Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:29:07.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Old Latin Intervention in the Old English Heptateuch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Richard Marsden
Richard Marsden
Affiliation:
Girton College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Old Testament translations in the compilation known as the Old English Hexateuch or Heptateuch are based on good Vulgate exemplars. That is to say, where variation can be demonstrated between the version associated with Jerome's late fourth-century revision and the pre-Hieronymian ‘Old Latin’ versions, the Old English translations can be shown to derive from exemplars carrying the former. The opening of Genesis–‘On angynne gesceop God heofonan 7 eorðan. seo eorðe soðlice was idel 7 æmti’–illustrates this general rule. Behind it is the Vulgate ‘in principio creauit Deus caelum et terram. terra autem erat inanis et uacua”, not a version with the characteristic ‘old’ readings, such as fecit for creauit and inuisibilis et inconpositas for inani et vacua. Indeed, much of the Old English translation, especially in Genesis, is sufficiently full and faithful for the identification of specific Vulgate variants in the exemplar text to be made with some confidence and for the influence on it of the important Carolingian revisions asssociated with Orléans and Tours to be demonstrated. There is, however, a small number of Old English readings throughout the Heptateuch for which Latin parallels in the thirty or so collated Vulgate manuscripts are unknown or hardly known. Instead, they appear to derive from models available in pre-Hieronymian texts. Uncertainty often surrounds their identification, owing to the complexities both of the translation process and the history of the Latin Bible. Understanding their origins involves consideration of the influence of patristic literature and the liturgy, as well as the availability of ‘contaminated’ exemplar texts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 23 , December 1994 , pp. 229 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I follow the editor of the compilation, S. J. Crawford, in referring to it as a ‘Heptateuch’; see The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Ælfric's Treatise on the Old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis, EETS 160 (London, 1922Google Scholar; repr. 1969, with the text of two additional manuscripts transcribed by N. R. Ker), and Crawford's note on the title, p. 1. All Old English citations are from Crawford's edition, but see also below, n. 9. The manuscripts are discussed below. A facsimile of that on which Crawford's edition is based is available in The Old English Illustrated Hexateuch: British Museum Cotton Claudius B. IV, ed. Dodwell, C. R. and Clemoes, P. A.M., EEMF 18 (Copenhagen, 1974).Google Scholar

2 My authority for the Vulgate text and its variants is the Benedictine critical edition of the Old Testament, Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem, euro et studio monacborum Abbatiae pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in UrbeO. S. B. edita, ed. Quentin, H. et al. , 18 vols. (Rome, 1926–1994) IGoogle Scholar. Liber Genesis (1926), II. Liber Exodi-Leuitici (1929), III. Libri Numerorum-Deuteronomii (1936) and IV. Libri losue-Iudicum-Ruth (1939) [hereafter BS]. All my Vulgate citations are from this text (which I label ‘Hier’.); variations from it are only indicated if they are significant for the Old English translation. A similar text, with minimal critical apparatus, is in Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, ed. Weber, R. et al. , 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1983)Google Scholar. For my sources of the Old Latin texts, see below, nn. 17 and 20.

3 On medieval Vulgate history, see esp. Fischer, B., Lateinische Bibelhandschriften im fr¨ben Mittelalter, Vetus Latina: Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 11 (Freiburg, 1985)Google Scholar and Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premières siècles du moyen aˇge (Paris, 1893)Google Scholar; also Gribomont, J., ‘Les Editions critiques de la Vulgate’, SM 3rd ser. 2 (1961), 363–77Google Scholar and ‘L'Église et les versions bibliques’, La Maison-Dieu 62 (1960), 41–68Google Scholar. The account by Loewe, R., ‘The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate’, in The Cambridge History of the Bible II. The West from the Fathers to the Reformation (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 102–54Google Scholar, is useful but uneven. Little has been written on the Vulgate in Anglo-Saxon England, but see Marsden, R., ‘The Old Testament in Late Anglo-Saxon England: Preliminary Observations on the Textual Evidence’, The Early Medieval Bible: its Production, Decoration and Use, ed. Gameson, R., Cambridge Stud. in Palaeography and Codicology 2 (Cambridge, 1994), 101–24Google Scholar, and The Text of the Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon England, CSASE (forthcoming). Glunz, H., History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, 1933)Google Scholar, confines himself to the gospels and many of his assertions are not supported by evidence.

4 The manuscripts are listed and described in Clemoes, ‘The Composition of the Old English Text’, in The Old English Illustrated Hexateuch, pp. 42–53, at 42, and Crawford, , Heptateuch, pp. 1–9, 444 and 456–7Google Scholar. Clemoes's essay is the best introduction to the text.

5 Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957; reissued with suppl. 1990), pp. 178–9 (no. 142)Google Scholar; Gneuss, H., ‘A Preliminary List of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100’, ASE 9 (1981), 1–60 (no. 315)Google Scholar. For a facsimile of B, see Illustrated Hexateuch, ed. Dodwell and Clemoes.

6 Ker, , Catalogue, pp. 422–4 (no. 344)Google Scholar; Gneuss, ‘Manuscripts’, no. 657.

7 Crawford, Heptateuch. It is Crawford's sigla which are used in this study.

8 Crawford, , Heptateuch, pp. 76–80, at 76Google Scholar. The beginning of the preface is missing in B.

9 On Ælfric's part in the Heptateuch translations, the identification of C as his original text and the relationships between the surviving manuscripts, see Clemoes, , ‘Composition’. Clemoes revises the work of Karl Jost, ‘Unechte Ælfrictexte’, Anglia 51 (1927), 81–103 and 177–219Google Scholar, but Jost's study remains useful as the only detailed comparison between the style of the Ælfrician and of the ‘anonymous’ translations which make up the Old English Hexateuch. On C, see also Chase, F. H., ‘A New Text of the Old English Prose Genesis’, ASNSL 100 (1898), 241–66Google Scholar, and Raith, J., ‘Ælfric's Share in the Old English Pentateuch’, RES ns 3 (1952), 305–14Google Scholar. Because of its defects, Cis unsuitable for regular citation; hence my use of B, although Crawford's edition is often unsatisfactory in its presentation. I therefore modify where necessary.

10 Crawford, Heptateuch, prints these passages in full, in parallel with the B version. The other substantial witness to Genesis is Cambridge. Corpus Christi College 201, pp. 151–60, which originated at the New Minster, Winchester, in the mid-eleventh century (Gneuss, ‘Manuscripts’, no. 65). It contains, bound with homiletic and other material, Gen. XXXVII– XL VII, in a version not markedly different from that in B and L. The text is edited by Ker, , in Crawford, , Heptateuch, pp. 444–56.Google Scholar

11 Clemoes, , ‘Composition’, p. 48Google Scholar. In B and L, however, Gen. IV–V.31, X and XI are not by Ælfric.

12 Judges may not have been part of the original compilation (ibid. p. 42, n. 5). Ælfric's work on Genesis and Joshua was probably done between 992 and 1002, and on Numbers and Judges between 1002 and 1005; see Clemoes, , ‘The Chronology of Ælfric's Works’, in The Anglo– Saxons: Studies in some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Clemoes, P. (London, 1959), pp. 212–47, at 244–5.Google Scholar

13 Clemoes believes that Deut. XXXII.48–the end and Jos. I.1–10 were influenced by a pre-existing summary by Ælfric; ‘Composition’, p. 44, n. 8.

14 See Marsden, R., ‘The Text of the Pentateuch in Late Anglo–Saxon England’ (unpubl. PhD dissertation, Cambridge Univ., 1991), pp. 287–9.Google Scholar

15 The identification of a single anonymous translator with Byrhtferth of Ramsey was made by Clemoes, (‘Composition’, pp. 49–53)Google Scholar but refuted by Baker, P. S., ‘The Old English Canon of Byrhtferth of Ramsey’, Speculum 55 (1980), 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Ælfric's translation of Genesis was, he says in his prefatio, made at the request of his patron, Æthelweard (Crawford, , Heptateuch, p. 76)Google Scholar; see Gatch, M. McC., ‘The Office in late Anglo-Saxon Monasticism’, in Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies Presented to Peter Clemoes on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Lapidge, M. and Gneuss, H. (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 341–62, esp. 360–1.Google Scholar

17 ‘Vetus Latina’ is a synonymous term and always used for editions of the Old Latin texts. ‘Itala’, deriving from Augustine but of imprecise application, is a term of limited (and decreasing) use. On the Old Latin versions, see esp. Kedar, B., ‘The Latin Translations’, in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Mulder, M. J. (Assen/Maastricht and Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 299–338, at 299–313Google Scholar; also Billen, A. V., The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge, 1927)Google Scholar; Sparks, H. F. D., ‘The Latin Bible’, in The Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, ed. Robinson, H. W. (Oxford, 1940), pp. 100–27, at 100–10Google Scholar; Fischer, , Lateinische Bibelhandschriften, pp. 404–21Google Scholar; and Gribomont, J., ‘Latin Versions’, in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (Nashville, TN, 1976), pp. 527–32Google Scholar. The classification of Old Latin texts is discussed in Vetus Latina: die Reste tier altlateinischen Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt and herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron (Freiburg, 1949–)Google Scholar hereafter [VL] II Genesis, 14*–22*. On the Septuagint, see Tov, E., ‘The Septuagint’, in Mikra, ed. Mulder, , pp. 161–88Google Scholar and Walters, P., The Text of the Septuagint: its Corruptions and their Emendation, ed. Gooding, D. W. (Cambridge, 1973).Google Scholar

18 On Jerome's biblical translations, see esp. Kedar, , ‘The Latin Translations’, pp. 313–34Google Scholar, and Condamin, A., ‘Les caractères de la traduction de la Bible par Saint Jérôome’, Recherches de science religieuse 2 (1911), 425–40, and 3 (1912), 105–38Google Scholar; also Semple, W. H., ‘St. Jerome as a Biblical Translator’, Bull. of the John Rylands Lib. 48 (1965), 227–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Sparks, H. F. D., ‘Jerome as Biblical Scholar’, in The Cambridge History of the Bible: I. From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. Ackroyd, P. R. and Evans, C. F. (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 510–41, at 517–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Historia Abbattum, ch. 15 (Venerabilis Baedae Opera Histories, ed. Plummer, C., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896) I, 379Google Scholar). The pandect may have been the one described by Cassiodorus, in his Institutiones I. v and xiv, as the Codex grandior (Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones, ed. Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1937), pp. 23 and 40)Google Scholar. This may have carried, wholly or in part, Jerome's ‘hexplaric’ revision of the Old Latin text of the Old Testament, made from the Greek before he began the Hebrew-based Vulgate version; there is in fact no good evidence that this was ever completed. See Fischer, , Lateinische Bibelhandschriften, pp.10–12.Google Scholar

20 See the list in VL I: Verzeichnis der Sigel f¨r Handschriften and Kirchenschriftsteller, ed. Fischer, B. (1949), pp. 11–34Google Scholar. Eighteen manuscripts contain parts of the Heptateuch, including six of Spanish origin which have Old Latin glosses (Fischer's nos. 32, 91–6, 100–8 and 110– 11). For a more extensive list of manuscript sources for the Heptateuch, including liturgical extracts, see La Vetus Latina Hispana: origin, dipendencia, derivaciones, valor e influjo universal, ed. Marazuela, T. A. (Madrid, 1953–) [hereafter VLH]IGoogle Scholar; Prolegomenos(1953), pp. 205–8. For the text of the Old Latin Heptateuch, I rely on: VL II; VLH III El Octateueo, ed. Marazuela, T. Ayuso (Madrid, 1967)Google Scholar; Bibliorum Sacroram Latinae Versiones Antiquae seu Vetus Italica, 3 vols., ed. Sabatier, P. (Rheims, 1743–1749)Google Scholar; and the edition of the ‘Lyon Heptateuch’ edited by U. Robert (see following note). Citations from the Septuagint, a collective term for the Greek versions (LXX), are from Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interprets, ed. Rahlfs, A., 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1935).Google Scholar

21 Lyon, Bibliothèque Municipale, 403 + 1964 (VL I, no. 100; CLA VI, no. 771); see VL II, 5*–6*, and Fischer, , Lateinische Bibelhandschriften, p. 121Google Scholar. It is edited, with extensive critical and comparative material, by Robert, U., Pentateuchi Versio Latino Antiquissima e Codice Lugdunensi (Paris, 1881)Google Scholar and Heptateuchi Partis Posterioris Versio Latino Antiquissima e Codice Lugdunensi (Lyon, 1900).Google Scholar

22 On the early spread of the Vulgate, see Gribomont, , ‘L'Église et les versions bibliques’, pp. 51–60.Google Scholar

23 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ottobonianus lat. 66 (VL I, no. 102; CLA I, no. 66). See VL II, 10*–12* and VLH I, 401–2. The Old Latin readings are collected in Variae lectiones Vulgatae Latinae Bibliorum editionis, ed. Vercellone, C., 2 vols. (Rome, 1860) I, 183–4 and 307–10 (where the manuscript is ‘codex E’).Google Scholar

24 See Marazuela, T. Ayuso, ‘La Biblia Visigótica de San Isidore de León’, Estudios Biblicos 19 (1960), 5–24, 167–200 and 271–309, and 20(1961), 5–43, at 20, 18–32Google Scholar, and VLH I, 409–36. The Codex Gothicus is León, Real Colegiata de San Isidore 2, copied in 960 in Castille; see VLH I, 368 and Fischer, , Lateiniscbe Bibelhandschriften, pp. 72–3Google Scholar. The other manuscripts are of later date. Old Latin addition or substitution was particularly prevalent among Spanish manuscripts, including the Codex Toletanus: see VLH I, 402–6, and below, p. 263.

25 The hundreds of authors and works consulted by the editors of the Beuron Vetus Latina edition are listed in VL, I/1 Kirchenscbriftsteller: Verzeichnis and Sigel, ed. Frede, H. J. (Freiburg, 1981)Google Scholar with suppls. (1984, 1988); see also the exhaustive list in VLH I, 229–312. McNally, R. E., The Bible in the Early Middle Ages (Westminster, MD, 1959), pp. 95–104Google Scholar, gives a useful index of commentaries on each book of the Old Testament for the period 650–1000. In hisQuaestiones and Locuiiones alone I estimate that Augustine alluded to over 3000 verses of the Heptateuch, often more than once. Many Old Latin interpolations in medieval Vulgate manuscripts came from patristic sources; such was probably the origin, for example, of that in Gen.XLI.45, noted below, p. 252. On the Latin texts of the Fathers, see Gribomont, , ‘L'Église’, esp. pp. 51–3Google Scholar, and VLH I, 147–51.

26 For examples of such comments by Jerome and Augustine, see below, pp. 244, n. 72 and 252, respectively. See also Remley, P. G., ‘The Latin Textual Basis of Genesis A’, ASE 17 (1988), 163–89, at 181.Google Scholar

27 On the role of the liturgy as a preserver of old texts, see esp. Salmon, P., ‘Le texte biblique des lectionnaires mérovingiens’, Settimane 10 (1963), 491–517, at 501Google Scholar, and Gribomont, J., ‘Aux origines de la Vulgate’, in La Bibbia ‘Vulgata’ dalle origini ai nostri giorni, ed. Stramare, T., Collectanea Biblica Latina 16 (Rome, 1987), 11–20, at 19Google Scholar. For manuscript evidence, see VLH I, 450–60.

28 On the origin, varying traditons and complex transmission of the canticles, see Dictionnaire d' archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. Cabrol, F. and Leclercq, H., 15 vols. in 30 (Paris, 1907–1953) II. 2, cols. 1975–94Google Scholar; Mearns, J., The Canticles of the Christian Church Eastern and Western in Early and Medieval Times (Cambridge, 1914)Google Scholar, which remains useful, though unreliable in its dating of manuscripts; Schneider, H., Die altlateinischen biblischen Cantica, Texte und Arbeiten 29–30 (Beuron, 1938)Google Scholar; and Fischer, , Lateinische Bibelhandschriften, pp. 414–15Google Scholar. A series of nine canticles was common but the number, along with their arrangement, varied widely. On the Roman psalter in England, see below, p. 240 and n. 56.

29 See above, n. 20.

30 See above, n. 20.

31 See above, n. 17.

32 See the synopsis of sigla in VL II, 2. I have omitted some further divisions.

33 Above, p. 233 and n. 19.

34 The Welsh monk, Asset, included two Old Latin citations (from Gen. IV.7 and Matt. VI.33) in his Life of Alfred; see Aster's Life of King Alfred, ed. Stevenson, W. H. (Oxford, 1904), pp. xciv, 61 and 86Google Scholar, and Keynes, S. and Lapidge, M., Alfred the Great: Asser's ‘Life of King Alfred’ and other Contemporary Sources (Harmondsworth, 1983), p. 258, n. 159, and p. 273, n. 241Google Scholar. Old Latin influence on a version of Tobit in an early tenth-century manuscript, apparently of Cornish origin but with Welsh connections (part of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 572), is also probable; see Marsden, , ‘The Survival of Ceolfrith's Tobit in a Tenth-Century Insular Manuscript’, JTS 45 (1994), 1–23, at 21–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 ‘The Latin Textual Basis’, and Old English Biblical Verse: Studies in ‘Genesis’, ‘Exodus’ and ‘Danief’, CSASE (forthcoming).

36 The statement by Nichols, A. E., ‘Awendan: a Note on Ælfric's Vocabulary’, JEGP 63 (1964), 7–13, at 12Google Scholar, that mixed Old Latin-Vulgate texts ‘dominated’ the history of the Insular Bible has no foundation and appears to have been based on the misinterpretation of a discussion by Berger of Irish and Roman textual traditions (Histoire, p. 36). A list of the manuscript remains of a dozen Bibles or Old Testament part-bibles copied or owned in England before the Conquest, and four non-biblical manuscripts containing substantial extracts, is in Marsden, , ‘Preliminary Observations’, pp. 123–4Google Scholar. The texts of these are analysed in my Text of the Old Testament.

37 Gneuss, ‘Manuscripts’, no. 449. On this massive Bible, at Christ Church, Canterbury before the Conquest but almost certainly not copied there, see Marsden, , ‘Preliminary Observations’, pp. 109–19.Google Scholar

38 Sources include Bede, De Tab. I (CCSL 119A, 30), and Jerome, Comm. Os. 1 (CCSL 76, 9).

39 Quaest. Hept. II (CCSL 33, 116).

40 It will eventually be available in the database register of the Fontes Anglo-Saxonici, ed. D.G. Scragg and A. Orchard. For the extensive ‘sourcing’ literature on Ælfric's homilies, see esp. the entries under Förster, M., Smetana, C. L., Cross, J. E. and Godden, M. R., in Reinsma, L. M., Ælfric: an Annotated Bibliography (New York and London, 1987).Google Scholar

41 Gneuss's handlist of surviving manuscripts written or owned in Anglo-Saxon England (‘Manuscripts’) contains fourteen commentaries on all or part of the Heptateuch, including (three times each) Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram and Isidore's Quaestiones in uetus testamentum (nos. 271, 720 and 728, and nos. 168, 716 and 736, respectively) and (twice each) Ambrose's Hexameron and Jerome's Liber quaestionum bebraicarum in Genesim (nos. 20 and 194, and nos. 230 and 601, respectively). For booklists, see Lapidge, M., ‘Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England’, in Learning and Literature, ed. Lapidge, and Gneuss, , pp. 33–89.Google Scholar

42 An example of this consciousness in Jerome is given below in n. 72, with reference to Gen. VIII.7. Among earlier Anglo-Saxon writers, Bede and Aldhelm were aware of varying textual traditions, too. See, for instance, Bede, In Genesim IV (CCSL 118A, 206–7), on Gen. XVII.15, and Aldhelm, De metris ii (MGH, Auct. antiq. 15, 63), on Gen. VI.16.

43 The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, ed. Thorpe, B. 2 vols. (London, 1844–1846) I, 172.Google Scholar

44 Ælfric's Catholic Homilies. The Second Series. Text, ed. Godden, M. R., GETS ss 5 (London, 1979), 260.Google Scholar

45 For details, see BS I, 161–2.

46 See the useful survey in Bamberger, B. J., Fallen Angels (Philadelphia, PA, 1952), pp. 74–81.Google Scholar

47 In XV. xxiii, he uses angeli Dei but emphasises the wide currency of filii Dei also (CCSL 48, 488–92).

48 CCSL 48, 488.

49 Jost, , ‘Ælfrictexte’, p. 178, n. 3Google Scholar, citing PL 91, 82–3, that is, Bede, Comm. Gen. II: ‘“Homines” dicit progeniem Cain, quae… humanis solummodo negotiis animum subiugauerat. “Filios” uero “Dei”, eos qui de ptosapia Seth generati, exemplo paternae deuotionis seruitium quod Deo debebant inuiolata mente seruabant’ (CCSL 118A, 99).

50 For specific sources, see Marsden, R., Ælfric as Translator: the Old English Prose Genesis, Anglia 109 (1991), 319–58, at 339, nn. 63 and 64.Google Scholar

51 Sermo de Initio Creaturae (Homilies, ed. Thorpe, I, 14).Google Scholar

52 Karl Jost's suggestion of the influence of Bede's Commentarius in Genesim, where he draws a parallel between mortal and immortal ways of ‘walking with God’, is plausible (though other patristic discussion, such as that by Augustine in his De ciuitate Dei XV.10, are just as likely). One consequence of the addition is to associate the metaphor ac ferde mid Gode (ambulauitque cum Deo) squarely with Enoch's life after his translation to heaven, whereas it in fact describes Enoch's pious life on earth, before his translation to the heavenly life, which is his reward (as is clear from the common Old Latin version, et placuit Enoch deo).

53 Ker, , Catalogue, p. 355 (no. 297)Google Scholar; Gneuss, ‘Manuscripts’, no. 538; A Summary Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, ed. Madan, F. et al. , 7 vols. (Oxford, 1895–1953) II.1, no. 2176Google Scholar. See also Lapidge, M., ‘Latin Learning in Dark Age Wales: Some Prolegomena’, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Celtic Studies, ed. Evans, D. E., Griffith, J. G. and Jope, E. M. (Oxford, 1986), pp. 91–107, at 92–4.Google Scholar

54 For details of the readings, see VL II, 13*–14*. The lections and canticles are printed and discussed in Fischer, B., Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte, Vetus Latina: Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 12 (Freiburg, 1986), 18–50Google Scholar. On their possible importance in relation to the text of Old English poem, Genesis A, see Remley, , ‘Latin Textual Basis’, pp. 181–3.Google Scholar

55 Two capitula in the ‘Durham Collectar’ (Durham, Cathedral Library, A. IV. 19, fols. 1–88: s. xin, prov. Chester–le–Street), noted by their editor as departing from the Vulgate text, derive from Old Latin sources. They are no. 3(Isa. XXV.1) and no. 6 (Isa. XLI. 18) and very similar versions will be found in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah (Comm. Isai. VIII and XII, CCSL 73, 325 and 73A, 473, respectively). See The Durham Collectar, ed. Corrêa, A., HBS 107 (London, 1992), 141 and 237Google Scholar. Most of the capitula, however, follow an excellent Vulgate text. On liturgical books in general, see Gneuss, , ‘Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England and their Old English Terminology’, Learning and Literature, ed. Lapidge, and Gneuss, , pp. 91–141.Google Scholar

56 See The Salisbury Psalter, ed. C, and Sisam, K., EETS 242 (London, 1959), 47–9, and below, p.259Google Scholar. A larger and more diverse series, the so-called ‘monastic’ canticles, all from the Old Testament, was introduced by Benedict of Nursia for the night Office on Sundays and feast- days; see Korhammer, M., Die monastischen Cantica im Mittelalter and ihre altengliscben Interlinearversionen, Texte und Untersuchungen zur englischen Philologie 6 (Munich, 1976), 2–25Google Scholar, and Gneuss, H., Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter. Studien zur Überlieferung, Glossierung and Übersetzung lateinischer Hymnen in England mit einer Textausgabe der lateinischen-altenglischen Expositio Hymnorum (Tübingen, 1968), pp. 252–6Google Scholar, and ‘Liturgical Books in Anglo-Saxon England’, pp. 118–19.

57 See above, n. 2.

58 See Ælfric's preface to his Genesis translation in Crawford, Heptateuch, p. 79. I cannot agree with critics who have depicted Ælfric an an almost fanatical slave to the Latin text: see Nichols, , ‘Ælfric's Vocabulary’, pp. 12–13Google Scholar; Minkoff, H., ‘Some Stylistic Consequences of Ælfric's Theory of Translation’, SP 73 (1976), 29–41Google Scholar; and Greenfield, S. B. and Calder, D. G., A New Critical History of Old English Literature (New York and London, 1986), p. 85 (citing Minkoff)Google Scholar. Cf. my ‘Ælfric as Translator’, passim.

59 Hier.:‘nunc igitur maledictus eris super terram… cum operatus fueris earn non dabit tibi fructus suos’; OE (C):‘nu þu bist awirged ofer eorþan… þonne wircst þa eorðan ne silð heo þe hyre wæstmas’. OE(B) varies, oddly, with ‘þonne ðu tilast ðin on eorðan’; L, is wanting here.

60 OL(I): “et nunc maledictus tu a terra … quoniam operaberis terram et non adiciet uirtutem suam dare tibi”. The noun occurs also in four late Vulgate manuscripts (BS I, 155).

61 Loc. Hept. I.xvii (CCSL 33, 382). In fact, Augustine attributes this version to the Greek; some Latin codices, he notes, have diluuium aquae for pluuium.

62 Gen. Munich. II. ii (PL 34, 196). For details of the other citations, which include two in Gen. litt., see VL II, 64. The context of these verses is Abraham's long dialogue with God about the destruction of Sodom.

63 See VL II, 53–4. Notable exceptions are Bede, Comm. Gen. I (CCSL 118A, 58) and Jerome, who discussed the etymological relationship of the Hebrew versions uirago (OL mulier) and uir in Comm. Hierem. I.vii (CCSL 74, 8). Augustine, on the other hand, seems to have used the possessive pronoun consistently, although some later copies of his works omit it.

64 Absent from my selection of ‘Old Latin’ readings from (Ælfric's Genesis are the three used by Nichols to support her theory that apparent departures by Ælfric from the Vulgate text of Genesis in his translation are in fact instances where his ‘mixed’ exemplar had Old Latin readings (‘Ælfric's Vocabulary’, pp. 11–12). Nichols's ‘Old Latin’ models for her Old English examples (from Gen. II. 11, II.19 and III.1) are largely spurious, owing to mis-reading of the complex critical apparatus of VL II. A detailed examination and refutation of the three readings will be found in Marsden, , ‘Text of the Pentateuch’, pp. 214–20.Google Scholar

65 VL II, 63–4; there are ten locations in Ambrose, seven in Augustine, two in Jerome and four in Rufinus.

66 Respectively, Le Puy, Cathedral Treasury, s.n. and Paris, BN lat. 9380, and La Cava dei Tirreni, Archivio della Badia, 1 (14) (after 850; the ‘Codex Cavensis’) and Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Central, 31 (s. x).

67 Witnesses to the OL(K) tradition include Augustine, Gen. Munich. I. xiii (PL 34, 182) and Jerome, Comm. Zacb. III.xiii (CCSL 76 A, 873). In the latter, Jerome used in laboribus, as in his Vulgate version (‘in laboribus comedes ex ea’). Cf. OL(E): in maeoribus manducabis eam.

68 Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale, 6 (Corbie, s. viii2; part of the ‘Maurdramnus Bible’) and Paris, BN lat. 11504 + 11505 (N. France, 822).

69 Cf. L, Sem Cham lafeth and B, Sent Cham lapbet. This verse is designated V.32 by Crawford and in VL II.

70 Old Latin witnesses include Cyprianus Gallus and Prosper of Aquitaine; see VL II, 101. The Vulgate manuscripts are the Codex Cavensis (see n. 66) and Madrid, Biblioteca de la Universidad Central, 31 (Moorish Spain, perhaps Toledo, s. x).

71 There is no parallel in any Vulgate or Old Latin version of this passage for Ælfric's restatement of the subject, se hrem.

72 Augustine, for example, has et exiens reuersus non est in Loc. Hept. I.xxiii (CCSL 33, 383). See also his Contra. Faust. Manich. XII.xx (CSEL 25.1, 349), Quaest. Hept. I.xiii (CCSL 33, 5) and Enarr. psalm. CII.xvi (CCSL 40, 1467) and Ambrose, Noe XVII.lx and lxii (CSEL 32.1, 455 and 458) Jerome, Quaest. hebr. Gen. VIII.7 (CCSL 72, 10), drew attention to the two different traditions. See VL II, 19–20, for further examples.

73 These include the Codex Amiatinus and three of the later Alcuinian Bibles (see BS 1, 169). Like Ælfric (and the Wycliffite translators), the Douai translators followed the negative tradition, but a footnote in the Challoner revision ingeniously reconciled the two interpretations: ‘The raven did not return into the ark; but (as it may be gathered from the Hebrew) went to and fro; sometimes going to the mountains, where it found carcasses to feed on: and other times returning, to rest upon the top of the ark’ [italics original]. Note also the version in the Old English poem, Genesis A, line 1447: ‘ac se feond [sc. the raven] gespearn fleotende hreaw’ (ed. Doane, A. N. (Madison, WI, 1978), p. 149Google Scholar) and see Gatch, M. McC., ‘Noah's Raven in Genesis A and the Illustrated Old English Heptateuch’, Gesta 14.2 (1975), 3–15Google Scholar. On Gen. VIII.7, see Leupold, H. C., Exposition of Genesis. Vol. 1. Ch. 1–19 (London, 1949), pp. 313–15Google Scholar, and Westermann, C., Genesis 1–11: a Commentary, trans. Scullion, J. J. (Minneapolis, MN, and London, 1984), p. 447Google Scholar. Cf. the exegetical note in BS I, 169.

74 OL(L): ‘exi … et uade in illam terram quam tibi ostendero’ (see VL II, 151–2). Vulgate manuscripts which use the variant include the Codices Ottobonianus and Maurdramnus, and two Theodulfian and two late (non-Turonian) Alcuinian Bibles (see BS I, 186).

75 The Theodulfian Bibles are those noted in connection with Gen. III.9 (see n. 63). A few Spanish manuscripts of the late–tenth to twelfth centuries and one Paris Bible of the early thirteenth (along with some early printed editions) have Hoba + et Phenicem (with much variation in the orthography of the latter name). See BS I, 96.

76 Jerome, Quaest. hebr. Gen. XIV.14 (CCSL 72, 19) and Alcuin, Comm. Gen., int. clxiii: ‘Et persecutus est usque ad Dan. Qui locus est Dan? Dan Phoenices oppidum est, quod nunc Paneas dicitur …’ (PL 100, 536). This interrogate was not rendered in Ælfric's Old English version of Alcuin's work.

77 Comm. Gen. III (CCSL 118A, 188).

78 OL(E) ‘uidens autem Sarra filium Agar Aegyptiae … ludentem cum filio suo Isaac’.

79 Quaest. hebr. Gen. XXI.9 (CCSL 72, 24).

80 BS I, 224.

81 The full text of the colon (II.21 b) is as follows: Hier: cumque obdormisset tulit unam de costis eius et repleuit carnem pro ea; OL(L): et obdormiuit et sumpsit Deus [var. Deus om]. unam de costis eius et impleuit locum eius carne; OE: 7ða ða be slep ða dagenam be an rib of bis sidan 7 gefylde mid flæsce ðar ðat rib wæs.

82 Augustine, Gen. Manich. II.i (PL 34, 196), and Ambrose, Expos. Luc. II.lxxxv (CCSL 14, 69).

83 Thus Augustine, Gen. Litt. VI.v: ‘et adinpleuit carnem in locum eius [var. loco]’ (CSEL 28.1, 175).

84 LXX: διέλθωμεν είς τό πεδίον. Old Latin witnesses include Jerome, Ep. xxxvi. 6 (CSEL 54, 273) and Comm. Isai. XVI. lix (CCSL 73A, 680) and Ambrose, De Cain et Abel II.xxvi (CSEL 32.1, 400). But cf. Jerome's comment Quaest. hebr. Gen. IV.8: ‘superfluum ergo est quod in Samaritanorum et nostro uolumine reperitur transeamus in campum’ (CCSL 72, 7). It can be taken that nostro here indicates the Old Latin text known to Jerome. A version of the phrase does occur, as Jerome says, in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and also in the Syriac version, but it is not in the Massoretic Hebrew and Jerome's comment implies that it was absent also from his Hebrew exemplar. See the footnote to this verse in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Elliger, K. and Rudolf, W., 3rd ed. (Stuttgart, 1987), p. 6.Google Scholar

85 Comm. Gen. II (CCSL 118A, 76). This citation is absent from those listed in VL II, 83–4.

86 Ælfric's Old English version of the two cola which follow this one differs in its syntax from both the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions, except in one small detail, in which it follows the latter: Hier: aduersus Abel fratrem suum; OE: togeanes his broðor Abele; cf. OL(E): super [var. in] Abel fratrem suum).

87 LXX: έπισυνάΥων ποιήσεις τήν κιβωτόν καί είς πήχυν συντελέσεις αύτήν άνωθεν.

88 Ambrose, Noe VII.xvii (CSEL 32.1, 425); Origen, In Gen. Homiliae II.i (PG 12, 162); Jerome, Quaest. hebr. Gen. VI.16 (CCSL 72, 10). Cf. the OL(S) version, collectam facies arcam.

89 Homilies, ed. Thorpe, I, 536.Google Scholar

90 Maclean, G. E., ‘Ælfac's Version of Alcuini Interrogationes Sigeuulfi in Genesin’, Anglia 1 (1884), 1–59, at 34Google Scholar. Alcuin's original account, in his Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesin cv, is even fuller (PL 100, 527; also cited by Maclean, , ‘Ælfric's Version’, p. 35).Google Scholar

91 For example, Ambrose, Abra. I.iii.20 (CSEL 32.1, 515 and 516) and Augustine, Ciu. Dei X VI.xxiii and xxvi (CCSL 48, 525 and 529). But Augustine used the Vulgate version in Contr. Faust. Munich XXII.xxxii (CSEL 25.1, 626), as did Bede in Comm. Gen. IV (CCSL 118A, 194 and 195).

92 ‘And he convulsed “between her knees” and gave up the ghost’.

93 Aldhemi Opera, ed. Ehwald, R., MGH Auct. antiq. 15, 266.Google Scholar

94 Napier, A. S., Old English Glosses. Chiefly Unpublished (Oxford, 1900), p. 66, no. 2438Google Scholar (the gloss in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 146; s. xex) and The Old English Glosses of MS. Brussels, Royal Library, 1650 (Aldhelm's 'De Laudibus Virginitatis), ed. Goossens, L., Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academic voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Klasse der Lettren 74 (Brussels, 1974), 303, no. 2390Google Scholar. In the latter manuscript (s. xiin), where the glossing has taken place in several phases, OE stærtlige is also given, and this is the only English equivalent given in a third manuscript, London, BL Royal 6. B. VII (s. xi2); see Napier, , Old English Glosses, p. 140, no. 82.Google Scholar

95 Lapidge, M. and Herren, M., Aldhelm: the Prose Works (Cambridge, 1979), p. 88.Google Scholar

96 Metamorphoses V. 40 and XII. 240.

97 This is from the ‘Codex Alexandrinus’ (London, BL Royal 1. D. V–VIII; s. Vmed). Another Septuagint version, LXX(B), from the ‘Codex Vaticanus’ (Vatican City, Biblioteca Aposto-lica Vaticana, Var. grace. 1209; s. iv), varies: καί αύτός έξεστώς έσκοτώθη καί άπέθανεν ‘and he fainted away and darkness overcame him and he died’. The rare verb in the Latin version (scariz[i]are) has been derived from the Greek άπασκαρίζω, which is also rare. Du Cange gives ‘scarizare: salire’ and cites ‘quasi uermiculus scarizaret’, from Irenaeus.

98 VLH II, 288, §34 (nos. 21, 26 and 84, respectively). On these León Bibles, see VLH I, 354–5, 357 and 368 and Fischer, , Laleinische Bibelhandschriften, pp. 72–3Google Scholar. Fischer gives Real Colegiata 3 the shelf number 1.3.

99 Neither the Commentaria of Hrabanus Maurus (PL 108, 1107–1200, at 1136) nor the related pseudo–Bedan Quaestiones super librum ludicum (PL 93, 423–30, at 423) provides such details.

100 Homilies, ed. Godden, , p. 291Google Scholar. The same phrase is used in Horn. II (ibid. p. 15). I am indebted to Malcom Godden for drawing my attention to this usage.

101 Moral, Iob VI. lxi: ‘Non est consuetudinis in terra nostra ut minores ante tradamus ad nuptias quam maiores’ (CCSL 143, 330). On Gregory's use of both the Vulgate and old texts, see Loewe, , ‘The Medieval History’, p. 109Google Scholar. The two other versions in which the verb nubare has been substituted for dare, are Augustine, Contr. Faust. Manich. XXII, lii: ‘non est moris in loco nostro, ut minor nubat prius quam maior’ (CSEL 25.1, 647) and, in an almost identical version, Isidore, Quaest. vet. test. XXV.x (PL 83, 261).

102 On additions to this manuscript, see above, p. 233.

103 This version survives only in the Lyon Heptateuch. The addition of patrem seems to have been made under the influence of a variant Septuagint reading. According to the verse division in VL II, the passage is included in Gen. XXXII.12.

104 Vulgate variations include percutiat + patrem, percutiat + me et, matres for matrern and patremfor matrem (see BS I, 292).

105 Crawford, , Heptateuch, p. 164.Google Scholar

106 Quaest. Hept. I.cii (CCSL 33, 38). This closely follows the usual Septuagint version, an accurate rendering of the Hebrew, which Jerome severely abbreviated in his Vulgate revision. In respect of this plural form only, the Septuagint departs from the Hebrew, while Jerome's singular matrem concurs with it.

107 There is much orthographical variation among Vulgate manuscripts in the names used in this colon.

108 Quaest. Hept. I.cxxxvi (CCSL 33, 51): ‘Et dedit ei Aseneth, filiam Petephrae sacerdotis Solis ciuitatis, ipsi uxorem’.

109 Ibid. (p. 52).

110 Origen, In librum Jesu Naue homiliae XlX.iv (PG 12, 918).

111 Jerome's ‘forget’ has no authority in the Hebrew or, it seems, the Septuagint.

112 Speculum XVII (CSEL 12, 380).

113 Locut. Hept. I.ccxii and II. lv (CCSL 33, 403 and 411).

114 See above, pp. 239 and 246–7.

115 Although no published material for the Pentateuch after Genesis is yet available from the Vetus Latina Institut in Beuron, I continue to apply its system of Old Latin text-type classification.

116 As Crawford notes (Heptateuch, p. 243), the added clause in L is written, in a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century hand, over an erasure. In B, however, it is in the original hand. It seems likely that the clause was in the original translation but was at some point erased from L, perhaps by someone comparing the text with a Vulgate exemplar, only to be added again later, after comparison of the manuscript with B or a derivative of B.

117 Cf. also Ps. XXXIII.21. Ex. XII.42–51 and the whole of Num. IX are omitted from the Old English Heptateuch translation.

118 Hier. ‘facta sunt enim haec ut scriptura impleatur os non comminuetis ex eo’. The Old English translation of this in the West Saxon gospels is discussed below.

119 SeeNikolasch, F., Das Lamm ah Christussymbol in den Schriften der Väter, Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie 3 (Vienna, 1963), 23 and 153–4.Google Scholar

120 Cyprian, Test. Quirin. II. xv (CCSL 3, 50); Gaudentius, Tractatus II (CSEL 68, 27–8): ‘Et non relinquetis … ex eo usque in mane et os non confringetis ex eo. Quae autem superfuerint ex eo usque in mane, igni cremabitis’. Explaining the instruction, Gaudentius made no reference to the crucifixion but saw it as teaching that everything in scripture was ‘robustius atque ualidius’ and not to be broken with impunity (ibid. p. 28).

121 Hier. ‘non relinquent ex eo quippiam usque mane et os eius non confringent’ [no significant variation]. In Ex. XXII. 46, only the last clause is used: ‘nec os illius confringetis’.

122 Sabatier, , Latinae Versiones, p. 157.I know of no other source; Ex.XII is wanting in the Lyon Heptateuch.Google Scholar

123 All that was left, he explained, were the bones; Quaest. Hept. II. xli (CCSL 33, 85).

124 Homilies, ed. Godden, , p. 150.Google Scholar

125 Ibid. p. 158.

126 Ibid. p. 159.

127 Comm. loan. VII: ‘Ad Jesum autem cum uenissent, non fregerunt ejus crura, ad hoc pertinet testimonium: Os non comminuetis ex eo’ (PL 100, 986).

128 Byrhtferth's Manual, ed. Crawford, S. J., EETS os 177 (London, 1929); see pp. 134–6Google Scholar. The passage is discussed in detail in Marsden, , ‘Text of the Pentateuch’, pp. 272–80.Google Scholar

129 The West-Saxon Gospels: a Study of the Gospel of St Matthew with the Text of the Four Gospels, ed. Gr¨nberg, M. (Amsterdam, 1967), p. 234.Google Scholar

130 Liber Psalmorum. The West-Saxon Psalms, ed. Bright, J. W. and Ramsay, R. L. (Boston, MA, and London, 1907), p. 84.Google Scholar

131 I have followed Crawford in correcting B's Moyses to Moyse, as in L (Moise).

132 Douai: ‘And when Moses saw that the people were naked (for Aaron had stripped them by occasion of the shame of the filth, and had set them naked among their enemies) …’

133 Heptateuch, p. 279: ‘Videns ergo Moyses populum quod esset nudatus (spoliauerat enim eum Aaron propter ignominiam sordis), gauisus est’.

134 Crawford's usual Vulgate authority seems to be the Clementine edition.

135 Revised Standard Version: ‘And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to their shame among their enemies)…’ Ronald Knox offered a novel but plausible interpretative paraphrase in The Old Testament Newly Translated from the Latin Vulgate, 2 vols. (London, 1949) I, 131Google Scholar: ‘Moses saw, too, that the people went all unarmed; Aaron had let them strip, in their shameless debauchery, so that they were defenceless against attack’. Cf. the version of Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio (Rome, 1979)Google Scholar: ‘Vidit ergo Moyses populum quod esset affrenatus; relaxauerat enim ei Aaron frenum in ludibrium hostiarum eorum’.

136 ‘And when Moses saw that the people had been scattered, for Aaron had scattered them, as [a source of] rejoicing to their enemies …’.

137 Quaest. Heft. II. cxlvi (CCSL 33, 136). Among the several other Old Latin witnesses, the only major variation was the use sometimes of the borrowed Greek word instead of gaudium, as in the Lyon Heptateuch: ‘dissipauit enim illos Aaron ut essent etphycarma aduersariis suis’.

138 In the version already cited, for instance, Augustine used dissipatus and then explained its meaning very carefully, but no sense of this is present in the Old English version.

139 For example, Vulgate quis uestrum habet aurum has been expanded in translation to nymað eall eower gold 7 bringað to me 7 eower wifa earhringas 7 eower dohtra.

140 B has erroneous hi before cwædon.

141 ότι έκλαύσατε έναντι κυρίον λέΥοντες

142 Lyon Heptateuch et plorastis contra eum dicentes.

143 In Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy sanctificare occurs a total of eighteen times and has been translated by the appropriate form balgian in every case except two; in one of these wurðian has been used, and in the other the verse has been paraphrased.

144 Mearns, , Canticles, p. 51Google Scholar. The first ‘Song of Moses’ is Ex. XV.1–18 (‘the song of the redeemed’), but this is among the parts of Exodus omitted in the Old English translation. It is merely alluded to as ‘Gode lofsang’ in a brief summary of XV.1–19.

145 London, BL Cotton Vespasian A. i.; Gneuss, ‘Manuscripts’, no. 381. See Weber, R., Le Psautier romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins, Collectanea Biblica Latina 10 (Rome, 1953), ix and xiiiGoogle Scholar, and Wildhagen, K., ‘Studien zum Psalterium Romanum in England and zu seinen Glossierungen (in geschichtlicher Entwicklung’), Studien zur englischen Philologie 49 (1913), 417–72, at 435–6Google Scholar; also Schneider, , Cantica, pp. 46–9.Google Scholar

146 Weber, , Psautier romain, pp. xiii–xviGoogle Scholar, and Sisam, and Sisam, , Salisbury Psalter, pp. 47–9Google Scholar. The Cambridge and Bosworth Psalters are, respectively, Cambridge, University Library, Ff. 1. 23 and London, BL Add. 37517.

147 The text is from The Vespasian Psalter, ed. Kuhn, S. M. (Ann Arbor, MI, 1965), pp. 152–5Google Scholar. The psalter is also printed in The Oldest English Texts, ed. Sweet, H., EETS 83 (London, 1885, repr. 1966), 183–420Google Scholar, with the canticle in question at 409–14. The second Song of Moses appears as the seventh canticle in the Vespasian Psalter, not (as was customary) the sixth, although it was still designated for use on Saturdays. The displacement was caused by the addition to the psalter of Ps. CLI, which was presented as the first canticle.

148 Vercellone, , Variae lectiones I, 586–92, prints various versions of the text.Google Scholar

149 Var. perditionis + eorum in the Codex Amiatinus (before 716) and the margin of one Theodulfian Bible (s. ixin).

150 The Hebrew may be translated literally, ‘and he rushes dooms upon them’.

151 Variations in the verb used in other Old Latin versions (which are all identical with Vespasian and the Lyon Heptateuch in the first clause) include adueniet, aduenieni, praesto est, erit and erunt. See Sabatier, , Latinae Versiones I, 390.Google Scholar

152 Kuhn, , Vespasian Psalter, p. 155.Google Scholar

153 Cambridge, Trinity College R. 17. 1; Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter, ed. Harsley, F., EETS 92 (London, 1889), 256Google Scholar. The functions of adjective and past participle are of course the same.

154 Hier.: mea est ultio et ego retribuam in tempore ut labatur pes eorum; OE: seo wracu is min 7 ic bit agylde on tide ðæt hyra fot ætslide; cf. OL(Vsp.): in die ultionis reddam illis in tempore quo lapsus fuerit pes eorum and OL(S): in die defensionis … cum lapsus erit.

155 Loc. Hept. V. lxxvii (CCSL 33, 453). It is also in pseudo–Vigilius of Thapsus, Contra Varimadum Arianum Diagonum I. xxii (PL 62, 368).

156 Fragments survive from one of them (listed in Marsden, , ‘Preliminary Observations’, p. 123)Google Scholar, which appears to have reached Worcester by the end of the ninth century. See Sims-Williams, P., Religion and Literature in Western England, 600–800, CSASE 3 (Cambridge, 1990), 163, n. 94, and 182 and nn. 28 and 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dumville, D., Liturgy and the Ecclesiastical History of Late Anglo-Saxon England. Four Studies (Woodbridge, 1992), p. 100Google Scholar; and Marsden, Text of the Old Testament.

157 The additional clauses have been assigned here to the beginning of XXXII.43, following the convention used by the editors of the Septuagint and the Lyon Heptateuch, rather than to the end of XXXII.42, as in Kuhn, , Vespasian Psalter, p. 155.Google Scholar

158 The following are the full Vulgate and Vespasian versions of XXXII.43, with the additions in the latter highlighted; the considerable differences of expression, even where the two versions do run parallel, will be noted. Hier: ‘laudate gentes populum eius quia sanguinem seruorum suorum ulciscetur et uindictam retribuet in hostes eorum et propitius erit terrae populi sui’; OL(Vsp.): ‘laetamini caeli simul cum eo et adorent cum omnes angeli dei.laetamini gentes simul cum populo eius et confirment eum omnes filii dei. quia sanguis filiorum eius defendetur et defendet et retribuet iudicium inimicis et his qui oderunt eum reddet. et emundabit dominus terram populi sui’.

159 See Sabatier, , Latinae Versiones I, 391.Google Scholar

160 Trin. IV. xxxiii (CCSL 62, 136). Except in respect of the use of filii Dei, however, this version is closer to that of OL(Vsp.).

161 One of the thirty-six cola, XXXII.42b, was omitted in the Old English rendering. In XXXII.2a, OE swa ren contrasts with Vulgate in pluuia but corresponds with OL(Vsp.) sicut pluuia. However, the awk wardness of the Vulgate idiom (concrescat in pluuia doctrina mea) and the analogy of float ut ros eloquium meum in the following colon (OE flowe min spæc swa deaw), make it very likely that swa ren would have been used, whatever the form in the translator's exemplar, and so I have not included it in my catalogue of ‘Old Latin’ interventions.

162 The odd exception is ch. XXVIII, where about one third of the text is paraphrased. In the whole of Deut. XXXII itself, only six cola out of 101 are paraphrased, while two thirds of the rest are rendered especially closely. Out of the 250 cola in Deut. XXIX-XXXIV, only nineteen are paraphrased. This general fidelity to the Latin (Vulgate) text matches that shown by Ælfric in the opening chapters of his Genesis translation.

163 The Vespasian version has nonne baec congregata sunt apud me, and the Old English glossator has correctly rendered the verb with gesomnade (Kuhn, Vespasian Psalter, p. 155).Google Scholar

164 It is only fair to our translator to point out that the two mistakes noted here are the only important ones in the translation of Deuteronomy.

165 Emendation of the original Old English translation during its transmission is possible but unlikely. Familiar problems would arise from such a theory–for example, why a deliberate revision of the Old English text against a second Latin text (presumably the canticle version) should have produced only those few emendations noted. However, as we have seen (above, pp. 251–2), occasional anomalies among the surviving manuscripts of the Old English Heptateuch do suggest that some revisions were made.

166 I have no information about the date of the marginal addition in ΣT.

167 The others are magnitudinem for magnificentiam in XXXII.3 and uidete + uidete, sum for sim and est for sit in XXXII.39. The Codex Toletanus represents an old and conservative biblical tradition, according to Fischer, (Lateiniscbe Bibelbandschriften, p. 75)Google Scholar, with textual ancestry partly traceable to the mid-seventh century. It is thus impossible to know whether these further Old Latin readings, all of them in the original hand, represent emendations under canticle influence or whether they are the vestigial evidence of earlier mixed Vulgate texts.