Notes to Verse Solomon and Saturn I
1 CCCC 422: S..VRN … HWÆT .. eall…
a1 iglanda The lands so described are not islands, and there is precedent for translating the word ‘lands reached by water’; on the other hand, knowledge of the geography of these areas in Anglo-Saxon England may have been tenuous enough that scribes and readers thought they were, in fact, islands. See Cronan, ‘Old English Water-Lands’.
a2 boca onbyrged Wilcox (1991) suggests that Saturn’s ‘tasting’ of books suggests his inadequacy: he eats of them like a bookworm without deriving knowledge from them. The only other occurrence of ‘onbyrgan’ with books is in SSII, line 242. CHECK DOE FOR OTHER INSTANCES OF ‘onbyrgan’ WITH LEARNING, NOT JUST BOOKS Wilcox doesn’t go into metaphors about digesting books (ruminatio); look into these as explanation for Saturn’s ‘tasting’ as deficient.
3 CCCC 422: fas lar …. tas on….
5 CCCC 422: tr.ahter.s
6 CCCC 422: …ses h.nd… Page suggests ‘Moyses hond’ as the original text.
a6 m ces between ‘bec’ and ‘m:ces’ there is a blank space wide enough for ten or eleven letters. Kemble prints two blank half-lines, leaving ‘m:ces heardum’ out and resuming with ‘swylce’. Assmann, Dobbie, Menner leave the half-line after ‘bec’ blank, and begin a new line with ‘M.ces’. Vincenti (1904): Moses. Holthausen (1916) ignores blank space, and emends ‘m:ces’ to ‘m[o]des’ though the ‘d’ is not texual.
heardum ‘a’ written above the line.
7 CCCC 422: ic n.. re o. …lum ð.. … finda…
a7 Holthausen (1916): ‘swylce ic [neode] næfre on eallum’ with the remainder of the line as printed here given as a separate full line.
fyrngewrytum Zupitza: ‘u’ as written over ‘e’ as a correction.
8 CCCC 422: ..te soðe s.. git
a8 samode Holthausen (1916): sam[n]ode; emendation accepted by Dobbie and Menner
9 CCCC 422: H…..c wær…
10 CCCC 422: oððe æhtta oððe eor…
a10 Holthausen (1901) proposes reordering the words in the line to ‘elnes æhte oððe eorlscipes’ to improve the meter and the sense, in an analogue with the preceding line. Dobbie and Menner emend: ‘elnes oððe æhte oððe eorlscipes’, taking the second ‘oððe’ from the CCCC 422 reading.
a11 gepalmtwigode Menner comes up with a variety of explanations for the use of palmtwigode involving the presence in liturgy and church practice of palm branches, of which Sisam (‘Review’) argues, ‘it is not unfair to say that these researches bring no light’ (34). Sisam suggests instead that the poet needed something to alliterate with Paternoster, and there are few words in Old English beginning with ‘p’; he compares Maldon 68 where ‘the late prose word prass’ is used to alliterate with the river name Pante (34). As a definition, Sisam proposes ‘victorious’. More recently, Hill (‘The ‘Palmtwigede’ Pater Noster’, 2005) references John 15: 1 – 5, which discusses membership in the Christian church in terms of a metaphor involving the tending of grape vines. In the passage, as in the large body of commentary on it, fruit-bearing shoots on the woody stalks of the vines are called ‘palmes’ or ‘palmites’. ‘Palmes’ are clearly distinguishable by Mediterranean speakers of Latin from ‘palmas’, or palm trees, as they are familiar with both grape vines and palm trees. Hill observes that Anglo-Saxon translators and commentators produce passages that are clearly confused as to the agricultural details of the two plants, and suggests that in Anglo-Saxon England, the idea of ‘palm branch’ came to be understood as a tree or branch invested with sacred power. As Hill points out, this interpretation complements well the presentation in the poem of the individual letters of the Pater Noster as powerful runic symbols or ‘stafas’, a term referring to sticks as well as to written letters. See also lines 38 and 166, as well as the note to line 166.
12 CCCC 422: …. ill…
a12 Wille. Kemble, Schipper, Assmann, Dobbie, Menner emend: ‘sille’.
13 CCCC 422: … ela …. pund ..
a13 israela: ms. iraela
a15 gebrydded Dobbie emends: ‘gebryrded’.
16 CCCC 422: ..h ð . s cantices
a16 gesemesð. Kemble, Schipper (1877) emend: ‘gesemest’.
17 CCCC 422: me ðonne ge sund ferie
a17 fa… appears at the end of a line in the MS. Assmann: ‘fa[re]’. Holthausen (1916): ‘fadie’, ‘dispose, direct, guide’. Page reads ‘ferie’ in C422, though letters he finds unclear are in italics; he would accept ‘ferie’ as a correction of C41’s ‘fa’, which falls at the end of the manuscript line and is unfinished. As Page notes, ‘fadie’ is otherwise found only in prose (p. 37), as can be confirmed by a search of the DOE Corpus. Of the other verbs listed in JRCH beginning in ‘fa’, only ‘faran’ or ‘fandian’ (‘try, attempt, test, explore, visit’) are likely: ‘fagnian/fahnian’ (variants of ‘fægnian’, ‘rejoice, exult, be glad’) occur only in prose; while farnian (‘prosper’) is rare, occuring in verse only in PPs 71.2); the remainder do not fit the sense of the passage: ‘fagettan/fagian’ (‘change color’), ‘faldian’ (‘make a sheep fold’), ‘famgian’ (‘foam, boil’), ‘fangian’ (‘join, fasten’), ‘fannian’ (‘fan, winnow’). Either ‘faran’ or ‘fandian’ gives the passage approximately the same sense.
18 CCCC 422: w . nd … s ryc ..
a18 hricg ms. ‘hrigc’
19 CCCC 422: flod
a19/19 caldeas According to the Theodosian Code, Chaldeans are magicians and are, along with wizards, forbidden from the practices of soothsaying, astrology, and divination STILL NEED LATIN TEXT FROM MOMMSEN (Book 9, Title 16, part 4; trans. Pharr, p. 237). See also Göller, 129, Stanley, 88. Saturn, too, is a wizard comparable to Woden and Mercury as well as to Shakespeare’s Prospero (Wrenn 162).
20 CCCC 422: ..n eorðan
a20 unit Dobbie, Menner emend: ‘unnit’
21 .CCCC 422: .s weste wisdom.. .. ten
a21 wesðe. Kemble, Schipper: ‘weste’
22 CCCC 422: fe.. feoh butan ge witte .
23 CCCC 422: Seðe ðurh ðone cantic herigan
24 CCCC 422: worað he windes full worp… ða .. ofol
a24 warað Dobbie ‘worað he’, from B.
windes full: Assmann interpret as a kenning for ‘sky’, followed by Marquart (1938). Kemble finds analogue in ON ‘windflot’, which he says refers to the sky in Alvísmál, §xviii. CHECK THAT TEXT.
Kemble, Schipper add ‘he’ between ‘warað’ and ‘windes’
25 CCCC 422: on dom dæge draca egeslice
26 CCCC 422: liðran
27 CCCC 422: mid irenu. æpplum we.xene
a27 aplum. Kemble emends: ‘afelum’; Schipper sees unattested ‘aflum’; suggests (but does not print) ‘gaflum’ (‘forks’) as an emendation. Assmann, Dobbie, Menner: ‘aplum’. Manuscript has a small gap in the letter, but top horizontal stroke curves downward, and the bottom one curves upward, suggesting the continuation of the rounded stroke of the right side of ‘p’ with the gap perhaps caused by a defect in the vellum. Anglo-Saxon ‘f’ is written in the same position as ‘p’, but for ‘f’, the top horizontal stroke continues straight or even drifts upward slightly, while the lower horizontal stroke is extended so it reaches beyond the end of the top stroke.
28 CCCC 422: we.xene of edwi.. he.fde.
29 CCCC 422: ðo..
From leofre: CCCC 422, p. 2 / fol. 1r.
30 – 92 All variations between the two texts are noted below, except for differences in spelling between ‘i’ and ‘y’ and between ‘ð’ and þ’. Where the manuscripts differ, Dobbie uses readings from either CCCC 422 or CCCC 41 as he thinks the sense is better. His emendations are given, but not his choices from either manuscript to construct a text.
30 seolfres a30 silofres
a31 feðerscette ms ‘feðer s cetta’, with a letter erased after ‘s’. Dobbie prints ‘feðersceatum’ from B.
a31 fynrgestreona 30 feohgestreona
a33 from frean, page 197
þanne Menner: þonne
ælmihtigum Holthausen (1901) proposes emendation to ‘ælmihtgum’ on metrical grounds
a34 ungesibb 34 ungelic
a34 hwarfað 34 hwearfað
a35 eaðusð eallra 35 eaðost ealra
a36 haligan .. heofna 36 halgan … heofona
a37 Salomon manuscript SALOᛗ̅; the runic symbol = ‘man’ or ‘mon’ (see Page Introduction, 1999, pp. 78, 197). The same abbreviation used at line 62. However, in both cases there is a line above the character indicating abbreviation, so it’s not clear that the scribe understood the rune as having a name other than the equivalent Roman letter.
37 getælrime the entire word is faint but readable under magnification of digital image.
a38 gepalmtwigude, with ‘l’ written above the line. 38 gepalmtwigede. See note to line 11.
a39 ontyneð Zupitza: ‘untyneð’ (p. 528).
a39 heofnas 39 heofonas
a40 gefilleð 40 gesylleð Zupitza argues: the original reading was ‘gefylleð’, but the line crossing the ‘f’ to distinguish it from long s is ‘ganz verblasst’. However, the two letters are not distinguished simply by the absence or presence of a medial horizontal stroke: the tops of Anglo-Saxon ‘s’ and ‘f’ look rather different, and it is clear that the manuscript has ‘s’. Kemble, Schipper, Assmann, Zupitza, Dobbie, Menner emend: ‘gefylleð’
a41 dryhtnes ms ‘dryħnes’.
a42 mid As Zupitza notes (‘Zu Salomo und Saturn’, p. 528), ‘d’ has been written as a correction over another letter, partially erased: perhaps ‘h’.
a42 swilce 42 swylce Holthausen (1916) follows Kemble in breaking the line after ‘miht’ leaving a gap but turning the remainder into a metrically normal line; 42 has ‘ðy’ between ‘mid’ and beorhtan’; 42a does not.
a43 deofles dry 43 deofles dream Kemble: ‘dry’, translating ‘of the devil’s wizard’. Assmann: ‘dream’. Dobbie and Menner: ‘deofles dreor’ (devil’s blood). In manuscript, right half of ‘m’ obscured by a hole: only ‘n’ visible at this time. The next visible letter is ‘t’, and has been assumed by all editors to conclude ‘ðæt’. The dictionary doesn’t suggest any other possibilities but THIS WARRANTS MORE THOUGHT.
ðæt hole obscures ‘ðæ’
a45 egesfullicra þane … gripo 45 egesfullicran ðonne … gripu
a46 þonne for twelf 46 ðonne heo for xii
46 · xii · fira ‘· xi’ and ‘ir’ are clear; two different holes in the manuscript obscure ‘i · f’ and ‘a’. The reading depends upon C41.
twelf fyra tydernessum Identified by Hill (‘Two Notes’, 1971), as a reference to the topos of ‘the twelve vices’ whose description, ascribed to Cyprian, ‘had wide currency in medieval Latin texts’ and which Ælfric brought into Old English in a homily which survives in two versions. Hill notes: ‘the ‘twelve abuses’, like the seven or eight deadly sins, were thought to be a summary of the sinful condition of mankind’ (p. 218).
a47 weallað 47 wealleð
a48 forðan 48 forðon
49 gewritu læreð: Making a pun on ‘preaches with scripture’
a50 stereð 50 steoreð
50 him hole in manuscript obscures ‘i’ and left half of ‘m’.
a51 heofonrices heregeatowe wegeð 51 heofona rices heregeatewe wigeð Kemble: ‘wægeð’
a52 organan 52 organ
a53 begangenne … gæst 53 begonganne …gast
a54 miltan … merian 54 meltan … mergan
a55 Asceaden … sceppend 55 asceadan … scippend
scyldigum Kemble, Schipper, Assmann prints scyldum from C41.
a57 fyrwet 57 fyrwit
a58 geondmengeð … monna 58 gemengeð … manna
58 nænig ‘næ’ is clear; just the ghosts of ‘n’ and ‘g’ remain; ‘i’ is completely obscure.
59 from under: p. 3 / fol. 2v.
a59 heofnum … dreogeð 59 hefenum … dreoseð
a59/59 hæleða under heofnum Sarrazin points out the occurrence of this phrase also in Beowulf 50. CHECK.
a60 bisi … hwylum 60 bysig … hwilum
a61 heortan hearde 61 heortan neah hædre Menner adds ‘neah’ to a61
61 hædre The part of the descender of ‘r’ going below the line is obscured, but the rest of the letter is clear enough. O’Donnell (1999) argues that lexicographers have incorrectly distinguished two meanings for this adverb, whose only other occurrence under the meaning ‘anxiously’ is in Resignation. In both cases, according to O’Donnell, the more common meaning of ‘clearly, brightly’ is to be preferred and ‘[g]iven the lack of evidence for the … form elsewhere in Old English, it seems best to remove h%dre from the lexicon’ (p. 312).
62 astæned According to Stanley (‘Prosaic Vocabulary’), this is the only occurrence of ‘stæned’ or any of its compounds in verse (p. 414).
a61 Salomon see note to line 38.
a62 from godes, page 198
62 astæned entire word clear under magnification, though obscured at actual size.
a63 seolofren 63 sylfren leaf Menner adds ‘leaf’ to a63
a64 gæstæs … godspellian 64 gastes … godspel secgan
a65 sefan snytera &sawle 65 seofan snytro & saule Kemble, Schipper print ‘sefan’
66 a number given to this blank line to maintain parallel lineation with text from CCCC 41, which contains an additional line of verse. The end of the preceding line of verse occurs at the end of a manuscript line, making eye-skip here perhaps more likely.
a67 sawle … synnihte 67 saule … siennihte
a68 gefetian…hi 68 gefeccan … hie
a69 gefæstnað ‘t’ added slightly below the line
a69 hi 69 hie
a70 clausum … þane 70 clusum … ðone
a72 hungor ‘n’ added above the line
he gehideð manuscript: ‘hege hege hideð’, with first ‘hege’ underlined to indicate deletion; see comments on word spacing in the Introduction (p. XX).
a72 gehideð 70 ahieðeð
a73 toworpeð … getymbreð 70 toweorpeð … getimbreð
a74 middangeardes 74 middangearde
a74/74 modigra Schabram (1965) concluded that ‘modig’ is in Old English poetry almost always used in its positive sense, in contrast to prose, where it is almost always negative (p.125). See also lines 208, 276, 326.
a75 he is … ealle 70 [not in this ms] … ealra
a76 lamana … winciendra 76 lamena …wincen:ra
a76 winciendra ‘e’ added above the line
a77 his deafa … deadra 77 is deafra … dumbra
a78 scildigra manuscript has ‘swild[e]ig…ra…’: ‘e’ erased, as well as letters now illegible after ‘ig’ and ‘ra’. The descender of ‘w’ is erased, and ‘d’ is written over ‘c’. Zupitza, ‘Zu Salomo und Saturn’, reads ‘scildigra’ as corrected from ‘swilde igra’, from which letters have been erased (p. 528). Assmann: ‘scyldigra’.
a78 scippendes 78 scyldigra
a79 feriend … neriend 79 ferigend … nerigend
a80 earma 80 earmra
a81 wyrma wlenco 81 &wyrma welm; ‘h’ written above ‘w’ in ‘welm
a82 westenes … weorðmynta 82 on westenne … weorðmynda
a83 þone ms: þono
a84 smealice Stanley (‘Prosaic Vocabulary’) notes that the use of ‘smealice’ here with the meaning ‘carefully, accurately’, is derived from smeah: literally ‘creep’; metaphorically, ‘think subtly’ (p. 414).
a85 gesið 85 gæst
a86 feohterne … gebringan 86 feohtende … gebrengan. Menner emends to ‘feohtenne’ in a86.
a87 Gyf … ufan yoru gebringeð 87 gif … onufan ierne gebrengest
a87 yorn Might be emended to ‘yrum’ as in the name for runic ‘y’: bow? gold? horn? Translation then: … if you first present him with bows / horns from above
gebringeð Menner emends: ‘gebringesð’
a87/87 – 145 These lines enumerate the powers of each of the letters required to write out the Pater Noster in Latin. The prayer, which appears in the New Testament gospels of Matthew (6: 9 – 13) and Luke (11: 2 – 4) runs in Jerome’s Latin version: ‘Pater noster, qui es in coelis: sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo, et in terra. Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie. Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. Sed libera nos a malo’ (PL 29: 548A). In order, then, the letters required to write out this prayer are P A T E R N O S Q U I C L F M D G B H . In the poem, ‘I’ and ‘D’ are out of sequence, while ‘L’ and ‘C’ are reversed.
a88 prologo prima ms. ‘logo prim ·’ 88 prologa
88 ᛈ Runic name for ‘p’in this ms but not in 88a
a89 guðmaga gyrde 89 guðomæcga gierde
guðomæcge clear under magnification of digital image. Kemble reads ‘guðmecga’, Schipper, Sweet, Menner, ‘guðmæcga’; Menner believes ‘o’ was added by a later hand. Plausible, as the ink is darker and the script somewhat more tentative than that of other appearances of ‘o’ on the page, and because ‘guðo-’ is not otherwise attested in the surviving corpus of Old English (DOE)—but neither is ‘guðmæge’, under any spelling (DOE Variant Phrase Search). Since the word is otherwise unattested under either spelling, the presence or absence of ‘o’ will not change the meaning of the passage. THIS ISN’T QUITE RIGHT.
90 a not in a90
grymman: Kemble, Schipper: ‘grimman’.
from feond: p. 4 / fol. 2r.
a91 swapeð & on … filgið ‘filgið’ written above ‘læteð’, which is struck out with dots 91 sweopeð & him on …fylgeð
92 – 145 Kittredge (1929), Elliott (1959) Kellermann, Schneider (1956), Menner, Zolla, Sharpe, Nelson find the runes significant in some way, while Kemble (1840), Derolez (1954), Sweet (1944), Sisam (Review), and O’Keeffe (Visible Song) argue that the are not. Sisam, followed by O’Keeffe, notes that when named, the Roman letters, unlike the runes, fit the text metrically, so the runic characters must have been a later addition; the descriptions of ‘ᚳ/C’ and ‘ᛟ/G’as ‘geap’ (‘curved’, lines 122, 133) also fits the Roman letters, but not the runes. Sisam further points to the absence of runic characters from the CCCC 41 text as evidence for their addition to the poem at some point during the copying. It is also possible, however, that the runes were left out of the CCCC 41 text when it was copied; when the manuscript’s marginalia were added in the late eleventh century, runic knowledge might already have been lost. Ward and Waller (1908) argue that the presentation of the letters of the Pater Noster in runic form is ‘a curious travesty of an old heathen spell’ for victory in combat; they suggest that the poem’s strategy is to combat pagan practice by overlaying onto the runes a new, Christian, interpretation as well as ‘shifting to fiends and devils the power of making runes of victory or death, a power formerly in the hands of pagan gods’ (p. 11). In The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe, Flint refers only briefly to PSSB, but her argument about the ‘double process’ of rejection and recuperation of magic (broadly defined) in late Roman and early medieval Christian cultures provides a powerful framework for a reading of the runic passage here. Flint shows that certain magical processes were elevated, even made essential, under the names of ‘miracula’, ‘mirabilia’, and ‘mysterium’ (p. 5), while others were simultaneously demonized as ‘magia’. She comments: ‘To kill the second species of magic without dissipating the strenth Christianity might derive from the first was a task of appalling difficulty…’. (p. 87). In this frame of reference, SSI undertakes the task of subverting the ‘magical’ associations of the runes by putting them into service in the process of celebrating the ‘miraculous’ powers of the Pater Noster. Schneider proposes that the runic passage be translated using the meanings of the runic letters rather than treating those names simply as abstractions. TRANSLATION NOW HAS NAMES OF RUNES AS GIVEN BY SCHNEIDER: CHECK DEROLEZ, PAGE, RUNE POEM, OTHER SOURCES FOR RUNE NAMES.
a92 [no runic letter] … eac ofslehð 92 eace ofslihð In one of few departures from the manuscript, Schipper leaves the runic letters out of his edition of the poem.
T… The margins of the next several pages of the manuscript are empty. The scribe may have been copying from an incomplete text, as suggested by the fact that only two lines are written in the bottom margin, while three lines are written on each of the preceding pages. It is also possible that for some reason the scribe stopped writing here, intending to continue the text on the remainder of this and then the following pages.
93 Tiw, god of war and identification of runic ‘ᛏ’ is here confused with ‘tir’ (‘glory’), according to Wrenn (1965). According to Hermann, Allegories of War, the presentation of the ‘T’ rune is closely paralleled in Prudentius’ Psychomachia: ‘Non tulit ulterius capti blasfemia monstri / uirtutum regina Fides, sed uerba loquentis / inpedit et uocis claudit spiramina pilo / pollutam rigida transfigens cuspide linguam’ (‘Faith, queen of the virtues, no longer endured the blasphemies of the monstrous prisoner, but stopped the vice’s speech and shut her voice passage with a spear, thrusting its hard point through her filthy tongue’, lines 715 – 718). Quoted from Maurice P. Cunningham, ed. Aurelii Prudentii Clementis Carmina, CCSL 126 (Turnhout: 1966), translated by Hermann (p. 33).
97 ieorrenga geseceð Holthausen (1916): ‘Das metrum verlangt umstellung: ‘geseceð ieorrenga (typus C)’ (p. 352).
98 bocstafa brego. R is ‘prince’ or leader of the Paternoster runes, according to Wrenn (1962)
100 scines Holthausen (1916): ‘scinnes’ (again on metrical grounds). Accepted by Menner
101 leomona Schipper: ‘leomena’
104 he ms. has hole where ‘h’ would be. Menner: ‘he’; Dobbie: ‘[.]e’
hangiende Holthausen (1916): ‘hangende’ (again on metrical grounds).
105 engestan Dobbie: ‘ængestan’ (reading ‘ęngestan’)
106 cirican Holthausen proposed emendation to ‘cinlican’ (=cynlican) in 1901, reverted to the manuscript reading in 1916, and in 1920 proposed instead ‘cirlican’ (‘mannhaften’), referring to BT ‘ceorlic’.
getuinnas Sweet: ‘tuinas’.
106b – 107a ii / I stiðmod.
ii Kemble: ᚢ; Schipper, Grein, Menner, Dobbie: ‘n’; all place it at the beginning of the following line. Zupitza: ‘ii’, but tentatively. Magnification of high-resolution digital images of the manuscript makes clear that this is ‘ii’: at the top of the second ‘i’ is a darker spot showing that the scribe placed the tip of the pen here, rather than writing a horizontal stroke beginning at the top of the first ‘i’ and then curving the pen downward to complete the second minim of an ‘n’. The apparent ‘n’ cross-stroke is a darkened spot on the vellum, one of many on this page. Placing ‘ii’ at the end of the line yields metrical irregularity, but this is only one of many such occurrences in the poem, as Holthausen has pointed out.
107 I Kemble: ‘I’. Kemble gives the runic characters for ‘U’ and ‘I’, but translates ‘N and O together’. Assmann finds ‘&’ in the manuscript and emends to ‘O’. Zupitza read ‘ein senkrechter Strich’ rather than ‘&’. Holthausen reads ‘&’, but would emend: ‘O, N samod’ (1901) or ‘N, O samod’ (1916, noting that ‘n’ is pronounced ‘en’). Schipper, Dobbie, Menner emend to ‘O’, rationalizing either that the ‘I’ is the first stroke of an unfinished runic ‘O’ or that it is ‘&’ with a short cross-stroke and that ‘O’ has been left out. Menner further argues that ‘O’ must be supplied because of the appearance of ‘getuinnas’ in the previous line; however, the two letters could simply be referenced with a descriptive phrase, as is ‘B’ below (line 135); Menner suggests that the phrase is appropriate for these two letters because they appear in sequence in both the alphabet and the Pater Noster (p. 113 n. 107a). Meling (1976) points out that where the poem provides both Roman and runic forms for a letter, they are the parallel ones, unlike N and runic ‘O’, and proposes instead that the line be interpreted as the first stroke of runic ‘N’ yielding the parallel pair (though in all other instances, the runic letter is written first). The text is quite clear in the reading ‘I’, though this letter should appear not here, but below (where several editors have emended it into the text) at line 122. The faulty sequence combined with metrical irregularity in the two lines suggests textual damage or loss; perhaps a portion has simply been inscribed out of order.
swiðmod Kemble: ‘[sam]od’, followed by all subsequent editors who, however, note that ‘s’ is also clearly legible, followed by a hole the manuscript. Several-fold magnification, as well as ultra-violet light, however, reveals immediately after ‘s’ the downstroke of a letter that must be ‘r’, ‘f’, ‘w’, or ‘p’. Old English phonological constraints do not allow ‘r’ or ‘f’ after ‘s’, so that leaves only ‘w’ or ‘p’ as the letters possible in this position. A search of the DOE corpus yields no words beginning with ‘sp’ and ending in ‘od’, but ‘swiðmod’, which also appears in SSI, lines 91 and 120, as well as in PSSA, A48, and ‘swærmod’, which occurs only in a single twelfth-century copy of a homily. See H. R. Estes, ‘A Note on Solomon and Saturn I, lines 107b – 108a’, forthcoming.
108 sargiað Menner emends: ‘sargað’
109 bemurneð Assmann, Dobbie emend: ‘bemurnað’. Compare ‘feorh ne bemurndon grædige guðrincas’, And. 154 (cited by B-T)
110 Runic ‘S’ may suggest sun as salvation for a Christian, according to Ritzke-Rutherford (1979).
111 Holthausen (1916) would add ‘weorð’ at the beginning of the line, as usual citing metrical necessity.
113 stregdað Zupitza notes that ‘d’ is written above the line. Schipper prints ‘stan [ond] stregdað’. Menner, following Assmann, thinks ‘&’ appears before ‘stregdað’, though it is quite clearly not in the manuscript.
121 from deorra: p. 5 / fol. 3v.
122 Menner and Dobbie, following Assmann and Schipper, insert ‘I and’ after ‘ðonne hine’, because it comes next in the sequence of letters needed to write the Pater Noster.
124 bigað Sweet: ‘bigad’
125 hæftling ms. ‘hæftlig’
helle hæftling Sarrazin: ‘erriner[t] etwas an Kynewulf’s Stil’ (184). See note to line 354.
128 earhfare Sarrazin (p. 184) the word otherwise occurs only in the Cynewulf canon. CHECK.
130 flana: Kock (1918) reads as accusative (pp. 122 – 3)
131 brecað Grein: ‘sprecað’, but Assmann: ‘brecað’; Holthausen (1916): ‘wrecað’.
135 fif Holthausen (1916): ‘fifl’
fif mægnum Read as ‘fifmægnum’ and defined as ‘magic power’ by [WHO????] though this is the only occurrence of the word (or phrase, if it’s considered two words) in the Old English corpus. This reading followed by Menner, Dobbie, who else?
fyr ‘f’ and ‘r’ are clear, but a hole obscures the letter between them. Zupitza is unconvinced that ‘y’ was the obscured letter, but does not propose an alternative (p. 528). Nevertheless, under magnification the descender of what can only be a ‘y’ is clearly visible.
ðridda Holthausen (1916): oðer, based on the fact that the next letter needed to write the Pater Noster is ‘B.’ Dobbie does not emend, but comments, ‘It is difficult to see why B should be referred to as se ðridda’ (p. liv). In modern Old English dictionaries, ‘B’ is the third letter, following ‘A’ and ‘Æ’, though in most extant alphabets listed in Old English texts, ‘Æ’ is either absent or appears after all of the Roman letters. In St. Gall MS. 270, however, ‘B’ is the third letter, following both ‘A’ and ‘Æ’ (Derolez 217).
137 Holthausen (1916) wonders if ‘H’ is pronounced as ‘a’ rather than ‘ha’ since the latter doesn’t alliterate. According to a list of the names of the letters of the alphabet in British Museum MS Stowe 57, fol. 3v, ‘h’ is pronounced ‘hah’ or ‘hake’; see Ker, p. 337.
139 godes spyrigendes geonges hrægles Kock (1918) objects to the sequence of four genitives and proposes an emendation of ‘spyrigende’ yielding a translation of lines 137b – 139 of ‘an angel clothes him, / the champion of Christ, in living garments, / when he is seeking for good, fresh attire’ (p. 67). Menner follows the emendation.
140 lif getwinnan. Schipper: ‘liftwinnan’. Assmann, Holthausen (1916), Dobbie: ‘lifgetwinnan’; Holthausen interprets these as ‘B’ and ‘H’, which follow one another in the letter-sequence forming the Pater Noster.
141 tuigena Schipper: ‘twigena’
142 sweopum seolfrynum Holthausen (1916) reads these as the palm twigs, which he equates with the Pater Noster described in line 63 as having silver leaves.
weallað Menner, following Grein: wælað, though Assmann reverts to ‘weallað’, as in the manuscript.
150 flotan gripað Kock (1918) proposes ‘flot angripað’ arguing that dictionaries have missed ‘floating’ as ‘the primary meaning of ‘flot’ and defining ‘angripan’ by analogy to OHG ‘anagrifan’ as ‘onfon’: take, receive, accept. The single occurrence in surviving Old English texts of ‘ongrype’ meaning ‘attack’ in one of Wulfstan’s homilies would seem to preclude this interpretation, however. HomU 32 (Nap 40) B188.8.131.52 [0024 (90)] ‘Seo graniende neowelnys and seo forglendrede hell, þæra wyrma ongrype and þæra <sorhwita> mæst, se niðfulla here and se teonfulla dæg’: Source: Napier 1883, no. 40: ‘In Die Iudicii’: Napier 1883 182-90 Wulfstan , Sammlung englischer Denkmäler 4 (Berlin); repr. with appendix by K. Ostheeren, 1967 . NOT IN BETHURUM’S EDITION?
152 strenges under ultraviolet light, ‘str:nges’ is clear, though under normal light, only ‘s:::as’ is discernible. Kemble: ‘[scearpes]’, with no comment; Grein: ‘styrnes’. Skeat, Schipper: ‘strongra. Sweet, Zupitza, Assmann: ‘str:nges.’ Dobbie: ‘str[.]nges. Menner: ‘str[o]nges.’ The latter is quite plausible, yielding a translation of ‘strong things and thorns prick cattle’, but ‘strenges’ (‘strings, ropes, sinews’) seems a better reading: a concrete object, parallel to ‘sticoles’, and one that, used ineptly, has the potential to harm beasts of the field.
From & sticoles: p. 6 / fol. 3r.
155 hornum ‘n’ written above the line
157 gefeterað ‘ge’ written above the line. Assmann: ‘hwilum he [folme] gefeterað’; Holthausen (1916), Menner, Dobbie reject this.
fæge: ‘doomed.’ Gillam (‘Connotations’) argues that this term ‘carr[ies] its tantalizing hints of pagan lore over into such irreproachably Christian texts as Christ and Guthlac’ (p. 165). Acknowledges in a footnote, however, that others (e.g. Timmer, ‘Heathen and Christian Elements’) consider the term to have lost pagan connotations in favor of purely Christian ones. Gillam lists all poetic occurrences of ‘fæge’; the greatest numbers of which are in Beowulf (12), Andreas (5), Guthlac (5), Exodus (4), Judith (4), and Maldon (4); and Solomon and Saturn (3) (p. 167), and notes: ‘Fæge is always used of man, or of his body or soul’ (169), and generally when the subject mentioned is either dead, about to die, or has just escaped death (170). It is often associated with fear (173) and often of heathens or of the servants of the devil (177). See also lines 332 and 334.
157 – 162b Kemble: ‘This appears to allude to a superstition well known in the north of Europe, viz. that some warriors were possessed of spells capable of blunting the weapons and weakening the sinews of their opponents’ (176 – 7).
160 awriteð. Zupitza, ‘Zu Salomo und Saturn’, says this is not the manuscript reading (p. 529), although it quite clearly is.
wællnota Schneider (1969) interprets this as ‘todbringende Runen’ (‘deadly runes’, p. 297 n. 54), though the dictionaries have Grein (Sprachsatz): ‘nota vel litera fatalis’; JRCH: ‘baleful inscription’; B-T: ‘fatal mark, a mark that brings death, a rune that brings death’. Makes sense given the range of meanings of ‘awritan’, which include, according to B-T, ‘write’ and ‘compose’ as well as ‘inscribe’ and ‘carve’.
162 scile Kemble, Schipper place at the start of the next line.
166 palmtreow Holthausen (1901) thinks the line is both metrically and syntactically false, and proposes emending ‘palmtreow’ to ‘gepalmtwigede’ on analogy with line 39. If we accept the identification of ‘palmtwig’ as referencing a holy or magical tree or branch analogous to the runic staves that make up the Pater Noster prayer (see the note to line 11), then the identification of the Pater Noster itself as ‘palmtreow’ makes sense as a further identification of the prayer’s power. See Hill, ‘The ‘Palmtwigede’ Pater Noster’.
167 ðæt ‘ð’ and ‘t’ clear; ‘æ’ obscured by a hole.
[No rubrication, line break, or other typological marker indicates the transition here from verse to prose.]
Notes to Prose Solomon and Saturn A
A1 In the middle of a line, without any scribal indication of the beginning of a different work, the text changes from verse to prose.
A7 The phrase ‘the arm of God’ translates the Latin ‘brahhia dei’ used in the Old English text.
A10 from ‘on wildeores onlicnisse’ p. 7 / fol. 4v.
A11 Eahteoðan ms. ‘Eeahteoðan’
A15, A17 byrne heavenly stream and golden stream, or mail coat? CHECK ANALOGUES
A18 Fifteoðan siðe bið ðæt deo written over erasure.
A21 Eahteoðan Kemble, Schipper emend: ‘Eahtateoðan’.
A25 siða Schipper emends: ‘siðe’ here and in each subsequent occurrence to A32.
A26 – 27 Kemble finds a ‘lurking resemblance of the wolf Fenris, and the chain which he will only break in the Ragna-ravk, or Twilight of the Gods’ (177).
A29 From sybbe onlicnisse p. 8 / fol. 4r.
A30 deafol Schipper: deofol
onlicnes Schipper emends: ‘onlicnis[se]’
A34 hefones Kemble: ‘geofones’, an emendation Schipper calls ‘unnöthig’ (p. 59).
A35 cherubin Under normal light, last letter looks like ‘i’, but under ultra-violet light, a horizontal stroke is visible at the top, indicating the letter must have been written as ‘n’.
A37 ligetu Menner saw ‘an obscure letter after the t of liget’; under magnification, it’s clearly ‘u’.
A38 ðunor Kemble identifies this thunder with the god Ðunor/Thorr, his hammer transformed into ‘ðære fyrenan æcxe’ (‘the axe of fire’): ‘This Christian fighting of the devil and the Pater Noster is what we may call a companion piece to the Ragna-ravk’ (177).
A40 ðonne · manuscript ‘ðon̄’ with ‘·’ written over erasure.
A43 From Salomon cwæð p. 9 / fol. 5v.
A45 of bræded Menner: ‘ofbræded’ Schipper: ‘ond bræded’, an apparent typo as he generally comments when he’s emending.
A46 Kemble finds a parallel in the Old English Menologium entry for 21 March: ‘On ðone an & twentigoðan dæg ðæs monðes byð se feorða worulde dæg: on ðam dæge God gesette on heofenes rodor sunnan & monan, & ða wæs seo sunne seofon syðum beorhtre ðonne heo nu ys, & se mona hæfde ða ða byrhtnisse ðe seo sunne nu hæfð. Ac ða Adam & Eua on neorxna wange gesingodon, ða wæs ðam tunglum heora beorhtnys gewanod, & hig næfdon na siððan buton ðone þriddan dæl hura leohtes’. CHECK AND CITE EDITION OF MENOLOGIUM
A49 From hie ðære tungan p. 10 / fol. 5r.
gullisc Possibly ‘Gaulish’ or ‘Gallic’, if this refers to some kind of special silver known in Anglo-Saxon England. But Menner, following Kemble’s translation, argues that it means ‘gilded’ or ‘gold-colored’, as a translation of ‘argentum deauratum’ (‘gold-plated silver’) perhaps influenced by borrowing from Scandinavian ‘gull’ (‘gold’).
A50 comp gimmum Kemble, Schipper, Menner: ‘compgimmum’
A56 full gedrifen Kemble, Schipper print as one word
A57 From horn hæbbe p. 11 / fol. 6v.
ordas & anra gehwylc Following this, Schipper inserts ‘ord’
A58 deoses anes Schipper: ‘ðeosses’
ymbfæðman Schipper: ymbfæðnian’
A61 ealle on ðone munt Schipper follows Kemble in mistaken reading ‘ealne’
lengo ðe Menner, note: ‘perhaps for lengðe’ Kemble, Schipper: ‘lengoðe’
A62 ðæron Schipper: ‘ðær on’
From hæbbe gyldene byman p. 12 / fol. 6r.
A64 – A65 Schipper follows Kemble in expanding to fill the lacuna with ‘…ðæs Pater Nosters wlitige seo scrud? Salomon cwæð…’
A71 haten under daylight, only ‘hat::’ readable, but ‘haten’ clear under ultra-violet light.
[PSSA breaks off at the bottom of a page, and the following leaf has been cut from the manuscript; a stub remains. The text resumes at the top of p. 13 / fol. 8v with a resumption of verse.]