Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:59:31.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The text of Aldhelm's Enigma no. c in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 697 and Exeter Riddle 40

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe
Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Exeter Riddle 40 presents two related problems as a translation of one of Aldhelm's Enigmata (no. c: ‘Creatura’): its dislocation, in an otherwise accurate translation, of six lines from their position in the Latin text; and its connection with the so-called ‘Lorica’ of Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss. lat. Q. 106, the only other surviving Old English translation of an Aldhelmian enigma. In his edition of the Exeter Riddles, Tupper addressed these problems by postulating that both Old English riddles were the work of one translator and that Exeter Riddle 40 was revised from an earlier version of Aldhelm's enigma now lost to us. Although Tupper's view has been widely accepted, it presents a number of difficulties. It is the purpose of the present article to suggest an alternate interpretation of the evidence: that Exeter Riddle 40 – a much later poem than the ‘Leiden Riddle’, a Northumbrian poem perhaps of the eighth century – was translated from a ninth-century continental manuscript with tenth-century English corrections: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 697.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 14 , December 1985 , pp. 61 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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 The Exeter Book, ed. Krapp, G. P. and Dobbie, E. V. K., Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 3 (New York, 1936), 200–3Google Scholar. All references to the text of Riddle 40 are to this edition.

2 The Riddles of the Exeter Book, ed. Tupper, F. (Boston, Mass., 1910), pp. 161–4.Google Scholar Craig Williamson, the most recent editor of the Exeter Riddles (The Old English Riddles of the Exeter Book (Chapel Hill, NC, 1977))Google Scholar, essentially repeats the arguments advanced in the nineteenth century by Dietrich, F. (De Kynewulfi Poetae Aetate (Marburg, 1859))Google Scholar and Herzfeld, G. (Die Räthsel des Exeterbuches und ihr Verfasser (Berlin, 1890)).Google Scholar

3 Riddles, ed. Tupper, p. 163.

4 E.g., Aldhelm, lines 1–3=OE, lines 1–5; Aldhelm, lines 13–16=OE, lines 23–30; Aldhelm, lines 18–20=OE, lines 33–7; Aldhelm, lines 35–9=OE, lines 66–73; Aldhelm, lines 63–4=OE, lines 86–91.

5 See Rosier, J. L., ‘Generative Composition in Beowulf’, ES 58 (1977), 192–203Google Scholar, for an analysis of this technique of composition. On the rhetorical adaptation of this technique in Old English translation, see O'Keeffe, Katherine O'Brien, ‘Exeter Riddle 40: the Art of an Old English Translator’, Proc. of the Patristics, Medieval, and Renaissance Conference 5 (1980), 107–17.Google Scholar

6 The word uelox is written in the left-hand margin of Rawlinson C. 697, 15v, between lines 2 and 3, in large Anglo-Saxon square minuscule script. While it was probably meant to gloss pernix, it could also be construed as the positive of velocior in the same line.

7 Cf. Williamson, , Old English Riddles, p. 273Google Scholar, who defines line 88a as a ‘short C2, Pope's category C 21’.

8 On the date and dialect of the Northumbrian version of ‘Lorica’, see Three Northumbrian Poems, ed. Smith, A. H. (London, 1933), pp. 18, 23–5Google Scholar. Parkes, M. B., ‘The Manuscript of the Leiden Riddle’, ASE 1 (1972), 207–17, at 213Google Scholar, argues that the Leiden Riddle was copied in the tenth century at Fleury.

9 The standard edition of the Enigmata is Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, R., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. antiq. 15 (Berlin, 1919), 97–149.Google Scholar All references to the text of the Enigmata are to this edition unless otherwise stated. F. Glorie has collated an additional four riddles from Rome, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 1553 (s. ixin) against Ehwald's edition but has not materially changed Ehwald's text: see Collectiones Aenigmatum Merovingicae Aetatis, ed. Glorie, F., 2 vols., Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 133–133A (Turnhout, 1968)Google Scholar. Lagorio, V. M., ‘Aldhelm's Aenigmata in Codex Vaticanus Palatinus latinus 1719’, Manuscripta 15 (1971), 23–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, adds Pal. lat. 1719 to the list of manuscripts of the Enigmata. The manuscript, which she dates to s. ixin, contains only Enigmata nos i–lxxxv.

10 These are: Leipzig, Karl Marx Universitätsbibliothek, Rep. I. 74 (s. ix/x); Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Voss. lat. O. 15 (s. xi1); Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 697 (s. ix2); Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 2339 (s. xin); BN lat. 8440 (s. x); BN lat. 16700 (s. ix/x) (all of which were collated by Ehwald) and Leiden, Rijks. Voss. lat. Q. 106 (s. ix/x) (missed by both Ehwald and Glorie). For the dating of the Leiden manuscripts, see Meyïer, K. A. de, Codices Vossiani Latini, 3 vols., Bibliotheca Universitatis Leidensis, Codices manuscripti 13–15 (Leiden, 1975–1977)Google Scholar. For corrections to the dating of some of the manuscripts used by Ehwald, see Bischoff, B., Mittelalterliche Studien, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1966–1981) 111, 223Google Scholar, n. 54.

11 The manuscripts of this group for which specific origins have been suggested are: Leiden, Rijks. Voss. lat. O. 15, Angoulême (see Meyïer, de, Codices Vossiani Latini 111, 31–42)Google Scholar; Leipzig, Karl Marx Univ. Rep. I. 74, perhaps Orléans; Paris, BN lat. 2339, Limoges (see Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, pp. 46–8); Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 697, north-east France (see Bischoff, B., ‘Bannita: 1. Syllaba, 2. Littera’, Latin Script and Letters A.D. 400–900: Festschrift presented to Ludwig Bieler, ed. O'Meara, J. J. and Naumann, B. (Leiden, 1976), p. 211)Google Scholar; and Leiden, Rijks. Voss. iat. Q. 106, western France (see Parkes, ‘The Manuscript of the Leiden Riddle’, p. 212, citing a private communication from Bernhard Bischoff).

12 Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957)Google Scholar, no. 263 (s. x/xi).

13 Rigg, A. G. and Wieland, G. R., ‘A Canterbury Classbook of the Mid-Eleventh Century (The ‘Cambridge Songs’ Manuscript)’, ASE 4 (1975), 113–30.Google Scholar

14 Warner, G. F. and Gilson, J. P., Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1921) 11, 35–6.Google Scholar

15 The poem is listed in Schaller, D. and Könsgen, E., Initia Carminum Latinorum Saeculo Undecimo Antiquiorum (Göttingen, 1977)Google Scholar, no. 7810.

16 The poem is listed Ibid., no. 10988.

17 Bishop, T. A. M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, Part VII: the Early Minuscule of Christ Church Canterbury’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 3 (1959–1963), 413–23, at 422.Google Scholar

18 Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, p. 52.

19 Ibid.

20 For the early part of the Enigmata (as far as no. xlviii, line 5), Royal 12. C. xxiii and CUL Gg. 5. 35 share other striking similarities. Their punctuation and interlinear glosses are identical (although Royal 12. C. xxiii has some marginal annotations from Isidore's Etymologiae not copied in the less handsome Cambridge manuscript). After 398v, however, the glossing of the Cambridge manuscript ceases and the punctuation changes. The text, as well, shows many unique variants from this point onwards. Glossing in Latin and Old English, sporadic on 400r-3r, resumes on 406r, but these glosses bear no resemblance to those in Royal 12. C. xxiii. The possibility of a different exemplar for CUL Gg. 5. 35 after 398v is tantalizing, but at this stage undemonstrable.

21 Miskolc, Zrinyi Ilona Secondary School, s.n. See Lowe, E. A., Codices Latini Antiquiores, 12 vols. and supplement (Oxford, 1934–1972)Google Scholar, no. 1792, where the fragment is attributed to southern England in the eighth century.

22 Mády, Z., ‘An VIIIth Century Aldhelm Fragment in Hungary’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 13 (1965), 441–53, at 445Google Scholar. Mády reports that Bernhard Bischoff, in private correspondence, localized the manuscript in southern England (Ibid. p. 444).

23 Bishop, T. A. M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, Part IV: Manuscripts connected with St Augustine's Canterbury’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 2 (1954–1958), 323–36, at 329Google Scholar; Warner, and Gilson, , Catalogue 11, 146.Google Scholar

24 Bishop, ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, Part IV’, p. 329.

25 Several readings in Royal 15. A. xvi (pruinosa in crebris (lxvii, 1), ulcani (lxx, 2), carebunt (lxx, 6), munera (lxxii, 2)) are shared only by Royal 12. C. xxiii and CUL Gg. 5. 35

26 Macray, W. D., Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, 5 vols. (Oxford, 1862–1900), 11Google Scholar, cols. 351–2.

27 Bischoff, ‘Bannita’, p. 211.

28 Lapidge, M., ‘Some Latin Poems as Evidence for the Reign of Athelstan’, ASE 9 (1980), 61–98, at 72.Google Scholar

29 Bishop, T. A. M., ‘Notes on Cambridge Manuscripts, Part V: Manuscripts connected with St Augustine's Canterbury, Continued’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 3 (1959–1963), 93–5, at 93.Google Scholar

30 In Enigma no. c these are ualebo (line 5) and auxungia (line 4).

31 Bishop, T. A. M., ‘An Early Example of Insular-Caroline’, Trans. of the Cambridge Bibliographical Soc. 4 (1964–1968), 396–400, at 399,Google Scholar and English Caroline Minuscule (Oxford, 1971), p. 2.Google Scholar

32 Cf. Williamson, , Old English Riddles, pp. 274–5.Google Scholar

33 A corrector marks the alternate arrangement of lines in the margin of Rome, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. lat. 2078 (Rheims, s. ix2); but this manuscript has no connection with England.

34 Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, lines 40–3. For a translation of the Enigmata, see now Aldhelm: the Poetic Works, trans. M. Lapidge and J. L. Rosier (Woodbridge, 1985), p. 93Google Scholar: ‘I am heavier than lead, I tend to the weight of rocks; I am lighter than a feather, to which even a pond-skater yields. I am harder than flint, which pours dense flames from its entrails, or iron; but I am softer than cooked offal.’

35 Tippula seems to have presented some difficulty in interpretation. BL Royal 15. A. xvi, a text only occasionally glossed, glosses tipula with uncharacteristic fullness: ‘Tippula id est paruum ani/mal et leuissimu m in tantu m et iam ut siccis pedib us dicitur sup er aquas posse ambulare’ (72v). CUL Gg. 5. 35 reads the incomprehensible centipula, although cui tippula is unmistakably clear in BL Royal 12. C. xxiii. Leiden, Voss. O. 15 reads stippula (153v); Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 4433–38 (71v) reads cui bulla aquantia limphae in the text and glosses in the margin tippula. Cf. Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, p. 114, on the sources and parallels; see also Meritt, H. D., Fact and Lore about Old English Words (Stanford, Calif., 1954), p. 187.Google Scholar

36 Aldhelmi Opera, ed. Ehwald, p. 147.

37 CUL Gg. 5. 35 glosses ‘snædelðearmu m’. On the glossing of exta and the distinction between ‘snædelðearm’ and bæcðearm’, see Pheifer, J. D., Old English Glosses in the Épinal–Erfurt Glossary (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar, no. 385 (p. 85).

38 The omission probably resulted from eye-skip. The scribe wrote line 21 correctly as far as secreta and then added the last two words of line 22, tartara cerno, conflating the two lines. In line 21 tonantis is now written over the erased tartara cerno.

39 Cf. Bishop, T. A. M., English Caroline Minuscule, pp. iiGoogle Scholar and 2. I am indebted to Dr Michael Lapidge for information on dating this addition to 15r.

40 Healey, A. DiP. and Venezky, R. L., A Microfiche Concordance to Old English (Toronto, 1980).Google Scholar

41 Cf. Meritt, H. D., Old English Glosses (New York, 1945), p. 13Google Scholar. This scratched gloss is rather difficult to see. The c of Meritt's ‘ic’ is very clear. The previous stroke is at an angle, but is quite reasonably an i. The s and c of his ‘sceawede’ are indistinct. The wyn Meritt reports resembles a capital p both in shape and in relation to the size of the other letters.

42 Hecht, H., Bischofs Waerferth von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Crossen, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 5 (Leipzig, 1900)Google Scholar; on the version of Wærferth's translation, see Yerkes, D., The Two Versions of Waerferth's Translation of Gregory's Dialogues: an Old English Thesaurus (Toronto, 1979).Google Scholar

43 Yerkes, , Two Versions, p. xvi.Google Scholar

44 Glosses in English manuscripts are: CUL Gg. 5. 35 (406v), mordax / ‘fela æte’; lurconum / auidorum; ciclopum / ‘enta’; BL Royal 12. C. xxiii (102v), lurconum / id est auidorum; cyclopum / ciclops id est circulus; BL Royal 15. A. xvi (72v) glosses lurconum / luporum, and BN lat. 2773 (106v) glosses mordax / sicut leo uel ur[sus] (the last letters are obscured by the binding). Only two other manuscripts besides Rawlinson C. 697 gloss these words and both exhibit the line shift: BN lat. 16700 (113v) reads mordax / id est uorax, lurconum / id est glutonum; BN lat. 8440 (39r) reads mordax / uorax, lurconum / glutonum, cyclopum / gigantum.

45 I should like to thank Dr Michael Lapidge for his instructive criticism and his many useful suggestions.