Skip to content

Hæfde ða gefohten foremærne blæd
Iudith æt guðe, swa hyre god uðe,
swegles ealdor, þe hyre sigores onleah.

Updated Manuscript Data

In one of the first posts on this blog, I posted information about the circulation of texts in my corpus based on manuscript evidence–which manuscripts were written in or circulated in Anglo-Saxon England. Since  my corpus of texts has expanded with new discoveries (full, updated list, with Dublin Core metadata here), so has my manuscript data. I’ll keep this blog post short because mostly it’s just redirecting readers to this spreadsheet of manuscript data.

There are obviously a lot of ways to look at, think about, and arrange these data, so this is only one means of organizing, by texts followed by manuscripts containing them (or, in some few cases, other evidence for circulation). I’m sure that, at some point in this project, I’ll be arranging the data into a different organization, so will likely post that too. Feel free to leave me any feedback about this.

Transcription, Collation, Edition

Over the past several weeks, my main work on the project has been to get all of my texts in order. Foremost, I’ve been transcribing all of the texts in my corpus and putting them up on my Omeka site (the first fruits of which I hope to reveal soon). At the same time, I’m also compiling these texts into one set of documents, stripping them of metadata, and preparing them for some basic text-mining analysis (more on this in a future post). The trickiest text in this regard has been Hrabanus Maurus’ Commentarius in Iudith.

Hrabanus’ commentary has been especially tricky to work with for several reasons. The first set of issues comes from the editorial history of the text. First, I was working from the version printed in the Patrologia Latina, as I believed there to be no modern critical edition. As it turns out, there is a recent critical edition: Rabano Mauro, Commentario al libro di Giuditta, ed. Adele Simonetti (Florence: SISMEL, Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008); but it’s not very well indexed in research databases and I only discovered its existence in the last several weeks. Finally, it’s not a particularly easy volume to get a hold of, so it caused some problems for the interlibrary loan staff before I did get a copy.

Another set of issues arises from the manuscript history of the text. Only one manuscript that circulated in Anglo-Saxon England (or only one for which we have evidence of such circulation) survives, as Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale 764, fols. 1-93 (s. ix ex., NE France; England s. x) (HG 779). Because of this fact, I wanted to use and present a text for this project that represents the Arras 764 version. Unfortunately, this manuscript is not one of the happy few from Arras that have been so far digitized for the Bibliotèque virtuelle des manuscrits médiévaux. Furthermore, only within the last month have I been able to obtain a workable version of the manuscript, the newly released volume 18 of the Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile (ASMMF) project.

So my process for tackling these problems has been as follows. I began by transcribing the whole commentary from the Patrologia Latina, followed by proofing for my errors. As a sort of quality control, I relied on Geneva, Bibliothèque de Genève, lat. 22 (at e-codices, description here) to compare with the PL–since Migne’s enterprise has a notorious reputation for relying on early modern editions that are now rendered radically flawed by some scholars. As fortune has it, Geneva 22 has remained a good one for my comparisons throughout, since it is one of the earliest and most authoritative witnesses for Hrabanus’ commentaries on Judith and Esther (see Simonetti’s introductory matter).

After transcribing the PL, I did finally discover and obtained a copy of Simonetti’s edition, so I set about collating my transcription of the PL with it, keeping an eye on the apparatus to follow variants in Arras 764. This worked fairly well, and I felt like I was one step closer to having a workable representative of the text. Then fortune struck again: the ASMMF was released, I ordered it through my library, and I set to work collating and proofing my transcription with the manuscript itself. Finally, I now have a working edition of Arras 764, which serves as a nice single-text edition of Hrabanus’ Commentarius as it circulated and was read by (at least some) Anglo-Saxons.

I hope to do more with this edition of Arras 764, possibly even as a stand-alone edition. I also think that this whole process and my work with the commentary is revealing for the place of textual editing in our digital age. I’m still working some of this out, but it’s worth considering further. My future work on this edition may involve some TEI markup, or some other work to put it online as a representative of the Anglo-Saxon manuscript. I haven’t yet decided, so any input is welcome.

In any case, my corpus is now compiled to the point where I’m happy with it. I’ll be releasing the Omeka archive soon, and I’ve just started digging into the text-analysis side of things, so I’ll report those as I progress.

Augustine: Another Addendum

As I compiled my corpus of texts for this project (or “constellation,” see here), I kept wondering what I was missing. Even now, I still believe there may be other materials related to Judith that I haven’t discovered, though I hope that I will, or that others will point me toward them. Just the other day, I did come across some texts that I had overlooked, as had other scholars, apparently: texts by Augustine. This came as no surprise to me, especially since I kept wondering why none of his works had come up–with such a prolific author, so focused on the Bible, I figured he had addressed Judith at some point. And he had.

I discovered these texts mainly by wondering, again, why none of Augustine’s works had popped up in my project, and doing some more digging. Primarily, I started searching Augustine’s works on the Christian Classics Etherial Library, since it is both a fairly comprehensive corpus and searchable. This was the point at which I realized how valuable a searchable Patrologia Latina database is, though my institution does not subscribe to it (and understandably, considering the outrageous amount that Chawyck-Healey charges for access). Nonetheless, what I found what significant for my project, since Augustine writes about Judith in four individual passages found in De ciuitate dei, De doctrina Christiana, and De natura et gratia. As far as I can tell from my reading, these passages haven’t been mentioned or discussed in relation to Judith in Anglo-Saxon England. (N.B. Mark Griffith provides what seems to be the most helpful and comprehensive list of “the main medieval [though he also provides patristic references] discussions of, or significant references to, the Book of Judith which pre-date the O.E. poem,” in his edition of Judith [Exeter: Exeter UP, 1997; repr. 2001], 71, n. 240.) What I found in these passages is fairly consistent with some of the other patristic and early medieval passages related to Judith. In sum, Augustine is mainly interested in the historicity of Judith–when it occurred, when the book was written, and how that historicity fits in with the rest of Old Testament history–the canonicity of the biblical book, and Judith as a figure of virtue. Similar interests are reflected in what Jerome and Isidore say about Judith. I quote Augustine’s passages (with translations) below.

De ciuitate dei (CPL 313): Sancti Aurelii Augustini, De civitate Dei, ed. Bernhard Dombart and Alphons Kalb, 2 vols., CCSL 47-8 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1955), I, 517, lines 25-39 and 617, lines 1-9.

XVI.13. In libro enim qui inscribitur Iudith, cum quaereret Holofernes, hostis Israelitarum, quaenam illa gens esset, utrum aduersus eam bellandum fuisset, sic ei respondit Achior dux Ammanitarum: “Audiat dominus noster uerbum de ore pueri sui, et referam tibi ueritatem de populo, qui habitat iuxta te montanam hanc, et non exibit mendacium de ore serui tui. Haec enim progenies populi est Chaldaeorum, et antea habitauerunt Mesopotamiam, quia noluerunt sequi dos patrum suorum, qui fuerunt in terra Chaldaeorum gloriosi, sed declinauerunt de uia parentum suorum et adorauerunt Deum caeli, quem cognouerunt, et proiecerunt eos a facie deorum suorum, et fugerunt Mesopotamiam, et habitauerunt ibi dies multos. Dixitque illis Deus eorum, ut exirent de habitatione sua et irent in terram Chanaan, et illic habitauerunt,” et cetera, quae narrat Achior Ammanites. [Judith 5:5-9]
(For it is written in the book of Judith, when Holofernes, the enemy of the Israelites, asked what kind of nation that might be, and whether war should be made against it, then Achior, leader of the Ammonites, answered, “Let our lord now hear a word from the mouth of your servant, and I will declare to you the truth about these people, that dwell near you in these mountains, and no lie shall come from the mouth of your servant. For these people are descended from Chaldeans, and they previously dwelt in Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, which were glorious in the land of the Chaldeans, but they left the way of their fathers and worshiped the God of heaven, whom they knew, and they cast them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia, and they dwelth their for many days. And their God said to them, that they should depart from where they dwelt and go into the land of Canaan, and they dwelt,” etc., as Achior the Ammonite narrates.)

XVIII.26. Per idem tempus Cyrus, rex Persarum, qui etiam Chaldaeis et Assyriis imperabat, relaxata aliquanta captivitate Iudaeorum, quinquaginta milia hominum ex eis ad instaurandum templum regredi fecit. A quibus tantum prima coepta fundamina et altare constructum est. Incursantibus autem hostibus nequaquam progredi aedificando valuerunt, dilatumque opus est usque ad Darium. Per idem tempus etiam illa sunt gesta, quae conscripta sunt in libro Iudith, quem sane in canonem scripturarum Iudaei non recepisse dicuntur.
(At the same time Cyrus, king of Persia, who also ruled Chaldea and Assyria, somewhat relaxing the captivity of the Jews, made fifty thousand of them return to rebuild the temple. They only began the first foundations and constructed the altar. Because of enemy invasions they were unable to go on, and the work was left until the time of Darius. During that same time also those things were done, which are written in the book of Judith, which indeed the Jews are said not to have received into the canon of scriptures.)

De doctrina Christiana (CPL 263): Sancti Aurelii Augustini, De doctrina Christiana, De vera religione, ed. Joseph Martin and K.-D. Daur, CCSL 32 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1962), 39, lines 29-34.

II.viii.13. Sunt aliae tamquam ex diuerso ordine, quae neque huic ordini neque inter se connectuntur, sicut est Iob et Tobias et Esther et Iudith et Machabaeorum libri duo et Esdrae duo, qui magis subsequi uidentur ordinatam illam historiam usque ad Regnorum uel Paralipomenon terminatam….
(There are others differing in another order, which are connected neither with this order nor with each other, like Job and Tobias and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees and the two of Ezra….)

De natura et gratia (CPL 344): Sancti Aureli Augustini, opera (sect. VIII pars I), ed. Karl F. Urba and Joseph Zycha, CSEL 60 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1913), 263, lines 15-23.

XXXVI.42. Deinde commemorat eos, “qui non modo non peccasse, verum etiam iuste vixisse referuntur: Abel, Enoch, Melchisedech, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Ioseph, Iesu Nave, Phinees, Samuel, Nathan, Elias, Heliseus, Micheas, Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, Misael, Ezechiel, Mardocheus, Simeon, Ioseph, cui desponsata erat virgo Maria, Ioannes.” Adiungit etiam feminas: “Debboram, Annam Samuelis matrem, Iudith, Ester, alteram Annam filiam Phanuel, Elisabeth, ipsam etiam Domini ac Salvatoris nostri matrem, quam,” dicit, “sine peccato confiteri necesse esse pietati.”
(Then he commemorates those “who not only did not sin, but also are reported to have lived righteously: Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joshua son of Nun, Phineas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Micah, Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, Mishael, Ezechiel, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was married, John.” And he adds the women: “Deborah, Anna, the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, Elizabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Savior, for,” he says, “we must allow that her piety had no sin.”)

As I investigated the circulation of these works, it wasn’t surprising to find material witnesses:

De ciuitate dei (CPL 313)
Durham, Cathedral Library B.II.22, fols. 27-231 (s. xi ex [before 1096], Durham or Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 236.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 691 (s. xi/xii, England or Normandy): HG 587.
Windsor Castle, Royal Library, Jackson Collection 16 (s. ix2/4 or ix med., prob. Saint-Amand): HG 760.3 (addenda).
(Excerpts, but not of the appropriate sections, also survive in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 173, fols. 57-83 (s. viii2, S England): HG 53.)

De doctrina Christiana (CPL 263)
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 106 (s. xi ex, Salisbury): HG 717.

De natura et gratia (CPL 344)
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 117 (s. x, Continent?, England before 1100?): HG 722.
Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale 444-52 (s. xi/xii, Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 805.5.

There are, of course, plenty of other pieces of evidence for the circulation of these texts (inventories and references, as with many of Augustine’s works generally), summarized in Michael Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Library (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006), 282-91, esp. 284-6.

In short, discovering these overlooked passages provide several more pieces of significant data for my corpus and project. They have also sent me back to primary sources, to search for other works that I (and previous scholars) may have overlooked. I would be grateful for any other references or leads from others. No doubt this process will continue as the project develops.

Playing with Google Maps

This post is, essentially, a follow-up to the last, “Why Digital?”–in which I posed the fundamental questions that moved me toward using digital tools generally, and mapping tools specifically.

First, an image and a link:

The full-size, interactive version may be found here.

The full-size, interactive version may be found here.

As you can see, this is a fairly straight-forward map, along the lines of what I created when I first started thinking about mapping tools. Done on the Google Maps Engine (which has already progressed to a whole new level in the last few months, with the release of a new engine), it represents a basic version of what I think can be done with manuscript data.

This map takes the issue of geographical movement of a few texts and their manuscripts and helps to display the data visually. The central question is, What if we wanted to map the movement of a single text or manuscripts of that text (or just a single manuscript) across the geography of Anglo-Saxon England? This initial map goes a bit further, since it lays out the geography of 3 different texts and their manuscripts, grouped under 3 different layers with distinct markers (the layering is a nice new feature of the most recent software engine). As a test case, I started with the biblical Judith, Ælfric’s Libellus de ueteri testamento et nouo, and Ambrose’s De officiis ministrorum. For each case, this map presents the following: the starting location as the place of composition of the text; the origin of each manuscript containing that text (when known); and the provenance of each manuscript.

None of these cases, on its own, presents too many problems for mapping, but in the case of Ælfric’s Libellus, I did encounter a complication that may raise issues of mapping as this project develops: the inexactitude of known locations for manuscript origins. This is most clearly seen with London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vi + Canterbury, Cathedral Library, Add. 16 + Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat.bib.b.2 (P)–once unified, now in three parts, which Gneuss indicates originated in “S England.” Without any more precise information, the data needs to be plotted not as a point on a map but as an amorphous section of territory. Fortunately, the most recent iteration of Google’s mapping software allows for this type of data.

Another feature that I like about Google’s interface (also new) is the presentation of a summary chart of the data plotted for each layer, as can be seen here (accessed by clicking the “Data” icon for each layer):

Studying Judith Google Map Test Case-Map Data for Biblical Judith

Studying Judith Google Map Test Case-Map Data for Aelfric's Libellus

Studying Judith Google Map Test Case-Map Data for Ambrose's De officiis

This capability is a particularly nice feature for visualizing the data in multiple ways.

In any case, there is much more to be said and done regarding this type of mapping, and Google is just one piece of software among many. It has some promise, and provides some basic features that play out nicely for this type of project. When I initially turned to Google, it was before the release of this iteration of the Maps Engine, and I can see how the capabilities have come a long way since then. Now that I’ve had a chance to go back and play with Google’s Map Engine some more, it does open up some appealing possibilities. While I do not plan to use Google for the end-product, it does provide some answers to my basic questions, and is a quick and easy tool for the cases I present here to justify my use of mapping tools.

As for what results this type of mapping provides, I think the most significant are in the intersections of the layers, when the manuscripts are taken together rather than separately or as only small groups. For sure, this shows what many Anglo-Saxonists already know: that Canterbury and Oxford were and remain important for manuscripts and transmissions. This is particularly true of Canterbury, which appears on the layers for the biblical Judith and Ælfric’s Libellus, since it is the location of composition of London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vii + viii, c. 990-1010; and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509, c.1050-1100; and the place of modern provenance of Canterbury, Cathedral Library, Add. 16. Already we see some basic results emerging that can help us construct a whole picture of the intellectual landscape of Anglo-Saxon textual transmissions.

Why Digital?

So far, most of my posts about this project have presented methodologies and preliminary results that are not unlike much traditional scholarship in medieval studies generally, and in Anglo-Saxon studies in particular. For example, I have posted about my initial endeavors, centered in one specific text; looking more widely to find related texts; collecting the data on these texts (and modern editions to consult); and tracing the evidence for material circulation of those texts in Anglo-Saxon England. This is all fairly straight-forward work, even if it is time-consuming. But at what point does the digital move projects like this forward?

First, digital archives of related texts have been a major benefit to scholarship, especially for medievalists. In Anglo-Saxon studies, the Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus is an exemplary case in point–an entire corpus of Old English, systematically organized, with good data about editions, and easily searchable in a variety of ways. While these are just the basic features, the benefits are apparent. Furthermore, several helpful tools for computer analysis of textual corpora have recently emerged. For example, we have Juxta, Voyant, and the emerging WordSeer. Text analysis tools are certainly a benefit for this project–a sort of computer-aided extension of philological methods. As I began to think about digital possibilities, I also began to see other ways that digital tools could help this project to branch beyond.

It was after I collected much of the data on these texts and started looking at evidence for their circulation that something popped out at me: geography. This is where I started thinking about the possibilities of using digital tools beyond text analysis tools. Specifically, I started to wonder what mapping manuscript data could reveal about their circulation, or for the availability of certain texts in specific centers. To do this, I imagined mapping both geography and temporality. For example, if we wanted to know which manuscripts (and, more specifically, which texts related to Judith) were available in Canterbury around the year 950, what could the map look like? Or, from another perspective, what would the geography of manuscripts containing Judith texts look like around the year 1005, when Ælfric wrote his sermon on Judith? Or, from another perspective yet again, what if we wanted to map the movement of a single text or manuscripts of that text (or just a single manuscript) across the space and time of Anglo-Saxon England? The technology of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) offers the ability to work out approaches these questions.

I will address which tools I ultimately decided on in a later post. For now, I offer a few examples of how data from texts and manuscripts might be mapped, geographically and temporally together. These are, of course, provisional examples, and the data provided is only a sample to show the possibilities.

Author: Anonymous

Text Title: Judith (Biblical)

Composition Date: c.150 BCE

Manuscripts:
Codex Amiatinus: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 (s. vii ex. or viii in., before 716, Wearmouth-Jarrow): HG 825. (Complete pandect.)
London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vii + viii (s. x/xi, prov. Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 449. (Two-volume Bible.)
London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vi + Canterbury, Cathedral Library, Add. 16 + Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat.bib.b.2 (P) (s. ix1 or ix2/4 or ix med., S England; prov. Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 448. (Presumably was once a complete Bible, now only gospels and fragments of Acts.)

Map & Timeline Data Points:
Alexandria, Egypt, c.150 BCE: composition of text
Wearmouth-Jarrow, UK, c.675-716: composition, Codex Amiatinus
Canterbury, UK, c.990-1010: composition, London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vii + viii
S England, UK, c.800-850: composition, London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vi, etc.
Florence, Italy: modern location of Codex Amiatinus
London: modern location of London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vii + viii, London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vi
Canterbury, UK: modern location of Canterbury, Cathedral Library, Add. 16
Oxford, UK: modern location of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat.bib.b.2 (P)

 

Author: Ambrose (c.340-97)

Text Title: De officiis ministrorum

Composition Date: c.391-2

Manuscripts:
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 92 (s. xi/xii, prob. Normandy, or England?): HG 543.

Map & Timeline Data Points:
Milan, Italy, c.391-2: composition of text
Normandy, France, c.1090-1120: composition of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 92
Oxford, UK: modern location of manuscript

 

Author: Ælfric (c.955-c.1010), at Cerne Abbas

Text Title: Libellus de ueteri testamento et nouo

Composition Date: c.1005-6

Manuscripts:
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 (s. xii2, West Midlands): NRK 310.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509 (s. xi3/4 or xi2, Canterbury?, Christ Church?): NRK 344; HG 657.

Map & Timeline Data Points:
Cerne Abbas, UK, c.1005-6: composition of text
Canterbury, UK, c.1050-1100: composition, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509
West Midlands, UK, c.1250-1300: composition, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343
Oxford, UK: modern location of both manuscripts

On Evidence for Textual Circulation

One part of compiling the corpus of texts for this project was, as I mentioned in the previous post, determining the evidence for their circulation in Anglo-Saxon England. Fortunately, Anglo-Saxon scholars have long been dedicated to this aspect of textual history, particularly through methodologies established by source studies–indeed, this is one of the most traditional aspects of Anglo-Saxon studies.* For the past few decades, source studies have been most notably advocated and undertaken by the collaborative projects known as Fontes Anglo-Saxonici and Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture (SASLC). The methodologies and results of these projects were certainly beneficial for my purposes, since they lay the groundwork for amassing evidence of the circulation and knowledge of texts. Similar methodologies and results are exemplified in Michael Lapidge’s examination of the knowledge and circulation of classical and patristic texts from intellectual and material evidence in The Anglo-Saxon Library (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006).

Along with the previously mentioned projects, one of the most significant contributions to this subject is Helmut Gneuss’s Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 241 (Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001) [hereafter HG, cited by no.].** As the title indicates, this work contains a comprehensive appraisal of the surviving manuscripts that can be linked to Anglo-Saxon England, and is an invaluable resource. For further details on manuscripts, I have also referred to another invaluable standard resource for Anglo-Saxonists, not to be overshadowed by Gnuess’s work, N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1957; repr. with supplement, 1990) [hereafter NRK, cited by no.].

The methodologies I have relied on for my project, then, amount to four main types of evidence for the circulation of texts related to Judith (all found in the “Guide for Readers” in the frontmatter of SASLC publications):***

1) Manuscripts
2) Booklists
3) Quotations and/or Citations
4) References

In what follows, I present some preliminary evidence for each text, mainly regarding manuscripts, since these are the most definitive material witnesses (though, in a few cases, I also provide information about other types of evidence). In most cases, information about manuscripts (dates, provenance, etc.) was taken from Gneuss’s Handlist; manuscripts marked with an asterisk contain glosses on the relevant text. As part of my larger project, I plan to develop more comprehensive accounts from the other types of evidence for each work.

Biblical Witnesses of Judith (translated c.405-407)

Codex Amiatinus: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino 1 (s. vii ex. or viii in., before 716, Wearmouth-Jarrow): HG 825. (Complete pandect.)
London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vii + viii (s. x/xi, prov. Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 449. (Two-volume Bible.)
London, British Library, Royal 1.E.vi + Canterbury, Cathedral Library, Add. 16 + Oxford, Bodleian Library, Lat.bib.b.2 (P) (s. ix1 or ix 2/4 or ix med., S England; prov. Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 448. (Presumably was once a complete Bible, now only gospels and fragments of Acts.)

Early Christian Authors

Ambrose (c.340-97)

De officiis ministrorum (CPL 144)
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 92 (s. xi/xii, prob. Normandy, or England?): HG 543.

De uiduis (CPL 146)
Cambridge, Trinity College B.14.30 (s. xi ex.): HG 175.5.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 768 (s. xi ex., Salisbury): HG 596.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 792 (s. xi/xii, England or Normandy): HG 599.
Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 236 (s. xi/xii, English and continental scribes): HG 875.9 (2nd addenda).
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 1751 (s. xi2 or xi ex., Canterbury, St. Augustine’s?): HG 881.

Pseudo-Augustine

De Iudith I-II (Sermones 48-9) (CPPM 833-4)
No manuscripts. (Several other manuscripts circulated containing various Pseudo-Augustinian sermons, but not including these two.)

Dracontius (c.455-505)

De laudibus Dei (CPL 1509)
No manuscripts. (Quoted by Aldhelm, Carmen de uirginitate; Bede, De die iudicii; and the author of the Old English poem The Phoenix—all listed in Fontes.)

Isidore (c.560-636)

Allegoriae quaedam sacrae Scripturae (CPL 1190)
Düsseldorf, Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek, Fragm. K 1: B 210 + San Marino, California, Henry E. Huntingdon Library RB 99513 (PR 1188 F) (s. viii2, prob. England): HG 818.5 (2nd addenda).
Hereford, Cathedral Library O.III.2 (s. ix2, France; England s. xi ex.): HG 263.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 391 (s. xi ex., Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 573.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 444, fols. 1-27 (s. xi ex., Salisbury): HG 578.
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 88 (s. xi ex., Salisbury): HG 713.
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 157 (s. xi ex., England?): HG 742.
Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale 764, fols. 134-81 (s. ix/x, Winchester?; Bath by s. xi): HG 780.
Düsseldorf, Universitätsbibliothek K1: B.210 (s. viii2 or viii ex., prob. England or Werden?): HG 818.5.
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 14096, fols 1-99 (s. viii/ix, Wales or Cornwall or Brittany): HG 851.6.

Etymologiae (CPL 1186)
Cambridge, St. John’s College Ii.12.29 (s. ix1 or ix med., France): HG 154.5.
Cambridge, Trinity College B.15.33 (s. x in., S England): HG 176.
Düsseldorf, Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek, Fragm. K 15: O 17, K 19: Z 8/7b + Gerleve, Abteibibliothek s. n. (s. viii2, prob. Northumbria): HG 821 (2nd addenda).
London, British Library, Royal 6.C.i (s. xi1 or xi2, Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 469.
Longleat House, Wiltshire, Library of the Marguess of Bath NMR 10589 (s. vii/viii, Ireland): HG 524.4.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 239 (s. xi/xii or xii in., Normandy?): HG 561.
Oxford, Queen’s College 320 (s. x med., Canterbury?): HG 682.
Düsseldorf, Universitätsbibliothek K15: O17 and K19: Z8/7b (s. viii2, prob. Northumbria): HG 821.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 4871, fols. 161-8 (s. viii/ix, Northumbria?): HG 885.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 7585 (s. ix2/4 or ix2, France; England by s. x2): HG 889.
(Several other manuscripts circulated containing various parts of Isidore’s Etymologiae, but not including passages relevant to Judith.)

De ortu et obitu patrem (CPL 1191)
Düsseldorf, Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek, Fragm. K 1: B 210 + San Marino, California, Henry E. Huntingdon Library RB 99513 (PR 1188 F) (s. viii2, prob. England): HG 818.5 (2nd addenda).
Hereford, Cathedral Library O.III.2 (s. ix2, France; England s. xi ex.): HG 263.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 391 (s. xi ex., Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 573.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 444, fols. 1-27 (s. xi ex., Salisbury): HG 578.
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 88 (s. xi ex., Salisbury): HG 713.
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 157 (s. xi ex., England?): HG 742.
Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale 764, fols. 134-81 (s. ix/x, Winchester?; Bath by s. xi): HG 780.
Düsseldorf, Universitätsbibliothek K1: B.210 (s. viii2 or viii ex., prob. England or Werden?): HG 818.5.
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library Q.v.I.15 (s. viii2, SW England): HG 845.
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 14096, fols 1-99 (s. viii/ix, Wales or Cornwall or Brittany): HG 851.6.

Jerome (347-420)

Apologia aduersus libros Rufini (CPL 613)
No manuscripts. (Quoted by Bede, preface to De temporum ratione.)

Epistolae 22, 54, and 79 (CPL 620)
Cambridge, Trinity College R.3.33 (s. xi ex., England): HG 179.4 (addenda). (Contains only Epistola 22.)
Cambridge, University Library Dd.2.7 (s. xi ex., Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 2.5.
Hereford, Cathedral Library O.VI.11 (s. xi ex.): HG 264. (Epistolae 22 and 54, not 79.)
(Several other manuscripts circulated containing various letters by Jerome, but not including these three.)

Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (CPL 581)
Durham, Cathedral Library B.II.11 (s. xi ex. [before 1096], Normandy): HG 230.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 808 (s. xi/xii, England or Normandy): HG 601.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Marshall 19 (s. xi1, E France?; Malmesbury s. x2 or x ex.): HG 659.

Praefatio in librum Iudith (CPL 591G)
See Biblical Witnesses.

Prudentius (348-c.410)

Psychomachia (CPL 1441)
Cambridge, University Library, Gg.5.35 (s. xi med., Canterbury, St. Augustine’s?): NRK 16; HG 12.*
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 23, vol. i (s. x2 or x ex. or xi in., S England): NRK 31; HG 38.*
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 223 (s. ix3/4, Arras, St. Vaast; England s. x1): HG 70.
Cambridge, Trinity College O.2.51, pt. i (s. x2): HG 191.
Durham, Cathedral Library B.IV.9 (s. x med.): HG 246.
London, British Library, Add. 24199 (s. x ex.): HG 285.*
London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra C.viii (s. x/xi, Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 324.
London, British Library, Cotton Titus D.xvi (s. xi/xii, St. Albans): HG 379.5.
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, clm 29336 (s. x ex. or xi in.): HG 852.*
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Auct. F.3.6 (s. xi1): NRK 296; HG 537.*
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C.697 (s. ix3/4, NE France; England by s. x med.): HG 661.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 8085 (s. ix2/3 or ix med., France; England prob. By s. x/xi): HG 889.5.

Medieval Authors

Ælfric (c.955-c.1010)

Judith (c.1002-5)
London, British Library, Cotton Otho B.x, fols. 29-30 (s. xi med., prov. Worcester): NRK 178; HG 356.
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303 (s. xii1): NRK 57.

Libellus de ueteri testamento et nouo (c.1005-6)
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 (s. xii2, West Midlands): NRK 310.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509 (s. xi3/4 or xi2, Canterbury?, Christ Church?): NRK 344; HG 657.

Aldhelm (639-709)

Carmen de uirginitate (CPL 1333)
Cambridge, University Library, Gg.5.35 (s. xi med., Canterbury, St. Augustine’s?): HG 12.
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 285 (s. xi in.): HG 82.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 49 (s. x med.): HG 542.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 577 (s. x/xi, Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 584.
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C.697 (s. ix3/4, NE France; England by s. x med.): HG 661.*

Prosa de uirginitate (CPL 1332)
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 326 (s. x/xi, Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 93.*
London, British Library, Royal 5.E.xi (s. x/xi, Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 458.*
London, British Library, Royal 5.F.iii (s. ix ex. or ix/x, Mercia, Worcester?): HG 462.*
London, British Library, Royal 6.A.vi (s. x ex., Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 464.*
London, British Library, Royal 6.B.vii (s. xi ex., prov. Exeter): HG 466.*
London, British Library, Royal 7.D.xxiv, fols. 82-168 (s. x1, S England): HG 473.*
London, Lambeth Palace Library 200, fols. 66-113 (s. x2, Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 509.*
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 97 (s. xi in., prov. Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 545.*
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 146 (s. x ex., prob. Abingdon): HG 613.*
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 38 (s. x ex., Canterbury): HG 707.*
Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale 1650 (s. xi in., Abingdon): HG 806.*
New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library 401 (s. viii ex. or ix in.): HG 857.*

Bede (c.673-735)

De die iudicii (CPL 1370)
Cambridge, University Library, Gg.5.35 (s. xi med., Canterbury, St. Augustine’s?): NRK 16; HG 12.
Cambridge, Trinity College O.2.31 (s. x/xi, Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 190.
London, British Library, Additional 11034 (s. x?): HG 280.
London, British Library, Cotton Domitian I, fols. 2-55 (s. x med, prob. Canturbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 326.
London, British Library, Royal 15.B.xix, fols. 79-199 (s. x, Rheims; England not before s. xii or xiii?): HG 493.
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 168 (s. xi ex., Salisbury): HG 750.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 8092 (s. xi2/4, England): HG 890.

Commentarius in Apocalypsim (CPL 1363)
Aberdeen, University Library 216 (s. xi ex., Salisbury): HG 1.
Durham, Cathedral Library A.IV.28 (s. xi/xii or xii in.): HG 225.
London, Lambeth Palace Library 149, fols. 1-139 (s. x2): HG 506.
Oxford, St. John’s College 89 (s. xi/xii, Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 685.

Hrabanus Maurus (c.780-856)

Expositio in Librum Iudith
Arras, Bibliothèque Municipale 764 (s. ix ex., NE France; Bath s. x), fols. 1-93: HG 779.

Milo of Saint Amand (c.809-871/2)

Carmen de sobrietate
Cambridge, University Library, Gg.5.35 (s. xi med., Canterbury, St. Augustine’s?): NRK 16; HG 12.

Old English Judith

London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A.xv, fols. 94-209 (s. x/xi): NRK 216; HG 399.

Anglo-Saxon Glosses

Glosses on Aldhelm, Prosa de uirginitate
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 326 (s. x/xi, Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 93.*
London, British Library, Royal 5.E.xi (s. x/xi, Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 458.*
London, British Library, Royal 5.F.iii (s. ix ex. or ix/x, Mercia, Worcester?): HG 462.*
London, British Library, Royal 6.A.vi (s. x ex., Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 464.*
London, British Library, Royal 6.B.vii (s. xi ex., prov. Exeter): HG 466.*
London, British Library, Royal 7.D.xxiv, fols. 82-168 (s. x1, S England): HG 473.*
London, Lambeth Palace Library 200, fols. 66-113 (s. x2, Canterbury, St. Augustine’s): HG 509.*
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 97 (s. xi in., prov. Canterbury, Christ Church): HG 545.*
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 146 (s. x ex., prob. Abingdon): HG 613.*
Salisbury, Cathedral Library 38 (s. x ex., Canterbury): HG 707.*
Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale 1650 (s. xi in., Abingdon): HG 806.*
New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library 401 (s. viii ex. or ix in.): HG 857.*

Glosses on Prudentius, Psychomachia
Cambridge, University Library, Gg.5.35 (s. xi med., Canterbury, St. Augustine’s?): NRK 16; HG 12.
(Other glossed manuscripts exist—see the list of manuscripts for this work above—but this is the sole textual witness used in this study.)

“Interpretatio nominum ebraicorum et grecorum”
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 144 (s. ix1, S England), fol. 2r: NRK 36; HG 45.

“Leiden Glossary”
Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Lat. Q. 69 (s. viii ex.), fols. 20r-36r: NRK App. 18.

* In this project, I am aware that the importance of source studies should not be ignored, nor should critiques and recent moves to look beyond this traditional approach. Perhaps most well-known of such critiques is that in Allen J. Frantzen, Desire for Origins: New Language, Old English and Teaching the Tradition (New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1990), esp. 62-95.

** See also “Addenda and Corrigenda to the Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts,” ASE 32 (2003), 293-305; and “Second Addenda and Corrigenda to the Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts,” ASE 40 (2011), 293-306.

*** Evidence for SASLC also relies on “Anglo-Saxon Versions” (e.g. translations), though this type of evidence is generally moot since I include in my corpus all texts as individual items, not derivative versions. It is also notable that Fontes Anglo-Saxonici mainly relies on quotations and/or citations, as well as relationships of Anglo-Saxon versions to sources, as evidence in their database.

[Addenda: This post was updated on July 27, 2013, to reflect information in Helmut Gneuss, “Second Addenda and Corrigenda to the Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts,” Anglo-Saxon England 40 (2012), 293-306.]

Addendum to A Judith Constellation

A few days ago, I posted about the texts that form the basis of this project. Yet I mistakenly forgot to include one significant text: the Old English poem Judith.* In some ways, this is a gross oversight; but, in other ways, it is a fortunate occurrence, since it allows me to discuss the nature of this text a little bit more. By way of correction, I will use this post to do so.

First, my omission is perhaps most pronounced given the canonicity of the Judith poem (which I mentioned briefly here), since it is, in many ways, the most expected text in my list. While this poem is not as famous or widely read as Beowulf, its place in the same manuscript (London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A.xv) has afforded it some considerable in scholarship. Still, the poem’s place in the English canon is most apparent only recently, by way of inclusion in textbooks and readers such as those by Elaine Treharne (Old and Middle English, c.890-c.1450: An Anthology, 1st ed. in 2000, 3rd ed. in 2010), Mitchell and Robinson (A Guide to Old English, where Judith is included in the 6th-8th editions, 2001, 2007, and 2011), Peter Baker (Introduction to Old English, 1st ed. in 2003, 3rd ed. in 2012), and Richard Marsden (The Cambridge Old English Reader, 2004).* Despite this canonicity and scholarly attention, it is still difficult to understand the poem in its cultural context, alongside other texts related to the biblical Judith.

Because of its place in scholarship on Old English, my attention to previous printings also deserves some comment. Initially, I have consulted three main editions:
Beowulf and Judith, ed. Elliott van Kirk Dobbie, ASPR 4 (New York: Columbia UP, 1953)
Judith, ed. Mark Griffith (Exeter: Exeter UP, 1997; repr. 2001)
The Beowulf Manuscript: Complete Texts and The Fight at Finnsburg, ed. and trans. R. D. Fulk, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2010)

This multiplicity of editions is helpful enough on its own, but  the Judith poem also has another mark in its favor, both for general reception and for this project: the British Library recently allowed public access to the digitized version of the manuscript that contains it (fortuitously, because of the more famous Beowulf in the same volume), which may be found here. So while the text is easily accessible in printed editions, I will also consult the manuscript for my own transcription and project. I also plan to incorporate the manuscript (images, etc.) into the end product.

 

* Nobody has yet pointed this out, despite the glaring obviousness of its absence.

** Paul Szarmach makes a similar observation in his recent essay, “Ælfric’s Judith,” Old English Literature and the Old Testament, ed. Michael Fox and Manish Sharma, Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series 10 (Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2012), 64-88.

A Judith Constellation

In this post, I would like to introduce the texts that form the basis of this project. First, some comments about my methodology.

Most basically, the following texts constitute the extant evidence for learned interactions with the biblical book of Judith in Anglo-Saxon England, in both Latin and Old English. To fit into this corpus, these texts satisfy two requirements for selection: first, they all relate to the book of Judith, as biblical witnesses, translations, commentaries, glosses, quotations, allusions, citations, etc.; and second, all of these texts were written by or known to the Anglo-Saxons up to c.1200. The first requirement is not too difficult to justify, since it relies on a pretty intuitive process of identifying connections–even with an admittedly arbitrary cut-off date, though one that allows for considering the continuation of Anglo-Saxon culture past the Norman Conquest, which is often (falsely) used as a distinct boundary line, just as arbitrarily. The second requirement is mainly based on standards already established. My notion of “written by or known to the Anglo-Saxons” derives particularly from source studies, such as standards set for the long-standing projects known as Fontes Anglo-Saxonici and Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture. I also profited from the scope and contents of Helmut Gneuss’s Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts. (In a future post, I will discuss the evidence for the circulation of these texts.)

To find these texts, I used some of the standard reference tools: the index of biblical commentaries in Migne’s Patrologia Latina; the Corpus Christianorum volumes Clavis Patrum Latinorum and Clavis Patristica Pseudepigraphorum Medii Aevi; Robert E. McNally’s lists of medieval biblical commentaries in The Bible in the Early Middle Ages; Michael J. B. Allen and Daniel G. Calder, Sources and Analogues of Old English Poetry (the Old English Judith is briefly discussed at 225); Fontes Anglo-Saxonici (using “BS” as a source author); Gneuss’s Handlist (with which all texts were cross-referenced for information about manuscripts–to be discussed in a future post); the Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus (searching for words such as “Judith” and “Iudith”); Michael Lapidge, The Anglo-Saxon Library; and a variety of scholarship about Judith (mainly focused on the Old English poem).

Surprisingly, I found some texts unidentified or only briefly noted in scholarship. I hope this is one of my contributions to future work. While I have tried to compile a comprehensive list, I would be happy to learn of other texts that also fit into the project. I am also unaware of specific visual depictions; I would welcome references, since I believe that such images also work to translate Judith in important ways.

This list of texts is arranged alphabetically by author and title, within the following categories: Biblical Judith, Early Christian Authors, Medieval Authors, and Anglo-Saxon Glosses (arranged alphabetically by author and title of work glossed or name of glossary). I have given Clavis Patrum Latinorum (CPL) references where applicable, as well as citations of editions consulted.

Abbreviations

CCSL: Corpus Christianorum Series Latinorum

CPLClavis Patrum Latinorum

CSEL: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

EETS: Early English Texts Society

MGH: Monumenta Germaniae Historica

PL: J.-P. Migne, Patrologia latina

Biblical Judith

Judith (Old Latin): Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, seu Vetus Italica, ed. Pierre Sabatier, 3 vols. (Rheims: Reginald Florentain, 1743), I, 744-90.

Judith (translated by Jerome): Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Robert Weber, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005), 691-711.

Early Christian Authors

Ambrose (c.340-397)

De officiis ministrorum III.13 (CPL 144): Sancti Ambrosii Mediolanensis, ed. Maurice Testard, CCSL 15 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 185, lines 1-24.

De uiduis VII (CPL 146): PL 16.233-62, at cols. 245-7.

Pseudo-Augustine

De Iudith I: PL 39.1839-40.

De Iudith II: PL 39.1840-41.

Dracontius (c.455-505)

De laudibus Dei III.480-95 (CPL 1509): De laudibus Dei, ed. Friedrich Vollmer, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi 14 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1905), 23-113, at 105.

Isidore (c.560-636)

Allegoriae quaedam sacrae Scripturae 122 and 127 (CPL 1190): PL 83.97-130, at col. 116.

Etymologiae VI.i.9, VI.ii.33, and VII.viii.29 (CPL 1186): Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri XX, ed. Wallace M. Lindsay, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1911).

De ortu et obitu patrem 58 (CPL 1191): PL 83.129-156, at col. 148.

Jerome (347-420)

Apologia aduersus libros Rufini I.18.33 (CPL 613): Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri opera, pars III: opera polemica 1, Contra Rufinum, ed. P. Lardet, CCSL 79 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982), 1-72, at 18, lines 30-5.

Epistolae 22 (Ad Eustochium), 21; and 79 (Ad Saluinam) 11 (CPL 620): Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. Isidore Hilberg, 3 vols., CSEL 54-6 (Vienna: F. Templsky, 1910-18), I, 483, line 22-484, line 5; and II, 100, line 23-101, line 4.

Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (CPL 581): Sancti Hironymi Prespyteri opera, pars I: opera exegetica 1, CCSL 72 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1959), 67, line 18.

Praefatio in librum Iudith (CPL 591G): Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Robert Weber, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005), 691.

Prudentius (348-c.410)

Psychomachia 58-71a (CPL 1441): ed. M. Cunningham, CCSL 126 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1966), 149-81.

Medieval Authors

Ælfric (c.955-c.1010)

Libellus de ueteri testamento et nouo: The Old English Heptateuch and Ælfric’s Libellus de veteris testamento et novo, ed. Richard Marsden, EETS 330 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008), 217, lines 463-7.

De Iudith: Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, ed. Bruno Assmann, Bibliothek der angelsächsichen Prosa 3 (Kassel: Georg H. Wigand, 1889), 102-116; cf. Ælfric’s Homilies on Judith, Esther, and the Maccabees, ed. Stuart D. Lee, 1999.

Aldhelm (639-709)

Carmen de uirginitate 115-25 (CPL 1333): Aldhelmi opera, ed. Rudolf Ehwald, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi 15 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1919), 457.

Prosa de uirginitate 57 (CPL 1332): Aldhelmi Malmesbiriensis, Prosa de virginitate, cum glosa latina atque Anglosaxonica, ed. Scott Gwara, 2 vols., CCSL 124-124A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 2:729-33, a revised version of Rudolf Ehwald’s edition in MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi 15 (Berlin, 1919), 316-17.

Bede (c.673-735)

De die iudicii 82-3 (CPL 1370): Bedae Venerabilis Opera IV: Opera rhythmica, ed. J. Fraipont, CCSL 122 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1955), 439-44, lines 82-3; cf. the version edited from London, British Library, Cotton Domitian A.i, in The Old English Poem Judgement Day II, ed. Graham D. Caie, Anglo-Saxon Texts 2 (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2000), 131, lines 82-3.

Commentarius in Apocalypsim III.1 (CPL 1363): Bedae Presbyteri Explanatio Apocalypseos, ed. Robert Gryson, CCSL 121A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 265, lines 167-9.

Honorius of Autun (c.1080-1154)

Elucidarium: PL 172.1109-76, at cols. 1135 and 1148.

Old English Elucidarium: Early English Homilies from the Twelfth Century MS. Vesp. D. XIV, ed. Rubie D-N. Warner, EETS OS 152 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1917; repr. New York: Kraus, 1971), 141, lines 1-2.

Hrabanus Maurus (c.780-856)

Commentarius in Iudith: PL 109.539-92.

Milo of Saint Amand (c.809-871/2)

Carmen de sobrietate 331-93: Carmen de sobrietate, ed. Ludwig Traube, MGH, Poetae Latini aevi Carolini 3 (Berlin, 1896), 615-75, at 625-7.

Anglo-Saxon Glosses

Glosses on Aldhelm, Prosa de uirginitateAldhelmi Malmesbiriensis, Prosa de virginitate, cum glosa latina atque Anglosaxonica, ed. Scott Gwara, CCSL 124-124A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 728-33.

“Interpraetatio nominum ebraicorum et grecorum”: J. H. Hessels, An Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1890), 5, line 170.

“Leiden Glossary”: John Henry Hessels, A Late Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1906), 19-20.

Glosses on Prudentius, Psychomachia, in Cambridge, University Library, Gg.5.35, fol. 150r: Gernot Rudolf Wieland, The Latin Glosses on Arator and Prudentius in Cambridge, University Library MS Gg.5.35, Studies and Texts 61 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1983), 199-271.

[Addenda: The following entries were omitted on first posting, but have since been added: Ambrose’s De uiduis (July 4, 2013); Dracontius’s De laudibus Dei (June 29, 2013); Honorius of Autun’s Elucidarium and the Old English Elucidarium (June 28, 2013). On the Old English poem Judith, see the post here; and for a further addendum on related works by Augustine, see the post here.]

Why Judith?

This endeavor is, at its heart, rooted in teaching. My first conceptions of this project began when I taught the Old English poem Judith in spring 2013, and I started wondering about its relationships to other related texts–first to the Vulgate version of the biblical story of Judith, and second to Ælfric’s vernacular homiletic version of the same narrative. As I pursued these ideas, I discovered that the range of texts associated with the biblical Judith and known to the Anglo-Saxons is much wider, though rarely acknowledged.

Perhaps the best way to think of these works, I think, is as a “constellation” of texts centered around the biblical narrative (and I would be grateful for feedback on this concept). By considering all of these related texts together, I want to decentralize the Old English poem as the primary object of study, in order to emphasize that it is one of many compositions about Judith that circulated in Anglo-Saxon England. In other words, although this poem holds a more canonical status (increasingly in recent years) in the corpus of Old English literature–and Anglo-Saxon literature more generally–it should not be the sole focus for Anglo-Saxonists.

What I particularly like about using Judith for this project is that the constellation of texts is both significant and manageable. As is apparent from the number of Anglo-Saxon texts associated with the biblical Judith, it was a significant subject for Anglo-Saxon authors. Surely there are other biblical books where this is likely not the case, or where evidence of interactions have not survived. Yet there is also the potential for the opposite problem, of a daunting number of related texts to consider. No doubt this would be the case if this project encompassed the whole of the Bible as its scope. Similarly, the depth of analysis that I hope for with Judith may not be possible for certain other parts of the Bible, since the massive breadth of inquiry necessary could distract from the details. For example, Genesis might be examined in a similar way, but the sheer number of texts related to this book (commentaries, sermons, glosses, genealogies, allusions, Old English translations, etc.) would surely pose many methodological problems. (Of course, it can be hoped that this Judith project is just one among similar future digital projects, and that projects for Genesis and other biblical works might be undertaken in the future.)

The subject of Judith opens up as a sort of microcosm for inquiry into Anglo-Saxon engagement with the Bible. In this, it poses a suitable case study for addressing questions about how readers and writers interacted with the biblical book, how related texts circulated, what Anglo-Saxons knew and produced concerning Judith, and how individual texts within this constellation connect to each other.