu sueuement E prium Ii piteusement Qe Ii nous doint en son couent E Ii uer pardurablement. Amen. (II. 165-8) [Let us follow Jesus delightfully and pray him mercifully that he will give himself to us in his gathering so that we can see him continually.]

Elisabeth Mead argues also for a translation made from another Latin text. In view of the lack of evidence for those explanations, alternative possibilities have to be considered. 18 The manuscripts in which those two versions are found contain almost exclusively Latin works. The interlinear Anglo-Nonnan translations do not displace the originals in order to satisfy a readership

270

TRANSLATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS OF DULCIS IESU MEMORIA

unfamiliar with the Latin language. What, then, is the role of those translations in essentially Latin codices? It seems that in these cases the translations fulfil a primitive and simple hermeneutic function. The slight variations in the translations are part of the hermeneutic process, providing a new door of access to the Latin version, without threatening to displace it. By contrast, the Middle French translation of Poitiers MS 95, a codex containing vernacular devotional works, departs significantly from all the Latin versions registered by Wilmart. 19 The numerous emendations and the additions of two stanzas seem therefore to be the work of the translator. We have here a good example of appropriation and displacement of the original. The translation of the sentencia concentrates on adapting the original in the vernacular for an audience probably unable to decipher the Latin language. Stanza one addresses directly Jesus with the second singular pronoun and creates a sense of immediacy:

Doulce memoire de Ihesus Tant resiouys le cuer piteux Mais ii nest riens plus doulcereux Que te contempler glorieux. (II. 1-4) [The sweet remembrance of Jesus rejoices so much the merciful heart. But there is nothing sweeter than to contemplate you in your glory.]

The additional stanzas (i.e. 32 and 40) serve a similar purpose: He vien vien tres doulx roy des cieulx Mon