The Old English Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn 1843842033, 9781843842033

Citation preview

spine 19.25mm A 23 Sep 09

Dr DANIEL ANLEZARK teaches in the Department of English at the University of Sydney.

www.boydell.co.uk www.boydellandbrewer.com

an imprint of BOYDELL & BREWER Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge IP12 3DF (GB) and 668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY 14620-2731 (US)

THE  OLD ENGLISH DIALOGUES • Anlezark (ed. and tr.) OF  SOLOMON  AND  SATURN

The dialogues of Solomon and Saturn, found in MSS Corpus Christi College Cambridge 422 and 41, are some of the most complex Old English texts to survive. The first two dialogues, in verse and prose, present the pagan god Saturn in human form interrogating King Solomon about the mysterious powers of the Pater Noster, while in a second poem the two discuss in engimatic terms a range of topics, from the power of books to the limits of free will. This new full edition – the first to appear for some 150 years – presents a parallel text and translation, accompanied by notes and commentary. The volume also has a full introduction, examining the evidence pointing to the influence of Irish continental learning on the dialogues’ style and content;  arguing that the circle which produced the dialogues was located at Glastonbury in the early tenth century and included the young Dunstan, future Archbishop of Canterbury;  and locating the texts in the context of the learned riddling tradition, and philosophical debates current in the ninth and tenth centuries.

Anglo-Saxon Texts 7

THE OLD ENGLISH DIALOGUES OF SOLOMON AND SATURN Edited and translated by Daniel Anlezark

Anglo-Saxon Texts 7

THE OLD ENGLISH DIALOGUES OF SOLOMON AND SATURN

The dialogues of Solomon and Saturn, found in MSS Corpus Christi College Cambridge 422 and 41, are two of the most complex Old English texts to survive. The first two dialogues, in verse and prose, present the pagan god Saturn in human form interrogating King Solomon about the mysterious powers of the Pater Noster, while in a second poem the two discuss in enigmatic terms a range of topics, from the power of books to the limits of free will. This new edition – the first full one to appear for some 150 years – presents a parallel text and translation, accompanied by notes and commentary. The volume also includes a full introduction, examining the evidence pointing to the influence of Irish continental learning on the dialogues’ style and content; arguing that the circle which produced the dialogues was located at Glastonbury in the early tenth century, and included the young Dunstan, future archbishop of Canterbury; and locating the texts in the context of the learned riddling tradition, and philosophical debates current in the ninth and tenth centuries. Dr Daniel Anlezark teaches in the Department of English at the University of Sydney.

Anglo-Saxon Texts issn 1463–6948

Editorial Board MICHAEL LAPIDGE GABRIELLA CORONA MECHTHILD GRETSCH RICHARD MARSDEN ANDY ORCHARD

Anglo-Saxon Texts is a series of scholarly editions (with parallel translations) of important texts from Anglo-Saxon England, whether written in Latin or in Old English. The series aims to offer critical texts with suitable apparatus and accurate modern English translations, together with informative general introductions and full historical and literary commentaries. 1. Wulfstan’s Canon Law Collection edited by J. E. Cross (†) and Andrew Hamer 2. The Old English Poem Judgement Day II: a Critical Edition with Editions of De die iudicii and the Hatton 113 Homily þe domes dæge edited by Graham D. Caie 3. Historia de Sancto Cuthberto: A History of Saint Cuthbert and a Record of his Patrimony edited by Ted Johnson South 4. Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric’s Latin-Old English Grammar edited by David W. Porter 5. Aelfric’s Life of Saint Basil the Great: Background and Context edited by Gabriella Corona 6. Aelfric’s De Temporibus Anni edited with a translation by Martin Blake

THE OLD ENGLISH DIALOGUES OF SOLOMON AND SATURN

Edited with a translation by Daniel Anlezark

D. S. BREWER

© Daniel Anlezark 2009 All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner First published 2009 D. S. Brewer, Cambridge ISBN 978 1 84384 203 3

D. S. Brewer is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc, 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This publication is printed on acid-free paper The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Typeset by Word and Page, Chester Printed in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Contents Preface

vii

Acknowledgements

x

Abbreviations

xi

Introduction 1.  The Manuscripts

1

2.  Language and Metre

6

3.  Genre, Context and Sources

12

4.  Structure and Relationships

41

5.  Date and Authorship

49

The Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn: Texts and Translation Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 Solomon and Saturn I

60

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422 Solomon and Saturn I

64

Solomon and Saturn Prose Pater Noster Dialogue

72

Solomon and Saturn Poetic Fragment

78

Solomon and Saturn II

78

Apparatus Criticus Commentary

96 99

Glossary

139

Bibliography

153

Index

165

Preface The dialogues of Solomon and Saturn edited here are among the most unusual texts which survive from the Anglo-Saxon period, either in Latin or Old English. The two poems, Solomon and Saturn I (SolSatI) and Solomon and Saturn II (SolSatII), and the Prose Pater Noster Dialogue (SolSatPNPr), evidently emerged from a common scholarly milieu which has left an imprint on their diction and style, with a shared interest in obscure and enigmatic expression, revealing a fascination with the relationship between the laws of nature and the nature of life. The three texts also present a common understanding of the spiritual life, a quotidian struggle with an apocalyptic dimension, a war against the devil and his angels to be consummated at Doomsday. It is difficult to determine how many authors are at work, or the degree to which authorship overlaps, though I believe SolSatII was written first. If the other texts were not by the same author, then it is clear that whoever came later followed where a master had led. The three texts are found in two manuscripts. The first part of SolSatI is found in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (B), of the mid-eleventh century, while all three texts (with a poetic fragment, SolSatFrag), are found in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422 (A), of the mid-tenth century. A separate trivia dialogue presenting Solomon and Saturn as interlocutors is found in Cotton Vitellius A. xv, of the mid-twelfth century; this is not edited here because it does not appear to have emerged from the same close circle which produced the other three texts, and has recently been edited.1 The survival of four separate dialogues between Solomon and Saturn (one partially in two versions), extant in manuscripts from across two centuries, might suggest a literary phenomenon in late Anglo-Saxon England. This richness, however, may depend on the accidents of survival, and it is difficult to believe such difficult texts ever had wide appeal. Indeed, the texts in both A and B have survived on the margins of more highly valued works – A as flyleaves for a missal, in B in the margins of the Old English Bede. There have been five independent editions of some or all of the Solomonic dialogues found in A and B. The Ælfric Society published John Mitchell Kemble’s The Dialogue of Salomon and Saturnus with an Historical Introduction in 1848, placing the dialogues among the first Old English texts (arranged in the order of A) to be edited according to the newly developing principles of philology.2 The 1 2

See Cross and Hill, Prose Solomon and Saturn. See O’Keeffe, ‘Editing and the Material Text’, p. 149 n. 9. Kemble’s edition of Solomon and Saturn was first published as the Society’s issue no. 13 in 1847; the three parts of the Anglo-Saxon Dialogues of Salomon and Saturn were issued in 1845, 1847, 1848. Kemble had earlier (around 1844) printed the work privately, Salomon and Saturn.

vii

Preface edition was the product of fifteen years of research into a range of esoteric dialogues, beside which the Old English texts were published. Kemble’s misleading translation of all three dialogues into modern English is the only complete one ever made.3 Kemble’s treatment of the Old English texts, with random emendation and idiosyncratic orthography, has long since made his text redundant. However, his interpretative framework has proved more enduring: ‘I assign a Northern origin to one portion of the story, while I admit the admixture of an Oriental element. I propose to show that this Northern portion is an echo from the days of German heathenism, and to restore Saturnus or Marcolfus the God to his place in the pagan Pantheon of our ancestors.’4 Elements of this paradigm have endured, though more recent scholarship has revealed no close influence of obscure Oriental legend, while the search for Germanic paganism in the texts has proved a dead end.5 Christian Grein’s edition ten years after Kemble’s was later revised by Bruno Assmann, whose 1898 edition of the poems appeared in Richard Wülker’s revision of the Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Poesie, providing a more accurate text, though in keeping with the practice of the time emending more often than is now considered acceptable.6 Robert Menner published his edition in 1941, providing the poems with full apparatus, commentary and glossary, but relegating SolSatPNPr (text only) to an appendix.7 Breaking with the previous practice of treating A as a base text, Menner printed separate, facing texts of SolSatI. In his 1942 edition of the poems (produced in co-operation with Menner) for the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, Elliott van Kirk Dobbie resumed the practice of treating A as the base text for SolSatI.8 Gilda Cilluffo’s 1981 edition (with Italian translation) of SolSatPNPr represents the only edition dedicated solely to this text.9 The history of editions of the dialogues since the late nineteenth century has served to uncouple the poems from the prose, so that the anthology of dialogues which appears in A has become almost invisible to scholars and students of Old English. The perception has been created of three independent texts, or of a poetic dialogue of two parts, with the prose remaining hidden.10 This edition is designed to present these texts to a modern audience in a way similar to A’s mode of delivering them to its tenth-century readers; the hope is that this will lead to further discussion of the texts themselves, their relationship to each other and their recepShippey, Wisdom and Learning, includes the Old English text of SolSatII, with facing-page translation into modern English. Wild, Salomon und Saturn, translates the poems into German; Faerber, Salomon et Saturne, presents the Old English texts of all four dialogues, with French translation. 4 Kemble, Dialogues, pp. 6–7; see O’Keeffe, ‘Editing and the Material Text’, p. 170. 5 See E. G. Stanley, Imagining the Anglo-Saxon Past. ‘The Search for Anglo-Saxon-Paganism’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon Trial by Jury’ (Cambridge, 2000). 6 C. W. M. Grein, ed., Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Poesie, 4 vols (Goettingen, 1857–64); Assmann, Die Handschrift von Exeter, pp. 58–82. 7 Menner, PD. 8 Dobbie, ASPR VI, pp. 38–48, 164–70. 9 Cilluffo, Salomone e Saturno; I thank Patrizia Lendinara for providing me with a copy of this edition. See also Cilluffo, ‘Il dialogo’. 10 O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 140. 3

viii

Preface tion in Anglo-Saxon England. My work as editor has been made easier in the latter stages of this project by the Parker-Web project.11 This project and others like it are changing the role of the editor of early medieval texts. The edition no longer serves the purpose of making materially available texts otherwise difficult to access. However, the fact that manuscripts can be seen at high resolution on a desktop does not make them ‘accessible’ to all readers. As editor I have tried to interpret what is now easily visible to the reader; in the Introduction and Commentary, I discuss some of the texts’ linguistic features, and a range of sources and analogues which locate them in a literary and intellectual moment of origin. The case of B is different from A, but similarly the editor no longer need be anxious over the fact that extracting one text from many in the margins will cause confusion. This edition attempts to bridge, rather than erase, the gap between the twenty-first-century reader and the tenth- and eleventh-century scribes.12 I have included both texts of SolSatI, whose varying texts demand separate editions.13 B’s text is printed first for reasons only of narrative logic, to cater for readers who would like to begin reading SolSatI at line 1. A’s texts are presented in their manuscript order, though I have separated them, giving them titles and independent lineation. Editors have created five different systems of lineation for the poems, and three for the prose; mine hopefully simplifies and clarifies these.14 The major break with the past is treating the problematic nine lines of verse on A, p. 13, as a fragment (SolSatFrag). I agree with Vincenti and Menner that these lines originally concluded SolSatII; however, this edition is designed to facilitate, rather than confuse, discussion, and the manuscript order has been retained. In the Introduction I offer a discussion of the literary milieu which I believe produced these dialogues, breaking with a scholarly tradition which has found them to be magical, superstitious and deliberately obscure. Work over the past four decades has gradually undermined a consensus dating from Kemble’s study and edition, and the great scholars whose names are found throughout my notes have shown that the author(s) were well read in the kinds of works generally known to have been available to the Anglo-Saxons. It is now well accepted that many of the idiosyncrasies of style and intellectual interest reflect the strong influence of Hiberno-Latin literature, symptomatic of a close contact between the circle which produced these texts and the world of Irish learning. I have developed this discussion, and left behind any interest in Solomon as master magician, which has been more the product of wishful thinking than of a close reading of the texts. I hope that I have not erred too far in another direction.

11

http://parkerweb.stanford.edu/; the project aims to have all the Parker Library’s medieval manuscripts freely available on the World Wide Web by the end of 2009; facsimiles of the dialogues in both manuscripts are included in Robinson and Stanley, Old English Verse Texts, no. 12. 12 See O’Keeffe, ‘Editing and the Material Text’, pp. 150–1. 13 O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 66. 14 This edition agrees with Menner, PD, for SolSatI and Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, for SolSatII (as far as 327).

ix

Acknowledgements A number of debts have been incurred in the preparation of this edition. Work on it began when I was Lecturer in English at Trinity College Dublin, continued while I held a post at the University of Durham, and has been completed at the University of Sydney. Colleagues in all three universities (and countries) have supported and encouraged this project in various ways. I would like to thank the Fellows of Corpus Christi College Cambridge for granting me access to the manuscripts of the Parker Library, and to Ms Gill Cannell for her ready assistance. Financial support for the preparation of this edition was given by the University of Sydney in the form of a School of Letters, Art and Media Writing Fellowship in Semester 1 of 2007. Publication of this edition has been helped by a generous grant from the Australian Academy of the Humanities. Various elements of the edition have appeared as conference papers over the past few years, and their presentation here has benefited greatly from the comments of colleagues. I especially would like to thank Tom Hill for his encouragement of the project, and Robert Carver for help with some awkward passages of Latin. Other debts of gratitude are acknowledged in the notes.

x

Abbreviations Full details of frequently cited references may be found in the bibliography. acc. accusative adj. adjective adverb adv. ASPR Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller, ed., An Anglo-Saxon DictionB-T ary (Oxford, 1882–98); Supplement by T. N. Toller (Oxford, 1921); reissued with revised and enlarged addenda by A. Campbell (Oxford, 1972). British Library BL CCCC Corpus Christi College Cambridge Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis CCCM Corpus Christianorum Series Latina CCSL Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae CollPsBedae Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum CSEL dative dat. DOE Dictionary of Old English: A to G Online, ed. A. Cameron, A. C. Amos, A. diP. Healey, et al. (Toronto, 2007). Early English Text Society EETS feminine fem. gen. genitive masculine masc. MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica neuter neut. nom. nominative OE Old English Original Series os The Poetical Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn, ed. R. J. PD Menner (New York and London, 1941). pl. plural PL Patrologia Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, 221 vols (Paris, 1844–64). singular sg. SolSatI Solomon and Saturn I SolSatII Solomon and Saturn II SolSatFrag Solomon and Saturn Poetic Fragment Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Prose SolSatPNPr Solomon and Saturn Prose SolSatPr Supplementary Series ss

xi

In memory of my father Sige hie onsendað  soðfæstra gehwam, hælo hyðe,  ðam ðe hie lufað. Solomon and Saturn II, lines 67–8

Introduction 1 The Manuscripts The Old English dialogues of Solomon and Saturn edited here survive in two manuscripts. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422, Part A (A) contains a dialogue between Solomon and Saturn on the Pater Noster in verse (SolSatI) and prose (SolSatPNPr), followed by a poetical dialogue on a range of subjects (SolSatII); at the head of p. 13 is a fragment of verse (SolSatFrag). Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (B) contains the first 95 lines of SolSatI. In A SolSatI begins on the badly damaged and mostly unreadable p. 1, continuing to p. 6, line 12, where without change of manuscript format, the dialogue continues in prose; this proceeds as far as the bottom of p. 12, where it terminates abruptly owing to the loss of a leaf. On the top of p. 13 (recto of the last leaf of the first quire) are seven lines of text in verse (nine edited lines), which are clearly the conclusion of a dialogue, though whether these were originally designed to conclude SolSatI or SolSatII has proved a subject of debate. Following these lines on p. 13 a second verse dialogue begins, continuing to p. 26, where it ends incomplete. In B the first part of SolSatI (as far as line 94a) is found written in the margins of pp. 196–8 of the Old English translation of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica. A (CCCC 422; Part A) CCCC 422 (Ker, no. 70; Gneuss nos. 110, 111) is comprised of two distinct parts.1 The larger of these is Part B, a missal; its calendar dates this part to c.1060.2 The two quires containing the dialogues making up Part A are in a unique hand, and apparently were used by a medieval binder as flyleaves for the missal.3 These leaves are now bound together at the front of CCCC 422, and their Parkerian pagination, pp. 1–26, points to rearrangement in the sixteenth century. The leaves of Part A are difficult to read in places, owing to rubbing and the application of reagents. Page 1, which was long an outside page, is barely legible, though Page’s examination of the leaf under ultraviolet light has confirmed that those parts of the text which 1 2

3

Ker, Catalogue; Gneuss, Handlist; James, Catalogue, II, pp. 315–22. Ker, Catalogue, no. 70; Part B (pp. 27–586) is mainly in a round hand, the table of years on fols 44–5 is for 1061–98. Pages 571–86 are a quire of later date (s. xii); see T. Graham, ‘The Old English Liturgical Directions in Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS 422’, Anglia 111 (1993), 439–46. See Ker, Catalogue, p. xliii.

1

Introduction can be seen substantially agree with B.4 A number of pages have been lost: a leaf is missing after p. 12 (at seofoðe, SolSatPNPr 120); the text on p. 14 has been erased, and a Latin form of excommunication written in the upper half during the twelfth century;5 a leaf is missing after p. 18 (at reafað, SolSatII 130a); a leaf is missing after p. 22 (at neahtes, SolSatII 220); the text ends imperfectly on p. 26 (at him to middes, SolSatII 327).6 The quires of Part A are arranged as follows:7 fols 13, paginated on rectos 1–26. Collation: 18 wants 7 after p. 12, 28 wants 3 after p. 18, and 6 after p. 22 (presumably conjugate leaves of a bifolium).8 The manuscript measures 190 x 130 mm, with a written space of c.160 x 95 mm; there are 23 long lines to a page (24 lines on pp. 7–13; p. 2 has 22 lines).9 The hair is outside all sheets, with ruling on hair sides, on more than one leaf at a time. The scribe uses two grades of punctuation: an inverted triangle of points, and a simple medial point. The punctuation technique varies across the texts. Triangles are never combined in SolSatI or SolSatPNPr, though multiple triangles are found in SolSatFrag and SolSatII. In SolSatI the triangle appears three times (38b, 160b, 165b) – two of these are in the last ten lines of the poem; SolSatI 38b is the only instance of the inverted triangle being used to mark the end of a speech in this poem. In SolSatPNPr the use of the triangle to mark speeches and syntactic units is standard, and it is used frequently as a syntactic mark within Solomon’s long speeches. In SolSatII the inverted triangle (sometimes multiplex) is used almost exclusively to mark the end of speeches, but also at 202 and 223 before capitals. Two other instances of multiple triangles are found in the first few lines of SolSatII: after 4b, two triangles with virgule are written before the first use of the name Saloman (justified to the left margin); at the end of line 11 before the name Saulus (coincidentally in the left margin, and accidentally (perhaps) treated as the name of a speaker). In SolSatII before a new speaker the triangles are generally followed by a (variable) number of virgules. Virgules appear in combination with a single triangle in SolSatPNPr (three times on p. 7; once on p. 8), and once after two triangles at the end of SolSatFrag; virgules are never used in SolSatI.10 The use of the medial point is more conventional, marking individual letters, numerals and runes, or terminating a row of capitals or a line of writing. In SolSatPNPr the O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 67–8; Page, ‘A Note on the Text’, pp. 36–9; Menner, PD, pp. 2 n. 5, 80–1, 105. 5 See Ker, Catalogue, p. 120; the erasure of the Old English text and the writing of the formula on p. 14 (the last page of Quire 1) suggests that at the time this page was more obviously placed for such reuse; an alphabetical pen trial in upper margin of manuscript A, p. 15 (s. xi med.?), would seem to corroborate this; the formula is edited by Liebermann, Gezetze, I, p. 435. 6 See Dobbie, ASPR VI, p. lv; Vincenti, Die altenglischen Dialoge, pp. 71, 75; pp. i–xv, 1–51, of Vincenti’s study were also published as his Munich inaugural dissertation, Drei altenglischen Dialoge; the second part of Vincenti’s edition, with text, never appeared. 7 Ker, Catalogue, p. 120. 8 O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 68 n. 62; Menner, PD, pp. 1–2. 9 On p. 13 the capitals (SolSatI 1) take up two lines; cf. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 68 n. 63. 10 O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 74 n. 76; in addition to its use to end speeches and before the names of the contestants, the triangle occurs in SolSatII at: 25b (before a small capital ‘W’); 202b (before a small capital ‘H’); 223b (before a small capital ‘ð’ in the margin); 1a (at the end of a row of capitals). 4

2

1. The Manuscripts medial point is used infrequently, and sometimes appears before capitals. The rare use of points makes the two ‘grammatical’ uses in SolSatII surprising; at 47b to separate an independent clause from a subordinate clause and at 141a before a small capital in a series.11 In all texts the Tironian ‘et’ is used throughout, though in SolSatPNPr ‘Ond’ is written out after inverted triangles. All the texts mark the abbreviation of a final nasal with horizontal mark over the penultimate letter, and all abbreviate ðonne as ðon. There is an almost exclusive preference for ‘ð’ over ‘þ’, with the latter found only twice (SolSatPNPr 20, 50); ðæt is never abbreviated. There is a difference in the way SolSatI and SolSatPNPr abbreviate ‘Pater Noster’. In SolSatI ‘Pater’ is abbreviated as ‘pat’ (39b, 167a), while ‘noster’ is not abbreviated. In SolSatPNPr ‘Pater Noster’ is found: written out in full at 2; abbreviated as in SolSatI once, at 20; abbreviated as ‘pat nr ’ (i.e. with abbreviation marks) in all other cases (9, 11, 13, etc).12 SolSatI begins with a large capital ‘S’ (approximately three lines high) written in the left margin, followed by a line of capitals one line high. This arrangement matches the scribe’s treatment of the opening line of SolSatII (p. 13, line 8). After this opening, however, scribal practice is not consistent. In SolSatI and SolSatPNPr the names are treated similarly, and begin with initial capitals. In both, if a name happens to appear at the beginning of a line of writing, the scribe writes a capital ‘S’ in the margin (in SolSatPNPr this practice is extended to other capitals); however, in SolSatII the rubrics (‘SALOMON CWÆÐ’, etc.) are all justified into the left margin, often at the cost of space. Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe suggests the shift is the scribe’s invention in SolSatII, rather than reflecting a difference of practice in his exemplar, though the evidence could support either conclusion.13 In SolSatI the medial point is used to separate independent clauses, whether or not a small capital follows.14 The hair-facing-flesh arrangement of the sheets, the ruling of more than one leaf at a time and the use of the same ink as the main text for writing initials all suggest practices from the first half of the tenth century.15 The consistent accenting of prepositional on (found throughout) and the marking of a major pause with a triangle of dots are two practices characteristic of Hand 3 of the Parker Chronicle (dated c.955). The hand was dated by Ker to s. x med.; David Dumville classifies the script of A as English Square Minuscule Phase II, which he would date ‘in principle to the 930s’.16 Gneuss (no. 110) suggests variously s. x1, x2/4 or x med. The copying of A is datable to the period c.930 x 950. The Sherborne usage of the missal (CCCC 422, Part B) provides limited evidence for the provenance of Part A, made at least a century earlier.17 Sherborne 11

12 13 14 15 16 17

O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 71. The raw data might suggest a difference in an immediate or remote exemplar, though the two examples found in SolSatI may not present a statistically reliable comparison. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 71–2, n. 71. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 74 n. 77. See Ker, Catalogue, pp. xxv, xxvi and xxxvii–xxxviii, p. 120; O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 139. Ker, Catalogue, nos. 180 (1) and 264; D. N. Dumville, ‘English Square Minuscule Script: The Mid-Century Phases’, Anglo-Saxon England 23 (1994), 133–64, at pp. 143–4 and 158–9. Budny, Manuscript Art at Corpus, I, p. 647.

3

Introduction was an ancient West Saxon diocese, with Aldhelm of Malmesbury serving as its first bishop (c.705), and Hereman its last (1058–78).18 Charter evidence points to a surge in administrative activity towards the middle of the tenth century (close to the date of A), especially under Bishop Alfred. In the 890s Sherborne was given to Alfred’s advisor the Welsh bishop Asser, who held it until 909, when it was divided. It is difficult to say how active the scriptorium was at this time, though some evidence of activity (and poetic composition) before Asser’s election might be found in the metrical preface added by his predecessor, Bishop Wulfsige, to Gregory’s Dialogi.19 In 1058 the diocese of Sherborne united with Ramsbury, and the production of the missal could be associated with this merger. The enlarged diocese of Sherborne was itself suppressed in 1075, when the bishop moved to Old Sarum. At some time between its production, c.1060, and the sixteenth century, CCCC 422 found its way to Darley in Derbyshire, where it was known as ‘the rede boke of darleye in peake in darbyshire’ and was held there in ‘reverence’.20 How CCCC 422 came to Darley is a mystery; however, the book presents evidence of association with another centre in the twelfth century. As Ker noted, the two parts were together at an early date, as the twelfth-century form of excommunication on p. 14 is in the same hand as an addition on p. 49.21 The text of the excommunication added on p. 14 differs from that on p. 310 of CCCC 422’s missal. However, the same formula as is found on A, p. 14, is found on p. 329 of CCCC 146 (Ker, Catalogue, no. 37, pp. 50–1, s. xi inc.). CCCC 146 was probably written in the Old Minster at Winchester, but texts, including the excommunication formula, were subsequently added at Worcester at the end of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth century. It is possible that the same excommunication formula was added to both CCCC 422, Part A, and CCCC 146 at Worcester at around the same time. If so, CCCC 422 made its way to Worcester at a time when this centre was collecting manuscripts from across England (and after Sherborne had lost its bishop). The missal may also have aquired its flyleaves at Worcester, though the awkward copying of the excommunication formula (on the last page of A, Quire 1) suggests they were already a part of the book.22

18 19 20

21 22

‘Houses of Benedictine Monks: The Abbey of Sherborne’, in Page, Victoria History of Dorset, II, pp. 62–70. See Ker, Catalogue no. 182. See James, Catalogue, p. 315. The missal is exceptional among Anglo-Saxon books, in that it is known to have spent the later Middle Ages in a parish, apparently passing during the Reformation period into the custody of a parishioner, ‘Margaret Rollesleye widow’ (scribbled on pp. 130–1 in a mid-sixteenth-century hand); see E. Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580 (New Haven and London, 1992), pp. 490–4. It was given to Archbishop Parker by ‘Richard Wendesley esquier’ (p. 586), and bequeathed to Corpus Christi College by Archbishop Parker in 1575. Liebermann, Gesetze, I, pp. 435–6. See M. Swan, ‘Mobile Libraries: Old English Manuscript Production in Worcester and the West Midlands, 1090–1215’, in Essays in Manuscript Geography: Vernacular Manuscripts of the English West Midlands from the Conquest to the Sixteenth Century, ed. W. Scase (Turnhout, 2007), pp. 29–42, at 39.

4

1. The Manuscripts B (CCCC 41) B (Ker, no. 32; Gneuss no. 39) is also comprised of two parts, though the parts represent stages of writing, rather than the creation of a composite manuscript through binding. Part 1 is the Old English translation of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, occupying the main writing space. Part 2 is a collection of Latin and Old English texts distributed throughout the margins (ruled for the purpose), apparently with little system. SolSatI occupies the margins of pp. 196–8. The manuscript dates from s. xi1; the Historia is written in two hands, beginning respectively at p. 1 and p. 207 (quire 14, leaf 1), the marginal texts are from later in the same period. B has 244 leaves (fols iii+244+iii), paginated (i–vi), 1–488 (489–94).23 The collation is as follows: pp. 1–488: 18, 26, 3–128, 138 + 1 leaf after 5 (pp. 199–200), 14–308, 316 wants 6, probably blank after p. 488; 4 and 5 in quire 9, and 3 and 6 in quire 16 are half-sheets. The manuscript measures c.347 x 214 mm, the written space of the Historia 293–250 x 145–135 mm. This space is ruled with 25 long lines (27 and 28 lines on pp. 157–98, 201–6), with single bounding lines. The marginal texts are mostly in one hand – the Old English texts (Ker, Catalogue, Articles 2–18) probably all in the same hand, unusually angular, of s. xi1 or xi med; all are written in brown ink. Solomon’s name is given visual prominence, even though, as O’Keeffe notes, the writing of the poem in the margins ‘made capitals somewhat of a luxury’.24 The name Saturnus which begins the text at the top left corner of p. 196 is given a capital ‘S’ roughly twice the height of the minuscule letters, followed by a small capital ‘A’, with the remaining letters minuscules; all other instances of the name have a small capital and minuscules. Salomon (following 20b), however, in addition to its large initial, has the next four letters in small capitals, with an abbreviation mark over the ‘M’. The next time the name is written (following 38b), this ‘M’ is written like a rune; in the third instance (following 62b), it is written in a mixture of capitals and oversized minuscules.25 The pointing of B is markedly different to A, certainly because of B’s later date.26 B uses the medial point almost exclusively, as a rule to mark statements, usually independent clauses, with approximately half occuring before capitals.27 The provenance of the manuscript is unknown, and none of its scripts points to the well-documented centres of the time.28 The book was given to Exeter by Bishop Leofric (d. 1072), according to a donation inscription (p. 488).29 Any claim of the book to display status in its decoration was cancelled by the inclusion of the 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Ker, Catalogue, p. 45; B was rebound in 1953; the previous binding was s. xviii. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 72. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 72 n. 74. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 75. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 75 n. 79, points out that the scribe’s other work suggests that he simply copied the punctuation before him. Budny, Manuscript Art at Corpus, I, pp. 507–11. See E. Treharne, ‘Producing a Library in Late Anglo-Saxon England: Exeter, 1050–1072’, Review of English Studies 214 (2003), 155–72.

5

Introduction marginal texts, which impart the character of a ‘commonplace book’.30 The texts are too many to be listed here.31 These fall into three general categories: texts, mostly prayers in Latin, related to the liturgical cycle (including entries from the Old English martyrology corresponding to the Christmas Octave); homilies, all in Old English, which are also (sometimes loosely) related to the liturgical cycle;32 charms in Old English and Latin. The relationship between these texts and SolSatI is not easily defined, though the presence of the SATOR formula (p. 329), an acrostic incantation based on the letters PATERNOSTER, might suggest the compiler included the fragment of the poem as a ‘charm’.33 The content and style of the homilies (and other texts) indicate a debt to Hiberno-Latin religious literature.34 While their arrangement is puzzling, the missal texts copied are perhaps not as random as sometimes assumed, and better thought of as prayers from the Mass (and office), rather than for liturgical use: this book would have been useless on an altar. B’s marginalia would have been read by someone literate in English and liturgical Latin, which intersect in SolSatI.

2 Language and Metre Copying errors in all three texts of A show that it is not an autograph; B cannot be. Neither text is free of the characteristic errors of copying: B skips words (e.g. at SolSatI 62a, neah, and 64a, leaf), while A is missing line 67, and has ‘s’ for ‘f’ at line 41b. In addition to possibly inherited errors, the scribe of A writes and corrects a dittography at SolSatII 72a.35 The two partial texts of SolSatI invite discussion of their relationship to a hypothetical authorial original. However, the relationship 30 31

32

33

34

35

Budny, Manuscript Art at Corpus, I, p. 506. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 69–70, suggests the resulting parallel configuration of texts on any given page is ‘probably fortuitous’, and the fact that the East Saxons’ return to devil worship is framed by Solomon’s account of the power of the letters of the Pater Noster over devils is ‘a splendid graphic accident’ (p. 69). See The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. T. Miller, 2 vols, 4 pts., EETS os 95–6, 110–11 (repr. London, 1959–63), I, p. 250. Ker, Catalogue, no. 32, articles 9, 11–13, 16–18; these are: pp. 254–80 (a version of Vercelli Homily IV); pp. 280–7, on the Assumption; pp. 287–95, the Apocalypse of St Thomas; pp. 295–301, from the Gospel of Nicodemus; pp. 402–17, homily on St Michael; pp. 484–8, a Passion homily; see Scragg, Vercelli Homilies; W. H. Hulme, ‘The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus’, Modern Philology 1 (1903–4), 579–614; Tristram, Vier altenglische Predigten; Grant, Homilies. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 69–70; see Grant, Loricas, p. 18; E. J. Sharpe, ‘The Old English Runic Paternoster’, in Symbols of Power, ed. H. R. E. Davidson (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 41–60, at 162–5, 59; K. Aland, ‘Der Rotas-Sator-Rebus. Seine Diskussion in der Korrespondenz Franz Cumont-Hans Lietzmann und in der Zeit danach’, in Corona Gratiarum: Miscellanea Patristica, Historica et Liturgica Eligio Dekkers oblata, 2 vols (Bruges, 1975), II, pp. 285–343. See K. Jolley, ‘On the Margins of Orthodoxy: Devotional Formulas and Protective Prayers in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41’, in Signs on the Edge: Space, Text and Margins in Medieval Manuscripts, ed. S. L. Keefer and R. H. Bremmer (Leuven, 2007), pp. 135–83. See O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 61 n. 45.

6

2. Language and Metre between textual variance and scribal error in the transmission of the poem is highly problematic, as O’Keeffe has shown.36 The two texts may present evidence of active copying, with scribes deliberately altering their exemplars.37 We can be certain that B was not derived from A, as it contains a line missing from A. Both the absence of A’s runes from B, and B’s preservation of evidently original linguistic forms absent from A, confirm an independent line of transmission for B. West Saxon features predominate, and the phonology of the texts points to their composition in Early West Saxon. West Germanic long a is regularly long æ, for example: wæter (SolSatI B19b; SolSatI A155a; SolSatPNPr 54; SolSatII 47b); mærþa (SolSatI B67b); mærðo (SolSatI A163a); mærða (SolSatII 31a). All three texts show breaking of West Saxon æ from Germanic a, for example: eall (SolSatI B1b, B7b, etc); treahteras (SolSatI B5a); yrfeweard (SolSatI AB83a); eahteoðan (SolSatPNPr 22, beside eeahteoðan, 14); earnes (SolSatPNPr 21); middangeardes (SolSatPNPr 83; SolSatII 2b). Early West Saxon features are found throughout. Early West Saxon ie appears in all three texts in A:38 dierne (SolSatII 274b); gehiere (SolSatII 148b; beside gehiran, SolSatII 144b, with i for ie); gierde (SolSatI A90b); hie (SolSatI 69b, 70b, etc; SolSatII 62a, 67a, etc; SolSatPNPr 2, etc); hiene (SolSatI A98a, A103a, etc; SolSatII 81a); hiera (SolSatII 58b); hierde (SolSatII 274a); gehiere (SolSatII 148b); liehð (SolSatII 3b); miehtum (SolSatII 151a); nieht (SolSatI A133a, SolSatII 71a, 83b, etc); nieten (SolSatI 22b, 153b; SolSatPNPr 46); siemle (SolSatI A85b); scierpeð (SolSatI A138b); sie (SolSatII 246a); gesiehst (SolSatII 57a); gesiene (SolSatII 145a); ðiestrost (SolSatII 134a); unhiere (SolSatII 88b). In A the pronoun hiera is not found as hira in either SolSatI or SolSatPNPr, but frequently occurs in SolSatII (SolSatII 3a, 66b, 179a, etc). Hiene is found beside hine in all three texts SolSatI (85b, 94b, 123a, etc); SolSatPNPr (35); SolSatII (38b, 78b, 79b, etc). In all three texts in A the pronoun hie is used frequently, but never appears as hi or hy. Also characteristic of Early West Saxon is the inverted spelling ie for original i or y:39 ahieðeð (SolSatI A73a); brieceð (SolSatI 95b); forgietenan (SolSatPNPr 47); gielpne (SolSatII 30a); hieltas (SolSatII 46b); siemle (SolSatI A85b); sienfullan (SolSatFrag 2a). Also Early West Saxon are regn (SolSatPNPr 43; cf. 55, rinan) beside ungesenodes (SolSatPNPr 47), showing both retention and loss of g before n. Cf. abredan (SolSatI 164b), beside bregdeð (SolSatI 98b), bregdað (SolSatI 150b); gesegnod (SolSatII 228b).40 In A in is found beside more usual on, but only once in SolSatI (152b), twice in SolSatPNPr (98, 112), and frequently in SolSatII (140b, 153b, 176b, etc). The presence of o for Primitive Germanic a before nasals is typical Early West Saxon, shared with other dialects:41 feldgongende (SolSatI B23a, A154a); mon(n) 36 37 38

39 40 41

Visible Song, pp. 67–75; P. Orton, The Transmission of Old English Poetry, Westfield Publications in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 12 (Turnhout, 2000), disputes her reading of the evidence. The creation of a stemma on such contentious evidence would be pointless; see Menner, PD, p. 5. See Campbell, Grammar, §299; O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 153; Gretsch, ‘Language’, pp. 61–3. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 153, Campbell, Grammar, §300; Gretsch, ‘Language’, pp. 63–4. Gretsch, ‘Language’, pp. 66–7. Sisam, Studies in the History, p. 127; Gretsch, ‘Language’, 59–60.

7

Introduction (SolSatI B59; SolSatII 40b, 74b, 149a, 184a, 209a, 302a); begonganne (SolSatI A54); wongan (SolSatI A95); sconcan (SolSatI A101a); monig (SolSatPNPr 2; SolSatII 164b, 255b, 292a); onlicnesse (SolSatPNPr 9, etc); ond (SolSatPNPr 72, etc); fonan (SolSatPNPr 108); neorxnawonges (SolSatPNPr 75); lond (SolSatII 18b, 146a); goldwlonce (SolSatII 30b); moning (SolSatII 31b); stondeð (SolSatII 296b); (-)homa (SolSatI A110a, A151a; SolSatPNPr 95, 96); from (SolSatII 32b); somod (SolSatII 170b, 178b); tosomne (SolSatPNPr 74, etc); gesomnod (SolSatPNPr 91, etc). In B, a + nasal is unremarkable; in A we find: man(n) (SolSatI A59, A148a, A158b, A163b; SolSatPNPr 46, 47; SolSatII 63b, 86a, 256a, 315b); orðancas (SolSatI A72a, A164a); lange (SolSatI A90b, A120b); unðanc (SolSatI A98a); (ge)hangan (SolSatI A105a; SolSatPNPr 109, 114); bana (SolSatI A131b); hand (SolSatI A159a; SolSatPNPr 79, etc; SolSatII 109a, 321b); standan (SolSatPNPr 56; SolSatII 119a); fane (SolSatPNPr 108); land (SolSatII 7b, 32b, 317b), gestrangað (SolSatII 62a); gangan (SolSatI 111a; SolSatII 176a, 186a, 308a); lang (SolSatII 117a, 140a); manigo (SolSatII 218a). Another feature shared by Early West Saxon with other dialects is io for eo:42 edniowe (SolSatPNPr 69); giogoðe (SolSatII 209a); hio (SolSatPNPr 57; SolSatII 122a, 123a); niogonteoðan (SolSatPNPr 23); siolfres (SolSatI B31b, beside seolfres, SolSatI A31b); sioððan (SolSatII 147b) and tuion (SolSatII 257b); ðiostro (SolSatPNPr 110). As might be expected from its date, A favours spelling with ð (þ is used twice in the manuscript, on both occasions in SolSatPNPr: cwæþ, 50; þæt, 20); B favours initial þ but uses both letters. The early spelling cu- for cw- is found in SolSatII only: CVÆÐ (in rubrics nine times); cuom (SolSatII 239b); cuiclifigende (Sol­ SatII 242b). Note also tuigena (SolSatI A142a).43 Significant is the spelling -sð for –st, found in SolSatI in B: eaðusð (B36a), gesemesð (B18a); wesðe (B22a).44 This orthography features in the earliest surviving manuscript of the Old English translation of the Regula Pastoralis, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 20 (Winchester, c.890 x 897), and reflects the dissimilation of -sð to -st, a process which led early West Saxon scribes to equate the two in their spelling. The spelling continues to appear in texts composed in the early tenth century.45 Menner argued for an Anglian original, which acquired Early West Saxon features at an early stage of transmission. This seems unlikely, as the evidence for Anglian is not strong. Some non-WS forms were used by early West Saxon scribes, and the incidence of a few of these does not point to composition in an Anglian dialect. For example, middangerd (SolSatPNPr 55), is found beside middangeard in all other instances; hefenum beside heofnum in SolSatI (AB60a); Campbell, Grammar, §296. Campbell, Grammar, §60. 44 See Brunner and Sievers, Altenglische Grammatik, §§196.1, 201.6. 45 O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 153, notes that the Hatton scribe uses the spelling no less than 192 times, as against only six occurrences in the other Early West Saxon manuscripts of the Pastoral Care, BL Cotton Tiberius B.xi (preserved in transcript, Bodleian Library MS Junius 53). See P. J. Cosijn, Altwestsächsische Grammatik, 2 vols (The Hague, 1883–6), I, p. 194 (§146). Cf. The Paris Psalter and Meters of Boethius, ed. G. P. Krapp, ASPR V (New York, 1933), 5:36b, mæsð; 12:25a, atyhsð; 13:63a, yfemesð. The Meters were probably composed some time in the early tenth century. 42 43

8

2. Language and Metre hefonum beside heofona in SolSatII (289a, 276a); hefones beside heofonas in SolSatPNPr (35, 65); ðeah beside ðeh in SolSatPNPr (53, 100).46 Anglian mece (SolSatI A163b) is not significant as it was borrowed unchanged into West Saxon.47 Kenneth Sisam questioned both the nature of Menner’s evidence and the methodology applied to it, demonstrating that a degree of borrowing found in early texts made none of them dialectically ‘pure’.48 This is true of the dialogues, where gena is found beside git; snyttro beside wisdom.49 Menner’s lexicographical evidence for Anglian origins can be reduced to four words: gena (SolSatII 72b, SolSat­ PNPr 103); (eormen)strynde (SolSatII 153a); ðecele (SolSatII 241b); gewesan (SolSatII 3a).50 The last of these, gewesan (ymb) (‘debate about’) is very rare, and evidence of Anglian origin inconclusive. Sisam did not conclude the poems were necessarily West Saxon, simply that evidence was insufficient to show they were Anglian.51 There is nothing in the language of either manuscript that rules out composition in Early West Saxon, the overwhelmingly predominant dialect in evidence. The language of the texts suggests they were composed between the end of the ninth century and first few decades of the tenth,52 but probably not later than 930, by a speaker of West Saxon whose dialect (or literate practice) had incorporated Mercian elements. The poems share a high incidence of prosaic words: pund, smealice, stingan, intinga, treahtere, unðanc, yfelian (SolSatI); tobrædan, hyrsum, læccan, lutan, medume, ofermod, gestrangian and wyrtwela (SolSatII).53 The poems also share unusual expressions. SolSatI 18a and SolSatII 74a use the verb (ge)seman in the sense of ‘to satisfy someone’, a word rare in poetry (half the instances are the three in these poems), though not unusual in Early West Saxon prose.54 All three texts employ an idiosyncratic vocabulary tailored to their subject matter;55 all use loan words and Latin vocabulary (see ‘Authorship’). These include gepalm­ twigod, fifmægen, lina, cantic and organ describing the Pater Noster in SolSatI, 46 47 48 49 50

51 52

53

54 55

See Campbell, Grammar, §§16–18, on West Saxon scribal use of Anglian spellings. See Sisam, Studies in the History, p. 127. See Sisam, ‘Review’, p. 34; Sisam, Studies in the History, p. 130. Fulk, Old English Meter, pp. 328–9 (§359), questions Sisam’s conlusions. See O’Neill ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 154. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 153; Menner, PD, pp. 20–1; R. Menner, ‘The Vocabulary of the Old English Poems on Judgement Day’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 62 (1947), 583–97, at p. 586; Sisam, Studies in the History, pp. 129–8. Schabram, Superbia, pp. 126–7, notes an occurrence in SolSatII 273b of Early West Saxon ofermod (where other dialects and poetry generally use oferhygd); cited O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 154. Some features are shared with the earliest manuscript of the Regula Pastoralis, but are also comparable with the Fonthill Letter and the Junius Psalter (Bodleian Library MS Junius 27; Gneuss no. 641, 920s?); see Schreiber, King Alfred’s Regula, pp. 83–137; Gretsch, ‘Language’, 59–75; E. Brenner, Der altenglische Junius-Psalter, Anglistische Forschungen 23 (Heidelberg, 1908), pp. xv–xxxiii. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 142; E. G. Stanley, ‘Studies in the Prosaic Vocabulary of Old English Verse’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72 (1971), 385–418, at pp. 391–2; M. S. Griffith, ‘Poetical Language and the Paris Psalter: The Decay of the Old English Tradition’, Anglo-Saxon England 20 (1991), 167–86. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 142; see Commentary. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 141.

9

Introduction and eormenstrynd and inwitgecyndo characterising the Chaldeans in SolSatII (153). O’Neill has suggested that calling the Pater Noster cantic (and organ) could not have had currency in England before c.890, as it reflects the Carolingian practice of including the Pater Noster among the canticles of the monastic office, which is unlikely to have been introduced into England before the arrival of Grimbald at King Alfred’s court.56 Confirmation that the practice was familiar in England by the end of the first decade of the tenth century is found in the Pater Noster’s inclusion as a canticle in the so-called Athelstan Psalter (Gneuss no. 334; BL Cotton Galba A.xviii; with Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B.484, fol. 85), a well-travelled Gallican Psalter produced in north-eastern France (s. ix1), to which were added inter alia a Pater Noster and Creed in Greek (in England, s. x2/4), and which seems to have been in private use at the royal court in the first half of the tenth century. The use of a technical vocabulary in SolSatPNPr, demonstrating authorial awareness of the processes of working metal, has been discussed by Patrizia Lendinara.57 Lendinara discusses a number of terms appearing in SolSatPNPr: hyrdenn (89); geondhyrdan (89); ecglast (84, 85); weaxæppel (93); comp­gimm (75); gullisc (75). The first three are used to describe the weapon carried by the Pater Noster, which is in the ‘likeness’ of a sword (80). Hyrdenn and geond­ hyrdan compare the strength of the weapon’s blade to an arrow(head) ðe sie fram hundtwelftigum hyrdenna geondhyrded (‘which were tempered by one-hundredand-twenty hardenings’, 89). The unique terms describe a common repetitive process used to strengthen swords, balancing the blade’s strength against iron’s brittleness by welding together wires or strips of metal of varying quality.58 The cutting edges were later welded to the resulting damascened core; these are here referred to as seo swiðre ecglast (‘the right blade’) and seo wynstre ecglast (‘the left blade’), each with different properties.59 The Pater Noster himself may be imagined as a metalworker, as suggested by his power to mould all of creation (93) on anes weaxæples onlicnisse (‘into the likeness of a wax-apple’). Blanks were sculpted by hand into a desired shape in wax, then fused in a form before casting; this cire perdue process was used in northern Europe from the Bronze Age.60 The hapax compgimm is a compound of the frequently occurring comp (‘field’), and gimm (‘gem’) – ‘field-gem’. The expression compgimmum astæned (‘studded with field-gems’) appears to refer to setting precious stones on a sheet metal base. The morphology of gullisc points to a linguistic context in which Old Norse loans could be transformed into nonce words in Old English; Old Norse *gulliskr is not attested. The hapax has an Old Norse loan head (from gull-, goll-, without i-umlaut), and Old English tail (the adjectival suffix –isc); 56

O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, pp. 158–63. Coatsworth and Pinder, Anglo-Saxon Goldsmith, Appendix A, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Vocabulary of Metalworking’, pp. 247–57, include some of these terms. 58 Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp. 106–8; see H. R. E. Davidson, The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1962), pp. 23–9. 59 Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp. 108–10. 60 Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp. 110–11. 57

10

2. Language and Metre the resulting adjective seems to mean ‘gilt’, rather than ‘golden’ (cf. gylden; SolSatPNPr 20, 26).61 The technical knowledge of metalworking evident in SolSatPNPr is also found in SolSatI. The poet’s interest in precious metals is readily apparent, but this interest extends beyond ornament and into process. The first indication of an interest in metallurgy comes in Saturn’s precise promise of smætes gold (15a, ‘pure gold’) should he be over-awed by the Pater Noster. At SolSatI 31–2 Solomon compares the splendour of the new creation after the Judgment, to the old; the new will be dearer to the man who knows the Pater Noster than the old, gegoten fram ðam grunde goldes ond silofres / feðerscette full fyrngestreona (‘poured from the foundation of gold and silver, the four corners full of treasure’). Solomon is imagining the casting of creation from molten metal. Later in the dialogue, Saturn asks how the Pater Noster can be used in the memory (A55–6a), meltan wið morðre mergan of sorge / asceadan of scyldigum (‘to smelt against murder, to purify from sorrow, separate from sins’). All three verbs are used in a technical sense, and the metaphor imagines the Pater Noster as a reducing agent, added to molten ore in the process of smelting to separate impurities, which rise as dross. While asceadan can simply mean ‘to separate’, the noun asceadend applies to a reducing agent in smelting iron in the Blickling Glosses: cum carbonibus: þem ascadendum, quia carbones inseparunt scoria de ferro (‘with coals: with the separator, because coals separate dross from iron’).62 Understanding the use of this precise imagery helps to solve the crux at SolSatI 44a (see Commentary). The detail of the extended metaphor indicates a poet with a specialist’s knowledge of the process of purifying ore, so much so that his expression has caused scribal confusion. There is nothing in the metrical features of the poems which proves conclusively that they are the work of different authors, and their relative lengths make it difficult to draw statistically reliable conclusions which might place them in a relative chronology beside other Old English verse.63 Menner noted the presence of twenty expanded lines in SolSatII, beside SolSatI with none, and the much more frequent occurrence in SolSatII of inflexional rhymes (2:1) and double alliteration (sixty-seven per cent of lines against fifty-one per cent).64 These differences are commonplace and possibly within the metrical range of one author, and neither poem presents distinctively unusual metrical features absent from the other.65 As Daniel Donoghue has shown, the poems share two notable anomalies.66 Both show an avoidance of the use of verbal-auxiliary half-lines (half-lines made up only of a verbal and its auxiliary); across both poems only one example is attested (in SolSatI 8b), beside an average of 18.5 per 100 auxiliaries elsewhere in the Old 61 62 63 64 65 66

Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp. 111–14. I would like to thank Margaret Clunies Ross for her comments on this word. See Commentary. See Fulk, Old English Meter, pp. 195 n. 46, 393; Fulk suggests the poems do not share common authorship. Menner, PD, pp. 5–7. See O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 141. Donoghue, Style in Old English Poetry, pp. 91, 109–11, 173–7.

11

Introduction English poetic corpus. Furthermore, while in Old English verse as a rule stress on the auxiliary identifies a dependent clause, in SolSatI and SolSatII the stressed auxiliary is equally distributed between dependent and principal clauses; this suggests dissociation of ‘word order and stress with grammatical function’.67 This might make the poems a distinctive sub-group within Old English poetic corpus, but does not establish common authorship.

3 Genre, Context and Sources The Old English dialogues of Solomon and Saturn represent one moment of a continuous literary tradition extending from biblical into early-modern times. As Christian heirs to the Jewish scriptural tradition, the Anglo-Saxons inherited the figure of the wise King Solomon, son of David, builder of the Temple, and supposed author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. Solomon’s interest in discussing wisdom is attested in the account of his exchange with the Queen of Sheba, who travelled to discuss wisdom with the king (I Kings X.10), and his application of wisdom is famously exemplified in the ‘judgment of Solomon’, where the wise king’s interrogation establishes the true maternity of a new-born child (I Kings III.16–28; cf. SolSatII 193–7). Solomon is referred to by Christ in the New Testament, and was often understood as one of his allegorical prefigurations.68 In the Jewish apocryphal tradition Solomon emerged as a figure associated with special powers over demons, and was associated with magic. The fame of Solomon’s wisdom spawned a proliferation of legends and apocryphal writings around the king’s character in ancient times and the Middle Ages.69 Solomon’s confrontations with demons were often focused on the Temple. The Old English dialogues’ interest in demonology is apparent, though no close connection with Jewish works other than sacred scripture is clearly evidenced. Solomonic Dialogues and Wisdom Literature It appears that a Solomonic dialogue literature had developed in the earlier Christian tradition, though its contents are unknown. The Gelasian Decretal lists among its prohibited works a ‘Contradictio Salomonis’, but provides no further See O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 141 n. 11; J. Keddie, ‘Testing the Test: How Valid is The Test of the Auxiliary?’, Studies in Philology 90 (1993), 1–28, questions the validity of some of Donoghue’s findings; but see D. Donoghue, ‘Passing the Test with Style’, Studies in Philology 92 (1995), 164–80. 68 C. LaBossière and J. Gladson, ‘Solomon’, in A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, ed. D. L. Jeffrey (Grand Rapids, MI, 1992), pp. 721–3; this association may explain the occasional practice in A of rendering the ‘o’ of ‘Saloman’ with cruciform decoration. 69 P. A. Torijano, Solomon, the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition (Leiden, 2002). 67

12

3. Genre, Context and Sources information. However, the inclusion of a number of legendary apocryphal works in the same list led Kemble to posit a link between the more imaginative elements of the Old English dialogues and this lost text, in the context of an Orientalist reading of their origins, which itself gained enduring acceptance.70 CCCC 422 provides the earliest material evidence of the Western European Solomonic dialogue tradition, and the Old English dialogues are the earliest examples of this tradition.71 The Anglo-Saxon texts uniquely present Saturn as the wise king’s opponent, against the otherwise universal tradition (first in Latin and later in multiple European vernaculars) which pits Solomon against a character called Marcolf(us).72 The earliest reference to this alternative interlocutor dates from soon after the copying of A, in Notker Labeo’s (c.950–1022) paraphrase of the Psalms:73 Vuaz ist ioh anderes daz man Marcholfum saget sih éllenon uuider proverbiis Salomonis (‘What else is it, then, that they say of Marcholf, that he contended against the proverbs of Solomon?’). This mention of Solomon’s debate with Marcolfus is paralleled by the reference in Saturn’s geographic itinerary in SolSatII, where one of the lands visited is described enigmatically as Marculfes eard (‘Marcolf’s homeland’, 11b). The inclusion of ‘Marculf’ is unlikely to be coincidental, though its significance is difficult to determine. The Marcolf attested by later versions presents a character very different from the Old English texts’ Saturn: the grotesque Marcolfus (accompanied by his monstrous wife) is frivolous, and more interested in perverting Solomon’s wisdom than learning from it; a sincere search for wisdom is Saturn’s objective. The origins of ‘Marcolfus’ as a name are less transparent than ‘Saturnus’, but both represent adaptations of the ancient Roman pantheon. As Menner argues, it is likely the original form of Marcolf’s name is the Latin ‘Marc[h]olus’, transformed into ‘Marcolfus’ because of the morphologically similar Germanic name Marculf. In the genealogy in the Latin dialogue of Solomon and Marcolfus both forms are preserved, with ‘Marcol’ named as Marcolfus’s father.74 This ‘Marcol’ (or ‘Markolis’) is probably to be identified with the Hebrew name for the idol ‘Markolis’, an ancient borrowing of the Latin ‘Mercurius’. It is possible the contest referred to by Notker Labeo was originally a dialogue in which Solomon had debated (a euhemerised) Mercury-Hermes, a deity appropriately associated with travelling and wit. However, the origin of the name is not easily discerned in the form ‘Marcolfus’. The earlier form of the name would have been known in a different context to readers of the Cosmographia of Aethicus Ister, an esoteric Latin work composed some time in the late eighth century, and almost certainly known to the author of SolSatII. Aethicus describes the inhabitants of Turkey as worshipping a pile of stones:75 et appellaverunt Morcholom lingua sua, id est stellam deorum, 70 71 72

73 74 75

Kemble, Salomon and Saturnus, pp. 11–12. Menner, PD, pp. 21–6; Dobbie, ASPR VI, p. lvi. Salomon et Marcolfus, ed. Walter Benary, Sammlung mittellateinischer Texte 8 (Heidelberg, 1914). Cited by Dobbie, ASPR VI, p. lvii. Menner, PD, pp. 30–1. Kosmographie des Aethicus, ed. Prinz, p. 121. Two manuscripts of this work survive from AngloSaxon England: Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Scaliger 69 (Gneuss no. 839, s. x2,

13

Introduction quae dirivato nomine Saturnum appellant (‘and they call it Mor­cholon in their language, that is star of the gods, which they call Saturn by a derived name’). O’Keeffe has argued persuasively that the author of SolSatII knew this work, so that Marculfes eard stands in the list to indicate ‘the land of the Turks’, a reflex derived directly from the Cosmographia.76 The implications of this knowledge, and the learned game it gives rise to in the geographic list, deserve exploration. The poet’s inclusion of ‘Marculf’ in the list must point to knowledge of him as literary interlocutor of Solomon, otherwise the coincidence of context defies probablity. Furthermore, it is significant that the form of the name in the list is ‘Marculf’, rather than ‘Marcol’ (or similar), and that nevertheless the poet perceived the identity of ‘Marculf’ with Aethicus’s ‘Morcholon’. It is impossible to determine whether or not the poet knew any text of a dialogue between Marcholis/Marcolphus first hand – as opposed to knowing of one – but it appears that SolSatII was designed to be a creative augmentation of this dialogue tradition. This is apparent both in the reference to Marculfes eard, and in the use of an alternative name for MarculfMorcholon (supplied by the Cosmographia): Saturnus. In an indication of the kind of learned playfulness that the poet (and hopefully his audience) appreciated, Saturn is not an alternative opponent for Solomon, but simply ‘Marculf’ known by another (correct) name. This pattern of identifications provides evidence not only for the prior composition of SolSatII, but also presents an element of the origin of Saturn as a partner in dialogue for Solomon. SolSatI and SolSatII have long presented challenges to modern readers, who have wrestled with their obscure expression and enigmatic detail, and very few have even attempted SolSatPNPr. The subject matter of the two poems appears to differ markedly. SolSatI is concerned almost entirely with the power of the Pater Noster, an interest continued in the prose. SolSatII ranges over reflection on ancient history, Vasa mortis, the question of fate, mutability, and good and evil. However, the strong interest in the power of learning – and books in particular – in SolSatII, is echoed in the Pater Noster poem’s focus on the power of letters and writing.77 The picture which emerges of the intellectual environment in which the texts were first created and read is a bookish circle interested and informed in the tradition of learned riddling. Despite the passing of more than a century and a half since Kemble’s edition, few critics have offered a comprehensive discussion of their literary character. While all three can be defined as ‘dialogues’, a more refined generic classification presents challenges. Dobbie, finding little coherence of theme and subject matter, described SolSatII as ‘a rather miscellaneous collection of proverbial Canterbury, St Augustine’s, Canterbury, provenance Glastonbury?); BL Cotton Vespasian B.x, fols 31–124 (Gneuss no. 386, s. x/xi, provenance Worcester); see Aethici Istrici Cosmographia Vergilio Salisburgensi Rectius Adscripta. Codex Leidensis Scaligeranus 69, ed. T. A. M. Bishop, Umbrae Codicum Occidentalium 10 (Amsterdam, 1969), p. xii. The theory that the work was composed by Virgil of Salzburg is no longer held: see M. Herren, ‘Wozu diente die die Fälschung der Kosmographie des Aethicus?’, in Lateinsische Kultur im VIII. Jahrhundert, ed. A. Lehner and W. Berschin (St Ottilien, 1989), pp. 145–59. 76 See O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 138. 77 See Wilcox, ‘Eating Books’.

14

3. Genre, Context and Sources wisdom, in which one sage asks riddling questions and another answers them, much in the style of the Old Norse Vafþrúðnismál’, and suggested that ‘in view of the difficulties which arise in the interpretation of this second poem, it is tempting to assume gaps in the text, even where no loss is evident in the manuscript’.78 Shippey included SolSatII in his anthology of Old English poems of ‘wisdom and learning’.79 The participation of Solomon, the archetypical wisdom figure of the Christian tradition, might settle this generic classification, but for the fact that SolSatI also includes the wise king, without interest in the normal content of wisdom poetry, while SolSatPNPr stretches the theme without the poetic form. When assessing the Pater Noster dialogues against other wisdom poetry, judgements about their merits have been severe; Shippey concurs with Menner’s assessment of SolSatI as ‘fantastic superstition and childish literalism’.80 Shippey suggests one original feature of SolSatII’s wisdom is its condemnation of grumbling; the ‘consolation’ offered to the unlæde (‘unlucky’) in both poems is advice to cheer up, though the method suggested is different in each poem.81 Critical difficulty with the poems, and SolSatII in particular, owes a debt to Kemble’s original assertion that they are best understood within a tradition deriving from obscure oriental apocrypha, giving rise to a counsel of despair which reads difficult passages as deliberately meaningless and mystifying. This ought to be rejected, and the interpretative tradition dating back to Kemble reassessed.82 Collectanea and Wisdom Miscellanies A range of evidence suggests the dialogues’ dependence on more accessible literary traditions derived from the world of Irish learning and piety, mediated through catechetical treatises and learned miscellanies. In his edition, Menner suggested that Ireland was a likely channel through which the kind of obscure learning presented by the texts might have flowed into Anglo-Saxon England.83 This influence has been exercised above all in three significant ways: on the content of the texts, on their rhetorical style and on their ‘miscellaneous’ character, especially that of SolSatII. Two kinds of early-medieval miscellany have exerted an influence over the form and contents of the three Solomon and Saturn dialogues: miscellaneous collections of wisdom and lore, and catechetical collections of the type originally developed for use in the continental missions in the eighth century. One of the most important of these collections for the study of the Solomon and Saturn dialogues is the Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae (CollPsBedae), of which no medieval manuscript 78 79 80 81 82 83

Dobbie, ASPR VI, p. lv; see also C. Larrington, A Store of Common Sense (Oxford, 1993), pp. 48–56. Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, p. 22, notes the difficulties involved in divorcing SolSatII from its context in A. Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, p. 22. Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, pp. 26–7. Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, p. 24; Hansen, Solomon Complex, pp. 147–52. Menner, PD, p. 25.

15

Introduction survives. The miscellany was published by Johann Herwagen the younger in 1563 among the works of Bede;84 it is probably the work of a single medieval compiler, and falls into three distinct sections (Part I, nos. 1–304; Part II, nos. 305–79; Part III, nos. 380–8). Michael Lapidge notes that the evidence points to any of three possible early-medieval provenances in Ireland, Anglo-Saxon England or a continental centre. Lapidge leans towards the Irish connection, based on the presence of parallels in Irish literature and linguistic reflexes.85 Part I presents the most diverse contents, Part II shows a particular interest in numerological items, Part III presents hymns (including two abecederian hymns on the Judgment) and prayers.86 The first hymn in Part III (no. 381) is unique to the CollPsBedae, and ‘is in a rhythmical form characteristic of Hiberno-Latin hymns of the seventh and eighth centuries’; the final items are prayers, with a series (nos. 383–88) shared, some uniquely, with the Anglo-Saxon ninth-century prayerbook, the Book of Cerne.87 Various dates have been proposed for the CollPsBedae, though consensus places it in the early ninth century.88 The CollPsBedae is an example of early-medieval florilegia; the earliest of these were compilations of excerpts from either the Bible or patristic authors, texts useful either in disputes or teaching, which could provide compendia where library resources were scarce or portable collections desired.89 By the Carolingian era these collections were used to provide religious instruction for noble laymen, and these Fürstenspiegel were written by clerics for the lay nobles they advised; they included ascetic, doctrinal, dogmatic and moral texts, but cannot always be strictly classified as florilegia.90 The format of more thematically coherent collections – such as the Disticha Catonis, enigmata collections, and the Liber de Numeris – as disconnected prose, non-linear in structure, means they can be considered beside florilegia, and they certainly moved in the same circles.91 Some texts in this excerpt tradition are catechetical miscellanies, often emphasising the theme of wisdom.92 Martha Bayless points out that the CollPsBedae shares many features with florilegia of the eighth and ninth centuries, though with defining characteristics reflecting the tastes of the limited circle of clerics within which such literature was known and created. In comparison with the florilegia of the period, the items in CollPsBedae ‘are distinctive in their fondness for the less ponderous forms of literature: trivia-dialogues, wisdom-dialogues, and riddles’. Beside a large number of trivia questions, the compiler includes ten verse riddles from Symposius and Aldhelm.93 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Opera Bedae Venerabilis Presbyteri Anglosaxonis, 8 vols (Basel, 1563), III, pp. 647–74; see Lapidge, ‘Origin of the Collectanea’, p. 1. Lapidge, ‘Origin of the Collectanea’, pp. 3–6. Lapidge, ‘Origin of the Collectanea’, pp. 8–9 Lapidge, ‘Origin of the Collectanea’, pp. 10–11. Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, p. 42. Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, pp. 44–7 Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, p. 44. Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, p. 58, discusses nineteen parallels with the Irish Liber de Numeris; see PL 83, 1293–1302; R. E. McNally, ed., ‘Der Irische Liber de Numeris’ (diss., Munich, 1957). Such as in the eighth-century Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 6302, McNally, Scriptores Hiberniae Minores, CCSL 108B, p. 161; see Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, p. 45. Bayless, ‘Dialogues and Riddles’, p. 22.

16

3. Genre, Context and Sources Two sub-genres are particularly visible in the CollPsBedae: trivia dialogues of the Ioca monachorum type, and proverb dialogues.94 The Ioca monachorum present in question and answer form biblical and secular riddles (often containing paradoxes), queries about obscure or colourful events from biblical history, or statistics about the physical world. These ‘dialogues’ are not always accompanied by introductions, and do not always name interlocutors.95 They often appear as lists, and do not develop thematically or exhibit a coherent structure. The contents of manuscripts with these Ioca overlap in a way indicating that a common body of material circulated amongst the centres that produced them for their limited audience. Bayless notes with regard to the CollPsBedae that ‘the greatest likelihood . . . is that the Ioca first arose in these circles, and that a compiler who copied the Ioca into his own compendium at such an early date came from such a milieu as well’.96 The Old English rendering (saga me, lines 154–5, 161–1) of a characteristic opening of Ioca questions (dic mihi) is found in SolSatII, beside more straightforward interrogations which occasionally evoke the quizzing style of the Ioca (e.g., 170–2), symptoms pointing to the rhetorical influence of the tradition.97 In the CollPsBedae itself, the trivia dialogues are organised into three sections.98 This dispersal of trivia questions amongst other items presents a structural analogue to SolSatII, where similar short questions and answers are grouped together beside longer, more expansive interrogations and answers. Another feature of the Ioca in the CollPsBedae, which presents a broad parallel to the kind of knowledge interesting to Saturn in the Old English poems, is their ‘biblical and antiquarian’ interest, especially biblical ‘firsts’.99 Saturn in the poems is characterised as particularly interested in antiquity: fyrndagas (SolSatII 1b); fyrn gehyrde (SolSatII 247b); fyrngewrytu (SolSatI 8a).100 Like the compilers of the Ioca questions, Saturn has dug into books searching out information about the origins of the world, though this kind of search and the knowledge it has produced have left him unsatisfied. The riddles in the CollPsBedae reveal an interest in ‘paradox, rather than enigma, as their central feature, and the religious riddles frequently reinterpret biblical events in a way that brings paradox to the forefront’.101 Similarly, the poet of SolSatII appears interested in resolving paradoxes, as in his discussion of heat and cold, water and fire, and the divergent fates of twins (177–208). The sources of the CollPsBedae provide an indication of the kinds of works read in these learned circles, and unsurprisingly, the Bible looms large. However, amongst biblical books five predominate, especially in Part I: of thirty Old Testament citations, twenty-eight are from the three ‘books of Solomon’, with Proverbs accounting for more than half the total; across the work as 94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101

Bayless, ‘Dialogues and Riddles’, p. 13 Bayless, ‘Dialogues and Riddles’, p. 14. Bayless, ‘Dialogues and Riddles’, pp. 14–15. Bayless, ‘Dialogues and Riddles’, pp. 17–18, 20, of forty-eight questions in Adrian and Ritheus, ten are paralleled in the CollPsBedae (nos. 14, 15, 28, 123, 175), of which five are ‘rare’. Bayless, ‘Dialogues and Riddles’, p. 16, nos. 1–16, 110–6, 121–38 Bayless, ‘Dialogues and Riddles’, p. 23. See O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, pp. 143–4. Bayless, ‘Dialogues and Riddles’, p. 23.

17

Introduction a whole, these same books account between them for thirty-five citations and three allusions.102 The prominence of Solomon as an author is noteworthy in itself. In other florilegia collections, such as that of Sedulius Scottus, excerpts from the books of Solomon also feature. In Sedulius’s Collectaneum Miscellaneum (c.850) excerpts from known authors are preceded by the authority’s name in large capitals, giving the wise king’s name a prominence (beside others), paralleled in the format of A.103 Sedulius’s Collectaneum, which presents seven parallels to contents of the CollPsBedae, apparently presents in part his own reading notes, but also contains earlier sub-florilegia. The collection is organised under headings which could be applied to SolSatII, such as De die iudicii, De humana uita and De morte, and draws on a wide range of patristic, late-antique, Insular and medieval sources, as well as classical writers including Lucan and Macrobius.104 In contrast, the impact of classical sources on the CollPsBedae is almost negligible, and these are derived second hand.105 A range of patristic sources is used in CollPsBedae – the most frequently cited is Gregory the Great’s Homiliae in Hiezechihelem (thirteen excerpts), while Jerome’s letters are also extensively excerpted. Augustine, on the other hand, is poorly represented, and while Isidore is used twenty-eight times, his Etymologiae are used only once.106 Texts with Insular affiliations are well represented, among them the tract De Duodecim Abusiuis Saeculi, the works of Virgilius Maro Grammaticus and the Liber de Numeris.107 Excerpts from the sources are often scattered throughout the CollPsBedae, though some are grouped, including nos. 276–80 from Gregory’s Homiliae in Hiezechihelem, giving these excerpts the appearance of composite homilies.108 The nature of the contents of CollPsBedae Part I is paralleled in the Florilegium Frisingense (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 6433; c.790) an anonymous collection probably put together in southern Germany, written by a (wandering?) scribe of English or Irish origin who calls himself Peregrinus.109 A notable feature of both CollPsBedae and Florilegium Frisingense is their extensive borrowing from the commentaries and letters of Jerome, and their interest in the Book of Ezekiel. An enduring feature of the collections like CollPsBedae is their adaptability. Compilers would borrow from each other, add texts of interest and produce collections which could be more or less coherent, depending on the compiler’s intentions.110 The Carolingian revival marks a turning point in the history of these collections with two important developments: the first production of florilegia for 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Marsden, ‘Biblical Text’, p. 35. Sedulius, Collectaneum, ed. Simpson, CCCM 117. Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, pp. 62–3; Wright, ‘Sources’, pp. 33–4. N. Wright, ‘Sources’, p. 25. N. Wright, ‘Sources’, pp. 27–8; Augustine’s In Iohannis Euangelium Tractatus is used once. N. Wright, ‘Sources’, p. 29. N. Wright, ‘Sources’, p. 31. Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, pp. 63–4; see A. Lehner, Frühmittelalterliche Florilegien in süddeutscher Überlieferung (Diss.-phil., Ruprecht-Karls Universität, Heidelberg, 1984). Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, p. 46

18

3. Genre, Context and Sources lay noble readers; the first direct extracts from classical texts (as seen in Sedulius Scottus).111 Some extracts in CollPsBedae show seriatim borrowing, but in any case ‘the pseudo-Bede florilegium stands apart from its sources and analogues because of its extremely mixed contents. It combines question-and-answer form (with analogues in the Ioca Monachorum, Prebiarum, and Catechesis Celtica) and even questions without answers, with precepts about behaviour, observations about nature, God and the cosmos; it also mixes verse and prose. Variety rather than stylistic uniformity was sought.’112 Both the mixed format and contents (including catechetical materials) present a striking parallel to the Solomon and Saturn anthology in A. Despite this diversity of contents it is clear that the compilers of these collections, which include florilegia and catechetical miscellanies, intended their collections to emphasise the theme of wisdom, a thematic intention signalled in the CollPsBedae by its opening invocation.113 The sapiential and catechetical character of these florilegia is exhibited in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 22053 (c.814),114 which also contains the Bavarian Wessobrunn Prayer, and resembles CollPsBedae in its range and interests, and with which it shares twelve parallels.115 Solomon also features as an author, and in one item shared by the two collections visual prominence is given to his name in Clm. 22053:116 DICTA SALOMONIS Salomon dixit. trea sunt insaturabilia quod numquam dicit sufficit. Infernus et os uulue, et terra qui non satiabitur aqua. Ignis uero numquam dicit sufficit. ITEM SALOMON. Trea sunt dificile mihi et quartus quod penitus ignoro, uiam aquile in caelo, uiam nauis in medio maris, uiam colubres super terram, uiam uiri adoliscientia[e]. Talis est enim uia mulieri qui tergit os suum, dicit non sum operata malum.

The ultimate source here is Prov. XXX.15–20, though divergence from known biblical versions suggests the popular passage has been transmitted via other miscellanies. Beside a range of collected biblical excerpts, glosses and catechetical items (including the vernacular prayer, fols 65v–66r), are found an itinerary of 111 112 113 114 115

116

Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, p. 49; the absence of classical texts might suggest that CollPsBedae predates this ninth-century assimilation. Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, pp. 51–2. Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, pp. 53–7. Waldman, ‘Wessobrunn Manuscript’, pp. 11–15. Garrison, ‘Florilegia’, pp. 66–9; this manuscript draws on a range of similar sources (with Classical authors absent as in CollPsBedae), including the Bible, Theodosius, Isidore (including the Etymologiae), the Liber de Numeris, Bede, Augustine, Jerome, Alcuin and Boniface; see Waldman, ‘Wessobrunn Manuscript’, pp. 619–20. ‘Sayings of Solomon. Solomon spoke. Three things are insatiable because there is never enough, he says. Hell and the mouth of the womb and the land which will not be sated with water. But fire, he says, is never enough. Solomon again: Three things are a difficult matter for me, and a fourth of which I am ignorant within, the way of the eagle in the sky, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, the way of a serpent over the earth, the way of a man’s youth. For such is the way of a woman who washes her mouth, saying I have done nothing wrong.’ Waldman, ‘Wessobrunn Manuscript’, p. 222 (fol. 40v); the format of the CollPsBedae manuscript is lost.

19

Introduction Christ in the Holy Land (based on Theodosius’s De Situ Terrae Sanctae, fols 22v–35v), computistical information, discussion of the constituent elements of the human body, and a short dialogue on day and night between a magister and his pupil (fol. 99rv). The nature of the material presents not only general and particular parallels to the contents of the CollPsBedae, but also to the collection of dialogues in A, with catechesis on the Pater Noster, the geography of the East, the elements of man, and so on. These and other points of intersection are discussed below and in the commentary on the texts.117 From this perspective the Old English dialogues appear far from obscure, and the arrangement of A in fact may represent a more carefully organised collection within an anthological tradition. In two passages CollPsBedae presents material so closely analogous to the dialogues that it must be concluded that either CollPsBedae, or a similar collection, was known in the circle which produced them. The first has been discussed from different perspectives by Thomas Hill and Charles Wright. In the CollPs­ Bedae a sequence of three items presents a riddle – unanswered in the text, though answered in analogues as ‘wind’ – and two lists of three ‘victories’, of fire and wind, respectively:118 79. Dic mihi quae est illa res quae coelum totamque terram repleuit, siluas et surculos confringit, omniaque fundamenta concutit: sed nec oculis uideri, aut manibus tangi potest? 80. Dic mihi tres uictorias ignis. Prima uictoria, in qua apparuit spiritus sanctus; secunda, quae eleuauit Eliam; tertia, quae comburit peccatores et terram in die iudicii. 81. Dic mihi tres uictorias uenti. Prima uictoria inflat et non uidetur; secunda, sanctificauit mundum post diluuium; tertia, non comburetur in die iudicii.

Item 81’s unusual description of the ‘victories’ of the wind is paralleled in the description of the superlative powers of the Pater Noster in SolSatPNPr, which compares his thought to the wind’s twelve sigefæstnissa (‘triumphs’ or ‘victories’).119 The list is also found in the section De uento in the A-text of the Hisperica Famina, where the wind has three trophea: Trina mormoreus pastricat trophea not[h]us (‘The roaring south wind has collected three triumphs’).120 Both 117

See Waldman, ‘Wessobrunn Manuscript’, pp. 295–6 (fol. 57v), on the length of Adam’s sojourn in hell, also in SolSatProse; p. 539 (fol. 87v), lists of places and peoples, and their allegorical meanings: Chaldei, impii homines. 118 ‘79. Tell me, what is the thing which fills the sky and the whole earth, destroys forests and seedlings, and smashes all foundations, but cannot be seen with the eyes or touched with the hands? 80. Tell me the three victories of fire. The first victory, in which it appeared as the Holy Spirit; the second, which raised up Elias; the third, which burns sinners and the earth on the Day of Judgment. 81. Tell me the three victories of the wind. By the first victory it blows and is not seen; by the second, it sanctified the world after the Flood; by the third, it will not be burned at the Day of Judgment.’ Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayless and Lapidge, pp. 130–1, nos. 79–81 119 Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayless and Lapidge, p. 219, the solution to no. 79 is apparently Wind; see Wright, ‘The Three “Victories” of the Wind’; no. 80 is found in other collections. 120 Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 252 n. 136, notes the usage is as unidiomatic in Latin as Old English, and can only be explained as a reflection of the semantic influence of the Irish word búaid: ‘(a) victory,

20

3. Genre, Context and Sources Latin texts list three ‘victories’ (trophea and uictoria) of the wind, agreeing in essentials, though differing slightly in detail and sequence. Clearly the Hisperica Famina and the Collectanea preserve two versions of a learned tradition which combined the riddling tradition’s interest in winds with scriptural testimony. This Hibernicism in the vocabulary of the texts points, as Wright notes, to Irish influence on the SolSatPNPr, but it is perhaps more likely to have found its way into Old English through the mediation of a collection like the CollPsBedae than directly from the Hisperica Famina.121 Evidence for this transmission is found in the presence in SolSatII of a passage also closely related to this sequence in the CollPsBedae. At SolSatII 104–23, Saturn asks a riddle solved by Solomon as yldo (‘old age’). As Hill has noted, striking verbal parallels point to the use of Item 79 from the CollPsBedae as a source.122 There is no answer given in CollPsBedae, but as Hill notes, ‘the Latin question and the Old English riddle gloss each other’.123 A second parallel to CollPsBedae is almost suggestive of seriatim borrowing. In SolSatII, the ‘Old Age’ riddle is immediately preceded by the description of Vasa mortis. Since Kemble, Vasa mortis has been seen as a version of the demon Asmodeus, despite the fact that Solomon states quite clearly that Vasa mortis is a bird.124 No doubt it is a strange bird, but a similarly strange bird is found in the CollPsBedae (no. 63):125

121 122 123

124 125

triumph’; ‘(b) special quality or attribute, gift, virtue . . . pre-eminence, excellence; prerogative’. Dictionary of the Irish Language, Royal Irish Academy (1913–76), I, s.v.; lists of búada – special qualities, virtues or prerogatives – are a recurrent feature of Irish literature. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 252 n. 135. See Hill, ‘Saturn’s Time Riddle’; see Commentary. Hill, ‘Saturn’s Time Riddle’, p. 275, notes the aptness of ‘time’ as a solution, pointing to Saturn’s association, who devouring his children, represents time which devours everything it begets, see Augustine, De Ciuitate Dei VI.8. Hill, ‘Saturn’s Time Riddle’, p. 274, notes that Old Age is not otherwise known as a riddle subject for the Anglo-Saxons either in Latin or Old English. See Menner, ‘The Vasa Mortis Passage’. ‘There is a bird in the regions of India, near the place where the sun rises, which has twenty wings. All who hear her song are overcome with drowsiness and sleep; her singing can be heard for a mile. The name of this great bird is Goballus. There is in the Ocean a stone of most marvellous beauty, which is sometimes visible, and at other times is covered by the sands. This bird, when she has given birth to an exceedingly handsome and noisy fledgling, sees the stone shining in the sea on a bright day, is seized with a desire for it, and flies to get it; whilst she is still spreading her wings, the stone is covered by the sands. There is a very large sea-monster [or ‘whale’] in the Ocean, which when it sees the Goballus flying to the stone, immediately rushes to her nest, and, dragging the fledglings away, devours them. Goballus, returning, hastens in great anxiety to the nest, thinking to find some consolation for her toil, and when she finds the nest empty, she cries out seven times, so that not only does she herself pour forth huge tears, but also all who hear her cannot keep themselves from weeping. Then she plunges herself into the depths and dies. And you, O man, are Goballus, and have a very fine nature, which begets comely wisdom. But the stone in the sea is the love of riches, which seduces a man; and, abandoning wisdom, he flies off to heap up riches. The sea-monster in the sea is folly, which carries off wisdom as well as riches. Folly is born, and man loses wisdom, loses riches, and is snatched away by unhappy death.’ Emphasis added. Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayless and Lapidge, pp. 128–9.

21

Introduction Est auis quaedam in Indiae partibus, prope solis ortum, uiginti alas habens, cuius uoce audita omnes somno et sopore sopiuntur; cuius uox per mille passus auditur. Huius auis magnae uocabulum est Goballus. Est enim lapis in mari Oceano tam miri decoris, qui aliquoties apparet, aliquoties uero arenis praeoperitur. Haec autem auis, cum auiculam genuit nimis pulchram ac sonoram, uidens lapidem in mari sereno die radiantem, illius desiderio rapitur, et uolat ut capiat eum; quae dum adhuc alas extendit, lapis arenis tegitur. Est autem cetus in mari magnus ualde, qui cum uiderit Goballum ad lapidem uolantem, statim occurrit ad nidum huius, et auiculas auferens deuorat: et ueniens Goballus in aestu nimis recurrit ad nidum, quoddam solatium sui laboris putans reperturum: et inueniens nidum uacuum, septies clamat, ita ut non solum ingentes lachrymas fundat, sed et omnes qui eam audiunt se a lachrymis cohibere non possint. Tunc seipsum in profundum mergit, et moritur. Et tu, homo, Goballus, habens naturam decoram nimis, quae generat sapientiam uenustam. Lapis autem in mari, amor diuitiarum est, qui seducit hominem: et, relicta sapientia, uolat ad diuitias congregandas; cetus autem in mari stultitia est, qui aufert sapientiam simul cum diuitiis. Stultitia nascitur; et homo perdit sapientiam, perdit diuitias, et infelici rapitur morte.

Goballus’s wings are a hint of a grotesque body comparable to Vasa mortis, and a range of other similarities exists between the two, not least of all in their exotic names. Goballus, like Vasa mortis, is associated with death and the search for wisdom. Solomon’s claim that he ‘ordered across the broad sea’ that Vasa mortis be bound makes no sense in relation to the Philistine guards, his neighbours by land, and clearly the SolSatII poet imagines the bird originating in a locale separated from Jerusalem by a body of water. Most striking is the fact that both birds make a great noise, and that both do so because of their grief. The grief of the allegorical Goballus is easily understood, though that of Vasa mortis has no context or meaning in SolSatII – suggestive of borrowing. The description of this bird is not unique to CollPsBedae, and is found, with sufficiently divergent detail to indicate a complex textual tradition with wide circulation, in the Collectaneum of Sedulius Scottus.126 The exact source in which the SolSatII poet encountered his marvellous bird is difficult to determine, but it is more than likely he encountered it in a miscellany of ultimately Irish origin. Similarly marvellous birds are described in the Old Irish apocryphon, In Tenga Bithnua (Evernew Tongue), which claims to be a direct revelation of the mysteries of Creation.127 The text appears to descend from a Gnostic treatise, perhaps a lost Egyptian Apocalypse of Philip, which made its way to Ireland, where it was transformed drawing on the Bible, travel literature, treatises on precious stones, astronomical and exegetical literature, and a range of other sources.128 The ‘Evernew Tongue’ is the voice of the Apostle Philip, addressing a vast Easter assembly from the sky above Jerusalem. At one point he describes a Collectaneum, CCCM 117, 19–20 (V.1); see Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayless and Lapidge, pp. 214–15. 127 See Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 231 n. 77. 128 See Carey, King of Mysteries, p. 75. 126

22

3. Genre, Context and Sources series of trees, one of which, the tree of Nabathen, is found to the south of Zion, but which has been hidden from sight since the beginning of the world (§32):129 ‘Da cenel sechtmogad do cheolaib chanas barr in bili sin fri taidhecht na ngaeth nglanfhuar o thosach in domain. Cuic eoin sechtmoghadh ar tri cetaib co n-edrochta snechta co n-etib fororda co suilib mar lega logmara, canaid ilcheola aebdae examla for belaibh & for gescaibh in chroind sin.’

Soon after, addressing the incredulity of the listening multitude, the Evernew Tongue describes one particularly mysterious bird (§§35–6):130 ‘En dianad ainm in tIruath fil a tirib India, ata de med conidh uidhi tri ngemla uadh ar cach leith ro roich fosgad a eited an tan scailes iad. Ise biad nos · imfuilngedar .i. bleidhmila muiridhi, conus · ber les iad ana chrobaib etaruas. Aen ogh ased beres cacha bliadna i ngaineamh tirim, & in grian goires a ogh, & ticseam iarum da fis in tan ceadaiges Dia do. Da-nithear long fhuilnges seol & imram do lethblaisc a uighi sin. Sechtmogha laech ar da cetaib cona n-armaib & cona lointib ased beres tar muir. Atait sochaidi mor don lucht fil asa comdail seo, & is a leithblaisc na huigi sin tangadar tar Muir Ruaid.’

There can be little doubt of a relationship between Goballus and Iruath, and it is likely that Vasa mortis owes a debt to the literary tradition which hatched both. The location of Vasa mortis in this tradition would seem to be confirmed by the apocalyptic associations it shares – singing and awaiting the Day of Judgement – with other birds in the Evernew Tongue. The apocryphon describes three flocks of birds, each with marvellous properties. The third flock, from the islands of Ebothen, ‘between the east of Africa and heaven’, sings (§50):131 ‘Ergid an enlaith derinach a nderead aidchi & canaid ceol sechtdelbach ac indisin uathbas & delba laithi bratha.’

Individual correlations indicate a debt to Irish apocryphal traditions; a series of correlations suggests the influence of wisdom miscellanies. 129

‘Seventy-two kinds of music the top of that tree has sung, when the pure cold winds come, since the beginning of the world. Three hundred and seventy-five birds with the brightness of snow, with golden wings and eyes like precious stones, sing many pleasant and various kinds of music on the front and on the branches of that tree.’ Nic Énrí and Mac Niocaill, ‘The Second Recension’, pp. 28–9. 130 ‘A bird that is named Iruath in the lands of India is so large that the shade of its wings stretches the distance of three winter days’ journey on every side of it when it opens them. The food that supports it is monsters of the sea [or whales], and it picks them up in its claws. It lays an egg every year in dry sand, and the sun hatches the egg, and it comes to see it when God allows it. A ship that can carry sail and oars is made of half the shell of that egg. Two hundred and seventy warriors with their weapons and their provisions it carries over sea. There are many of those who are in this gathering who came in a half shell of that egg over the Red Sea.’ Nic Énrí and Mac Niocaill, ‘The Second Recension’, pp. 30–1. 131 ‘The last flock rises at the end of the night and sings seven-formed music recounting the terrors and form of the day of judgment.’ Nic Énrí and Mac Niocaill, ‘The Second Recension’, pp. 40–3.

23

Introduction Catechesis Knowledge of the Pater Noster prayer is essential for any Christian, and in the Middle Ages constituted the most elementary catechetical instruction. The need for teaching and understanding the Pater Noster accounts for the fact that three other Old English poems based on it survive. The Lord’s Prayer I is a literal translation of the Pater Noster found in the Exeter Book (122r). The Lord’s Prayer II and The Lord’s Prayer III both present the Latin petitions with Old English poetic gloss, and are both products of a simpler kind of devotion than is found in SolSatI and SolSatPNPr.132 Early-medieval miscellanies, beside a range of proverbs and riddles, often contain catechetical texts. The Old English Pater Noster dialogues reveal a close relationship with early Irish catechetical sources.133 Menner noted that they were paralleled by similar treatment in Irish prayers and litanies, in which ‘the lorica becomes a kind of all-inclusive protector, and a prayer may come to be spoken of in extravagant terms applicable only to a person’,134 and that the ‘Pater Noster itself was thought to be especially efficacious in warding off the evil of Satan’.135 The early Church understood the prayer’s final petition, ‘Sed libera nos a malo’, as referring to ‘the evil one’, that is ‘Satan’.136 The understanding of the Pater Noster as a lorica is evident in SolSatI, though this is developed in a different way in SolSatPNPr where the metaphor overwhelms the idea that the Pater Noster is in fact a set of spoken (or written) words. Menner notes a homily in the Leabhar Breac, in which the Pater Noster is invoked as a weapon in the fight against Satan:137 Hic est malleus ferreus, quo contritus est diabolus, sicut dicitur, ‘malleo ferreo conteram soliditatem tuam’ (‘This is the iron hammer by which the power of the devil is broken, as saith Job in the person of the Lord: “I will break thy power, O devil, saith the Lord, with an iron hammer,” viz. with the Pater Noster’). The passage is derived from a Hiberno-Latin tradition evidenced in the Catechesis Celtica, where this passage begins one of three short expositions on the Pater Noster.138 This collection of catechetical texts is found in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 49, a Breton manuscript of the tenth century, and contains materials also available to vernacular homilists in Anglo-Saxon England and

132 133 134 135 136 137 138

In CCCC 201 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121; see O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 59. See Menner, PD, p. 43; Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 235–6. Menner, PD, p. 42. See Menner, PD, p. 42; Grant, Loricas, pp. 9–12; James, Catalogue I.83–4. See Menner, PD, pp. 39–42; F. H. Chase, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church (Cambridge, 1891), pp. 133–6. Atkinson, The Passions and the Homilies from the Leabhar Breac, pp. 264, 501, 505–6; see Menner, PD, p. 112; Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 236 n. 95. Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 49, fol. 11r: Hic est malleus de quo contritus est diabulus, sicut est malleo ferreo ut concutiam soliditatem tuam; cited McNamara, ‘Irish Affiliations’, pp. 291–334, 326; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 236 n. 96. See Wilmart, Analecta Reginensia, pp. 29–112.

24

3. Genre, Context and Sources Ireland.139 In the Catechesis, the image of the Pater Noster as an iron hammer leads into a comparison of the seven petitions of the Pater Noster with seven spears, which, in martial imagery paralleled in SolSatI, pierce seven vices. This combat theme is found in another treatment in the Catechesis, where verses contest a range of proud assertions by the devil:140 Diabolus enim dixit: Nescio Deum! Nos humiliter dicere iubemur: Pater noster qui es in celis. Diabolus dixit: Ero similis altissimo. Nos dicimus: Adueniat regum tuum. Diabolus dixit: Super astra Dei solium meum exultabo. Nos dicimus: Fiat uoluntas tua sicut in celo et in terra.

This short exchange resonates with various parts of the Solomon and Saturn dialogues: the devil’s pride and the rebellion it led to in heaven are the focus of one of the longer of Solomon’s replies to Saturn in SolSatII (272–97); the Latin passage’s style also echoes elements of the ‘transformation combat’ of SolSat­ PNPr (9–33). Similar treatments are found in catechetical texts in a number of early manuscripts, pointing to a widespread tradition circulating amongst Insular centres on the continent. Texts in this tradition refer to the Pater Noster, with its seven petitions, as a seven-branched tree, echoing SolSatI’s description of the Pater Noster as ‘palm-twigged’, while other treatments refer to the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. XIII.31–2).141 In one passage, the deficiency of the kind of learning acquired by Saturn is dismissed in comparison to knowledge of the Pater Noster; despite their small size, the prayer’s petitions are more powerful:142 granum sinapis est octo uersiculi orationis dominicae, qui incantationibus uatum seculi et magorum et poetarum philosophorum minores erant (‘A grain of mustard seed is the eight verses of the Lord’s prayer, which were smaller than the incantations of the seers of the world and of the magicians and poets and philosophers’). Early-medieval belief in the protective powers of the Pater Noster could lead to the blurring of the distinction between its use as a prayer and as an incantation associated with charms.143 The magical character of SolSatI should not be exaggerated; though the poem does invite the reader to recite to Pater Noster when drawing a sword (163b–169), apparently referring to the popular belief that a drawn blade will draw blood, in preference to inscribing the blade with ‘fatal marks’ (161–3a). The Pater Noster was one of the prayers necessary for any Christian to know, and while it could have magical associations, so orthodox a

Wright, ‘Apocalypse of St Thomas’, p. 37. ‘For the devil said: “I do not know God!” We are bidden to say humbly: “Our Father who art in heaven” [Matt. VI.9]. The devil said: “I will be like the most High” [Isaiah XIV.14]. We say: “Thy kingdom come” [Matt. VI.10]. The devil said: “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God” [Isaiah XIV.13]. We say: “Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” [Matt. VI.10].’; cited and trans. Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 236–7, who notes other parallels in Irish catechetical manuscripts, including a homily in the Cracow collection; see Amos, ‘Catechesis Cracoviensis’, 90–1. 141 See Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 237 n. 98. 142 Cited and trans. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 237. 143 Godel, ‘Irish Prayer in the Early Middle Ages’, pp. 74–5, 95–7; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 239. 139 140

25

Introduction churchman as Ælfric points out its protective power.144 This traditional devotion was intensified in Ireland during the eighth and ninth centuries as a part of the anchorite movement associated with the Céli Dé, for whom chanting the Pater Noster was an important exercise.145 The Old Irish ‘Table of Commutations’ claims that the Pater Noster repeated 365 times has the power to rescue a soul from hell, a power shared by the Pater Noster in SolSatI (68–72).146 The place of the Pater Noster on the borderline between prayer and charm is evident in the lorica included in the Old Irish Geinemain Molling ocus a Bethae (‘Birth and Life of St Moling’). In this prayer individual words and phrases of the Pater Noster are invoked against demons:147 ‘Pater noster ardom-thá . frisna huile eccrotá / rop lemsa mo pater noster . . . Qui in celis, Dé bi . dom snadadh ar urbhaidhí, / ar demnaib co n-ilar . snaidsium sanctificetur’ (‘Pater noster is for me against all horrid (?) things! with me be my paternoster . . . Qui es in caelis, O living God, to protect me from bale: from demons with many sins (?) may sanctificetur protect me!’). The Pater Noster is not treated as a charm here, but rather transformed into a creature with an identity independent of its character as utterance, also paralleled in SolSatPNPr. This spiritual being implicitly has a power to protect, extending beyond the power of the words of invocation, and both here and in the Old English Pater Noster dialogues has characteristics more appropriate to an angel, saint or Christ than to a spoken prayer. The characterisation of the Pater Noster echoes that of the archangel in an Old English St Michael Homily (a text with Irish affiliations) in the margins of B:148 Blission we on heofonas and on ða þe on heofnum sint for ðon ðe Sanctus Michael he is strong feohtend wið þone miclan dracan, þæt is ðonne wið ðam awyrgedum gæstum (‘Let us rejoice in heaven and in those who are in heaven, for St Michael is a strong fighter against the great serpent, that is, further, against accursed spirits’).149 This general similarity between St Michael’s and the Pater Noster’s role in fighting devils is paralleled by a closer resemblance. Like the Pater Noster (SolSatI 36–42), St Michael opens the gates of heaven:150 Þis is se halga heahengel Sancte Michael, se ðe onra gewilces soðfæstes mannes saule gelædeð þurh þa gatu þæs ecan lifes to hefena rice (‘This is the holy archangel St Michael who leads the soul of each and every true man through the gates of eternal life and into the kingdom of heaven’). 144

145 146

147 148 149 150

Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 240; see Menner, PD, pp. 39–42; V. Flint, The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe (Princeton, 1991), p. 313; see ‘De Auguriis’, in Ælfric’s Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat, I, p. 370. See Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 240–1. Trans. D. A. Binchy in The Irish Penitentials, ed. L. Bieler, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 5 (Dublin, 1963), 278; Godel, ‘Irish Prayer in the Early Middle Ages, II’, p. 74, notes that this power is normally attributed to Ps. CXVIII; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 241 n. 106. The Birth and Death of St Moling, ed. W. Stokes (London, 1907), p. 52; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 238. See Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 219–20. Grant, Homilies , pp. 56–7. Grant, Homilies, pp. 60–1; see also pp. 58–9: Þis is se halga heahengel Sancte Michael, and se æþela forestihtend in þæra cræftena handa þe Salamones templ timbredon (‘This is the holy archangel Michael and the noble director of the hands of the craftsmen who built Solomon’s temple’).

26

3. Genre, Context and Sources The same passage in SolSatI finds a parallel in a litanic praise of the Pater Noster found in slightly variant forms in two Hiberno-Latin sources, the Catechesis Celtica and Sedulius Scottus’s commentary on Matthew:151 Haec [sc. Oratio Dominica] tumorem superbiae comprimit, iracundiae quoque atque inuidiae furorem refrenat, inpetus carnis atque libidinem extingit, a terrenis mentem auocat, desiderium regni caelestis incendit.

Other Irish symptoms include the reference to the seven heavens, the naming of the archangels Uriel and Rumiel, and the devil Sathiel.152 SolSatI and SolSat­PNPr personify the prayer in fantastic ways, both refer to the Pater Noster with the Latin loanwords lina, cantic and organ, and both present the supernatural conflict between the hypostatised prayer and the devil in grotesquely physical terms.153 This litanic style is also found in Vercelli Homily IV, which also presents a verbal parallel so close to SolSatII 311b that a shared vernacular source is probable.154 The Pater Noster dialogues’ background in Hiberno-Latin religious writing is also evidenced in their style, with a fondness for parallelism and enumerative technique.155 A prominent feature of the prose dialogue, also found once in SolSatII (Saturn’s book riddle, at 52–5) is the rhetorical technique of numerical gradatio.156 Wright notes that while these themes and technique have affiliations with Rabbinic tradition, they would have been transmitted to the West through Christian apocrypha such as the Visio S. Pauli and the ‘Seven Heavens’ apocryphon, both of which circulated in the British Isles, and would most likely have been transmitted to Anglo-Saxon England through Irish channels, where they were modified and developed.157 The numerical gradatio is common in Irish vernacular literature from the eighth century, and was most probably a mnemonic technique deployed in oral rhetoric; the style is not used in early Germanic literature.158 It is found in Old English in a small group of texts closely related to the Solomon and Saturn dialogues.159 Once a motif or rhetorical device had entered the Old English vernacular, it could develop independently of Irish sources. All three Solomon and Saturn dialogues make extensive use of numbers for rhetorical effect, especially the number twelve, with a preference for multiples of three and thirty, features shared with other Old English literature derived from Irish 151

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159

‘This (Lord’s prayer) reduces the swelling of pride, restrains also the furor of anger and envy, destroys the assault of the flesh and lust, directs the mind away from earthly things, kindles desire for the kingdom of heaven.’ Sedulius Scottus, Kommentar, p. 206; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 247 n. 125. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 255 n. 147; see Commentary. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 234. Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 262–5. Menner, PD, p. 7; Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 245. See Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 251. See Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 251–2. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 252. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 252; in Vercelli Homily IX, ed. Scragg, Vercelli Homilies, pp. 151–90; the homily Be heofonwarum 7 be helwarum, ed. Willard, Two Apocrypha, pp. 38–56; and in variations on the Men with Tongues of Iron theme and descriptions of the multi-headed Monster of Hell.

27

Introduction sources.160 This numerical style and other features – rhetorical and thematic – suggest a close link between the three dialogues, and associate the prose dialogue in particular with Vercelli Homily IX and the related ‘Devil’s Account of Hell’.161 In the ‘Devil’s Account’ a prince is endowed with Salemanes wlite and wisdom (‘Solomon’s beauty and wisdom’), and his bride with Iunone wlite, Saturnes dohtor (‘the beauty of Juno, Saturn’s daughter’).162 The appearance of the names of Solomon and Saturn in close association points not only to a refined literary milieu in which the pagan gods were routinely euhemerised, but a pattern of associations which included Solomon beside them; it might be supposed that the audience had some understanding of classical mythology for these references to be intelligible.163 Letters and Runes The anthropomorphisation of the letters of the Pater Noster in SolSatI has often been taken as evidence of either the poet’s superstitious ignorance or, more particularly in relation to the runes added in A, a belief in the magical power of letters.164 The runic equivalents of most of the Roman letters are found in A, but are absent from B. Where the runes are included, alliteration and metre at times require the pronunciation of the name of the Roman letter, but not the rune; for example, at SolSatI 109a, the c-verse ðonne . ᛋ . S . cymeð can only be preserved if the letter ‘s’ (‘ess’) is pronounced with a vocalic alliteration, and the rune-name sigel is not.165 Furthermore, the text directly refers to the form of two letters only, describing ‘C’ and ‘G’ as geap (SolSatI 124b, 134b), and not to the runes’ shapes. The fact that the runes are extrametrical in A, and absent from B, suggests that they were not a feature of the poem as originally written.166 Given the learned 160 161 162 163 164

165 166

Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 249. See Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 235; first suggested by Kemble, Salomon and Saturnus, pp. 84–6. Vercelli Homilies, ed. Scragg, p. 180; see F. C. Robinson, ‘The Devil’s Account of the Next World’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73 (1972), 362–71; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 235 n. 90. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 235 n. 89. See E. Zolla, ‘Le metafore bellicose nella poesia anglosassone ed il dialogo fra Salomone e Saturno’, Strumenti critici 2 (1968), 364–77; Sharpe, ‘Old English Runic Paternoster’; K. Melling, ‘A Proposed Reconstruction of Runic line 108a of Solomon and Saturn’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77 (1976), 358–9; G. R. Murphy, ‘Magic in the Heliand’, Monatshefte 83 (1991), 386–97, at p. 394; G. Kellerman and R. Haas, ‘Magie und Mythos als Argumentationsmittel in den ae. Dialoggedichten Salomon und Saturn’, in E. S. Dick and K. R. Jankowsky, ed., Festschrift für Karl Schneider (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1982), pp. 387–403; M. Nelson, ‘King Solomon’s Magic: The Power of a Written Text’, Oral Tradition 5 (1990), 20–36. The assumption that runes and magical belief are inseparable has been laid to rest by Page, English Runes, pp. 105–9. Runic Pater Noster inscriptions are common throughout medieval Scandinavia, though all postdate this poem; see J. McKinnell and R. Simek, Runes, Magic, and Religion: A Sourcebook (Vienne, 2004), pp. 181–2; see A. Ralby, ‘Ðurh þæs cantices cwyde: An Analysis of Solomon and Saturn I’ (M.Phil. diss., Cambridge, 2006), pp. 6–7. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 58. See Sisam, ‘Review’, p. 35: ‘Clearly the runes in A have nothing to do with the original poem.’

28

3. Genre, Context and Sources character of the poem, the inclusion of runes is likely to be a symptom of transmission in circles interested in alternative alphabetical systems. Runic alphabets survive in four Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, one of which may be a schoolbook from Sherborne (Exeter Cathedral Library 3507; Gneuss no. 258, s. x2).167 The runes in SolSatI certainly do not function in the same fashion as the runes in Cynewulf’s ‘signatures’, where they act both as signs of words with grammatical, metrical and alliterative significance, or as letters spelling out words.168 In SolSatI the runes are a visual feature of A, rather than a rhetorical element of the poem.169 Of the seventeen Latin letters used in the prayer, fourteen are present across the two manuscripts.170 In B, only the first three letters are present; in A the letters are recorded as Latin letters with runic equivalents, following their order of appearance in the prayer, with the exception of some lost letters: ‘N’ lacks its accompanying rune, while ‘O’ is missing (SolSat1 108a); ‘I’ is missing (123a); ‘B’ is missing (137); ‘H’ has no accompanying rune (138a). Far from pointing to a superstitious literalism, the letter combat of SolSatI points to a highly literate playfulness. Familiarity with the Latin alphabet in Anglo-Saxon England was specialised, even rare, knowledge, and the awareness that words could be made up of letters indicates a sophisticated literacy at work. O’Keeffe has argued that the poet’s way of thinking about letters and language presents similarities to Isidore’s discussion in his Etymologiae (I.iii.1–2):171 Litterae autem sunt indices rerum, signa uerborum, quibus tanta uis est, ut nobis dicta absentium sine uoce loquantur. (Verba enim per oculos non per aures introducunt.) Vsus litterarum repertus propter memoriam rerum. Nam ne obliuione fugiant, litteris alligantur. In tanta enim rerum uarietate nec disci audiendo poterant omnia, nec memoria contineri.

If Isidore’s idea that texts hold the power of speech of those absent is applied to the Pater Noster – the actual words of Christ addressed to God the Father – this confers great power on the letters themselves.172 Isidore suggests not only that information is bound (alligantur) by letters, but further that the written word contains the power (uis) of the original speaker; a similar conception of 167

168 169 170 171

172

The others are BL Cotton Domitian ix, fol. 11 (Gneuss no. 330, s. ix ex., after 883, or s. x in.); BL Cotton Vitellius A.xii, fols 4–77 (Gneuss no. 398, s. xi. ex.); Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg.lat. 338, fols 64–126 (Gneuss no. 914, s. x2 or x/xi, N France or Germany, prov England xi1?). See The Old English Rune Poem: A Critical Edition, ed. M. Halsall (Toronto, 1981), p. 19. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 58–9. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 50. ‘Indeed letters are tokens of things, the signs of words, and they have so much force that the utterances of those who are absent speak to us without a voice (for they present words through the eyes, not through the ears). The use of letters was invented for the sake of remembering things which are bound by letters lest they slip away into oblivion. With so great a variety of information, not everything could be learned by hearing, nor retained in the memory.’ Etymologies of Isidore, trans. Barney et al., p. 39; see O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 51. See O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 52.

29

Introduction the power of letters is apparent in Aldhelm’s Enigma XXX (‘Alphabet’).173 Cassiodorus attributes power not only to written words, but also to the scribes who write them:174 Tot enim vulnera Satanas accipit, quot antiquarius Domini verba describit (‘For Satan receives as many wounds as the scribe of the Lord writes words’). This confidence in the power of writing is combined in SolSatI with the practice of personifying letters in the early Insular riddling tradition, and was probably related to a taste for word-puzzles such as acrostics.175 Among the Riddles of the Anglo-Saxon abbot Hwætberht (Eusebius), there are four Latin aenigmata with letters as subjects, presenting personified letters speaking.176 ‘A’ speaks as the leader of a war band:177 Dux ego linguarum resonans et prima per orbem (‘I am the leader of tongues, crying out throughout the world’). Similarly, the anonymous Insular poet of the Versus Cuiusdam Scoti de Alphabeto, personifies, and riddles on, the 20 letters of the Latin alphabet. The kind of learned playfulness of this tradition is shown in the treatment of K:178 Dux ego per primos prime uocalis habebar, Meque meo penitus pepulerunt iure moderni; Nunc caput afrorum merui uel mensis habere.

In the Middle Ages ‘c’ was preferred to ‘k’; however ‘k’ was used for Kartago (a well-known African city), and Kalendae, in both instances preceding ‘a’, with the clues pointing to these two words helping to solve the riddle of the verse. The riddler is aware of the opinion among some grammarians, dating from Quintillian, that ‘k’ should be written for initial ‘c’ before ‘a’.179 Not only does this verse share the interest in the personification of letters found in SolSatI, but it also evokes the same learned mindset interested in esoteric geography and ancient learning evident in SolSatII. Moreover, the apparent reference to ‘B’ as se ðridda stæf (SolSatI 136b, ‘the third letter’), makes sense only in a learned game which allows ‘k’ precedence over the first letter of the alphabet; it would appear likely that the SolSatI poet knew 173 174 175

176 177 178

179

See O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 52–3; Aenigmata Aldhelmi, ed. Glorie, CCSL 133, 413. See Jonassen, ‘Pater Noster Letters’, p. 4; Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1937), p. 75. Jonassen, ‘Pater Noster Letters’, pp. 2, 4–5; wisdom dialogues reveal an interest in the invention of letters, see Bayless and Lapidge, Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, pp. 122–3 (no. 3): Dic mihi, quis primus finxit literam? Mercurius gigas (‘Tell me, who was the first to invent letters? Mercury the giant’). This question is found in the Old English SolSatPr (no. 58) and Adrian and Ritheus (no. 16), ed. Cross and Hill, pp. 34, 36. Jonassen, ‘Pater Noster Letters’, p. 5. Collectiones Aenigmatum Merouingicae Aetatis, ed. F. Glorie, in Tatuini Opera Omnia, ed. De Marco, CCSL 133, 219 (no. IX). ‘I used to be considered among the first, as the leader of the first vowel, but the moderns have forced me further in from my rightful position; now I have merited representing the head of the Africans or of the month’; see Jonassen, ‘Pater Noster Letters’, p. 9, n. 3; Versus de Nominibus Litterarum, ed. F. Glorie, in CCSL 133A, 725–41; the anonymous author shares an Anglo-Saxon taste for alliteration, and appears to know Eusebius’s riddle on ‘A’. Quintillian, Institutionis Oratoriae libri xii, ed. M. Winterbottom, 2 vols (Oxford, 1970), 1.7.10 (vol. I, p. 50).

30

3. Genre, Context and Sources this riddle.180 These kinds of riddles are associated with the classroom, as shown both by known authors and their manuscript contexts, where they keep company with grammars and orthographical treatises. The ‘literate’ character of the Pater Noster letter conflict is also evoked by the characterisation of Saturn, whose great interest in SolSatI is the learning that can be gained from fyrngewrytu (SolSatI 8a, ‘writings of times past’), while in SolSatII he offers a book riddle and describes his past debates amongst the Philistines, with books in his lap (52–68, 252–5). Saturn the Chaldean SolSatI and SolSatII present an unusual and shared characterisation of Saturn.181 While King Solomon is a figure obviously associated with wisdom, Saturn is perhaps less obviously so. Saturn was known under various guises to early-medieval audiences. One point of view treated Saturn euhemeristically as a historical figure, with all the faults attributed to the god in Classical myth. In his De Falsis Diis Ælfric presents a common understanding:182 Git þa, þa hæþenan noldan beon gehealdene on swa feawum godum, ac fengon to wurðianne mislice entas and men him to godum, þa þe mihtige wæron on woruldlicum geþincðum, and egefulle on life, þeah þe hy leofodon fullice. An man wæs eardiende on þam ilande creta, saturnus gehaten, swiðlic and wælhreow, swa þæt he abat hys suna, þa þa hi geborene wæron, and unfæderlice macode heora flæsc him to mete. He læfde swaþeah ænne to life, þeah þe he abite his gebroðra on ær; se wæs iouis gehaten, hetol and þrymlic. He afligde his fæder of þam foresædan iglande, and wolde hine acwellan, gif he him come to.

This treatment strikes a contemptuous note absent from the earlier tenth-century ‘Devil’s Account’, though both share with the dialogues a Saturn stripped of divinity. Ælfric’s Saturn is also a traveller, though the willingness expressed in the poems to return to his homeland suggests his exile there is voluntary rather than enforced. Furthermore, Saturn’s anomalous twelve sons seem to be very much alive in SolSatI (15b), and his homeland is not Crete, but Chaldea.183 Neither poem is concerned to 180

If the poet’s only access to this convention is the ‘K’ riddle, it is possible that he has misunderstood an orthographic convention as an alphabetical one; see Commentary. From the same intellectual milieu comes a series of allegorical treatments of letters, MS Bern Burgerbibliothek 36; see Jonassen, ‘The Pater Noster Letters’, p. 7; Keil, Anecdota Helvetica, pp. 305–7. 181 See O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 143; Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, p. 22. 182 ‘Then still, the heathen did not wish to be satisfied with so few gods, but took to worshipping various giants and men as their gods, those who were mighty in worldly things, and terrifying in life, though they lived foully. One man was dwelling on the island of Crete, called Saturn, violent and cruel, so that he ate his sons when they were born, and in an unfatherly way made their flesh his food. However he spared one alive, though he had earlier eaten his brothers; he was called Jove, hostile and powerful. He exiled his father from the island mentioned earlier, and intended to kill him should he come upon him.’ Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Pope, II.676–712, lines 99–112. 183 See O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 144.

31

Introduction avoid anachronism; while it is conceivable that from the medieval point of view an inspired biblical author like Solomon might know about Christ and the Judgment, this might not be true of Saturn, imagined as a historical figure meeting the wise king (compare SolSatII 73, 148b, 176b). As a Chaldean, Saturn is implicitly associated with pagan philosophy and science, and perhaps with astrology and magic, though his interest in the dialogues relates to conventional medieval topics: popular philosophical topics in SolSatII; popular piety in SolSatI and SolSatPNPr. Chaldeans had a fierce biblical reputation, as the destroyers of Jerusalem, and their cruelty as instruments of God’s wrath became a trope for Insular historians.184 Solomon refers directly to the fearful reputation of Saturn’s people (SolSatII 29b–31a, 152b–153); the fierceness of Saturn evident in mythology converges with the fierce reputation of his Chaldean race in the poetic imagination.185 The identification of Saturn as a Chaldean almost certainly follows the lead of Isidore of Seville, who identifies him with Bel (Baal), the first king of the Assyrians (Etymologiae VIII.xi.23), who came to be worshipped as a god.186 This identification is taken further in the Old English Boethius, where the Titans’ war with Jupiter is interpreted as a pagan misrepresentation of the history of Babel:187 Đa cwæð he: Hwæt, ic wat þæt ðu geherdest oft reccan on ealdum leasum spellum þætte Iob Saturnes sunu sceolde bion se hehsta god ofer ealle oðre godu, and he sceolde bion þæs heofenes sunu, and sceolde ricsian on heofenum. . . . ðyllica leasunga hi worhton, and meahton eaðe seggan soðspell, gif him þa leasunga næren swetran, and þeah swiðe gelic ðisum. Hi meahton seggan hwylc dysig Nefrod se gigant worhte . . . Se Nefrod het wyrcan ænne tor on ðæm felda ðe Nensar hatte, and on ðære þiode ðe Deira hatte, swiðe neah þære byrig þe mon nu hæt Babilonia.

This convergence of ideas with the Old English Boethius, which identifies Saturn with the Chaldean builders of Babel (including Nimrod), suggests the knowledge of this translation in the circle that produced the dialogues. In both poems Saturn’s promise to return to Chaldea – should Solomon satisfy his curiosity – is expressed in oblique terms as a journey over Coforflod (SolSatI 20, SolSatII 27a).188 This river was identified by Menner as the Chobar, a tributary of the Tigris-Euphrates, citing Jerome’s commentary on Ezek. I.2:189 184 185 186 187

188 189

Cf. Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ed. Colgrave and Mynors, I.15, p. 52. See Commentary. See Menner, PD, pp. 107–8; O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, pp. 157–8; O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 137 n. 66. ‘Then he said: I know that you have often heard in old fables, that Jove, the son of Saturn, should be the highest god above the other gods; and he should be the son of heaven, and should reign in the heavens . . . Such fictions they invented, and might easily have related the true story, if the fictions had not been sweeter to them, and yet very similar to these. They might have related what foolish Nimrod the giant did. . . . Nimrod gave the order to erect a tower in the field which is called Shinar, and in the country which is called Deira, very close to the city which is now called Babylon.’ Alfred, King Alfred’s Boethius, ed. Sedgefield, c. 35, p. 99; cf. Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae III, p. 12. Menner, PD, p. 107. ‘Indeed Chobar is either the name of a river or, actually, in accordance with an interpretation of it

32

3. Genre, Context and Sources Chobar autem aut nomen est fluminis aut certe, iuxta interpretationem suam qua in “graue” uertitur, Tygrim significat et Euphratem et omnia magna et grauissima flumina quae in terra Chaldeorum esse perhibentur.

Patrick O’Neill has shown that the identification of the land beyond the Coforflod as Chaldea not only reveals the influence on both poems of Jerome’s commentary on Ezekiel, but that the shared use of this obscure identification points to the poems’ common origin in a refined intellectual milieu where such a ‘shorthand’ term could be used.190 Jerome’s commentary is crucial to the meaning of the poems’ expression: in geography the River Chobar is one (insignificant) tributary of the Tigris-Euphrates, but is understood by Jerome in the context of Ezekiel’s visions on its banks to signify all the rivers and the land of the Chaldeans.191 Other elements of SolSatII’s representation of the Chaldeans also points to the influence of Jerome’s commentaries. At SolSatII 150b–153 Solomon refers to the ancient struggle of Saturn’s people ‘against the Lord’s might’, and describes them as a fierce and bitter race; this ancient struggle must refer to Babel, already mentioned at SolSatII 29b–32a. Solomon’s implicit identification of the Tower builders as Chaldeans has no obvious biblical support, but is found in Jerome’s comment on terra Sennaar in his commentary on Daniel (Dan. I.2):192 Terra Sennaar locus est Babylonis in quo fuit campus Dura et turris quam usque ad caelum hi qui ab oriente mouerant pedes suos, aedificare conati sunt (‘The land of Sennaar is the location of Babylon where the plain of Dura was and the tower [of Babel] which those people who had migrated from the east attempted to build up to the sky’). A more complex debt to Jerome is found in the characterisation of the Chaldeans at SolSatII 152b–153a, the source of which is Hab. I.6–7:193 quia ecce ego suscitabo Chaldeos gentem amaram et velocem (‘for behold, I shall support the Chaldeans, a bitter and swift nation’). The learning apparent throughout the poem might suggest familiarity with a school text which became popular in the course of the ninth and tenth centuries. In his De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, Martianus Capella provides a grim portrait of Saturn – as Philology ascends through the heavens, she is terrified by Saturn in his planetary sphere:194 sed ipsi praesuli nunc draconis facies, nunc rictus leonis, nunc cristae cum

190 191 192 193 194

by which it is translated graue, “weighty”, it signifies the Tigris and Euphrates and all the great and most impressive rivers which are said to exist in the land of the Chaldeans.’ Trans. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 146; Commentariorum in Hiezechielem, ed. Glorie, CCSL 75, 5. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 147. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 145 n. 31. Trans. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 150 n. 45; Jerome, Commentarii in Danielem, p. 778. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 148. See Commentary on SolSatII 29b–32a. Martianus Capella, De Nuptiis, ed. Willis, II, p. 197; ‘Saturn himself wore now the face of a dragon, now the gaping jaws of a lion, now a crest made of the teeth of a boar. In his raging fury he caused horror and destruction, and his power was reckoned to exceed all others according as the size of his circle exceeded theirs.’ Trans. Stahl in Martianus Capella, Marriage, p. 60; Tinkle, ‘Saturn of the Several Faces’, p. 301, notes that Saturn’s baleful personality is a later development.

33

Introduction aprugnis dentibus videbantur, totoque exitialis saeviebat horrore; cui tamen potestas pro circi granditate maior ac praelata ceteris habebatur.

Earlier in De Nuptiis Saturn is described in less terrifying terms as ‘the most melancholy of the elder gods’ (maestissimum seniorum deorum),195 and rather than appearing as a dragon, carries one:196 verum sator eorum gressibus tardus ac remorator incedit glaucoque amictu tectus caput. praetendebat dextra flammivomum quendam draconem caudae suae ultima devorantem, quem credebant anni numerum nomine perdocere. ipsius autem canities pruinosis nivibus candicabat, licet ille etiam puer posse fieri crederetur.

Another school text, less well known, suggests a closer affinity with the characterisation of Saturn in the poems. Macrobius’s Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis presents the locus classicus of the Neoplatonic association between Saturn and wisdom:197 ‘in Saturni ratiocinationem et intellegentiam, quod λογιστικόν et θεορετικόν vocant (‘in [the sphere] of Saturn are reason and understanding, which are called logisticon and theoreticon’). In circles where Macrobius was studied, Saturn’s association with learning would not depend on his Chaldean nationality.198 Both Latin learning and a close interest in Saturn’s significance is confirmed by the Old English punning in both poems on the Latin etymology of the former god’s name (SolSatI 18a; SolSatII 74–5; see Commentary). Another unusual element of Saturn’s characterisation in the dialogues is found in the extensive travels he has undertaken in search of knowledge. This feature has been attributed to three sources: the Cosmographia of Aethicus Ister; the Institutiones Diuinae of Lactantius; and the presentation of Apollonius of Tyana in Jerome’s Epistula liii. The Cosmographia purports to be a translation made by Jerome of Aethicus’s account of his journey in search of knowledge. It is very likely that the work contributed to the choice of Saturn’s name and elements of his De Nuptiis, I.4. De Nuptiis, I.70; ‘Their father advanced with slow and halting steps, his head covered with a grey cloak. In his right hand he held a fire-breathing dragon devouring its own tail – a dragon which was believed to teach the number of days in a year by the spelling of its own name. His hair was white as hoarfrost, although it was believed that he could become a young man’; trans. Stahl in Martianus Capella, Marriage, pp. 26–7; cf. Aeneid XII.885. Commenting on the passage, Remigius of Auxerre notes that the dragon represents the solar year, and breathes fire because it represents the cycle of the sun; it devours its tail as each year consumes the preceding year’s produce, and in the cycle of the year the end of one year meets the beginning of the next as the sun completes its course; see Stahl, Marriage, pp. 5–6. 197 Macrobius, Commentarii, I.12.14, ed. Willis, p. 50; see R. Klabinsky, E. Panofsky and F. Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy (New York, 1964), pp. 170–8. The work was excerpted from a copy in the library at Liège by Sedulius Scottus in his Collectaneum; see Lapidge, ‘B. and the Vita S. Dunstani’, pp. 251–2. 198 Tinkle, ‘Saturn of the Several Faces’, p. 290; see J. Bately, ‘Those Books that are Most Necessary for All Men to Know: The Classics and Late Ninth Century England: A Reappraisal’, in The Classics in the Middle Ages, ed. A. S. Bernardo and S. Levin (Binghamton, NY, 1990), pp. 45–78. 195 196

34

3. Genre, Context and Sources itinerary.199 Aethicus’s skill in metallurgy, languages and alphabets may also have left their mark on the dialogues: Saturn’s alphabetical interest is assumed; the SolSatI poet may have had some knowledge of Greek (and certainly knew Latin); and SolSatI and SolSatPNPr reveal a close knowledge of metallurgy.200 Despite the fact that he is a pagan philosopher, Aethicus, like Saturn, is knowledgable about Christian eschatology, especially the Last Judgment. In the Institutiones Diuinae, written during the first decade of the fourth century, Lactantius systematically explores the Christian religion in relation to the pagan. The work refutes Classical paganism’s claim to be the foundation of a true and just social order, but nevertheless is heavily influenced by Cicero, whose style and thought the convert Lactantius admires. Lactantius redeems what he can of the old religion and its philosophical foundation, treating the gods in a euhemerising way (rather than Cicero’s allegorising method) as he creates a synthesis of mythological sources to present their ‘historical’ character. Saturn features among these. The Institutiones parallel the poems in their presentation of a Saturn who, driven out of Crete by his son Jupiter, wanders the world before coming to Italy (I.13):201 fugit igitur expulsus et in Italiam nauigio uenit, cum errasset diu (‘so Saturn was driven into exile, and after prolonged diversions he came to Italy by boat’). Two textual parallels are also apparent. In answer to Saturn’s question in SolSatII, asking what it is that travels through the world destroying all things (104–13), Solomon replies that it is yldo (114, ‘old age’). As noted above, the expected answer to the question from the riddling tradition would be ‘wind’ or ‘time’. The answer ‘old age’ is paralleled in the Institutiones Diuinae (VII.11):202 nihil enim Tullius ait esse quod sit manibus humanis laboratum, quod non aliquando ad interitum redigatur uel iniuria hominum uel ipsa confectrice rerum omnium uetustate (‘Cicero says, “There is nothing made by human hand which is not eventually brought to collapse, whether by assault of man or by old age itself, the destroyer of all things”’). The passage is excerpted, amongst others, by Sedulius Scottus in his Miscellaneum (no. 131):203 Vetustas omnium temporalium rerum confectrix est (‘Old age is the destroyer of all temporal things’). There is no evidence for direct knowledge of the Institutiones Diuinae in Anglo-Saxon England, but the poet could easily have found excerpts in a miscellany. A third point of contact can be seen in Solomon’s claim (SolSatII 242–6) that there is no creature which is not fyrenes cynnes (246b, ‘of the race of fire’). In one of his many discussions of Saturn, Lactantius turns to his allegorical treatment by the Stoics, and Cicero in particular, who reads Saturn’s castration of his father Caelus in allegorical terms (Institutiones Diuinae I.12), representing the self-generative 199

See Commentary. See O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 151; O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, pp. 139–40; see Herren, ‘Wozu diente die Fälschung’, p. 156. 201 Institutiones Diuinae, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19, 51; Divine Institutes, trans. Bowen and Garnsey, p. 89. See O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 147 n. 35. 202 Institutiones Diuinae, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19, 617; Divine Institutes, trans. Bowen and Garnsey, p. 89. 203 CCCM 117, p. 284 (no. 131). 200

35

Introduction power of fire:204 id est igneam, quae per sese omnia gigneret (‘the fiery nature, that is – which could generate everything on its own’). The idea that fire was latent in all created things is found in other analogues, but both the contextual reference to Saturn and the phrasing suggest the poet’s familiarity with this passage.205 It would not be surprising to find the SolSatII poet was interested in the Institutiones Diuinae, which announces at the outset its purpose of teaching wisdom, not to the ignorant, but the learned (I.1):206 aperuit oculos eius aliquando, et notionem ueritatis munus suum fecit, ut et humanam sapientiam nullum esse monstraret, et erranti ac uago uiam consequendae inmortalitatis ostenderet. verum quoniam pauci utuntur hoc caelesti beneficio ac munere, quod obuoluta in obscuro ueritas latet . . . ut et docti ad ueram sapientiam dirigantur et indocti ad ueram religionem.

Jerome’s Epistula liii is addressed to Paulinus of Nola, a classically educated convert to Christianity.207 At the beginning of the letter, Jerome portrays Apollonius of Tyana, a Neopythagorean philosopher who travels the three continents in search of knowledge, debating as he goes. This portrait in turn inspired at least one early-medieval writer, the author of the Cosmographia.208 The letter begins with a reflection on the pagans’ love of and search for wisdom, before moving on to the superiority of Christian wisdom, derived from the scriptures. The letter includes a survey of the body of sacred scripture, with a focus on the desire for learning which the scriptures alone can satisfy. Jerome’s presentation parallels the structure of Saturn’s quest: the first part of the letter considers the pagan search, the latter the satisfaction of this through knowledge of Christian truth. Jerome begins by pointing out that among the pagans travelling in search of wisdom was not unusual: legimus in ueteribus historiis quosdam lustrasse prouincias, nouos populos adisse, maria transisse, ut eos, quos ex libris nouerant, coram quoque uiderent (‘We read in old tales that men traversed provinces, crossed seas, and visited strange peoples, simply to see face to face persons whom they knew only from books’).209 He lists famous examples: Pythagoras visited Memphis; Plato went to Egypt, Tarentum and Italy; certain noblemen visited Titus Livius in Rome from remotest Spain and 204

205 206

207 208 209

Institutiones Diuinae, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19, 49; Divine Institutes, trans. Bowen and Garnsey, p. 88; cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum II.24–5; see Tinkle, ‘Saturn of the Several Faces’, p. 299. See Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, p. 103. See Commentary, SolSatII 240–6. Institutiones Diuinae, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19, 2–3; ‘eventually [God] opened man’s eyes and made him a gift of the acquisition of truth, first to demonstrate that human wisdom is non-existent, and then to show the errant wanderer the path to immortality. Few take advantage of this bountiful gift from heaven; the truth is wrapped in obscurity . . . In this confusion I am sure that help is needed if the learned are to be directed towards true wisdom and the ignorant towards true religion.’ Bowen and Garnsey, trans., Divine Institutes, pp. 57–8. Lactantius also develops the association between Solomon and Christ (IV.6, 14). Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. Hilberg, CSEL 54, I, pp. 442–65; St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, pp. 96–102. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 151 n. 48. Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. Hilberg, CSEL 54, I, p. 443; St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, p. 97.

36

3. Genre, Context and Sources Gaul. The most celebrated example is Apollonius of Tyana (Ep. liii.1):210 intrauit Persas, transiuit Caucasum, Albanos, Scythas, Massagetas, opulentissima Indiae regna penetrauit et ad extremum latissimo Phison amne trans­misso, peruenit ad Bragmanas . . . inde per Elamitas, Babylonios, Chaldaeos, Medos, Assyrios, Parthos, Syros, Phoenices, Arabas, Palaestinam, reuersus Alexandriam perrexit, Aethiopiam adiuit, ut gymnosophistas et famosissimam Solis mensam uideret in sabulo. inuenit ille uir ubique quod disceret, ut semper proficiens semper se melior fieret.

While other geographic sources present closer parallels to places visited by Saturn, Jerome’s letter provides such a close structural analogue, in a parallel context, that it is almost certain to have influenced the presentation of the itinerary in SolSatII. Jerome dismisses the search for wisdom among the pagans as inadequate. A better example, he suggests, can be found in St Paul, who also travelled, visiting Damascus and Arabia, before finally going to Jerusalem, where true wisdom could be found.211 As for Lactantius, so for Jerome, Jerusalem and the Temple take on a symbolic importance. Christ himself visited the Temple as both student and teacher (Ep. liii.3):212 duodecim annos saluator inpleuerat et in templo senes de quaestionibus legis interrogans magis docet, dum prudenter interrogat (‘The Saviour had only accomplished his twelfth year when the scene in the Temple took place; but when he interrogated the elders concerning the Law his wise questions conveyed rather than sought information’). Jerome emphasises the enigmatic nature of wisdom hidden in Christ and his teaching (Ep. liii.4):213 hoc Plato nesciuit, hoc Demosthenes eloquens ignorauit. perdam, inquit, sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo. . . . sed loquitur dei sapientiam in mysterio absconditam, quam praedestinauit deus ante saecula. dei sapientia Christus est; Christus enim dei uirtus et dei sapientia. haec sapientia in mysterio abscondita est . . . in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi et qui, in mysterio absconditus, praedestinatus est ante saecula. 210

‘He entered Persia, traversed the Caucasus and made his way through the Albanians, the Scythians, the Massagetae, and the richest districts of India. At last, after crossing that wide river the Pison, he came to the Brahmans. . . . After this he travelled among the Elamites, the Babylonians, Chaldeans, the Medes, the Assyrians, the Parthians, the Syrians, the Phoenicians, the Arabians, and the Philistines. Then returning to Alexandria he made his way to Ethiopia to see the gymnosophists and the famous table of the sun spread in the sands of the desert. Everywhere he found something to learn, so that as he was always going to new places, he became constantly wiser and better.’ St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, p. 97. 211 Jerome goes on to quote scriptural exhortations to study, learning and wisdom (Ep. liii.2). 212 St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, p. 98; cf. Luke II.46. 213 ‘This truth Plato with all his learning did not know, of this Demosthenes with all his eloquence was ignorant. “I will destroy,” it is said, “the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” . . . he speaks “the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world.” God’s wisdom is Christ, for Christ, we are told, is “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” He is the wisdom which is hidden in a mystery . . . In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He also who was hidden in a mystery is the same that was foreordained before the world.’ St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, p. 98; cf. I Cor. I.19, 24; II.6–7.

37

Introduction This higher, hidden wisdom is found by another traveller to Jerusalem (and Solomon’s Temple), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts VIII.27–31), whose journey to the Holy Land reminds Jerome of his own (Ep. liii.5):214 de extremis mundi finibus, uenit ad templum . . . et tantus amator divinae scientiae fuit, ut etiam in uehiculo sacras litteras legeret – et tamen, cum librum teneret et uerba domini cogitatione conciperet, lingua uolueret, labiis personaret, ignorabat eum, quem in libro nesciens uenerabatur. uenit Philippus, ostendit ei Iesum, qui clausus latebat in littera

The eunuch’s search resonates with Saturn’s – he has read widely, and even knows scripture, but lacks full understanding. This wisdom found in Christ is not immediately available to anyone who wants to know, or who even has books (Ep. liii.4–5):215 aperiebantur caeli Ezechieli, qui populo peccatori clausi erant. .  .  . liber in Apocalypsi septem sigillis signatus ostenditur; quem si dederis homini scienti litteras, ut legat, respondebit tibi: ‘non possum, signatus est enim’. quanti hodie putantes se nosse litteras tenent signatum librum nec aperire possunt, nisi ille reserauerit, qui habet clauem David.

The ‘key’ (Rev. III.7) recalls the ‘books’ keys’ (boca cæga, SolSatII 6b) that Saturn has found in his travels, though he lacks the key possessed by Solomon, ‘son of David’ (SolSatFrag 6b). Jerome’s point is that no one can progress in sacred wisdom without a guide. Reading the book is not enough, as its meanings are enigmatic, and only with the ‘key’ can the mystery be understood. In his discussion, Jerome presents a cursory survey of the Old and New Testaments, emphasising the mysterious character of scripture. Solomon is one of the more prolific of authors mentioned (Ep. liii.8):216 Salomon, pacificus et amabilis domini, mores corrigit, naturam docet, ecclesiam iungit et Christum sanctarumque nuptiarum dulce canit epithalamion (‘Solomon, “the peaceful”, and lover of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature, unites Christ and the Church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate the holy bridal’). An insight into the context in which earlier Anglo-Saxons read Jerome’s Epistula liii can be gleaned from its inclusion in St Petersburg (Leningrad), National Library of Russia, MS Lat. Q.v.I.15 (Gneuss no. 845; SW England, provenance

214

‘He came to the Temple from the ends of the world . . . and was so great a lover of divine knowledge that he read the holy scriptures even in his chariot. Yet although he had the book in his hand and took into his mind the words of the Lord, nay even had them on his lips, he still knew not him, whom – not knowing – he worshipped in the book. Then Philip came and showed him Jesus, who was concealed beneath the letter.’ St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, p. 98; cf. Acts VIII.27–31. 215 ‘The heavens which were sealed to a rebellious people were opened to Ezekiel. . . . In the apocalypse a book is shown sealed with seven seals, which if you deliver to one that is learned saying, “Read this”, he will answer you, “I cannot, for it is sealed”. How many are there today who fancy themselves learned, yet the scriptures are a sealed book to them, and one they cannot open save through him who has the key of David.’ St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, p. 98; cf. Rev. V.1, III.7; Isaiah XXIX.11. 216 St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, p. 101.

38

3. Genre, Context and Sources Corbie s. viii).217 The manuscript, like Epistula liii and the Solomon and Saturn dialogues, combines an interest in scripture and enigma: in addition to Epistula liii (Item 3, fols 17v–21v), the manuscript contains a number of Isidore’s works, as well as an incomplete text of Aldhelm’s Aenigmata (Item 12, fols 72–79v), and an acrostic (Item 8), amongst other texts.218 The Temple One question seldom addressed in relation to the Solomon and Saturn dialogues is where they are imagined to be taking place; O’Neill has suggested that their encounter is presented as located ‘somewhere in or near the Mediterranean’.219 The poems emphasise Saturn’s journey, but any definitive indication of where SolSatII locates its exchange has probably been lost with the erased text on p. 14 of CCCC 422. The most obvious location associated with Solomon, both historically and symbolically, is his Temple in Jerusalem (cf. I Kings X.1–3, II Chron. IX.1–3). O’Neill’s argument is based on Saturn’s statements that he will depart across the water (SolSatI 19–20) and the Mediterranean (SolSatII 26–7), which seem at odds with the mention of places in the Holy Land visited on his journey (SolSatII 9–23). But Saturn’s intention to return to the sea does not necessarily imply that he is standing on its shore, while the itinerary in SolSatII appears to culminate in Jerusalem; however, the text is disrupted at this point (8–23). A clue might be found in Saturn’s description of the sight of the ‘golden walls of Jerusalem shining’, though this forms part of a riddle, and apparently refers to the heavenly rather than the terrestrial city (SolSatII 57–9a). There is, however, a clear indication in SolSatPNPr that the interlocutors are imagined not only in Jerusalem, but also in Solomon’s Temple. In the last (and incomplete) answer in SolSatPNPr, Solomon describes the precious clothing of the Pater Noster’s standard (113–15): ðæt godwebb wæs on ðæs godwebbes onlicnisse ðe ieo ymb mines fæder dauides columban hangode on ðeosum ilcan temple (‘that same precious cloth was in the likeness of the precious cloth that formerly hung about my father David’s columns in this same Temple’). The reference to ðeosum ilcan temple is unequivocal: the author of the prose dialogue envisages the Temple as the location of the debate between the sages. Any question about the location of the dialogue is therefore inseparable from the question of the relationship between the poems and their authorship; furthermore, for any reader of the anthology in A, the Temple is the place named. See O. A. Dobiaš-Roždestvenskaja and W. W. Bakhtine, ed., Les anciens manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque publique Saltykov-Ščedrin de Leningrad: VIIIe – début IXe siècle, trans. X. Grichine (Paris, 1991), pp. 63–8 (no. 28). 218 The Isidoran works are, Items 1. Proemia in libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti; 2. De ortu et obitu Patrum; 4. Expositio in missam; 6. Isidore, Liber II differentiarum; 9. a fragment of Differentiarum libri I et II; the manuscript also contains the Athanasian creed ‘quicumque’ (Item 7), and two hymns, to the Zodiac (Item 10) and to the Winds (Item 11). 219 O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 146. 217

39

Introduction The Temple location serves to explain other elements of the texts’ imagery, which echoes the Temple’s decoration in I Kings VI.21–VII.7, II Chron. III.4–16 and Ezek. XLI.15–26. In all three, the recurrent features are cherubim (cf. SolSat­ PNPr 36), palm trees (cf. SolSatI 12a, 39a, 167b) and gilt decoration (cf. SolSat­II 57–8). I Kings describes Solomon overlaying the Temple completely with gold (VI.21), with carved cherubim ten cubits high in the inner sanctuary (VI.23). The Temple’s walls are also decorated with carved cherubim, palm trees and flowers (cf. SolSatPNPr 58–9), and the doors are also overlaid with gold, decorated with cherubim, palms and flowers (VI.29–35). The House of the Forest of Lebanon (domum saltus Libani, VII.2), a column-filled hall associated with the Cherubim, may lie behind the obscure reference to hefones holte (‘heaven’s forest’) in SolSatPNPr (35). Beside this hall, Solomon built the Hall of Judgment, containing his throne, where foreign dignitaries were received (VII.7). The description of the construction of the Temple in II Chron. III adds some details not found in I Kings, such as decoration with precious stones (III.6; cf. compgimmum, SolSatPNPr 75), though here too angels, palm trees and gold predominate. The description of the sanctuary in Ezek. XLI.15–26 downplays the gilt decoration, and removes reference to floral ornament, giving greater emphasis to the scheme of palm trees and angels. Ezekiel develops the descriptions of the cherubs, which here have two faces (Ezek. XLI.19): faciem hominis iuxta palmam ex hac parte et faciem leonis iuxta palmam ex alia parte (‘The face of a man was toward the palm tree on one side, and the face of a lion was toward the palm tree on the other side’). The different emphases in Ezekiel are significant, given the demonstrated influence on both poems not only of the Book of Ezekiel, but also of Jerome’s commentary on it. The Book relates the visionary experiences of Ezekiel, son of the priest Buzi, an exile from Jerusalem, which has been sacked by the Chaldeans. The interest in the Temple is strong – in the opening vision Ezekiel is transported to Jerusalem, and the Temple is measured out before him with numerical detail not found in either I Kings or II Chronicles. Gregory the Great’s forty homilies on Ezekiel (widely excerpted in early-medieval miscellanies) develop an allegorical and eschatological reading of the prophetic book’s obscure and enigmatic detail. The interest in Ezekiel in Irish and Anglo-Saxon circles may also account for some elements of the description of Vasa mortis (SolSatII 75–103), whose appearance has affinities with the creatures found in Ezekiel’s opening vision on the banks of the Chobar (Ezek. I.5–18).220 The winged, fourfaced creatures described in the vision were traditionally read as representing the four evangelists (and their gospels), an interpretation discussed by Jerome in his imaginative recasting of the image in Ep. liii.9:221 220 221

See Commentary. ‘Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the Lord’s team of four, the true Cherubim, which are interpreted as the multitude of knowledge. With them the whole body is full of eyes, they glitter as sparks, they run and return like lightning, their feet are straight feet, and lifted up, their backs also are winged, ready to fly in all directions. They hold together each by each, and are interwoven one with another: like wheels within wheels they roll along and go whithersoever the breath of the Holy Spirit leads them.’ Trans. based on Fremantle, St Jerome, p. 102. Cf. the short commentary in the ‘Wessobrunn

40

4. Structure and Relationships Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas, Iohannes, quadriga domini et uerum cherubin, quod interpretatur ‘scientiae multitudo’, per totum corpus oculati sunt, scintillae micant, discurrunt fulgura, pedes habent rectos et in sublime tendentes, terga pennata et ubique uolitantia. tenent se mutuo, sibique perplexi sunt et quasi rota in rota uoluuntur et pergunt, quocumque eos flatus sancti spiritus duxerit.

Not only was the vision of Ezekiel well known, but it was developed imaginatively in the kinds of works available to the poet. Another image both poems have borrowed from the intersection of the Books of Ezekiel and Revelation refers to Saturn’s ‘tasting’ of books (boca onbyrgan; SolSatI 2a; SolSatII 65a). The verb onbyrgan occurs frequently in Old English, but its primary denotation is physical, ‘to taste, consume (food, drink)’.222 In Rev. X.9–10, an angel gives John a scroll to eat (devora, devoravi), which he finds sweet (tamquam mel dulce) in his mouth, but bitter (amaricatus) in his belly; this image is borrowed from Ezek. III.1–3, where the prophet must also eat a book (comedere; cf. also Jer. XV.16). The image as developed in the poem differs from these passages, and implies that Saturn’s way of reading is inadequate, but in any case the unusual image is developed from these biblical models.

4 Structure and Relationships Solomon and Saturn I SolSatI begins with Saturn introducing himself, unlike SolSatII where Saturn’s travels are described in the voice of a narrator who introduces the speakers. The opening of SolSatI focuses on a self-conscious literacy, with Saturn’s reference to book-learning and letters (2), and the micelan bec (6b, ‘great book’), a foretaste of the poem’s sustained interest in the power of letters. Saturn refers both to his reading and the commentators who have helped him (SolSatI 5), which will continue with Solomon’s explication of one potent biblical passage, the Pater Noster. Solomon’s first words (21–35) direct the reader’s attention to the question of why knowledge of the Pater Noster is necessary, and list attributes of the man ignorant of the prayer: unhappiness; uselessness; folly; bestial wandering; inflation; damnation. The down-to-earth focus of this opening contrasts with the rhetorical extravagance and spiritually abstract discussion it introduces. Solomon’s words locate knowledge of the Pater Noster within the earthly search for wisdom, which Manuscript’, ed. Waldman, pp. 419–21 (f. 67): VISIO QUAM VIDIT EZECHIEL Super fluuium chobar. Vidit quattuor animalia plena oculis ante et retro: et ex oculis eorum scintille micantes. Sen∧a∨s alas habentes duas uelabant caput ostendunt quod ante principio mundi nemo scit nisi deus. . . . Per senas alas. sex aetates mundi intelligiter. Oculis ante et retro. Praedicatio euangelistarum praeterita et futura. . . . Rota In rota. id est euangelium In euangelium (cf. Ezek. I.3, Rev. IV.6). 222 See Wilcox, ‘Eating Books’, pp. 116–17.

41

Introduction is both practical (without it one is unlæde and unit) and epistemological (wisdom and knowledge distinguish human from beast); all other speech is wind without it. Solomon asserts that this knowledge is necessary for salvation, introduced in terms of an eschatological conflict, when the devil will knock a man down with missiles (25b–29). This metaphor is developed in the letter allegory, where the Pater Noster becomes the weapon against the devil. Saturn’s next question (36–52) represents a logical development from Solomon’s answer. Solomon has warned that without knowledge of the Pater Noster, the Judgment will not go well, and a doomed man will be excluded from the company of heaven. Saturn asks, then, how to avoid this solitude and be incorporated into heaven’s company. The poet initiates a metallurgical metaphor for the Pater Noster, made of precious metal, like the poured gold and silver of creation’s foundation (cf. 63–5). In answer, Solomon takes up Saturn’s earlier reference to the ‘palm-twigged Pater Noster’ (12). Where Solomon’s first speech had begun by listing the attributes of the man ignorant of the Pater Noster, he now lists six attributes of the Pater Noster itself. The first three (opening heaven, blessing the holy, showing mercy) confer benefit, while the latter three (striking down murder, extinguishing the devil’s fire, kindling the Lord’s fire) reveal its power against evil. The last of these attributes introduces one of the most difficult passages of the poem. The text is corrupt in both manuscripts, but it is clear that the ‘bright prayer’ is being used in a process of heating. The concluding section of Solomon’s answer returns to the theme of books: for these reasons the ‘canticle’ is the greatest piece of scripture, spoken by Christ and then written down, now read and returned to speech. Solomon’s comment that the Pater Noster carries war-gear augments the martial theme, developed beside the emphasis on the prayer’s literate character. Saturn’s following question (52–62) develops the movement in the poem from written text, to utterance, to memory. The development of the Pater Noster into a distinctive entity is brought about gradually. Most of the attributes listed by Solomon in his answers so far could simply be applied to the prayer as text or speech, though one that already ‘carries war-gear’. Saturn’s question enlarges on this by developing the metallurgical imagery already employed by Solomon (28a, 31), comparing the Pater Noster’s role in purifying the soul to the purification of ore, employing the verbs miltan, merian, asceadan in strictly technical senses (53–6a). The use of the prayer can give the soul the fair form given the prayer itself by the Sceppend (cf. 43–8, 63–5). This increasing solidity of the Pater Noster as a precious object is in contrast to the spirit of Saturn and his unstable curiosity, which confuse his mind as he pursues books (57b–62). Solomon’s answer (63–169) constitutes the bulk of the poem, and falls into three sections signalled by reference to Godes cwide (‘God’s utterance’, 63, 84, 145). First, the metaphorical transformation of the Pater Noster into a precious metal object is completed (63–83), though it is difficult to visualise. A cwide made of gold, studded with gems and having silver ‘leaves’ (SolSatI A64) which proclaim the Gospel, might suggest an ornamental Gospel book; on the other hand, the earlier reference to palm-trees could invite the reader to imagine a tree comparable to an

42

4. Structure and Relationships ornamental cross. The imagery is evocative rather than descriptive, and presents an enigma of the kind found in SolSatII 52–9. The second section (84–145), a battle sequence between the letters of the Pater Noster and a devil, is the most strikingly original passage in this highly idiosyncratic poem (84–145). The concept underlying the fantastic battle is not complex – the Pater Noster is an effective weapon against the devil. The letters do their work when the Pater Noster is sung (85a), and the singer cherishes the prayer without sin (86a); the emphasis is spiritual and devotional, not magical. The battle is not static, but progresses as the devil is pursued – though he seeks to hide, he is discovered, and alternately cast into shadows and spun in the air. The tone of the poem is hard to read, but the desired effect may be grimly comical, and the influence of the allegorical conflict represented in Prudentius’s Psychomachia is apparent.223 The last subsection of Solomon’s lengthy discourse on Godes cwide describes the Pater Noster’s power over hidden devils (146–69). Lines 146–60 describe the usefulness of the prayer against devils who hide themselves under certain forms, such as a serpent (152b), or an underwater creature with horns (156a), or make themselves invisible, restraining the arms of a man in battle (158–9a). This latter problem, the logic of the context implies, can come about through the inscription of fatal letters on the blade of the sword (161–2), a magical act giving the devil power over the blade and the arm wielding it. It is better to pray the Pater Noster, invoking divine protection over the blade and its user, when an enemy – human or demonic – should come. Solomon’s speech comes to a logical conclusion; Saturn’s next question is delivered in prose, not verse, leading to speculation about the completeness of the poem. If Saturn should have the last as well as the first word, then the verse certainly ends without a conclusion of the dialogue opened at line 1. However, without an introductory narrative frame, the inherent structural weakness of SolSatI might not demand more of a conclusion than the one offered by Solomon’s long speech, in which he satisfies Saturn’s earlier demand to know of the powers of the Pater Noster (10–12). Indeed, Solomon’s closing words (especially 167–8a) echo the phrasing of Saturn’s quest (12), creating a rhetorical frame. Solomon and Saturn Prose Pater Noster Dialogue Manuscript A signals no disruption in the transition from verse to prose, and the ideas developed in the last phase of the poem continue in the prose questions which follow, accompanied by parallels in diction: SolSatI 150a, bleoum bregdað: SolSat­ PNPr 2, ac hu moniges bleos; SolSatI 151a, feðerhoman onfoð: SolSatPNPr 95, feðerhoman; SolSatI 152b, in wyrmes lic: SolSatPNPr 9, on cildes onlicnisse.224 The two texts also refer to the Pater Noster in ways elsewhere unattested: SolSatI 17b, Menner, PD, p. 42; see Hermann, ‘Pater Noster Battle Sequence’; Dendle, ‘Demonological Landscape’, p. 285. 224 See Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 234. 223

43

Introduction cristes linan: SolSatPNPr 92, lifes linan; SolSatI 17a, cantices: SolSatPNPr 103–4, se halga cantic. However, the punctuation of the prose is markedly different from the preceding verse, with a great increase in the use of the triangle of points marking syntactic units; the difference is unlikely to be the result only of the differing syntax of verse and prose, and suggests a different exemplar at this or an earlier stage of transmission. At least two possibilities are signalled by the transition. The prose may have been added to the verse later, either by the original poet or another compiler who has found (or author who has created) material to augment the content of the verse; if this is so, then given the unusual nature of the materials, this is probably taking place in the same centre. Alternatively, the transition signals versification as a work in progress, an incomplete project that has entered into the process of scribal transmission; if this is the case, it is impossible to establish whether the versifier was the author of SolSatI and/or SolSatPNPr. Copying errors demonstrate that A’s scribe is not the author. In the prose section the dialogue format, insofar as this presents distinct characters with points of view, is diminished, as Saturn asks short simple questions. However, SolSatPNPr continues, and even intensifies, the conceit of an actual encounter, as Solomon directs Saturn’s attention to the Temple visible to both characters (SolSatPNPr 113–15). Solomon’s long speeches in the prose mirror his final speech in SolSatI, which lasts uninterrupted for 107 lines, and are similarly concerned with the Pater Noster’s fantastic properties and his powers over devils. Solomon’s answers to Saturn’s seven questions present five aspects and roles of the Pater Noster: his likenesses, his pursuit of the devil, his head, his heart (which includes most of the body), the drapery of his standard (incomplete owing to loss). The prose commences with the same thematic interest found at the conclusion of the verse – the warfare between the devil and the Pater Noster, in which each in turn takes on fifteen ‘likenesses’ or ‘forms’. The practical concerns expressed in the last section of the verse would give the impression that the battle is a spiritual allegory, emblematic of the daily spiritual warfare (of the kind found at the end of SolSatII) in which the Pater Noster could be used as a weapon. The Pater Noster is increasingly anthropomorphised in the prose, which ultimately reveals him as a creature of enormous size. Much of the imagery suggests that the conflict between the Pater Noster and devil is eschatological, though the verb bið, and its implied future tense, is found only in the transformation battle.225 Subsequent questions imply the present tense. No direct source has been discovered for any of the prose passages. In the Commentary I have noted the influence of Ps. XVII (in the Latin translation of the Hebrew rather than of the Septuagint), which runs through the grotesque descriptions of the body of the Pater Noster; the influence of Rev. I.12–6 is also apparent. These two scriptural passages are closely associated with the Temple.

225

See Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, p. 21.

44

4. Structure and Relationships Solomon and Saturn Poetic Fragment The poetic fragment at the top of A, p. 13, is anomalous. Between the incomplete ending of SolSatPNPr at the foot of p. 12 and this poetic fragment, a page is missing, as indicated by a stub. The return to verse is surprising, and the fragment constitutes the end of a poetic dialogue between a victorious Solomon (6, se snotra sunu dauides) and Saturn (7b, caldea eorl). Despite its presence before the beginning of SolSatII, it has been argued the fragment is the second poem’s conclusion.226 The strongest piece of evidence so far adduced that SolSatFrag is the stray ending of SolSatII is the expression forcumen ond forcyðed (SolSatFrag 7a), matching the opening terms of the debate in SolSatII 29a. This is persuasive, if not convincing, not simply because of the shared expression – which might otherwise be explained as an example of the shared use of poetic formulae and diction between two closely related poems – but also because of its structural significance in signalling the satisfaction of the debate’s agreed terms. Furthermore, the account of the closing of hell in SolSatFrag could be seen as providing a logical conclusion of the action unfolding at SolSatII’s incomplete ending (326–7). In this way, the he of SolSatFrag 1, would refer to the man troubled daily by hell’s demon (SolSatII 308); he is not a demon, but a weakening and deceived man. Other evidence strengthens the case for the fragment as the stray ending of SolSatII. The second poem opens in the voice of a narrator, while SolSatI begins with Saturn himself speaking. The narrative frame is established in SolSatII, where the prompts for the speakers (Saturnus cwæð and Salomon cwæð) are halflines of verse in the narrator’s voice, but without a logical speaker in SolSatI. As well as providing evidence for the priority of the composition of SolSatII, this frame provides evidence that the fragment ends the same poem, returning to this narrating voice for its conclusion (SolSatFrag 6–9). The manuscript punctuation provides further evidence. SolSatI makes sparing use of the inverted triangle of three points, while SolSatPNPr makes extensive use. In the space of nine poetic lines, SolSatFrag uses the inverted triangle three times; two of these are used consecutively at the end of the final line, followed by a virgule. Neither SolSatI nor SolSatPNPr uses consecutive triangles of points, and SolSatI never uses the triangle with virgule, which is used sparingly in SolSatPNPr. Both double (and multiple) triangles (often with virgule) are used frequently in SolSatII, making the punctuation of the fragment more like that of SolSatII than the other two texts. Taken together, these points strongly suggest that SolSatFrag is the stray ending of SolSatII.227 See Vincenti, Die altenglischen Dialoge, p. 64; Menner, PD, pp. 10–11; O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 68–9. Dobbie’s suggestion (ASPR VI, pp. liv and lviii–lix), that his format follows the arrangement of A is misleading, as the omission of the prose (logically not included in the ‘poetic’ records) departs from the manuscript format. 227 Discussion of the full significance of this move lies beyond the scope of this edition. See my forthcoming, ‘The Stray Ending of Solomon and Saturn II and the Solomonic Anthology in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422’. 226

45

Introduction Solomon and Saturn II A full comprehension of the structural and thematic unity of SolSatII is impaired by the loss of portions of the text. Nevertheless, certain structural principles and themes are in evidence. The dialogue form imparts to the poem an oppositional structure, which is developed in contrasts between heat and cold, the divergent fate of twins, fate and foreknowledge, spirits who contend for the soul, and others. Saturn, motivated by his burning curiosity, has travelled the nations in search of a wisdom which will satisfy. He reaches Solomon (apparently in Jerusalem), and if Solomon can answer his quest, Saturn will return home. The poem assumes Solomon’s authority, and Saturn presents the king with engimas and paradoxes. Solomon emerges as a figure associated with the peace of wisdom, Saturn with the contentious restlessness exemplified in his frenetic geographic search. The opposition between the two is rooted in their particular geographic associations. The associations of Babylon and Jerusalem were medieval commonplaces: Saturn the Chaldean is associated with the sinful confusion of Babel, Solomon with the peace of Jerusalem.228 Saturn’s wanderings echo the fragmentation of the human race into nations at Babel, and it is possible the poet imagines him as a refugee from the biblical dispersal. Implied in the opposition between Jerusalem and Babel is the problem of knowledge. At Babel proud humanity reached upwards towards God, a gesture resulting in confusion; at Jerusalem, God reaches down, granting wisdom and peace. Solomon’s wisdom was a divine gift, given with wealth and power (I Kings III.10–4); Saturn is characterised by his wealth and power, and the search for wisdom. The unity of the poem is apparent from its point of departure: Saturn’s wandering exile leads him to Solomon, whose first question takes Saturn back to his point of origin: Babel (29b–33). When questioned about ‘the field of Sennaar’, Saturn tells the mysterious story of ‘Wulf’, a friend of Nimrod (34–46); whatever the full significance of the passage, Wulf is clearly a heroic figure whose great deeds lead to his death, linked to the origin of ‘poison-kind’. The first exchange, concerning the land where no foot can tread, ties the image of deep water to the pride of Babel, and as well as setting the riddling tone, establishes the limits of reason, which cannot probe the mystery of God’s power. Solomon and Saturn agree on the importance of books (60–8); Solomon praises the wisdom they bring, while Saturn focuses on their power. The following passage on the bird Vasa mortis echoes an Irish sapiential tradition opposing the search for wisdom to the love of wealth (75–103). The bird’s name, ‘instruments of death’, is playfully taken up in the next question, a riddle on ‘old age’, the ultimate cause of death (104–23). The restless energy of Vasa mortis is realised in the relentless yldo, while the bird’s longing for the Day of Judgment is paralleled by the interest of Solomon and Saturn in universal justice. The debate moves onto the question of time – a logical corollary of death, especially given the emphasis here on ‘old age’. The 228

See Isidore, Etymologiae XV.i.4–5.

46

4. Structure and Relationships ‘old age’ riddle establishes a theme which continues throughout the poem in the question of what people do with their allotted time, especially those who live long (149b–150a, 181), before the appointed day comes (184–5, 298–302). From hostile time Saturn moves onto the hostility of cold (124–30). After a lacuna, Solomon’s reply (to this question?) is focused on the moral rather than the material; whatever the point is, his reference to deceit, an abode in hell and the devil ties the passage thematically to similar emphases at the probable end of the poem (131–3; SolSatFrag 1–5). Saturn’s morbid gloom continues with his interest in misery – even sleep is ‘most like death’ (134–5). Solomon’s answer seems to assert that nature is what it is, but condemns those obsessed with the kind of materialism that passing time reveals as futile (136–44). Instead of hiding treasures, fools should think about the King of Glory. Saturn answers with pessimism about the world and the futility of life (145–8). Solomon’s reply (149–53) provides a second recollection of Babel, and condemns those who persist in the same evil; enjoying long lives, they proudly waste their time. Solomon’s fraternal promise not to anger Saturn is humorous, but makes an important distinction between the wicked and fierce ‘nature’ of Saturn’s people (the Chaldeans, the builders of Babel), and Saturn’s choice of whether or not to conform to this ‘nature’. The following questions on free will, fate and determinism take up this point in relation to a person’s outlook on life. In reply to the first of these (154–5), Solomon asserts that the only things that cannot be changed are things that have already happened, an apparent rejection of any kind of determinism in relation to the future (156–7). The answer to the following question appears to be textually corrupt (160–1), and its relationship to the developing discussion on fate and free will is best understood against the background of the kind of reading suggested in the Commentary. In any case, the developing emphasis on justice suggests the poet’s awareness of its interconnectedness with fate and freedom in philosophical discussion.229 Questions of justice (distributive and retributive) and fate are woven throughout the remainder of the dialogue. Solomon asserts that Christ cannot be judged, because a creature, made from nothing, cannot judge the Creator (162–5). Saturn’s question about the unevenness of the distribution of light offers a mild rebuke – the Creator of light is not all that just – which Solomon treats allegorically as a riddle about material goods, and answers accordingly (166–9): the poor man, greedy for good, will be rewarded later. Saturn is far from satisfied, and points out that the well-intentioned are not always happy, and weeping and joy are constant companions (170–2); the choice to do good can bring tears – where does that leave free will? Furthermore, how free are those who are governed by strong emotions? Solomon’s unsympathetic reply implies that those who allow adversity to make them unhappy, wish to be so, and thus offend God (173–4); people are as happy as they decide to be. Saturn’s return to the question of Judgment – asking why not everyone can march into glory – answers Solomon obliquely (177–80). Solomon has rejected the importance of material well-being in the pursuit of happiness, and 229

This is a central argument of Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae.

47

Introduction asserted that the desire for good pleases God, but at the same time has said that those who desire good can also displease God if they dwell on their misery. Saturn seems to be asking: what’s the difference? It is now Solomon’s turn to speak in riddles (177–88); in nature the opposites of heat and cold cannot dwell together, and the same is true of God’s kingdom. Saturn is either tenacious or obstinate, and will not let go of the problem of the prosperity enjoyed by the wicked in this world (181–3). There is an obvious injustice implied in the life of a bad person who lives long ‘in the worldly kingdom’; Solomon, recalling earlier answers, simply asserts the final power of death, with the hint that a person’s lifespan is predetermined (184–5). Saturn changes tack with his example of twins (186–92); all other things being equal – upbringing, social rank, opportunity – twin brothers have divergent fates. In an implicit recollection of Solomon’s earlier assertion of the moral superiority of the poor man desiring good, Saturn asks not so much how different fates come about, but which is better? Solomon’s answer rejects Saturn’s assertion that just because they are twins, two people are the same (193–208). He does this by pointing out that a mother doesn’t have power over her son, even though she nurtures him. One son goes wrong, his mind is ‘wild’, his heart ‘unhappy’. Such a man isolates himself socially, and makes things worse. Solomon’s answer is far from satisfactory. This is also true of his answer to Saturn’s next question (209–11), which insists on knowing why a young man might not pursue the goods of earthly favour and wisdom. The inadequacy of Solomon’s reply (212–14) suggests, perhaps, that there is more to come – and indeed he later returns to discussion of the type of man who isolates himself, and refuses the advice of kinsmen (303–19). Saturn drops the problem for now, and returns to questions concerning the order of nature. The following section (215–46) is incomplete owing to the loss of text, but begins with Saturn asking about the properties of water, and resumes with Solomon answering about the properties of fire and light. Solomon’s final declaration that all things are of the race of fire (242–6) seems to assert the superiority of fire over water, and leads into Saturn’s question concerning the contention between ‘fate and foresight’ (247–57). Saturn’s assertion that no-one can determine which of the two is stronger suggests that the missing text developed the opposition between the elements of fire and water, each of which displays a degree of power over the other (fire boils water, water extinguishes fire); this link is also suggested by Solomon’s suggestion that it is difficult to turn ‘surging’ fate (258). His answer asserts that with help, what seems to be an inevitable outcome – the future unhappiness of a young man – can be avoided if wisdom is listened to; in this way, foresight can overcome fate, especially with God’s help (258–64). Saturn seems surprised by the answer: if foresight is stronger, how does fate cause such suffering (265–71)? Solomon’s answer takes us back to the moment of creation (273–97). At this primeval moment Lucifer introduced pride (273b), a wrong way of thinking opposed to blessedness (273a). The devils, and their ways, oppose us (281). This explanation is Solomon’s trump card, and explains a fundamental problem found in the world – pride, greed and wrong thinking have been around since Lucifer’s rebellion.

48

5. Date and Authorship The explanation seems to make Saturn anxious, and he recalls the earlier assertion by Solomon that each person has an allotted number of days (184–5): is there any chance one might die before the appointed day (298–302)? Solomon’s answer (interrupted by manuscript loss) suggests that life must be lived one day at a time (303–27), and the struggle for wisdom and virtue is a daily one. The fall of the angels has direct relevance to humanity, as each person is attacked daily by a devil, who contends with a guardian angel. The character of the tempted man recalls and extends the characterision of the unhappy twin in the hall, turning away from the wisdom offered by his kinsman. The relationship between temptation (distorting the mind), ignored advice and unhappiness explored in this final passage suggests that the dialogue is near its end, drawing together as it does the several ideas which have run through the poem. An unhappy fate is the product of a self-delusion which comes from ignoring the better angels of one’s nature; if an unhappy young man listens to advice, the foresight of his kinsmen will influence his fate and direct him towards happiness. Wisdom can also be found in books, but only if the reader seeks wisdom in them, rather than power. If, as is likely, SolSatFrag is the stray ending of SolSatII, then the unhappy man’s deception continues, until he comes to the end of his days, death and Judgment, and finds himself in hell. Saturn’s laughter is then entirely appropriate in two ways – not only has he had sage advice on the problems of fate and foresight, but the content of this advice has warned him that a happy outlook is wisdom itself. The opposition in the poem is between the wisdom revealed to the humble, who submit their minds in obedience, and the proud and disaffected, who resent and covet the good enjoyed by others. The conclusions to be drawn are not philosophically complex, and there is a preference throughout for the concrete over the abstract, experience over ideas. However, the evidence of the poet’s reading (discussed in the Commentary) suggests he is carrying his learning lightly. This points to the deliberate reduction of the complexity of philosophical problems for a more general audience. However, this audience clearly enjoyed the active engagement of the intellect in pursuit of wisdom, and in the difficulty of his riddling the poet offers no compromise.

5 Date and Authorship None of the three dialogues presents any precise evidence of its date or authorship. Less precise, though useful, evidence can be adduced from their language, style and distinctive literary interests. The oldest stratum of the language of the texts shows they were written some time between the late ninth century and c.930, most likely by a speaker of West Saxon. It is impossible to determine with certainty if the poems and prose are the work of a single author, or whether the poems are one poet’s work. A number of shared idiosyncrasies show that if they are not one author’s work, the circle which produced them was a close one, and that the

49

Introduction authors must surely have known not just each other’s works, but probably each other. All three texts show a taste for a rhetorical style derived from Irish models and overlap in their terminology and expression. The two poems share not only the idea that Saturn is a Chaldean, but also use the same shorthand expression to anticipate his return home across the Chobar. Both are interested in the fate of the unlæde man. SolSatI and SolSatPNPr uniquely amongst Anglo-Saxon writings refer to the Pater Noster as lina and cantic. Against this background, the otherwise commonplace imagery incorporating angelic and demonic warfare over the soul, links SolSatII to SolSatPNPr, as spiritual arrows fly in both. Other aspects of the three texts’ language are striking. Latin loan words like cantic, organ, columba and palm occur beside Latin words and phrases found in all three texts: SolSatII, uasa mortis (103b); SolSatPNPr, brahhia dei (11–12), aurum celæstium (110), spiritum paraclitum (111–12), pastoralices (113), solacitum (115), uita perpetua (118), sacrificium dei (119); SolSatI, Pater Noster (12b), prologa prima (A89a). The Latin vocabulary is not especially difficult, but assumes an audience with some grasp of the language or its vocabulary. The exception to this is prologa prima, used to describe the letter ‘P’, the significance of which has not been recognised. Prologus in the sense of modern English ‘prologue’ is widely attested in Latin (a loan from Greek πρóλογος), and was familiar in Anglo-Saxon England.230 But this is not the sense employed by the poet. The poet is unlikely to be treating prologa as an Old English word. If this were the case, it could be seen as weak masc. nom. or gen. pl., though the former would be difficult to construe, the latter impossible. That the word is not English is indicated by its adjective, prima (Lat. ‘first’).231 In the poem the gender of the noun is not masculine, as in Latin and Greek, as indicated by the adjective prima; the inflexional -a on prologa probably indicates the same gender.232 The change must be tied to the poet’s meaning, an indication of which comes from the adjective: ‘P’ is the first of a series, most obviously the series of letters which follows. ‘P’ is not a ‘prologue’ in the sense of ‘preface’, but is a letter (cf. Latin feminine noun littera; Old English masc. stæf, SolSatI 112a, 124b, 137a). ‘P’ is also a particular kind of letter, as an initial, a letter which comes ‘before’ a word (or stands ‘for’ a word), as indicated by the Latin (or Greek) prefix pro- (προ-). This prefix, however, is not affixed to a Latin noun, such as uerbum, but to the Greek loan λóγος. From the prefix pro- and the noun logos (which seems to have inherited the gender of See for example Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion, ed. M. Lapidge and P. Baker, EETS ss 15 (Oxford, 1995), I.2.26, p. 22: ‘Nu ys þes prologus gehrepod (þæt ys forespræce); he is prohemium oððe prephatio oððe prelucution geciged’ (‘Now this prologus (foreword) has been discussed; it is called prohemium or praefatio or praelocutio’). See also Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, Fascicule XII, Pos–Pro, ed. D. Howlett (Oxford, 2009). 231 SolSatI B89a, prologo prim, represents an effort to correct the problem; this leads to lexical confusion, with Old English loan prim, from Latin prima, ‘the office of prime’, producing a meaningless text. Grein and Assmann, Bibliothek, emend to prologum primum; A’s unusual reading, as the more difficult, is more likely to be original. 232 There is, however, some possible confusion over gender, as the adjective ierne (‘angry’, ‘the angry one’, A88b) is masculine, though this may depend on OE stæf. B’s unusual form yorn may reflect ongoing confusion. 230

50

5. Date and Authorship littera), the poet has created the nonce word prologa, meaning ‘initial letter’.233 As far as I can ascertain, this meaning is unattested elsewhere. The creation of a nonce-form from Greek vocabulary provides a very strong indication that the poet was working within the circle at Glastonbury which by the 930s included St Dunstan, who is known to have created similar nonce-forms.234 A second strong indication of a connection between SolSatI, Glastonbury and Dunstan is found in the poem’s apparent reference to ‘B’ as se ðridda stæf (SolSatI 136b, ‘the third letter’). The text of the poem is corrupt at this point, no doubt because a scribe has been confused by what seems an obvious factual error. However, as has been seen, if ‘K’ is understood to precede ‘A’, ‘B’ will be the third letter. The most obvious source of this knowledge in Anglo-Saxon England in the early tenth century is the enigmatic poem on ‘K’ among the Versus Cuiusdam Scoti de Alphabeto. The inclusion of these poems in Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson C.697 (Gneuss no. 661), beside Aldhelm’s Carmen de Uirginitate and Aenigmata, Prudentius’s Psychomachia and an acrostic on King Athelstan, suggests a convergence of thematic interests pointing to the SolSatI poet’s knowledge of this book. The manuscript’s scribal Hand D, glossing the Aldhelm texts, is universally accepted as being that of Dunstan.235 Bernhard Bischoff has argued persuasively that Rawlinson C.697 was written in Francia in the ninth century, and was imported into England at a time when books had become scarce.236 It is likely that the main reason for the importation of this volume was the unavailability of Aldhelm’s works in England by the late ninth century.237 Given this scarcity, it is unlikely that a second copy of the Versus de Alphabeto was available in England at the time, and it can probably be assumed that Rawlinson C.697 passed through the hands of the poet, as well as Dunstan’s. This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that other texts in the manuscript have a direct bearing on the contents of SolSatI and SolSatII. The delight in enigma evidenced by SolSatII may owe a debt to Aldhelm, and the allegorical combat of the Psychomachia has almost certainly inspired the graphic violence of the letter conflict in SolSatI.238 233

234

235 236 237

238

The likelihood that the invention is the poet’s is enhanced by the difficulty ‘p’ alliteration presented to Old English poets; compare palm-, SolSatI 12a, 39a, 167b; see Sisam, ‘Review’, p. 35. See Commentary on SolSatI 63a, 89a, 134a, 138a. See Lapidge, ‘Hermeneutic Style’, p. 96. Note particularly Dunstan’s acrostic O Pater omnipotens (Cambridge, Trinity College O. 1. 18 (1042), 112v–113r, line 31, logiam, possibly from λóγια (nom. pl. of λóγιον, ‘oracle, announcement’), mistakenly taken by Dunstan to be a fem. sg. form, with acc. sg. in –m. Lapidge notes (p. 110) that such mistakes are common when the source of the vocabulary is a glossary. See Lapidge, Anglo-Latin Literature 900–1066, p. 27. Gretsch, Intellectual Foundations, pp. 344–7; B. Bischoff, ‘Bannita: 1. Syllaba, 2. Littera’, in his Mittelalterliche Studien, 3 vols (Stuttgart, 1966–81), III, pp. 243–7. The knowledge of the De uirginitate shown by the draftsman of a series of Athelstan’s charters in the late 920s signals the work’s availability by this date; see Keynes, ‘King Athelstan’s Books’, pp. 143–201. SolSatI is not the only Old English poem to have emerged from Rawlinson C.697; see K. O. O’Keeffe, ‘The Text of Aldhelm’s Enigma no. C in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 697, and Exeter Book Riddle 40’, Anglo-Saxon England 14 (1985), 61–73, who demonstrates that the Old English Riddle 40 in the Exeter Book was made from the text of Aldhelm’s Riddle Creatura in this manuscript.

51

Introduction The poem’s oblique use of the ‘K’ poem reveals the close study of these texts, and surely the personification of the Pater Noster letters was inspired by the verses. The acrostic on the last page (fol. 78v) of Rawlinson C.697 reveals a taste for games with letters and words which the SolSatI poet shared. The acrostic, dedicated to Athelstan, is probably by John the Old Saxon, and apparently prophesies a glorious future for the young prince. This poem also presents various points of intersection with the Solomon and Saturn dialogues:239 ‘Archalis’ clamare, triumuir, nomine ‘saxI’. Diue tuo fors prognossim feliciter aeuO: ‘Augusta’ Samu- cernentis ‘rupis’ eris -elH, Laruales forti beliales robure contrA. Saepe seges messem fecunda prenotat altam; iN Tutis solandum petrinum solibus agmeN. Amplius amplificare sacra sophismatis arcE. Nomina orto- petas donet, precor, inclita -doxuS.

As Michael Lapidge explains, the archale saxum and augusta rupis present etymological wordplays on Athelstan’s name, and the author John takes on the role of Samuel the prophet with dense biblical allusion. The ‘noble rock’ refers to the lapis adiutorii set up by Samuel against the Philistines (I Samuel VII.12), signifying the Lord’s support of the Israelites, and evokes Samuel’s role in prophesying the reigns of Saul and David. The equation of laruales beliales with Philistines intersects with various characterisations in the dialogues: Saturn’s Chaldean nationality depends on Isidore’s equation of him with Bel; the Philistines feature throughout SolSatII; conflict with demons is important in all three dialogues. It would be absurd to argue that the acrostic’s apparent characterisation of the Vikings (Philistines) as demons has any direct bearing on the interpretation of the dialogues. However, to understand the acrostic, its readers would have to consider the engimatic meanings of Bel and the Philistines. The poems reflect just such study, and develop meanings of their own. The appearance of Dunstan’s name in connection with the Solomon and Saturn dialogues raises the question: could he have written them? Insofar as he was part of a small circle of scholars at Glastonbury whose interests are reflected in them, the answer would have to be yes. The date of Dunstan’s birth is uncertain, as is the pattern of his early education, which included study at Glastonbury and attendance at the court of Athelstan (possibly as part of Bishop Ælfheah’s household). The Vita S. Dunstani of B. claims that Dunstan was born, or ‘arose’ (oritur), during the reign of Athelstan, who came to the throne in 924. This claim 239

‘You, prince, are called by the name of “sovereign stone”. Look happily on this prophecy for your age: You shall be the “noble rock” of Samuel the seer, [standing] with mighty strength against devilish demons. Often an abundant cornfield foretells a great harvest; in peaceful days your stony mass is to be softened. You are more abundantly endowed with the holy eminence of learning. I pray that you may seek, and the Glorious One may grant, the [fulfilment implied in your] noble names.’ M. Lapidge, ‘Some Latin Poems as Evidence for the Reign of Athelstan’, Anglo-Saxon England 9 (1981), 61–98, at 72–4.

52

5. Date and Authorship is irreconcilable with other reports (unless oritur is taken to mean ‘came to prominence’), which suggest he was abbot of Glastonbury by 940, having passed through minor orders and ordination. It is generally agreed that he must have been born in or before 909/10, and it is possible, if not likely, that he first arrived at Glastonbury, as a student (not yet a monk) in the 920s; by the 930s he was moving between the monastery and Athelstan’s court. A number of traditions survive concerning Dunstan’s interests and personality at this time, the most reliable of which are reported by an anonymous author who calls himself B., and who wrote about Dunstan from personal reminiscence (995 x 1005).240 B. reports that Dunstan was a diligent student from his first entry into the monastery.241 When at court, the younger Dunstan does not seem to have been popular, and he was expelled after other young men accused him of using books for occult learning.242 Given the nature of some of the learning in the dialogues, such an accusation is tantalising. Dunstan was also interested in art and poetry, designing a stole for the noblewoman Æthelwynn (cf. SolSatPNPr 108–20), and displaying prowess with the harp. Dunstan’s Latin compositions include an anthem dictated to him by his guardian angel (c. 30; cf. SolSatII 305–6).243 Dunstan’s spiritual life presents a constant warfare with demons, who disturb his sleep, and the peace of other monks as he whacks the cloister wall (cc. 4, 17). His prayer is plagued by the manifestation of devils under various guises (cc. 16, 17, as a bear, a dog, and a fox; c. 31, as a small black man, cf. SolSatII 309b), and the perfidus draco is driven away only by the sign of the cross (cf. SolSatPNPr 46–8).244 When the devil returns in the form of a bear and cannot be driven away with a stick, Dunstan uses Ps. LXVIII.1 as a lorica (c. 17).245 Just as Dunstan strikes at devils with a stick, the devil throws a stone at him by supernatural agency, which is preserved 240 241

242

243

244 245

Lapidge, ‘B. and the Vita S. Dunstani’, p. 247. Vita Dunstani, c. 4, Postea vero religiosi pueri Dunstani parentes sacris eum litterarum otiis contulerunt studentem, cui confestim Dominus tantam in his largitatis Suae conferre dignatus est gratiam, ut coætaneos quosque præcelleret, et suorum tempora studiorum facili cursu transiliret (‘After that the parents of the devoted youngster Dunstan brought him in to be a student in the sacred pastimes of letters, on whom the Lord without delay deigned to confer so much grace of his bounty in these matters that he surpassed all his peers and leapt through the times of his studies with easy haste’). Vita Dunstani, c. 6: dicentes illum ex libris salutaribus et viris peritis, non saluti animarum pro futura sed avitæ gentilitatis vanissima didicisse carmina, et historiarum frivolas colere incantationum nænias (‘saying that he had learnt the vainest of songs from books of healing and from men skilled in the craft, not for the future well-being of souls but of ancient heathendom, and was attending to the frivolous magic charms of stories’). See Lapidge, ‘B. and the Vita S. Dunstani’, p. 11; Dunstan is thrown into a duck pond, and treated kindly by a dog. Cf. c. 12, Hic etiam inter sacra litterarum studia, ut in omnibus esset idoneus, artem scribendi necnon citharizandi pariterque pingendi peritiam diligenter excoluit, atque ut ita dicam, omnium rerum utensilium vigil inspector effulsit (‘Amidst his sacred studies of letters – for he was suited to everything – he also diligently worked at his skills in writing and in musical composition, as well as painting, so that I might say he shone out as a vigilant investigator of all useful things’). See Lapidge, ‘B. and the Vita S. Dunstani’, p. 250. Lapidge, ‘B. and the Vita S. Dunstani’, pp. 247–8. As recommended by John Cassian; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 238 n. 99.

53

Introduction as a relic (c. 18). The spiritual life of the author(s) of the dialogues cannot have differed greatly. Dunstan’s post-Conquest reputation as a metalworker also has a bearing on the dialogues, given the close technical knowledge exhibited in SolSatI and SolSatPNPr of the vocabulary and processes of refining and working metal (see SolSatI 39–62, SolSatPNPr 79–94).246 These similarities cannot prove Dunstan’s authorship of any of the dialogues, whose dialect may be too early for him to be considered their author (see pp. 7–9). The young Dunstan would have been the product of the intellectual and spiritual environment of Glastonbury in the 920s and 930s, so that similarities suggested by his Vita to the interests of the dialogues reflect the milieu as much as the man. Another feature pointing to an origin at Glastonbury, and to Dunstan, is the pervasive influence of Irish thought and style on of the dialogues. The scarcity of books which plagued late-ninth-century English scholarship would have been alleviated to some degree during Athelstan’s reign, and the king’s avid bibliophilia is comparable with that of Saturn himself.247 Glastonbury was a destination for Irish pilgrims and scholars, many of whom also must have travelled on the continent.248 In addition to his diligent study of sacred letters, B. reports the young Dunstan took a special interest in the books of these pilgrims (Vita Dunstani, c. 5):249 Porro Hibernensium peregrini locum, quem dixi, Glestoniæ, sicut et cæteræ fidelium turbæ, magno colebant affectu, et maxime ob Beati Patricii junioris honorem, qui faustus ibidem in Domino quievisse narratur. Horum etiam libros rectæ fidei tramitem phylosophantes, diligenter excoluit, aliorumque prudentum, quos ab intimo cordis aspectu patrum sanctorum assertione solidatos esse persensit, solubili semper scrutamine indagavit. Ita vero vitæ suæ studium This reputation rests on the post-Conquest life by Osbern; see Coatsworth and Pinder, Anglo-Saxon Goldsmith, p. 208, n. 7; praeterea manu aptus ad omnia, posse facere picturam, litteras formare, scalpello imprimere, ex auro, argento, aereo et ferro, quicquid liberet operari; Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, p. 79; ‘Moreover skilled in all things, he could do painting, calligraphy, engraving with a small engraving tool, and could make whatever he pleased from gold, silver, bronze and iron’. Lapidge, Anglo-Latin Literature 900–1066, pp. 153–6, has suggested this reputation may have grown from three inscriptions on gifts which Dunstan made to Malmesbury Abbey, though Osbern suggests knowledge of more than engraving. The three gifts were: a bell, an organ (organa), cf. SolSatPNPr 104, and a holy water stoop (used for blessing with the sign of the cross), cf. SolSatPNPr 46–8. 247 Keynes, ‘King Athelstan’s Books’, p. 146. 248 See M. Lapidge, ‘The Cult of St Indract at Glastonbury’, in Ireland and Early Medieval Europe: Studies in Memory of Kathleen Hughes, ed. D. Whitelock et al. (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 179–212, at 182; Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 270. 249 ‘Moreover, Irish pilgrims, as well as other crowds of the faithful, cherished that place of Glastonbury, which I have mentioned, with great affection, especially in honour of the blessed Patrick the younger, who is said to rest there happily in the Lord. Dunstan diligently studied their books also, meditating on the path of true faith, and always explored with critical scrutiny the books of other wise men which he perceived from the deep vision of his heart to be confirmed by the assertions of the holy fathers. Thus he controlled his way of life so that, as often as he examined the books of divine Scripture, God spoke with him; as often, however, as he was released from secular cares and delighted with leisure for prayer, he seemed himself to speak with God.’ D. Whitelock, trans., English Historical Documents c.500–1042, 2nd ed. (London and New York, 1979), pp. 897–8. 246

54

5. Date and Authorship cohercebat, ut quotiescumque divinæ Scripturæ libros scrutaretur Deus cum eo pariter loqueretur; quoties autem curis sæcularibus solutus, rationum otiis mulcebatur, ipse cum Domino pariter fari videretur.

Evidence for the availability of one particular Irish book, the CollPsBedae, at Glastonbury in Dunstan’s time comes in the form of a single gloss surviving in two Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, containing the lemma Tantalus .i. diues auarus.250 Both manuscripts with the gloss were written at Abingdon, and while the ultimate origin of their glosses is unknown, Mechthild Gretsch has suggested an origin in Dunstan’s and Æthelwold’s Glastonbury circle for parts of them.251 The lemma identifies the rich man of the parable of Dives and Lazarus (cf. Luke XVI.24), an identification otherwise only found in the CollPsBedae:252 Dic mihi nomen illius diuitis qui loquitur ad Abraham ex profunditate inferni? Dico tibi, Tantalus est (‘Tell me the name of the rich man who spoke to Abraham from the depth of hell. I tell you, he is Tantalus’). The gloss establishes that this Ioca question was available in England, and probably at Glastonbury, by the 940s; the unique preservation of the question in CollPsBedae suggests that this work was probably available in Glastonbury in Dunstan’s time. One thing the gloss establishes beyond doubt is that the circle which produced it was interested in creating (apparently achronological) links between Classical mythology and the biblical text, in exactly the way evidenced in the dialogues between Solomon and Saturn.253 The monastery the Irish pilgrims found at Glastonbury was honoured by more than its association with the younger St Patrick, and may have benefited greatly from King Athelstan’s passion for collecting relics. The list of these gifts in the fourteenth-century Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey reveals an interest in relics associated with the Holy Land, especially in the life and miracles of Christ and the Temple (c. 60):254 250

251 252

253

254

Schreiber, King Alfred’s Regula, p. 165 n. 45; the gloss (AntGl 6), is found in Antwerp, Musée Plantin-Moretus M.16.2, and BL Add. 32246. The glossary contains mainly glosses to Isidore’s Etymologiae, but no source for this lemma has been noted; see L. Kindschi, ‘The Latin-Old English Glossaries in Plantin-Moretus MS. 32 and British Museum MS. Additional 32246’ (unpubl. Ph.D. diss., Stanford, 1955), l. 9. Gretsch, Intellectual Foundations, pp. 132–84, 332–83; see Schreiber, King Alfred’s Regula, p. 164 n. 42. Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayless and Lapidge, pp. 130–1 (no. 72). The identification later made its way into the revised version of the Alfredian translation of the Regula Pastoralis: þonne ne burne se weliga Tantalius þe swiðor on þære tungan (Alfredian: ðonne ne burne se weliga ðe suiður on ðære tungan); Schreiber, King Alfred’s Regula, p. 309; cf. Luke XVI.24. Schreiber (pp. 164–6) suggests this translation was probably made at Sherborne around the year 1000. On Dunstan’s classicising diction, see Lapidge, Anglo-Latin Literature 900–1066, pp. 155–6; H. Gneuss, ‘Dunstan und Hrabanus Maurus: zur Hs. Bodleian Auctarium F. 4.32’, Anglia 96 (1978), 136–48, at pp. 146–8. John of Glastonbury, The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, pp. 114–15; ‘eight portions of the mount of Calvary; some of the earth and stone from where the Lord’s Cross stood; six stones like gilded gaming tablets from the pavement of the Lord’s temple . . . part of the pillar to which the Lord was bound when he was scourged . . . five portions of the Lord’s holy Cross (there is also a sixth portion with some dust and this writing: ‘Behold the holy wood worthy of the Lord, with this dust.’) . . . part of the door of the Lord’s temple, part of the gate through which Jesus entered Jerusalem.’

55

Introduction de monte Caluarie octo porciones; de terra et lapide ubi crux Domini stetit; de pauimento templi Domini lapides sex quasi tali deaurati . . . de columpna ad quam ligatus fuit Dominus quando erat flagellatus . . . de sancta cruce Domini quinque porciones (Est eciam sexta porcio cum puluere et hoc scripto: ‘Ecce Deo dignum sacrum cum puluere lignum’) . . . de hostio templi Domini; lignum de porta per quam intrauit Ihesus in Ierusalem.

If the list is a reliable record of tenth-century gifts (reference to the relic label might suggest this), it would be unsurprising that such tangible connections prompted a Glastonbury poet to imagine his island monastery as the embodiment of Jerusalem in the Wessex landscape. There is a range of evidence for the moment and place of origin of the Solomon and Saturn dialogues. The evidence of dialect shows that in all probability all three were written in Early West Saxon. All three are in all probability original creations in Old English, though familiarity with Latin learning is abundantly evident. All three texts employ a Latinate vocabulary to differing degrees; SolSatI shows a strong interest in highly literate word games, and possibly in Greek vocabulary. All three reveal the influence of Hiberno-Latin literature and learning; these include not just piety and preaching, but also more abstract philosophical interests. O’Keeffe has pointed to at least one place in which SolSatII (160–1) suggests some knowledge of the kinds of debates taken up by Irish scholars in Carolingian schools in the ninth century.255 I have indicated in the Commentary other possible points of contact with such ideas. The combination of these three phenomena – Early West Saxon dialect, interest in language, strong Irish influence – points to Glastonbury and the reign of Athelstan as the time and place of the dialogues’ composition. The possible origin of one of the two surviving AngloSaxon manuscripts of Aethicus Ister’s Cosmographia at Glastonbury is telling for the authorship of SolSatII, and the direct influence of the texts of Rawlinson C.697 seems to confirm Glastonbury as the place where SolSatI was written. The question of Dunstan’s authorship is inseparable from the question of common authorship. I believe common authorship of all three dialogues is possible, though the evidence is contradictory. In addition to the range of parallels of phrasing, learning and reading across the two poems one simple thematic interest suggests their closeness. There is a pervasive concern with understanding the nature of the failure and unhappiness of the unlæde (‘unhappy’, ‘unfortunate’) man in SolSatII (173a, 189a, 205a, 214b); it can be no coincidence that Solomon’s first word in SolSatI is unlæde (21a), and that the Pater Noster can help this man against the kind of demonic attack which overwhelms the man at the end of SolSatII. This gives SolSatI the appearance of a sequel. Concern with the unlæde man shows that the author of SolSatI knew and understood SolSatII, and shared one of the poet’s thematic interests. The continuation of precise and informed metallurgical imagery shows the prose author shared with the poet of SolSatI a knowledge which confused at least two scribes. One or all of these authors may have been 255

O’Keeffe, ‘Source, Method, Theory, Practice’, pp. 174–5.

56

5. Date and Authorship St Dunstan; if not, then he almost certainly knew their author(s) personally, and was probably taught by them. The texts would have found a receptive audience at Glastonbury, but perhaps also at the court of Athelstan where the young Dunstan struggled to find favour.

A Note on the Text Abbreviations have been expanded without comment: þæt (only found in CCCC 41); 7 as and (in CCCC 41), and ond (in CCCC 422); see Introduction, p. 8. ∧ ∨ indicates editorial additions. [ ] indicates damage to a manuscript. *** indicates a lacuna.

57

the dialogues of solomon and saturn Text and Translation

Solomon and Saturn I Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41

SOLOMON AND SATURN I



5



10



15



20



25



30



35

Saturnus cwæð: Hwæt! Ic iglanda  eallra hæbbe boca onbyrged  þurh gebregdstafas, larcræftas onlocen  Libia and Greca, swylce eac istoriam  Indea rices. Me þa treahteras  tala wisedon on þam micelan bec   *** M∧e∨ces heardum,  swylce ic næfre on eallum þam fyrngewrytum  findan ne mihte soðe sam∧n∨ode.  Ic sohte þa git hwylc wære modes  oððe mægenþrymmes, elnes oððe æhte  ∧oððe∨ eorlscipes: se gepalmtwigoda  Pater Noster. ∧S∨ille ic þe ealle  sunu Dauides, þeoden I∧s∨raela  .xxx. punda smætes goldes  and mine suna twelfe, gif þu mec gebringest  þæt ic si gebrydded ðurh þæs cantices cwyde,  Cristes linan, gesemesð mec mid soðe,  and ic mec gesund f∧erie∨, wende mec on willan on  wæteres hrigc ofer Coferflod  Caldeas secan. SALOMON cwæð: Unlæde bið on eorþan,  unit lifes, wesðe wisdomes,  weallað swa nieten, feldgongende  feoh butan gewitte, se þurh ðone cantic ne can  Crist geherian, w∧o∨rað he windes full;  worpað hine deofol on domdæge,  draca egeslice, bismorlice,  of blacere liðran irenum aplum,  ealle beoð aweaxen of edwittes  iða heafdum. Þonne him bið leofre  ðonne eall ðeos leohte gesceaft gegoten fram ðam grunde  goldes and silofres, feðerscette full  fyrngestreona, gif he æfre ðæs organes  owiht cuðe. Fracað he bið þonne and fremde  frean ælmihtigum englum ungesibb  ana hwarfað.

60

Solomon and Saturn I

SOLOMON AND SATURN I Saturn said: Listen, I have tasted the books of all the islands, the woven letters, unlocked the sciences of the Libyans and the Greeks, likewise also the history of the empire of the Indians. The commentators instructed me about stories in the great book *** by a bold sword, such as I never could find in the ancient writings truly gathered together. Then I still sought the thing that would be for the mind or virtue, or courage, or power, or nobility: the palm-twigged Pater Noster. I will give you everything, son of David, prince of Israel, thirty pounds of pure gold, and my twelve sons, if you bring it about for me that I am overawed through utterance of the canticle, of Christ’s line, you satisfy me with truth, and I will depart safe and sound, turn myself willingly onto the water’s height over the river Chobar to seek out the Chaldeans. Solomon said: Unhappy he is on earth, useless in life, devoid of wisdom, meanders like a beast, like fieldgoing cattle without understanding, he who is not able to worship Christ through the canticle, he wanders full of air; the devil, the dragon, will knock him down on the Day of Judgment, terrifyingly, shamefully, with iron balls from a black sling – he will be completely washed away by the waves of disgrace from the heights. Then will it be dearer to him than all this radiant creation, cast from the foundation of gold and silver, the four corners full of ancient treasure, if he ever had known anything at all of the canticle. Hateful and alien will he then be to the Lord almighty, without fellowship with the angels, he will wander alone.

61

1–12

13–20

21–29

30–35

Solomon and Saturn I



40



45



50



55



60



65



70



75

Saturnus cwæð: Ac hwa mæg eaðusð  eallra gesceafta ða haligan duru  heofna rices torhte ontynan  on getales rime? SALOMON cwæð: Þæt gepalmtwigude  Pater Noster heofnas ontyneð,  halie geblissað, Metod gemiltsað,  morðor gefilleð, adwæsceð deofles fyr,  Dryhtnes onæleð. Swilce ðu miht mid ðy beorhtan gebede  blod onhætan, þæs deofles dr∧os∨,  þæt him dropan stigað swate geswiðed,  sefan intingan, egesfullicra  þane seo ærene gripo, þonne for twelf fyra  tydernessum ofer gleda gripe  gifrost weallað. Forðan hafað se cantic  ofer ealle Cristes bec widmærost word;  he gewritu læreð stefnum stereð,  and him stede healdeð heofonrices,  heregeatowe wegeð. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hulic is se organan  ingemyndum to beganganne  þam þe his gæst wile miltan wið morðre,  merian of sorge, asceaden of scyldum?  Huru him Sceppend geaf wundorlicne wlite.  Mec þæs on worulde full oft fyrwet frineð,  fus gewiteð, mod geondmengeð.  Nænig monna wat, hæleða under heofnum,  hu min hige dreogeð, bisi æfter bocum;  hwylum me bryne stigeð, hige heortan ∧neah∨  hearde wealleð . SALOMON cwæð: Gylden is se godes cwide  gymmum astæned, hafað seolofren ∧leaf∨.  Sundor mæg æghwylc þurh gæstæs gife  godspellian. He bið sefan snytera  and sawle hunig and modes mealc,  mærþa gesælgost. He mæg þa sawle  of synnihte gefetian under foldan,  næfre hi se feond to ðæs niðer feterum gefæstnað;  þeah he hi mid fiftigum clausum beclemme,  he þane cræft briceð and þa orþancas  ealle tosliteð. Hungor he gehideð,  helle gestrudeð, wylm toworpeð,  wuldor getymbreð. He is modigra  middangeardes staðole, he is strengra  þone ealle stana gripe.

62

Solomon and Saturn I Saturn said: But who of all creatures can most easily brightly open up the holy gates of the kingdom of heaven in numbered succession? Solomon said: The palm-twigged Pater Noster opens up heaven, blesses the holy, makes the Lord merci­ful, strikes down murder, extinguishes the devil’s fire, kindles the Lord’s. So you may with bright prayer intensely heat the blood, the devil’s dross, so that in him the drops climb, forced with blood because of the mind’s faults, more awfully than the brass cauldron, when because of the twelve weaknesses of men it seethes most greedily over the grip of flames. Therefore the canticle has the most widely famed words, above all Christ’s books; it teaches scripture, guides through voices, and holds for them a place in the kingdom of heaven, it carries war-gear. Saturn said: But how is the organ to be practised in memory by him who should wish to smelt against murder, to purify from sorrow, (be) separated from sin? Indeed the Lord gave him a wonderfully fair countenance. Very often my curiosity asks me about that in the world, it moves eagerly, thoroughly mixes up the mind. No man knows, among men under the heavens, how my spirit strives, busy in pursuit of books. At times a burning rises in me, the spirit near the heart surges severely. Solomon said: Golden is God’s utterance, studded with gems, has silver leaves. Each one separately can proclaim the Gospel through the Spirit’s grace. He is the spirit’s wisdom and soul’s honey and the mind’s milk, the most blessed of glories. He can fetch the soul from everlasting night under the earth, however deep the fiend fasten it with chains, though he fasten it with fifty bolts, he will break the power, and completely tear apart the device. He hides hunger, plunders hell, overthrows the surge, builds up glory. He is braver than the

63

36–38

39–42

43–48

49–52

53–57a

57b–62

63–67

68–72

73–76

Solomon and Saturn I



80



85



90

Lamana he is læce,  leoht winciendra, swilce he is deafra duru,  deadra tunge, scildigra scild,  Scippendes seld, flodes ferigend,  folces neriend, yþa yrfeweard,  earmra fixa, wyrma wlenco,  wildeora holt, westenes weard,  weorðmynta geard. And se ðe wile geornlice  þono Godes cwide singan smealice  and hine symle lu∧f∨ian wile butan leahtrum,  he mæg þone laþan gesið, feohten∧d∨e feond  fleande gebringan, gyf þu him ærest ufan  yorn gebringe∧s∨ð prologo prim  þam is . P . nama; hafað guðmaga  gyrde lange, gyldene gade,  and þone grymman feond swiðmod swapeð.  And on swaðe filgið . A . ofermægene,  and hine eac ofslehð . T . ***

•

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 422

SOLOMON AND SATURN I

30



35

[   ] leofre  ðonne eall ðeos leohte gesceaft gego∧t∨an fram ðan grunde  goldes ond seolfres, feðersceatum full  feohgestreona, gif he æfre ðæs organes  owiht cuðe. Fracoð he bið ðonne ond fremede  frean ælmihtigum, englum ungelic  ana hwearfað. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hwa mæg eaðost  ealra gesceafta ða halgan duru  heofona rices torhte ontynan  on getælrime?

64

Solomon and Saturn I foundation of the middle-earth, he is stronger than the grip of all stones. He is the healer of the lame, light of the sightless, also he is the door of the deaf, the tongue of the dead, shield of the culpable, the hall of the Creator, the bearer of the flood, saviour of the people, the successor of the waves, of the wretched fishes, the pride of serpents, covert of the wild beasts, a guardian in the wilderness, court of honours. And he who will eagerly sing the utterance of God carefully and will cherish it always without misdeeds, he can cause the hated companion, the fighting enemy, to flee, if you first throw over him the angry one, prologo prim, which is named P; the warrior has a long staff, with a golden goad, and brave he swipes at the grim fiend. And in the track A follows with mighty power, and T also strikes him.

77–83

84–95

•

SOLOMON AND SATURN I ∧Solomon said:∨ ∧Then to him it will it be∨ dearer than all this radiant creation, cast from the foundation of gold and silver, full to the four corners with treasure, if he ever had known anything at all of the canticle. Hateful and alien will he then be to the Lord almighty, unlike the angels he will wander alone. Saturn said: But who of all creatures can most easily brightly open up the holy gates of the kingdom of heaven in numbered order?

65

30–35

36–38

Solomon and Saturn I



40



45



50



55



60



65



70



75



80

Salomon cwæð: Ðæt gepalmtwigede  Pater Noster heofonas ontyneð,  halige geblissað, Metod gemiltsað,  morðor ge∧f∨ylleð, adwæsceð deofles fyr,  dryhtnes onæleð. Swylce ðu miht mid ðy be∧o∨rhtan gebede  blod onhætan, ðæs deofles dr∧os∨,  ∧ðæ∨t him dropan stigað swate geswiðed  seofan intingum, egesfullicran  ðonne seo ærene gripu, ðonne heo for . xii . ∧f∨ira  tydernessum ofer gleda gripe  gifrust wealleð. Forðon hafað se cantic  ofer ealle Cristes bec widmærost word;  he gewritu læreð, stefnum steoreð,  ond him stede healdeð heofona rices,  heregeatewa wigeð. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hulic is se organ  ingemyndum to begonganne  ðam ðe his gast wile meltan wið morðre,  mergan of sorge, asceadan of scyldigum?  Huru him Scippend geaf wuldorlicne wlite.  Mec ðæs on worolde full oft fyrwit frineð,  fus gewiteð, mod gemengeð.  Næ∧nig∨ manna wat, hæleða under hefenum,  hu min hige dreoseð, bysig æfter bocum.  Hwilum me bryne stigeð, hige heortan neah  hædre wealleð. Salomon cwæð: Gylden is se Godes cwide,  gimmum astæned, hafað sylfren leaf.  Sundor mæg æghwylc ðurh gastes gife  godspel secgan. He bið seofan snytro  ond saule hunig ∧ond modes mealc,  mærþa gesælgost.∨ He mæg ða saule  of siennihte gefeccan under foldan,  næfre hie se feond to ðæs niðer feterum gefæstnað;  ðeah he hie mid fiftigum clusum beclemme,  he ðone cræft briceð ond ða orðancas  ealle tosliteð. Hungor he ahieðeð,  helle gestrudeð, wylm toweorpeð,  wuldor getimbreð. He ∧i∨s modigra  middangearde, staðole strengra  ðonne ealra stana gripe. Lamena he is læce,  leoht wincen∧d∨ra swilce he is deafra duru,  dumbra tunge, scyldigra scyld,  Scyppendes seld, flodes ferigend,  folces nerigend,

66

Solomon and Saturn I Solomon said: The palm-twigged Pater Noster opens up heaven, blesses the holy, makes the Lord merciful, strikes down murder, extinguishes the devil’s fire, kindles the Lord’s. So you may with bright prayer boil the blood, the devil’s dross, so that in him the drops climb, forced with blood by seven causes, more awfully than the brazen cauldron, when for twelve generations of men it seethes most greedily over the grip of flames. Therefore the canticle has the most widely famed words, above all Christ’s books; it teaches scripture, steers in voices, and holds for them a place in the kingdom of heaven, it carries war-gear. Saturn said: But how is the organ to be applied in memory by him who should wish to smelt against murder, to purify from sorrow, separate from sin? Indeed the Lord gave him a wonderfully fair countenance. Very often my curiosity asks me about that in the world, it moves eagerly, confuses the mind. No man knows, among men under the heavens, how my spirit drips away, busy in pursuit of books. At times a burning rises in me, the spirit near the heart, it surges anxiously. Solomon said: Golden is God’s utterance, studded with gems, has silver leaves. Each one separately can proclaim the Gospel through the Spirit’s grace. He is the spirit’s wisdom and soul’s honey and the mind’s milk, the most blessed of glories. He can fetch the soul from everlasting night under the earth, however deep the fiend fasten it with chains, though he fasten it with fifty bolts, he will break the power, and completely tear apart the device. He destroys hunger, plunders hell, breaks the surge, builds up glory. He is braver than the foundation of the middle-earth, stronger than the grip of all stones. He is the healer of the lame, light of the sightless, so also he is the door of the deaf, the tongue of the mute, shield of the culpable, the hall of the Creator, the bearer of the flood, saviour of the people, the hereditary guardian of the waves,

67

39–42

43–48

49–52

53–57a

57b–62

63–67

68–76

77–83

Solomon and Saturn I



85



90



95



100



105



110



115



120



125

yða yrfeweard,  earmra fisca ond wyrma welm,  wildeora holt, on westenne weard,  weorðmyn∧d∨a geard. Ond se ðe wile geornlice  ðone Godes cwide singan soðlice  ond hine siemle wile lufian butan leahtrum,  he mæg ðone laðan gæst, feohtende feond,  fleonde gebrengan, gif ðu him ærest on ufan  ierne gebrengest prologa prima  ðam is . ᛈ . P. nama; hafað guðmæcga  gierde lange, gyldene gade,  ond a ðone gr∧im∨man feond swiðmod sweopað;  ond him on swaðe fylgeð . ᚪ . A . ofermægene  ond hine eac ofslihð. . ᛏ . T . hine teswað  ond hine on ða tungan sticað, wræsteð him ðæt woddor  ond him ða wongan brieceð. . ᛖ . E . hiene yflað,  swa he a wile ealra feonda gehwane  fæste gestondan. Ðonne hiene on unðanc . ᚱ . r .  ieorrenga geseceð, bocstafa brego,  bregdeð sona feond be ðam feaxe,  læteð flint brecan scines sconcan;  he ne besceawað no his leomona lið,  ne bið him læce god. Wendeð he hiene ðonne under wolcnum,  wigsteall seceð, heolstre behelmed.  Huru him bið æt heartan wa ðonne ∧h∨e hangiende  helle wisceð ðæs ęngestan  eðelrices. Ðonne hine forcinnað  ða cirican getuinnas, . N . ∧ond . ᚩ . O .∨ s∧am∨od,  æghwæðer brengeð sweopan of siðe;  sargiað hwile fremdne flæschoman,  feorh ne bemurneð. Ðonne . ᛋ . S . cymeð,  engla geræswa, wuldores stæf,  wraðne gegripeð feond be ðam fotum,  læteð foreweard hleor on strangne stan,  stregdað toðas geond helle heap.  Hydeð hine æghwylc æfter sceades sciman;  sceaða bið gebisigod, Satanes ðegn  swiðe gestilled. Swilce hiene . ᛮ . Q . ond . ᚢ . V .  cwealme gehnægað frome folctogan,  farað him togegnes, habbað leoht speru,  lange sceaftas, swiðmode sweopan,  swenga ne wyrnað, deorra dynta;  him bið ðæt deofol lað. Ðonne hine ∧. I . ond∨ . ᛚ . L .  ond se yrra . ᚳ . C . guðe begyrdað,  geap stæf wigeð biterne brogan,  bigað sona

68

Solomon and Saturn I of the wretched fishes, surge of serpents, covert of the wild beasts, a guardian in the wilderness, court of honours. And he who will eagerly sing the utterance of God truly and will cherish it always without misdeeds, he can cause the hated spirit, the fighting enemy, to flee, if you first throw over him the angry one, prologa prima, which is named . ᛈ . P.: the warrior has a long staff, with a golden goad, and brave he ever swipes at the grim fiend; and in the track . ᚪ . A . pursues him with mighty power and also strikes him. . ᛏ . T . injures him and stabs him in the tongue, twists his throat, and shatters his jaws. . ᛖ . E . afflicts him, as he ever will stand against each and every enemy. Then to his irritation . ᚱ . r . will angrily seek him, the prince of letters, immediately shake the fiend by the hair, make the flint break the spectre’s shanks; never will he behold the joints of his limbs, nor will any physician do him good. Then he will turn himself under the clouds, seek a defensive position covered in darkness; indeed for him there will be woe in his heart, when dangling he wishes for hell, the straitest of homelands, then the assembly twins, N and . ᚩ . O ., together will overwhelm him, each of them will bring a scourge from the journey; for a time they will afflict the hostile body, not care for his life. Then . ᛋ . S . will come, prince of angels, the letter of glory, he will grab the hostile fiend by the feet, let go his forward cheek onto the strong stone, and strew teeth throughout the crowd of hell. Each one will hide himself under the gloom of the shadow; the enemy will be preoccupied, Satan’s thane made very still. So also . ᛮ . Q . and . ᚢ . V . will humble him with torment, bold commanders will move towards him, they have spears of light, long shafts, resolute scourges, they will not withhold blows, severe strokes; the devil will be loathsome to them. Then I and . ᛚ . L . and angry . ᚳ . C . will encompass him with battle, the crooked letter bears bitter terror, immediately

69

84–95

96–102

103–110

111–117

118–126

Solomon and Saturn I



130



135



140



145



150



155



160



165

helle hæftli∧n∨g,  ðæt he on hinder gæð. Ðonne hiene . ᚠ . F. ond . ᛗ . M .  utan ymbðringað scyldigne sceaðan,  habbað scearp speru, atole earhfare  æled lætað on ðæs feondes feax  flana stregdan biterne brogan;  banan heardlice, grimme ongieldað  ðæs hie oft gilp brecað. Ðonne hine æt niehstan  nearwe stilleð . ᛄ . G . se geapa,  ðone God sendeð freondum on fultum,  færeð æfter . ᛞ . D . fifmægnum full  fyr *** ∧. B .∨ bið se ðridda stæf stræte neah  stille bideð. . H . onetteð,  engel hine scierpeð, Cristes cempan  on cwicum wædum Godes spyrigendes  geonges hrægles. Ðonne hine on lyfte  lifgetwinnan under tungla getrumum  tuigena ordum, sweopum seolfrynum,  swiðe weallað, oððæt him ban blicað,  bledað ædran; gartorn geotað  gifrum deofle.   Mæg simle se Godes cwide  gumena gehwylcum ealra feonda gehwane  fleondne gebrengan ðurh mannes muð,  manfulra heap, sweartne geswencan,  næfre hie ðæs syllice bleoum bregdað,  æfter bancofan feðerhoman onfoð.  Hwilum flotan gripað. Hwilum hie gewendað  in wyrmes lic, stranges ond sticoles,  stingeð nieten, feldgongende  feoh gestrudeð. Hwilum he on wætere  wicg gehnægeð, hornum geheaweð,  oððæt him heortan blod famig flodes bæð  foldan geseceð. Hwilum he gefeterað  fæges mannes, handa gehefegað,  ðonne he æt hilde sceall wið lað werud  lifes tiligan. Awriteð he on his wæpne  wællnota heap, bealwe bocstafas,  bill forscrifeð, meces mærðo.  Forðon nænig man scile oft orðances  ut abredan wæpnes ecgge,  ðeah ðe him se wlite cweme – ac symle he sceal singan,  ðonne he his sweord geteo, Pater Noster,  ond ðæt palmtreow biddan mid blisse,  ð∧æ∨t him bu gife feorh ond folme,  ðonne his feond cyme.

• 70

Solomon and Saturn I will subdue hell’s captive, so that he retreats. Then . ᚠ . F. and . ᛗ . M . will press about him from without, the guilty enemy, they have sharp spears, a terrible flight of arrows, they will launch fire arrows at the fiend’s hair to strew bitter terror; they cruelly, grimly will pay the slayer, because they often break through a boast. Then after that . ᛄ . G . the crooked forcibly will make him still, whom God sends as a support to his friends; . ᛞ . D . follows after, five-virtues full – fire *** B is the third letter, near the street waits silently. H will hasten, an angel clothes him, Christ’s warrior in the living clothes of a new garment of a pursuer of God. Then the life-twins will toss him swiftly into the sky, under the host of stars with the points of sticks, with silver scourges, until his bones shine through, the veins bleed; spear-rage they will pour on the greedy devil. The utterance of God can always for everyone put each and every fiend to flight through the mouth of man, the host of wicked ones, can vex the black ones, even if they change their hues ever so strangely, draw a feather-cloak over their bodies. Sometimes they grab the sailor. Sometimes they go about in the likeness of a powerful and biting serpent, sting the wild beast, destroy field-going cattle. Sometimes in the water he makes the horse stumble, cutting it with horns, until its heart’s blood seeks out the current’s foamy bath, seeks the riverbed. Sometimes he binds the doomed man, weighs down the hands, when he at battle must strive for his life against the hostile troop. He etches on his weapon a multitude of fatal marks, harmful letters, curses the blade, the glory of the sword. Therefore no man must draw out the weapon’s edge without forethought, though its appearance is pleasing to him. But ever must he sing, when he draws his sword, the Pater Noster, and pray to that palmtree with bliss, that it might give him both life and limb, when his enemy should come.

• 71

127–132

133–145

146–154

155–163a

161–169

Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Prose

SOLOMON AND SATURN PATER NOSTER PROSE

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Saturnus cwæð: Ac hu moniges bleos bið ðæt deofol ond se Pater Poster ðonne hie betwih him gewinnað? Saloman cwæð: Ðritiges bleos. Saturnus cwæð: Hwæt sindon ða ærestan? Saloman cwæð: Ðæt deofol bið ærest on geogoðhade on cildes onlicnisse, ðonne bið se Pater Noster on Haliges Gastes onlicnisse. Ðriddan siðe bið ðæt deofol on dracan onlicnisse. Feorðan siðe bið se Pater Noster on stræles onlicnisse, ðe brahhia dei hatte. Fiftan siðe bið ðæt deofol on ðystres onlicnisse. Sixtan siðe bið se Pater Noster on leohtes onlicnisse. Seofoðan siðe bið ðonne ðæt deofol on wildeores onlicnisse. Eeahteoðan siðe bið se Pater Noster on ðæs hwales onlicnisse, ðe Leuiathan hatte. Nygoðan siðe bið ðæt deofol on atoles swefnes onlicnisse. Teoðan siðe bið ðonne ðæt Pater Noster on heofonlicre gesihðe onlicnesse. Enleftan siðe bið ðæt deofol on yfles wifes onlicnesse. Twelftan siðe bið se Pater Noster on heofonlicre byrnan onlicnisse. Ðreoteoðan siðe bið ðæt deoful on sweordes onlicnesse. Feowerteoðan siðe bið se Pater Noster on gyldenre byrnan onlicnisse. Fifteoðan siðe bið þæt deofol on bremles onlicnisse. Sixteoðan siðe bið se Pater Noster on seolfrenes earnes onlicnesse. Seofonteoðan siðe bið ðonne ðæt deofol on sleges onlicnisse. Eaht∧ta∨ateoðan siðe bið se Pater Noster on seolfrenes earnes onlicnesse. Niogonteoðan siðe bið ðæt deofol on fylles onlicnisse. xx . siðe bið Pater Noster on Cristes onlicnesse. On xxi . siðe bið ðæt deofol on ætrenes fugeles onlicnisse. On xxii . siða bið ðæt Pater Noster on gyldenes earnes onlicnisse. On xxiii . siða bið ðæt deofol on wulfes onlicnisse. On xxiiii . siða bið se Pater Noster on gyldenre racenteage onlicnisse. On xxv . siða bið ðæt deofol on wrohte onlicnisse. On xxvi . siða bið se Pater Noster on sybbe onlicnisse. On xxvii . siða bið ðæt deofol on yfeles geðohtes onlicnes. On xxviii . siða bið se Pater Noster on arfæstes gastes onlicnesse. On xxviiii . siða bið deoplicor gehwyrfed ðæt deofol on deaðes onlicnesse. Saloman cwæð: Domlicor bið ðonne se Pater Noster gehwyrfed on Dryhtnes onlicnesse. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hwa aspyreð ðæt deofol of hefones holte ond hine gebringeð on ðara cristes cempena fæðmum ðe ðus hatton: Cherubin ond bSeraphin? ∧Salomon cwæð:∨ Urielb ond Rumiel. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hwa scotað ðæt deofol mid weallendum strælum? Salomon cwæð:

72

Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Prose

SOLOMON AND SATURN PATER NOSTER PROSE Saturn said: So how many forms will the devil and the Pater Noster have when they fight against each other? Solomon said: Thirty forms. Saturn said: What will be the first? Solomon said: The devil first will be in youthfulness, in the likeness of a child, then the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of the Holy Spirit. In the third instance the devil will be in the likeness of a dragon; in the fourth instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of an arrow, which is called brahhia dei. In the fifth instance the devil will be in the likeness of darkness; in the sixth instance the Pater Noster will be in light’s likeness. In the seventh instance the devil then will be in the likeness of a wild animal; in the eighth instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of a whale that is called Leuiathan. In the ninth instance the devil will be in the likeness of a nightmare; in the tenth instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of a heavenly vision. In the eleventh instance the devil will be in an evil woman’s likeness; in the twelfth instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of a heavenly breastplate. In the thirteenth instance the devil will be in a sword’s likeness; in the fourteenth instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of a golden breastplate. In the fifteenth instance the devil will be in a bramble’s likeness; in the sixteenth instance the Pater Noster will be in a silver eagle’s likeness. In the seventeenth instance the devil will be in the likeness of murder; in the eighteenth instance the Pater Noster will be in a silver eagle’s likeness. In the nineteenth instance the devil will be in the likeness of a fall; in the twentieth instance the Pater Noster will be in Christ’s likeness. In the twenty-first instance the devil will be in the likeness of a poisonous bird; in the twenty-second instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of a golden eagle. In the twenty-third instance the devil will be in a wolf’s likeness; in the twenty-fourth instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of a golden chain. In the twenty-fifth instance the devil will be in the likeness of strife; in the twenty-sixth instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of peace. In the twenty-seventh instance the devil will be in the likeness of an evil thought; in the twenty-eighth instance the Pater Noster will be in the likeness of a merciful spirit. In the twenty-ninth instance the devil will be more profoundly transformed into death’s likeness; Solomon said that then the Pater Noster will be transformed more gloriously into the likeness of the Lord. Saturn said: So who tracks the devil from heaven’s forest and leads him to within reach of Christ’s champions, who are called thus: Cherubim and Seraphim? ∧Solomon said:∨

73

Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Prose

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Se Pater Noster scotað ðæt deofol mid weallendum strælum, ond seo ligett∧e∨c heo bærneð ond tacnað, ond se regn hit ufan wyrdeð, ond ða genipu hit dweliað, ond se ðunor hit ðrysceð mid ðære fyrenan æcxe ond hit drifeð to ðære irenan ræccenteage, ðe his fæder on eardað, Satan ond Sathiel. Ond ðonne ðæt deofol swiðe wergað, hit seceð scyldiges mannes nieten oððe unclæne treow, oððe gif hit meteð ungesenodes mannes muð ond lichoman, ond hit ðonne on forgietenan mannes innelfe gewiteð, ond ðurh his fell ond ðurh his flæsc on ða eorðan gewiteð, ond ðanon helle westen gespyrreð. Saturnus cwæþ: Ac hulic heafod hafað se Pater Noster? Salomon cwæð: Pater Noster hafað gylden heafod ond sylfren feax, ond ðeah ðe ealle eorðan wæter sien gemenged wið ðam heofonlicum wætrum uppe on ane ædran, ond hit samlice rinan onginne eall middangerd, mid eallum his gesceaftum, he mæg under ðæs Pater Nosters feaxe anum locce drige gestandan. Ond his eagan sindon . xii . ðusendum siða beorhtran ðonne ealles middangeardes eorðe, ðeah ðe hio sie mid ðære beorhtestan lilian blostmum ofbræded, ond æghwylc blostman leaf hæbbe . xii . sunnan, ond æghwylc blostma hæbbe . xii . monan, ond æghwylc mona sie sinderlice . xii . ðusendum siða beorhtra ðonne he ieo wæs ær Abeles slege. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hulic is ðæs Pater Nosters seo wlitige heorte? Saloman cwæð: His heorte is . xii . ðusendum siða beorhtre ðonne ealle ðas seofon heofonas ðe us syndon ofergesette, ðeah ðe hie sien ealle mid ði domescan fyre onæled, ond ðeah ðe eall ðeos eorðe him neoðan togegnes byrne. Ond heo hæbbe fyrene tungan ond gyldene hracan ond leohtne muð inneweardne, ond ðeah ðe eall middangeard sie fram Adames frymðe edniowe gewurden, ond anra gehwelc hæbbe ða . xii . snyttro Habrahames ond Isaces ond Iacobes, ond anra gehwylc mote lifigan ðreo hund wintra, ne magon hie ðære tungan gerecnesse ne hire mægnes swiðmodnisse aspyrian. Ond his earmas siendon . xii . ðusendum siða lengran ðonne ealles middangeardes eorðe oððe beamas, ðeah ðe hie sien mid ðy beorhtestan wyrhtan folmum tosomne gefeged, ond anra gehwylc ende sie fram oðrum to ðam midle mid ðy gulliscan seolfre oferworht, ond mid ðam neorxnawonges compgimmum astæned. Ond his handa twa, hie sint bradran ðonne . xii . middangeardas, ðeah hie sien ealle tosomne gesette. Ond se halga cantic, he hafað gyldene fingras, ond ðara is anra gehwylc synderlice . xxxtigum ðusendum dæla lengran ðonne eall middangeard oððe eorðe. Ond on ðæs Pater Nosters ðære swiðran handa is gyldennes sweordes onlicnis, ðæt is eallum oðrum wæpnum ungelic. His leoma he is hlutra ond beorhtra ðonne ealra heofona tungol, oððe on ealre eorðan sien goldes ond seolfres frætwednessa ond fægernessa. Ond ðæs dryhtenlican wæpnes seo swiðre ecglast, he is mildra ond gemetfæstra ðonne ealles middangeardes swetnissa oððe his stencas. Ond seo wynstre ecglast ðæs ilcan wæpnes, he is reðra ond scearpra ðonne eall middangeard, ðeah he sie binnan his feower hwommum full gedrifen wildeora, ond anra gehwylc deor hæbbe synderlic . xii . hornas

74

Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Prose Uriel and Rumiel. Saturn said: So who shoots the devil with surging arrows? Solomon said: The Pater Noster shoots the devil with surging arrows, and the lightning, it burns and marks it, and the rain destroys it from above, and the darkness deceives it and the thunder oppresses it with the fiery axe, and drives it into the iron chains in which its parents, Satan and Sathiel, dwell. And when the devil greatly tires, it seeks a guilty man’s cattle or an unclean tree, or if it comes across an unblessed man’s mouth or body, then it goes into the forgetful man’s bowels, and goes into the earth through his skin and through his flesh, and from there seeks out the wasteland of hell. Saturn said: So what kind of head has the Pater Noster? Solomon said: The Pater Noster has a golden head and silver hair, and even if all earth’s waters be mixed with the heavenly waters above in one channel and it begin to rain together, middle-earth – with all its creatures – it could stand dry under one lock of the Pater Noster’s hair. And his eyes are twelve thousand times brighter than all the orb of middle-earth – even if it were spread over with the brightest lily blossoms, and each blossom’s leaf have twelve suns, and each blossom have twelve moons, and each moon be individually twelve thousand times brighter than it was before Abel’s murder. Saturn said: But what is the radiant heart of the Pater Noster like? Solomon said: His heart is twelve thousand times brighter than all the seven heavens which are set over us, even if they were kindled with apocalyptic fire, and even if all this earth burn all together beneath them. And it should have a fiery tongue and golden throat and a mouth lit up from within, and even if all middle-earth from Adam’s creation were renewed, and each man have the twelve wisdoms of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and each one could live for three-hundred years, they could not follow the tongue’s testimony nor its strength’s magnificence. And his arms are twelve thousand times longer than all the orb of middle-earth or its beams, even if they were fixed by the hands of the brightest craftsmen together, and each were from the middle, from one end to the other, covered over with gilt silver, and studded with the field-gems of paradise. And his two hands, they are broader than twelve middle-earths, even if they were all put together. And the holy canticle, he has golden fingers and each of those is individually thirty thousand times longer than all middle-earth or the orb. And in the Pater Noster’s right hand is a golden sword’s likeness, that is unlike all other weapons. His bright beam, it is clearer and brighter than all the stars of heaven, or all the gold and silver ornamentation and beauty that could be in all the earth, and the right edge of the noble weapon, it is milder and more moderate than all middle-earth’s sweetness or its fragrances. And the left-hand edge of the same weapon, it is fiercer and sharper than all middle-earth, even if within its four corners it were packed full of wild beasts, and each wild beast

75

Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Prose

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

ierene, ond anra gehwylc horn hæbbe . xii . tindas ierene, ond anra gehwylc tind hæbbe synderlice . xii . ordas, ond anra gehwilc sie . xii . ðusendum siða scearpra ðonne seo an flan ðe sie fram hundtwelftigum hyrdenna geondhyrded. Ond ðeah ðe seofon middangeardas sien ealle on efen abrædde on ðeoses anes onlicnisse, ond ðær sie eall gesomnod ðætte heofon oððe hell oððe eorðe æfre acende, ne magon hie ða lifes linan on middan ymbfæðman. Ond se Pater Noster he mæg ana ealla gesceafta on his ðære swiðran hand on anes weaxæples onlicnisse geðyn ond gewringan. Ond his geðoht, he is spryngdra ond swyftra ðonne . xii . ðusendu haligra gæsta, ðeah ðe anra gehwylc gæst hæbbe synderlice . xii . feðerhoman, ond anra gehwylc feðerhoma hæbbe . xii . windas, ond anra gehwylc wind twelf sigefæstnissa synderlice. Ond his stefen, heo is hludre ðonne eall manna cynn oððe eall wildeora cynn, ðeah ðe hie sien ealle on ðone munt gesomnod ðe sie in ðære lengo ðe seo line ðe wile . xxxiiitigum siða ealle eorðan ymbehwyrft utan ymblicggan. Ond ðeh ðe ðæron gesomnod sie eall ðætte heofon oððe hell oððe eorðe æfre acende, ond anra gehwylc ge ðara cweðendra ge ðara uncweðendra hæbbe gyldene byman on muðe, ond eallra bymena gehwylc hæbbe . xii . hleoðor, ond hleoðra gehwylc sie heofone hearre ond helle deopre, ðonne gena ðæs halgan cantices se gyldena organ he hie ealle oferhleoðrað ond ealle ða oðra he adyfeð. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hulic is ðæs Pater dNoster∧s∨ *** ∧Salomon cwæð:∨ *** hafaðd gyldene fonan, ond seo fane is mid . xii . godwebbum utan ymbhangen, ond anra gehwylc godweb hangað on hundtwelftigum hringa gyldenra. Ond ðæt æreste godweb is haten aurum celæstium, ðam ðiostro ne magon . cxxtigum mila neah gehleonian. Ðonne nemnað englas ðæt æftere godweb spiritum paraclitum; in ðam godwebcynne bið Sanctus Mihhael gescyrped on domes dæg. Ðonne nemnað englas ðæt ðridde godwebb pastoralices; ðæt godwebb wæs on ðæs godwebbes onlicnisse ðe ieo ymb mines fæder Dauides columban hangode on ðeosum ilcan temple. Ðonne is ðæt feorðe godwebb haten solacitum; ðæt godweb wæs on ðæs godwebbes onlicnisse ðe geo Abimelech se goda cining brohte Criste to lacum ond to ansægdnesse. Ðonne is ðæt fifte godwebb haten uita perpetua; ðæt godwebb is ðonne ðære halgan Ðrinisse. Ðonne is ðæt syxte godwebb haten sacrificium Die; ðæt is ðonne on eallra deora onlicnesse. Ðonne is ðæt seofoðe ***

• 76

Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Prose individually have twelve iron horns, and each horn have twelve iron prongs, and each prong individually have twelve points, and each be twelve thousand times sharper than the one arrow which were tempered by one-hundred-and-twenty hardenings. And even if seven middle-earths in this one’s likeness were all evenly spread out, and there be gathered all that heaven or hell or earth ever gave birth to, then they could not encompass life’s line. And the Pater Noster, he can press and twist all creation in his right hand into the likeness of a wax apple. And his thought, it is more vigorous and swifter than twelve thousand holy spirits, even if each one should have individually twelve feather-cloaks, and each feather-cloak have twelve winds, and each wind individually have twelve triumphs. And his voice, it is louder than all mankind or all wild animal-kind, even if they were all gathered on the mountain that would be the length of a line that would encompass thirty-three times the circumference of all the earth. And even if were collected there all that heaven and hell and earth ever gave birth to, and each both of the speaking and the mute should have a golden trumpet in their mouth, and all the trumpets each have twelve voices, and each voice be higher than heaven or deeper than hell, then still the golden organ of the holy canticle, he would shout down all, and deafen all the others. Saturn said: But what is the Pater Noster’s *** like? ∧Solomon said:∨ ∧He∨ has a golden standard, and the standard is hung about with twelve precious cloths, and each precious cloth hangs on one-hundred-and-twenty golden rings. And the first precious cloth is called aurum celæstium, and darkness cannot lie within one-hundred-and-twenty miles of it. Then the angels call the second precious cloth spiritum paraclitum; in that kind of precious cloth Saint Michael will be dressed on Doomsday. Then the angels call the third precious cloth pastoralices; that precious cloth was in the likeness of the precious cloth that formerly hung about my father David’s columns in this same Temple. Then the fourth precious cloth is called solacitum, that precious cloth was in the likeness of the precious cloth that Abimelech the good king formerly brought to Christ as a sacrifice and an oblation. Then the fifth precious cloth is called uita perpetua; that precious cloth is then of the Holy Trinity. Then is the sixth precious cloth called sacrificium dei; that is in the likeness of all wild beasts. Then is the seventh ***

• 77

Solomon and Saturn Poetic Fragment

SOLOMON AND SATURN POETIC FRAGMENT



5

*** swice,  ær he soð wite, ðæt ða sienfullan  saula sticien mid hettendum  helle tomiddes. Hateð ðonne heahcining  helle betynan fyres fulle  ond ða feondas mid.’   Hæfde ða se snotra  sunu Dauides forcumen ond forcyðed  Caldea eorl. Hwæðre was on sælum  se ðe of siðe cwom feorran gefered.  Næfre ær his ferhð ahlog.

•

SOLOMON AND SATURN II



5



10



15



20

HWÆT! IC FLITAN GEFRÆGN  on fyrndagum modgleawe men,  middangeardes ræswum, gewesan ymbe hira wisdom.  Wyrs deð se ðe liehð oððe ðæs soðes ansæceð.  Saloman was bremra, ðeah ðe S∧at∨urnus  sumra hæfde bald breosttoga,  boca cæg∧a∨, ∧le∨ornenga locan.  Land eall geondhwearf, Ind∧e∨a mere,  ∧E∨ast Corsias, Persea rice,  Palestinion, Niniuen ceastre,  ond Norð Predan, Meda maððumselas,  Marculfes eard, Saulus rice,  swa he suð ligeð ymbe Geallboe  ond ymb Geador norð, Filistina flet,  fæsten Cre∧t∨a, wudu Egipta,  ∧w∨æter Mathea, ∧cludas∨ Coreffes,  Caldea rice, Creca cræftas,  cynn Arabia, lare Libia,  lond Syria, Pitðinia,  Buðanasan, Pamhpilia,  Pores gemære, Macedonia,  Mesopotamie, Cappadocia  Cristes ∧eðel∨ Hieryhco, Galilea  Hierusa∧lem∨ ***

78

Solomon and Saturn Poetic Fragment

SOLOMON AND SATURN POETIC FRAGMENT ∧Solomon said:∨ *** should weaken, before he knows the truth, that the sinful souls should be stuck with tormentors in the middle of hell. Then the High-King will order hell to be closed up, full of fire, and the enemies likewise. The wise son of David had then overcome and rebutted the nobleman of the Chaldeans. Nevertheless, he was joyful, he who had come on the journey, travelled from afar; never before had his heart laughed.

1–5

6–9

•

SOLOMON AND SATURN II Listen! I have heard of a dispute in ancient days between sagacious men, mentors of middle earth, debating about their wisdom. Worse does he who lies or contradicts the truth. Solomon was more famous; however, Saturn, the bold strategist, had the keys of certain books in which learning was locked. He wandered through all the lands: the land of India, the East Cossias, the kingdom of the Persians, Palestine, the city of Nineveh, and the North Parthians, the treasure halls of the Medes, the land of Marculf, the kingdom of Saul – where it lies south by Gilboa and north by Gadara – the halls of the Philistines, the fortress of the Cretans, the forest of the Egyptians, the waters of the Midians, the cliffs of Horeb, the kingdom of the Chaldeans, the skills of the Greeks, the race of the Arabians, the learning of Libya, the land of Syria, Bythinia, Bashan, Pamphilia, the border of Porus, Macedonia, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Christ’s homeland – Jericho, Galilee, Jerusalem ***

79

1–4a

4b–23

Solomon and Saturn II



25



30



35



40



45



50



55



60

S∧ALOMON CVÆÐ:∨   ***  oððe ic swigie, nyttes hycgge,  ðeah ic no spr∧e∨c∧e∨. Wat ic ðonne, gif ðu gewitest  on Wendelsæ ofer coforflod  cyððe seccan, ðæt ðu wille gilpan  ðæt ðu hæbbe gumena bearn forcumen ond forcyððed.  Wat ic ðæt wæron Caldeas guðe ðæs gielpne  ond ðæs goldwlonce, mærða ðæs modige,  ðær to ðam moning gelomp suð ymbe Sanere feld.  Sæge me from ðam lande ðær nænig fyra ne mæg  fotum gestæppan. SATVRNVS CVÆÐ: Se mæra was haten  ∧mere∨liðende weallende Wulf,  werðeodum cuð Filistina,  freond Nebrondes . He on ðam felda ofslog  . xxv . dracena on dægred,  ond hine ða deað offeoll, forðan ða foldan  ne mæg fira ænig, ðone mercstede,  mon gesecan, fugol gefleogan  ne ðon ma foldan nita. Ðanon atercynn  ærest gewurdon wide onwæcned,  ða ðe nu weallende ðurh attres oroð  ingang rymað. Git his sweord scinað  swiðe gescæned, ond ofer ða byrgenna  blicað ða hieltas. SALOMON cwað: Dol bið se ðe gæð  on deop wæter, se ðe sund nafað,  ne gesegled scip, ne fugles flyht,  ne he mid fotum ne mæg grund geræcan;  huru se Godes cunnað full dyslice,  Dryhtnes meahta. SATVRNVS CVÆÐ: Ac hwæt is se dumba,  se ðe on sumre dene resteð? Swiðe snyttrað,  hafað seofon tungan, hafað tungena gehwylc  . xx . orda, hafað orda gehwylc  engles snytro, ðara ðe wile anra hwylc  uppe bringan, ðæt ðu ðære gyldnan gesiehst  Hierusalem weallas blican  ond hiera winrod lixan, soðfæstra segn.  Saga hwæt ic mæne. SALOMON CVÆÐ: Bec sindon breme,  bodiað geneahhe weotodne wil∧l∨an  ðam ðe wiht hygeð, gestrangað hie ond gestaðeliað  staðolfæstne geðoht, amyrgað modsefan  manna gehwylces

80

Solomon and Saturn II S∧olomon said:∨ *** or I shall be silent, think of something worthwhile, though I do not speak. I know, then, if you journey on the Mediterranean beyond the River Chobar to seek your homeland, that you will boast that you have overcome and rebutted the children of men. I know that the Chaldeans were so boastful in war, and so proud of gold, so conceited in their glories, that they were sent a warning there, south around the field of Sennaar. Speak to me concerning the land where no man can step with his feet. Saturn said: The great sea-traveller was called surging Wulf, known to the people of the Philistines, a friend of Nimrod. On that field he slew twenty-five dragons at dawn, and then death felled him, because no man can seek that land, no one that border-land, nor bird fly there, more than any of the beasts of the earth. From there first arose poison-kind, spread widely, those which surging now through poisonous breath make spacious the entrance. His sword shines yet, highly polished, and its hilt gleams over the graves. Solomon said: Foolish is he who goes into deep water, he who can’t swim, nor has a sail-rigged ship, nor the flight of a bird, who cannot reach the bed with his feet. Indeed, he very foolishly tests God, the Lord’s might. Saturn said: But what is the mute thing, which rests in a certain valley? It is very wise, has seven tongues, each tongue has twenty tips, each tip has the wisdom of an angel; each of these will carry you up, so that there you will see the golden walls of Jerusalem gleaming, and their chorus shining, the standard of the righteous. Say what I mean. Solomon said: Books are famous, they abundantly proclaim the ordered mind to the one who thinks at all. They strengthen and establish resolute thought, make merry the mind of each man against the mental oppressions of this life.

81

24–29a

29b–33

34–46

47–51

52–59

60–64

Solomon and Saturn II



65



70



75



80



85



90



95



100

of ðreamedlan  ðisses lifes. Saturnus cwæð: Bald bið se ðe onbyregeð  boca cræftes, symle bið ðe wisra  ðe hira geweald hafað. SALOMON CVÆÐ: Sige hie onsendað  soðfæstra gehwam, hælo hyðe,  ðam ðe hie lufað. Saturnus cwæð: An wise is on  woroldrice ymb ða me fyrwet bræc  . L . wintra dæges ond niehtes  ðurh deop gesceaft: geomrende gast.  Deð nu gena swa, ærðon me geunne  ece dryhten ðæt me geseme  snoterra monn. SALOMON cwæð: Soð is ðæt ðu sagast;  seme ic ðe recene ymb ða wrætlican wiht.  Wilt ðu ðæt ic ðe secgge? An fugel siteð  on Fili∧s∨tina middelgemærum;  munt is hine ymbutan geap gylden weall.  Georne hine healdað witan Filistina,  wenað ðæs ðe naht is, ðæt hiene him scyle eall ðeod  on genæman wæpna ecggum;  hie ðæs wære cunnon. Healdeð hine niehta gehwylce,  norðan ond suðan, on twa healfa  tu hund wearda. Se fugel hafað  . iiii . heafdu medumra manna  ond he is on middan hwælen; geowes he hafað fiðeru  ond griffus fet. Ligeð lonnum fæst,  locað unhiere, swiðe swingeð  ond his searo hringeð, gilleð geomorlice  ond his gyrn sefað, wylleð hine on ðam wite,  wunað unlustum, singgeð syllice;  seldum æfre his leoma licggað.  Longað hine hearde, ðynceð him ðæt sie ðria . xxx .  ðusend wintra ær he domdæges  dynn gehyre. Nyste hine on ðære foldan  fira ænig eorðan cynnes  ærðon ic hine ana onfand, ond hine ða gebindan het  ofer brad wæter, ðæt hine se modega heht  Melotes bearn Filistina fruma,  fæste gebindan, lonnum belucan  wið leodgryre. Ðone fugel hatað  feorbuende Filistina fruma,  uasa mortis.

82

Solomon and Saturn II Saturn said: Bold is he who tastes of the power of books, he will always be the wiser who has control of them. Solomon said: They present victory to each of the righteous, a harbour of safety for those who love them. Saturn said: There is one condition in this worldly kingdom concerning which my curiosity has disturbed me for fifty years, by day and by night, throughout deep destiny: a sorrowing spirit. Even now it does the same, until the eternal Lord grant to me that a wiser man satisfy me. Solomon said: What you say is true. I will satisfy you immediately concerning that wondrous creature. Do you want me to tell you? A bird sits in the middle of the borders of the Philistines; there is a mountain surrounding it, a vaulted golden wall. Keenly the wise men of the Philistines guard it; they expect – which is not so – that the entire nation should steal him away from them at sword’s edge; they warily know of that. Two hundred guards watch it on both sides, from north and south. The bird has four heads the measure of a man’s, and it is like a whale in the middle; it has a vulture’s feathers and griffon’s feet. It lies fast in chains, gazes fiercely, strongly beats its wings and its gear rattles; it cries out sorrowfully and laments its grief, wallows in that torment, dwells unhappily, sings strangely; its limbs seldom ever lie still. It pines painfully, it seems to it that it should be three times thirty thousand years before it hears the roar of Doomsday. No man in the world, of the earthly race, knew about it before I alone found it, and across the broad sea ordered it bound, so that the brave son of Melot, the leader of the Philistines, commanded it to be firmly bound, locked in chains against the people’s terror. The distantly dwelling leaders of the Philistines call the bird Vasa mortis.

83

65–66

67–68

69–74

75–84

85–95

96–103

Solomon and Saturn II



105



110



115



120



125



130



135



140

Saturnus cwæð: Ac hwæt is ðæt wundor  ðe geond ðas worold færeð, styrnenga gæð,  staðolas beateð, aweceð wopdropan,  winneð oft hider? Ne mæg hit steorra ne stan  ne se steapa gimm, wæter ne wildeor  wihte beswican, ac him on hand gæð  heardes ond hnesces, micles ∧ond∨ mætes;  him to mose sceall gegangan geara gehwelce  grundbuendra, lyft fleogendra,  laguswemmendra, ðria ðreoteno  ðusendgerimes. SALOMON CVÆÐ: Yldo beoð on eorðan  æghwæs cræftig; mid hiðendre  hildewræsne, rumre racenteage  ręceð wide, langre linan,  lisseð eall ðæt heo wile. Beam heo abreoteð  ond bebriceð telgum, astyreð standen∧dn∨e  stefn on siðe, afilleð hine on foldan;  friteð æfter ðam wildne fugol.  Heo oferwigeð wulf, hio oferbideð stanas,  heo oferstigeð style, hio abiteð iren mid ome,  deð usic swa. SATVRNVS CVÆÐ: Ac forhwon fealleð se snaw,  foldan behydeð, bewrihð wyrta cið,  wæstmas getigeð, geðyð hie ond geðreatað,  ðæt hie ðrage beoð cealde geclungne?  Full oft ∧he∨ gecostað eac wildeora worn,  wætum he oferbricgeð, gebryceð burga geat,  baldlice fereð, reafað *** ∧SALOMON CVÆÐ:∨ swiðor micle  ðonne se swipra nið se hine gelædeð  on ða laðan wic mid ða fræcnan  feonde to willan. Saturnus cwæð: Nieht bið wedera ðiestrost,  ned bið wyrda heardost, sorg bið swarost byrðen,  slæp bið deaðe gelicost. SALOMON cwæð: Lytle hwile  leaf beoð grene; ðonne hie eft fealewiað,  feallað on eorðan, ond forweorniað,  weorðað to duste. Swa ðonne gefeallað  ða ðe fyrena ær lange læstað,  lifiað him in mane, hydað heahgestreon,  healdað georne on fæstenne  feondum to willan,

84

Solomon and Saturn II Saturn said: But what is that strange thing that travels throughout this world, sternly goes, beats the foundations, arouses tears, often forces its way here? Neither star nor stone nor the broad gem, water nor wild beast can deceive it, but into its hand go hard and soft, the great and small. Each and every year the count of three times thirteen thousand of the ground-dwellers, of the air-flying, of the sea-swimming, must go to it as food. Solomon said: Old age is, of all things, powerful on earth. With plundering shackles, capacious fetters, she reaches widely, with her long rope, she subdues all she will. She destroys the tree and shatters its branches, uproots the upright trunk on her way, and fells it to the earth; after that she feeds on the wildfowl. She defeats the wolf, she outlasts stones, she surpasses steel, she bites iron with rust, does the same to us. Saturn said: But why does snow fall – it covers the earth, encloses the shoots of plants, binds things that grow, crushes and inhibits them, so that for a long while they are withered with cold? Very often it distresses many wild animals too, makes a bridge over water, breaches the gate of the citadel, boldly proceeds, robs *** ∧Solomon said:∨ *** much stronger than the deceitful malice which will lead him into the hateful abode with the terrible ones to the Enemy’s delight. Saturn said: Night is the darkest weather, need the hardest of fates, sorrow the most oppressive burden, sleep is most like death. Solomon said: Leaves are green for a short while, then later they fade, fall on the earth and decay, turn to dust. Just so, then, fall those who earlier persist for a long time in their sins – they live in crime, they hide great treasures, they hold them eagerly in strongholds, to the delight of the enemies – and the fools expect that the King of

85

104–113

114–123

124–130

131–133

134–135

136–144

Solomon and Saturn II



145



150



155



160



165



170

ond wenað wanhogan  ðæt hie wille Wuldorcining, ælmihtig God  ece gehiran! Saturnus cwæð: Sona bið gesiene  siððan flowan mot yð ofer eall lond,  ne wile heo awa ðæs siðes geswican,  sioððan hire se sæl cymeð ðæt heo domes dæges  dyn gehiere. SALOMON CVÆÐ: Swa bið ðonne ðissum modgum monnum,  ðam ðe her nu mid mane lengest lifiað on ðisse lænan gesceafte.  Ieo ðæt ðine leode gecyðdon, wunnon hie wið Dryhtnes miehtum,  forðon hie ðæt worc ne gedegdon. Ne sceall ic ðe hwæðre broðor abelgan;  ðu eart swiðe bittres cynnes, eorre eormenstrynde.  Ne beyrn ðu in ða inwitgecyndo! Saturnus cwæð: Saga ðu me, Salomon cyning,  sunu Dauides, hwæt beoð ða feowere  fægæs rapas? SALOMON CVÆÐ: Gewurdene wyrda ðæt beoð ða feowere  fæges rapas. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hwa demeð ðonne  Dryhtne Criste on domes dæge  ðonne he demeð eallum gesceaftum? SALOMON cwæð: Hwa dear ðonne Dryhtne deman,  ðe us of duste geworhte, Nergend of niehtes wunde?  Ac sæge me hwæt næren ∧ð∨e wæron. Saturnus cwæð: Ac forhwon ne mot seo sunne  side gesceafte scire geondscinan?  Forhwam besceadeð heo muntas ond moras  ond monige ec weste stowa?  Hu geweorðeð ðæt? SALOMON CVÆÐ: Ac forhwam næron eorð∧we∨lan  ealle g∧e∨deled leodum gelice?  Sum to lyt hafað, godes grædig;  hine God seteð ðurh geearnunga  eadgum to ræste. Saturnus cwæð: Ac forhwan beoð ða gesiðas  somod ætgædre, wop ond hleahtor?  Full oft hie weorðgeornra sælða toslitað.  Hu gesæleð ðæt? SALOMON CVÆÐ: Unlæde bið ond ormod  se ðe a wile geomrian on gihðe;  se bið Gode fracoðast.

86

Solomon and Saturn II glory, almighty God, will always listen to them! Saturn said: It will soon be seen, when the sea, a wave, can flow over the land, it will never stop its advance, when its time has come, so that it hears the roar of Doomsday. Solomon said: Just so then will it be for these proud men, those who here now with evil live longest in this transitory creation! Your people made that known long ago: they strove against the Lord’s might, therefore they did not complete that work. However, I shall not make you angry, brother; you are of a very bitter nation, an angry and mighty race. Don’t you slip into that wicked nature! Saturn said: Tell me, King Solomon, son of David, what are the four ropes of the fated man? Solomon said: Accomplished fates, they are the four ropes of the fated man. Saturn said: But who will then judge the Lord Christ on Doomsday, when he judges all creatures? Solomon said: Who will then dare to judge the Lord, the Saviour, who made us from dust, from the wound of night? But tell me what things were not that were. Saturn said: But why can’t the sun shine brightly across the ample creation? Why does it shade mountains and moors and many other deserted places as well? How does that happen? Solomon said: But why were earth’s goods not all shared out equally among people? A certain one, greedy for good, has too little. Because of his merits God will place him at rest among the blessed. Saturn said: But why are the companions, weeping and laughter, both together? Very often they destroy the happiness of the well-intentioned. How does that come about? Solomon said: He is miserable and despairing, he who always wishes to be sad in grief. He is most offensive to God.

87

145–148

149–153

154–155

156–157

158–159

160–161

162–165

166–169

170–172

173–174

Solomon and Saturn II

175



180



185



190



195



200



205



210

Saturnus cwæð: Forhwon ne moton we ðonne ealle  mid onmedlan gegnum gangan  in Godes rice? SALOMON CVÆÐ: Ne mæg fyres feng  ne forstes cile, snaw ne sunne  somod eardian, aldor geæfnan,  ac hira sceal anra gehwylc onlutan ond onliðigan  ðe hafað læsse mægnn. Saturnus cwæð: Ac forhwon ðonne leofað  se wyrsa leng? Se wyrsa ne wat  in woroldrice on his mægwinum  maran are. SALOMON CVÆÐ: Ne mæg mon forild∧an∨  ænige hwile ðone deoran sið,  ac he hine adreogan sceall. Saturnus cwæð: Ac hu gegangeð ðæt,  gode oððe yfle, ðonne hie beoð ðurh ane  idese acende, twegen getwinnas?  Ne bið hira tir gelic; oðer bið unlæde on eorðan,  oðer bið eadig swiðe, leoftæle mid leoda duguðum;  oðer leofað lytle hwile, swiceð on ðisse sidan gesceafte  ond ðonne eft mid sorgum gewiteð. Fricge ic ðec hlaford Salomon,  hwæðres bið hira folgoð betra? SALOMON CVÆÐ: Modor ne rædeð  ðonne heo magan cenneð, hu him weorðe geond worold  widsið sceapen. Oft heo to bealwe  bearn afedeð, seolfre to sorge,  siððan dreogeð his earfoðu,  orlegstunde. Heo ðæs afran sceall  oft ond gelome grimme greotan,  ðonne he geong færeð, hafað wilde mod,  werige heortan, sefan sorgfullne,  slideð geneahhe werig, wilna leas,  wuldres bedæled. Hwilum higegeomor  healle weardað, leofað leodum feor;  locað geneahhe fram ðam unlædan,  æg∧e∨n hlaford. Forðan nah seo modor geweald,  ðonne heo magan cenneð, bearnes blædes,  ac sceall on gebyrd faran an æfter anum.  Ðæt is eald ges∧c∨eaft. Saturnus cwæð: Ac forhwan nele monn him on giogoðe  georne gewyrcan deores dryhtscipes  ond dædfruman, wadan on wisdom,  winnan æfter snytro?

88

Solomon and Saturn II Saturn said: Then why can’t we all go forwards with pomp into God’s kingdom? Solomon said: Fire’s grasp and frost’s chill, snow and sun, can neither dwell nor endure life together, but either one of them must submit and yield, that which has less power. Saturn said: But why then does the worse person live longer? The worse man does not know greater honour among his kinsmen in the worldly kingdom. Solomon said: No one can defer the grievous journey for a single moment, but he must endure it. Saturn said: But how does this ensue, for good or for evil, when two twins are born from the one woman? Their honour is not equal; one is unlucky on earth, the other is very fortunate, esteemed among companies of people; one lives a short while; the other falls short in this broad creation, and then later departs sorrowfully. I ask you, lord Solomon, which of the two has the better career? Solomon said: A mother, when she gives birth to her child, does not direct how the long journey through the world will be shaped for him. Often she nurtures the fierce one for ruin, to her own sorrow, later endures his torment at the fated hour. She often and repeatedly must weep bitterly for her son, when young he goes about, has a wild mind, an unfortunate heart, a sorrowful spirit; he often slips, worn out, purposeless, cut off from glory. At times, gloomy in mind, he is wary in the hall, lives away from people, his own lord often ignores the ill-fated man. Therefore the mother does not have control, when she gives birth to her son, over her child’s success – but one must go after the other in birth. That is the ancient decree. Saturn said: But why will a man not work hard in youth for noble lordship and a leader, to advance in wisdom, to struggle for insight?

89

175–176

177–180

181–183

184–185

186–192

193–202

203–208

209–211

Solomon and Saturn II



215



220



225



230



235



240



245



250

SALOMON CWÆÐ: Hwæt! him mæg eadig eorl  eaðe geceosan on his modsefan  mildne hlaford, anne æðeling.  Ne mæg don unlæde swa. Saturnus cwæð: Ac forhwam winneð ðis wæter  geond woroldrice, dreogeð deop gesceaft?  Ne mot on dæg restan, neahtes neðyð,  cræfte tyð, cristnað ond clænsað  cwicra manigo, wuldre gewlitigað.  Ic wihte ne cann forhwan se stream  ne mot stillan neahtes *** ∧SALOMON CWÆÐ:∨ his lifes fæðme.  Simle hit bið his lareowum hyrsum; full oft hit eac ðæs deofles  dugoð gehnægeð, ðær weotena bið  worn gesamnod. Ðonne snottrum men  snæd oððglideð, ða he be leohte gesihð,  luteð æfter, gesegnað ond gesyfleð  ond him sylf friteð. Swilc bið seo an snæd  æghwylcum men selre micle,  gif heo gesegnod bið, to ðycgganne,  gif he hit geðencan cann, ðonne him sie seofon daga  symbelgereordu. Leoht hafað heow ond had  Haliges Gastes, Cristes gecyndo;  hit ðæt gecyðeð full oft. Gif hit unwitan  ænige hwile healdað butan hæftum,  hit ðurh hrof wædeð, bryceð ond bærneð  boldgetimbru, seomað steap ond geap,  stigeð on lenge, clymmeð on gecyndo,  cunnað hwænne mote fyr on his frumsceaft  on Fæder geardas, eft to his eðle,  ðanon hit æror cuom. Hit bið eallenga  eorl to gesihðe, ðam ðe gedælan can  Dryhtnes ðecelan, forðon nis nænegu gecynd  cuiclifigende, ne fugel ne fisc  ne foldan stan, ne wæteres wylm  ne wudutelga, ne munt ne mor  ne ðes middangeard, ðæt he forð ne sie  fyrenes cynnes. Saturnus cwæð: Full oft ic frode menn  fyrn gehyrde secggan ond swerian  ymb sume wisan, hwæðer wære twegra  butan tweon stren∧g∨ra, wyrd ðe warnung,  ðonne hie winnað oft mid hira ðreamedlan,  hwæðerne aðreoteð ær.

90

Solomon and Saturn II Solomon said: Indeed, a blessed man can easily discern in his mind a kind lord, a prince. The unfortunate man cannot do so. Saturn said: But why does this water struggle throughout the kingdom of this world, undergo a profound destiny? It cannot rest by day, goes boldly by night, it drags with force; it christens and cleanses many a living person, wondrously beautifies. I do not understand at all why the current cannot be still at night *** ∧Solomon said:∨ *** his life’s compass. It is always obedient to its teachers; very often it also subdues the devil’s troop, where the wise are assembled in great numbers. When a morsel slips away from a wise man, then by the light he sees it, he bends down for it, blesses and seasons it, and eats it himself. Likewise, the one morsel, if it is blessed, is much better for any man to consume, if he is able to realise it, than seven days of banqueting would be. Light has the hue and form of the Holy Spirit, Christ’s nature – it makes that known very often. If an unwise person holds it for any length of time without encasing it, it proceeds through the roof, breaks and burns the house timbers, swings steep and high, ascends in height, climbs according to nature, it searches out the moment when fire might come back to its homeland, to its point of origin in the courts of the Father. It is entirely visible to a man, to him who is able to share in the Lord’s lantern, because there is not any vital nature – neither bird nor fish nor stone of the earth, nor surge of water nor treebranch, nor mountain nor moor nor this middleearth – that is not of the fiery race. Saturn said: Very often of old I heard wise men speak and avow concerning a certain matter, whether without doubt either of two things was stronger – fate or foresight – when they struggle often with each other, with their mental oppression, which of the two becomes tiresome first. I truly know

91

212–214

215–220

221–230

231–239

240–246

247–257

Solomon and Saturn II



255



260



265



270



275



280



285



290

Ic to soðon wat  – sægdon me geara Filistina witan,  ðonne we on geflitum sæton, bocum tobræddon  ond on bearm legdon, meðelcwidas mengdon,  moniges fengon – ðæt nære nænig manna  middangeardes ðæt meahte ðara twega  tuion aspyrian. SALOMON CWÆÐ: Wyrd bið wended hearde,  wealleð swiðe geneahhe; heo wop weceð,  heo wean hladeð, heo gast scyð,  heo ger byreð; ond hwæðre him mæg wissefa  wyrda gehwylce gemetigian,  gif he bið modes gleaw ond to his freondum wile  fultum secan, ðehhwæðre godcundes  gæstes brucan. SATVRNVS CWÆÐ: Ac hwæt witeð us  wyrd seo swiðe, eallra fyrena fruma,  fæhðo modor weana wyrtwela,  wopes heafod, frumscylda gehwæs  fæder ond modor, deaðes dohtor?  Ac to hwon drohtað heo mid us? Hwæt, hie wile lifigende  late aðreotan, ðæt heo ðurh fyrena geflitu  fæhðo ne tydre. SALOMON cwæð: Nolde gæd geador  in Godes rice eadiges engles  ond ðæs ofermodan. Oðer his Dryhtne hierde,  oðer him ongan wyrcan ðurh dier∧n∨e cræftas segn ond side byrnan,  cwæð ðæt he mid his gesiðum wolde hiðan eall heofona rice  ond him ðonne on healfum sittan, tydran him mid ðy teoðan dæle,  oððæt he his ∧to∨r∧ne∨s geuðe ende ðurh insceafte.  Ða wearð se æðela ðeoden gedrefed ðurh ðæs deofles gehygdo,  forlet hine ða of dune gehreosan, afielde hine ða under foldan sceatas,  heht hine ðær fæste gebindan. Ðæt sindon ∧ða feondas∨,  ða usic feohtað on; forðon is witena gehwam  wopes eaca. Ða ðæt eadig onfand  engla Dryhten, ðæt heo leng mid hine  lare ne namon, aweorp hine ða of ðam wuldre  ond wide todraf, ond him bebead  bearn heofonwara ðæt hie ec scoldon  a ðenden hie lifdon wunian in wylme,  wop ðrowian, heaf under hefonum,  ond him helle gescop, wælcealde wic,  wintre beðeahte, wæter in sende  ond wyrmgeardas,

92

Solomon and Saturn II (the wise men of the Philistines told me formerly, when we sat in debate, we opened up books and spread them in our laps, we exchanged speeches, seizing on many matters) that there is not any man in this middle-earth who is able to apprehend the ambiguities of these two. Solomon said: Fate is turned with difficulty, it surges up very often; it calls forth weeping, it loads up woe, it harms the spirit, it carries the years; and nevertheless the one wise in mind can moderate each fated event, if he is prudent in mind and will seek help from his friends, and moreover enjoy the divine spirit. Saturn said: But why does Fate the Mighty accuse us, the beginning of all torments, mother of all hostility, root of woe, source of weeping, father and mother of each ancient wickedness, daughter of death? But for what reason does she persist with us? Indeed, she by living will become tiresome at last, so that through the discord of wicked deeds she will no longer generate hostility. Solomon said: In God’s kingdom he did not wish for society together of the blessed angel and of the proud one. One obeyed his Lord, the other began to make for himself a standard and broad armour through secret crafts. He said that with his companions he wished to completely ravage the kingdom of the heavens and to occupy half himself, and procreate himself with the tenth part, until through this internal propagation he could give his anger an end. Then the chief of princes was disturbed by the devil’s thought, caused him to fall down, brought him then under the surfaces of the earth, ordered him to be bound fast there. They are the enemies, those who fight against us; therefore there is an increase of woe for each of the wise. When the blessed lord of the angels discovered that they would not take instruction from him any longer, then he threw him from that glory and drove him far away, and commanded them, the children of the heaven-dwellers, that they also, for ever while they live, must dwell in the surge, suffer

93

258–264

265–271

273–278a

278b–282

283–297

Solomon and Saturn II



295



300



305



310



315



320



325

atol deor monig  irenum hornum, blodige earnas  ond blace nædran, ðurst ond hungor  ond ðearle gewin, egna egesan,  unrotnesse; ond æghwylc him ðissa earfeða  ece stondeð butan edwende  a ðenden hie lifigað SATVRNVS cwæð: Is ðonne on ðisse foldan  fira ænig eorðan cynnes  ðara ðe ∧an∨ man age, ∧ðe∨ deað abæde,  ær se dæg cyme ðæt sie his calend  cwide arunnen, ond hine mon annunga  ut abanne? SALOMON CWÆÐ: Æghwylc∧um men∨   engel onsendeð dryhten heof∧ona∨  ðonnne ∧dæg sty∨reð; se sceall behealdan  hu his hyge ∧wille∨ ∧græ∨dig growan  in Godes willan, murnan Metodes ðrym,  mid ðy ðe hit dæg bið. Ðonne hine ymbegangað  gastas twegen; oðer bið golde glædra,  oðer bið grundum sweartra, oðer cymeð    ***     ofer ðære stylenan helle, oðer hine læreð  ðæt he lufan healde Metodes miltse  ond his mæga ræd, oðer hine tyhteð  ond on tæso læreð, yweð him ond yppeð  earmra manna misgemynda,  ond ðurh ðæt his mod hweteð, lædeð hine ond læceð  ond hine geond land spaneð oððæt his ege bið  æfðancum full, ðurh earmra scyld  yrre geworden. Swa ðonne feohteð se feond  on feower gecynd oððæt he gewendeð  on ða wyrsan hand deofles dædum  dæglongne fyrst, ond ðæs willan wyrcð  ðe hine on woh spaneð. Gewiteð ðonne wepende  on weg faran engel to his earde  ond ðæt eall sagað: ‘Ne meahte ic of ðære heortan  heardne aðringan stylenne stan,  sticað him tomiddes.’ ***

• 94

Solomon and Saturn II sorrow, lamentation under the heavens; and he made hell for them, a place of deadly cold covered in winter, sent water in there, and snake-pits, and many terrible beasts with iron horns, bloody eagles and black adders, thirst and hunger and severe fighting, sorrowful things, terrible for the eyes; and for each of them these torments remain for ever, without alteration, for ever while they live. Saturn said: Then is there any man in this world of earthly race, of those who might have a fault, who death might compel before the day should come, that the count of his months might be run out, and he should be summoned away forthwith? Solomon said: The Lord of the heavens sends an angel to each man when day comes; he must observe how his mind will grow greedy for God’s intentions, be fearful of the Maker’s majesty, while it is day. Then two spirits hover about him: one is brighter than gold, the other blacker than the abyss; one comes *** the other from the steely hell; one teaches him that he should keep the Maker’s love and mercy, and his kinsmen’s advice, the other tempts him and teaches him to ruin, reveals and brings out in him the misconceptions of wretched men, and in this way stimulates his mind, leads and deludes him, misleads him throughout the land, until his eyes are full of resentment, through wretched guilt have become enraged. So then the enemy fights in four natures, until he turns, because of the daylong space of the devil’s deeds, and performs the will of the one who entices him to error. The angel then departs, weeping as he goes on the way to his home, and explains all that: ‘I could not dislodge the hard steel stone from his heart – it is stuck in his middle.’ ***

• 95

298–302

303–319

320–327

Apparatus Criticus Solomon and Saturn I, B, p. 196; A p. 1, lines 1–30a (see note) Rubric Saturnus cwæð] S . . VRNV . . A 1a  Hwæt! Ic iglanda] HWÆT . . da A 1b  eallra hæbbe] eall . . hæbbe A 2b  gebregdstafas] . . fas A 3a  larcræftas onlocen] lar . . . . tas on . . A 5b  treahteras] tr.ahter.s A 6  Blank space left for 11 or 12 letters between bec and M ces B 7a  Meces heardum] . . ses h . nd . . A; M ces B, with blank space left between M and c; heardum, a inserted above line B 7b  ic næfre on eallum] ic n . . re . . . . lum A 8a  þam] ð . . A 8b  findan ne mihte] finda . . . . te A 9a  soðe samnode] soðe s . . A; samode B; emended Grein 9b  git] git A 10a  hwylc wære] H . . . . c wær . . A 11a  oððe æhte] oððe æhtta A 11b  æhte oððe eorlscipes] oððe eor . . A; æhte eorlscipes B 13a  Sille] . . ill . . A; Wille B; emended Menner 14a  Israela] . . ela A; iraela B; emended Kemble 14b  punda] . . . pund . . A 17a  ðurh þæs cantices] . . h ð . s cantices A 18b  mec gesund ferie] me ðon[ne] ge sund ferie? A; fa B 19a  wende] w . nd . . A 19b  wæteres hrigc] . . s ryc . . A 20a Coferflod] flod A 21a  on eorþan] . . n eorðan A 22b  nieten] . . ten A 23a  feldgongende] fe . . A 23b  feoh butan gewitte] feoh butan ge witte A 24a  se þurh ðone cantic] Seðe ðurh ðone cantic A 24b  geherian] herigan A 25a  worað he windes full] worað he windes full A; warað B 25b  worpað hine deofol] worp . . ða . . ofol A 26a  on domdæge] on dom dæge A 26b  draca egeslice] draca egeslice A 27b  liðran] liðran A 28a  irenum aplum] mid irenum æpplum A 28b  aweaxen] . . we(a?)xene A 29a  of edwittes] of edwi . . A 29b  heafdum] he . fdu. A

96

Apparatus Criticus 30a  Þonne] ðo . . A 34a  Fracað] B, previous edd. read as Fracoð 39a  gepalmtwigude] ge pam twigude B, l inserted above line 42b  dryħnes B 43a  mid] mib corrected by erasure over-writing in B, with probable erasure of a letter immediately following 44a  dros] dry B 62a  neah] heortan hearde B 66a  snytera] previous edd. read as snytero 73a  Hungor he gehideð] hugor he ge he ge hideð B; n inserted above line 77b  winciendra] wincindra B; e inserted above line 79a  scildigra] Swild[ ] B, untidily corrected from swilce; followed by erasure of to 86a  lufian] luian B; emended Menner 87a  feohtende] feohterne B 88b  gebringesð] gebringeð B; emended Menner 92b  filgið] B, written over deleted word læteð

Solomon and Saturn I, A, p. 2. Recovered readings from A, p. 1, are included in the apparatus of B, lines 1–30 31a  gegotan] gego[ ]an A 41b  gefylleð] gesylleð A 43a  beorhtan] be[ ]rhtan A 44a  dros] dream A 44b  ðæt [  ]t A 47a  fira] [ ]ira A 67  line missing from A 75a  is] [ ]s A 77b  wincendra] wincen[ ]ra A 83b  weorðmynda] weorðmyn[ ]a A 90a  guðmæcga] guðo | mæcga A, o inserted in margin inexpertly by later hand 91b  grimman] gr[  ]man A 105a  he] [ ]e A 108a  ond . ᚩ . O . samod] . n . I s[  ]od A (see note) 114b  stregdað] stregað A, d inserted above line 123a  hine . I . ond . ᛚ . L .] hine . ᛚ . L . A 126a  hæftling] hæft | lig A; emended Kemble 136b  . B . bið se] fyr bið se ðridda A 156a  hornum] horum A, n inserted above line 158a  gefeterað] feterað A, ge inserted above line 168b  ðæt] ð[ ]t A

Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Prose a  Eahteoðan b–b  seraphin uriel A c  ligett[ ] A d–d  nr hafað A

97

Apparatus Criticus

Solomon and Saturn II 5  Saturnus] S[ ]turnus A, barely legible 6b  cæga] cæg[ ] A, barely legible 7a  leornenga] [  ]ornenga A, barely legible 8  Indea mere, East] ind[ ]a mere [ ]ast A, barely legible 14  Creta] creca A 15  wæter] pæt A, abbreviation marked over t 22b  Cristes eðel] cristes A; eðel suggested by Grein 23b  Hierusalem] hierusa, last word on A, p. 13. Old English text on A, p. 14 has been erased; in upper margin letter forms discernable: st . . . . . frað visible; remnants of capital S in left margin, M visible in same line. Page, ‘Note on the Text’, p. 38, reads oððe ic ðe s . d . . oðð . . at end of last line of erased text 25b  sprece] spr[ ]c[ ] A, barely legible 34b  mereliðende] sæliðende A; emended Grein 38b  ða deað offeoll] ða of deað offeoll A 61a  willan] wilian A, previous edd. read willan 77b  Filistina] filitina A 98a  gebindan] gebundan A, with i written above u 110a  micles ond mætes] micles mætes A 119a  standendne] stan dene A; emended Grein 127b  he] hie A 132b  ða laðan wic] A, an inserted above line 161b  næren ðe wæron] nærende wæron A; emended Menner 166  eorðwelan ealle gedeled] eorðlan ealle gode led A; emended Kemble 184a  forildan] for ildo A; emended Kemble 194b  widsið] wid | . . . sið A, three letters erased before sið 205b  ægen] ængan A 208b  gesceaft] geseaft A 249b  strengra] strenra A 274b  dierne] diere A; emended Assmann 277a  tydran] A, barely legible 277b  tornes] . . r . . s A, barely legible (see note) 278b  æðela ðeoden] A, barely legible 280a  under] A, r inserted later 281  sindon ða feondas ða usic] sindon ða | usic A (see note) 299b–300a  an man age, ðe deað abæde] man man age deað abæde A (see note) 303a  æghwylcum men] æghwylc[    ] A, barely legible 304  heofona ðonnne dæg styreð] heof[   ] ðon[    ]reð A, barely legible; conjectured Menner 305b–306a  hyge wille grædig] hyge [   ]dig A; conjectured Menner 310–11  cymeð ofer] A (see note)

98

Commentary Solomon and Saturn I 1–30. The text on A, p. 1, is badly damaged; the readings of A, confirmed and recovered by Page, ‘Note on the Text’, are included in the critical apparatus of B, lines 1–30, and suggest little substantial disagreement between the versions. See SolSatI 7a. 1–4. Saturn’s itinerary is much shorter in SolSatI than in SolSatII. In SolSatII 7b–23 various peoples and geographic locations are cited from across the world’s three continents, with an emphasis on places in Palestine. The reference here to three representative peoples, the Libyans in Africa, the Greeks in Europe and the Indians in Asia, is emblematic, and their learning represents that of the whole world. It is likely that SolSatI presents a convenient summary of the itinerary in SolSatII. 2a. boca onbyrged. Wilcox, ‘Eating Books’, pp. 116–17, notes three uses of the image in the Bible: in Rev. X.9–10, Jer. XV.16 and Ezek. III.1–3; cf. SolSatII 65a. On the use of Ezekiel and Jerome’s commentary on it, see Introduction, p. 41. 2b. gebregdstafas. A hapax and probably the poet’s invention. OE bregdan (strong verb Class III) can mean ‘to make a sudden movement’, while its past participle gebreged can mean ‘terrified by means of something’; the associated noun gebregd occurs twice only: meaning ‘sudden movement’; and glossing textum, ‘woven fabric’; see DOE, s.v. A figurative use here might suggest letters woven together into words, with a playful anticipation of the terrifying moving letters (unwoven from words) of SolSatI 84–145. 6–7a. The latter half of line 6 is absent, and B’s scribe has left a blank space for the missing text. This suggests either a realisation on the scribe’s part that an exemplar’s alliteration and sense were defective, or a damaged exemplar which was difficult to read; the latter is more likely given the comparable treatment of M.ces, where space has been left for one or two missing letters, with the scribe perhaps guessing at Meces. A’s . . ses h . nd . . is incompatible with this reading, for which Page, ‘Note on the Text’, p. 37, suggests Moyses hond(um?). O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, pp. 166–8, has suggested that the micelan bec (‘great book’) is the Bible, or the Gospels. Given B’s obvious confusion here, the significance of neut. bec should be treated with caution; cf. Menner, PD, pp. 105–6. 11b. eorlscipes. The obvious meaning is ‘nobility’, indicating the influence of Norse jarl; see Hofman, Nordisch-Englische Lehnbeziehungen, §221. See Sol­ Sat­Fr 7b, where the same influence is apparent, though eorl at SolSatII 212a, 240b might as easily mean ‘man, warrior’; cf. gulliscan, SolSatPNPr 75. 12a. gepalmtwigoda. Cf. SolSatI 39; the Pater Noster is also called a palmtreow

99

Commentary (SolSatI 167). The palm is a conventional symbol of victory; see Vincenti, Die altenglischen Dialoge, p. 59; Dobbie, ASPR VI, p. liii; Menner, PD, pp. 43–5; C. Mackay, ‘The Sign of the Palm Tree’, Church Quarterly Review 126 (1938), 187–212; see Introduction, p. 40. See also Hill, ‘“Palmtwigede” Pater Noster’, who suggests the poet may be confused semantically between two closely related Latin words: palma (‘palm’) and palmes (‘shoot, green branch’); cf. John XV.1–5. This confusion is found elsewhere: Der Cambridger Psalter, ed. Wildhagen, p. 206, Ps. LXXXIX.12: palmites: palmtwigu. Sisam, ‘Review’, pp. 34–5, notes that the recurrence of Pater Noster requires p-alliteration, which could present difficulties for Old English poets; see SolSatI 109a. 15a. smætes goldes. Saturn’s implied wealth may owe a debt to Isidore, Etymologiae XVI.xviii.3–4, who notes that Saturn invented the stamping of coins, and that the public treasury in Rome was dedicated to him. 15b. mine suna twelfe. Saturn’s twelve sons have no parallel in mythological sources. The number does not carry alliteration, and is probably the poet’s choice, based on a fondness for the number’s rhetorical affect (cf. SolSatI 47a); the number twelve is particularly favoured in the numerical rhetoric of SolSatPNPr. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 250, notes that in the related text, ‘The Devil’s Account’, the number of Samson’s locks is changed to twelve, from the seven in Judges XVI.13. 16b. gebrydded. The meaning is disputed. B-T, p. 377, gebryddan, ‘to frighten, terrify’; Holthausen, Wörterbuch, s.v., bryddan (brygdan), ‘erschrecken’; Grein, Sprachschatz, s.v., ‘terrere, obstupefacere’ (‘to frighten, terrify’). Menner retains gebrydded, but translates ‘shaken, overawed’ (PD, p. 106). O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 49, defends Holthausen’s meaning, but notes that both editors reject the violence implicit in the standard gloss. I follow Holthausen and O’Keeffe, and retain the manuscript reading; in SolSatI (and SolSatPNPr) Solomon fulfils Saturn’s request by describing the Pater Noster as terrifying in a number of ways. 17a. Cantices cwyde. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 55, notes that ‘Cantic is no mere figure of speech, for the poem emphasises that the Pater Noster is the actual speech of Christ, in which lies its power. . . . As the speech of Christ, articulation of the Logos, the Pater Noster has greater power than scriptures’. See Godes cwide, SolSatI 63a, 84b and 146a; cantic, SolSatI 24a, 49a; SolSatPNPr 104. See Introduction, p. 10. 17b. cristes linan. Cf. SolSatPNPr 92, lifes linan. In what way the Pater Noster is Christ’s or life’s ‘line’ is not immediately clear, and the shared unusual use of the weak fem. noun line provides evidence of a close relationship between the verse and prose. OE line usually means either ‘line of rope’ or ‘ruled line’; see B-T, s.v., p. 642; for the latter meaning compare Alfred, König Alfreds Soliloquien, ed. Endter, p. 21, lines 5, 20. Menner, PD, p. 156 suggests ‘rule (?)’, following B-T, s.v., who also cites Riddle 42; see Muir, Exeter Anthology, I, p. 321, II, p. 621. A riddle might be an untrustworthy guide to the precise meaning of a word, but Riddle 42 refers directly to using letters to spell out the answer an an linan (10a, ‘in a line’). Given the fact that SolSatI imagines the Paster Noster letters arranged in order, OE line here most likely means ‘letters arranged in a line’ rather than

100

Commentary ‘rule’, a meaning apparently otherwise unattested. 18a. gesemesð. The expression of Saturn’s desire to fulfil his search as a need to be ‘satisfied’ is common to both poems; in SolSatII the verb is insisted upon, reiterated in Solomon’s reply to Saturn’s demand (74, 75b). This emphasis presents a pun on the etymology of Saturn’s name, explained by Isidore, Etymologiae VIII. ix.29, where Saturn is so named, quod saturetur annis (‘because he is sated with years’); cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum II.24.64; cf. SolSatII 240–6. The complex of ideas in Isidore associates Saturn’s appetite with the passing of years and a great appetite; cf. Saturn’s anxiety over the passing of time, SolSatII 145–48, 298–302; and his eating of books, SolSatI 2a, SolSatII 65a. 18b. B: ic mec gesund fa. A: me ðon[ne] ge sund ferie. Page, ‘Note on the Text’, p. 37, is certain of f.r.e, and thinks ferie probable; the reflexive me ferie, ‘I will depart’ provides an intelligible reading beside B’s confused text. 20. See Introduction, p. 33. 21a. unlæde. See Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, p. 22, on the thematic interest in the unlæde man. See SolSatII 173a, 189a, 205a, 214b; see Introduction, p. 56. 23a. feldgongende. Cf. SolSatI 154a. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 256, notes the use of this word (in a parallel formula), in the poem Soul and Body: feldgongende feoh butan snyttro (‘field-going cattle without wisdom’); Soul and Body, line 80, ed. Moffat. As Wright notes, the shared expression is matched by other stylistic affinities. Another famous Chaldean, King Nebuchadnezzar, puffed up with pride, loses his wits and wanders the fields like an animal; cf. Dan. IV.28–33. The episode is narrated in the Old English Daniel 612–26a, ed. Farrell. 25a. B warað, ‘guards, defends’ makes no sense; A worað, ‘wanders’ is preferable. 26. Rev. XII.7–9 is the locus classicus of the identification of the devil and the dragon. 27–9. 27–8a describe the weapon the devil will use to knock down the sinner on the Day of Judgment – ‘iron balls from a black sling’, qualified by the adv. bismorlice. As Menner, PD, p. 109, notes, æppel in the sense of ‘ball’ is not unusual; see P. A. Thompson, ‘Æpplede Gold: An Investigation of its Semantic Field’, Medieval Studies 48 (1986), 315–33, at pp. 318, 327. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 241, notes that attestations of this meaning are few, and another is found in SolSat­PNPr 93, which claims that the Pater Noster can crush all creation in his right hand on anes weaxæples onlicnesse; see Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp. 110–11. Wright notes (p. 242) that referring to missiles as ‘iron apples’ is ‘striking and unparalleled in Old English’, while in Irish, the word uball is commonly used for missiles and projectiles; in the Táin, Cú Chulainn casts an ‘iron apple’ from his deil chliss, apparently a form of sling. SolSatI 28b–29 present further difficulties, and Menner translates ‘all are grown from the heads of the waves of scorn’, an expression which he suggests ‘smacks of the Irish Latin of Aldhelm’s school’. One problem with this reading is the rendering of the tense – the context refers to the Last Judgment, and beoð should probably be translated as a future. Furthermore, the ‘growing’ of ‘iron balls’ from ‘heads’ is as meaningless in the future as in the present. The reference to iða (‘waves’) points to the inclusion of water in the metaphor, a probable reference to the flood expected to accompany

101

Commentary the Judgment (cf. SolSatII 145–6a); aweaxen may be taken as an orthographic variation of the past participle of the class VI strong verb awascan, ‘to wash’; see Campbell, Grammar, §744; compare the same scribe’s fixa, B81b. I read heafod in the sense of ‘upper end, summit’, ‘source of water’; see B-T Supp., pp 512–13, s.v., nos. VII, VIII. Cf. SolSatII 267b, wopes heafod, ‘source of weeping’. The image of the devil’s weapons is developed in SolSatPNPr 18–22 and SolSatII 320–7. 31. The metallurgical image of pouring molten metal develops the metaphor of cosmic waters at 28b–29, here imagining a world on a foundation cast from gold and silver. On the masc. dat. sg. article ðan, see Gretsch, ‘Fonthill Letter’, pp. 74–5. 32b. A: feohgestreona. B: fyrngestreona. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 65, notes that fyrngestreona is unique while feohgestreona is well attested; cf. Andreas 301b, Elene 910a, Juliana 42b, 102a. Both readings are acceptable, and as she notes, of some eighteen compounds with fyrn- as the first element, eleven are attested only once, showing that fyrn- was a morpheme with which poets could build nonce-words. 33a. organes. Here and at SolSatI 53a, organ must mean ‘canticle’ or ‘musical performance of a canticle’; see O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, pp. 159–60. See SolSatPNPr 104. 34–5. The idea that suffering is experienced in the isolation of the unhappy man is found in SolSatII 186–92, 203–5 (in both instances the man is unlæde); cf. SolSatI 21a. 35a. A: ungelic. B: ungesibb. Both readings are semantically, metrically and syntactically acceptable; see O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64. 36a. eaðusð. See Introduction, p. 8. 37b. The Pater Noster asks for the coming of ‘the kingdom of heaven’ (adueniat regnum tuum), referred to by Saturn in his question, and Solomon in his answer (52a). 43–8. Both manuscript readings lack sense, suggesting that in both textual traditions an original meaning was lost. The crux is at 44a, where manuscript A has dream (‘joy’), and manuscript B dry (‘sorcerer’); Menner, PD, emends to dreor (‘blood’). O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64, notes that the alternative readings offer no clear choice; both are syntactically and metrically acceptable, but neither makes much sense. It is significant that both variants begin dr-, suggesting the lost word began in the same way. The next problem is 45b: B sefan intigan; A seofan intingum. Menner, PD, pp. 109–10, favouring manuscript A’s reading, suggests that this is a dat. or instrumental pl., and translates ‘for seven reasons’, encouraged by the plausibility of a link to the seven petitions of the Pater Noster. The exact nature of the torture being inflicted on the devil is unclear, and Hill has suggested that rather than the devil’s blood being boiled, the damaged passage evokes a tradition in which devils could be tormented by boiling drops resulting from prayer; see Hill, ‘Tormenting the Devil’, pp. 158–9. Hill (pp. 160–2) cites three Old Norse analogues: Laxdæla saga, c. 76, pp. 223–4; Kristnisaga, pp. 67–8; Snorri Sturluson’s, Heimskringla, c. 179, II, p. 325. However, SolSatI describes

102

Commentary the heating of the devil’s blood, at odds with this reading. Hill (pp. 165–6) points to an Irish analogue, which Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 238, has noted in a Middle Irish poem describing a vision of St Augustine, who climbs a forest tree with twenty-two branches to escape eight wolves. From the leaves Augustine shakes down drops that fall on the wolves and destroy them: the tree is Psalm CXVIII, its branches the psalm’s twenty-two divisions; the drops are the verses which destroy the eight deadly sins; see B. Ó Cuív, ‘Three Middle Irish Poems’, Éigse 16 (1975), 1–17, at pp. 2–5. P. Dendle, ‘Solomon and Saturn 44a: ðæs deofles dream’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 98 (1997), 391–6, argues that A, deofles dream, can be retained on the basis of early patristic texts which describe the blood of sacrificial victims offered to idols as satisfying the demons which inhabit them, though it is difficult to see how this reading makes sense in the context of the poem, where the devil suffers. The text clearly requires emendation, because while Menner’s suggested dreor is acceptable palaeographically, it is difficult to see why it should rise in drops. Another possibility is suggested by the poem’s developing metaphor centred on the melting and purification of metals. It is apparent from the dialogue so far that the interlocutors are borrowing and developing each other’s ideas and metaphors. In the following passage Saturn intensifies the metallurgical metaphor (53–7a; see below), and the Pater Noster’s ‘form’ (wlite) is imagined as that of an object which has the power to purify the soul of the one who utters it. Saturn’s response also develops the image of heat rising in him, echoing the metaphor just applied to the devil’s torture. Given the use of metallurgical imagery before (cf. SolSatI 31) and after the present passage, it is likely that this imagery continues through Solomon’s present speech, and that the precise nature of the image has caused problems for more than one scribe. I suggest that the technical nature of the reference here has caused subsequent confusion, and that for dream and dry, the poet originally described the rising of the devil’s dros (or drosna, fem. acc. pl., ‘dross’), which rises in drops under the influence of a reducing agent, purifying a liquefied metallic ore; drops of all other kinds tend to fall. That dros more usually meant ‘dregs’ or ‘lees’ would have compounded scribal confusion (DOE, s.v. dros, drosna). The association of refining imagery with spiritual purification is common in the Bible; see, e.g., Zech. XIII.9; Mal. III.2–3; pure silver is compared to pure words in Ps. XII.6. For an utterly impure creature like the devil, or a damned soul in hell, no amount of intense heat can purify, as impurity after impurity will rise. Another number in the passage has been explained by Hill, ‘Two Notes’, who suggests that the twelf fyra tydernessum (‘twelve weaknesses of men’, 47b) refers to the common medieval theme of the duodecim abusiua sæculi; see Dobbie, ASPR VI, p. 162. Lists of the duodecim abusiua, under various attributions, are a common feature of early-medieval miscellanies (Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayless and Lapidge (no. 176), pp. 142–3, 239): Duodecim abusiua in hoc seculo sunt: hoc est, sapiens sine operibus, senex sine religione, adolescens sine obedientia, diues sine eleemosyna, foemina sine pudicitia, dominus sine uirtute, Christianus contentiosus, pauper superbus, rex iniquus, episcopus negligens, plebs sine disciplina, populus sine lege. Per haec suffocatur iustitia Dei.

103

Commentary (‘There are twelve abuses in this world, that is, wisdom without works, old age without religion, youth without obedience, a rich man without alms, a women without shame, a lord without virtue, a contentious Christian, a proud poor man, an unjust king, a negligent bishop, people without discipline, a nation without law. The justice of God is suffocated because of these things.’)

See also Waldman, ‘Wessobrunn Manuscript’, pp. 198–201 (fols 35v–36r), where the list is attributed to Gregory the Great; see S. Hellman, ed., Pseudo-Cyprianus de XII Abusivis Saeculi, Texte und Untersuchungen 34 (Leipzig, 1910), 1–25; Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 65–8, 75, 218. Hill, ‘Two Notes’, p. 220 n. 6, notes two examples of the number twelve associated with the torments of hell in early-medieval texts; see D. de Bruyne, ‘Fragments retrouvés d’apocryphes priscillianistes’, Revue bénédictine 24 (1907), 318–35, at 323; Willard, Two Apocrypha, p. 6. 49a. cantic. See SolSatI 17a. 52a. A: heofona rices. B: heofon rices. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 62, notes that B heofonrices, while producing semantic and syntactic sense, is syllabically deficient (with both syllables of the head-word short), and possibly the product of eyeskip. 56. asceadan. A technical term used to describe the separation of pure metal from dross using a reducing agent; see Blickling Glosses: cum carbonibus: þem ascadendum, quia carbones inseparunt [sic, for separant] scoria de ferro (‘because coals [viz. through heat] separate dross from iron’); Sweet, Oldest English Texts, p. 122; see R. L. Collins, ‘A Reexamination of the Old English Glosses in the Blickling Psalter’, Anglia 81 (1963), 124–8; DOE, s.v. (2.a.i): asceadend, ‘that which separates, a divider’. See Introduction, p. 11. 56a. A: scyldigum. B: scyldum. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 63–4, notes that the two readings are syntactically, metrically and semantically acceptable, though she favours B’s reading; it is possible to argue that scyldigum is a mechanical error. 58a. fyrwit. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 144, notes that this ‘curiosity’ is a defining feature of Saturn in both poems; cf. SolSatII 70–1a. 59a. A: gemengeð. B: geondmengeð. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 65, notes that while geondmengeð is a hapax, geond- is a highly popular affix; the probable meaning is ‘confuse’. Saturn’s association with Babel as a Chaldean suggests an etymological pun on ‘Babylon’, ‘confusion of sin’. See SolSatII 52–9; Introduction, p. 32. 60b. A: dreoseð. B: dreogeð. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64, suggests that these are alternate readings between which there is no clear choice, as neither word is unusual, and both offer syntactically, metrically and semantically acceptable readings. However, dreosan in the sense of ‘sink’, adopted by Menner, is unusual. A more widely attested meaning, applied to precipitation, is ‘to fall down in drops’; see DOE, s.v. (A.1.b). Given the sustained use of the metaphor of heat, boiling and melting, this meaning is preferable, so that Saturn’s spirit melts, or ‘drips away’, when a burning climbs around his heart. 62a. The manuscripts offer different readings; O’Donnell, ‘Hædre and hædre gehogode’, p. 313, suggests A’s reading is to be preferred metrically, as a Sievers Type D-4 line, while B omits the final stress; see note to SolSatI 64a.

104

Commentary 62b. A: hædre. B: hearde. While hearde (‘vigorously’) is well attested as an adv., hædre is only attested elsewhere in the sense ‘oppressively, anxiously’ once (Resig­nation 63a). O’Donnell, ‘Hædre and hædre gehogode’, p. 312, suggests that evidence for the first meaning is not strong, but argues for the priority of A’s reading as an alternative spelling of hadre, ‘clearly, brightly’. However, Saturn here is searching for illumination, and it is difficult to see how ‘brightness’ could be associated already with his curious mind. See O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64. 63–83. Menner, PD, p. 111, drew attention to the similarities between the praises of the Pater Noster in this passage, with ‘its extravagant use of figure’ and ‘Old Irish prayers’ (cf. SolSatI 66–7). Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 242–3, has confirmed the influence of Irish traditions; see Introduction, pp. 25–7. As Patrick Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature in Western England, 600–800, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 3 (Cambridge, 1990), p. 317, has pointed out, ‘the enumeration of the attributes of God or Christ is common in Christian literature’, and is a feature of the Gallican liturgy and Insular private prayers; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 262. Wright (p. 243) notes a stylistic parallel in the Irish infancy gospel: ‘Fairer than earth . . . / More wonderful than heaven / Brighter than sun / Clearer than streams / Sweeter than honey / Greater than the universe / Higher than heaven’s hosts / Comelier than angels / Nobler than the world / Wider than the universe His speech / Better than the world / More precious than creatures’ (trans. E. Hogan, in M. R. James, ed., Latin Infancy Gospels (Cambridge, 1927), p. 110). For a discussion of this style in its wider context, see Sims-Williams, ‘Gildas and Vernacular Poetry’, p. 173 n. 30; E. Campanile, ‘Aspetti della cultura indoeuropea arcaica: I. La raffigurazione del re e dell’eroe’, Studi e saggi linguistici 14 (1974), 185–227. 63–5. Cf. SolSatII 52–9. 63a. godes cwide. The Pater Noster is God’s own utterance because it was spoken by Christ, the second person of the Trinity. The expression is also used at 84b, 146a, marking subsections describing attributes of the Pater Noster. By emphatically calling the Pater Noster by this name, the poet comes close to identifying it not only with the words of Christ, but Christ himself as ‘word (or discourse) of God’, the logos or uerbum Dei; cf. John I.1. See Jerome, Epistula liii.4 (St Jerome, trans. Fremantle, p. 98): ‘in principio erat uerbum, et uerbum erat apud deum, et deus erat uerbum.’ λόγος Graece multa significat – nam et uerbum est et ratio et supputatio et causa uniuscuiusque rei – , per quae sunt singula quae subsistunt; quae uniuersa recte intellegimus. (‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’. logos in Greek has many meanings. It signifies word and reasoning and reckoning and the cause of individual things by which those things subsist. All of which things we rightly understand.’)

63b. Cf. SolSatPNPr 75–6. 64a. O’Donnell, ‘Hædre and hædre gehogode’, p. 313, suggests that B’s reading is metrically deficient.

105

Commentary 65b. A: godspel secgan. B: god spellian. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 62, notes the grammatical variance, pointing out B is the weaker version and only marginally acceptable; cf. Daniel 657b: godspellode. 66. The line is omitted from A, certainly through scribal error. For modes mealc see Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayless and Lapidge, pp. 122–3 (no. 1): Dic mihi, quaeso, quae est illa mulier, quae innumeris filiis ubera porrigit, quae quantum sucta fuerit, tantum inundat? Mulier ista est sapientia (‘Tell me, please, who is the woman who offers her breasts to innumerable sons, and who pours forth as much as she is sucked? This woman is wisdom’). 68–71a. See Introduction, pp. 75–6. 67b. sawle hunig. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 243 n. 114, compares the Latin passage in praise of the Pater Noster in Sedulius Scottus, Commentary on Matthew: Fauus est mellis et est odor suauitatis coram Altissimo, si pura conscientia atque sollerti intensione decantetur (‘It is a honeycomb and it is an odour of sweetness before the most High, if it is sung with a pure conscience and careful attention’); Kommentar, ed. Löfstedt, p. 206. 75–6. The manuscripts present different readings; O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 62, notes that both are syntactically, semantically and metrically sound. However, B 76a ‘does not conform to the classical shape of the half-line, since the beginning of the independent clause is not coincident with the beginning of the metrical unit’; see Mitchell, Old English Syntax, II, §3960. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 243 n. 114, notes the analogous expression in St Patrick’s Lorica, tairismige t[h] alman / cobsaide ailech (‘stability of earth, firmness of rock’); W. Stokes and J. Strachan, ed. and trans., Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus: A Collection of OldIrish Glosses, Scholia, Prose, and Verse, 2 vols with supplement (Cambridge, 1901–10), II, p. 356. 73a. A: hungor he ahieðeð. B: hungor hege hege hideð. The first hege in B has been underlined for deletion in the same ink as the text of the poem; see O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 62. The resulting reading, he gehideð, is metrically and syntactically acceptable, but as O’Keeffe suggests, ‘semantically peculiar’, and the reading gehideð may be partially the product of an ‘ð’ mistaken for a ‘d’. 76. A: staðole strengra ðonne ealra stana gripe. B: staðole | he is strengra | þone ealra stana | gripe. Cf. SolSatI 31, where the Pater Noster was compared to the foundation (grunde) of creation. 78b. A: dumbra. B: deadra. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64, notes that the alternate readings offer no clear choice. Sisam, Studies in the History, p. 34, prefers dumbra; cf. Isaiah XXXV.6. 81a. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 243 n. 114, notes the analogous Cét cell custói tond (‘Hundred churches’ guardian of the waves’), applied to Columba in the Amra Coluim Cille, in Bernard and Atkinson, ed., The Irish Liber Hymnorum, I, p. 177, II, p. 73. 82a. A: ond wyrma [w]elm. B: wyrma wlenco. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64, suggests that both are syntactically acceptable, and rendered metrical by the presence or absence of ond. Either would also seem acceptable given the resonance of the expressions with praises addressed to heroes in Welsh and Irish poetry, often

106

Commentary acclaimed as dragons or snakes for fierceness; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 243; Sims-Williams, ‘Gildas and Vernacular Poetry’, p. 190. 83a. A: on westenne weard. B: westenes weard. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 62, notes the grammatical acceptability of both, but a metrically deficient a- or e-verse in B. 84–145. Despite the poet’s apparent intention to describe the activities of the nineteen letters (P A T E R N O S Q U I C L F M D G B H) used in the writing of the Pater Noster in the order in which they appear in the prayer, only sixteen are present: ‘O’, ‘I’ and ‘B’ are missing. It is impossible to determine whether the text of the prayer the poet had in mind was Matt. VI.9–13 (which has panem nostrum supersubstantialem), or the prayer as used devotionally and liturgically (which has panem nostrum quotidianum), as the order would end up the same; see Dobbie, ASPR VI, p. liv; Menner, PD, p. 36. The most likely places where the three missing letters were found is: ‘O’ at 108a; ‘I’ at 123a; ‘B’ in 136b–137. The attributes of the letters seem to be specific, and may present enigmas requiring resolution. See Introduction, p. 30. 84b. godes cwide. See SolSatI 63a (with note), 146a. 85a. A: soðlice. B: smealice. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64, suggests that these are alternate readings between which there is no clear choice. While smealice is more precise in specifying that the Pater Noster must be sung accurately, the word is otherwise unattested in verse. On the inclusion of prose vocabulary, see O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 142. 85b–86a. Manuscript readings differ. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, pp. 62–3, notes the obvious error in B luian. Menner breaks the line at symle to preserve alliteration on the first stave in SolSatI B86a; O’Keeffe argues that the evidence of B suggests that the scribe conceived of the metrical division following luian, with this infinitive dependent on wile in 84a. This is metrically acceptable, but appears to leave wile (86a) stranded. It is possible, however, that the order in B, where the infinitive follows symle, implies that the scribe read 85b as a variation on the preceding half-line. The apparent error in B’s lui | an, broken by the end of a line of copying, compounds the difficulty. Menner emends on the basis of A; it is difficult to dispute either the need to emend or the obvious sense of lufian in context. 86b. A: gæst. B: gesið. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64, notes that between these alternate readings there is no clear choice. Calling the devil a ‘companion’ recalls SolSatII 303–27, where a devil accompanies and tempts each person daily. 89a. A: prologa prima. B: prologo prim; see Introduction, pp. 50–1. The fact that ‘P’ is the first ‘initial’ may invite the reader to treat all the letters as standing for words they begin, which are to be riddled out from their epithets. The kind of bilingual punning which is evident in the epithets attached to some Pater Noster letters is also developed in the Old English Rune Poem; see J. D. Niles, Old English Enigmatic Poems and the Play of Texts (Turnhout, 2006), pp. 256–62. 92b. A: 7 him on swaðe fylgeð. B: 7 onswaðe læteð. The scribe of B has dotted the læteð (‘hinders’) for omission and written filgið above. O’Keeffe, Visible Song, p. 64, suggests that B’s omission of him is quite probably the result of an eyeskip. The omission of him, coupled with a new verb, may indicate a deliberate scribal

107

Commentary intervention, which may be apparent elsewhere (see 85b–86a). It is significant that the introduction of læteð – a word which looks nothing like filgið – is acceptable syntactically, metrically and semantically: ‘and in the track A hinders with mighty power’. It is possible that the scribe chose to change fylgeð to læteð, then thinking better of the alteration, reversed the change; this treatment of 92b would support O’Keeffe’s thesis of ‘participatory’ copying. See Campbell, Grammar, §735(b), who notes that –ið spellings in 3rd person sg. indicative are most in evidence in early texts, and if late are often Northumbrian, though they occur elsewhere. 94a. B breaks off at this point. It is difficult to determine whether or not this is deliberate, as the interrupted sentence forms an acceptable syntactic unit. 94–5. Hermann, ‘Pater Noster Battle Sequence’, p. 207, compares Prudentius, Psychomachia, lines 715–18, 589–95. 98b. R. This letter is given the longest description (98–106). Why ‘R’ would be ‘the prince of letters’ is not obvious, though an association might be clearer to one familiar with Latin rex; on hair pulling, see E. G. Stanley, ‘Did Beowulf Commit ‘feaxfeng’ against Grendel’s Mother?’, Notes and Queries 23 (1976), 339–40. 107a. forcinnað. A hapax: ‘overwhelm’?; compare Riming Poem 52b, cinnið, perhaps an intransitive form of cennan, ‘to teem’; see DOE, s.v. cinnan. 107b–108a. The ‘O’ is missing, but should follow ‘N’. The strong vertical stroke in A seems to be the remnant of ᚩ, the Anglo-Saxon runic equivalent of ‘O’; see Page, English Runes, pp. 76–7. The enigmatic epithet is no accident, as the ‘twins’ are referred to again at SolSatI 141b, and in both instances use whips to punish the devil (109a, 143a). As the letters are not identical, the poet must imagine them ‘twinned’ in another way; the appellation may derive from the fact that of all the letters of the Pater Noster, ‘N’ and ‘O’ are the only two which appear in an order in the prayer corresponding to their alphabetical sequence. How they are ‘church’ twins presents further difficulty, though it may indicate a bilingual play on the meaning of cirice, Latin ecclesia, which means either ‘church’ or ‘assembly’, with the latter meaning appropriately applied to the assembled letters. Interest in ‘twins’ is found in both poems; see SolSatII 188a, 257. Plays on the idea of twinning are found in the riddling tradition; compare, for example, Tatwine’s Aenigma XVIII, ‘De oculis’, CCSL 133, 185. H. Estes, ‘A Note on Solomon and Saturn I, lines 107b–108’, Notes and Queries 55 (2008), 260–2, suggests, against all previous editors, that ‘N’ should be read ‘ii’. However, this is exactly where ‘N’ is expected in the order of the letters, and the horizontal stroke is as visible as those in the ‘m’ of bemurneð two written lines below. 109a. sweopan. The letter combat refers in three places to whipping; see also SolSatI 121a, 143a (with note). Could the ‘palm-twigged’ Pater Noster be imagined as a scourge? Sisam, ‘Review’, notes the gloss flagella: tuig (A. S. Napier, ed., Old English Glosses (Oxford, 1900), p. 218). 111–17. Hermann, ‘The Pater Noster Battle Sequence’, p. 208, compares Prudentius, Psychomachia, lines 417–24. 111a. S. The ‘prince of angels’ would most obviously be Michael; an association with ‘Seraphim’ is possible; see SolSatPNPr 36.

108

Commentary 121a. sweopan. See also SolSatI 109a, 143a. 123a. The missing ‘I’ is required for alliteration. 123–6. ‘C’ is the crooked letter, referring to the Latin letter’s morphology; see SolSatI 134a. 127. The pressing around (ymbðringað) of ‘F’ and ‘M’ presents a curious parallel to a frequently occurring Hiberno-Latin passage describing the use of the Pater Noster as a weapon: Hic est malleus ferreus, quo contritus est diabolus, sicut dicitur, ‘malleo ferreo conteram soliditatem tuam’ (emphasis added); cf. Job XX.24; see Introduction, pp. 24–5. 134a. While Latin ‘G’ is geap in shape, the rune ger (or gar) is not; cf. SolSatI 123–4; on rune names see Page, English Runes, pp. 82–7; Niles, Engimatic Poems, pp. 256–7. That God sends ‘G’ as a ‘support to his friends’ suggests gratia, with the letter treated as a representive initial. The fact that the ger rune, rather than the (expected) gifu (‘gift’, ‘grace’) rune is included might suggest that the scribe who included the runes was insensitive to the kind of verbal games enjoyed by the poet; the ger rune is more normally found in runic alphabets than inscriptions; see Menner, PD, pp. 114–15; see Introduction, p. 29. 135b–137. There is evidently a problem with the text, and a line (at least) is probably missing; I have indicated a lacuna, but not added a new line, which would unnecessarily alter the lineation used by earlier editors. Menner, PD, p. 115, translates, ‘Full of quintuple powers – fire is the third’, which makes little sense. The letter ‘B’ is missing, and its proper place (from the Latin prayer’s order of letters, otherwise adhered to) would be between ‘D’ and ‘H’. Calling ‘B’ se ðridda stæf presumably has caused a problem in transmission, resulting in the confusion which has tried to tie the number to fifmægnum (136a). However, if ‘A’ is the second letter behind ‘K’, ‘B’ becomes the third; that this is the poet’s understanding would appear to be confirmed by the association of ‘D’ (thereby the fifth letter), with the number five (‘five-virtues full’). See Introduction, pp. 51. 138a. The probable association between ‘H’ and clothing is habitus, especially if the monk is imagined as Christ’s warrior. 141b. The reference to twins recalls the activity of ‘N’ and ‘O’ – it would be surprising if a second pair is to be imagined. Presumably they are specified as ‘life-twins’ (lifgetwinnan) to meet the demands of alliteration. 143a. sweopum seolfrynum. See also SolSatI 109a, 121a. This precise reference has a material parallel in the silver scourge found amongst the Trewhiddle Hoard in Cornwall in 1774; coins in the hoard date its deposition to c.875. See D. Wilson, The Anglo-Saxons, 3rd ed. (Harmondsworth, 1981), pp. 61–2; illustrated in L. Webster and J. Backhouse, ed., The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture AD 600–900 (London, 1991), p. 271, §246(b). This unique survival, an object datable near to the time of the poem’s composition, points to a close connection between its fantastic imagery and Anglo-Saxon ascetical practice. The scourge ends in four knotted strands, and was designed for use in mortifying the flesh, fighting the devil in a more physical way than suggested by the letter allegory; note the physically exact reference at 144a. 146a. godes cwide. See 63a (with note), 84b.

109

Commentary 150a. bleoum. See note to SolSatPNPr 2. 154a. See SolSatI 23a. 155–8. The scribe initially wrote horum, corrected to hornum, with the ‘n’ added above the line. It is unlikely that any Anglo-Saxon traveller faced the problem of horned beasts attacking his horse while crossing a river. However, comparable problems are faced by the Greeks in the Old English Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle (ed. Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, pp. 204–53, §15), and by Beowulf in his contest with Breca (Beowulf 549–58), and at Grendel’s mere (1501–12a). 158–60. On the binding of the doomed man, compare SolSatII 155b, 157b. 161–2. The etching of letters onto the weapon continues the poem’s interest in the power of letters and working metal. Cf. the inscribed sword hilt in Beowulf 1687–98a. 166–9. There is no reason to assume that the reference to battle here is allegorical, suggesting the poem’s audience included those who fought; cf. SolSatII 202–5. Solomon and Saturn Prose Pater Noster Dialogue 2. bleos. See SolSatI 150a. 2–33. The question and answer treat bleo and onlicnes as interchangeable terms. The allegorical battle between a series of ‘likenesses’ or ‘forms’ is unique in Old English literature, and many associations of the forms adopted are far from conventional. It is difficult to see a pattern whereby the conflict progresses; for example, the sequence child, Holy Spirit, dragon, arrow, etc., presents no obvious logic. On the other hand, a logical progression from ‘evil thought’, to ‘strife’, to ‘murder’ and ‘death’ is possible to discern. Dendle, ‘Demonological Landscape’, p. 287, suggests a deliberate ‘riddling quality . . . the reader is invited to guess the rationale behind the apparently random selection of forms’. This would be in keeping with the riddling character of the poems. Hill, ‘The Devil’s Forms’, p. 168, notes that this is an example of a ‘transformation combat’, a ‘fight between two contestants who strive to outdo each other in successive transformations’; see J. Wood, ‘The Folklore Background of the Gwion Bach Section of Hanes Taliesin’, The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 29 (1982), 621–34. The listing of ‘likenesses’ presents a close stylistic parallel to Vercelli Homily IX and ‘The Devil’s Account’; see Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 248–9, 95–102. 9–10. 1. Devil: child; 2. Pater Noster: Holy Spirit. Devils in hagiographic literature can appear as small children; in Rufinus’s translation of the Historia Monachorum XXIX.1 devils appear as little Ethiopian boys (PL 21, col. 454); trans. Russell, Desert Fathers, p. 153. The appearance of the Pater Noster as the Holy Spirit is hardly suggestive of a form, unless the conventional dove or flame is intended (Matt. III.16, Acts II.3–4). It is difficult to determine whether any theological significance is intended in the apparent identification of two persons (‘Our Father’ and Holy Spirit) of the Trinity as one ‘form’; Christ is another ‘form’ (33, nos. 19/20). Cf. SolSatII 231–9. 10–12. 3. Devil: dragon; 4. Pater Noster: arrow. The dragon is conventionally

110

Commentary associated with the devil; see SolSatI 26, 82a, 152b; SolSatII 38a, 291b; cf. Rev. XII.9, see Cilluffo, ‘Il dialogo’, p. 142. The opposition is logical if the arrow is a weapon to be used against the dragon, though the arrow is a symbol often associated with the attacks by the devil on the soul; cf. SolSatII 303–27. For the arrow named ‘arm of God’, compare Ps. XVII.35 (iuxta Hebr.): et conponens quasi arcum aereum brachia mea (‘and making my arms like a brazen bow’); on the wider influence of Ps. XVII, see transformations 11, 12, 13, 14, and SolSatPNPr 42–104. Cf. also Hab. III.9, and Introduction, p. 44. 12–13. 5. Devil: darkness; 6. Pater Noster: light. The associations and opposition are conventional, but difficult to imagine as ‘likenesses’, though light and dark are both ‘visible’. See SolSatII 231–46, with note. 13–15. 7. Devil: wild animal; 8. Pater Noster: whale. The devil’s association is unconventional, and it is unclear how a wild animal opposes Leuiathan. Leuiathan is conventionally the devil, an idea developed especially in exegesis on Job XLI:1; see Gregory, Moralia 4.9, 8.23; see also Old English Whale, A. Squires, ed., Old English Physiologus (Durham, 1988), pp. 69–70. Cilluffo, ‘Il dialogo’, p. 142, notes I Enoch LX.7, where the Lord puts on a feminine aspect named ‘Leviathan’; this is almost certainly the source. Material evidence for the text’s circulation in England by the ninth century is found in BL Royal 5.E.xiii, 79v–80r. See M. R. James, ed., Apocrypha Anecdota: A Collection of Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments, Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 140–50; also Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, p. 65. 15–17. 9. Devil: nightmare; 10. Pater Noster: heavenly vision. The associations and opposition are logical, if not conventional, and compare with nos. 5 and 6. Cf. SolSatPNPr 12–13; SolSatII 52–9. 17–18. 11. Devil: evil woman; 12. Pater Noster: heavenly breastplate. The appearance to male monastics of devils as sexual temptresses is conventional; see Historia Monachorum XV, PL 21, cols. 399, 433; trans. Russell, Desert Fathers, pp. 57, 93. The lorica tradition is widespread, and the Pater Noster itself is used as a lorica; see Introduction, pp. 24–6; cf. Eph. VI.14–7; I Thess. V.8. 18–20. 13. Devil: sword; 14. Pater Noster: golden breastplate. On the sword, see SolSatI 161–2, with note. See also SolSatII 46. On the breastplate, see note to nos. 11, 12 above. The opposition of weapon and armour is logical; cf. Eph. VI.17. 20–1. 15. Devil: bramble: 16. Pater Noster: silver eagle. Cilluffo, ‘Il dialogo’, p. 142, suggests that in biblical tradition brambles have positive connotations and eagles can have negative associations; Job XXXIX.27, 30; Rev. IV.7, XII.14. 22–3. 17. Devil: murder; 18. Pater Noster: silver eagle. The association of the devil with murder is unsurprising, but is an abstracted ‘form’ made visible only through human action. The logic of the opposition is far from obvious, and the ‘silver eagle’ repeats no. 16; as Solomon has promised thirty forms, the text is presumably corrupt. 23–4. 19. Devil: fall; 20. Pater Noster: Christ. That the final victorious form taken by the Pater Noster is ‘the Lord’ (no. 30), defeating the devil’s ‘death’ (no. 29), may suggest this ‘fall’ refers to Eden. The ‘likeness’ of Christ implies that the

111

Commentary Pater Noster (‘Our Father’), can take on the ‘form’ of any person of the Trinity; see SolSatPNPr 9–10. 25–6. 21. Devil: poisonous bird; 22. Pater Noster: golden eagle. The opposition of two birds is logical enough; on poisonous creatures see SolSatII 42a. 26–8. 23. Devil: wolf; 24. Pater Noster: golden chain. Kemble, Salomon and Saturn, p. 177, suggested that the author was familiar with the myth of Ragnarök, and the chaining of the wolf Fenrir. Hill, ‘Devil’s Forms’, p. 174, suggests Rev. XX.1; cf. also Jude VI. The wolf is conventionally associated with the devil; cf. John X.12; see Cilluffo, ‘Il dialogo’, p. 143. 28–9. 25. Devil: strife; 26. Pater Noster: peace. The opposition is logical, though the allegory presents an abstraction of an abstraction. 29–31. 27. Devil: evil thought; 28. Pater Noster: merciful spirit. The opposition is logical, though ‘thought’ presents an abstraction of an abstraction. 31–3. 29. Devil: death; [30.] Pater Noster: the Lord. The last of the ‘forms’ is not enumerated, but the list is complete. The last onlicnes named is dryhten, presenting a conventional opposition between the Lord and death (cf. I Cor. XV.55). This last transformation of the Pater Noster into the Lord who conquers death, the ultimate victory, also presents the Pater Noster’s definitive more glorious (domlicor) victory in the combat. Cf. the pervasive interest in the theme of death in SolSatII. 34–9. The text is clearly corrupt. Saturn asks two consecutive questions without an intervening answer; the Saloman cwæð included in the end of Solomon’s preceding reply may have caused scribal confusion. 35. hefones holte. Cf. I Kings VI.29–35; see Introduction, p. 40. 38. Uriel ond Rumiel. Uriel features in apocalyptic literature; cf. I Enoch XX.2; see Cilluffo, ‘Il dialogo’, p. 143. The name Rumiel is a symptom of Irish sources (cf. also I Enoch XX.8); see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 255 n. 147; on the invocation of the archangels in Irish and Anglo-Saxon sources, see E. Kitzinger, ‘The Coffin-Reliquary’, in C. F. Battiscombe, ed., The Relics of St Cuthbert (Oxford, 1956), pp. 202–304, at 274–7; Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature, p. 286 n. 51. 40, 42. weallendum strælum. Cf. SolSatPNPr 11, no. 4; SolSatII 327. 42–4. The storm metaphor reveals the hostility of nature (and the sky) towards the devil. Cilluffo, ‘Il dialogo’, p. 144, suggests Ps. CXLIV.6 and Ps. XVII.15 have influenced the author here. The source is probably Ps. XVII.11–15: et ascendit super cherub et volavit super pinnas venti, posuit tenebras latibulum suum in circuitu eius tabernaculum eius, tenebrosas aquas in nubibus aetheris, prae fulgore in conspectu eius nubes transierunt, grando et carbones ignis, et intonuit de caelo Dominus, et Altissimus dedit vocem suam grandinem et carbones ignis, et emisit sagittas suas dissipavit eos, fulgora multiplicavit et conturbavit illos. (‘And he ascended upon the cherubim, and he flew; he flew upon the wings of the winds. And he made darkness his covert, his pavilion round about him: dark waters in the clouds of the air. At the brightness that was before him the clouds passed, hail and coals of fire. And the Lord thundered from heaven, and the highest gave his voice: hail and coals of fire. And he sent forth his arrows, and he scattered them: he multiplied lightnings, and troubled them.’)

112

Commentary The Lord’s covert (latibulum) would explain the engimatic darkness which ‘deceives’ (dweliað) the devil. 44. se ðunor hit ðrysceð mid ðære fyrenan æcxe. It has been suggested this is a possible reference to Thor and his hammer; see Menner, PD, p. 169; Turville-Petre, Myth and Religion, p. 99; Hill, ‘Devil’s Forms’, p. 174. However, thunder here uses an axe, not a hammer, in an extended metaphor based on a range of atmospheric phenomena; but see also SolSatPNPr 26–8, nos. 23, 24; 75, gulliscan. 45. Sathiel is presumably related to Satanael; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 242, n. 147. An Irish gloss in the Southampton Psalter identifies the draco of Ps. LXXIII.14 as sathel; see A Bibliography of Celtic Latin Literature 400–1200, ed. M. Lapidge and R. Sharpe (Dublin, 1984), no. 509. The Durham Ritual contains the gloss Raguel id est fortis id est satahel; Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis: The Durham Collectar, ed. U. Lindelöf, Surtees Society 140 (London, 1927), 198. On the chaining of Satan, see Rev. XX.1, Jude VI. 45–9. Cf. Lactantius, Institutiones Diuinae, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19, p. 165 (II.14– 15) (Bowen and Garnsey, trans., Divine Institutes, pp. 160–1; cf. SolSatPNPr, 15–17, nos. 9, 10): qui quoniam sunt spiritus tenues et incomprehensibiles, insinuant se corporibus hominum et occulte in uisceribus operati ualetudinem uitiant, morbos citant, somniis animos terrent, mentes furoribus quatiunt . . . cuius nomine adiurati de corporibus excedunt: quorum uerbis, tamquam flagris uerberati. (‘Because these spirits are slender and hard to grasp, they work themselves into people’s bodies and secretly get at their guts, wrecking their health, causing illness, scaring their wits with dreams, unsettling their minds with madness . . . when adjured in his name they leave the bodies they occupy, and the words of the good are like whips [flogging them].’)

47. ungesenodes mannes. On the dangers to the unblessed man of demonic attack, compare Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayless and Lapidge, pp. 126–7 (nos. 49–51) (cf. SolSatII 226–8), no. 49: Habete Christum in cordibus, et signum eius in frontibus. 50. Multos inimicos habemus, qui cursum nostrum impedire festinant. 51. Armate uos semper signaculo crucis Christi, quia hoc est quod timent et fugiunt daemones, signo territi saluatoris Domini nostri Iesu Christi. (‘Keep Christ in your hearts, and His sign on your foreheads. We have many enemies who hasten to block our progress. Always arm yourselves with the sign of Christ’s cross, since it is this that demons fear and flee, terrified by the sign of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’)

50–61. Only the Pater Noster’s hair and eyes are described here, while his mouth, tongue and throat are described in answer to Saturn’s following question. The emphasis suggests the influence of Rev. I.14: caput autem eius et capilli erant candidi tamquam lana alba tamquam nix, et oculi eius velut flamma ignis (‘And his head and his hairs were white, as white as wool and as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire’). The storm attacking the devil has

113

Commentary been transformed into an apocalyptic deluge threatening all creation. The reference to Abel’s murder (60–1) evokes the age before the ancient deluge, building the typological association of the past and future floods. The Cracow homily on the Pater Noster makes a similar link: Confortat spiritus intellectus qui fuit Noe in secunda petitione, Adueniat regnum tuum, quia spiritualis intellectus in his est qui repellunt regnum aduersarii et uoluerunt regnum Dei in se regnare (‘Strength is offered by the spirit of the intellect, which was in Noah’s second petition, ‘Your kingdom come’, for the spiritual intellect resides in those who resist the kingdom of the enemy and have desired the kingdom of God to reign in them’). Amos, ‘Catechesis Cracoviensis’, lines 134–8; see Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 59–60. The rhetoric of the passage echoes early Irish and Welsh style; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 248 n. 128. Wright notes a parallel with the description of Fergus’s beard in the Táin, lines 2713–14: ‘It would protect fifty warriors on a day of storm and rain if they were under the deep shelter of the hero’s beard’ (Táin Bó Cúailnge Recension I, ed. and trans. C. O’Rahilly (Dublin, 1976), p. 199); see Menner, PD, p. 169. Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 250 n. 129, compares the description of Christ’s bright face in Tenga Bithnua; see Nic Énrí and Mac Niocaill, ‘The Second Recension’, pp. 50–1 (§66); also Hill, ‘Devil’s Forms’, p. 168. The rhetorical emphasis on the number twelve within the numerical gradatio is developed further in Solomon’s next answer; see Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 248–50. See Introduction, pp. 27–8. 53–4. ealle eorðan wæter . . . heofonlicum wætrum uppe on ane ædran. Cf. Ps. XVII.16–17 (iuxta Hebr.): et apparuerunt effusiones aquarum et revelata sunt fundamenta orbis . . . misit de alto et accepit me, extraxit me de aquis multis (‘Then the fountains of waters appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare . . . He sent from on high, he took me, he drew me out of many waters’). 60–1. ær abeles slege. Abel’s murder (Gen. IV.1–16) represents a significant turning point in world history in early Irish and Anglo-Saxon sources, see Wright, ‘Blood of Abel’; on fading brightness, see Cross, ‘Aspects of Microcosm’, p. 16. 62–104. Solomon’s answer extends beyond a description of the Pater Noster’s heart. This and the preceding reply are closely related, and neither accurately answers its question, perhaps suggesting appropriation into the dialogue of a source’s single passage. On numerical rhetoric, see Introduction, pp. 27–8. The Pater Noster’s weapon is evidently to be used in an eschatological conflict with the devil, a role conventionally associated with St Michael (Rev. XII.1–9). On the metallurgical imagery see Introduction, pp. 10–11. Cf. Rev. I.16. 65. seofon heofonas. The seven heavens are a commonplace of medieval cosmology, but note the stylistic affiliations with the ‘Seven Heavens’ Apocryphon; see Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 218–30. 67–8. heo hæbbe. . . muð inneweardne. Cf. Ps. XVIII.9 (iuxta Hebr.): ascendit fumus de furore eius, et ignis de ore eius devorans, carbones incensi sunt ab eo (‘Smoke went up from his wrath, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him’). 70. Habrahames ond Isaces ond Iacobes. Cf. Amos, ‘Catechesis Cracoviensis’, lines 138–50, where the spiritual counsels of the third, fourth and fifth petitions of

114

Commentary the Pater Noster are found successively in the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; see SolSatPNPr 116, Abimelech. 75. gulliscan. A hapax; compare the hapax domescan, SolSatPNPr 66. See Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp. 111–14; Introduction, pp. 10–11. 75–6. compgimmum astæned. See Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp. 110–11; Introduction, p. 10. 77. cantic. Cf. in SolSatI 17a. 79–81. ðæs pater nosters . . . heofona tungol. Cf. Rev I.16: et habebat in dextera sua stellas septem, et de ore eius gladius utraque parte acutus exiebat (‘in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword’). 88–9. ond anra . . . hyrdenna geondhyrded. Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp.106–8; cf. SolSatII 327a; see Introduction, p. 10. 89. flan. The marvel is intensified in the application of an elaborate sword making technique to a simple arrowhead. 90. on efen abrædde. Cilluffo, ‘Il dialogo’, p. 145, notes the parallel with one of the fifteen signs of Doomsday; cf. Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. Bayliss and Lapidge (n. 366): Decima die omnes colles et ualles in planiciem conuertentur, et erit equalitis terrae (‘On the tenth day all the hills and valleys will be turned into a plain, and the earth will all be the same level’). 92. lifes linan. The meaning of line varies from that at SolSatI 17b. The phrase is the culmination of an inexpressibility topos, whereby all creation stretched out would not encompass (ymbfæðman) lifes linan; the idea of extension suggests a meaning closer to ‘rope’. The imagery of metal-working – the hardening of steel and the twisting of metal into a ball, indicates the author may imagine the Pater Noster as a piece of stretched-out wire. If this is the case, the author of SolSatPNPr has either serendipitously stumbled on a unique expression similar to the SolSatI, or, more likely, is playfully extending the poem’s meaning. 92–4. se Pater Noster . . . gewringan. Lendinara, ‘Tecnicismi’, pp. 110–11; see Introduction, p. 10. 95. feðerhoma. At SolSatI 151a the feðerhoma is worn by the devil. Cf. Ps. XVII.11. 97. sigefæstnissa. Cf. Ps. XVII.10. On the ‘victory of winds’, see Introduction, p. 21. 97. his stefen heo is hludre. Cf. Ps. XVII.13; Rev. I.15: et vox illius tamquam vox aquarum multarum (‘and his voice was like the sound of many waters’). 103–4. ðæs halgan cantices se gyldena organ. Here organ refers to a musical instrument; in SolSatI 33a, 53a, the Pater Noster is the organ (‘song’, ‘canticle’). 105–8. The text is disrupted at this point. Saturn’s hulic has no subject, and Solomon is speaking from hafað. The answer shows that Saturn has asked about the Pater Noster’s (battle) standard. The apocalyptic battle, and Michael’s role in it, is referred to (cf. Rev. XII.1–9). The naming of the twelve cloths by angels recalls the Temple decoration of palmtrees and angels; see Introduction, p. 40. The significance of the Temple’s decoration is revealed by Solomon’s gesture to its columns (115, on ðeosum ilcan temple); he and Saturn are holding their dialogue at (or in) the Temple. The reference to David’s columns in Solomon’s Temple is surprising.

115

Commentary 109. anra gehwylc godweb hangað on hundtwelftigum hringa gyldenra. The veil of the Temple, which hung on gold rings, is probably the point of departure for Solomon’s descriptions; cf. II Chron III.14–6. 110. aurum celæstium. Gold is associated with the Pater Noster’s appearance throughout SolSatI and SolSatPNPr. 111–12. spiritum paraclitum. The Holy Spirit is the first form adopted by the Pater Noster in his transformation combat; see SolSatPNPr 10, with note. Cf. John XIV.26. 113. pastoralices. Solomon’s father David had been a shepherd; on Christ as the Good Shepherd, cf. John X.1–18. Cf. SolSatPNPr 27, no. 23. 115. solacitum. Abimelech’s cloth is unattested in scripture; cf. Gen. XX–XXI. 119. sacrificium dei. How the ‘sacrifice of God’ could be in the likeness of ‘all beasts’ is unclear; only certain animals were acceptable sacrificial offerings in the Temple. Solomon and Saturn Poetic Fragment 1–9. It is probable these lines originally formed the conclusion to SolSatII; see Introduction, p. 45. 1b. swice. Cf. SolSatII 191. 7a. forcumen ond forcyðed. Cf. SolSatII 29a. 7b. eorl. The apparent meaning is ‘nobleman’; see SolSatI 11b; cf. SolSatII 212a, 240b. 9a. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 154, compares the happiness expressed by the vanquished Mod at the conclusion of the Old English translation of Augustine’s Soliloquia: ic beo ealne weig micle gefegenra (‘I am always much happier’); Alfred, König Alfreds Soliloquien, ed. Endter, p. 62, lines 26–7. Solomon and Saturn II 1b. fyrndagum. On fyrn- compounds and Saturn’s interest in ancient history, see O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, pp. 143–4. 2a. modgleawe. A hapax; the two components, mod (‘mind’) and gleaw (‘wise’) are used widely in compounds; see Harbus, ‘Situation of Wisdom’, p. 97. 3a. gewesan ymbe (‘debate about’). Menner, PD, pp. 20–1, notes the rare expression, and suggests it indicates Anglian dialect; Sisam, Studies in the History, pp. 129–30, argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support this conclusion. 4b. was. The scribe may have neglected to complete the ‘æs’ ligature; compare ðæs, SolSatII 4a. 6a. breosttoga. A hapax; see Harbus, ‘Situation of Wisdom’, p. 99. 6b. boca cæga. See Introduction, p. 38; cf. Exodus 525b. 7b–23. Strictly speaking, the thirty-two items listed in Saturn’s travels are in apposition to land (7b); some are lands, others cities, peoples or abstractions;

116

Commentary see O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, pp. 127–31. O’Keeffe locates the list in a tradition derived from classical geographies, citing in particular the influence of three works available to Insular authors: Isidore’s Etymologiae; the Nomina Regionum and Nomina Locorum compiled by Bede (Nomina Regionum atque Locorum, ed. Laistner); and the Cosmographia of Aethicus Ister; cf. Etymologiae XIV.ii–v; XIV.vi.15–16; XIV.vi.41. The Etymologiae cannot be the source for the places in the Holy Land, which appear to be taken from Nomina Locorum, CCSL 119, 273– 87; see O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, pp. 132–3. O’Keeffe (pp. 128–9, 135–6) offers ‘hard and soft evidence’ for a link between the Cosmographia and SolSatII. 8b. East Corsias. Almost certainly a corruption. Menner, PD, p. 118, follows Holthausen, ‘Zu Salomo und Saturn’, p. 354, and suggests ‘Corsias’ is an error for ‘Cossaei’. O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 138, notes that this nation does not feature in the narratives of common geographic surveys, but is included in the socalled ‘Liber Generationis’ (in Geographi Latini Minores, ed. Riese, pp. 160–9, at 166) and Fredegar’s Chronicon (Fredegarii Chronica, ed. Krusch, p. 23). 10b. Norð-Predan. Probably a corruption of ‘Parthian’; see O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 138. Note that the Parthians occur in the list in Jerome’s Epistula liii, beside ‘Caucasus’, and Persians; see Introduction, p. 37. 11b. Marculfes eard. O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 138, suggests that this land is Turkey; see Menner, PD, p. 119; also Introduction, pp. 13–14. 12a. Saulus rice. In historical terms this location is most surprising, and may imply Saturn’s travels date at least back to the time of Saul, whose reign preceded David’s. 14a. Filistina flet. In Isidore, Etymologiae XIV.ii–v, Philistim is a city, whereas Philistiim (cf. IX.ii.20, 58) refers to the people; see O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 132 n. 45. 14b. fæsten Creta. Creca appears twice in Saturn’s list, and one is probably an error. Menner, PD, p. 119, speculated that one of the two should be Creta. Creca cræftas is a collocation supported by the Old English Orosius; see note to SolSatII 17a; O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 135, explains the crux, referring to the tradition in geographic sources which describe Crete as an island with a hundred cities; cf. Isidore, Etymologiae XIV.vi.16; Bede, Nomina Regionum, CCSL 121, 169. O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 135, notes the description of Crete in the Cosmographia: In medium autem Anthiopolim urbem munitissimam atque metropolim celeberrimam et famosissimam (‘in the middle is Anthiopolis, a highly fortified city and a most famous and celebrated centre’); Kosmographie, ed. Prinz, p. 216, lines 9–11. 15a. wudu Egipta. O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 134, notes that if wudu in the sense of lignum is meant, its referent may be ficus, an Egyptian wood which caught the medieval imagination, as it becomes buoyant only after being saturated; cf. Isidore, Etymologiae XVII.vii.17 (cuius lignum in aquam missum ilico mergitur). O’Keeffe (p. 135) notes another Egyptian wood mentioned in Cosmographia: ubi sunt arbores magni, qui picini dicuntur, unde in anno bis vellera carpiunt et optimas vestes ex ipsis fiuntur (‘in that place there are huge trees which are called picini, from which twice a year they cull the fleeces and from them excellent

117

Commentary clothes are made’); Kosmographie, ed. Prinz, p. 240, lines 6–8. 15b. Manuscript pæt[er]. The error may be this scribe’s, and a physical reflex after the multiple copying of pat[er]. 16a. cludas Coreffes. Cf. SolSatII 27a, coforflod. In SolSatII the writing of ‘Coreff[es]’ for the gen. of ‘Choreb’, and ‘Cofor’ for ‘Chobar’, shows the normal use of ‘f’ to represent intervocalic Latin ‘b’; see O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 131 n. 42; Pyles, ‘Pronunciation of Latin Learned Loan Words’, p. 901. I have followed Menner’s emendation of claudas Coreffes to cludas Coreffes; the ‘rocks of Horeb’ echoes Jerome’s explanation of the word as it occurs in Judges: Sur Choreb, quod interpretatur, petra Choreb (PL 23, 969); see O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic list’, p. 134. See note to SolSatII 7b–23. 16b. Caldea rice. Cf. Chaldeorum regio; Bede, Nomina Regionum, CCSL 121, 167 cited by O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 134 n. 56; see note to SolSatII 17b. 17a. Creca cræftas. Cf. Creca cræftum, Old English Orosius, ed. Bately, p. 30.14–16; see O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, pp. 130–1 n. 39. 17b. cynn Arabia. In all other instances where peoples are named instead of places, the gen. pl. occupies the first half of the line, cynn the second half, and most are Sievers’s Type E lines; 17b is the only instance of a half-line with cynn in the first position. See O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, pp. 133–4, who suggests that unusual formulaic combination may represent the ‘desire to accommodate a specific detail’, comparing Bede, Nomina Regionum: Arabia: regio inter sinum maris rubri qui Persicus et eum qui Arabicus uocatur habet gentes multas, Moabitas, Ammanitas, Idumaeos, Sarracenos aliasque quam plurimas (‘Arabia: the region between the gulf of the Red Sea called “Persian” and that called “Arabian” has many peoples: Moabites, Ammonites, Idumaeans, Saracens and many others’). 20b. Pores gemære. Pores must be Porus, king of India, also visited by Aethicus Ister, cf. Kosmographie, ed. Prinz, p. 235, lines 12–16; see O’Keeffe, ‘Geographic List’, p. 138 n. 68; also Campbell, Grammar, §519. 23. Hierusa[lem] is the last word on p. 13 of A. The text on p. 14 has been erased, and written over in a twelfth-century hand; see Introduction, p. 4. 27a. Coforflod. See SolSatI 20. 29a. forcumen ond forcyððed. Cf. SolSatFrag 7a. 29b–31. O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, pp. 148–9, has noted the influence of Jerome’s comment on Hab. I.6 (In Abacuc, CCSL 76A, 585–6): ‘Ecce ego suscitabo Nabuchodonosor et Chaldeos, gentem pugnacissimam et uelocem, cuius rodoris et ad bellandum audiciae, omnes paene Graeci . . . testes sunt’ (cf. guðe gielpne); ‘tantusque erit numerus captiuorum et praedae. . . . Ipse quoque, id est Nabochodonosor . . . tantaeque potentiae et superbiae erit, ut naturam superare contendat, et urbes munitissimas robore sui exercitus capere’ (cf. goldwlonce); ‘Cum autem comportauerit aggerem, et nihil uiribus eius obuium fuerit, tunc mutabitur spiritus eius in superbiam’ (cf. mærða modige). (‘Behold, I shall sustain Nabuchodonosor and the Chaldeans, a people most aggressive and swift whose strength and boldness to fight, almost all the Greeks . . . attest.’ ‘So great will be the number of [their] captives and booty. . . . He also, that is, Nabuchodonosor, will be possessed of such power and pride as to strive

118

Commentary to overcome nature itself and to seize the most wealthy cities by means of the strength of his army.’ ‘When he has thrown up his fortification and nothing will be able to withstand his forces, then his spirit will be turned to pride’).

O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 148, argues that the moning (SolSatII 31b) sent to the Chaldeans at Sennaar might refer to Belshazzar’s feast (Dan. V), rather than Babel (Gen. XI.1–9), as generally accepted, arguing that God’s intervention at Babel does not constitute a ‘warning’. Moning includes the sense ‘admonition’, which Babel certainly presents; see B-T, s.v. The fact that Saturn refers to Nimrod in his reply (36b), seems to confirm that the reference is to Babel; cf. SolSatII 150b–153. See Introduction, pp. 31–3. 32a. suð ymbe Sanere feld. Cf. Gen. XI.2, campum in terra sennaar. 34. The line lacks alliteration. The simplest solution, proposed by Grein, substitutes sæliðende with mereliðende; cf. Beowulf 255a. Wulf’s association with Nimrod (a legendary giant), described by Saturn (believed to be a giant), and his fame among the Philistines (the race of Goliath the giant, killed by Solomon’s father David), suggests the possibility that Wulf is a giant. Cf. the Liber Monstrorum, in Pride and Prodigies, ed. Orchard, pp. 286–7 (I.5): Gigantes enim ipsos tam enormis alebat magnitudo ut eis omnia maria pedum gressibus transmeabilia fuisse perhibeatur. Quorum ossa in litoribus et in terram latebris, ad indicium uastae quantitatis eorum, saepe conperta leguntur. (‘Indeed giants used to grow to such an enormous size that it is said that all the sea was passable to them on foot. And their bones are often found, according to books, on the shores and in the recesses of the world, as a mark of their vast size.’)

See I Sam. XVII.4–5; Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, p. 78. The poet may have been familiar with the discussion of Babel and the Titans in the Old English Boethius; see Introduction, p. 32. 35a. Wulf. Apparently a personal name. Menner, ‘Nimrod and the Wolf’, p. 342, suggests, on the basis of Wulf’s friendship with Nimrod, that he is ‘the hero of the gigantomachia traditionally associated with the destruction of the Tower.’ The poet may have been familiar with the identification of Babel’s builders with the Titans (see SolSatII 36a); see Introduction, p. 32. Menner’s identification (pp. 343, 351) of Wulf with Bel, father of Nimrod, is not convincing. 36a. Filistina. A word may be lost, suggested by comparison with other half-lines in which Filistina occurs (SolSatII 192, 254, 257, 277, 280, 430), where the word never occurs by itself, but always in combinations, either of Sievers Type E (192, 277, 280, 430), Type D (257) or Type C (254); see F. Hüttenbrenner, Review of O. Funke, Die gelehrten Lateinischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter in der altenglischen Literatur (Halle, 1914), Beiblatt 28 (1917), 52–3. Saturn’s visit to Filistina flet (14a, ‘halls of the Philistines’) signals a particular interest in this nation – from among his travels, only the substance of his discussions with the Filistina witan (253a, ‘wise men of the Philistines’) is reported. Solomon also recalls dealings with the witan Filistina (80a) who guard Vasa mortis (77b), which they have named (103a). This attention suggests a significance here for a race not famously associated with learning; given evidence of the poet’s fondness for bilingual wordplay,

119

Commentary Isidore’s etymology of Philistines, ‘foreigners’ (Etymologiae IX.ii.58), may be significant; in Old English ‘foreigners’ would be weallas, meaning also ‘Welsh’, a more obviously learned race than the Philistines. For the possibility that ‘Philistines’ might refer to Scandinavian settlers in England, see Introduction, pp. 52. 36a. Nebrondes. The tradition that Nimrod led the building of Babel is a medieval commonplace; see Gen. X.8–10; XI.1–9; B. Murdoch, The Medieval Popular Bible: Expansions of Genesis in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 127–48; Menner, ‘Nimrod and the Wolf’, p. 338. The standard interpretation of the Tower understood it as an expression of pride; see Augustine De Ciuitate Dei XVI.4. Augustine identifies the Tower of Babel with Babylon, and the ‘Confusion’ Babylon represents is manifest in the proud and disordered mind of Nimrod and his accomplices. Nimrod was also famous as the first tyrant; see Menner, ‘Nimrod and the Wolf’, p. 338; Isidore Etymologiae VII.vi.22. See Introduction, p. 46. 37–44. Menner, ‘Nimrod and the Wolf’, p. 334, suggested an identification of Wulf’s field with the site of Babel, though the evidence is inconclusive. Menner, PD, p. 125, lists biblical passages identifying the desert as the abode of demons (Isaiah XIII.21–2, XXXIV.13–14; Jer. II.6, IX.11, XLIX.33; Ps. XLIV.19); however, SolSatII mentions no demons here. The poisonous fumes of Sodom and Gomorrah (Wisd. X.7) come closer, but are hardly a cynn. Menner notes John Lydgate, Fall of Princes, ed. H. Bergen, 2 vols in 4 pts., EETS os 121–4 (London, 1924–7), I, lines 1135–48, which describes Babel as a habitation of serpents and dragons (cf. Rev. XVIII.2). 41a. Menner, PD, p. 125, compares Ælfric’s ‘Passion of St Bartholomew’: and far to westene þær nan fugel ne flyhð. ne yrðling ne erað. ne mannes stemn ne swegð (‘and go to the waste where no bird flies, no farmer ploughs, nor the voice of man sounds’); Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series: Text, p. 444, lines 155–61; on Ælfric’s sources, see Godden, Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, p. 262; Ælfric cannot be the source here. Cf. Vergil’s description of Avernus, where an ‘entrance’ is apparent, and poison ‘breath’ emphasised (Aeneid VI.239–42): quam super haud ullae poterant impune uolantes / tendere iter pennis: talis sese halitus atris / faucibus effundens supera ad conuexa ferebat / [unde locum Grai dixerunt nomine Aornum] (‘over which no flying creatures could wing a course without harm; such a poisonous breath from those black jaws poured into the vault of the sky [whence the Greeks spoke of Aornus, the Birdless]’); Vergili Opera, ed. Mynors. Isidore, Etymologiae XIII.xix.8, also describes Avernus; compare Lucan’s description of the grove at Massilia (Pharsalia, III.399–413, ed. Shackleton Bailey, pp. 421–3); see Anlezark, ‘Poisoned Places’, 103–26. 42a. atercynn. A hapax: ‘poison-kind’; see DOE. Menner suggests atercynn could mean either ‘kinds of poison’, ‘kinds of poisonous creatures’, or ‘poison-kind’. That poisonous creatures are meant, rather than simply poison, is implied by ða ðe – these can still can be found there with attres oroð (44a). The poet’s interest in ‘kinds’ and ‘races’ is attested elsewhere: eorðan cynnes, 97a, 299a; swiðe bittres cynnes, 152b, the ‘nature’ and ‘race’ to which Saturn ought not conform; fyrenes cynnes, 246b, the ‘nature’ or ‘race’ of fire, in which all things subsist. Cf. the hapax godwebbcynn, SolSatPNPr 112.

120

Commentary 42b–43a. Cf. Beowulf 111, Þanon untydras ealle onwocon; see Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, p. 24. Lucan, in Pharsalia IX, recounts Perseus’s killing of Medusa; see Anlezark, ‘Poisoned Places’, pp. 116–17. 44a. OE oroð is not usually used in the sense of ‘fumes’ or ‘vapours’, a meaning confined to the otherwise synonymous æþm (‘breath’, ‘vapour’); B-T, s.v. 45–6. On the pl. byrgenna (the sg. might be expected for Wulf’s tomb), compare Dracontius’s description of Medusa’s Libyan home, De Laudibus Dei III.296– 321: Dracontius, Oeuvres, ed. C. Moussy and C. Camus, 4 vols (Paris, 1985–96), vol. 2; see also Blossii Aemilii Dracontii Carmina, ed. F. Vollmer, MGH Auct. antiq. 14 (Berlin, 1905): Ara Philaenorum Libycas possedit harenas / limitis exusti, fratrum memoranda sepulcra (‘The altar of the Philaeni, the famous tomb of the brothers, occupied the Libyan sands of a burnt-out realm’). The fourth book of a florilegium by Alcuin in Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Misc. Patr. 17 (B.II.10), contains excerpta from a range of Christian poets including Dracontius (fols 155r–157v); see Moussy and Camus, Dracontius, I.119. Dracontius’s vivid description of a place infected with black venom (nigris infecta uenenis), a poisonous breath, develops Lucan’s reference to pestilential air in a way paralleling attres oroð (‘breath of poison’). Cf. the giant sword in Beowulf, 1550–72a. See Anlezark, ‘Poisoned Places’, pp. 118–20. 47–51. Solomon provides an alternative solution to his own riddle (32b–33): the seabed is the ground where no foot may tread; cf. SolSatI 151b–157. However, the warning to those who would test dryhtnes meahta (51b), also recalls Babel; cf. SolSatII 151a. His point seems to be that it is folly to embark unprepared on any venture. On the proverbial folly of entering deep water, compare Beowulf 506–10a. 52–68. The solution to Saturn’s riddle is ‘book’, as the discussion reveals; see Vincenti, Die altenglischen Dialoge, p. 69, who compares John V; Ezek. II.9. This numerical gradatio provides a stylistic parallel to SolSatPNPr 56–104; see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 247 n. 91; Introduction, pp. 27–8. The passage has an eschatological flavour; the Last Judgment is an important theme in all three dialogues. 53b–55. seofon. The preference for the number seven is explained by the apocalyptic reference to ‘golden Jerusalem’, probably the New Jerusalem of Rev. XXI.2. The number seven is used throughout Revelation (cf. I.4, 20, etc.), and is particularly associated with writing; Rev. II–III; V.1–2. The tongues seem to be pages, though seven is an unusual number of leaves for a quire (though accidentally found in A, Quire 1); ‘twenty tips’ provides a close approximation of the usual number of lines per page. Cf. SolSatI 14–15, where numbers conform for rhetorical affect; cf. SolSatI 63–5. 56–9a. The future tense is required if the allusion is to the New Jerusalem (Rev. XXI.2), suggested by the golden walls (cf. Rev. XXI.18). On the probability that the dialogue is imagined to be taking place at the earthly Temple, see SolSatPNPr 115. 57. gesiehst Hierusalem. An etymological pun on ‘Jerusalem’, visio pacis; see P. E. Szarmach, ‘Visio pacis: Jerusalem and its Meanings’, in Typology and Medi­ eval English Literature, ed. Hugh Keenan (New York: 1992), pp. 71–87.

121

Commentary 58b. hiera winrod. A hapax and crux; Dobbie, citing Holthausen, objected that rod is fem., and the expected form of the acc. sg. would be winrode. F. Holthausen, ‘Zu alt- und mittelenglischen Dichtungen. XII, 60: Salomo und Saturn’, Anglia 23 (1901), 123–5, at 124, suggested wuldor, later amending this emendation to wundor (Holthausen, ‘Zu Salomo und Saturn’, p. 355), but later agreeing with Dobbie’s winrod, ‘Kreuz’ (Holthausen, ‘Zur Textkritik alt- und mittelenglischer Gedichte’, p. 99); see Menner, PD, pp. 126–7. Davis, ‘Salomon and Saturn 235: winrod’, follows Campbell, Grammar, §336, who suggested winrod is a compound of wynn and rad (cf. eorod and weorod, both neut.). The second element appears as -rod in low-stress position (Davis, p. 444); see C. Brady, ‘Old English Nominal Compounds in –rad’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 67 (1952), 538–71. The wide semantic field of -rad incorporates ‘ride’, ‘journey’, yielding ‘joyous band’ or ‘precious procession’; with this reading, winrod could be read as an ellipsis of wynwerod; cf. Blickling Glosses, wynwerod: chorus; cf. turba magna, Rev. XIX.6–7. In context, the only possible referents for the pronoun hiera are angels (55b), or more likely, the golden walls (58a). While angels can process (and form a chorus), walls cannot; it is also possible to imagine an angelic chorus ‘shining’ (lixan). It has not been previously noted that in the Revelation passage which describes the walls of the New Jerusalem as ‘golden’ (XXI.15–21) an angel appears before John, bearing a ‘rod’ (OE hreod, reod, neut.) of gold (XXI.15, harundinem auream), with which he proceeds to measure out the length of the golden city’s walls. The coincidence in the probable source is so striking as to demand consideration. The image in Revelation is borrowed from Ezek. XL.1–4, where a rod (calamus) is used to measure the Temple in the prophet’s vision; Jerome, Comm. in Ezech., CCSL 75, 553–4, plays on the meaning of calamus, ‘reed’, ‘reed-pen’. The poet’s close knowledge of Ezekiel and Jerome’s commentary seems beyond doubt, and here he may be developing a complex of images at the intersection of Revelation and Ezekiel (cf. SolSatII 65a); see also to SolSatI 2a. The transmission of the text of SolSatII is disturbed here, perhaps indicating an unusual (or nonce) word unrecognized in an exemplar. This poet’s word may have been *winreod (‘joyful-reed’), a possibility supported in the context of the passage by the riddling allusion to written lines, and the close association of the winrod with the New Jerusalem’s golden walls. Cf. also Eriugena, Periphyseon, CCCM 165, 170: Ipse est uirga, qua regit et mensurat omnia (‘[Christ] is also the rod, who rules and measures all things’); Eriugena’s identification comes in the context of an allegory on the Temple. As the manuscript’s winrod (‘chorus’) offers some sense, I have not emended. 64a. ðreamedlan. Also occurs at 251a. Menner emends to ðreaniedlun, glossing as ‘inevitable misfortune’ (SolSatII 64a) and ‘compulsion’, ‘compelling force’ (251a); cf. Beowulf 2223a. Dobbie retains A’s reading. Gardner, ‘þreaniedla and þreamedla’, p. 256, notes emendation is supported by Beowulf 2224; see Schipper, ‘Codex Exoniensis’, p. 331; þreanied, from which it could be derived, is common enough in Old English poetry. Gardner notes that þreamedla has in its favour three occurances, twice in SolSatII (see 251a) and Guthlac 696, suggesting the meaning ‘mental oppression’; see The Guthlac Poems of the Exeter Book, ed.

122

Commentary J. Roberts (Oxford, 1979), p. 154; Harbus, ‘The Situation of Wisdom’, p. 99. 65. onbyregeð boca cræftes. Cf. SolSatI 2a, boca onbyrged, with note. 69–74. Saturn’s question does not emerge easily from the preceding discussion. However, if the object of Saturn’s curiosity is taken to be a geomrende gast (72a), then Solomon’s answer, and its place in the dialogue, becomes clearer. Vasa mortis also sorrows in its imprisonment, and yearns for a freedom associated with Judgment Day. The notional relationship between the unhappy mind, death and Judgment run throughout the dialogue. The force of Saturn’s ‘curiosity’ (fyrwet, SolSatI B58a, SolSatII 70a) is expressed in similar terms in SolSatI 57b–62; compare on worulde full oft, SolSatI B57b; woroldrice, SolSatII 69b; min hige dreogeð SolSatI B60b; geomrende gast SolSatII 72a; in both passages the context is the consolation sought from books (cf. bisi æfter bocum, SolSatI 61a). Cf. Beowulf 232b–233a: hine fyrwyt bræc / modgehygdum. 70a. fyrwet. Cf. SolSatI 58a, with note. 74a. me geseme. See SolSatII 75b, seme ic ðe. An etymological pun on Saturn’s name; see SolSatI 18a, with note. 75–103. With the account of Wulf, the Vasa mortis passage ranks as one of the most obscure in Old English. However, comparable marvellous birds are described in Irish sources; see Introduction, pp. 21–4. Much of the mystification of the creature is the product of an interpretative tradition derived from Kemble, which presented both Wulf and Vasa mortis against the background of obscure Eastern apocrypha; see, for example, M. Förster, ‘Das lat.-ae. Fragment des Apokryphe von Jamnes und Mambres’, Archiv 107 (1901), 15–28, at 27–8; Menner, ‘Vasa Mortis’, p. 241: ‘It is therefore only by the patient piecing together of details from older sources that such mysterious figures . . . are likely to be explained.’ This Oriental literary inheritance is in evidence in the poem, but it is remote and mediated through more local sources. One confusing aspect of this scholarly inheritance is the assumption that Vasa mortis is a demon; see Kemble, Salomon and Saturn, p. 9; Vincenti, Die altenglischen Dialoge, pp. 70–1; Dobbie, ASPR VI, p. lviii; Menner, ‘Vasa Mortis’, p. 242. Menner argued for the influence of Talmudic traditions concerning the demon Asmodeus, who is bound by Solomon, and with whom Solomon has a debate; see Tobit VIII.2; cf. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, IV, pp. 165–8; G. Salzburger, Die Salomosage in der semitischen Literatur (Berlin, 1907); Vincenti, Die altenglischen Dialoge, pp. 5–13. However, the poem describes a bird, and there is no evidence for Menner’s assertion that the Philistines worship Vasa mortis. Much of the imagery in the passage develops the preceding questions on books: the bird is in a valley (cf. 52b); this valley has golden walls (cf. 57–8b); the enumeration of four heads recalls the seven tongues and twenty tips (53b, 54b). The presence of the Philistines recalls their knowledge of Wulf, and links the present discussion of books with Saturn’s later recollection of discussing books with the Filistina witan (253a); see SolSatII 36a. Following the deep water and book riddles, Vasa mortis logically presents another riddle; J. A. Dane, ‘The Structure of the Old English Solomon and Saturn II’, Neophilologus 64 (1980), 592–603, at p. 595, suggests that Vasa mortis is ‘a representation of the very curiosity that plagues Saturn’. Taylor’s suggestion

123

Commentary that Vasa mortis is akin to Níðhöggr, the dragon lurking beneath the world tree in Old Norse tradition, is unconvincing (‘The Old Icelandic Völuspá’, p. 138). See Introduction, pp. 46–7. 84. Menner, ‘Vasa Mortis’, pp. 251–2, compares the two hundred ‘Watchers’ of I Enoch X.12–3 (cf. Gen. VI.2), who are kept bound till Judgment Day. On I Enoch, see SolSatPNPr 15, 38; SolSatII 274b, 277b, 278a. 85a. G. Cilluffo, ‘Mirabilia ags.: il Vasa Mortis nel Salomone e Saturno’, Annali Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli Filologia germanica 24 (1981), 211–26, at pp. 220–1, compares Fama, in Vergil, Aeneid IV.173–88. 85b–87. A scriptural analogue is found in the vision of Ezek. I; see Introduction, pp. 18–19, 41. Cf. Ezek. I.6, et quattuor facies et quattuor pinnae uni (‘and each had four faces and four wings’). The precise meaning of medumra manna is unclear, but compare Ezek. I.5: et hic aspectus eorum similitudino hominis in eis (‘and this was their appearance: they had a human form’). Menner, ‘Vasa Mortis’, p. 248, finds the origin of Vasa mortis’s hwælen (understood as ‘whale-shaped’) body in the Philistine god Dagon (cf. I Sam. V); the god’s fish body is not mentioned in the Bible, but by Jerome (PL 23, 11185). The adj. hwælen is otherwise unattested, and is possibly the poet’s creation. But note the ‘wheel-shaped’ bodies in Ezek. I.15: cumque aspicerem animalia apparuit rota una super terram iuxta animalia habens quattor facies (‘when I looked at the living creatures a wheel appeared on the earth beside the living creatures, with four faces’) The universal medieval understanding of the creatures of Ezekiel’s vision saw them as referring to the four evangelists; cf. Jerome, Comm. in Hiezech., CCSL 75, 11, who associates these with Rev. IV.7. Other attributes of Vasa mortis are hardly suggestive of a metaphorical association with the evangelists, but note SolSatII 52–9, where the book described could be a gospel book. The number four is significant in the poem: Vasa mortis has four heads (85); fate binds man with four ropes (155); the devil attacks in feower gecynd (320). The three occurrences are probably connected. Another association of the four faces of Ezek. I elaborated by Jerome equates them with the four ‘passions’ or ‘disturbances’ (perturbationes) of the human mind: gaudii, aegritudinis, cupidinis et timoris, quorum duo praesentia, duo futura sunt (‘of joy, of grief, of desire and of fear, of which two are of the present, two of the future’); CCSL 75, 13; cf. Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes IV.6, ed. M. Pohlenz (Leipzig, 1918), 366–8, where he discusses the perturbationes in detail. The theme of the human weakness represented by these four passions (or ‘diseases’) defined by the Stoics, is found across Jerome’s works; see A. Canellis, ‘Saint Jérôme et les passions: sur les “quattuor perturbationes” des Tusculanes’, Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000), 178–203. Cicero’s Tusculanae Disputationes are excerpted at length on the theme of the perturbationes by Sedulius Scottus, Miscellaneum LXXXI, CCCM 68, 357–62. Augustine also discusses the four perturbationes defined by Cicero, though he is more critical of Stoic moral philosophy; see, for example, In Iohannis Euangelium Tractatus CXXIV, ed. R. Willems, 479 (on John XIII.21). A noteworthy feature of the Vasa mortis passage is intense emotion, in the fear, grief and desire of the chained bird, and the fear of the Philistines; the parallel between these and the perturbationes discussed by

124

Commentary Jerome (in a commentary certainly known to the poet), may explain the emphasis on the number four, and its association with human frailty and death; see SolSatII 155, 320. On Vasa mortis’s longing for Doomsday, compare Rev. VI.1–7, where at the command of one of four creatures, four horses bring death. 88b. See Introduction, p. 41. 94. Cf. Soul and Body, ed. and trans. Moffatt, lines 35b–37a: Þæt me þuhte ful oft þæt wære þritig þusend wintra to þinum deaðdæge (‘it seemed to me very often that it would be thirty thousand winters to your deathday’); see Wright, Irish Tradition, p. 256. 95. Cf. SolSatPNPr 97. 98b. The bird does not originate in the land of the Philistines, but has been brought from across the sea; see Introduction, p. 23. 99b. Holthausen, ‘Zu Salomo und Saturn’, p. 355, identifies Melot with Mellothi, a son of Heman, mentioned in I Chron. XXV:4, 26. 103b. The bird’s name is taken from Ps. VII.14: et in ipso praeparavit vasa mortis sagittas suas ad conburendum operatus est (‘and in it he has prepared the instruments of death, he has made ready his arrows for them that burn’); Menner, ‘Vasa Mortis’, p. 252. The fact that the imagery of the psalm verse providing Vasa mortis’s name resonates so strongly with that of the closing section of the poem suggests that the appellation is no accident, and is related to SolSatII’s thematic unity. Jerome compares the verse with Eph. VI.13–8: Sagittas suas ardentibus affecit: Pulchre dixit, ardentibus: quorum enim corda ardent libidine et passionibus, isti uicti sunt a diabolo. . . . sed quorumcumque corda ardere uiderit, illos percutit (‘He has prepared his arrows for those burning: “for those burning” is well said, for the people whose hearts are burning with desire and passion are overcome by the devil . . . the hearts of those already burning, no matter whose they are, are his target’); S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Tractatus sive Homiliae in Psalmos, ed. G. Morin, CCSL 78 (Turnhout, 1958), 25. The emphasis on the role of the passions in the descent into sin, and arrow imagery, links the raging passion in the bird’s characterisation to the sinful man of SolSatII 314–27, suggesting the possible influence of Jerome’s psychology of sin throughout the poem. Atherton, ‘Figure of the Archer’, 653–7, has argued that an addition to the Old English text of the Paris Psalter at Ps. VII.12 (se deofol) reveals the influence of Jerome’s discussion on the author’s understanding of the passage. In the Bury Psalter an illustration accompanying Ps. VII shows a female figure with a heart already burning with sin, as the devil’s arrow is launched against her; see A. Heimann, ‘Three Illustrations from the Bury St Edmunds Psalter and their Prototypes: Notes on the Iconography of Some Anglo-Saxon Drawings’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 29 (1966), 39–59. See SolSatII 155. 104–23. The probable source is a time riddle of the type found in CollPsBedae, no. 79; see Hill, ‘Saturn’s Time Riddle’, p. 274. Cf.: quae coelum totamque terram repleuit and geond ðas woruld færeð; sylvas et surculos confringit and beam heo abreoteð and bebriceð telgum; omnia fundamenta concutit and staðolas beateð. For medieval Latin instances of this figure, see Proverbia Sententiaeque Latinitatis Medii Aevi, ed. H. Walther, 6 vols (Göttingen, 1963–9), no. 31296.

125

Commentary The influence of Isidore’s Etymologiae XI.viii.23 on the attribution of Chaldean nationality to Saturn through his identification with Bel, quod interpretatur uetus, suggests a sustained interest in the learned associations of Saturn’s name and character. See Introduction, pp. 20, 32. For another example of the personification of yldo in Old English, see The Seafarer, ed. I. Gordon (Manchester, 1979), lines 91–3. 121b. friteð æfter ðam wildne fugol heo oferwigeð wulf. Menner, PD, p. 130, reorders: friteð æfter ðam. Wulf heo oferwigeð, wildne fugol. 124–30. The passage is incomplete owing to loss of text after line 130. The force of Saturn’s Ac forhwon signals a shift from the mystery of the destruction wrought by nature to paradoxes it presents: cold builds bridges of ice (128b), but also breaks gates (129a). 131–3. SolSatFrag, the probable conclusion of SolSatII, presents a similar scene, expressed in similar terms, as malice and deceit lead a man to hell. 133b. feonde. The full significance of demonic enmity is explored later; see SolSatII 272–7, 303–7. 134. wedera. In the poet’s understanding night is an atmospheric phenomenon; on the sun and light, see SolSatII 162–5. The passing of a day is one measure of time, and in Saturn’s gloomy outlook, represents a step closer to death; cf. SolSatII 301. 134–44. The poem’s attitude to wealth is difficult to define. Solomon’s wealth is legendary, and he sees no intrinsic virtue in material deprivation; cf. SolSatII 203–8; note Saturn’s obvious wealth at SolSatI 13–20. The ‘fading leaves’ extend Saturn’s observation of passing days to passing seasons, but with a conventional allegorical twist; Menner, PD, p. 131, cites Isaiah XL.6–7, LXIV.6; cf. Guthlac 43–6. Vincenti, Die altenglische Dialoge, p. 73, compares the discourse on this theme in Blickling Homily V, pp. 57–9. Hill, ‘The Falling Leaf’, p. 572, also notes Vergil, Aeneid VI.305–12, where souls arriving in Hades are compared to the falling leaves of autumn. Hill questions the relevance of the widespread tradition in this context, and notes (p. 571) that the passage falls into two parts: the sinner compared with the leaf, and the moralising on sinners who hide treasure and yet expect a reward in heaven. Gregory the Great points out that for the Christian, death is ‘unnatural’ from a theological viewpoint, and represents exile from paradise; cf. Moralia in Iob, CCSL 143A, 64, on Job XIII.25. On the declining world, compare SolSatPNPr 60. On hiding treasure, Hill (pp. 573–4) compares Augustine, Sermo LX (PL 38, 405; on Matt. VI.19): nolite condere thesauros in terra (an Old Latin reflex), where hiding treasure denotes the misuse of earthly goods. Hill also notes (p. 572) that according to Snorri, Óðinn enjoined his followers to hide treasures on earth, so that they might enjoy them in heaven; see, for example, Heimskringla, I, p. 20; see Sigurður Nordal, ‘Um dauða Skalla-Gríms og hversu hann var heygður’, Festskrift til Finnur Jónsson (Copenhagen, 1928), pp. 109–10. 145–8. The time frame has extended from days, through seasons, to the whole of time, which will end with the Day of Judgment. On the rising up of the seas and the ‘din’ (148b) of Doomsday, see Anlezark, Water and Fire, 228; cf. SolSatII 95; SolSatPNPr 100–5.

126

Commentary 150b–153. Solomon’s reference to Saturn’s leode and their ancient struggle against ‘the Lord’s might’, is to Babel; cf. SolSatII 29–31. See Anlezark, Water and Fire, p. 328. Solomon’s reference to Saturn as his broðor provides an insight into the tone of the debate – learned and friendly; cf. SolSatFrag 8–9. 154a. saga ðu me. A probable symptom of the influence of the Ioca monachorum tradition; see Introduction, pp. 17–20. Cf. SolSatII 161b. 155. On the number four see SolSatII 85b, 320. I have suggested (note to SolSatII 85b–87) the influence of Jerome’s discussion of the four perturbationes that disturb the human mind. In his Commentarii in Naum, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 76A (Turnhout, 1970), 557, Jerome develops a complex association (referring to Ezek. I), linking the four passions (de quibus et philosophi disputant), bound and yoked together as man’s team of four horses, making him vulnerable to demonic attack, and the four virtues (prudentia, iustitia, temperantia, fortitudo), which are shields against the arrows of the devil, that is, the four vices (stultitia, iniquitas, luxuria, formido), which attack the man weakened by his passions. See M. Godden, ‘Alfred, Asser, and Boethius’, in Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, ed. K. O. O’Keeffe and A. Orchard, 2 vols (Toronto, 2005), I, pp. 326–48, at 330–1, on interest in these ‘passions’ in the Boethian commentary tradition known to St Dunstan at Glastonbury. Both the Boethian glosses and Jerome’s commentary reveal the influence of a line from Vergil’s Aeneid (VI.733): Hi cupiunt, metuuntque, dolent, gaudentque (‘they desire, they fear, they weep, they rejoice’). The complex of images associated with the number four parallels the psychological process outlined in SolSatII 193–208, 303–7. See also Lactantius, Institutiones Diuinae VI.14. 156–7. Solomon’s answer is metrically deficient, suggesting the text has been disrupted in transmission, though the sense is not impaired. 158–9. The question signals a transition from reflections on Judgment Day in relation to the passing of time, to an interest in justice; see Shippey, Wisdom and Learning, p. 27. From a Christian point of view, the question is absurd, implicit in its very terms: the creature (gesceaftum) cannot judge the Creator. Saturn’s gesceaft (‘creature’, but also ‘decree’, ‘fate’) presents a pun on the idea of fate (157b): ‘But who will then judge the Lord Christ on Doomsday, when he judges all fates?’ The wordplay introduces a more complex philosophical notion, which the debate takes up: is a life the product of free choices, or is it decreed by fate and God’s foreknowledge? If the latter, damnation would seem unfair. 160–1. The point of Solomon’s answer is clear: the creature cannot judge the Creator. However, the text is clearly corrupt. The two problems are presented by 161a, niehtes wunde, and 161b, nærende wæron; see below. 161a. niehtes wunde. Emendation has been considered necessary for sense, though in these dialogues this criterion could produce changes throughout. Dobbie retains A’s reading, but notes the sense ‘is not clear’ (ASPR VI, p. 167). Holthausen’s emendation of niehtes to niðes is unacceptable, on the basis that niehtes, ‘of night’, imposes a strong masc. gen. ending on a noun elsewhere regularly fem.; but note the adverbial neahtes, ‘by night’; cf. SolSatII 217a, 220b. Menner, PD, p. 133, suggests of niehtes wambe (or wombe); see Sisam, ‘Review’, p. 29.

127

Commentary The syntax places of niehtes wunde in apposition to of duste; however, while there is biblical authority for the creation of man of duste (Gen. I.2, II.7), none is found for of niehtes wunde. L. Whitbread, ‘Adam’s Pound of Flesh: A Note on the Old English Verse Solomon and Saturn (II): 336–9’, Neophilologus 59 (1975), 622–6, at p. 623, suggests of eahta pundum, ‘from eight pounds’, based on the early Christian tradition expounding Gen. II.7, which had Adam created from eight different essences, often as a series of eight ‘weights’ or ‘pounds’; cf. Solomon and Saturn, ed. Cross and Hill, and Wilmart, Analecta Reginensia, p. 111; Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Lindelöf, p. 192; see Cross, ‘The Literate Anglo-Saxon’, pp. 8–9; M. Förster, ‘Adams Erschaffung und Namengebung’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11 (1907–8), 477–527; J. M. Evans, ‘Microcosmic Adam’, Medium Ævum 35 (1966), 38–42. However, in his reply Saturn immediately takes up the reference to ‘night’ in his reference to ‘shadow’, while Solomon’s reference to ‘night’ itself takes up Saturn’s earlier reference to night as the ‘darkest weather’ (134a); this pattern suggests a thematic development around a particular metaphor. J. P. Hermann, ‘Solomon and Saturn (II), 339a: niehtes wunde’, English Language Notes 14 (1977), 161–4, argues for the retention of niehtes, though it is hard to see how it refers to sin, as he suggests; cf. Rom. XIII.11–4, I Thess. V.4–8. The impaired meaning of line 161b may point to some loss of text, which has rendered line 161a even more obscure than the author intended. An analogue for the creation of man from ‘the wound of night’ is found, in the context of discussion of the natural elements and justice, in Lactantius, Institutiones Diuinae, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19, 156 (II.12) (Bowen and Garnsey, trans., Divine Institutes, p. 156): ex rebus ergo diuersis ac repugnantibus homo factus est sicut ipse mundus ex luce ac tenebris, ex uita et morte: quae duo inter se pugnare in homine praecepit, ut si anima superauerit quae oritur ex deo, sit inmortalis, et in perpetua luce uersetur; si autem corpus uicerit animam dicionique subiecerit, sit in tenebris sempiternis, et in morte. (‘Man is therefore composed of elements which are contrary and hostile just as the world is composed of light and dark, life and death; and God arranged for those two to fight it out in man so that if the spirit which springs from God is victorious man will be immortal and live in perpetual light, but if the body conquers the soul and brings it under its control, man will be in everlasting darkness and death.’)

The context parallels SolSatII, and the idea of creation from conflicting elements might account for the poem’s wunde. Lactantius continues (II.12, ed. Brandt, p. 157) (Bowen and Garnsey, trans., Divine Institutes, p. 157. Cf. SolSatII 221–46): quodsi anima ignis est ut ostendimus, in caelum debet eniti sicuti ignis, ne extinguatur, hoc est ad inmortalitatem, quae in caelo est: et sicut ardere ac uiuere non potest ignis, nisi aliqua pingui materia teneatur in qua habeat alimentum, sic animae materia et cibus est sola iustitia, qua tenetur ad uitam. (‘If the soul is fire, as we have shown, then like fire it should aim for heaven, so as not to be extinguished; it should aim for immortality, that is, whose place is

128

Commentary heaven; and just as fire cannot burn and live unless sustained by some rich stuff off which it can feed, so the food and stuff of the soul is justice and by justice alone is it kept alive.’)

161. A reads: ac sæge me hwæt nærende wæron. The problem is the form nærende. O’Keeffe, ‘Source, Method, Theory, Practice’, pp. 174–5, supports Menner’s ‘brilliant technical emendation’ to hwæt næren ðe wæron. Kemble, Salomon and Saturn, p. 151, suggested nærende, ‘saviours’; this is unlikely, as Dobbie notes (ASPR VI, p. 167). In his edition Grein suggested nærende was a present participle of the verb ‘not to be’; as O’Keeffe notes, the suggestion is fascinating but impractical, as the expected form would be *nesende (or *næsende); see Menner, PD, p. 134. Following Grein’s lead, Menner’s emendation retains næren as the subjunctive preterite pl. of ‘not to be’; the emendation of the following ‘d’ to ‘ð’ is acceptable on palaeographic grounds; cf. SolSatI AB73. O’Keeffe argues that the question is ‘evidence of difficult, even abstruse learning behind the poem’, and notes that the interest ‘which explores light, shadow, being, and nothing is the reflex of a philosophical speculation arising out of a discussion of negative concepts in the circle of Alcuin’. Prominent in this circle was Alcuin’s student Fredegisus, who claimed that nihil, because it has a name, must actually exist (PL 105, 751–6); see Marenbon, From the Circle of Alcuin, p. 63. Fredegisus, turning to Gen. I.2 (et tenebrae erant super abyssu), argues that darkness exists: Quae si non erant, qua consequentia dicitur quia erant? (‘If [darkness] did not exist, by what warrant is it said that it “was”?’; PL 105, 753; trans. O’Keeffe, p. 175 n. 68). As O’Keeffe points out, John Scottus Eriugena also discusses at length how light produces shadow, and his discussion answers the question which Saturn poses in the following lines. O’Keeffe’s caution in invoking Eriugena is salutary, though I have noted below other possible points of intersection between the Periphyseon and SolSatII. On the formula ac sæge me, cf. SolSatII 154a. 162–9. Solomon chooses to answer Saturn in allegorical terms. Cf. Eriugena, Periphyseon, CCCM 161, 82 (trans. O’Meara, Periphyseon, p. 96): Vmbrarum siquidem causam corpus lucemque esse uera ratio edocet, in quibus naturaliter silent dum in nullo loco apparere ualeant propter undique circa corpora circumfusam luminis claritatem. Errant enim qui putant umbram perire dum sensibus non apparet. Non enim umbra nihil est sed aliquid. (‘For the right view is that the cause of shadows is body and light, in which their nature is latent because they have no place in which they can appear on account of the brightness of the light which surounds the bodies on all sides. For they are wrong who think that shadow perishes when it is not apparent to the senses. For shadow is not nothing, it is something.’)

See also Isidore, Etymologiae XIII.x.9. Interest in the nature of shadow is found throughout early miscellanies; see, for example, a master/pupil dialogue, De nocte, in Waldman, ‘Wessobrunn Manuscript’, p. 608 (fol. 99v). 166–9. On the distribution of temporal goods; cf. Matt. V.45. Cf. CollPsBedae, pp. 162–5 (no. 293) (Bayless and Lapidge, pp. 259–60; the source is Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem Prophetam II.6, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 142

129

Commentary (Turnhout, 1971), 307): quod aliquis Dei nomine temporalia atque terrena contemnit, et hic perfectionem mentis recipit, ut iam ea non appetat, quae contemnit, et in sequenti seculo ad aeternae uitae gloriam peruenit. (‘because someone who scorns temporal and earthly things in the name of God, and receives in this world the perfection of mind, so that already he does not pursue those things which he scorns, and in the world to come attains the glory of eternal life.’)

Sisam, ‘Review’, p. 29, suggests that the sentence is incomplete. 170–4. The exchange resonates with an interest in the ideas of Stoic philosophy. Saturn asks about the two perturbationes relating to the present: grief and joy; see notes to SolSatII 85b–87, 155. Solomon’s answer implies that subjection to emotion, in this case sorrow, is a choice (wile). 175–6. For a Christian with any understanding of orthodoxy, Saturn’s question is outrageous, and ranks with his earlier question asking who will judge Christ (160–1). However, in the Periphyseon, Alumnus asks Nutritor a similar question (CCCM 165, 86–7) (trans. O’Meara, Periphyseon, p. 595): Si enim tota illuc ascensura est et, ut apertius dicam, reditura in eum quem peccando deseruit, si eam totam redimendo suscepit, quid dicturi sumus? Nonne consequens erit nullam aeternam mortem miseriae, nullam impiorum poenam remansuram? (‘For if the whole of human nature shall ascend thither, or, to put it more plainly, shall return to that state which it abandoned through sin – if He has, by redeeming it, raised it wholly, what are we to say? Does it not follow that there will be no everlasting death of misery, no eternal punishment of the damned?’)

As in SolSatII, Eriugena’s question is framed by a wider discussion of the nature of created matter. 177–80. Solomon answers Saturn either through allegory, or with an example from nature referring to incompatible physical properties, or both. Hill, ‘Tropological Context’, p. 522, notes the widespread patristic figure opposing the heat of charity to the cold of sin; see, for example, Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, ed. Adriaen, CCSL 143B, 1372. Cf. Augustine, S. Aurelii Augustini De Sermone Domini in Monte, ed. A. Mutzenbecher, CCSL 35 (Turnhout, 1967), 178: Sic uerissime dici potuit: Non potest esse nix calida; cum enim calida esse coeperit, non iam eam niuem, sed aquam uocamus. Potest ergo fieri ut quae nix fuit non sit, non autem potest fieri ut nix calida sit. Sic potest fieri ut qui malus fuit non sit malus, non tamen potest ut malus bene faciat. (‘So it could have been said most truly: Snow cannot be warm, for when it becomes warm, we don’t call it snow, but water. It may therefore be the case that what was snow no longer is, but not that snow is warm. So also it is possible that he who was evil is evil no more, but it cannot be that an evil man does good.’)

The figure has biblical roots; see Matt. XXIV.12, Sir. III.17; Jer. VI.7. O’Neill,

130

Commentary ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 156 n. 76, notes that the Old English Boethius (ed. Sedgefield, p. 37, lines 17–21), develops the idea of the incompatibility of opposite qualities in a similar context. 181–3. Saturn’s question implies a perennial problem in moral philosophy: why do the wicked prosper? See Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, I, pr. iv; II, pr. v. Saturn’s anxiety is focused on their longer life; cf. SolSatII 149–50a. The question of the enduring life of the wicked, moreover, queries Solomon’s assertion that incompatible elements cannot endure alive (aldor geæfnan), but one will overwhelm the other. Saturn’s response, then, asks why evil does not negate life, implicitly equated with created good; see SolSatII 160–1. The question of the ultimate negation of uncreated evil by created good is the theme of Eriugena, Periphyseon V. 186–214. On the unlæde man, see SolSatI 21a. This part of the exchange focuses on contrasting fates, exemplified by twins (188a), one of whom finds happiness, while the other becomes miserable (on twins, cf. SolSatI 107b, 141b). The discussion represents a refinement of the preceding section on the uneven distribution of worldly goods – with twins, factors such as birth, social status and opportunity should be equal. Neither a person’s race nor family determines his personality, rather one chooses what to do with nature; cf. 150b–153. Hill, ‘Wise words’, p. 176, has noted that the divergent fates of twins was characteristically used to disprove astrology, though there is no direct reference to astrology anywhere in the poem. It is extremely unlikely that the author had any detailed knowledge of astrology; see Juste, Les Alchandreana primitifs. Cf. S. J. Livesey and R. H. Rouse, ‘Nimrod the Astronomer’, Traditio 37 (1981), 203–66, on the ninthcentury Carolingian interest in Nimrod as the first astronomer; the Liber Nimrod takes the form of a dialogue between Nimrod and Ioanton, the fourth son of Noah (cf. SolSatII 36a). See Anlezark, ‘Sceaf, Japheth’, 27–32. The belief that a person’s fate might be set at birth is a point at issue; Hill, ‘Wise words’, pp. 176–7, suggests Solomon’s denial of a mother’s ability to influence her son’s destiny refutes the magical belief in this power (193–4), found in medieval Welsh literature; see Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi, ed. I. Williams (Cardiff, 1961), p. 79; Culhwch and Olwen, ed. R. Bromwich and D. S. Evans (Cardiff, 1992), p. 2, line 50. On the inability of parents to control a son’s fate, cf. Fortunes of Men 1–10. Saturn’s response (209–14) implies a strong belief in free will, and emphasises the motivations of the young man: why would anyone not strive after socially desirable goods? The right choice of a benevolent lord implies this power of discernment; it is not only that the unfortunate man lacks the kind lord – he lacks the mind to look for one. The characterisation of the unhappy man is further developed at SolSatII 311–19, where Solomon explains the underlying spiritual conflict in terms echoing SolSatII 186–208. On the question of the distribution of earthly and spiritual goods, compare Eriugena, Periphyseon V (CCCM 165, 152–3): Turpia quoque inhonestaque facta sua in deum referunt. Aiunt enim: Si hoc creatori omnium displiceret, nequaquam fieri in natura quam fecit sineret. . . . Sicut nullius mali uel malitiae, ita nullius turpitudinis uel turpis, nullius inhonesti uel inhonestatis auctor est uel praedestinator. Haec enim omnia irrationabilium cupiditatum inuenta sunt. . . . Dicunt enim deum inaequalem (ut non dicam

131

Commentary iniustum) esse, quoniam, ut aiunt, non aequaliter bona sua distribuit, quosdam exaltans, quosdam spernens, alios pauperes relinquens, alios autem diuites magnificans, alios stultitiae caligine obcaecans, alios sapientiae lumine illustrans, quosdam dominos, quosdam seruos faciens . . . . Vmbrae quippe inanes sunt, ideoque bonis et malis distribuuntur, quoniam ab omnibus auferuntur. (‘Moreover the base and evil things which they have done they ascribe to God: for they argue that if these things were offensive to the Creator of all things, He would never have permitted them to happen in the nature which he has created. . . . but he cannot be the author or predestinator of evil or the evil man, of baseness or the base man, of dishonour or the dishonourable man. For all these are the products of irrational desires. . . . They argue in the same manner about the equity of God. For they say it is unfair, if not unjust, in His not having distributed His goods equally among all men, for they say, He raises some up, and casts down others; some He leaves poor, upon others He multiplies riches; some He blinds with the darkness of ignorance, on others he sheds the light of wisdom; He makes some masters and others slaves . . . for they are shadows without substance, and are distributed alike to the good and the wicked because from both alike they shall be taken away.’)

Both the context (with reference to shadows, justice, mortality, inequity) and content (the inexplicability of apparent inequity, the origin of evil, baseness and dishonour in flawed desire), suggest the SolSatII poet was familiar with this passage. 215–20. Saturn’s question is interrupted by loss of text. The significance of the shift to a discussion of the elements – water and fire (see SolSatII 221–46) – is not immediately obvious; the logic appears to be based on the comparison between opposing fates and contending elements, and the comparison’s validity to lie in the fact that both reflect the contradictions inherent in divinely ordered nature. The reference to the ‘struggling’ waters (winneð, 215a) echoes the young man who fails to ‘struggle’ for wisdom (winnan æfter snytro, 211b), and is followed by discussion of the ‘struggle’ between fate and foresight (winnað, 250b). The repeated use of the verb winnan aligns the mental struggle with the nature of the physical universe and the forces which determine (and interpret) the human experience of it. The earlier reference to the ravages of yldo (winneð oft hider, 106b) anticipates this exchange – the process of time destroys the material universe, and must be understood if life is to be lived wisely. Additions in the Old English translation of Boethius’s De Consolatione Philosophiae emphasise the movement of water in its return to the sea (Boethius, ed. Sedgefield, p. 53, lines 3–8); see O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 155 n. 73. See also Eriugena, Periphyseon I (CCCM 161, 49): Vt enim totus iste mundus sensibus apparens assiduo motu circa suum cardinem uoluitur, circa terram dico circa quam ueluti quoddam centrum caetera tria elementa, aqua uidelicet, aer, ignis, incessabili rotatu uoluuntur (‘For as this sensible world as a whole rotates with unceasing motion about its pivot, I mean earth, about which, as about a kind of centre, the other three elements, namely water, air, fire, spin in unceasing rotation’). In various ways, water features throughout SolSatII, and often threatens; see 26b–27a, 34b, 47–51, 98, 124–30,145–8, 291a; compare also SolSatI 19–20, 29, 151b–157. This

132

Commentary pervasive interest probably explains the demonstrative force of ðis wæter (215a). The implicit contrast (developed in Solomon’s answer) is between the downward force of water, and the upward movement of fire – two observable natural phenomena. Water also has metaphysical properties, and can effect a spiritual regeneration in baptism. 217. The line lacks alliteration, but not sense, and has not been emended; Holthausen, ‘Zu Salomo und Saturn’, p. 356, suggests ∧nearo∨cræfte. 221–46. The beginning of Solomon’s speech is lost, but what is present appears to answer Saturn’s damaged question about water. It is difficult to be certain of the referent of the masc. pronoun his at 221a, and it may be the same as his in 221b, where it is identified with neut. hit (repeated 222a). Solomon proceeds to discuss fire (fyr) and light (leoht), without a clear distinction between the two; as both are neut. nouns, it is possible hit refers to either, or both. The subduing of the devil’s troop (222) by hit suggests a metaphysical power comparable with water in baptism (218a), reflected in the sharing of leoht in the form of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s nature (231–2). The logic of the passage, opposing hit to the troop of devils, makes it likely that Solomon is discussing leoht from the outset; cf. SolSatII 162; on light opposed to devils, compare SolSatI 30b, 77b, 120a, and SolSatPNPr 12, 57. Another implicit contrast is found between the wise man (snottrum men, 224a) who uses light to find his dropped morsel, and the unwise man (unwitan, 233), who fails to encase light and flame; the obvious reference is to the light of a lamp, but the opposition indicates that Solomon is also speaking metaphorically (cf. Dryhtnes ðecelan, ‘the Lord’s lantern’, 241b). The understanding here of the three persons of the Trinity – the Father (238b), Son (232a), and Holy Spirit (231b) – centres on the notion that the light/fire (present in all created things) is in the form of the Spirit and nature of Christ, and inevitably returns to the Father. This theological interest is not found in Boethian analogues (see SolSatII 240–6, with note), and the Trinitarian formulation resonates with the Neoplatonic doctrine of ‘return’ found in Eriugena’s Periphyseon. Note particularly Periphyseon IV, CCCM 164, 3–4: Et mihi uidetur spiritum pro calore posuisse, quasi dixisset in similitudine: Lux, ignis, calor. Haec enim tria unius essentiae sunt. Sed cur lucem primo dixit, non est mirum. Nam et pater lux est et ignis et calor; et filius est lux, ignis, calor; et sanctus spiritus lux, ignis, calor. (‘And it seems to me that he [sc. Epiphanius] was employing the allegory of Light, Fire and Heat, substituting Spirit for the last. For these three are of one essence. It need not worry us that he puts Light before Fire: for the Father is Light and Fire and Heat, and the Son is Light and Fire and Heat, and the Holy Spirit is Light and Fire and Heat.’)

Cf. the Nicene Creed, Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero (‘God from God, light from light, true God from true God’). Interest in the enigmatic properties of fire and water is found throughout early-medieval miscellanies; for example, CollPsBedae (no. 28): Qui sunt tres amici et inimici, sine quibus uiuere nemo potest? Ignis, aqua et ferrum (‘What are the three friends and

133

Commentary enemies without which no-one can live? Fire, water and iron’; cf. Sir. XXXIX.31). 226–8. Cf. SolSatPNPr 45–9. 230. On numerical rhetoric, see Introduction, pp. 27–8. 231–9. The notion that fire tends upwards is learned but not unusual, and depends on the understanding that it is in fire’s nature to return to its natural home in the upper sphere. The idea is developed in the Old English Boethius, ed. Sedgefield, p. 81, lines, 6–8; see Menner, PD, p. 138; O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 155 n. 70. 240–6. The poet suggests a causal connection (forðon, 241a) between sharing in the race of fire – a nature shared by humanity with all things – and the human ability to understand both this fact and share in God’s light (241b). The paradoxical presence of fire in stones and water is discussed in the Old English Boethius (ed. Sedgefield, p. 81, lines 4–6); see O’Neill, ‘Date, Provenance’, p. 155 n. 71. Two passages found in Lactantius, Institutiones Diuinae, would account for the Heraclitan idea, Saturn’s interest in it and the supremacy of fire over water (cf. SolSatII 244a), as well as the association in the poem between Saturn and questions of justice and time, and the etymological play on Saturn’s name (found at SolSatI 18a and SolSatII 74–5). Lactantius reviews the legends of gods, and their allegorical treatment at the hands of the Stoics, in Institutiones Diuinae I.12, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19,48–50 (Bowen and Garnsey, trans., Divine Institutes, p. 88; cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum II.24–5): Quoniam reuelauimus mysteria poetarum ac Saturni parentes inuenimus, ad uirtutes eius et facta redeamus. iustus in regno fuit. primum ex hoc ipso iam deus non est, quod fuit; deinde, quod ne iustus quidem fuit, sed impius non modo in filios, quos necauit, uerum etiam in patrem, cuius dicitur abscidisse genitalia, quod forsitan uere acciderit. sed homines respectu elementi quod dicitur caelum totam fabulam explodunt tamquam ineptissime fictam, quam tamen Stoici ut solent ad rationem physicam conantur traducere. quorum sententiam Cicero de natura deorum disserens posuit. caelestem inquit altissimam aetheriamque naturam id est igneam, quae per sese omnia gigneret, uacare uoluerunt ea parte corporis, quae coniunctione alterius egeret ad procreandum . . . quid quod ipsi Saturno non diuinum modo sensum, sed humanum quoque adimunt, cum adfirmant eum esse Saturnum, qui cursum et conuersionem spatiorum ac temporum continet eumque Graece id ipsum nomen habere? Κρόνος enim dicitur, quid est idem Χρόνος quod, id est spatium temporis, Saturnus autem est appellatus, quod saturetur annis. (‘Now that we have exposed the mysteries of the poets and found Saturn’s parents, let us return to his virtues and deeds. “He was just in his kingship.” First, because he was, for that very reason he is not God; second, he was not even just, but wicked, not merely towards his sons, whom he killed, but also towards his father, whose genitals he is said to have cut off – which it is probable did happen. Out of respect for the element called sky, however, people dismiss the whole story as a very clumsy fiction, though the Stoics, as usual, try to give it a physical explanation. In his discussion in De Natura Deorum Cicero sets out their theory. He says: “They wished that organ of the body which needed contact with another body for procreation to be no part of the heavenly, utterly superior nature of aether – the fiery nature, that is – which could generate

134

Commentary everything on its own.” . . . What about people depriving Saturn himself not only of his divinity but also of his humanity, when they assert that “it is Saturn who contains the circular course of space and time, and his Greek name means exactly that? He is called Cronos, which is the same as Chronos, which means extent of time; and he is called Saturn because he is saturated with years.”’)

In the context of a discussion of how creation yokes opposing forces together, Lactantius discusses the relationship between water and fire in Institutiones Diuinae II.9, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19, 145–6 (Bowen and Garnsey, trans., Divine Institutes, pp. 149–50): Heraclitus ex igne nata esse omnia dixit, Thales ex aqua. uterque uidit aliquid, sed errauit tamen uterque, quod alterutrum si solum fuisset, neque aqua nasci posset ex igne neque rursus ignis ex aqua: sed est uerius simul ex utroque permixto cuncta generari. ignis quidem permisceri cum aqua non potest, quia sunt utraque inimica et si comminus uenerint, alterutrum quod superauerit conficiat alterum necesse est, sed eorum substantiae permisceri possunt: substantia ignis, calor est; aquae, umor. . . . cuius [sc. ignis] natura quia mobilis est et sursum nititur, uitae continet rationem. (‘Heraclitus said that the source of everything was fire; Thales said it was water. Each saw something, but each was also wrong, because if either thing had been the only thing in existence, water could not have come from fire, nor fire from water: it is sounder to say that all things have been brought into being from simultaneous combination of the two. True, fire cannot be combined with water because they have a hostility for each other, and if they do come together, whichever gets the better of the other will destroy it; the substance of fire is heat, and the substance of water is wetness. . . . [fire] is by nature never still and always striving upwards, and that is the pattern of life.’)

247–64. The cosmic dimension of the elemental opposition of fire and water logically leads to discussion of another cosmic opposition, between fate (wyrd) and foreknowledge (warnung, SolSatII 250a); Saturn would like to know, if fire is stronger than water, which of these is stronger. The question is dealt with at length in Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae, IV, pr. vi-vii, and especially V, pr. iii. 250b. hie winnað oft. See SolSatII 215–20. 251a. ðreamedlan. See SolSatII 64a. 252–5. The scene suggests a degree of self-reflexivity in the poem’s presentation of the encounter between Solomon and Saturn. Sisam, ‘Review’, p. 36, notes that the object of tobræddon (254a) would normally be acc., rather than dat. (bocum). 253a. Filistina. See SolSatII 36a. 257. tuion. The word provides a verbal and structural echo of the poem’s discussion of twins (line 188), whose shared ‘nature’ and opposing destinies introduced a series of paradoxes which continue to be explored. On the thematic interest in twinning across both poems, see SolSatII 188a; SolSatI 107b, 141b. 258–64. It would seem that fate is not all-powerful, but can be moderated, if not changed, by anticipation, with wisdom and good advice heeded; cf. SolSatII 313b. The more problematic notion of God’s foreknowledge is not developed; compare gæstes brucan (263b) with SolSatII 231.

135

Commentary 261a. wissefa. A hapax; see Harbus, ‘Situation of Wisdom’, p. 98. 265–71. Saturn disputes Solomon’s assertion that foresight is stronger, based on the experience of the persistence of fate and the suffering it causes. 265. J. Harris, ‘Deor and its Refrain: Preliminaries to an Interpretation’, Traditio 43 (1987), 23–53, at 45 n. 63, suggests that the poem maintains ‘a traditional view of Germanic wyrd’; if this is so, it has been heavily influenced by Latinate reading. Cf. The Ruin 24b, wyrd seo swiþe; The Wanderer 100b, wyrd seo mære. 267b. wopes heafod. See SolSatI 29b. 266b–271. The familial metaphor recalls the discussion of twins and the mother unable to affect the destiny of her son; see SolSatII 186–202. Cf. Jerome on Ps. VII.15, Tractatus in Psalmos (CCSL 78, 26): Ecce parturiit iniustitiam: concepit dolorem, et peperit iniquitatem. Talis mater, talis pater est diabolus: sic concipit, sic parturit, sic nutrit, sic exaltat (‘Behold, she was in labour with injustice: she conceived pain, and gave birth to iniquity’). See SolSatII 103b. 273–97. The fall of the angels is a popular theme in Old English poetry, but here presents unique elements; see Anlezark, ‘Fall of the Angels’, 122–33. Apocryphal accounts developed references to the Fall in Gen. VI.2–4, Isaiah XIV.12–5, Rev. XII, I Tim. III.6, Luke X.18, and Jude VI. I Enoch provides a version of events which aquired almost canonical status; cf. SolSatPNPr 38; see C. Abbetmeyer, Old English Poetical Motives Derived from the Doctrine of Sin (Minneapolis, 1903). The account of the fall in the Cosmographia of Aethicus Ister may be a source, with parallels to the rebel’s segn, the ten orders, and the implication of secret crafts before the fall (Kosmographie, ed. Prinz, p. 90, lines 4–8). 273a. eadiges engles. Probably a reference to the Archangel Michael; see SolSatI 26, 111a; SolSatII 278–80; Jude VI, implies that Christ battles with Satan. 273b. Lucifer’s pride is biblical; see I Tim. III.6. 274b. See I Enoch VIII, which describes the working of metal and invention of magic after the angels’ fall; see Menner, PD, p. 140. 277a. Medieval accounts often present nine orders of angels, though the fallen can constitute a tenth; see note to SolSatII 273–97; I Enoch VI (R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913), pp. 163–281); Christ and Satan 365a; Genesis B 246–8; Doane, Saxon Genesis, p. 98; Anlezark, ‘Fall of the Angels’, p. 126. 277b. his ∧to∨r∧ne∨s geuðe. The manuscript is badly damaged; see Page, ‘Note on the Text’, p. 39. 278a. insceafte. Cf. tydran 277a; Cf. SolSatPNPr, 91, 101: ðætte heofon oððe hell oððe eorðe æfre acende. I Enoch VI accounts for demonic offspring after the Fall, though here the reference is clearly to offspring before it. The apocryphal Questions of Bartholomew refer to a son of Lucifer who falls with him from heaven; the text may have been known in England through Irish channels, and may have influenced Christ and Satan, cf. line 63; see J. H. Morey, ‘Adam and Judas in the Old English Christ and Satan’, Studies in Philology 87 (1990), 397–409; Wright, ‘Questions of Bartholomew’, pp. 35–6; Anlezark, ‘Fall of the Angels’, pp. 127–8. 278–80. Chains binding the devil are a common motif; see Jude VI. The command to bind (280b, heht), suggests a role for Michael (cf. Rev. XX.1–2); cf. SolSatII 100–1a.

136

Commentary 281. A word is missing, as the lack of alliterations shows, and the sense is defective, presumably the result of eyeskip on ða, at the end of a line of copying. Emended by Holthausen, ‘Zur ae Literatur. XI’, p. 175. 290–7. The description of hell and its torments presents a mixture of commonplace and otherwise unattested detail. The absence of fire and the pouring in of waters reflect the physics SolSatII 215–46. Classical versions of the underworld tend to be wetter than their Jewish and Christian counterparts; cf. Vergil, Aeneid VI.438–9. 298–302. Saturn’s question draws together various strands of the poem’s argument: the lifespan of the sinner, predetermination, and death. The anxiety emerges from the account of Lucifer’s instant punishment for rebellion – but are human beings allowed more time? Saturn’s insatiable appetite for years is characteristic; see SolSatI 18a. The text of 299–301 is corrupt; see below. 299b–300a. A: ðara ðe man man age deað abæde. There is little sense, and no alliteration in 299b. Dobbie, ASPR VI: ðara ðe man age, ðe deað abæde; Menner, PD: ðara ðe a manige deað abæde. Dobbie’s emendation does not alliterate, Menner’s forces the syntax and grammar; Sisam, ‘Review’, p. 30, suggests a lacuna. Emending to ðara ðe an man age, / ðe deað abæde (‘of those who might have a sin, who death might constrain’), provides alliteration and sense; cf. SolSatII 208a, an æfter anum; 214a, anne æðeling. Cf. DOE, agan (I.A.5.d.), ‘possession of a disposition or mental state’. Cf. man in SolSatII 140b; the phrasing of Saturn’s question here recalls Solomon’s earlier comment on this theme; cf. also SolSatII 149b. 301. A: ðæt sie his calend | cwide arunnen. Since Grein, calendcwide, a hapax (cf. Latin loan calend), has been read as a compound noun, creating a b-line without alliteration. If calend can be read as gen. pl., the sense would be: ‘that the reckoning of his months should run out’; cf. DOE, cwide (10), ‘count’, ‘reckoning’. 303–27. Solomon’s answer demonstrates the relationship between the divine wish to save and human freedom to persist in sin, which he explains in terms of human passions that make a man vulnerable to demonic attack. Saturn’s fear of death reveals itself in his obsession with life’s tally of months, while Solomon points out that it is what one does with each day that counts. The coupling of a description of hell with the motif of the contending spirits reflects the influence on the latter part of the poem of the Insular tradition of the Visio Pauli also evidenced in Blickling Homily XVI, Beowulf 1740–7, Vercelli Homily IV, Napier Homily XLVI; see Wright, Irish Tradition, pp. 260–1, and Anlezark, Water and Fire, pp. 330–3. The motif of an angel and devil who daily struggle for the soul of each person ultimately derives from Shepherd of Hermas; see Wright, ‘Shepherd of Hermas’, pp. 63–5. Vercelli Homily IV does not present a description of hell, though the contending spirits theme is preceded by a Judgment scene in which the devil and his angels are consigned to the ece fyr (‘eternal fire’). Allegorical martial imagery is developed in Vercelli Homily IV, lines 308–10: Þonne hæfð þæt dioful geworht bogan and stræla. Se boga bið geworht of ofermettum, and þa stræla bioð swa manigra cynna swa swa mannes synna bioð (‘Then the devil made a bow and arrows. The bow is made of pride, and the arrows are of as many kinds as there are of man’s sins’). The close verbal parallel between SolSatII

137

Commentary 311b, stylenan helle, and Vercelli Homily IV, lines 341–2, þe of þære stylenan helle cymð mid his scearpum strælum us mid to scotianne (‘who comes from the steely hell with his sharp arrows to shoot us with’), has long been noted; see Menner, PD, p. 143. This association makes sense of the curtailed lament of the angel, who has failed in the soul’s defence (SolSatII 326–27). The parallels suggest a shared vernacular source. 303. See J. Zupitza, ‘Zu Salomon und Saturnus’, Anglia 3 (1880), 527–31. 304. Page, ‘Note on the Text’, p. 38, confirms heofena. 313b. Cf. SolSatII 194. 320. Hill, ‘Two Notes’, p. 219, notes that the reference is not to kinds of sin, but rather the emphasis is on the ‘process of temptation and sin’; cf. Menner, PD, p. 144. Hill suggests that Gregory the Great’s well-known four stages in the process of sin (suggestio, delectatio, consensus, defensionis audacia) are also a source; see Moralia in Iob, ed. Adriaen, CCSL 143, 193 (emphasis added): Quattuor quippe modis peccatum perpetratur in corde, quattuor consummatur in opere. In corde namque suggestione, delectatione, consensu, et defensionis audacia perpetratur. Fit enim suggestio per aduersarium, delectatio per carnem, consensus per spiritum, defensionis audacia per elationem. Culpa enim quae terrere mentem debuit, extollit, et deiciendo eleuat, sed grauius eleuando supplantat. .  .  . Prius namque latens culpa agitur; postmodum uero etiam ante oculos hominum sine confusione reatus aperitur; dehinc et in consuetudinem ducitur, ad extremum quoque uel falsae spei seductionibus, uel obstinatione miserae desperationis enutritur. (‘Now sin is carried out in four ways in the heart, and consummated in four ways in deed. For in the heart it is committed by suggestion, delight, consent and the audacity to defy. For the suggestion comes through the enemy, delight by the flesh, consent in the spirit, defiant audacity through pride. For the sin which aught to fill the mind with fear, exalts it, and throwing it down uplifts it, and by lifting it up supplants it with a worse fall. . . . First the sin is done in secret; afterwards plainly before men’s eyes without a blush of guilt; after that it becomes a habit, until finally, either by the seductions of false hope, or the obstinacy of despair, it is fully grown.’)

Verbal parallels and the emphasis on the kind of psychological process which interests the poet, suggest the possible influence of the passage. See SolSatII 185b–187, 55, 320.

138

Glossary Abbreviations I. Solomon and Saturn I (line numbers are differentiated IA and IB where manuscript readings differ.) II. Solomon and Saturn Prose Pater Noster Dialogue III. Solomon and Saturn Poetic Fragment IV. Solomon and Saturn II

m  masculine n  neuter num  numeral ord  ordinal p  plural pers  person(al) pr n  proper noun prep  preposition pres  present pron  pronoun pt  preterite pt-pres vb  preterite-present verb s  singular str vb  strong verb subj  subjunctive wk vb  weak verb

* indicates a hapax legomenon adj  adjective adv  adverb anom  anomalous comp  comparative conj  conjunction f  feminine indic  indicative A the letter A I.93 a adv ever, always abannan str vb with ut, summon IV.302 abædan wk vb compel IV.300 Abel pr n Abel II.60 abelgan str vb enrage IV.152 Abimelech pr n Abimelech II.116 abitan str vb bite IV.123 abredan str vb draw (out) I.164, II.90 abreotan str vb destroy IV.118 ac conj but acennan wk vb II.91, IV.187 Adam pr n Adam II.69 adreogan str vb suffer, endure IV.185 adwæscan wk vb, quench, extuinguish I.42 * adyfan wk vb deafen II.104 afedan wk vb feed, nourish IV.195 afiellan wk vb fell, knock down IV.280, IV.120 afor adj fierce IV.198 agan str vb, have, possess IV.299; nah IV.206 ahieðan wk vb destroy IA.73

ahliehhan str vb laugh III.9 aldor n life IV.179 * amyrgan wk vb make merry IV.63 an num one, only one ana adv alone I.35 and, ond conj and annunga adv at once, forthwith IV.302 ansacan wk vb deny, contradict IV.4 ansægdnes f oblation II.117 Arabia, pr n, Arabia IV.17 ar f honour IV.183 arfæst adj dutiful, virtuous II.30 arinnan str vb run out IV.301 asceadan str vb separate I.56 (note) aspyrian wk vb track down, learn II.35, II.72, IV.257 astænan wk vb adorn with gems, emboss I.63, II.76 astyrian wk vb move, remove IV.119 * atercynn n ‘venomous-kind’ IV.42 atol adj terrible, horrible I.129, IV.292, II.15 attor n venom, poison IV.44

139

Glossary aðreotan str vb to be tiresome IV.251, IV.270 aðringan str vb force out, dislodge IV.326 awa adv ever IV.146 awaxan str vb wash (away) IB.28 aweccan wk vb awaken, arouse IV.106 aweorpan str vb throw down, depose IV.285 awritan str vb write, engrave I.161 æcx f axe II.44 ædre f vein, cataract I.144, II.54 geæfnan wk vb endure IV.179 æfre adv ever I.33, IV.92 æfter prep about, through, along; adv behind; adj following æfðanca m spite, insult IV.318 ægen adj own IV.205 æghwæt pron everything IV.114 æghwæðer pron each (of two), either I.108 æghwylc pron each (one), every (one) æht f possession IB.11 æled m fire, flame I.129 ælmihtig adj almighty I.34, IV.144 ænig pron any æppel m apple IB.28 ær adv before; conj before, with negative until æren adj brazen I.46 ærðon conj before, until æt prep at ætgædre adv together ætren adj poisonous, venomous II.25 æðele adj noble IV.278 æðeling m prince IV.214 bald adj bold IV.6, IV.65 baldlice adv boldly IV.129 ban n bone I.144 bana m slayer, killer I.131 bancofa m body I.150 bærnan wk vb burn II.43, IV.235 bæð n bath I.157 be prep by means of bealu n harm, ruin IV.195 bealu adj harmful I.162 beam m tree II.73, IV.118 bearm m lap IV.254 bearn n child, son IV.99, IV.207, etc. beatan str vb beat, strike IV.105 bebeodan str vb command IV.286 bebrecan str vb shatter IV.118 beclemman wk vb bind, enclose I.71 bedælan wk vb deprive, cut off IV.202 begongan str vb apply, practise I.54 (note)

begyrdað wk vb encompass I.124 behealdan str vb behold, watch IV.305 behelman wk vb cover I.104 behydan wk vb hide, cover IV.124 belucan str vb lock up IV.101 bemurnan str vb mourn, care about I.110 beon anom vb be, is, eart (2nd pers s pres indic), bið, beoð (3rd pers s pres indic), beoð (3rd pers p pres indic), si(e)ndon, syndon, sint (3rd pers p pres indic), si, sie (3rd pers s subj) siendon, sien (3rd pers p subj); wæs, was (1st and 3rd pers s pt), wæron (3rd pers pt p indic); wære (3rd pers s subj); negative nis, næron, nære, næren? (IV.161, note). beorht adj bright I.43, II.73, etc. beran str vb carry IV.260 besceadian wk vb overshadow, shade IV.163 besceawian wk vb look at, see I.101 beswican str vb deceive, evade IV.108 betwih prep among, between II.2 betynan wk vb enclose III.4 beðeccan wk vb cover IV.290 bewreon str vb cover, veil IV.125 beyrnan str vb run into, move into IV.153 bidan str vb wait I.137 biddan str vb pray I.168 bigan wk vb subdue I.125 bill m sword I.162 gebindan str vb bind IV.100, IV.280, gebendan IV.98 binnan adv within, inside II.85 gebisigan wk vb be preoccupied I.116 bismorlice adv shamefully IB.27 biter adj bitter I.125, I.131, IV.152 blac adj black IB.27, IV.293 blæd m prosperity, success IV.207 bledan wk vb bleed I.144 bleo n colour, appearance, form I.150, II.2 blican str vb shine, gleam IV.46, IV.58, I.144 bliss f bliss, joy I.168 geblissian wk vb gladden I.40 blod n blood I.43, I.156 blodig adj bloody IV.293 blostma m blossom, flower II.58, II.59 boc f book IB.2, I.49, I.61, etc.; n IB.6 (note) bocstæf m letter I.99, I.162 bodian wk vb proclaim IV.60 * boldgetimbre n house timber, dressed wood IV.235 brad adj broad II.81, IV.98 brecan str vb break, disturb, breach I.71, I.95, I.100, etc.

140

Glossary gebrecan str vb break down IV.129 bregdan str vb move suddenly I.99, I.150 brego m chief, prince I.99 brem adj famous IV.4, IV.60 bremel m bramble II.20 breosttoga m chieftain, commander IV.6 brengan wk vb bring II.117 bringan str vb bring I.108, IV.56 gebringan str vb bring, lead IB.16, I.87, I.88, etc. broga m terror I.125, I.131 broðor m brother IV.152 brucan str vb enjoy IV.264 * gebryddan wk vb terrify, overawe IB.16 (note) bryne m burning I.61 bu num both I.168 burg f town IV.129 butan prep without Buðanasan pr n Bithinia? IV.19 byme f trumpet II.102 byrgen f grave, tomb IV.46 byrne f mail-coat, corslet II.18, II.20, II.67, IV.275 byrðen f burden IV.135 bysig adj busy, diligent I.61 C the letter C I.123 Caldeas pr n Chaldeans IB.20, III.7, IV.16, IV.29 calend m month IV.301 (note) cantic m canticle IB.24, IB.17, I.49, II.77, II.104 Cappadocia pr n Cappadocia IV.22 cæg f key IV.6 ceald n cold IV.127 ceaster f city IV.10 cempa m warrior I.139, II.36 cennan wk vb bring forth, bear IV.193, IV.206 geceosan str vb choose IV.212 Cherubin pr n Cherubim II.36 cild n child II.9 cile m chill IV.177 cirice f (as adj?) church I.107 (note) cið m seed, shoot IV.125 clænsian wk vb cleanse IV.218 climban str vb climb IV.237 geclingan str vb wither IV.127 cluda m rock IV.16 (note) cluse (B71, clause) f I.71 bolt Coferflod pr n River Chobar IB.20, IV.27 (note) columba n column II.114

*

compgimm m ‘field-gem’, embossed gem II.75 (note) Coref pr n Horeb IV.16 gecostian wk vb afflict IV.127 cræft m skill, power I.71, IV.17, IV.65, etc. cræftig adj powerful IV.114 Crecas pr n Greeks IV.17 Cretas pr n Cretans IV.14 (note) Crist pr n Christ IB.24, I.49, I.139, etc. cristnian wk vb christen, baptise IV.218 cuiclifigende adj living IV.242 cuman str vb come I.111, I.169, III.8, etc. cunnan pt-pres vb IB.24, I.33, IV.82, etc. cunnian wk vb test, probe IV.50, IV.237 cuð adj known IV.35 cwealm m torment I.118 cweman wk vb please I.165 cweðan str vb say, speak before IB.1, IB.21, etc. cweðende adj speaking II.101 cwic adj living I.139, IV.218 cwide m saying, utterance IB.17, I.63, I.84, etc. cyning m king IV.154, II.116 cynn n race, kind II.97, IV.17, IV.97, etc. gecyðan wk vb show, prove IV.150, IV.232 cyðð f native land IV.27

D the letter D I.135 Dauid pr n, David IB.13, II.114, III.6, IV.154 dæd f deed IV.322 dædfruma m initiator of action, leader IV.210 dæg m day IV.148, IV.71, etc. * dæglong adj day-long, lasting a day IV.322 dægred n dawn, daybreak IV.38 dæl m part, share II.78, IV.277 gedælan wk vb divide, share IV.241, IV.166 dead adj dead IB.78 deaf adj deaf IA.78 deað m death IV.38, IV.135, II.31, IV.269 gedegan wk vb complete IV.151 deman wk vb judge IV.158, IV.159, IV.160 denu f valley IV.52 deofol n devil IB.25, I.42, I.44, etc. deop adj deep IV.47, IV.216, II.103 deoplice adv profoundly II.31 deor n wild beast II.86, IV.292 deor adj grievous, severe I.122, IV.185 deore adj noble IV.210 dierne adj secret IV.274 dohtor f daughter IV.269 dol adj foolish IV.47 dom m judgment IV.148, IV.159

141

Glossary ecglast f sword edge II.83, II.84 edniowe adj renewed II.69 edwend f change IV.297 edwitt n shame, scorn IB.29 efen adj even II.90 eft adv afterwards, again egesa f terror IV.295 egesfullic adj terrible I.46 egeslice adv terribly IB.26 Egiptas pr n Egyptians IV.15 ellen n courage IB.11 ende m end II.74, IV.278 ęnge adj narrow, strait I.106 engel m angel I.111, 138, etc. enlefta ord eleventh II.17 eorl m man, nobleman III.7 (note), IV.212, IV.240 eorlscipes m lordly power IB.11 * eormenstrynd f mighty race IV.153 eorre see ierre eorðe f earth, orb IB.21, II.48, etc. eorðwelan m earth’s riches IV.166 eðel m native land IV.22, IV.239 eðelrice n native kingdom I.106

domdæg m Judgment Day IB.26, IV.95, domes dæg II.112 * domisc adj apocalyptic II.66 domlice adv gloriously II.32 don anom vb do IV.3, IV.72, etc. draca m dragon IB.26, II.10, IV.38 gedrefan wk vb disturb IV.279 dreogan str vb perform, endure IB.60, IV.196, IV.216 dreosan str vb to fall (in drops) IA.60 drifan str vb drive II.44 gedrifan str vb drive II.86 drige adj dry II.56 drohtian wk vb live, continue living IV.269 dropa m drop I.44 dros f dross I.44 (note) dryhten m lord IB.42, IV.51, IV.73, etc. dryhtenlic adj divine II.82 dryhtscipe m lordship IV.210 dugoð f host, power IV.222, IV.190 dumb adj mute IA.78, IV.52 dun f high place IV.279 durran pt-pres vb dare IV.160 duru f door I.37, I.78 dust n dust IV.138, IV.160 dwelian wk vb wander II.43 dynn m din, tumult IV.95, IV.148 dynt m stroke I.122 dyslice adv foolishly IV.51

*

E the letter E I.96 eac adv likewise, also eaca m increase IV.282 eadig adj fortunate, blessed IV.189, IV.283, etc. eage n eye II.56, IV.318, IV.295 eahteoðan ord eighth II.14 eahteoðan ord eighteenth IV.22 eald adj old, ancient IV.208 eall adj all ealle adv in all, completely eallenga adv altogether, entirely IV.240 eard m native land IV.11, IV.325 eardian wk vb dwell IV.178, II.45 earfoð n suffering, torment IV.197, IV.296 earhfaru f flight of arrows I.129 earm m arm IV.72 earm adj poor, wretched I.81, IV.315, IV.319 earn m eagle II.21, II.23, II.26, IV.293 East Corsias pr n East Cosseans IV.8 eaðe adv easily IV.212, IA.36, IB.36 ece adj eternal IV.73, IV.144 ece adv eternally IV.296 ecgge f edge (of a weapon) I.165, IV.82

famig adj foamy I.157 fane f banner, standard II.108 faran str vb go, proceed I.119, I.135, IV.104, etc. fæder m father, (God the) Father II.45, IV.238, IV.268 fæge adj doomed (to death) I.158, IV.157, IV.155 fægernes f beauty II.82 fæhðo f feud IV.266, IV.271 fæst adj fast, fastened IV.88 fæste adv fast, firmly I.97, IV.100, IV.280 fæsten n stronghold IV.14, IV.142 gefæstnian wk vb fasten I.70 fæðm m embrace, possession IV.221, II.36 fealewian wk vb fade IV.137 feallan str vb fall IV.124, IV.137 gefeallan str vb fall IV.139 feax n hair I.100, I.130, II.53, II.56 gefeccan wk vb fetch I.69 gefegan wk vb join II.74 feld m field IV.32, IV.37 feldgongende adj field-going IB.23, I.154 fell n skin II.48 feng m grip IV.177 feoh n cattle IB.23, I.154 feohgestreon n treasure IA.32 feohtan str vb fight I.87, IV.281, IV.320 feond m enemy, fiend I.69, I.87, I.130, etc.

142

Glossary feor adj far IV.204 feorbuende adj distant-dwelling IV.102 feorh m life I.110, I.169 feorran adv from afar III.9 feorðe ord fourth II.11, II.115 feower num four II.85, IV.155, IV.157, etc. feowerteoða ord fourteenth II.19 feran wk vb go, travel IV.129 ferhð m soul, spirit III.9 ferian wk vb depart I.18 (note) geferian wk vb carry, bring III.9 ferigend m bearer I.80 feter f fetter I.70 gefeterian wk vb fetter, shackle I.158 feðerhoma m feather-garment, plumage I.151, II.95, II.96 * feðersceatas m four quarters IA.32 feðerscette adj in four quarters IB.32 * fifmægen n five-powers, power of five I.136 fifta ord fifth II.12, II.117 fifteoða ord fifteenth II.20 fiftig num fifty I.70 Filistinas pr n Philistines IV.14, IV.36, IV.80, etc. findan str vb find IB.8 finger m finger II.77 firas m men I.47, IV.39, IV.96 fisc m fish I.81, IV.243 fiðere n wing IV.87 flan m arrow I.130, II.89 flæsc n flesh II.48 flæschoma m body I.110 fleogend m flyer IV.112 gefleogan str vb fly IV.41 fleon str vb flee I.87, I.147 flet n hall, floor IV.14 flint m flint I.100 flitan str vb dispute IV.1 flod m current, flood I.80, I.157 flota m sailor I.151 flowan str vb flow IV.145 flyht m flight IV.49 folc n people I.80 folctoga m commander, leader I.119 folde f earth, land, ground I.69, I.157, IV.41, etc. folgoð m position, career IV.192 folm f hand I.169, II.74 fon str vb take, seize IV.255 for prep for I.47 * forcinnan str vb overwhelm? I.107 (note) forcuman str vb overcome III.7, IV.29 forcyðan wk vb rebuke, rebut III.7, IV.29 foreweard adv forward I.113

forgieten adj forgetful II.47 forhwon conj for what reason, why forildan wk vb put off, delay IV.184 forlætan str vb let, allow IV.279 forscrifan str vb condemn, proscribe I.162 forst m frost IV.177 forð adv forth IV.246 forðon conj therefore, because forweornian wk vb wither, decay IV.138 fot m foot I.113, IV.33, IV.49, IV.87 fracoð adj wicked, shameful I.34, IV.174 fram, from prep from, about fræcne adj fierce, terrible IV.133 frætwednes f adornment II.82 frea m lord I.34 fremde adj strange, alien I.34, I.110 freond m friend I.135, IV.36, IV.263 fretan str vb eat, devour IV.120, IV.226 fricgan str vb ask IV.192 gefrignan str vb discover by asking, hear IV.1 frinan str vb ask, enquire I.58 frod adj old, wise IV.247 from adj bold I.119 fruma m origin, cause IV.100, IV.266 frumsceaft f origin, beginning IV.238 * frumscyld f origin of sin IV.268 frymð f beginning, origin II.69 fugol m bird IV.41, IV.49, etc. full adj full full adv full, very fultum m help, support I.135, IV.263 fus adj eager I.58 fyll m fall II.24 fylgean wk vb follow, pursue I.92 gefyllan wk vb fell, bring down I.41 fyr n fire I.42, I.136, III.5, etc. fyren f sin, crime IV.139, IV.266, IV.271 fyren adj fiery II.44, II.67, IV.246 fyrn adv formerly, long since IV.247 fyrndagas m ancient days IV.1 * fyrngestreon n ancient treasure IB.32 fyrngewryt n ancient writing IB.8 fyrst m interval of time IV.322 fyrwit n curiosity I.58, IV.70 G the letter G I.134 gad f goad I.91 Galilea pr n Galilee IV.23 gan anom vb go I.126, IV.47, etc. gangan str vb go, walk IV.176 gegangan str vb go, happen IV.111, IV.186 * gartorn m spear-rage I.145 gast m spirit, (Holy) Spirit I.54, I.65, IV.260, etc.

143

Glossary gæd n fellowship, society IV.272 ge . . . ge . . . conj both . . . and . . . II.111 geador adv together IV.272 Geador pr n Gadara IV.13 Geallboe pr n Gilboa IV.13 geap adj broad, curved I.124, I.134, etc. gear n year IV.111, IV.260 geara adv formerly IV.252 geard m court I.83, IV.238 geat n gate IV.129 gebed n prayer I.43 * gebregdstafas m woven letters IB.2 (note) gebyrd f birth IV.207 gecynd(o) f nature, kind IV.232, IV.242, IV.237, IV.320 geearnung f merit IV.169 geflit n dispute, debate IV.271, IV.253 gehwa pron each one, every one gegnum adv forwards IV.176 gehwylc pron each, every gehygd n thought IV.279 gelic adj like gelice adv alike, equally gelome adv often gemære n border IV.20 gemetfæst adj moderate II.83 gena adv get geneahhe adv often, abundantly genip n darkness II.43 geo adv once, formerly II.114, II.116, IV.150 geogoðhad m youthfulness II.9 geomorlice adv mournfully IV.90 geomrian wk vb be sad, mourn IV.72, IV.174 geond prep throughout, through geondhweorfan str vb wander through IV.7 * geondhyrdan wk vb harden, temper thoroughly II.89 (note) * geondmengan wk vb confuse IB.59 geondscinan str vb illuminate IV.163 geong adj young I.140, IV.199 georne adv eagerly geornlice adv zealously I.84 geotan str vb pour I.145 gegeotan str vb found, cast from molten metal I.31 geow m vulture IV.87 * gepalmtwigod adj palm-twigged IB.12, I.39 gerecnes f testimony II.71 geræswa m leader, prince I.111 gesælig adj happy, blessed IB.67 gesceaft f creature, creation, destiny I.30, I.36, II.93, etc. * gesegled adj rigged with a sail IV.48 *

gesiene adj seen, visible IV.145 gesihð f sight, vision II.16, IV.240 gesið m companion IB.86, IV.170, IV.275 gesund adj safe and sound IB.18 getal n number, series IB.38 * getælrim n numbered order IA.38 getrum n host I.142 getwinn m twin I.107, IV.188 geðoht m thought, intention II.30, II.94, IV.62 geweald n power IV.66, IV.206 gewin n struggle IV.294 gewitt n understanding IB.23 gewrit n writing, scripture I.50 gielpen adj boastful IV.30 gierd f rod I.90 gif conj if gifan str vb give I.56, I.168 gifre adj greedy I.145 gifre adv greedily I.48 gifu f grace I.65 gihðu f anxiety IV.174 gillan str vb yell, cry out IV.90 gilp m boasting I.132 gilpan str vb boast IV.28 gimm m gem IA.63, IB.63, IV.107 giogoð f youth IV.209 git adv yet glæd adj glad IV.309 gleaw adj wise IV.262 gled f live coal, ember I.48 God m God I.63, I.84, I.134 god n good IV.168 god adj good; comp betre, selre godcund adj divine IV.264 godspel n gospel IA.65 godspellian wk vb proclaim the gospel IB.65 godwebb n precious cloth II.108, II.109, II.110, II.113 * godwebcynn n kind of precious cloth II.112 gold n gold IB.15, I.31, II.82, IV.309 goldwlonc adj proud with gold IV.30 grædig adj greedy IV.168 grene adj green IV.136 greotan str vb lament, weep IV.199 * griffus m. griffon IV.87 grimm adj fierce I.91 grimme adv bitterly I.132, IV.199 gripan str vb seize, attack I.151 gegripan str vb seize I.112 gripe m grasp I.48, I.76 * gripu f cauldron I.46 growan str vb grow IV.306

144

Glossary grund m bottom, abyss IA.31, IV.50, IV.309 grundbuend m earth-dweller IV.111 * gullisc adj gilded II.75 (note) guma m man I.146, IV.28 guð f battle, war I.124, IV.30 * guðmæcga m warrior I.90 gylden adj golden gyrn m sorrow, grief IV.90 H the letter H I.138 habban wk vb have IB.1, I.120, I.128, etc.; nafað IV.48 Habraham pr n Abraham II.70 had m status, form IV.231 halig adj holy I.40, II.10, II.95, etc. hand f hand I.159, II.93, IV.109, etc. hangian wk vb hang I.105, II.109, II.114 hatan str vb call, name, command II.115, II.117, III.4, etc. hædre adv anxiously, oppressively IA.62 (note) hæft m bond IV.234 hæftling m captive I.126 hæleð m man, warrior IA.60 hælo f safety, prosperity IV.68 he pron 3rd pers.: m s he, hine, hiene, his, him; f s heo, hio, hire; n s hit, his, him; p hie, hi, hira, hiera, him heaf m lamentation IV.289 heafod n head, source IB.29, II.51, IV.85, etc. heah adv high II.103 heahcining m high-king III.4 heahgestreon n exalted treasure IV.141 healdan str vb hold, keep I.51, IV.79, IV.141 healf f side IV.84 healf adj half, side IV.276 heall f hall IV.203 heap m host, throng I.115, I.148, I.161 heard adj hard, bold IB.7, IV.109, IV.134, IV.326 hearde adv with difficulty, greatly IB.62, IV.93, IV.258 heardlice adv harshly I.131 geheawian wk vb hew I.156 gehefegian wk vb weigh down I.159 hell f hell I.73, I.105, I.115, etc. heofon m heaven IA.52, I.40, I.60, etc. heofonlic adj heavenly II.16, II.18, II.55 heafonrice n kingdom of heaven IB.52 heofonware m inhabitants of heaven IV.286 heolstor m darkness I.104 heorte f heart I.62, I.104, I.156, etc. heow n appearance, form IV.231

her adv here IV.149 heregeatewa f war-gear I.52 geherian wk vb praise IB.24 hettend m enemy III.3 gehidan wk vb hide IB.73 hider adv hither, to here IV.106 hielt m hilt IV.46 hieran wk vb hear IV.274 gehieran wk vb hear, listen IV.95, IV.144, IV.148, etc. Hierusalem pr n Jerusalem IV.23, IV.57 Hieryhco pr n Jericho IV.23 higegeomor adj sad in mind IV.203 hild f battle I.159 * hildewræsnen f bond for war captive IV.115 hinder adv behind I.126 hiðan wk vb plunder, ravage IV.115, IV.276 hladan str vb store up IV.259 hlaford m lord IV.192, IV.205, IV.213 hleahtor m laughter IV.171 gehleonian wk vb rest, lie II.111 hleor n cheek I.113 hleoðor n noise, voice II.102, II.103 hlude adv loud II.97 hlutor adj clear, bright II.81 gehnægan wk vb humble, bring down I.118, I.155, IV.222 hnesce adj soft IV.109 holt n forest I.82, II.35 horn m horn I.156, II.86, II.87, IV.292 hrace f throat II.68 hrægl n garment I.140 gehreosan str vb fall IV.279 hrigc m height IB.19 hring m ring II.109 hringan str vb ring IV.89 hrof m roof IV.234 hu adv how hulic interrogative pron of what sort hund num hundred IV.84 hundtwelftig num hundred and twenty II.89, II.109 hungor n hunger I.73, IV.294 hunig n honey I.66 huru adv truly, indeed hwa interrogative pron who, what; hwæt, what; to hwon, why hwal m whale II.14; *hwælen adj whalelike? IV.86 (note) hwænne adv, conj when IV.237 hwæt interjection lo, so hwæðer interrogative pron which of two hwæðre adv yet, nevertheless hwearfian wk vb turn, wander I.35

145

Glossary læccan wk vb seize, grasp IV.317 læce m physician I.77, I.102 lædan wk vb lead IV.317 gelædan wk vb lead IV.132 læne adj transitory IV.150 læran wk vb teach I.50, IV.312, IV.314 læstan wk vb persist IV.140 lætan str vb let, cause I.100, I.113, I.129 leaf n leaf I.64, II.68, IV.136 leahtor m sin I.86 leas adj without IV.202 lecgan wk vb lay IV.254 lengu f length, height IV.236, II.99 leode m people IV.150, IV.167, IV.190 * leodgryre m people’s terror IV.101 I the letter I I.123 leof adj dear I.30 Iacob pr n Jacob II.70 ic pron 1st pers s mec, min, me; p we, usic, us leoftæl adj esteemed, well liked IV.190 leoht n light I.77, II.13, IV.225, etc. idese f woman IV.187 leoht adj light, fair I.30, I.77, I.120 ieo see geo leogan str vb lie IV.3 ieorrenga adv angrily, fiercely I.98 ierre adj angry, fierce, perverse; yorn IB.88, leoma see lim leorneng f learning IV.7 I.123, IV.319 Leuiathan pr n Leviathan II.15 igland n island, coast IB.1 Libias pr n Libyans IB.3, IV.18 ilca pron same II.84, II.115 lic n body I.152 in prep in, into; adv in licgan str vb lie IV.12, IV.88, IV.93 Indeas pr n Indians IB.4, IV.8 lichoma m body II.47 ingang m entrance IV.44 lif n life IB.21, I.160, II.92, etc. ingemynd f memory, mind I.53 * lifgetwinn m life twin I.141 innelf n entrails, bowels II.48 lifian wk vb live IV.140, IV.150, IV.181, etc. inneweard adj internal, inward II.68 * insceaft f internal propagation IV.278 (note) ligette f lightning II.42 lilie f lily II.58 intinga m infirmity, weakness I.45 * lim n limb, branch I.102, IV.93 inwitgecyndo f evil nature IV.153 gelimpan str vb happen IV.31 iren n iron IV.123 line f line IB.17, II.92, II.99, IV.117 iren adj iron IB.28, II.44, IV.292 * lissan wk vb subdue IV.117 Isac pr n Isaac II.70 lið n joint I.102 Israelas pr n Israelites IB.14 liðere f sling I.27 istoria n history IB.4 lixan wk vb shine IV.58 loca m lock IV.7 L the letter L I.123 locc m lock of hair II.56 lac n offering; to lacum, as an offering II.117 locian wk vb look IV.88, IV.204 * laguswemmende adj sea-swimming IV.112 longian wk vb long IV.93 lama m lame person I.77 lonn f chain, fetter IV.88, IV.101 land n land IV.7, IV.32; lond IV.18, etc. lufian wk vb love I.86, IV.68 lang adj long lufu f love IV.312 lange adv long; comp leng; superlative lutan str vb bend IV.225 lengest lyft f air I.141 * lar f learning IV.18, IV.284 lyftfleogende adj air-flying IV.112 larcræft m knowledge, science IB.3 lyt n little IV.167 lareow m teacher IV.221 lytel adj little IV.136, IV.190; comp læsse late adv late IV.270 IV.180 lað adj hated, hostile I.86, I.122, I.160, IV.132 gehweorfan wk vb turn, change II.31 hwettan wk vb whet, incite IV.316 hwil f time, space of time I.109, I.52, I.61, etc. hwomm m angle, corner II.85 hwylc pron which, of what kind, each hycgan wk vb think, consider IV.25, IV.61 hydan wk vb hide I.115, IV.141 hyge m mind, spirit I.60, I.62, IV.305, hige * hyrdenn f hardenings, temperings II.89 (note) hyrsum adj obedient IV.221 hyð f harbour IV.68

146

Glossary M the letter M I.127 Macedonia pr n Macedonia IV.21 maga m son IV.193, 206 magan pt-pres vb be able, can I.36, I.43, I.64, etc. man n crime, sin IV.140, IV.149, IV.299 manful adj evil I.148 manigo f multitude IV.218 mann, monn m man, person IB.59, I.148, I.163, etc. Marculf pr n Marculf IV.11 Matheas pr n Midians IV.15 * maððumsele m treasure hall IV.11 mæg m kinsman IV.313 mægenþrymm m power, virtue IB.10 mægn n power, strength II.71, IV.180 mægwine m friendly kinsmen IV.183 mænan wk vb mean IV.59 mære adj famous IV.34 mærðo f glory, glorious deed IB.67, I.163, IV.31 mæte adj moderate, small IV.110 mealc f milk IB.67 mece m sword I.163 (IB.7?, note) Medas pr n Medes IV.11 medume adj average, measured IV.86 Melot pr n Melot IV.99 (note) mengan wk vb mix, exchange IV.255 gemengan wk vb mix up, confuse IA.59, II.54 * mercstede m borderland IV.40 mere m sea IV.8 mereliðende adj sea-travelling IV.34 mergan wk vb purify I.55 Mesopotamie pr n Mespotamia IV.21 metan wk vb encounter, meet II.47 gemetigian wk vb moderate IV.262 Metod m God I.41, IV.307, IV.313 meðelcwide m discourse, speech IV.255 micel adj great IB.6, IV.110, IV.183 micle adv much IV.131, IV.228, IV.41 mid prep with mid adv likewise III.5 middangeard m middle-world, earth I.75, II.55, II.57, etc. midde f middle II.92, IV.86 middel n middle II.74 * middelgemære m within borders IV.78 mieht f might, power IV.51, IV.151 mil f mile II.111 milde adj mild, kind IV.213, II.83 miltan wk vb refine by melting I.55 milts f mercy IV.313 gemiltsian wk vb make merciful I.41

misgemynd f evil thought IV.316 mod n mind, heart IB.10, I.59, IB.67, etc. * modgleaw adj wise IV.2 modig adj courageous, brave I.75, IV.31, IV.99, IV.149 modor f mother IV.193, IV.266 modsefa m mind, heart IV.63, IV.213 mona m moon II.59, II.60 monig adj many II.2, IV.255, IV.292 moning f warning IV.31 mor n moor IV.164, IV.245 morðor n crime, murder I.41, I.55 mos n food IV.110 motan pt-pres vb be permitted to, must II.70, IV.145, IV.175, etc. munt m mountain II.98, IV.78, IV.164, IV.245 murnan str vb mourn IV.307 muð m mouth I.148, II.47, II.68, II.102 *

N the letter N I.108 nafað see habban nah see agan naht pron naught IV.80 nama m name I.89 nædre f adder, snake IV.293 næfre adv never genæman wk vb seize by force IV.81 nænig pron none, not any ne adv not ne conj nor neah adj near; æt niehstan, soon I.133 nearwe adv forcibly, with constraint I.133 Nebrond pr n Nimrod IV.36 ned f necessity IV.134 nemnan wk vb name II.111 neoðan adv beneath II.67 neorxnawong m paradise II.75 nerigend m saviour I.80, IV.161 neðan wk vb venture, go boldly IV.217 nieht f, m night IV.71, IV.83, IV.134, etc. nieten n cattle, domestic livestock IB.22, I.153, II.46, etc. niman str vb take IV.284 Niniue pr n Nineveh IV.10 niogonteoða ord nineteenth II.23 nið m hostility, hate IV.131 niðer adv down I.69 no adv not at all I.101, IV.25 norð adv north IV.13 norðan adv from the north IV.83 Norð Predan pr n North Parthians IV.10 nygoða ord ninth II.15 nytt adj useful IV.25

147

Glossary O the letter O I.108 (note) of prep of, from of(er)brædan wk vb spread over II.58 ofer prep over, above, beyond oferbidan str vb outlast IV.122 oferbricgan wk vb bridge over IV.128 * oferhleoðrian wk vb drown out with sound II.104 ofermægen n overpowering strength I.93 ofermod n pride, bravado IV.273 ofergesettan wk vb set over II.66 oferstigan str vb surpass, overcome IV.122 * oferwigan str vb overcome, defeat IV.121 oferwyrcan wk vb cover, overlay II.75 offeallan str vb fall upon IV.38 ofslean str vb strike down, destroy I.93, IV.37 oft adv often, frequently om m rust IV.123 on prep on, in, among onælan wk vb set fire to, inflame I.42, II.66 onbyrgan wk vb taste, eat IB.2, IV.65 ond conj and II.56, II.67, II.72, etc. onettan wk vb hasten I.138 onfindan str vb find, discover IV.97, IV.283 onfon str vb take, receive I.151 ongieldan str vb atone for, pay for I.132 onginnan str vb begin II.55, IV.274 onhætan wk vb heat I.43 onlicnis f likeness, II.9, II.10, II.11, etc. * onliðigan wk vb weaken, submit IV.180 onlucan str vb unlock IB.3 onlutan str vb bow, submit IV.180 onmedla m courage IV.175 onsendan wk vb send out IV.67, IV.303 ontynan wk vb open I.38, I.40 onwæcnan str vb spring forth, be born IV.43 ord m point I.142, II.88, IV.54 organ m musical instrument, organ II.104 organ m song, canticle I.33, I.53 * orlegstund f hour of destiny IV.197 ormod adj despairing, depressed IV.173 oroð n breath IV.44 orðanc m device I.72 orðances adv thoughtlessly I.164 oðer pron other oððæt conj until oððe conj or; ðe IV.250 * oððglidan str vb slip away IV.224 owiht n anything I.33 P the letter P I.89 Palestinion pr n Palestine IV.9 palmtreow n palm tree I.167 Pamhpilia pr n Pamphilia IV.20

Perseas pr n Persians IV.9 Pitðinia pr n Bithinia IV.19 Porus pr n Porus IV.20 (note) pund n pound IB.14 Q the letter Q I.118 R the letter R I.98 racenteag f chain IV.116, II.27, II.45 rap m rope IV.155, IV.157 geræcan wk vb reach IV.50 ræd m advice, counsel IV.313 rædan str vb advise, direct IV.193 ræst f rest IV.169 ræswa m leader, counsellor IV.2 reafian wk vb plunder, ravage IV.130 ręcan wk vb reach IV.116 recene adv quickly IV.75 regn m rain II.43 restan wk vb rest IV.52, IV.216 reð adj cruel, fierce II.84 rice n kingdom, realm IB.4, I.37, I.52, etc. rim n reckoning, count IB.38 rinan wk vb rain II.55 rum adj wide, spacious IV.116 Rumiel pr n Rumiel II.38 ryman wk vb make spacious IV.44 S the letter S I.111 Saloman, Salomon pr n Solomon samlice adv simultaneously II.55 samnian wk vb gather, assemble IB.9, IV.223 samod adv simultaneously I.108, IV.170, IV.178 Sanctus Mihhael pr n Saint Michael II.112 Sanere pr n Sennaar IV.32 (note) sargian wk vb wound I.109 Satan pr n Satan I.117, II.45 Sathiel pr n Sathiel II.45 (note) Saturnus pr n Saturn Saulus pr n (King) Saul IV.12 sawol f soul I.66, I.68, III.2 sæl m time IV.147; on sælum happy III.8 gesælan wk vb happen IV.172 sælð f happiness IV.172 gescænan wk vb make shine IV.45 scead n shade, shadow I.116 sceaft m spear I.120 scearp adj sharp I.128, II.85, II.88 sceat m region, quarter IV.280 sceaða m doer of harm I.116, I.128 sceotan str vb shoot II.40, II.42 sceððan str vb harm, injure IV.260

148

Glossary scieppan str vb shape, destine IV.194 gescieppan str vb create IV.289 scierpan wk vb clothe I.138 gescierpan wk vb clothe II.112 scild m shield I.79 scima m twilight, gloom I.116 scinan str vb shine IV.45 scinn n evil spirit I.101 scip n ship IV.48 Scippend m Creator I.56, I.79 scire adv brightly IV.163 sconca m shank, leg I.101 sculan pt-pres vb shall, must I.159, I.153, I.166, etc. scyld f guilt, crime IB.56, IV.319 scyldig adj guilty IA.56, I.79, I.128, II.46 se demonstrative pron, definite article, the, that, he; m s se, ðone, ðæs, ðam, ðæm; f s seo, sio, ða, ðære; n s ðæt, ðæs, ðæm; p ða, ðære, ðam, ðæm searo n war gear IV.89 secan wk vb seek IB.9, IB.20, I.103, etc. gesecan wk vb seek out, visit I.98, I.157, IV.40 secgan wk vb say, tell IA.65, IV.32, IV.59, etc. sefa m mind, spirit I.45, I.66, IV.201 sefian wk vb sigh, lament IV.90 segn m sign, standard IV.59, IV.275 gesegnian wk vb bless with sign of the cross IV.226, IV.228 seld n hall I.79 seldum adv seldom IV.92 seman wk vb satisfy IV.75 geseman wk vb satisfy IB.18, IV.74 sendan wk vb send I.134, IV.291 seofon num seven II.65, IV.53, IV.230 seofoða ord seventh II.13, II.120 seofonteoða ord seventeenth II.22 seolf pron self IV.196, IV.226 seolfor n silver I.64, I.143, II.75, etc. seomian wk vb hang, swing IV.236 geseon str vb see IV.57, IV.225 Seraphin pr n Seraphim II.36 settan wk vb set, place IV.168 gesettan wk vb set, place II.77 sid adj spacious IV.162, IV.191, IV.274 sienful adj sinful III.2 sige f victory IV.67 sigefæstnis f triumph II.97 sillan wk vb give IB.13 simle adv ever, always sinderlice adv individually, separately II.60 singan str vb sing I.85, I.166, IV.92

sittan str vb sit IV.77, IV.253, IV.276 sið m journey, occasion, instance I.109, II.60, II.65, etc. siððan conj when, after IV.145, IV.147, IV.196 sixta ord sixth II.12, II.118 sixteoða ord sixteenth II.21 slæp m sleep IV.135 slege m murder II.22, II.61 slidan str vb slide IV.201 smæte adj refined IB.15 smealice adv accurately, carefully IB.85 snaw m snow IV.178, IV.124 snæd f morsel IV.224, IV.227 snotor adj wise IV.74, III.6, IV.224 snytro f wisdom I.66, II.70, IV.55, IV.211 snyttrian wk vb be wise IV.53 sona adv immediately I.99, I.125, IV.145 sorg f sorrow I.55, IV.135, IV.196, IV.191 sorgfull adj sorrowful IV.201 soð n truth IB.9, IB.18, III.1, IV.4 soð adj true IV.77, IV.252 soðfæst adj righteous, just IV.59, IV.67 soðlice adv truly IA.85 spanan str vb entice, mislead IV.317, IV.323 spere n spear I.120, I.128 sprecan str vb speak IV.25 springd adj vigorous II.94 spyrigend m pursuer, follower I.140 gespyrran wk vb pursue, track II.49 stan m stone I.76, I.114, IV.107, etc. gestandan str vb stand, stand against I.97 II.56 gestaðelian wk vb establish IV.62 staðol m base, foundation I.76, IV.105 staðolfæst adj steadfast IV.62 stæf m letter I.112, I.124, I.137 gestæppan str vb tread, step upon IV.33 steap adj steep IV.107, IV.236 stede m place I.51 stefn m stem, race I.51, IV.119 stefn f voice II.97 stenc m odour, fragrance II.84 steoran wk vb stear, guide I.51 steorra m star IV.107 stician wk vb stab, stick fast I.94, III.2, IV.327 sticol adj biting I.153 stigan str vb rise, ascend I.44, I.61, IV.236 stillan wk vb be still I.133, IV.220 gestillan wk vb silence I.117 stille adv quietly I.137 stingan str vb sting, bite I.153 stondan str vb stand IV.119, IV.296

149

Glossary stow f place IV.165 strang adj strong, powerful I.76, I.114, I.153, IV.249 gestrangian wk vb strengthen IV.62 stræl f arrow II.11, II.40, II.42 stræt f street I.137 stream m stream IV.220 stregdan str vb strew, scatter I.114, I.130 gestrudan str vb despoil, plunder I.73, I.154 style n steel IV.122 stylen adj of steel, steely IV.311, IV.327 styrian wk vb stir IV.304 * styrnenga adv inexorably IV.105 sum adj one, a certain one IV.5, IV.52, IV.167, IV.248 sund n ability to swim IV.48 sundor adv separately I.64 sunne f sun II.59, IV.162, IV.178 sunu m son IB.13, IB.15, III.6, IV.154 suð adv south IV.12, IV.32 suðan adv from the south IV.83 swa adv so, likewise; conj as swapan str vb sweep, drive IB.92 swar adj heavy, grievous IV.135 swat m sweat, blood I.45 swaðu f track I.92 sweart adj black I.149, IV.309 swefn n dream II.15 geswencan wk vb torment I.149 sweng m stroke, blow I.121 sweopian wk vb whip, scourge IA.92 sweord n sword I.166, II.19 swerian str vb swear, avow IV.248 swetnis f sweetness II.84 swican str vb weaken, fail III.1, IV.191 geswican str vb cease IV.147 swigian wk vb be silent IV.24 swilce adv likewise swingan str vb beat IV.89 swipe f whip, scourge I.109, I.121, I.143 swipor adj cunning IV.131 swið adj strong IV.265; comp swiðre right hand II.79, II.93 geswiðan wk vb force, fortify I.45 swiðe adv very, exceedingly; comp swiðor IV.131 swiðmod adj brave I.92, I.121 swiðmodnis f magnificence II.71 swyft adj swift II.94 sybb f peace II.29 gesyflan wk vb flavour, season IV.226 syllice adv strangely, wondrously I.149, IV.92 * symbelgereord n feast IV.230

synderlic adj singular II.86 synderlice adv singularly, individually II.78 synnihte n perpetual night I.68 Syria pr n Syria IV.18 T the letter T I.94 tacnian wk vb signify II.43 talu f story IB.5 tæso f ruin, harm IV.314 telga m branch IV.118 tempel n temple II.115 teon str vb pull, drag IV.217 geteon str vb draw I.166 teoða ord tenth II.16, IV.277 * teswian wk vb injure I.94 getigan wk vb tie, bind IV.125 tiligan wk vb strive for I.160 getimbran wk vb build I.74 tind m tine, prong II.87 tir m glory IV.188 to prep to, towards to adv too tobrædan wk vb open IV.254 todrifan str vb drive away IV.285 togegnes prep against I.119, II.67 tomiddes prep in the midst of III.3, IV.327 torhte adv brightly I.38 torn n anger IV.277 toslitan str vb tear apart, destroy IV.172, I.72 tosomne adv together II.74, II.77 toð m tooth I.114 toweorpan str vb break I.74 treahtere m interpreter IB.5 treow n tree II.46 tuig n twig I.142 tunge f tongue I.94, I.78, II.67, etc. tungol n star I.142, II.81 twegen num two II.76, IV.84, IV.188, etc. twelf num twelve IB.15, I.47, II.96 twelfta ord twelfth II.17 tweo n doubt IV.249, IV.257 tydernes f branch, generation I.47 tydran wk vb bring forth, propagate IV.271, IV.277 tyhtan wk vb lead astray IV.314 tyð see teon ða adv then; conj when ðanon adv thence, whence ðær adv there; conj where ðæron adv therein II.100 ðæt, ðætte pron, conj that, that which ðe relative pron that, who, which

150

Glossary ðeah conj though, although ðearle adj severe IV.294 ðecele f torch IV.241 ðegn m thane, retainer I.117 ðehhwæðre adv yet, moreover IV.264 geðencan wk vb be mindful, remember IV.229 ðenden conj while ðeod f nation IV.81 ðeoden m chief, lord IB.14, IV.278 ðes demonstrative pron this ðiestre adj dark IV.134 ðiostro f darkness II.12, II.110 ðonne adv then; conj when ðrag f time IV.126 ðreamedla m mental oppression IV.64, IV.250 geðreatian wk vb restrain IV.126 ðreo num three II.70 ðreotene num thirteen IV.113 ðreoteoða ord thirteenth II.18 ðria num thrice IV.94, IV.113 ðridda ord third I.136, II.10, II.113 Ðrinis f Trinity II.118 ðritig num thirty II.5 ðrowian wk vb endure, suffer IV.288 ðrym m triumph, glory IV.307 ðryscan wk vb afflict, oppress II.44 þu pron2nd pers s you; ðe, ðec, ðin ðunor m thunder II.44 ðurh prep through, by ðurst m thirst IV.294 ðus adv thus II.36 ðusend num thousand II.57 * ðusendgerim n count of a thousand IV.113 ðycggan str vb feed on IV.229 geðyn wk vb crush, press II.93 ðyncean wk vb seem IV.94 V the letter U I.118 ufan adv from above I.88, II.43 unclæne adj unclean II.46 uncweðende adj non-speaking II.101 under prep under ungelic adj unlike IA.35, II.80 * ungesenod adj unblessed II.47 ungesibb adj unrelated IB.35 unhiere adv horribly IV.88 unit adj useless IB.21 unlæde adj unfortunate, unlearned? IB.21, IV.173, IV.189, IV.214, IV.205 unlust m unhappiness IV.91 geunnan pt-pres vb grant, allow IV.73, IV.277

unrotnes f sorrow IV.295 unðanc m displeasure I.98 unwita m ignorant person IV.233 uppe adv up II.54, IV.56 Uriel pr n Uriel II.38 ut adv out I.164, IV.302 utan adv outside I.127, II.99 wa m woe I.104; wea IV.259, IV.267 wadan str vb advance, walk IV.211, IV.234 wanhoga m thoughtless person, fool IV.143 warnung m foresight IV.250 wæd f clothing I.139 * wælceald adj deadly cold IV.290 * wællnot m deadly letter I.161 wæpen n weapon I.161, I.165, II.80, etc. wære adv readily, warily IV.82 wæstm m plant, fruit IV.125 wæta m wetness IV.128 wæter n water, sea IB.19, I.155, II.54, etc. weall m wall IV.58, IV.79 weallan str vb surge, seethe I.48, I.62, I.143, etc. weallian wk vb roam IB.22 weard m guardian I.83, IV.84 weardian wk vb guard IV.203 * weaxæppel m ball of wax II.93 weccan wk vb awaken, arouse IV.259 weder n weatherIV.134 weg m way IV.324 wegan str vb carry I.52, I.124 wenan wk vb expect, believe IV.80, IV.143 wendan wk vb turn, change IB.19, I.103, IV.258 Wendelsæ pr n Mediterranean Sea IV.26 gewendan wk vb turn, change I.152, IV.321 weorðan str vb become, turn IV.138, IV.194, IV.278, IV.319 geweorðan str vb happen, become IV.165, II.69, IV.42, IV.156 weorðgeorn adj desirous of honour IV.171 weorðmynd f honour, esteem I.83 weotod adj appointed, ordained IV.61 wepan str vb weep IV.324 werðeod f nation IV.35 wergan wk vb condemn, outlaw II.46 werig adj weary IV.200, IV.202 werud n troop I.160 * gewesan anom vb be (about), debate IV.3 weste adj desolate, barren IB.22, IV.165 westen n desert, wilderness IB.83, II.49 wic n habitation IV.132, IV.290 wicg n horse I.155 wide adv afar, far and wide

151

Glossary widmære adj celebrated I.50 widsið m distant journey IV.194 wif n woman II.17 wigan see wegan wigsteall n defensive position I.103 wiht f creature, anything IV.61, IV.76, IV.108, IV.219 wilde adj wild IV.121, IV.200 wildeor n wild animal I.82, II.86, IV.108, etc. willa m will, desire, pleasure, joy IV.61, IV.142, IV.306, etc. willan anom vb will I.54, I.84, I.86, etc. wincende adj blinking, blind I.77 wind m wind IB.25, II.96 winnan str vb strive, contend IV.106, IV.151, IV.211, etc. gewinnan str vb strive II.3 * winrod f chorus? IV.58 (note) winter m winter, year II.71, IV.70, IV.94, IV.290 wis adj wise IV.66 wiscan wk vb long for I.105 wisdom m wisdom IB.22, IV.3, IV.211 wise f thing, matter IV.69, IV.248 wisian wk vb show IB.5 * wissefa m wise-minded person IV.261 wita m wise person IV.80, IV.223, IV.253, IV.282 witan pt-pres vb know I.59, IV.96, III.1, etc. witan str vb accuse IV.265 gewitan str vb go, depart I.58, II.48, II.49, etc. wite n torment IV.91 wið prep against wlenco f pride, pomp IB.82 wlite m fair form, beauty I.57, I.165 wlitig adj beautiful II.63 gewlitigian wk vb beautify IV.219 * woddor n throat I.95 woh n error, wrong IV.323 wolcen n cloud I.103 wonge n cheek I.95 wop m weeping, lamentation IV.171, IV.259, IV.267, etc. * wopdropa m tear IV.106 worc n structure IV.151 word n word I.50 worian wk vb wander IB.25 (note) worn m troop, multitude IV.128, IV.223 worold f world I.57, IV.104, IV.194 woroldrice n worldly kingdom IV.69, IV.183

worpian wk vb knock down (with a missile) IB.25 wrað adj angry, hostile I.112 wræstan wk vb twist I.95 wrætlic adj wondrous IV.76 wroht f sin, anger II.28 gewringan str vb twist II.94 wudu m forest IV.15 * wudutelga m tree branch IV.244 wuldor n glory, honour I.74, I.112, IV.202, etc. Wuldorcining m King of glory, God IV.143 wuldorlic adj wondrous IA.57 wulf m wolf IV.121, II.27 Wulf pr n Wulf IV.35 wund f wound IV.161 wundor n wonder, strange thing IV.104 wundorlic adj wondrous IB.57 wunian wk vb dwell IV.91, IV.288 wylm m surge, stream I.74, I.82, IV.244, etc. wynstre adj left (hand) II.84 wyrcan wk vb work, make, do IV.274, IV.323 gewyrcean wk vb work IV.160, IV.209 wyrd f fate, destiny IV.134, IV.156, IV.250, etc. wyrdan wk vb injure, spoil II.43 wyrm m serpent I.82, I.152 * wyrmgeard m snake-pit IV.291 wyrnan wk vb refuse I.121 wyrs adv worse IV.3 wyrsa adj worse IV.181, IV.182, IV.321 wyrt f plant IV.125 wyrtwela m root IV.267 yfel adj evil II.17, II.30, IV.186 yflian wk vb harm I.96 yldo f old age IV.114 ymb prep about, around ymbegangan str vb go around with, accompany IV.308 ymbehwyrfan str vb encompass II.99 * ymbfæðman wk vb embrace II.92 ymbhon str vb hang around II.108 ymblicggan str vb lie around II.100 ymbðringan str vb press around I.127 ymbutan prep round about IV.78 yorn see ierre yppan wk vb reveal IV.315 yrfeweard m hereditary guardian I.81 yð f wave IB.29, I.81, IV.146 ywan wk vb show IV.315

152

Bibliography Primary Sources [Ælfric], Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series: Text, ed. P. Clemoes, EETS ss 17 (London, 1997). ——, Ælfric’s Lives of Saints, ed. W. W. Skeat, EETS os 76, 82, 94 and 114, repr. (London, 1966). ——, Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection, ed. J. C. Pope, EETS os 259–60 (London, 1967–8). [Aethicus Ister], Aethici Istrici Cosmographia Vergilio Salisburgensi rectius adscripta. Codex Leidensis Scaligeranus 69, ed. T. A. M. Bishop, Umbrae Codicum Occidentalium 10 (Amsterdam, 1969). ——, Die Kosmographie des Aethicus, ed. O. Prinz, MGH Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 14 (Munich, 1993). [Alfred the Great], König Alfreds des Grossen Bearbeitung der Soliloquien des Augustinus, ed. W. Endter, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 11 (Hamburg, 1922; repr. Darmstadt, 1964). ——, King Alfred’s Old English Translation of Pope Gregory the Great’s Regula Pastoralis and its Cultural Context, ed. C. Schreiber, Münchener UniversitätsSchriften 25 (Frankfurt-am-Main, 2003). ——, King Alfred’s Old English Version of Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae, ed. W. J. Sedgefield (Oxford, 1899). Assmann, B., ed., Die Handschrift von Exeter, Metra des Boethius, Salomo und Saturn, Die Psalmen, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Poesie 3.2 (Leipzig, 1898). Atkinson, R., ed., The Passions and the Homilies from the Leabhar Breac, Todd Lecture Series 2 (Dublin, 1887). Augustine, De Ciuitate Dei, ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb, CCSL 47–8 (Turnhout, 1952). ——, Aurelii Augustini In Iohannis Euangelium Tractatus CXXIV, ed. R. Willems, CCSL 36 (Turnhout, 1954). ——, S. Aurelii Augustini de Sermone Domini in Monte, ed. A. Mutzenbecher, CCSL 35 (Turnhout, 1967). Bayless, M., and M. Lapidge, ed., Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 14 (Dublin, 1998). Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. and trans. B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors (London, 1969). ——, The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ed. T. Miller, 2 vols, 4 pts., EETS os 95–6, 110–11, repr. (London, 1959–63). ——, Nomina Regionum atque Locorum de Actibus Apostolorum, ed. M. L. W. Laistner, CCSL 121 (Turnhout, 1983). ——, Opera Bedae Venerabilis Presbyteri Anglosaxonis, 8 vols (Basel, 1563). Bernard, J. H., and R. Atkinson, ed., The Irish Liber Hymnorum, 2 vols, Henry Bradshaw Society 13–14 (London, 1898).

153

Bibliography Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, ed. R. Weber, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, 1994). Bieler, L., ed., The Irish Penitentials, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 5 (Dublin, 1963). The Birth and Death of St Moling, ed. W. Stokes (London, 1907). Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae; Tractates, ed. H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand and S. J. Tester, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1973). Budny, M., Insular, Anglo-Saxon, and Early Anglo-Norman Manuscript Art at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: An Illustrated Catalogue, 2 vols (Kalamazoo, MI, 1997). Byrhtferth, Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion, ed. M. Lapidge and P. Baker, EETS ss 15 (Oxford, 1995). Carey, J., trans., King of Mysteries: Early Irish Religious Writing (Dublin, 1998). [Cassiodorus], Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1937). Charles, R. H., ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913). [John of Glastonbury], The Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey: An Edition, Translation and Study of John of Glastonbury’s Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesiae, ed. J. P. Carley, trans. D. Townsend (Woodbridge, 1985). Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ed. and trans. H. Rackham (London and New York, 1933). ——, Tusculanae Disputationes, ed. M. Pohlenz (Leipzig, 1918). Cilluffo, G., ed., Il Salomone e Saturno in prosa del ms. CCCC 422, Appendix by P. Lendinara, Quaderni di Filologia Germanica 2 (Palermo, 1981). Cross, J. E., and T. D. Hill, ed., The Prose Solomon and Saturn and Adrian and Ritheus (Toronto, 1982). Doane, A. N., ed., The Saxon Genesis: An Edition of the West Saxon Genesis B and the Old Saxon Vatican Genesis (Madison, WI, 1991). Dobbie, E. V. K., ed., The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, ASPR VI (New York and London, 1942). Dracontius, Oeuvres, ed. C. Moussy and C. Camus, 4 vols (Paris, 1985–96). ——, Blossii Aemilii Dracontii Carmina, ed. F. Vollmer, MGH Auct. antiq. 14 (Berlin, 1905). Eriugena, John Scottus, Periphyseon, ed. E. A. Jeauneau, CCCM 161–5 (Turnhout, 1996–2003). ——, Periphyseon, trans. I. P. Sheldon-Williams, rev. J. O’Meara (Montréal, 1987). Faerber, R., trans., Salomon et Saturne, Apocryphes 6 (Turnhout, 1995). Farrell, R. T., ed., Daniel and Azarias (London, 1974). Ginzberg, L., Legends of the Jews, 7 vols (Philadelphia, 1909–25). Glorie, F., ed., Varie Collectiones Aenigmatum Merovingiae Aetatis, CCSL 133–133A (Turnhout, 1968). Godden, M., Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary and Glossary, EETS ss 18 (London, 2000). Grant, R. J. S., ed., The Homilies from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (Ottawa, 1982). Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 143–143B (Turnhout, 1979). Grein, C. W. M., ed., Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Poesie, 4 vols (Goettingen, 1857–64). The Guthlac Poems of the Exeter Book, ed. J. Roberts (Oxford, 1979).

154

Bibliography Hurst, D., ed., Nomina Locorum ex Beati Hieronimi Presbiteri et Flavi Iosephi Collecta Opusculis, CCSL 119 (Turnhout, 1962). Isidore, Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum libri xx, ed. W. M. Lindsay, 2 vols (Oxford, 1911). ——, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, trans. S. A. Barney, S. A., W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach and O. Berghof (Cambridge, 2006). James, M. R., ed., Apocrypha Anecdota: A Collection of Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments, Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature (Cambridge, 1893). ——, ed., Latin Infancy Gospels (Cambridge, 1927). [Jerome], Commentarii in Danielem libri iii, ed. F. Glorie, CCSL 75A (Turnhout, 1964). ——, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri xiv, ed. F. Glorie, CCSL 75 (Turnhout, 1964). ——, Commentarorium in Naum, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 76A (Turnhout, 1970). ——, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentarii in Prophetas Minores, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 76A (Turnhout, 1970). ——, Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae, 3 vols, ed. I. Hilberg, CSEL 54 (Vienna, 1910). ——, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Tractatus sive Homiliae in Psalmos, ed. G. Morin, CCSL 78 (Turnhout, 1958). ——, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: St Jerome, Letters and Select Works, IV, trans. W. H. Fremantle, 2nd series, repr. (Grand Rapids, MI, 1954). Keil, H., ed., Anecdota Helvetica quae ad grammaticam Latinam spectant ex bibliothecis Turicensi Einsidlensi Bernensi collecta, Supplementum, ed. H. Hagen (Leipzig, 1870). Kemble, J. M., ed., Salomon and Saturn ([London]; [1844?]). ——, ed., Anglo-Saxon Dialogues of Salomon and Saturn (London, 1845–8). Kristnisaga, in Biskupa sögur, Íslenzk fornrit XV.2, ed. Sigurgeir Steingrímsson, Ólafur Halldórsson and Peter Foote (Reykjavík, 2003). [Fredegar], Fredegarii et Aliorum Chronica, ed. B. Krusch, MGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 2 (Hanover, 1888). Lactantius, Institutiones Diuinae, ed. Brandt, CSEL 19. ——, Divine Institutes, trans. A. Bowen and P. Garnsey (Liverpool, 2003). ——, L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera Omnia, ed. S. Brandt and G. Laubmann, 3 vols in 2, CSEL 19, 27 (Vienna, 1890–7). Laxdæla saga, ed. Einar Ólafur Sveinsson, Íslenzk fornrit 5 (Reykjavík, 1934). Liebermann, F., ed., Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 3 vols (Halle, 1898–1916). [Lucan], Pharsalia M. Annaei Lucani: De Bello Ciuile, ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Stuttgart, 1988). Macrobius, Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, ed. J. Willis (Leipzig, 1970). Marstrander, C. J. S., ed, Dictionary of the Irish Language, 4 vols (Dublin, 1913–76). Martianus Capella, De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, ed. J. Willis (Leipzig, 1983). ——, Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts; Volume II, Marriage of Philology and Mercury, trans. W. H. Stahl (New York, 1977). McNally, R. E., ed., Scriptores Hiberniae Minores, CCSL 108B (Turnhout, 1973). Menner, R. J., ed., The Poetical Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn (New York and London, 1941). Morris, R., ed., The Blickling Homilies, EETS os 58, 63, 73, repr. (London, 1967).

155

Bibliography Muir, B. J., ed., The Exeter Anthology of Old English Poetry: An Edition of Exeter Dean and Chapter MS 3501, 2 vols (Exeter, 1994). Nic Énrí, U., and G. Mac Niocaill, ed., ‘The Second Recension of the Evernew Tongue’, Celtica 9 (1971), 1–60. The Paris Psalter and Meters of Boethius, ed. G. P. Krapp, ASPR V (New York, 1933). Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi, ed. I. Williams (Cardiff, 1961). Old English Physiologus , ed. A. Squires (Durham, 1988). Proverbia Sententiaeque Latinitatis Medii Aevi, ed. H. Walther, 6 vols (Göttingen, 1963–9). [Prudentius], Aurelii Prudentii Clementis Carmina, ed. M. P. Cunningham, CCSL 126 (Turnhout, 1966). [Quintillian], M. Fabii Quintilliani. Institutionis Oratoriae libri xii, ed. M. Winterbottom, 2 vols (Oxford, 1970). Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis: The Durham Collectar, ed. U. Lindelöf, Surtees Society 140 (London, 1927). Robinson, F. C., and E. G. Stanley, ed., Old English Verse Texts from Many Sources: A Comprehensive Collection, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 23 (Copenhagen, 1991). The Old English Rune Poem: A Critical Edition, ed. M. Halsall (Toronto, 1981). Russell, N., trans., The Lives of the Desert Fathers, Cistercian Studies 34 (Kalamazoo, MI, 1981). Salomon et Marcolfus, ed. Walter Benary, Sammlung mittellateinischer Texte 8 (Heidelberg, 1914). Scragg, D. G., ed., The Vercelli Homilies and Related Texts, EETS os 300 (London, 1992). The Seafarer, ed. I. Gordon (Manchester, 1979). Sedulius Scottus, Collectaneum Miscellaneum, ed. D. Simpson, with Supplement by F. Dolbeau, CCCM 117 (Turnhout, 1990). ——, Kommentar zum Evangelium nach Matthäus 1,1 – 11,1, ed. K. Löfstedt, Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 14 (Freiburg i. Br., 1989). Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, Íslenzk fornrit 26–8 (Reykjavík, 1941–51). Stokes, W., and J. Strachan, ed. and trans., Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus: A Collection of Old-Irish Glosses, Scholia, Prose, and Verse, 2 vols with supplement (Cambridge, 1901–10). Stubbs, W., ed., Memorials of Saint Dunstan, Rolls Series 63 (London, 1874). Sweet, H., ed., The Oldest English Texts, EETS os 83 (repr, London, 1966). Táin Bó Cúailnge Recension I, ed. and trans. C. O’Rahilly (Dublin, 1976). [Tatwine], Tatuini Opera Omnia, ed. M. de Marco, 2 vols, CCSL 133–133A (Turnhout, 1968). Tristram, H. L. C., ed., Vier altenglische Predigten aus der heterodoxen Tradition (Freiburg i. Br., 1970). [Vergil], P. Vergili Maronis Opera, ed. R. A. B. Mynors, repr. (Oxford, 1972). Versus de Nominibus Litterarum, ed. F. Glorie, in CCSL 133A (Turnhout, 1968). Vincenti, A., ed., Die altenglischen Dialoge von Salomon und Saturn: mit historischer Einleitung, Kommentar und Glossar (Leipzig, 1904). ——, Drei altenglischen Dialoge von Salomon und Saturn: Eine litterargeschichtliche, sprachliche und Quellen-Untersuchung (Naumburg, 1904).

156

Bibliography Waldman, G. A., ‘The Wessobrunn Prayer Manuscript, CLM 22053: A Transliteration, Translation and Study of Parallels’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1975). Whitelock, D., trans., English Historical Documents c.500–1042, 2nd ed. (London and New York, 1979). Wild, F., trans., Salomon und Saturn, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse Sitzungberichte 243 (Vienna, 1964). Wildhagen, K., ed., Der Cambridger Psalter, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 7 (Hamburg, 1910). Wilmart, A., ed., Analecta Reginensia: Extraits des manuscrits latins de la reine Christine conservés au Vatican, Studi e testi 59 (Vatican City, 1933).

Secondary Sources Aland, K., ‘Der Rotas-Sator-Rebus. Seine Diskussion in der Korrespondenz Franz Cumont-Hans Lietzmann und in der Zeit danach’, in Corona Gratiarum: Miscellanea Patristica, Historica et Liturgica Eligio Dekkers Oblata, 2 vols (Bruges, 1975). Amos, T. L., ‘The Catechesis Cracoviensis and Hiberno-Latin Exegesis on the Pater Noster’, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 13 (1990), 77–107. Anlezark, D., ‘Sceaf, Japheth and the Origins of the Anglo-Saxons’, Anglo-Saxon England 31 (2002), 13–46. ——, ‘The Fall of the Angels in Solomon and Saturn II’, in Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon, ed. K. Powell and D. Scragg (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 122–33. ——, Water and Fire: The Myth of the Flood in Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester, 2006). ——, ‘Poisoned Places: The Avernian Tradition in Old English Poetry’, Anglo-Saxon England 36 (2007), 103–26. Atherton, M., ‘The Figure of the Archer in Beowulf and the Anglo-Saxon Psalter’, Neophilologus 77 (1993), 653–7. Bately, J., ‘Those Books that are Most Necessary for All Men to Know: The Classics and Late Ninth Century England: A Reappraisal’, in The Classics in the Middle Ages, ed. A. S. Bernardo and S. Levin (Binghamton, NY, 1990). Bayless, M., ‘The Collectanea and the Medieval Dialogues and Riddles’, in Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. M. Bayless and M. Lapidge, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 14 (Dublin, 1998), pp. 13–24. Brady, C., ‘Old English Nominal Compounds in –rad’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 67 (1952), 538–71. Brenner, E., Der altenglische Junius-Psalter, Anglistische Forschungen 23 (Heidelberg, 1908). Brunner, K., and E. Sievers, Altenglische Grammatik, 3rd ed. (Tübingen, 1965). Campanile, E., ‘Aspetti della cultura indoeuropea arcaica: I. La raffigurazione del re e dell’eroe’, Studi e saggi linguistici 14 (1974), 185–227. Campbell, A., Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1959). Canellis, A., ‘Saint Jérôme et les passions: sur les “quattuor perturbationes” des Tusculanes’, Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000), 178–203. Chase, F. H., The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church (Cambridge, 1891).

157

Bibliography Cilluffo, G., ‘Il dialogo in prosa Salomone e Saturno del ms. CCCC 422’, Annali Istituto universitario oreintale di Napoli, Filologia germanica 23 (1980), 121–46. ——, ‘Mirabilia ags.: il Vasa Mortis nel Salomone e Saturno’, Annali Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli, Filologia germanica 24 (1981), 211–26. Coatsworth, E., and M. Pinder, The Art of the Anglo-Saxon Goldsmith: Fine Metalwork in Anglo-Saxon England: Its Practice and Practitioners (Woodbridge, 2002). Collins, R. L., ‘A Reexamination of the Old English Glosses in the Blickling Psalter’, Anglia 81 (1963), 124–8. Cosijn, P. J., Altwestsächsische Grammatik, 2 vols (The Hague, 1883–6). Cross, J. E., ‘Aspects of Microcosm and Macrocosm in Old English Literature’, Comparative Literature 14 (1962), 1–22. ——, ‘The Literate Anglo-Saxon – On Sources and Disseminations’, Proceedings of the British Academy 58 (1972), 67–100. Dane, J. A., ‘The Structure of the Old English Solomon and Saturn II’, Neophilologus 64 (1980), 592–603. Davidson, H. R. E., The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1962). Davis, S., ‘Salomon and Saturn 235: winrod’, Notes and Queries 236 (1991), 443–4. de Bruyne, D., ‘Fragments retrouvés d’apocryphes priscillianistes’, Revue bénédictine 24 (1907), 318–35. Dendle, P., ‘The Demonological Landscape of the “Solomon and Saturn Cycle”’, English Studies 80 (1999), 281–92. ——, ‘Solomon and Saturn 44a: ðæs deofles dream’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 98 (1997), 391–6. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, Fascicule XII Pos–Pro, ed. D. Howlett (Oxford, 2009) Dobiaš-Roždestvenskaja, O. A., and W. W. Bakhtine, ed., Les anciens manuscrits Latins de la Bibliothèque Publique Saltykov-Ščedrin de Leningrad: VIIIe- début IXe siècle, trans. X. Grichine (Paris, 1991). Donoghue, D., Style in Old English Poetry: The Test of the Auxiliary (New Haven, CT, 1987). ——, ‘Passing the Test with Style’, Studies in Philology 92 (1995), 164–80. Duffy, E., The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580 (New Haven and London, 1992). Dumville, D. N., ‘English Square Minuscule Script: the Mid-Century Phases’, AngloSaxon England 23 (1994), 133–64. Estes, H., ‘A Note on Solomon and Saturn I, lines 107b–108’, Notes and Queries 55 (2008), 260–2. Evans, J. M., ‘Microcosmic Adam’, Medium Ævum 35 (1966), 38–42. Flint, V., The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe (Princeton, 1991). Förster, M., ‘Adams Erschaffung und Namengebung’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11 (1907–08), 477–527. ——,‘Das lat.-ae. Fragment des Apokryphe von Jamnes und Mambres,’ Archiv 107 (1901), 15–28. Fulk, R. D., A History of Old English Meter (Philadelphia, PA, 1992). Gardner, T. J., ‘þreaniedla and þreamedla: Notes on Two Old English Abstracta in “-lan”’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 70 (1969), 255–61. Garrison, M., ‘The Collectanea and Medieval Florilegia’, in Collectanea PseudoBedae, ed. M. Bayless and M. Lapidge, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 14 (Dublin, 1998), pp. 42–83.

158

Bibliography Gneuss, H., ‘Dunstan und Hrabanus Maurus: zur Hs. Bodleian Auctarium F. 4.32’, Anglia 96 (1978), 136–48. ——, Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100 (Tempe, AZ, 2001). Godden, M., ‘Alfred, Asser, and Boethius’, in Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, ed. K. O. O’Keeffe and A. Orchard, 2 vols (Toronto, 2005). Godel, W., ‘Irisches Beten im frühen Mittelalter’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 85 (1963), 261–321 and 389–439; trans., ‘Irish Prayer in the Early Middle Ages’, Milltown Studies 4 (1979), 60–99. Graham, T., ‘The Old English Liturgical Directions in Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS 422’, Anglia 111 (1993), 439–46. Grant, R. J. S., Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41: The Loricas and the Missal (Amsterdam, 1978). Grein, C. W. M., Sprachschatz der angelsächsischen Dichter, rev. J. J. Köhler (Heidelberg, 1912). Gretsch, M., ‘The Language of the “Fonthill Letter”’, Anglo-Saxon England 23 (1994), 57–102. ——, The Intellectual Foundations of the English Benedictine Reform, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 25 (Cambridge, 1999). Hansen, E. T., The Solomon Complex: Reading Wisdom in Old English Poetry (Toronto, 1988). Harbus, A., ‘The Situation of Wisdom in Solomon and Saturn II’, Studia Neophilologica 75 (2005), 97–103. Heimann, A., ‘Three Illustrations from the Bury St Edmunds Psalter and their Prototypes: Notes on the Iconography of Some Anglo-Saxon Drawings’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 29 (1966), 39–59. Hermann, J. P., ‘The Pater Noster Battle Sequence in Solomon and Saturn and the Psychomachia of Prudentius’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77 (1976), 206–10. ——, ‘Solomon and Saturn (II), 339a: niehtes wunde’, English Language Notes 14 (1977), 161–4. Herren, M., ‘Wozu diente die die Fälschung dr Kosmographie des Aethicus?’, in Lateinsische Kultur im VIII. Jahrhundert, ed. A. Lehner and W. Berschin (St Ottilien, 1989). Hill, T. D., ‘The Tropological Context of Heat and Cold Imagery in Anglo-Saxon Poetry’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 69 (1968), 522–32. ——, ‘The Falling Leaf and Buried Treasure: Two Notes on the Imagery of Solomon and Saturn 314–322’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 71 (1970), 571–6. ——, ‘Two notes on Solomon and Saturn’, Medium Ævum 40 (1971), 217–21. ——, ‘Saturn’s Time Riddle: An Insular Latin Analogue for Solomon and Saturn II lines 282–291’, Review of English Studies 39 (1988), 273–6. ——, ‘The Devil’s Forms and the Pater Noster’s Powers: “The Prose Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Dialogue” and the Motif of the Transformational Combat’, Studies in Philology 85 (1988), 164–76. ——, ‘Tormenting the Devil with Boiling Drops: An Apotropaic Motif in the Old English Solomon and Saturn I and Old Norse-Icelandic Literature’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 93 (1992), 157–66. ——, ‘The ‘Palmtwigede’ Pater Noster: Horticultural Semantics and the Old English Solomon and Saturn I’, Medium Ævum 74 (2005), 1–9.

159

Bibliography Hill, T. D., ‘Wise Words: Old English Sapiential Poetry’, in Readings in Medieval Texts: Interpreting Old and Middle English Literature, ed. D. F. Johnson and E. Treharne (Oxford, 2005), pp. 166–82. Hofman, D., Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen der Wikingerzeit, Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 14 (Copenhagen, 1955). Holthausen, F., Altenglisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg, 1963). ——, ‘Zu alt- und mittelenglischen Dichtungen. XII, 60: Salomo und Saturn’, Anglia 23 (1901), 123–5. ——, ‘Zur ae Literatur. XI’, Beiblatt 21 (1910), 174–6. ——, ‘Zu Salomo und Saturn’, Beiblatt 27 (1917), 351–7. ——, ‘Zur Textkritik alt- und mittelenglischer Gedichte’, Archiv, 188 (1951), 98–107. Hulme, W. H., ‘The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus’, Modern Philology 1 (1903– 4), 579–614. Hüttenbrenner, F., Review of O. Funke, Die gelehrten Lateinischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter in der altenglischen Literatur (Halle, 1914), Beiblatt 28 (1917), 52–3. James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1912). Jolley, K., ‘On the Margins of Orthodoxy: Devotional Formulas and Protective Prayers in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41’, in Signs on the Edge: Space, Text and Margins in Medieval Manuscripts, ed. S. L. Keefer and R. H. Bremmer (Leuven, 2007), pp. 135–83. Jonassen, F. B., ‘The Pater Noster Letters in the Poetic Solomon and Saturn’, Modern Language Review 83 (1988), 1–9. Juste, D., Les Alchandreana primitifs: étude sur les plus anciens traités astrologiques latins d’origine arabe (Xe siècle) (Leiden, 2007). Keddie, J., ‘Testing the Test: How Valid is The Test of the Auxiliary?’, Studies in Philology 90 (1993), 1–28. Kellerman, G., and R. Haas, ‘Magie und Mythos als Argumentationsmittel in den ae. Dialoggedichten Salomon und Saturn’, in Festschrift für Karl Schneider, ed. E. S. Dick and K. R. Jankowsky (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1982), pp. 387–403. Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957). Keynes, S., ‘King Athelstan’s Books’, in Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 143–201. Kindschi, L., ‘The Latin-Old English Glossaries in Plantin-Moretus MS. 32 and British Museum MS. Additional 32246’ (Ph.D. diss., Stanford, 1955). Kitzinger, E., ‘The Coffin-Reliquary’, in The Relics of St Cuthbert, ed. C. F. Battiscombe (Oxford, 1956). Klabinsky, R., E. Panofsky and F. Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy (New York, 1964). LaBossière, C., and J. Gladson, ‘Solomon’, in A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, ed. D. L. Jeffrey (Grand Rapids, MI, 1992), pp. 721–3. Lapidge, M., ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth-Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, Anglo-Saxon England 4 (1975), 67–111. ——, ‘Some Latin Poems as Evidence for the Reign of Athelstan’, Anglo-Saxon England 9 (1981), 61–98. ——, ‘The Origin of the Collectanea’, in Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. M. Bayless and M. Lapidge, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 14 (Dublin, 1998), pp. 1–12. ——, ‘B. and the Vita S. Dunstani’, in St Dunstan: His Life, Times and Cult, ed. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 246–59.

160

Bibliography Lapidge, M., Anglo-Latin Literature 900–1066 (London, 1993). ——, ‘The Cult of St Indract at Glastonbury’, in Ireland and Early Medieval Europe: Studies in Memory of Kathleen Hughes, ed. D. Whitelock et al. (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 179–212. Lapidge, M., and R. Sharpe, ed., A Bibliography of Celtic Latin Literature 400–1200 (Dublin, 1984). Larrington, C., A Store of Common Sense (Oxford, 1993). Lehner, A., ‘Frühmittelalterliche Florilegien in süddeutscher Überlieferung’ (Diss.phil., Ruprecht-Karls Universität, Heidelberg, 1984). Lendinara, P., ‘Tecnicismi nel Salomone e Saturno in prosa (ms. CCCC 422)’, Appendix in Il Salomone e Saturno in prosa del ms. CCCC 422, ed. G. Cilluffo, Quaderni di filologia germanica 2 (Palermo, 1981), pp. 97–124. Livesey, S. J., and R. H. Rouse, ‘Nimrod the Astronomer’, Traditio 37 (1981), 203–66. Lydgate, John, Fall of Princes, ed. H. Bergen, 2 vols in 4 pts, EETS os 121–4 (London, 1924–7). Mackay, C., ‘The Sign of the Palm Tree’, Church Quarterly Review 126 (1938), 187–212. Marenbon, J., From the Circle of Alcuin to the School of Auxerre (Cambridge, 1981). Marsden, R., ‘The Biblical Text of the Collectanea’, in Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. M. Bayless and M. Lapidge, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 14 (Dublin, 1998), pp. 35–41. McKinnell, J., and R. Simek, Runes, Magic, and Religion: A Sourcebook (Vienne, 2004). McNally, R. E., ed., ‘Der Irische Liber de Numeris’ (Diss., Munich, 1957). McNamara, M., ‘The Irish Affiliations of the Catechesis Celtica’, Celtica 21 (1990), 291–334. Melling, K., ‘A Proposed Reconstruction of Runic line 108a of Solomon and Saturn’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77 (1976), 358–9. Menner, R. J., ‘The Vasa Mortis Passage in the Old English Salomon and Saturn’, in Studies in English Philology: A Miscellany in Honor of Frederick Klaeber, ed. K. Malone and M. B. Ruud (Minneapolis, 1929), pp. 240–53. ——, ‘Nimrod and the Wolf in the Old English Solomon and Saturn’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 37 (1938), 332–54. ——, ‘The Vocabulary of the Old English Poems on Judgement Day’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 62 (1947). Mitchell, B., Old English Syntax, 2 vols (Oxford, 1985). Morey, J. H., ‘Adam and Judas in the Old English Christ and Satan’, Studies in Philology 87 (1990), 397–409. Murdoch, B., The Medieval Popular Bible: Expansions of Genesis in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2003). Murphy, G. R., ‘Magic in the Heliand’, Monatshefte 83 (1991), 386–97. Napier, A. S., ed., Old English Glosses (Oxford, 1900). Nelson, M., ‘King Solomon’s Magic: The Power of a Written Text’, Oral Tradition 5 (1990), 20–36. Niles, J. D., Old English Enigmatic Poems and the Play of Texts (Turnhout, 2006). Ó Cuív, B., ‘Three Middle Irish Poems’, Éigse 16 (1975), 1–17. O’Donnell, D. P., ‘Hædre and hædre gehogode (Solomon and Saturn, line 62b and Resignation, line 63a)’, Notes and Queries 46 (1999), 312–6.

161

Bibliography O’Keeffe, K. O., ‘The Text of Aldhelm’s Enigma no. C in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 697, and Exeter Book Riddle 40’, Anglo-Saxon England 14 (1985), 61–73. ——, Visible Song: Transitional Literacy in Old English Verse, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 4 (Cambridge, 1990). ——, ‘The Geographic List of Solomon and Saturn II’, Anglo-Saxon England 20 (1991), 123–41. ——, ‘Editing and the Material Text’, in The Editing of Old English: Papers from the 1990 Manchester Conference, ed. D. G. Scragg and P. E. Szarmach (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 147–54. ——, ‘Source, Method, Theory, Practice: On Reading Two Old English Verse Texts’, in Textual and Material Culture in Anglo-Saxon England: Thomas Northcote Toller and the Toller Memorial Lectures, ed. D. Scragg (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 161–81. O’Neill, P. P., ‘On the Date, Provenance and Relationship of the ‘Solomon and Saturn’ Dialogues’, Anglo-Saxon England 1997 (26), 139–68. Orchard, A., Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf Manuscript (Cambridge, 1995) Orton, P., The Transmission of Old English Poetry, Westfield Publications in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 12 (Turnhout, 2000). Page, R. I., ‘A Note on the Text of MS CCCC 422 (Solomon and Saturn)’, Medium Ævum 1965 (34), 36–9. ——, An Introduction to English Runes (London, 1973). Page, W., ed., The Victoria History of the County of Dorset, 3 vols (London, 1908). Powell, K., and D. Scragg, ed., Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon (Cambridge, 2003). Pyles, T., ‘The Pronunciation of Latin Learned Loan Words and Foreign Words in Old English’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 58 (1943), 891–910. Ralby, A., ‘Ðurh þæs cantices cwyde: An Analysis of Solomon and Saturn I’ (M.Phil. diss., Cambridge, 2006). Reynolds, L. D., and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1991). Robinson, F. C., ‘The Devil’s Account of the Next World’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73 (1972), 362–71. Salzburger, G., Die Salomosage in der semitischen Literatur (Berlin, 1907). Schabram, H., Superbia: Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz (Munich, 1965). Schipper, J., ‘Zum Codex Exoniensis’, Germania 19 (1874), 327–38. Sharpe, E. J., ‘The Old English Runic Paternoster’, in Symbols of Power, ed. H. R. E. Davidson (Cambridge, 1977), 41–60. Shippey, T. A., ed., Poems of Wisdom and Learning in Old English (Cambridge, 1976). Sims-Williams, P., ‘Gildas and Vernacular Poetry’, in Gildas: New Approaches, ed. M. Lapidge and D. Dumville (Woodbridge, 1984), pp. 169–92, ——, Religion and Literature in Western England, 600–800, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 3 (Cambridge, 1990). Sisam, K., Review of R. E. Menner, ed., The Poetical Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn (New York, 1941), Medium Ævum 13 (1944), 28–36. ——, Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953).

162

Bibliography Stanley, E. G., ‘Studies in the Prosaic Vocabulary of Old English Verse’, Neuphilo­ logische Mitteilungen 72 (1971), 385–418. ——, ‘Did Beowulf commit “feaxfeng” against Grendel’s mother?’, Notes and Queries 23 (1976), 339–40. ——, ‘Studies in the Prosaic Vocabulary of Old English Verse’, Neuphilo­logische Mitteilungen 72 (1971), 385–418. ——, Imagining the Anglo-Saxon Past. ‘The Search for Anglo-Saxon-Paganism’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon Trial by Jury’ (Cambridge, 2000). Swan, M., ‘Mobile Libraries: Old English Manuscript Production in Worcester and the West Midlands, 1090–1215’, in Essays in Manuscript Geography: Vernacular Manuscripts of the English West Midlands from the Conquest to the Sixteenth Century, ed. W. Scase (Turnhout, 2007), pp. 29–42. Szarmach, P. E., ‘Visio pacis: Jerusalem and its Meanings’, in Typology and Medieval English Literature, ed. Hugh Keenan (New York: 1992), pp. 71–87. Taylor, P. B., ‘The Old Icelandic Völuspá as Eschatology’, in For W. H. Auden, February 21, 1972, ed. P. H. Salus and P. B. Taylor (New York, 1972), pp. 133–46. Thompson, P. A., ‘Æpplede Gold: An Investigation of its Semantic Field’, Manuscript Studies 48 (1986), 315–33. Tinkle, T., ‘Saturn of the Several Faces: A Survey of the Medieval Mythographic Traditions’, Viator 18 (1987), 289–307. Torijano, P. A., Solomon, the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition (Leiden, 2002). Treharne, E., ‘Producing a Library in Late Anglo-Saxon England: Exeter, 1050– 1072’, Review of English Studies 214 (2003), 155–72. Turville-Petre, E. O. G., Myth and Religion of the North (London, 1964). ——, ‘Adam’s Pound of Flesh: A Note on Old English Verse Solomon and Saturn (II), 336–339’, Neophilologus 59 (1975), 622–6. Webster, L., and J. Backhouse, ed., The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture AD 600–900 (London, 1991). Whitbread, L., ‘Adam’s Pound of Flesh: A Note on the Old English Verse Solomon and Saturn (II): 336–9’, Neophilologus 59 (1975), 622–6. Wilcox, J., ‘Eating Books: The Consumption of Learning in the Old English Poetic Solomon and Saturn’, American Notes and Queries ns 4 (1991), 115–18. Willard, R., ed., Two Apocrypha in Old English Homilies, Beiträge zur englische Philologie 30 (Leipzig, 1935). Wood, J., ‘The Folklore Background of the Gwion Bach Section of Hanes Taliesin’, The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 29 (1982), 621–34. Wright, C. D., ‘Questions of Bartholomew’, in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version, ed. F. M. Biggs, T. D. Hill and P. E. Szarmach (Binghamton, NY, 1990), pp. 35–6. ——, ‘The Three “Victories” of the Wind: A Hibernicism in the Hisperica Famina, Collectanea Bedae, and the Old English Prose Solomon and Saturn Pater Noster Dialogue’, Ériu 41 (1990), 13–25. ——, The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature, Cambridge Studies in AngloSaxon England 6 (Cambridge, 1993). ——, ‘The Apocalypse of St Thomas: Some New Latin Texts and their Significance for the Old English Versions’, in Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon, ed. K. Powell and D. Scragg (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 27–64.

163

Bibliography Wright, C. D., ‘The Blood of Abel and the Branches of Sin: Genesis A, Maxims I and Aldhelm’s Carmen de uirginitate’, Anglo-Saxon England 25 (1996), 7–19. ——, ‘Shepherd of Hermas’, in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: The Apocrypha, ed. F. M. Biggs, Instrumenta Anglistica Mediaevalia 1 (Kalamazoo, MI, 2007), pp. 63–5. Wright, N., ‘The Sources of the Collectanea’, in Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae, ed. M. Bayless and M. Lapidge, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 14 (Dublin, 1998), pp. 25–34. Zolla, E., ‘Le metafore bellicose nella poesia anglosassone ed il dialogo fra Salomone e Saturno’, Strumenti critici 2 (1968), 364–77. Zupitza, J., ‘Zu Salomon und Saturnus’, Anglia 3 (1880), 527–31.

164

Index

Abingdon 55 Adrian and Ritheus 17 n. 97 Ælfheah (bishop of Winchester) 52 Ælfric (of Eynsham) De falsis diis 31 ‘Passion of St Bartholomew’ 120 Ælfric Society vii Æthelwold (of Abingdon) 55 Æthelwynn 53 Aethicus Ister, Cosmographia 13–14, 34–5, 117, 118, 136 Alcuin (of York) 129 Aldhelm (of Malmesbury) 4, 16 Aenigmata 30, 39, 51 Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle 110 Alfred (bishop of Sherborne) 4 Alfred (king of Wessex) 10 Pastoral Care 8 Soliloquies 100, 116 Apocalypse of Philip 22 Apollonius of Tyana 34 Asser 4 astrology 131 Athelstan (king of England) 51–7 Augustine (of Hippo) 18 De Ciuitate Dei 120 De Sermone Domini 130 In Iohannis Euangelium 124 Babel 32–3, 46–7, 104, 119–21, 127 baptism 133 Bede Historia Ecclesiastica 1, 5 Nomina Regionum 117–18 Bel (Baal) 32, 52, 119, 126 Beowulf 110, 121 Bible Acts 38, 110 I Chronicles 125 II Chronicles 39–40, 116 I Corinthians 112 Daniel 33, 101, 119 Ecclesiastes 12 Ephesians 111, 125

Ezekiel 18–19, 33, 40–1, 99, 121, 124 Genesis 116, 119–20, 124, 128–9, 136 Habakkuk 33, 118–19 Isaiah 120, 126, 136 Jeremiah 41, 99, 120, 130 Job 109, 111 John 100, 105, 112, 116 Jude 112, 113, 136 Judges 100, 118 I Kings 12, 39–40, 112 Luke 55, 136 Malachi 103 Matthew 25, 107, 110, 126, 129, 130 Proverbs, 12, 18, 20 Psalms 44, 53, 100, 103, 111–15, 120, 125 Revelation 38, 41, 44, 99, 111–16, 120–4, 136 Romans 128 I Samuel 52, 119, 124 Sirach 130, 134 Song of Songs 12 I Thessalonians 111, 128 I Timothy 136 Tobit 123 Wisdom 120 Zechariah 103 Blickling glosses 11 Blickling Homilies 126, 137 Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae 32, 47 n. 229, 127, 131–5 Caelus (father of Saturn) 36 Carthage 30 Catechesis Celtica 19, 24–5, 27 Céli Dé 26 Chobar (river) 33, 50 Chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey 55–6 Cicero 35–6 De Natura Deorum 101, 134 Tusculanae Disputationes 124 Collectanea Pseudo-Bedae 15–22, 55, 103–4, 106, 113–15 Crete 31, 35

165

Index Darley (Derbyshire) 4 David (biblical king) 38, 115–17, 119 De Duodecim Abusiuis Saeculi 18, 103–4 ‘Devil’s Account of Hell’ 28, 31, 100 Disticha Catonis 16 Dracontius, De Laudibus Dei 121 Dunstan (of Canterbury) 51–7, 127

35–6, 113, 127–8, 134–5 Laxdæla saga 102 Leabhar Breac 24 Leofric (bishop of Exeter), 5 Liber de numeris 16, 18 Lucan 18, 120 Lucifer 137

Enoch (I) 111–12, 124, 136–7 Eriugena, John Scotus, Periphyseon 122, 129–33 Exeter 5

Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis 18, 34 magic 12, 25, 28–9 manuscripts Antwerp, Museé Plantin-Moretus 47  55 n. 250 Bamberg, Stadtsbibliothek Misc. Patr. 17 (B.II.10)  121 Bern, Burgerbibliothek 36  31 n.180 BL Additional 32246  55 n. 250 BL Cotton Galba A.xviii  10 BL Cotton Vespasian B.x  14 n. 75 BL Royal 5.E.xiii  111 Book of Cerne 16 CCCC 146  4 CCCC 41  vii, 1, 5–6, 26 CCCC 422  vii, 1–4, 13 Exeter, Catheral Library 3507  29 Leiden, Biblioteek der Rijksuniversiteit Scaliger 69  14 n. 75 Munich, Bayerische Staadtsbibliothek Clm. 22053  19–20, 41 n. 221, 104 Munich, Bayerische Staadtsbibliothek Clm. 6433  18–19 Oxford, Bodleian Library Hatton 20  8 Oxford, Bodleian Library Junius 27  9 n. 52 Oxford, Bodleian Library Rawlinson B.484  10 Oxford, Bodleian Library Rawlinson C.697 51–2, 56 St Petersburg, National Library of Russia MS Lat. Q.v.I.15  39 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Reg. lat. 49  25 Marcolfus viii, 13–14 Martianus Capella, De Nuptiis 33–4 Mercury (Roman god) 13 metalworking 10–11, 54, 102–4, 110, 115 Michael (Archangel) 26, 108, 114, 115, 136

Fenrir 112 florilegia 16–19 Fonthill Letter 9 n. 52 Fredegar, Chronicon 117 Geinemain Molling ocus a Bethae 26 Gelasian Decretals 12–13 giants 119 Glastonbury 51–7 gradatio 27, 114, 121 Gregory I (Pope) 104 Homiliae in Hiezechihelem 18, 40, 129 Moralia in Iob 111, 126, 130, 138 Regula Pastoralis 8 Grimbald 10 Heimskringla 102 Hisperica Famina 21 Hwætberht (Eusebius) 30 In Tenga Bithnua 22–4 Ioca monachorum 17, 19 Isidore (of Seville) 39 Etymologiae 18, 29–30, 32, 100–1, 117, 120, 126, 129 Jerome Epistulae 19, 35–9, 105, 117 In Abacuc 118–19 In Danielem 33 In Hiezechielem 33, 99, 122, 124–5 In Naum 127 Jerusalem 22–3, 38–40, 46, 56, 121 John (the Old Saxon) 52 Juno (Roman goddess) 28 Jupiter (Roman god) 35 Kemble, John Mitchell vii–viii, 13, 15 Kristnisaga 102 Lactantius, Institutiones Diuiniae

Napier Homily XLVI 137 Nebuchadnezzar 101, 119 Nicene Creed 133 Níðhöggr 124 Nimrod 32, 46, 119, 131 Noah 114, 131 Notker Labeo 13

166

Index Old Sarum 4 Orosius, Historia (Old English) 117

Solomon (biblical king) 12, 15, 18–19, 31 Symposius 16

Parker Chronicle 3 passions 124–5, 127, 130 Patrick (the Younger) 55 Paulinus of Nola 36 philosophers 25, 36 Prudentius, Psychomachia 43, 51, 108

‘Table of Commutations’ 26 Táin 101, 114 Tatwine 108 Temple 12, 37, 39–41, 55–6 Thor (Norse god) 113 Tigris-Euphrates 32 Trewhiddle Hoard 109 Turkey 13 twins 109, 131, 135

Quintillian 30 Ramsbury 4 Remigius (of Auxerre) 34 n. 196 Riddles (Old English) 51 n. 238, 100 Rome 100 Rufinus, Historia Monachorum 110 runes 5, 7, 28–9, 108–9 scourge 108–9 Sedulius Scottus Collectaneum 18–19, 22, 35 Commentary on Matthew 27, 106 ‘Seven Heavens’ Apocryphon, 27, 114 Shepherd of Hermas 137 Sherborne 3–4, 29, 55 n. 252

Vafþrúðnismál 15 Vercelli Homilies 27, 28, 110, 137, 138 Vergil, Aeneid 120, 124, 126, 127, 137 Versus Cuiusdam Scoti de Alphabeto 30, 51–2 Virgil (of Salzburg) 14 n. 75 Virgilius Maro Grammaticus 18 Vision of St Paul 27, 137 Vita Dunstani (of B.) 52–5 Winchester 8 Worcester 4 Wulfsige (bishop of Sherborne) 4

167

spine 19.25mm A 23 Sep 09

Dr DANIEL ANLEZARK teaches in the Department of English at the University of Sydney.

www.boydell.co.uk www.boydellandbrewer.com

an imprint of BOYDELL & BREWER Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge IP12 3DF (GB) and 668 Mt Hope Ave, Rochester NY 14620-2731 (US)

THE  OLD ENGLISH DIALOGUES • Anlezark (ed. and tr.) OF  SOLOMON  AND  SATURN

The dialogues of Solomon and Saturn, found in MSS Corpus Christi College Cambridge 422 and 41, are some of the most complex Old English texts to survive. The first two dialogues, in verse and prose, present the pagan god Saturn in human form interrogating King Solomon about the mysterious powers of the Pater Noster, while in a second poem the two discuss in engimatic terms a range of topics, from the power of books to the limits of free will. This new full edition – the first to appear for some 150 years – presents a parallel text and translation, accompanied by notes and commentary. The volume also has a full introduction, examining the evidence pointing to the influence of Irish continental learning on the dialogues’ style and content; arguing that the circle which produced the dialogues was located at Glastonbury in the early tenth century and included the young Dunstan, future Archbishop of Canterbury; and locating the texts in the context of the learned riddling tradition, and philosophical debates current in the ninth and tenth centuries.

Anglo-Saxon Texts 7

THE OLD ENGLISH DIALOGUES OF sOLOMON AND sATURN Edited and translated by Daniel Anlezark