ePub 版


120/170 means page 120, line 170.

P. 1, Heading. Ps. Ixxvi. 4: “Memor fui Dei, et delectatus sum, et exercitatus sum, et defecit spiritus meus.”

1/9. to wisse, for certain.

1/13. The spelling and for an, as in and hondred, is most often found in the unstressed prepos. an :--and honde, 19/507; and erbe, 107/258, 124/291 ; and hez, 120/170, 123/261. The addition of the d'is probably merely graphic, and may be due to the reverse fact, that the unemphatic conj. and is frequently written an, according to the pronunciation.

1/15, 16. crefte, to attain. Cf. 34/943, 54/1526, 150/593, 596. Intr. crefte to, 18/476.

2/22. sprind, O.E. sprin(9)d, active, vigorous.

2/26. To gile, to (his own) deception, in self-delusion.

*2/27. For the position of zet cp. 30/824-5: Ech screade zet al so longe hys godes body, etc.; 58/1622: Ilome zhet some weneþ ligge in spoushop, And libe in hordome. We are reminded here of the M.E. poem known by the name of Long Life,' and may also compare the following passage in the ‘Library of Early English Writers,' ed. by C. Horstmann, vol. i. p.

137 (“Our daily work,'' MS. Arundel 507 MS. Thornton, p. 311):

And saynt Jerom sais : na thing so mikil bigilis man as þat he knowis noght þe tyme of his life, þat to him is vncertayn. & zit hightis he himself lang life, as he might at his will dryue dead obake.

2/47. Now schewe bis can hardly be strained into sense. It seems as if the eye of the scribe, in writing þis, had been caught by the same word at the beginning of the next line. Did the poet perhaps write: Now schreawis, as a sort of expletive, such as are not unfrequently found in the bob-verses ? 2/48, 49.

“Scala coeli caritas est, cuius gradus diversæ virtutes.” Honor. Augustod. (Migne, 172, 1239).

3/57. And þat may possibly mean 'if (that), even if, although.' Mätzner does not mention the combination of that with and, either in the Spp. or in the Gramm.; but an instance of it is found in ‘Engl. Stud. viii. 280: Moche evill water shall ye fynde : whiche do sethe, and scomme hit, and that hit be cold, or that ye drynke hit. It is as likely, however, that the scribe of the Shoreham MS. should have miswritten þat for þaz here, as he evidently did elsewhere, e. g. 6/148, 7/169, 59/1672, 146/484, etc. In some cases the error appears to have been detected by a later revisor, who accordingly altered the wrong þat again into the correct þaz, e. g. 8/219, 61/1715.

3164–70. It is hard to guess what the scribe can have meant by Of serewnessche. Varnhagen, Anglia,' iv. 201, referring to a passage on 103-4/153-156:

Ac þench pou nart bote essche,
And so pou loze þe,
And byde god þat he wesche
Pe felbe pat hys in pe,



supposes the original reading here to have been Of essche. He therefore translates 11. 67–8: “Hier kann er sich nicht reinigen vom Staube” (here he cannot cleanse himself from dust), dust (essche) meaning either - das Irdische" (earthiness), or better, perhaps, "Schmutz der Sünde” (filth of sin). This essche, he argues, was not understood by the corrector, who accordingly put screwn before it, the whole being intended for screwnesse (schrewnesse) = pravitas. But, apart from the error in the

latter statement (the MS. having distinctly serew, not screu-, and, as Dr. Furnivall assures me, like the rest, in the original handwriting), I doubt whether Essche is ever used in the sense of 'foetor (sordes) peccati' = felpe or felpe of senne, as Shoreham otherwise expresses it, which seems to me the only one agreeing with l. 66: And aldey he to senne fallep. In the passage referred to by Varnhagen essche appears in its literal sense of dust : “Memento homo quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.” Waiving however this objection, I do not think that by the adoption of Varnhagen's conjecture every difficulty is cleared away. In

my • Beiträge zur Erklärung und Textkritik des William von Schorham,' I observed that the form

moze, 11. 65, 67, could only be subjunct., or plur. ind. pres., either of which was impossible here. Varnhagen questions my statement by pointing to two passages in ' Ayenbite' where moze renders Fr. puet, and must therefore be taken as 3rd sing. ind. pres. But is this quite certain ? In the first passage, 'Ayenb.' 10,-yef he hit wot and moze hit do = se il le set e le prvet faire, there may as well be a change of mood, which is by no means uncommon in conditional clauses. In the very sentence quoted by Varnhagen there is such an obvious change, Dan Michel translating the French s'il ne ľrent la ou il doit ... ou s'il ne l'fait au conseil de sainte eglèse bybote yef he hit yelde þer ha ssel (yef he hit wot and moze hit do,) oper yef he ne deb by be rede of holy cherche.—The second passage, * Ayenb.' 21, runs : þet wenþ by more worp þanne he by; oper more may þanre he moze ; oper more conne þanne he can, etc. = qu'il cuide plus valoir que il ne vaut, ou plus pooir qu'il ne priet, ou plus savoir qu'il ne set, etc. But I do not really see why moze should not be subjunct. as well as the preceding by, in spite of the indic. in the Fr. text, which is, indeed, retained in the following can. There are even more passages than those in ' Ayenb.' to which Varnhagen might have referred in support of his opinion that moze is used as 3rd sing. indic.; for instance, pp. 104, 168, 193. In all these passages however the subjunctive is just as consistent with English usage as the indicative. Unless, therefore, other evidence be adduced, I cannot persuade myself that moze ever represents the 3rd sing. indic. pres., at least in M.Kt.; and I still hold that in our stanza it must have been corrupted by the scribe from original may he (note particularly that o3 in 1. 67 is written on erasure). This is not so incredible when we consider that h and 3 are often confounded in the MS.

For hy, l. 65, may possibly mean for why (cp. the spelling ho for hwo, who, 108/275, 277, 281, 131/48).

As to pury, l. 67, it is of course the M. E. equivalent of O.Fr. purer. Stratm.-Bradley gives only instances of the pa. pple. pured. Godefroy has it also as a verb neuter, but only in the sense of 'épurer, fermenter.' It

may still be mentioned that Kölbing in his edition of “Arthour and Merlin,' p. Ivi, footnote, thinks that for the unintelligible serewnessche we shall probably have to substitute a word ending in -nesse, such as filþinesse [: wessche]. This conjecture rests on the doubtful supposition that 0.E. sc became ss (i. e. voiceless s) in M.Kt.; and, besides, it overlooks the fact that the bob-verse cannot have more than one stress.

3/78.“ anima carnis in sanguine est,” Levit. xvii, 11.-giste is here O.Fr. giste, resting-place.

4/83-86. Cf. Thom. Aquin., 'Summa Theolog. p. iii. quaest. 62, art. 5: “ Unde manifestum est quod sacramenta Ecclesiae specialiter habent virtutein ex passione Christi, cuius virtus quodammodo nobis copulatur per susceptionem sacramentoruin ; in cuius signum de latere "Christi pendentis in cruce fluxerunt aqua et sanguis, quorum unum pertinet ad baptismum, aliud ad eucharistiam, quae sunt potissima sacramentn." Cp. also Hugo de St. Victore (Migne, 176, 92) and Petr. Lombard. (Migne, 192, 216).

4/87, 88. “Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum," August., Hago de St. Vict., Petr. Lomb. etc.

4/89. For gode, truly, in good earnest; cp. Fr. pour de bon. The phrase occurs in the same sense in Rob, of Gloucester ; see · Anglia,' xiii. 284.

4197. Instead of zoure we ought to read oure, or—what seems to me preferable—to recur to the original reading za (O.E. zea), only changing it into the Kt. ze.

4/101. to bet stede, to the place of those ; cp. the use of which for the genit. in Chaucer's ? Prologue to the C. T.,' l. 4.

5/111. A stress-syllable is wanting here. 5/125. to stat, to the state of grace.

5/129–30. To pynes allegaunce Ine fere, to the alleviation of the torment in the fire (of Purgatory). pynes is genit.

5/132–3. Cp. Petr. Lombard. (Migne, 192,892). "Nam prius purgandus est igne purgationis qui in aliud saeculum distulit fructum conversionis (according to August., 'De vera et falsa Poenit., c. 18).

5/139. The necessity of altering eyzen into earen or ye(a)ren, as the Kt. forms are, is obvious, not only because of the following sizt, but also in consideration of the real practice at Extreme Unction, to which allusion is here made.

6/142. We ought perhaps to read : hit (for he) his al ydel.

6/147. ordinige is probably a mistake for ordininge (ordeninge, from orde(i)ni), or odringe, from ordren.tokne may possibly be miswritten for tokneb, or else tokne prowz may be an error for tokne prof ; see below, 1. 153. At any rate, the line, as it stands, is too long, while in the preceding one a stress-syllable is wanting at the end. We might perhaps transpose Wel into I. 146, after grauntep.

6/165. In Jl. 162–3 the effects of five sacraments are described, viz. those of Baptism, Contirmation, Penance, Matrimony, and The Lord's Supper. In l. 165, therefore, we have to expect a mention of the effects of the remaining two sacraments, namely, Ordination and Extreme Unction. Grace refers to the former ; cp. 56/1559 ff. : And grace Of wyt and of auctoryte ţet þyng hys ine pe place. Consequently lynes ought to refer to the Extreme Unction. I take it as plur. of lyf. One of the effects of Extreme Unction is the alleviation of the bodily illness of the sick man, so that he may live on, if God thinks it expedient for him. Cp. I. 1105–6: be bodyes euel þat libbe mey, And sone, hit mey to-dryue ; 1. 1144-5, þat þyngge hys alleggaunce of euel, To lyf zef he schel loute.

7/170. ne forbe occurs also 8/211, 25/676, 41/1157, 66/1861, etc. (spelt furb 43/1207); and forbe 66/1877. In the N.E.D. the passage on 8/21113 is quoted under forth, A, adv., 3. d, and the meaning assigned to forbe is 'further, moreover, also.' This may be right indeed as regards the meaning only. But the form of the word seems to me rather to connect it with 0.E. furbum, M.E. forþe(n). What makes me think so is, that


forbe in at least four passages, viz. 25/676, 41/1157, 72/2084, and 139/271, is used as a distinct dissyllable, while the representative of O.E. forp, though sometimes written forbe in the MS., is always monosyllabic.iurede (frede, 1. 172), perceive.

7/183 ff. “ All those things which betoken holy things, as holy water, etc., are sacraments of the Church; and of all sacraments (for oper cf. Zupitza's note to 'Guy of Warwick,' 2nd vers., 1. 559) these seven are the greatest.'—This seems to be inconsistent with what had been said above, 1. 155 ff. : Cristendom and bisschoppyinge Þes seuene Heb holicherche sacremens. The discrepancy is evidently owing to the poet, in compiling his tract, following different authorities. Before the middle of the 12th century, when Petrus Lombardus proposed a more adequate definition of the term “sacramentum,' and fixed the number and order of the sacraments as they were afterwards (about the time of Alexander de Hales) generally accepted and finally sanctioned by the council of Trent, the opinions of the schoolmen differed with regard to what holy rites and things-according to the received definition of sacramentum'as rei signum'-were to be numbered among the sacraments. Hugo de St. Victore distinguishes three kinds of sacraments. He says, “ De Sacramentis,' lib. I. p. ix. c. 7 (Migne, 176, 327): “ Tria genera sacramentorum in prima consideratione discernenda occurrunt. Sunt enim quaedam sacramenta in quibus principaliter salus constat et percipitur, sicut aqua baptisınatis et perceptio corporis et sanguinis Christi. · Alia sunt, quae, etsi necessaria non sunt ad salutem (quia sine his salos haberi potest), proficiunt tamen ad sanctificationem, quia his virtus exerceri et gratia amplior acquiri potest, ut aqua aspersionis, et susceptio cineris, et similia. Sunt rursum alia sacramenta quae ad hoc solum instituta esse videntur, ut per ipsa ea quae caeteris sacramentis sanctificandis et instituendis necessaria sunt, quodammodo praeparentur et sanctificentur, vel circa personas in sacris ordinibus perficiendis, vel in iis quae ad habitum sacrorum ordinum pertinent initiandis, et caeteris huiusmodi. Prima ergo ad salutem, secunda ad exercitationem, tertia ad praeparationem constituta sunt.” Cp. also lib. II. p. 5, c. 1 (Migne, 176, 439). In his 'Summa Sententiarum' he mentions the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penitence (the heading of the chapter is only “De poenitentia,” not “ De sacramento poenitentiae ;” but it begins with

Sacramentum poenitentiae," etc.), and Extreme Unction. Tract. vii., * De Coniugio' (Migne, 176, 154) is probably not by Hugo; but Matrimony is expressly designated' by him as a sacrament ("coniugii sacramentum”) in “De Sacrament,' lib. II. p. xi. c. 1 (Migne, 176, 479). These all belong to the first class. Of the sacraments of the third class, Hugo says (Migne, 176, 439): “Et illa quidem quae administrationis sive praeparationis sunt, ordinibus cohaerent, quoniam et ipsi ordines (of which he treats in lib. II. p. iii.) sacramenta sunt, et quae circa ordines considerantur, qualia sunt indumenta sacra, et vasa, et caetera huiusmodi.”—To the sacraments of the second class, “quae ad exercitationem instituta sunt,” he gives the name of "sacramenta minora,” and says (Migne, 176, 471): “Ex his igitur sacramentis alia constant in rebus Alia autem constant in factis ... Alia in dictis constant.” Under these three heads a great many minor sacraments are enumerated : “Aqua aspersionis (hali water), susceptio cineris, benedictio ramorum et cereorum (lizt), signa quorum sonitu fideles in unum convocantur” (belryngynges), etc. Afterwards, when the number of sacraments proper had been definitely fixed at seven, the minor sacraments of Hugo were comprised under the common name of “sacramentalia.”..

The author of the tract 'De Caeremoniis, Sacramentis, Officiis et Observationibus Ecclesiasticis' (probably Robertus Paululus, c. a. 1178) already recognizes the seven sacraments as specified and arranged by the Magister Sententiarum. But he still calls them the principal sacraments’ (Migne, 177, 388), which implies that there were other sacraments of minor dignity and efficacy. The same epithet, principalia,' is given them in the statute of the synod held in London a. 1237, Cap. ii.; only the order in which they are enumerated is slightly different. It is clear, therefore, that the poet in writing the passage on p. 7, where he numbers hali water, haly bred, etc., among the sacraments of the Church, adding that of alle'oper sacremens bes seuene bep þe greste, must have drawn from an older source; while, on the other hand, in the passage on p. 6, he simply expresses the received doctrine of his own time, which had been accepted also by the Church of England, and no longer admitted of any distinction between “

sacramenta maiora" (or “principalia ") and sacramenta minora." Cp. “Concilium Lambethense. ('Constitutiones Fratris Joannis de Peckam), A.D. 1281 (in ‘Harduini Collect. Act. Concil.' vii. 861); • Synod. Exoniensis,' A.D. 1287 (ibid. 1074). A later reader of the MS. seems to have been aware that the poet's statement on p. 7 was not quite in agreement with the established significance of the term 'sacrament;' so, by way of emendation, he put in the words (in) cherche (Fese) sacremens, without, however, making things any better for it.

For haly bred see D. Hugonis Mathoud Observationes ad Libros Sententiarum Roberti Pulli’ (Migne, 186, 1131); Mr. Simmons's note on p. 336 of "The Lay Folks' Mass Book ;' Mr. Peacock's note on p. 89 of Myrc's ‘Instr. for Parish Priests; ' and 'The Antiquary,' No. 101.

7/192. Cp. Thom. Aquin. “Summ.' p. iii. quaest. 69, art. 7: “Respondeo dicendum quod aperire ianuam regni coelestis est, removere impedimentum quo quis impeditur regnum coeleste introire. Hoc autem impediinentum est culpa et reatus poenae. Ostensum est autem supra

quod per baptismun omnis culpa et omnis reatus poenae tollitur. Unde consequens est quod effectus baptismi sit apertio ianuae regni coelestis.” Cf. also ‘Synod. Exoniensis' ('llarduini Coll. Act. Concil.' vii. 1075); “Baptismi sacramentum adeo est necessarium, quod sine eo non est salus, nec aliis quam baptizatis regni coelestis ianua aperitur.” 8/195-6. We ought probably to read :

For who þat entreþ þer, he his

Ysa(1)ued enere more. 8/204-7. The right interpretation of these lines mainly depends on the meaning of the verb reneye. In my 'Beiträge,' etc., I expressed some doubts as to whether reneye can be taken here in its usual sense of

renegare," to deny, renounce. That something was not quite clear in 1. 207 as it originally stood in the MS. seems to have been felt by the revisor of the text, who thought it necessary to insert may between man

But this is of course a stupid make-shift. Varnhagen (“Anglia,' iv. 202) thinks he can get over the difficulty in the following way. Relying on a passage in Dr. Morris's O. E. Homilies,' ii. 197, where the word man (= 0.E. mān) is apparently used to render the Latin diabolus,' he supposes that in l. 207 too, man (i. e. mān) means the evil one'; and, adhering to the usual signification of reneye, translates man reneye by—to renounce the devil.' Plausible as this explanation may seem to be, I am afraid there are some fatal objections to it. In the first place, a form man = 0.E. mān, is quite impossible in the sound-system of the M.Kt. dialect, even if it were at all probable that so exceptional a use of the word man as that inferred from a single

and reneye.

« 上一頁繼續 »