The Old English vision of St. Paul 9780910956765, 9780910956628

Citation preview

SPECULUM ANNIVERSARY MONOGRAPHS TWO

The Old English Vision of St. Paul

Yl

SE SPECULUM ANNIVERSARY MONOGRAPHS

col { ) =

rip xy TWO

BOARD OF EDITORS

Robert Brentano Charles T. Davis John Leyerle Luke Wenger Siegfried Wenzel

THE OLD ENGLISH VISION OF ST. PAUL

The publication of this book was made possible by funds contributed to the Mediaeval Academy during the Semi-Centennial Fund Drive.

Copyright © 1978 by The Mediaeval Academy of America Cambridge, Massachusetts LCC: 77-89928 ISBN : 910956-62-6 Printed in the United States of America

To my mother and father

BLANK PAGE

Contents

Preface 1X Abbreviations XI INTRODUCTION

I THE MANUSCRIPT 3 1. Composition 3

2. Contents 9 3. The Interest of the Manuscript 15

4, Provenance 16 II THE VISION OF ST. PAUL 19 1. The Latin Tradition 19 2. The Old English Translation 26

Ill LANGUAGE 31 1. Spelling and Phonology 31

2. Vocabulary 38 IV THE OLD ENGLISH TRADITION OF THE VISION OF ST. PAUL 4] 1. Body-Soul Legend 42 2. Respite of the Damned 48 3. Correspondence of Punishment to Sin 51

4. Minor Influences 54

TEXT 61 Notes 75 Glossary and Word-Index 83 Selective List of Works Consulted 95

Vii

BLANK PAGE

Preface The present edition is an outgrowth of two suggestions. Mr. Peter Heyworth first brought to my attention Theodore Silverstein’s work on the Visio Sancti Pauli. Mr. Angus Cameron in turn knew of an Old English translation of the Vision still unedited. These two texts have

been the basis of my study. Much of the material presented here originally formed part of my doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Toronto. It is a pleasure to recall the help I have received in preparing this

edition. I am grateful to the Canada Council and the A. Whitney Griswold Faculty Research Fund of Yale University for travel grants to England; to Dr. R. W. Hunt, formerly Keeper of Western Manuscripts, Bodleian Library, Oxford, for permission to study MSS Junius 85-86; to Mr. Stephen Barney, Mr. Fred Robinson, and Miss Pamela Robinson for help on particular points; to Mr. Christopher Ball and Mr. Malcolm Parkes who aided me in determining difficult readings and in sorting out the hands; to Mr. George Rigg who read my analysis of the language at an early stage and whose attention has saved me from several errors; to Mr. James Cross for sharing his knowledge of source material with me; to Mr. John Pope who discussed with me my editorial

problems; to Mr. Malcolm Godden and Mr. Eric Stanley, who read the entire typescript, for their criticism and encouragement; to Mr. Angus Cameron who guided my work from the beginning, for his continuing kindness and scholarly assistance; to my husband for his support and equanimity.

1X

BLANK PAGE

Abbreviations LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS

Angl. Anglian nW-S __ non-West-Saxon |

Gmc. Germanic OE Old English Kt. Kentish O Fris. Old Frisian

ME Middle English OHG Old High German

Merc. Mercian W-S West-Saxon North. Northumbrian SOURCES

KG Kentish Glosses to Proverbs Ru! Rushworth Gospels (Mercian Gloss to Matthew and small parts of Mark and John) BOOKS AND SERIES

ANT Apocryphal New Testament, trans. M. R. James. ASPR Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, ed. George Philip Krapp and Elliott

Van Kirk Dobbie. 6 vols. New York, 1931-53.

BT An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ed. J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller. London, 1898.

BTS Supplement to an Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ed. T. N. Toller. 1921; rpt. with rev. and enlarged addenda by Alistair Campbell, London, 1972.

Campbell Old English Grammar, Alistair Campbell. Oxford, 1959.

CC Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina. COEL “Contributions to Old English Lexicography,”’ A. S. Napier. CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. EEMF Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile. EETS, OS Early English Text Society, Original Series.

James M. R. James, ed., Apocrypha Anecdota. Cambridge, 1893. MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica. S-B Altenglische Grammatik nach der angelsdchsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers neuarbeitet, Karl Brunner. 3rd ed., rev. Tibingen, 1965.

XI

BLANK PAGE

INTRODUCTION

I

T he Manuscript

1. COMPOSITION

MSS Junius 85-86, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford,! are composite volumes containing together eight distinct pieces: five homilies, one

vision, one saint’s life, and a selection of charms. Although this compilation of texts of the mid-eleventh century2 is now bound in two separate volumes, there 1s evidence that it formed one book during

the Middle Ages.? First, the division into two books is arbitrary textually, occurring two-thirds of the way through a Lenten discourse.4 Moreover, the foliation, although post-medieval, is continuous from one volume to the next, an indication that when the foliation was done, the book was considered a whole at least by one reader. Finally, there was opportunity in the seventeenth century for the book to be divided when the texts received their present binding.5 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Size and quality of vellum. The two volumes, varying only slightly in size, are not cumbersome books. MS Junius 85 is the larger, measuring 160 x 115 mm.; MS Junius 86 is 155 x 100 mm. Except for one gathering, fols. 18—24, which shows writing on 140 x 100 mm., the written space is nearly the same in both volumes, 130 x 80 mm.® The leaves of the manuscript vary in size from gathering to gathering and 1. Humfrey Wanley, Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis liber alter .. . (Oxford, 1705),

pp. 44-45; Falconer Madan, H. H. E. Craster, and N. Denholm-Young, eds., A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, 2, pt. 2 (Oxford, 1937), pp. 982-83, Nos. 5196-97; Nfeil] R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), pp. 409-11, No. 336. 2. Ker, Catalogue, p. 409. 3. Ker, Catalogue, p. 411, simply states that ‘“‘the division into two volumes is not likely to be medieval.”’ 4. Between fols. 35v—36r. The division is explicable physically since it occurs at the end of a gathering.

5. Summary Catalogue, 2, pt. 2, p. 982. 6. Ker, Catalogue, p. 411. Unless stated otherwise, from this point on MSS Junius 85-86 will be treated as a unit.

3

INTRODUCTION

the parchment alters in texture and appearance. Two quires, fols. 3r—llv and 18r—24v, are a greyish, soft vellum; the remaining leaves are a yellower, stiffer vellum. 7

Foliation. There is no evidence of medieval foliation and there are no quire signatures. MS Junius 85 1s foliated 1-35; MS Junius 86 is foliated 36—-81.8 Fols. 2-4 are numbered twice: in the upper right corner they are assigned the figures 1-3; in the lower right corner they

are designated 2-4. Except for the double set of numbers on three leaves, there is no discrepancy in the foliation of the manuscript.

Gatherings. The most common pattern for gatherings in OE manuscripts is a quire of eight leaves.? Ours 1s that of tens, varied by the loss or addition of a half-sheet. Four gatherings are tens, three are eights, one is sixes. There are two irregular groupings: one of three; the other of seven (six leaves plus one added at the beginning). The eroupings that concern us at the present are fols. 2 and 12-17, which contain an Address of the Soul to the Body, and fols. 3-11, which contain

an OE translation of The Vision of St. Paul. The single leaf, fol. 2, creates the most difficulty. We cannot be certain that the scribe of fol. 2 is the same as that of fols. 12-16, for the writing on the single leaf has been almost completely retouched in black ink. Moreover, fading on the outside of the pages, the end of the lines of fol. 2r, and the start of the lines of fol. 2v makes clear identification an impossibility. However, fol. 2v is the same text as fols. 12-16 (an Address of the Soul to the Body), the quality of the vellum is the same (stiff yellow), and the distinctive letter forms are the same. 19°

These facts suggest that the text almost certainly was written by one man, Scribe A.

| There is one other problem that must be faced. Rudolph Willard argued that fols? 3-11, The Vision of St. Paul, were accidentally mis-

bound and that this gathering should not separate fol. 2 from fols. 7. Rudolph Willard, ““Address of the Soul to the Body,” Publications of the Modern Language Association 50 (1935), 959, mistakenly reverses his description of the quality of the vellum. He states that fols. 3r—11v are the yellower, stiffer parchment, and that fols. 2r—v, 12r-17v are the greyish, soft parchment. It is in fact the other way around. 8. Summary Catalogue, 2, pt. 2, p. 982, should be corrected. There it is recorded that Junius 86 contains 53 leaves, numbered 36-88. In fact, there are only 46 original leaves, numbered 36-81. 9. Ker, Catalogue, p. xxiii. 10. See below, ““The Work of the Scribes,” pp. 8-9.

4

THE MANUSCRIPT

12-17.!1 His point may be answered by the evidence of the manuscript. It appears quite certain that the scribe of fols. 3-11, Scribe B, not only knew that the Vision which he was copying was to be interpolated into the Soul and Body text, but also knew precisely where this would occur. On fol. 1l1v he added a transitional phrase, one not present in his Latin exemplar,!2 which makes good grammatical sense with the continuation of Soul and Body. The end of fol. 11v reads: ‘‘and hio hin‘e’ Sanne

gegretad des synfullan mannes’’; the start of fol. 12r is: “sawl and Sus cwed.”’ That the phrase is an addition can be shown paleographically. Scribe B in all previous leaves of his gathering very carefully stayed

within his ruled margins. For the first time at the end of fol. llv he. wrote in margin space. The first five words of the sentence, “‘and hio hin‘e’ Sanne gegretad,”’ fill out the last ruled line; the next three words, “Sees synfullan mannes,” occupy half a line and are written in the lower margin. The runover is made conspicuous by being marked with an ornamental bracket.!3 Once Scribe B had made the Vision continuous with the following Soul and Body, his editorial work was finished. There was more editorial work to be done, however, this time by Scribe A, the compiler. His task involved not only inserting the prepared gathering of the Vision into his Soul and Body, but also reworking what he had already written in order to form an adequate transition between fols. 2v and 3r. He erased the last two and one-half lines on the page in front of him (fol. 2v) and wrote new copy, expanding the image of the Suffering Savior. In doing so, he continued beyond the original bottom margin by one line and indeed carried his work across

the bottom of the opposite leaf. The joining of the leaves in their

/5

present order was the conscious work of a compiler who knew that he was dealing with two different texts. It suited his purpose to have the texts read side by side, and he attempted to form a thematic relation between them. He was not unsuccessful in the attempt, for as we read from one leaf to the next, we move from the Savior’s suffering for the 1]. Willard, ““Address,” pp. 958-59. 12. First observed by Anna Maria Luiselli Fadda, ‘‘Una inedita traduzione anglosassone della Visio Pauli (MS. Junius 85, ff. 3r-llv),” Studi Medievali 15 (1974), 483. She also notes that the final line closely corresponds to the formulas used to introduce direct discourse in Soul ‘and Body. 13. Unusual ornamental brackets mark runovers continuously from fols. 36r—52v. Some of these folios, according to my analysis, are written by the same scribe as that of fols. 3r—Ilv.

INTRODUCTION

sinfulness of man (fol. 2v) to the suffering of nature (the earth and the sun) on the same account (fol. 3r). Finally, having found a better copy of the Vision than the one he had inserted into his Soul and Body, the compiler proceeded to correct through marginal, interlinear, and linear additions the original, less full, text of the Vision on fols. 3r—6r. Scribe A, therefore, had several functions within the first two gatherings: he was the scribe of Soul and Body, the corrector of the Vision, and, it seems, the compiler of the

manuscript. There is nothing accidental about the present arrangement of texts; it is an intelligent piece of compilational art. The following order is now proposed for the complete manuscript, fols. 2-81: (la) Fol. 2, a single leaf,!4 originally part of the gathering fols. 12-17. Written lines:

| 2r: 14

2v: 20 (originally 19) (2) Fols. 3-11 in tens, wants | before fol. 3.15 The beginning of the text is missing.

The lost first leaf of the gathering would have provided enough space for the missing opening of the Vision. Whether the loss is intentional or accidental is uncertain. Nevertheless, the compiler made full use of this deficient gathering by carefully shaping a transition between it and the previous text. The end of the text 1s also missing. It was perhaps never copied, for the original scribe apparently knew what text would follow his and squeezed onto the bottom of the page half a line of added text that allows continuous reading from 11v to 12r. Written lines: 3r—-10v: 16 (except for runover from 2v to 3r and the corrector’s additions on 4r—v, 5v)

Ilr: 15 liv: 154 (1b) Fols. 12-17, whose original construction is doubtful. Fols. 12, 13, 16,17 are half-sheets:!© fols. 14-15 are a bifolium. The beginning of the text is found on fol. 2v. Originally we could have read from 2v to 12r, but we can no longer do so because of the adjustments the compiler made to the text of 2v. Written lines: 12r—l6ov: 19

|7r-v: 17

14. I follow Wanley, Antiquae Literaturae, p. 44, in treating this folio as a separate entry.

15. Ker, Catalogue, p. 411, should be corrected: the gathering does not want 10 after fol. 11. I am grateful to Miss Pamela Robinson for help with the collation of the manuscript. 16. This supplements the information in Ker, Catalogue, p. 411.

6

THE MANUSCRIPT

(3) Fols. 18-24 in eights, wants 8 after fol. 24. Written lines: 18r—19r: 20

19v: 19 2Or-23v: 19 24r: 12 (end of text)

24v: blank (4) Fols. 25—32 in eights.

Written lines:

25r—32v: 19 |

(5) Fols. 33-35 in threes. All three folios are half-sheets. 16

Written lines: 33r-v: 19 34r: 15 34v: 154

Written lines: , 35r—v: 19

(6) Fols. 36-41 in sixes. This gathering begins-MS Junius 86. 36r-41v: 164

(7) Fols. 42-52 in tens, plus | after 6. Written lines: 42r—48r: 134 48v—Slr: 144 51v—52v: 134

(8) Fols. 53-61 in eights, plus | after 7. Written lines: 53r-6lv: 14 (9) Fols. 62—71 in tens.

Written lines: 62r—65r: 15 65v—69v: 14 70r—71v: 15

(10) Fols. 72-81 in tens. Fols. 77 and 81 are half-sheets. !6 Written lines: 72r—75r: 15 75v—77r: 14

T7v-79r: 155 79v—80v: 15

Sir: 11 (end of text) 8iv: blank

The irregularity of the gatherings and the variation in the number of lines per page, thirteen to twenty long lines, furnish physical evidence of the composite nature of the manuscript. Binding and end-leaves. MSS Junius 85-86 have undistinguished 7

INTRODUCTION

bindings of the seventeenth century, white vellum on boards.!7 Junius 85 has as its first and last leaves paper leaves of the date of binding. It also contains a medieval binding-leaf (fol. 1) taken from a liturgical text in Latin.!8 Junius 86 contains three paper binding-leaves at the present time, two in front, one in back. The first paper leaf has Voss’s pressmark, F. 29, marked in black ink on the recto;!9 the verso shows some faint lettering as though it had been used for blotting paper. The second front paper leaf and the back leaf are completely blank. THE WORK OF THE SCRIBES

The hands.?° It is impossible to state with assurance the number of hands in the manuscript, for heavy retouching obscures the original writing. Yet there is the distinct impression that several hands are at work. A tentative ascription of hands is as follows: Scribe A wrote fols. 2v, 12r—l6v, 25r—35r/1—4,21 and the additions to fols. 3r—6r. Scribe

B wrote fols. 3r—-I1v, 17r—-24r, 42r-81v. No statement can be made about the writing on fol. 2r, the remainder of fol. 35 and fols. 36r—41v.

There is a third hand, that of the retoucher, whose black ink is seen here and there in the manuscript, but especially on fol. 2r—v. There is another hand, not either of the scribes’ and not the retoucher’s, which writes sprecende in line 2 of the Vision text (fol. 3r). The distinctive letter forms that Hand B, the scribe of the Vision, uses are the following: only insular form of g with tail open (megen, fol. 4r/1), whereas Hand A frequently uses the form of g like an angular figure 3 (godes, fol. 14r/3) and occasionally uses the insular form of g (halig, fol. 13v/14); only insular form of r (/@re, fol. 4v/1), whereas Hand A uses both caroline r with descender below the line (beforan, fol. 16v/16) and insular r (drefnesse, fol. 16v/4); only low s for minuscules (gelsan, fol. 5r/5), whereas Hand A uses both long s (deofles, fol.

17. Summary Catalogue, 2, pt. 2, p. 982. 18. Ker, Catalogue, pp. xlu, 411. i9. Ker, Catalogue, p. 411. 20. Iam indebted to Mr. Malcolm Parkes for his advice on the various hands. However, any mistakes in ascription are my own. 21. Ker, Catalogue, p. 411, chooses the letter r as his criterion for sorting out the hands. The use of caroline r with the descender below the line on fols. 2v, 12r—l6v, 25r—33v, 34r/1-4 prompts him to assign these leaves to the same scribe. I have detected this particular form of r up to the first four lines of fol. 35r.

8

THE MANUSCRIPT

12r/14) and low s (hus, fol. 12r/15). Hand B levels d to nearly all positions except for the abbreviation for bet, whereas Hand A follows the general rule for the eleventh century that p should be written at the beginning of a word, and d medially and finally.22 LATER HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT

In the seventeenth century the compilation was owned by Junius’s nephew Isaac Voss,23 whose pressmarks appear on fol. Ir as C. 29 and on the first binding-leaf of MS Junius 86 as F. 29. Voss gave the compilation to Junius as a gift,24 and in 1678 the Bodleian Library acquired it with Junius’s other MSS.25

2. CONTENTS

MSS Junius 85-86 consist today of eight texts and a twelfthcentury binding-leaf worthy of note. Fol. 1, the binding-leaf, containing readings for the Masses of Kings and Abbots, appears to be a missal fragment.26 Fol. 2r contains the end of a spurious2’? Wulfstan homily, No. 49 in Napier’s edition.28 It is found as Homily 10 in the Vercelli Book? and, in fragmentary form, as Homily 9 in the Blickling Collection.3° What we know of the complete homily with its emphasis on almsgiving

as a recompense for sin suggests that it was read during a penitential season. In fact the fragmentary version of the homily found in the 22. Ker, Catalogue, p. xxx1. - 23. So Junius says on fol. 9r of MS Junius 45, a collection of notes made by him from OE manuscripts. There he mentions that “‘Offictum hominis Christiani’” (fols. 29v—34r of MS Junius 85) was once in Voss’s possession. Cited in Summary Catalogue,

2, pt. 2, p. 974. 24. Wanley, Antiquae Literaturae, p. 44. 25. Ker, Catalogue, p. 411. 26. S. J. P. Van Dijk, ‘“‘Handlist of the Latin Liturgical Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford,” Typescript, 5:157. 27. Karl Jost, Wulfstanstudien, Schweizer anglistische Arbeiten 23 (Bern, 1950), pp. 248-49; Dorothy Bethurum, ed., The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957), p. 43.

28. Arthur Napier, ed., Wulfstan, Sammlung englischer Denkmaler in kritischen Ausgaben 4 (Berlin, 1883), pp. 250-65; Ker, Catalogue 69 Art. 9. . 29. Fols. 65r/20-71r/10; Ker, Catalogue 394 Art. 12. 30. Richard Morris, ed., The Blickling Homilies, EETS, OS 58, 63, 73 (1874-80: rpt. London, 1967), pp. 105-7; Ker, Catalogue 382 Art. 9.

9

INTRODUCTION

Blickling Collection had at one time a title which designated a penitential period, “‘to pam operum gangdege.’’3! Fol. 2v is the opening of an Address of the Soul to the Body. The

setting is some unspecified time after death when the soul curses its evil body and contemplates Christ’s sufferings. Resemblances between

the beginning of this Address and the middle section of Assmann Homily 14, “Concerning the Last Judgment,” should be noted.32 However, the original nature of the description of Christ’s pains has been changed by the compiler in his effort to form a transition with the following text. Fols. 3r—11v contain an OE translation of the Vision of St. Paul. As Willard noted, this gathering presents, with some omissions, matter appearing as Sections 4 to 17 of the full Latin version, from the complaint of the sun against the sins of man to the judgment of the second evil soul. 34 It is Willard’s distinction to have noticed the uniqueness of

the text, for as he observes, it is the only extant Western vernacular translation of the Long Latin Vision before the modern period.?° Through its description of the joys of the blessed and, even more, of the torments of the damned, The Vision of St. Paul reveals its didactic intent: to quicken men to goodness and to turn them from evil. In portraying both heaven and hell, the Vision becomes a storehouse of set pieces to be excerpted by homilists for the same didactic purpose. The conclusion of our text breaks off in mid-sentence as the angry

Lord contends with a recalcitrant soul. By some circumstance a continuity exists when we read from fol. 1lv to 12r and the sentence is 31. Rudolph Willard, ed., The Blickling Homilies, EEMF 10 (Copenhagen, 1960), p. 39. The title has been erased, but Willard was able to read the original writing with the aid of ultraviolet light and a good microscope. His rendering of the title as ““Rogation Tuesday” conveys an entirely different tone from “Crist Se Goldbloma”’ used by Morris, Blickling Homilies, p. 105. 32. Bruno Assmann, ed., Angelsdchsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Prosa 3 (1889; rpt. Darmstadt, 1964), pp. 164-69. See particularly fol. 2v/1-17 and Assmann, p. 167/76-81.

33. For the full Latin text, see Montague Rhodes James, ed., Apocrypha Anecdota, Texts and Studies 2, No. 3 (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 11-42. For its English rendering, see James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1926), pp. 525-55. For an almost full but different Latin version, see Theodore Silverstein, ed., Visio Sancti Pauli: The History of the Apocalypse in Latin together with Nine Texts, Studies and Documents 4 (London, 1935), pp. 131-47. 34. Willard, “‘Address,” p. 958. 35. Ibid.

10

THE MANUSCRIPT

not left hanging. This is not ‘‘sheer coincidence,’’36 but the design of

the scribe and the compiler, both of whom sought to make new correspondences. Fols. 12r—17r are a continuation of the Address of the Soul to the Body begun on fol. 2v. The opening dovetails nicely with the end of the Vision, for an event in the Vision seems to initiate a parallel event in Soul and Body: as Christ chastens the sinful soul, so the soul castigates its sinful body. The evil soul addresses its body first ; then the good soul

addresses its body. With the exception that the text here is more expansive, the speeches of the two souls are close to those of Assmann

Homily 14.37 After the good soul has praised its body, the homily continues with a series of contrasts between God and the devil as tutors of the soul, a catalogue which is also found in the Assmann homily in

abbreviated form.38 With a final plea to turn all our deeds to the better, the homily ends. Fol. 17r-v contains a medley of texts: the first five lines present the close of the Address of the Soul to the Body; immediately following,

written without a break in the text, is an assortment of charms. The charms, “Wid wif bearneacenu,” ““Wid gestice,” “Wid uncudum swyle,”’ and ‘““Wid todece,’’39 seem to have no significance other than

as space-fillers. The compiler, seeking a formulaic end to Soul and Body, found a string of charms attached to it, and included both in his book. Fols. 18r—24r present a complete text of Aélfric’s homily for the First Sunday in Lent.49 The homily is contained in ten other manuscripts, eight of which are also full texts.4! Of the incomplete versions, one supplements part of AElfric’s text with pseudo-Wulfstan material ;42

36. Such is Willard’s assessment of the continuity in ““Address,” p. 959. 37. See fols. 12r/14-13v/2 and Assmann, Homilien, p. 167/81-100. 38. See fols. 14r/19—15r/2 and Assmann, Homilien, pp. 167/102-168/112. 39. Oswald Cockayne, ed., Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early England, Rolls Series 35 (1864: rpt. New York, 1965), 1:392, 393, 394; G. Storms, AngloSaxon Magic (The Hague, 1948), pp. 283, 286, 279, 289. 40. Benjamin Thorpe, ed., The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 2 (London, 1846), 98-108. 41. Ker, Catalogue 15 Art. 50; Ker, Catalogue 21 Art. 9; Ker, Catalogue 38 Art. 16; Ker, Catalogue 41 Art. 25; Ker, Catalogue 48 Art. 18; Ker, Catalogue 56 Art. 19; Ker, Catalogue 153 Art. 12; Ker, Catalogue 309 Art. 18. 42. Ker, ‘Catalogue 331 Art. 43.

1]

INTRODUCTION

the other shows only the last third of A2lfric’s homily, chiefly the Last Judgment scene.43

The sermon falls into two unequal sections: the first part, concerned with Christian practices especially suitable in Lent, is twice the length of the second, which treats of Doomsday. The primary concern of the text is to encourage a generous attitude in the rich to the needs

of the poor. In a rebuke borrowed from Caesarius of Arles44 the homilist in the person of God reproaches man for his lack of charity

and seeks to instill in him a sense of priorities. A shift to the Last Judgment describes with force the fates of those who have and do not have the right sense of priorities.

Fols. 25r-40r contain a long digressive homily of a penitential nature. That it is a Lenten sermon is made explicit by the reference to a

fast of forty days which is being kept in preparation for Easter.4> Although untitled, it is probably a sermon for the Second Sunday in Lent.4© The homily which precedes it is marked for use on the First Sunday in Lent and the homily which follows, untitled in our compilation, is designated as a sermon for the Third Sunday in Lent in the Blickling Collection.47 The homily is of a type with the one which precedes it, for again the plea to fast, pray, and give alms sounds through the text. If man will only live generously, his soul shall be brighter than the sun when it shines the brightest. It is at this juncture that the homilist, attracted to the image of brightness, introduces the exemplum of the Three Utterances of the Soul. This imaginative projection into the soul’s first

response as it comes forth from the body at the moment of death appealed to sermon-makers. It is found in three other OE texts,4® one

43. Ker, Catalogue 309 Art. 76. 44. Germain Morin, ed., Sancti Caesarii Arelatensis Sermones, 1 (Maredsous, 1937), 138.2. Both Alfric and the homilist of pseudo-Wulfstan 49 are cited as borrowers by Rudolph Willard, “The Blickling-Junius Tithing Homily and Caesarius of Arles,”

Philologica: The Malone Anniversary Studies, ed. Thomas A. Kirby and Henry Bosley Woolf (Baltimore, 1949), p. 68. Caesarius reappears in MS Junius 86, fols. 40v-6lv, as a principal source. 45. Fols. 25v—26r. Rudolph Willard. Two Apocrypha in Old English Homilies, Beitrage zur englischen Philologie 30 (1935; rpt. New York, 1967), p. 35, n. 19, prints the appropriate lines. 46. First observed by Willard, Two Apocrypha, p. 35. 47. Morris, Blickling Homilies, p. 39. 48. Ker, Catalogue 56 Art. 10; Ker, Catalogue 153 Art. 4; Ker, Catalogue 331 Art. 53.

12

THE MANUSCRIPT

Irish text,49 and two Latin texts.59 The most striking feature of this episode is the affinities it has with the Vision of St. Paul: devils and angels as keepers of the soul, reproach or praise given as greetings to the soul, and the correspondence of fate to deeds. It is tempting to think that the compiler was drawn to this particular Lenten homily as a text for his collection because of the close relationship between the Three Utterances and the Vision. Moreover, in its present position in the manuscript this sermon forms with the one before and the one after it Lenten variations on the theme of almsgiving. The homily does double service: it reiterates the call to charity sounded in the previous texts; it expands the vision of the afterworld begun in Soul and Body. The two

motifs, charity and judgment, separately threading their way through the collection, finally join here. It is noteworthy that they converge within the context of a Lenten sermon. Fols. 40v—61v present a composite discourse, treating of tithing and

the duties of the clergy. As mentioned above, the homily is untitled in our compilation but is prescribed for the Third Sunday in Lent in the Blickling Collection.5! The sermon falls into three unequal sections. Opening with a reminder to the laity that the time of harvest brings with it the corresponding obligation to tithe, the homily turns to the subject of pastoral care. In discursive fashion are enumerated the duties of priests and bishops, with appropriate exempla of evil clergy and their punishments. The homily then turns again to the theme of tithing

and closes with a warning about the deceitfulness of riches and a suggestion to store up treasure in heaven.

In the end section of the homily there is mention of a “noble teacher’’ who assumes the name of St. Paul in the middle section. Willard>2 correctly demonstrated that the “noble teacher’ and St. The first two contain the same version. Willard, Two Apocrypha, pp.38—57, edits the

last two and the Junius 85 version of the Three Utterances. 49. Carl Marstrander, ‘‘The Two Deaths,” Eriu 5 (1911), 120-25. 50. Paris, BN Latin MS 2628, fols. 103v—105r, ed. Louise Dudley, The Egyptian Elements

in the Legend of the Body and Soul, Bryn Mawr College Monograph Series 8 (Baltimore, 1911), pp. 164-65; BN Latin MS 2628 and Oxford, University College MS 61 are edited by Rudolph Willard, “Latin Texts of the Three Utterances of the Soul,” Speculum 12 (1937), 150-57.

51. Although the Blickling and Junius homilies are ultimately derived from the same source, the Junius text is not copied from the Blickling sermon. For evidence of its independence, see Willard, “Tithing Homily,” pp. 66-67. 52. Willard, “Tithing Homily,” p. 66.

13

INTRODUCTION

Paul should not be equated,>3 for the text draws upon two distinct sources: the tithing sermon of Caesarius of Arles, ““De Reddendis Decimis,’’>4 and a full version of the Vision of St. Paul. Although the

Vision material is generally restricted to the middle portion of the sermon, it appears once in the tithing theme by way of an exemplum.55

Here again there is a natural conjunction of matter from the Vision and the insistent demand for charity, for the Vision of St. Paul provides

the appropriate torment for the man who lives without charity. The binding element in the sermon is the tone of urgent pastoral concern: concern that the laity give God his due, concern that the clergy give both God and the laity their due. Compelling in its treatment

of charity and judgment, citing St. Paul as an authority, the homily would appeal to the predilections of our compiler. Its inclusion in the collection is not surprising. Fols. 62r—81r present the life and death of St. Martin. The source

of the homily, as Max Forster observed,5° is the work of Sulpicius Severus: the “Vita S. Martini’ is drawn upon for the life of the saint, and “‘Epistula IIT’ for his death.57 There are two other copies of the biography of the saint,>8 in the Blickling Collection5® and in the Vercelli Book.©° Ours alone preserves the full narrative of the death of the saint.©!

At first glance the choice of a saint’s biography for the final text ofa homiletic collection seems inconsistent. However, further reflection suggests that the compiler was only following precedent in ending his compilation with a saint’s life, for two other anonymous collections show the same pattern :62 the Vercelli Book closes with an account of

53. Morris, Blickling Homilies, p. 38, identifies the two in the opening line of his translation of Homily 4. 54. Ed. Morin, Sermones, 1:136—40. See also Willard, ““Tithing Homily,” pp. 65—78. 55. Morris, Blickling Homilies, p. 41/33—36. 56. Max Forster, ““Zu den Blickling Homilies,” Archiv fir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Litteraturen 91 (1893), 200. 57. C. Halm, ed., Sulpicii Severi Opera, CSEL 1 (1866), 107-37, 146—S1. 58. AElfric’s treatments (Thorpe, Homilies, 2:498-518; Skeat, A/fric’s Lives of Saints, 2:218—-312) are not considered here, for they are quite different versions. 59. Morris, Blickling Homilies, pp. 211-27; Ker. Catalog1e 382 Art. 17. 60. Fols. 94v—101r; Ker, Catalogue 394 Art. 20. 61. Willard, Blickling Homilies, p. 40, comments on this. A. S. Napier, ““Notes on the Blickling Homilies,” Modern Philology 1 (1903), 308, edits the entire death scene. 62. This was brought to my attention by Mr. Angus Cameron.

14

THE MANUSCRIPT

St. Guthlac®3 and the Blickling Homilies conclude with a life of St.

Andrew.°4 The particular choice of St. Martin for the end of the manuscript may be accounted for by the death-bed scene, which seems to have exerted a certain attraction for our compiler. The confrontation here between the devil and the saint echoes passages from the Vision

where a band of demons lurks around the dying body, striving to possess the soul.65 This small recollection of the Vision would be enough to insure its insertion. 3. THE INTEREST OF THE MANUSCRIPT

MSS Junius 85-86 are a collection of texts selected by a monk with

certain spiritual preoccupations. In broad terms the themes can be stated as charity and judgment: judgment, the inevitable fact to be reckoned with, feared, and prepared for; charity, the effectual safeguard. There is, however, an idiosyncratic element in the treatment of the judgment motif, for the compiler is very sympathetic toward texts which show affinities with the Vision of St. Paul. The Address of the Soul to the Body, the Three Utterances of the Soul, the death-bed scene in the St. Martin biography, and, of course, the OE translation of the Vision are weighty evidence of his inclinations. A collection of homilies in English, stressing charity and judgment, depicting vigorous scenes which dramatize the fates of souls, and treating in two of them matters of interest to the laity,°© may be regarded as a compilation in some way associated with preaching to the laity. The careful arrangement of the texts allows them to comment upon each other, producing variations on the theme of man’s confronting his destiny. A compiler could follow various courses in making an anthology: he could use one author as his source; he could cull his material from several sources; and he might even supply some material of his own, as we have seen our compiler do in the form of transitions. The collection would then suit his own particular tastes and reflect the quality of 63. Fols. 133v—35v. See Max Forster, ‘““Der Vercelli-Codex CX VII nebst Abdruck einiger

altenglischer Homilien der Handschrift,” Studien zur englischen Philologie 50, Festschrift fiir Lorenz Morsbach (Halle, 1913), pp. 85-86. 64. Morris, Blickling Homilies, pp. 229-49. 65. James, p. 16/10—21; Silverstein, Visio, p. 133/7-14. 66. The A2lfric homily for the First Sunday in Lent (fols. 18r—24r) and a version of the Blickling Homily for the Third Sunday in Lent (fols. 40v—61v).

15

INTRODUCTION

his interests. Our manuscript represents the formative stages of such an

anthology. Its value lies precisely in its unfinished state; since the editorial touch is conspicuously apparent, it lays bare the process by which finished collections, like the Vercelli Book, could evolve. The nature of the compilation suggests that it was assembled specifically for use in Lent.®7 In fact three centuries ago Junius discerned a similar pattern. On one occasion when occupying himself with the collection he wrote on fol. Ir that this book (Junius 85) and the one following (Junius 86) form a collection of homilies ‘“‘materiam tractans poenitentialem.’’©’ There would be no better way to instill the proper Lenten spirit of self-denial than to remind an audience of the claims of

charity and of the judgment each soul undergoes. Moreover, our compiler was an astute man, for he noticed in the Vision of St. Paul a

wealth of metaphoric structures to convey the simple equation that how one lives is how one dies. His compilation is a meditation on this theme with a form as loose and as interconnected as a meditation would be. His industry and discernment make us read these texts anew, his way. 4. PROVENANCE

Where the compiler resided is a difficulty—Ker numbers the collection among the principal manuscripts whose medieval history is unknown.®9 There are some clues, nevertheless, which allow a tentative ascription. On fol. 43v a late twelfth- or early thirteenth-century hand writes the name “‘teobaldus ade de richebor.”’79 Greenway shows that the most common manner for distinguishing individuals in the period 1066-1300 was the use of the first name, then de, then a place name.7! Therefore “‘richebor” seems likely to be Richborough in Kent, and in fact the linguistic characteristics of some of the texts favor a Kentish

ascription.72 Moreover, a thirteenth-century (?) hand entitles MS 67. The only titled homily in our collection (fol. 18r) is prescribed for the First Sunday in Lent. 68. Wanley, Antiguae Literaturae, p. 44, identifies the writing as Junius’s. 69. Ker, Catalogue, p. xliv. 70. Ker, Catalogue, pp. 409-11, is followed in the assignment of dates. 71. Diana E. Greenway, comp., John Le Neve’s Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300,

2 (London, 1971), 112-24. ,

72. The language of fols. 3r—11v is discussed below, pp. 31-40. Southeastern spellings for

the manuscript are noted in Summary Catalogue, 2, pt. 2, p. 983; Ker, Catalogue,

16

THE MANUSCRIPT

Junius 85 as “Pars psalterii greci”’ on fol. Ir, a heading which suggests that the compilation may have been bound with a Greek Psalter. These

pieces of information prompt the search for a Greek Psalter in the libraries of the Kentish houses, the most important of which were at Canterbury.

The entry “Psaltertum Grece et Latine” appears in a fifteenthcentury catalogue of the library of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, edited by M.R. James.73 The cataloguer usually gives full information for his

entries, but in this case he provides neither the donor, nor the first words of the second leaf, nor the bookcase and shelf number.74 The omission of the first words of the second leaf may tmdicate that the cataloguer could not read them. As there were few Greek books in the library of St. Augustine’s (only the Psalter in Greek and Latin and part of Roger Bacon’s Greek Grammar’7> are recorded), he would have had little opportunity to study the language. James has nothing to add to what the cataloguer tells us about the Psalter other than his opinion that it 1s no longer extant. 7°

The significance should not be lost that one of the two Greek p. 410, notices y and yo spellings for W-S eo on fols. 3r—11v; Rudolph Willard, “The

Puuctuation and Capitalization of Aélfric’s Homily for the First Sunday in Lent,” University of Texas Studies in English 29 (1950), 16, n. 36, mentions ““idiosyncracies”’

which “‘are largely characteristic of J’s scriptorium, since they appear in the other texts of the codex.” The idiosyncracies are Kt. spellings for W-S ones on fols. 18r—24r. 73. Dublin, Trinity College MS D.1.19 (360), in Montague Rhodes James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge, 1903), p. 201, item 92. 74. Entries normally include: (1) general title; (2) name of donor; (3) other contents of the volume; (4) first words of the second leaf; (5) press-mark. See James, Ancient Libraries, pp. lix—Ix.

75. James, Ancient Libraries, p. 325, item 1146. 76. | have found records of only three extant Greek Psalters which are no later than the

thirteenth century. There is Cambridge, CCC MS 480 (twelfth century), which according to James (Ancient Libraries, pp. xxii, Ixxxvil) was probably at Christ Church, Canterbury, and which Archbishop Parker wanted to identify as belonging to Theodore of Tarsus. James later states (A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi Cambridge (Cambridge, 1912], 2:422, item 480) that he is practically certain that the Psalter came from the Franciscan convent at Oxford. Ker (Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books, 2nd ed. [London, 1964], p. 339) rejects the ascription. Another Greek Psalter is also found in the same library, CCC MS 468 (thirteenth century). James (Descriptive Catalogue, 2:403, item

468) identifies it as the Psalter of Gregory of Huntingdon, Prior of Ramsey. There is a third Greek Psalter in Cambridge, Trinity College MS 1142 (thirteenth century ?) whose origin is unknown according to James (The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College Cambridge [Cambridge, 1902], 3:140, item 1142).

17

INTRODUCTION

holdings known to have been at St. Augustine’s 1s a Psalter. Moreover, in checking the remaining holdings of the library, we discover that a

collection belonging to Robert, the infirmarian, contains a “‘visio pauli” and “‘quidam sermones plurimi.’”77 A Greek Psalter, a Latin Visio bound with certain sermons—this is a striking collocation of texts. From such evidence as the manuscript affords, the place name Richborough, the linguistic qualities of the texts, and the medieval title ‘‘Pars psalterii greci,”’ it is suggested that a possible provenance of MSS Junius 85-86 is St. Augustine’s, Canterbury. However, in the absence of firm evidence this ascription must be regarded as speculative.

77. James, Ancient Libraries, p. 379, item 1563.

18

Il

T he Vision of St. Paul

The Vision of St. Paul was originally written in Greek no later than the

middle of the third century.! Its immediate literary sources, the Apocalypses of Peter, Elias, and Zephaniah, suggest that the author was a Copt.3 At some point after 388 a preface was attached to the Vision which related its miraculous discovery under the foundations of Paul’s house in Tarsus4+—undoubtedly, an attempt to give the work

authority. In fact no such authority was needed. Drawing upon the contents of several visions, the Vision of St. Paul provided a semblance of orthodoxy. That its material was unoriginal was another assurance

of its truth. The more familiar it sounded, the more authentic it seemed.° Its popularity was immediate; only the Apocalypse of Peter rivaled it in attention, and then only in the Vision’s early years. Its importance increased from the eighth century on,® and it is now considered by one authority as second only to canonical revelation for the influence it exercised on medieval literature and thought.’ 1. THE LATIN TRADITION

The Vision of St. Paul exists both in Long Versions, which preserve the fullness of the original Greek, and in Redactions, shorter and later 1. I am everywhere indebted in this section to Theodore Silverstein, ed., Visio Sancti Pauli: The History of the Apocalypse in Latin together with Nine Texts, Studies and Documents 4 (London, 1935), especially the introduction, chapters 1 and 3. R. Casey, “The Apocalypse of Paul,” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1933), 2, n. 3, argues that the vision was definitely written in Greek, based on his study of the proper names. Casey, ibid., pp. 28, 24-26, suggests the date of 240-250, given the early quotations of the work and the absence of any notice of the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. 2. James, ANT, pp. 505—24; Georg Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse, und Bruchsticke der Sophonias-Apokalypse, Texte und Untersuchungen

zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 17 (Leipzig, 1899), pp. 155-69, 149-55. 3. For the localization of Peter, see Silverstein, Visio, p. 92, n. 3. For the Egyptian origin of Elias and Zephaniah, see Steindorff, Elias, pp. 18-20. 4. In the consulate of Theodosius Augustus and Cynegius (James, p. 11/910). 5. Silverstein, Visio, p. 5.

6. Ibid., p. 3. 7. Casey, “Paul,” p. 1. 19

INTRODUCTION

developments of the Long Latin Version.’ The OE Vision, though only a partial text, can be seen to draw on the Long Latin Version. There are now in print three Latin texts of the Long Version to be considered: (1) P: Montague Rhodes James, Apocrypha Anecdota, Texts and Studies 2, No. 3 (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 11-42; English translation in James, Apocryphal

New Testament (Oxford, 1926), pp. 525-55. This edition is based on a Paris MS, B. N. nouv. acq. lat. 1631, the oldest extant Latin MS of the Vision. It is an eighth-century copy (with modifications) of the original Latin translation which on linguistic grounds has been dated between the fourth and sixth centuries.9 (2) St. G: Theodore Silverstein, Visio Sancti Pauli, Studies and Documents 4 (London, 1935), pp. 131-47. This edition is based on a St. Gall MS of the ninth century, Codex 317. Although it is similar in language and contents to P, it 1s independent of P.!° Its source generates the later Latin Redactions, and they, in turn, the vernacular Redactions. (3) F: Silverstein, Visio, pp. 149-52. First edited by Herman Brandes, Visio S. Pauli: Ein Beitrag zur Visionslitteratur mit einem deutschen und zwei lateinischen Texten, Gesellschaft fiir deutsche Philologie 5 (Halle, 1885), pp. 68-71, 95-96. This is a fragmentary and abbreviated text based on a fourteenth-century MS in Vienna, Codex 362. Its importance lies as evidence of a second Latin tradition independent of the translation which produces P, St. G, and the later Redactions.!1

It is not difficult to understand the interest generated by the Vision,

for it spoke of things which mattered to the medieval world. Unlike 8. For bibliographical information on the Long Versions, see Silverstein, Visio, pp. 219-20; Casey, “‘Paul,” pp. 2-5. Between the eighth and the seventeenth centuries, Long Versions of the Vision appear in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Slavic (Russian), Armenian, and Coptic. The Redactions, in contrast, were written in the chief languages of Europe. It is noteworthy that of the 56 extant manuscripts of the Redactions, 21 are English, most of them of Redaction IV. Silverstein, ““The Vision of St. Paul: New Links and Patterns in the Western Tradition,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age 34 (1959), 212, observes that the number of manuscripts surely points to the popularity of Redaction IV in England, if not to its origin.

9. Silverstein, Visio, pp. 5-6 and 95, n. 28; 37. 10. Ibid., pp. 34-35, 61. 11. Ibid., p. 36. Two other Latin texts recently discovered by Silverstein also give evidence

of this second Latin tradition: Graz, Universitatsbibliothek MS 856 [Gz], and Ziirich, Zentralbibliothek MS C 101 (467) [Z]. For a full account of the importance of Gz and Z for the study of the Latin Vision, see Silverstein, ‘““The Graz and Ziirich Apocalypse of Saint Paul: An Independent Medieval Witness to the Greek,” Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt, ed. J. J. G. Alexander and M. T. Gibson (Oxford, 1976), pp. 166-80.

20 |

THE VISION OF ST. PAUL

the Apocalypse of Peter, which was set in a remote Doomsday, the Vision directs its attention to man’s immediate fate at the hour of death.!2 The description of the contents of the Vision follows James’s text (P) since it is the fullest. The contents may be divided into four sections. !3

I. Introductory revelations (I-18 ).144 Opening with a quotation from 2 Cor. 12.2-4, in which St. Paul speaks of his rapture to the third heaven, P evokes the appropriate visionary atmosphere. An account of the discovery of the revelation in a box of marble under the foundations of Paul’s house in Tarsus (1—2) is a prelude to hearing the contents of the work. The vision proper then begins (3), narrated in the first person, with Paul’s statement that the voice of God came to him, commanding him to chastise these people for their transgressions. Paul learns (4-6) that not only God but also the elements are weary of the sinfulness of man. The sun, the moon and stars, the seas, the waters, and the earth are only checked from destroying man by the mercy of God. The voice further describes (7-10) how the angels report to God twice a day, at sunrise and sunset, concerning the deeds of men. It is noteworthy that the angels who bear good reports do not come from the good 1n general but from a specific class, ascetics. Likewise, the angels who bear bad

reports do not come from pagans but from those who are not committed enough in the practice of their religion.!5 A guiding angel then carries Paul to the third heaven (1 1—12) to see the places of the righteous

and the damned. During the journey, he notices a group of evil spirits _ who dwell beneath the firmament of heaven. In addition, he sees two bands of angels, angels without mercy and angels with radiant faces,

who function as psychopomps, those who lead out the souls of the dying. Paul then requests to see the deaths of a good man and a sinful man (13), and as he looks down from heaven, the world appears as nothing to his eyes. He looks again (14) and sees a good man about to die with all his deeds lying about him. As his soul leaves the body, it is 12. Silverstein, Visio, p. 5. 13. Silverstein, Visio, pp. 21-33, is followed in noting four divisions. The first section is detailed more than the others since the OE translates it. 14. The numbers refer to the paragraphs marked off by James and Silverstein in their editions. These divisions had been established by Constantine Tischendorf in his edition of the Long Greek Version, Apocalypses Apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866), pp. 34-69. 15. Casey, ‘‘Paul,”’ p. 8, considers this attitude characteristically monastic, and it prompts him to suggest that the author of the Vision was himself a monk.

21

INTRODUCTION

met by psychopomps, both good and evil, but only the good angels have control of it. The good angels encourage it ; its guardian angel praises it;

- its spirit comforts it. On the way to heaven it is challenged by wicked powers!® who search it in vain for “‘something of ours.’’ When the soul is brought to God, its guardian angel and its spirit testify to its goodness. God commands it to be given to Michael and brought to Paradise. The going-out of the wicked soul (15-16) follows a similar

pattern. This time, however, the evil angels snatch the soul at the moment of death. Likewise, the evil powers meet it on its way to heaven and claim it as their own. The soul is carried to God’s throne, where its angel and its spirit testify against it. God rejects it and the soul is handed © to the angel Tartaruchus to be punished. A second wicked soul is then

brought before God (17-18), who laments that it has been tormented by merciless angels for seven days. However, it denies having sinned until confronted by its guardian angel with a list of its sins and by those whom it has injured. The soul finally acknowledges its guilt and 1s handed over to Tartaruchus. The incident of the going-out of souls and their judgment is one of the most important features of the Vision, according to Silverstein, !7 because it furnishes the motif for the address of the soul to the body and for the later medieval debate. Other than the visit to Hell, it is the only

section of the vision which survives in the shorter Latin Redactions. IT. Dwellings of the righteous (19-30). After the judgment of the wicked soul, Paul is guided by his angel to the places of the righteous: Paradise, the Land of Promise, and the City of Christ.18 In front of Paradise is a Golden Gate flanked by two pillars with tablets on which are inscribed the names of the righteous (19-20). Within the gate Paul meets Enoch and the sun!9 and 1s shown the wonders which he is not to reveal. From Paradise Paul is brought to the Land of Promise (21-22) where the souls of the just are sent immediately after death. It is a land 16. Actually, in P the challenge is issued by a vague angel and the challenge itself has been greatly reduced. The reading of St. G is preferable at this point: “omnes potestates’’ obstruct the soul on its way to heaven; they are rebuked by the soul’s angel and spirit with the speech “‘Conuertimini erubescentes ...”’ (Silverstein, Visio, p. 132/1-3). 17. Silverstein, Visio, p. 23. The phrase “‘going-out” is Silverstein’s. 18. Casey, “‘Paul,” pp. 19-20, suggests that the distinction among these three places is an arbitrary one. He considers this portion of the vision to be a loose combination of three separate accounts of heaven. 19. The Latin shows confusion of Helias with Helios. Actually, Paul speaks to Elias, not to the sun. See Silverstein, Visio, p. 34.

22 ,

THE VISION OF ST. PAUL

flowing with milk and honey and its trees are lush with foliage and fruits. Those who were married on earth, but remained continent, dwell here. The reward for virgins is seven times greater than these. Paul and the angel proceed toward the City of Christ (23-30), arriving there by means of a golden boat which takes them across the Acherusian Lake. In the lake they see the Archangel Michael cleansing repentant

sinners before they are admitted to the City of Christ. The city is of gold, surrounded by twelve walls and bordered by four rivers. Just outside its doors Paul notices a group of men who are sad whenever anyone enters the city. Within he sees the prophets at the river of honey; the children slaughtered by Herod are found at the river of milk. At the river of wine he meets the patriarchs; at the river of oil are those humble

servants who devote themselves entirely to God. Paul notices one especially prominent group with jewelled crowns and golden thrones; he is informed that they are the unlearned who have no knowledge but are happy to be regarded as fools for Ged.2° In the center of the city David sings his psalms in praise of God. III. Dwellings of the wicked (31-44). Paul leaves the dwellings of

the righteous and visits the place of sinners. It 1s a land filled with horrors where there is sorrow, darkness, and pain. All sinners are punished here, like with like, and each with torments corresponding to

his deeds. It is this description of the infernal regions which gave the Vision its greatest popularity throughout the Middle Ages.2! The list of crimes and torments is very comprehensive: Immersed to various levels in a burning river are the Laodiceans,

, people who were neither hot nor cold (31).22 In a bottomless pit are those who did not trust the Lord (32-33). Angels pierce the entrails of a sacrilegious priest with a threepronged fork (34). Four angels sink a wicked bishop up to his knees in a fiery river and

do not allow him to say ““Mercy!” (35). |

Two further classes of sinners are tormented in the fiery river: a

20. Casey, “‘Paul,”’ p. 20, considers the praise given to the unlearned a monastic detail. Cf. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana 2.8.12, CC 32 (1962), pp. 38/1-39/20. 21. Indeed it is the Hell scene which is best preserved in the Redactions, the principal means through which the Vision was known. See Silverstein, Visio, pp. 40-61, and his later article dealing specifically with the Redactions, ‘New Links,” pp. 199-248. 22. A reminiscence of Apoc. 3.15.

23

| INTRODUCTION wicked deacon with worms coming out of his mouth and nose; an evil lector whose tongue and lips are cut by a red-hot razor (36). Usurers are devoured by worms; mockers in church gnaw at their own tongues (37). Various sinners are thrown into a pit where all torments flow: an

old man marked with blood, sorcerers immersed to their lips, adulterers, both men and women, with black faces (38). Paul notices girls who did not keep their virginity dressed in black and dragged by fiery chains. Persecutors of widows and orphans are found in a place of ice and snow with their hands and feet cut off; worms devour them. Those who broke the fasts of the church suffer the punishment of Tantalus. Adulterers hang by their hair

and eyebrows in a fiery river. Sodomites are placed in a pit of pitch and brimstone (39). Heathen who gave alms are dressed in white, but they are blind. Those who neglected their children are tormented on a spit of fire

and torn apart by beasts. False ascetics are clad in fiery rags; dragons are wrapped around their bodies and they are persecuted by angels with fiery horns (40). Paul sees the pit sealed with the seven seals, the worst torment of

| all. A dreadful stench arises from there. Confined within are those who denied the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Real Presence (41). Dwelling with the worm which never sleeps are those who denied

the Resurrection (42). The climax of the journey is reached when God grants a respite to the damned on the day of the Resurrection. Mercy is shown to sinners because of the prayers of Paul and Michael and because of the oblations of the living (43-44). IV. The Paradise of Eden (45-51). Paul is then brought to the biblical Paradise of Adam and Eve. He sees here the four rivers, the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He meets a succession of saints, among whom are the Virgin, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and some of the prophets. The Vision ends abruptly in the middle of Paul’s speech with Elias. There is nothing remarkable about this second visit to heaven.

24

THE VISION OF ST. PAUL

The relationship of the Long Latin Versions to each other and to the Greek has been established by Silverstein23 as follows:

7 Gr2

L! |

2

P NX

StG FGz/ Z,\ O is the primitive Greek of the third century without the Tarsus preface ;

T is the Tarsus text; Gr? and Gr? are hypothetical Greek linking texts; Q 1s the hypothetical source common to F, Gz, and Z. P contains the most complete copy of the Vision. St. G is less full, beginning with the exit of the righteous soul from its body, and ending after the respite is granted to sinners.24 Its importance lies in preserving original matter that is lacking in P, yet found in the OE translation. F, the Vienna Fragment, will not be discussed since its text begins only after the OE translation ends. A comparison of the contents of P and St. G demonstrates their

relationship. Their closeness is revealed not only by a similarity in language but also by their agreement in contrast to the non-Latin versions. One notable example is that neither of the Latin texts names Elias as the person whom Paul meets in company with Enoch: P shows the sun (James, p. 21/32); St. G shows solum (Silverstein, p. 136/22), an awkward attempt to make solem intelligible.25 However, although 23. Silverstein, ““Graz and Zurich Apocalypse,” p. 179. The following treatment df the relationship of the Latin texts is dependent on Silverstein, Visio, pp. 34-35, 24-25. A less detailed analysis of the content and relationships of the Vision is presented in E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, 2, trans. R. McL. Wilson (London, 1965), 756-58. 24. This corresponds to James, pp. 16/35-36/22. 25. See Silverstein, Visio, p. 34, for a further discussion of the similarities between P

and St. G.

25

INTRODUCTION

St. G is close to P, it is not dependent on it. In several places where P is lacking, St. G preserves the original. The most telling instance for our purpose occurs in the account of the going-out of the good soul. St. G properly identifies the challenge as being made by potestates ‘witnesses’ (Silverstein, p. 132/1) instead of an angel (James, p. 17/2), and retains the speech “Conuertimini erubescentes . . .”’ (Silverstein, p. 132/3).26 From these observations of the similarities and differences, it is evident that St. G is not related to P but to P’s Latin source. Yet St. G 1s not derived directly from that, for its omission of the Tarsus preface and the second visit to Paradise suggests that there was still another recension, Silverstein’s 2. 2. THE OLD ENGLISH TRANSLATION

It is quite certain that the OE translation is not based directly on P. The clearest indication of this is the description of the angels without

mercy. OE portrays them accurately: they have abundant hair; fiery sparks come out of their mouths (Il. 66-67). P, however, is corrupt at this point: it shows fiery sparks coming out of the angels’ hair as well as their mouths, and the detail concerning the amount of hair is lost entirely.27 P, therefore, since it is less precise than our translation, cannot be its immediate source. In fact, the OE preserves original matter wanting in P. There are two notable examples. After Paul is told that the angels bring man’s deeds to God at sunrise and sunset, an angel takes (geniman, 1. 56) him to the third heaven to witness the going-out of souls. The corresponding section in P starts abruptly: ‘‘et respondens angelus dixit mihi. . .”’ (James, p. 14/34). Since no angel has been mentioned previously, it is obvious that something has been lost.28 In the account of the going-out of the good soul, the OE preserves the speech of the soul’s guardian angel to the witnesses: ‘“‘cyrrad onbacling scamigende” (1. 92). There is no equivalent passage in P. Since the same

speech is found in St. G (Silverstein, p. 132/3), it cannot be an OE embellishment, but is the accurate transmission of the original text.

26. See Silverstein, Visio, pp. 34—35, for a further discussion of the differences between P and St. G.

27. The OE reading is verified by the Syriac, Russian, and Armenian versions. See Casey, “‘Paul,” p. 9. 28. The OE reading is supported by the Greek, Syriac, and Russian.

26

THE VISION OF ST. PAUL

It is more difficult to determine the relationship of the OE to St. G. Owing to the truncated state of both texts, there are only 127 lines where

the two coincide. Nevertheless, this is sufficient text to make some generalizations. First, it should be noticed that St. G preserves an extended passage, found also in OE: (11. 90-97) but lacking in P, depicting the going-out of the good soul. Secondly, there are five places where the reading of St. Gis closer than P to OE.29 Except for these, and

one other, P and OE correspond more closely.39 Therefore, it can be stated that of the extant Long Latin Versions, the OE translation 1s closer to P than St. G.3! 29. In 1. 103 both OE and St. G convey the sense of “‘showing” to the soul: etewdon ‘ostenderunt’ (Silverstein, p. 132/13); P, however, has the curious reading ostia | ‘gates’ (James, p. 17/9). In 1. 111 both OE and St. G describe the soul as enjoying Paradise until Doomsday: 03 domesdzg “usque in diem resurrectionis’ (Silverstein, p. 132/23); P omits the reference to Doomsday (James, p. 17/20-21). In 1. 128 both OE and St. G omit the detail.found in P that the angels admonish the soul three times (James, p. 18/8). In 1. 153 both OE and St. G show the imperative: geld ‘Fac’ (Silverstein, p. 134/11); P, however, shows a participial construction (James, p. 19/8).

In the opening lines of the section comprising II. 153-56, OE and St. G through abbreviation are closer to each other than to P (James, p. 19/11-—13). 30. P is superior to St. G in the following examples. In 1. 115 both OE and P show “‘but”’: ac ‘sed’ (James, p. 17/25); St. G shows ‘et’ (Silverstein, p. 132/28). In 1. 117 both OE and P describe the souls as “‘impious’’: arleases ‘impii’ (James, p. 17/31); St. G shows the vague adjective ‘aliam’ (Silverstein, p. 133/1). In I. 121 both OE and P

show “inhabitants of hell’: hylwarum ‘inferos’ (James, p. 17/34); St. G shows ‘infernum’ (Silverstein, p. 133/3). In 1. 125 both OE and P show the comp. adjective ‘better’: selre ‘melius’ (James, p. 18/4); St. G shows the positive degree ‘bonum’ (Silverstein, p. 133/7). In ll. 136-37 OE and P show the guardian angel speaking in Ist pl.: us ‘nobis,’ we Senian ‘non cessemus ministrare’ (James, p. 18/17—18); St. G shows lst sg.: ‘mihi,’ ‘non cessem ministrare’ (Silverstein, p. 133/19). In |. 141 OE and P show the subordinate conj.: pet ‘ut’ (James, p. 18/30); St. G shows ‘et’ (Silverstein, p. 133/31). In 1. 143 both OE and P show the positive degree of the adjective: earme ‘misera’ (James, p. 18/33); St. G shows the superl. ‘miserrima’ (Silverstein, p. 134/2). In 1. 148 both OE and P show the indirect object: him ‘ei’ (James, p. 19/1); St. G omits it (Silverstein, p. 134/5). In ll. 170-71 both OE and P (James, p. 19/34-35) record the direct reply of the sinful soul to God’s question; St. G omits it (Silverstein, p. 134/32).

31. In her discussion of the sources, Luiselli Fadda, ““Una inedita traduzione,”’ p. 482, accurately states that our OE text 1s derived from a Long Latin Version of the Vision ; however her further comments on the Latin sources should be treated cautiously. It is difficult to understand the basis for her remark (p. 482, n. 3) that Silverstein’s text is more important than James’s, when James’s text is our only witness to the Long Latin tradition for approximately one-half of the OE translation. Moreover, when we have a choice between readings in Silverstein and James, Silverstein is not always closer. Her position (p. 484) that almost everywhere our OE fragment repeats “ad verbum”’ the text published by Silverstein is quite mistaken, I think. 27

INTRODUCTION

The one example where neither P nor St. G corresponds to the OE is significant because it establishes in a positive way the existence of

another Latin recension, the source of our OE translation. Lines 89-90 contain a brief exclamation to the good soul. Although lacking 1n P and St. G, the matter 1s original since it is found in both the Russian

and Syriac texts. The pertinent section in the Russian text reads as follows: “And an evil spirit came to meet it, and the spirit of fornication; and seeing it they wept and said, ‘O soul that art escaping us and hast done the will of God, being upon earth!’ ’’32 The source of the OE translation must have preserved more fully than P or St. G this particular speech by the witnesses. We may now attempt to reconstruct our Latin source, at least in the matter of the Introductory Revelations. The overall similarity in the language among P, St. G, and the Latin source suggests that the

three texts were ultimately derived from L!. However, our Latin source is simultaneously more precise and more abbreviated?3 than P and St. G. Unlike P it describes accurately the merciless angels ; moreover, it preserves the scene in which the angel takes Paul up to the third

heaven and also the speech in which the guardian angel of the good soul castigates the witnesses. Unlike St. G it opens with the complaints of nature against the sinfulness of man and continues with a description

of the angels who bring man’s deeds to God at sunrise and sunset. Unlike P and St. G it preserves the detail of the witnesses’ weeping at the sight of the good soul who is able to flee from them. It would seem, however, that the speeches of the spirit of the soul were given with some condensation, and that there was some uncertainty about the roles of the psychopomps and witnesses. Moreover, the challenge of the good soul, although preserving some original matter, was itself shortened.

The deviations of the OE from the known Latin texts are the following. In lines 26 and 141-42 the OE text is corrupt (see textual notes). In line 83 OE niht, not noht, translates Lat. nihil. In line 85 OE singad, not singiad, translates Lat. noceant. In lines 103-4 OE 32. Silverstein’s rendering (Visio, p. 25) of the Russian text, ed. Nikolai Tichonarov, Pamjatniki Otrechennoj Ruskoj Literatury, 2 (Moscow, 1863), p. 43. 33. The abbreviation is noticeable throughout by a comparison of the Latin with the OE. There is a general reduction of the material in places and a simplification of nondistinctive characters: the guardian angel and the spirit of the soul have merged into the figure of the guardian angel alone; the psychopomps and witnesses have been brought together into one group which both removes the soul and challenges it.

28

THE VISION OF ST. PAUL

shows confusion between direct and indirect object where the Lat. shows the proper relation. In lines 146-47 OE is concerned with the soul’s having rest with the angel where the Lat. states that the angel can

have no rest with the soul. In lines 156-57 OE has a reminiscence of Augustine, an amplification of the known sources. In line 174 OE /ihd ‘deceives’ translates Lat. caelat et abscondit, thus requiring a change in object and a change in sense (see further, note to 174). Some of these

deviations may be adaptations of the Latin exemplar or the English translator. Others could be the product of scribal transmission. On the whole, though, our text conveys with a fair degree of accuracy the tension which surrounds the going-out of souls. There are notable syntactical differences in the OE and the known Latin texts. In at least nine instances, independent clauses in the Latin

undergo subordination in OE, the reverse of the usual direction.34 These examples exclude justified subordination caused by the transition

from direct to indirect speech. Although the examples are not complicated in thought, it is striking that in so short a text we find so many instances where the translator makes more complex the syntax of his model. It is not always true that OE translators substitute parataxis for hypotaxis. 35

Stylistically, we notice that double translations of Latin verbs and nouns are rare. I have found only three clear examples: bletsiad and gebiddad 54 render ‘benedicte’; ge gehwyrfan and hrywe don 137 render ‘peniteamini’; wop and hrywsunge 159 render ‘fletus.’ The use of OE pairs for a single Latin word is evidence of the translator’s wish to

define the Latin more accurately than a single native word would allow. The technique of the OE translation is definition, not ornamentation. Our compiler, having found a fuller copy of the Vision than the one in his own collection, added on fols. 3r—6r matter missing in his own

text. The additions, ranging from one word to several lines, have various ends. The most frequent additions are clarifications of the person speaking or spoken to: in line 12 the phrase cwed syo yorde 34. In Il. 4, 23-24, 29-30, and 40, independent constructions in the Latin are rendered by noun clauses in OE; in |. 166 a Latin coordinate construction is translated by an

| adj. clause; in Il. 36, 114-15, 149, 166, Latin independent clauses are rendered by adv. causal clauses. 35. Campbell, in his review of The Life of St. Chad, ed. Rudolph Vleeskruyer, Medium A:vum 24 (1955), 53, holds that this is generally the case.

29

INTRODUCTION

identifies the direct speech of the earth; in line 48 the word Drihten identifies the person addressed. Other clarifications involve the identification of pronoun referents: in line 37 him is erased and replaced by a specific object, urum Drihtne; in line 47 hige remains in the text but is clarified by the phrase da earman lichaman. Both sorts of additions tend to create an unambiguous text. Other additions show that completeness as well as clarity is the aim of the compiler, for he attempts to restore the text to its original fullness by the insertion of missing words. In lines 20-21 the possessive pronoun is added to conform to the Latin: hi besmitad, Drihten, (dine) halgan stowe ‘coinquinauerunt sanctum locum tuum’ (James, p. 13/8—9); in lines 54—55 an adverbial phrase is introduced to translate a Latin adverb: (And) fordan bletsiad (eow) and gebiddad eow to Drihtne (ge deges ge nihtes) ‘benedicite dominum deum indeficienter’ (James, p. 13/33—34); in lines 30-32 an unfinished

clause receives an appropriate ending even though there is nothing closely corresponding to it in the Latin: and bet mennisce cyn de nefre hyra gebeda ne geswicad (dara manna sawla becumaod into parudisam)

‘Humanum autem genus solum peccat’ (James, p. 13/18). Finally, several additions are amplifications of the Latin text, occurring most notably in a catalogue of sins (Il. 12-15) and of evil spirits (Il. 62-65). The effect of this type of addition is to heighten the aura of evil which surrounds benighted man in the Vision, and perhaps in this sense we may call it a stylistic change. In summary, clarification, completeness, and amplification are the usual patterns of the OE additions.

30

iil

Language

The linguistic evidence supports the view that the text was probably copied in the southeast: it is chiefly late Kentish.! As such it forms a connection between the Kentish Glosses of the tenth century and the southeastern dialects of early Middle English. |. SPELLING AND PHONOLOGY?

Germanic and West Germanic vowels and diphthongs. Prim. Gmc. a

followed by a nasal appears as a (Campbell, §130), e.g., hand 158. West Gmc. e 1s represented usually by e, e.g., emne 156. It appears

] twice as @: berenda 12; gewerlice ‘manfully’ 99 beside wera 36. It appears six times as y: cwydendre 143 beside cwedendra 98; hylle 19 (A’s addition), hylware 59, hylwarum 121; and with e transferred from swerian rather than original a, (ge)andswyrede 168, 170 beside andswerede 5. West Gmc. d is represented usually by @ (Campbell, §132.1), e.g., gebedon 102. It appears once as éa: mandwearnyssa 74. It also appears

once as ie. tielnyssa 14-15 (A’s addition) beside telnessa 63. Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter} also provides examples of the direct substitution of ze for @: in Ps. 104.37 on mieghum (mégp) glosses in 1. Cf. Luisellt Fadda. “Una inedita traduzione.” p. 484. who suggests that the text may have originated in the area of Wessex and then been transferred to a southeastern location. She adduces both W-S e and eo spellings beside Kt. y and yo spellings as support for her position. It may well be that our text was first translated in Wessex and later copied in the southeast. At the same time an argument can be made for the southeastern origin of the text since Kt. seems to have tolerated a number of W-S spellings. See William Frank Bryan’s analysis of non-Kt. forms, and esp. of W-S forms in Studies in the Dialects of the Kentish Charters of the Old English Period (Menasha, Wisc., 1915), p. vii and n. 4, and pp. 29-40. See also the examples of W-S eo spellings beside Kt. io spellings in KG (Irene Williams, “A Grammatical Investigation of the Old Kentish Glosses,” Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik 19 (1905), §815, 17, 36, 37, 42, 44). 2. In the following analysis only the most interesting graphs are recorded. 3. Fred Harsley, ed., Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter, Part 2, EETS, OS 92 (London, 1899), pp. 183, 237, 216, 227. 3]

INTRODUCTION

tribubus ; in Ps. 143.10 hielo (h@lu) glosses salutem; in Ps. 118.171 pu lierest me (l@ran) corresponds to docueris me ; in Ps. 135.13 se todielep (todélan) corresponds to qui divisit. The occurrence of tiefnyssa in our text is one instance of the @-ie equation which will assert itself more

frequently in that later southeastern text. Prim. Gmce. au is written @a (Campbell, §135), e.g., earan 7.

Prim. Gmc. eu regularly appears as eo (Campbell, $136), e.g., leofan 147. It appears twice as yo. hryowsian 51 (A’s addition), lyoman 4.

Prim. Gmc. iv appears regularly as yo (Campbell, §137), e.g., inflections of dyoful (5 times); Syostru(m) 87, 159; underdyoded 30. It also appears as @o- eow(er) 54 (A’s addition), 54, 137, 174. Prim. Gmc. iu arising from contraction appears regularly as yo: hyo (8 times); syo (5 times, 3 are A’s additions). [t appears as éo 9 times: heo (6 times) ; seo 152, 170; Seos 147. It also appears as zo : hio (5 times). Breaking and retraction of front vowels. Breaking of @ from Gmc.

a to ea before / followed by a consonant occurs regularly (Campbell, §143), e.g., forhealdnessa 12. The single retracted form, which may be a mistake, has a corresponding broken form: alne 82 beside ealne 86.

Breaking of @ to ea before r followed by a consonant occurs regularly (Campbell, §144), e.g., spearcan 67.

Breaking of @ to ea before y occurs regularly (Campbell, $145), e.g., leahtrum 20. Breaking of e before r followed by a consonant occurs regularly as yo (Campbell, §146), e.g., yorde 12 (A’s addition), yordan (6 times,

one is A’s addition), yordlic 41 (A’s addition); mildhyorta 136, mildhyortnysse 170; nyorxnewanges 110; wyorc(um) 41, 152. It appears as eo 4 times: eordan (3 times); mildheortnesse 66. Breaking of i before uy appears in our text as yo (Campbell, §148), e.g., nyowelnessa 59.

Influence of initial palatal consonants. There is no tendency to develop a glide front vowel after i (Campbell, §171): 1u 173. There is no tendency to develop a glide in the group sca (Campbell, 8179): ascaden 139, fotscamele 102, scamigende 92.

There is no diphthongization of front vowels after palatal consonants (Campbell, §185). @ remains as @: ongen 88; @ remains as @: gescefta 11, gesceft 30; @ remains, spelled \'- scyl 3, scylt 130; @ remains

as é: get 173; é remains as é: geld 106, 153; é remains, spelled jagyten 5, forgylst 115. 32

LANGUAGE

I-mutation. The i-mutation of a before a nasal appears regularly as ge (Campbell, §193.d), e.g., gebraengad 37 ( however, have rather effectively challenged such a strict geographical limitation to the

spellings and would view the graphs as tolerated over a large part of southern England. More recently, Helmut Gneuss® has reiterated the Sisams’ caution against assigning a too limited location to this phono-

logical or orthographic feature. In short, the @ graphs only offer

evidence that we are dealing with a southern text. | The i-mutation of @ is regularly e (Campbell, §194), e.g., gesceded 11-12. It appears once as @: onsegdnyssa 21. The i-mutation of o is e (Campbell, §196), e.g., meregen 135. The i-mutation of u is y (Campbell, §199), e.g., cymst 145. The i-mutation of ais @ (Campbell, §197), e.g., ham6 19. The i-mutation of 0 is é (Campbell, §198), e.g., selre 125. The i-mutation of uw is y (Campbell, §199), e.g., fyrene 67. The i-mutation of ea by breaking before r is regularly y (Campbell, 8200.2), e.g., gecyrran 27. It appears once as e- ewergednyssa 65 (A’s addition). 4. Bryan, Kentish Charters, p. 7, and n. 26. 5. Celia and Kenneth Sisam, eds., The Salisbury Psalter, EETS, OS 242 (London, 1959), pp. 13-14. 6. Helmut Gneuss, “The Origin of Standard Old English and 4Zthelwold’s School at Winchester.” Anglo-Saxon England \ (1972), 72, and n. 1. 33

INTRODUCTION

The i-mutation of éa, the development of Prim. Gmc. au, alternates

between é and y (Campbell, §200.5): etewdon 103 beside etywe 57, ywede 40; cegde (4 times), cegdon 45 beside cygde 146, cygendra 98, cygendre 143; gehered 7 beside gehyrde (5 times); gelefdon 45, gelefe 96. Back mutation. The u-umlaut of e is regularly eo (Campbell, §210.3),

e.g., heofonum 81. It appears once as yo: tryogode ‘troubled’ 118. The a-umlaut of i is yo (Campbell, §212), e.g., hyora 16, 28 (A’s additions). Contraction of vowels. Without loss of any intervening consonant, contraction of i with a following back consonant occurs in the present tense of beon (Campbell, §238.1). Forms are found in eo, yo: Ist sg. beo 109 beside byo 138. Dialectal summary. West Gmc. @ appears as é in our text, spelled @, ea, te. This is a n-WS characteristic. Before / groups our text shows Kt. and W-S ea, not Angl. a, from breaking of West Gmc. a.

Before r groups our text shows Kt. and W-S ea, not North. a, from breaking of West Gmc. a. The text fails to diphthongize vowels in the presence of preceding palatalized consonants. The absence of such diphthongization 1s a Kt. and Merc. characteristic. It is here particularly that we notice @, e, y confusion in the graphs. The /-mutation of éa to é (y) is a n-WS dialectal distinction.

In summary, the variation in graphs for the OE development of West Gmc. a, the breaking of West Gmc. a before / and r groups, the lack of diphthongization of vowels after palatal consonants with ae, e, y confusion, and the appearance of n-WS i-umlaut together distinguish our text as Kentish. LATER CHANGES OF ACCENTED VOWELS

Vocalization of i. The interchange of forms with 7 and ig caused by

the vocalization of i leads to an equation of ig and 7 in spelling, and therefore of yg and y (Campbell, §271). Examples of ig for 7 occur in the 3rd pers. pron. hige beside Ai, and in the pres. subj. of the verb ‘to be’ sige(n) 122, 173. An example of yg for y (z) 1s also found in the pres. subj. of the verb ‘to be’ syge 157.

Palatal umlaut. Following the pattern of KG,’ our text shows 7. KG (Williams, §56a-b) show the following forms: aflihd ‘effugiet’ 670, oferwriho ‘operit’ 323. onwrih du ‘reveles’ 960. 34

LANGUAGE

palatal umlaut operating on a long diphthong. zo, derived from 7 breaking before h, becomes 7 (Campbell, §310): pres. 3rd sg. lihd 174, and by analogy pres. 2nd sg. beflihst 90.°

Smoothing. The text shows the process by which ea becomes e after g (Campbell, §314), e.g., gegerwige 23, with graphe for e. Vowels between w and r. There is a tendency for the short vowel between w and r to fall together in wur (Campbell, §320). This gives rise to the inverted spelling wyr for weor: awyrpad 141; gehwyrfan 131, 137; wyrc(um) 38, 134, 144; wyrolde 173.

The transition to Middle English. A recognizable feature of the short eo, io diphthongs in the text is their tendency to become monophthongs. Only two long io diphthongs are affected in this manner.9 Therefore, the findings reinforce Campbell’s statement (§329.2) that in Kt. the long diphthongs underwent a shift of stress, becoming level or rising, and were not subject to monophthongization.

The following monophthongs cannot be explained by either palatal umlaut or smoothing: io from Prim. Gmc. iu appears as y: ansyne 72. to from Prim. Gmc. iu by contraction shows y- frynd 147. éo from breaking before r followed by a consonant appears as j’. yrde 10, yrpe 22 (A’s addition), yrdan 108; hathyrtnyssa 63, hyrtan 62.

éo from the a-umlaut of i appears as y and é: hyra (6 times), hyran (3 times); here 17.

io from breaking before r followed by a consonant shows }j. hyrde (3 times), yrre 171.

Monophthongization is certainly the direction some of these words take in Kt. in ME. The Digby manuscript of the Poema Morale shows erde,!9 frend.!! Kentish Sermons show herte,!2 and Ayenbite has the forms ire, yre.!3 8. Palatal umlaut normally occurs before Z/, ¥5, yp in absolute finality (Campbell. §304) and not before yst. But see Ru! nihste ‘nearest.’ Cited by Campbell, §310. 9. I have excluded from the list of monophthongs éo (dam

hominem moritur