THE ANGLO-SAXON POETIC RECORDS

A COLLECTIVE EDITION

THE JUNIUS MANUSCRIPT

PREFACE

This book is the first volume in a collective edition, the plan of which includes all the surviving records of Anglo-Saxonnbsp;poetry. The main body of Anglo-Saxon poetry as it has comenbsp;down to us is contained in four important miscellany manuscripts,nbsp;the Junius Manuscript, the Vercelli Book, the Exeter Book, andnbsp;the Beowulf Manuscript, each of which will constitute a separatenbsp;volume in this edition. The remaining minor and more or lessnbsp;scattered examples of Anglo-Saxon poetry will be groupednbsp;together, in a volume or volumes of their own.

In the matter of variant readings, the task of an editor of Anglo-Saxon poetic texts is somewhat simplified by the fact thatnbsp;practically all Anglo-Saxon poetry is preserved in single copies.nbsp;Such variant readings as an editor may attach to his text mustnbsp;therefore be derived from the great mass of comment which hasnbsp;gradually accumulated in the course of Anglo-Saxon studies.nbsp;This comment is obviously of very uneven value, and to burden anbsp;modern edition with all the extant guesses at reading of thenbsp;text would be a great waste of both space and efiort. It becomes necessary therefore to select, and the critical judgment ofnbsp;the editor must be exercised to keep alive these records asnbsp;illustrious examples of poetic endeavor, not as occasions fornbsp;stirring the dry bones of antiquated Anglo-Saxon scholarship.nbsp;With these considerations in mind, the texts of the poems in thisnbsp;edition are kept as free as possible of scholarly intrusions,nbsp;paleographical, typographical, grammatical, or otherwise illustrative and editorial, and the necessary machinery of expositionnbsp;and interpretation is placed in the introduction and in the notes,nbsp;where it seems more properly to belong. The two main dutiesnbsp;of an editor, that of preserving a faithful record of the manuscript and that of taking account of all significant contributionsnbsp;to the understanding of the manuscript, it is hoped will benbsp;satisfactorily met in this way. At the foot of each page of text,nbsp;such departures from the manuscript as have appeared on the

PREFACE

page are recorded, whence anyone interested may readily turn to the introduction or to the notes for the further relevant details.nbsp;In order to keep the volumes within the limits of reasonablenbsp;size, comment in the introduction and notes has been somewhatnbsp;rigorously limited to matters pertaining to the establishment ofnbsp;the texts.

The text of the poems contained in this volume has been made from the collotype reproductions of the Junius Manuscript innbsp;GoUancz’s The Cxdmon Manuscript (Oxford University Press,nbsp;1927). In the very few instances in which the collotypes arenbsp;not clear, readings have been recorded on the authority ofnbsp;Holthausen, Clubb, and GoUancz, but only when it is so stated.nbsp;Modern capitalization and punctuation and, except for the usenbsp;of lt;S and ]gt;, D and p, modern typography have been introducednbsp;into the text, and the sectional divisions of the manuscript havenbsp;been supplemented by further paragraphing for ease in reading.nbsp;The abbreviations of the manuscript, all very simple, have beennbsp;resolved without comment, and losses have been indicated bynbsp;asterisks. Otherwise the text faithfully follows the manuscript, or if it does not, departures from the manuscript readings are always so noted.

The editor takes pleasure in acknowledging the support of the Council for Research in the Humanities of Columbia University in the preparation and publication of this work.

INTRODUCTION

THE MANUSCRIPT

Two names must always be associated with the venerable manuscript, the contents of which are printed in this book, thenbsp;name of Caedmon as possible author and the name of Franciscusnbsp;Junius, the earliest of modern scholars to enter on the task ofnbsp;restoring to the world the knowledge of the poetry of the Anglo-Saxons. The manuscript came into the possession of Junius, anbsp;Dutch scholar long resident in England, through Archbishopnbsp;Ussher, and when in 1654 Junius published at Amsterdam thenbsp;poems contained in it, he described them as a poetic paraphrasenbsp;of Genesis and other parts of the Scriptures by the monknbsp;Cffidmon.^ The manuscript now rests in the Bodleian Librarynbsp;at Oxford, where it is numbered Junius XI in token of its origin.

The connection of Caedmon with the manuscript is less direct than Junius supposed it to be, though certainly less accidentalnbsp;than was that of Junius. No word in the manuscript attributesnbsp;any part of it to Caedmon, or, for that matter, to any other poet.nbsp;The opinions of scholars differ as to the date of composition andnbsp;as to the authorship of the several poems in the manuscript,nbsp;and these must still be regarded as unsettled questions, but nonbsp;scholar today believes that the poems were all written bynbsp;Caedmon or that any part of the manuscript contains the verynbsp;forms of the words which Caedmon dictated. Yet the contentnbsp;the manuscript accords so closely with the description ofnbsp;Caedmon as poet given by Bede, especially the first poem in thenbsp;Kianuscript, that it requires no stretching of probability to assumenbsp;that the example and incentive of Caedmon’s own verse accountsnbsp;m large measure for the existence of these poems, and in consequence, of this manuscript.

The manuscript consists of 116 parchment folios, 12f inches

‘ For the full title of this book, see Bibliography, p. xlv.

INTRODUCTION

high and varying from 7 to 7f inches in width. The pages have been numbered by a modern hand from 1 to 229, the first foiio,nbsp;which carries a full page illustration as frontispiece, not beingnbsp;counted in the numbering. The contents of the several pages innbsp;terms of the lines of this edition are given in Table I on p. xxxvi,nbsp;at the end of this Introduction.

Four different hands are readily observable in the handwriting of the manuscript, the first from p. 1 to p. 212, the second fromnbsp;p. 213 to p. 215, the third from p. 216 to p. 228, and the fourthnbsp;only on p. 229. Besides these scribes, account must be takennbsp;also of other hands which appear in many corrections, additions,nbsp;and alterations in the manuscript, in the drawing of ornamentalnbsp;capitals, in the drawing of numerous illustrations accompanyingnbsp;the text, and in comments on these, and in a few marginal notations of a casual nature. These several groups of minor additions to the manuscript will be considered separately hereafter.

The date of the writing of the first hand in the manuscript has been fixed at about the year 1000.^ The three other handsnbsp;belong chronologically to one period, and between these threenbsp;and the first there was probably a difference of “less than anbsp;generation.”^ The manuscript as a whole may be datednbsp;therefore at about the year 1000. The first scribe wrote thenbsp;whole of the first three poems in the manuscript. Genesis,nbsp;Exodus, and Daniel, and the three other scribes wrote Christnbsp;AND Satan, the concluding poem of the manuscript. The firstnbsp;of the three scribes responsible for Christ and Satan wrotenbsp;pp. 213-215 of the manuscript (U. 1-124), the second wrotenbsp;pp. 216-228 (11. 125-709), and the third only the last page, p.nbsp;229 (11. 710-729).

At the bottom of the illustration on p. 2 of the manuscript appears a small medallion portrait inscribed xlfwine, and according to Gollancz, it seems “difficult to ignore the strong probability that the Aïlfwine of our artist is to be identified with thenbsp;famous ffillfwine who became abbot of Newminster in 1035.”^nbsp;The abbot ffillfwine appears to have been a man of varied

1 See Gollancz, The Caedmon Manuscript, p. xviii.

“ Clubb, Christ and Satan, p. xii.

® The Caedmon Manuscript, p. xxxv.

INTRODUCTION

intellectual interests, though not much is known about him, and to caU him famous perhaps exaggerates his reputation. Thenbsp;bond connecting the .dilfwine of the medallion as the possiblenbsp;patron of this volume with .^Elfwine of Newminster at Winchester is therefore frail, yet the association of the names isnbsp;suggestive and plausible.

. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;II

UNITY OF THE MANUSCRIPT

Nothing is known of the reasons for the writing of the manuscript, but it is obvious that the occasion was considered to be of some importance, and that elaborate preparations were madenbsp;for the compiling of a large book of Anglo-Saxon poetry. Uniform sheets of parchment were prepared, extensive illustrationsnbsp;were arranged for, and a not unskillful scribe was set to worknbsp;copying the poems. So far indeed as Genesis, Exodus, andnbsp;Daniel are concerned, there can be no doubt that these arenbsp;parts of a veritable eleventh century book. Whether thesenbsp;poems were assembled at that time for copying or whether theynbsp;had already been assembled before they were copied, therenbsp;seems to be no way of determining. With respect to Christnbsp;and Satan, however, there may be some question whethernbsp;this poem was included in the original design of the compilation.nbsp;Tor one thing, it is less harmonious in subject with the othernbsp;three poems than they are with each other. The change ofnbsp;scribes and general treatment may also be significant, Christnbsp;and Satan being much less carefully written and ornamentednbsp;than the other three poems. There are no illustrations and nonbsp;blank spaces left for illustrations in the part of the manuscriptnbsp;containing Christ and Satan, except the irrelevant design onnbsp;P- 225 (see below, p. xvi). It looks as though interest in thenbsp;manuscript as a piece of fine book-making had fallen off afternbsp;the completion of Daniel. On the other hand, perhaps a fullynbsp;thought out plan was never formed for the whole manuscript.nbsp;It may have been intended to grow by accretion. Certainlynbsp;even the plan as first made was not carried out with rigorousnbsp;oversight, since after p. 96 there are many blank spaces left for

INTRODUCTION

illustrations, and some for capitals that were never inserted. The addition of Christ and Satan may have been an afterthought, perhaps even of the patron who commissioned thenbsp;writing of the first three poems, and the folios on which it isnbsp;written may have been added to the main body of the book afternbsp;that had been completed. Yet the folios of Christ and Satannbsp;are uniform with those of the rest of the volume, except for thenbsp;slight difference that they were ruled for and written with 27nbsp;lines on a page, and the first 212 pages were ruled for and writtennbsp;with 26 lines on a page, and the manner in which they arenbsp;combined with the rest of the volume shows that if Christnbsp;AND Satan was added later, “the intention, at the time ofnbsp;w'riting, was to make it an integral portion of the manuscript.”’nbsp;Perhaps it would be literally truer to modify this statementnbsp;slightly and to say that if the folios on which Christ andnbsp;Satan was written were added later, the intention at the time ofnbsp;adding them was to make them an integral part of the manuscript. But of course the folios might have been preparednbsp;before the matter to be written on them was selected. Itnbsp;cannot be supposed, therefore, that the folios containing Christnbsp;AND Satan were once a separate manuscript which happenednbsp;to be on hand and which was fortuitously attached, perhapsnbsp;at a much later date, to the three preceding poems of the Juniusnbsp;Manuscript as we now have it. One may lament the literarynbsp;judgment of the person who added Christ and Satan tonbsp;Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel, but there can be little doubtnbsp;that in doing so, he had the manuscript as a whole before him.

It should be noted that Christ and Satan ends on p. 229 of the Junius Manuscript with the statement Finit Liber II.nbsp;Amen. No complementing Liber I is indicated in any preceding part of the manuscript, but the probabilities are that Libernbsp;II comprised only Christ and Satan, and that the conclusionnbsp;of Daniel, now missing in the manuscript, ended with Finitnbsp;or some other indication that the original design or instructionsnbsp;of the copyist had been carried out. Genesis, Exodus, andnbsp;Daniel would thus have constituted Liber I in the eyes of thenbsp;person who added Christ and Satan, and who called hisnbsp;addition Liber II.

' GoUancz, The Ciedmon Manuscript, p. xcix.

INTRODUCTION

III

CORRECTIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT

One other possible bond of connection between Liber II, containing Christ and Satan, and the three other poems of thenbsp;manuscript, which for convenience we may call Liber I, may benbsp;found in the many corrections in the manuscript, perhaps bynbsp;different hands, but all closely contemporary with the manuscript. These corrections are most numerous in Liber II, andnbsp;in Liber II they are much more frequent in the work of the firstnbsp;scribe than in that of the other two. In percentages, thenbsp;proportion of corrections to the number of lines is 83-)- in thenbsp;work of the first scribe, 19-)- in the work of the second scribe,nbsp;and 52-p in the few final lines written by the third scribe.nbsp;In Liber I the corrections in Genesis are of most significance,nbsp;since the number of corrections in Exodus and Daniel is verynbsp;small, and practically all of them were made by the scribe ofnbsp;Liber I in correction of obvious errors as he wrote. The zealnbsp;nf the more general corrector, or correctors, apparently exhausted itself on Christ and Satan and Genesis. But thenbsp;number of corrections in Genesis, including even those madenbsp;by the scribe himself, is only 4-)- per cent of the number of lines,nbsp;and the early lines of Genesis are much more freely correctednbsp;than the remaining much longer portion of the poem. Nownbsp;if any considerable number of the corrections in Genesis andnbsp;in Liber II were made by the same person, it is highly improbablenbsp;that he began with Genesis, gradually stopped correcting untilnbsp;be ceased through Exodus and Daniel, then resumed with verynbsp;much increased enthusiasm at the beginning of Liber II. Itnbsp;Would be much more plausible to suppose that what seemed tonbsp;him the untidiness of the work of the first scribe in Liber II lednbsp;some reader of the manuscript to make corrections in this part,nbsp;that having once begun he continued, though less extensively,nbsp;through the work of the second and third scribes in Liber IT,nbsp;and even went back to the beginning of the whole manuscriptnbsp;to make a few corrections in the work of the scribe of Liber I.

Plausible though this theory may be, its credibility must rest tipon positive evidence that the corrector of Liber II actually

INTRODUCTION

made some of the corrections of Liber I. Clubb thinks that he did, and he declares that whatever may have been the mannernbsp;in which Liber II first came to be attached to Liber I, “it isnbsp;clear . . . that at some later time [i.e., later than the writingnbsp;of Liber I] in the eleventh century the two sections were treatednbsp;as one book, because there are traces in the Genesis of the handnbsp;of the Late West Saxon Corrector who was so active in Christnbsp;AND Satan.On the contrary, Gollancz is of the opinion thatnbsp;“there is not evidence sufficiently strong to come to any conclusion on this similarity of penmanship” between the corrections of Liber II and those of Liber I, and he declares himselfnbsp;unable to endorse the statement that there are traces in Genesis of the hand that made the corrections in Christ and Satan

It is true that the evidence from handwriting is slight and inconclusive, that it neither proves nor disproves the assumptionnbsp;that the hand of the corrector of Liber II also appears in Liber I.nbsp;The evidence of handwriting, however, permits such an assumption, and there are other things to support it. If onenbsp;cannot be quite certain that the hand of the corrector of Liber IInbsp;appears in Liber I, one can be more assured that his mindnbsp;appears there. As has already been pointed out, the correctionsnbsp;in the manuscript are of different kinds. There are, first,nbsp;corrections of the casual mishaps in writing which befall anynbsp;scribe, as, for example, beorte corrected to beorhte, Gen. 14,nbsp;gehlilcum corrected to gehwilcum, Dan. 643, sceoden, Christnbsp;AND Satan 27, provided with an 1; second are verbal changesnbsp;and additions, as when hebban is corrected to ahebban, Gen.nbsp;259, hof corrected to ahof, Ex. 253, we added after nu, Dan.nbsp;293, and he changed to hig, Christ and Satan 191; third arenbsp;those corrections which may best be designated orthographic,nbsp;with or without phonetic implications involved, as when saulanbsp;is altered to saulse, Gen. 185, alda to ealda, Christ and Satannbsp;34, xcan to ecan, id. 46, hele'8 to hxle'd, id. 47. Corrections ofnbsp;the first two kinds appear in about equal proportions throughoutnbsp;the whole manuscript, but corrections of the third kind arenbsp;much more numerous in Christ and Satan than elsewhere,

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Christ aitd Satan, p. xv.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The Cxdmon Manuscript, p. xxix.

INTRODUCTION

3-iid in fact appear elsewhere only in the early part of Genesis. They are fairly frequent up to 1. 546 of Genesis, but after thatnbsp;they appear practically not at all. But the important point isnbsp;that the corrections of this third kind, which must owe theirnbsp;presence to the zeal of a linguistic reformer, and not merely tonbsp;the logical demands of the text, are remarkably similar innbsp;character in Christ and Satan and in the first five hundrednbsp;lines of Genesis. They are concerned very largely with thenbsp;spelling of words containing diphthongs, as in liodgeard, corrected to leodgeard, Gen. 229, him altered to heom, Gen. 401,nbsp;•weordan altered to wyr'San, Gen. 261, hweorfan altered tonbsp;hwyrfan, Christ and Satan 119, waldend altered to weddend,nbsp;Gen. 260, forward altered to forweard, Christ and Satan 21;nbsp;and a great many with the spelling of words in which the correctornbsp;exhibits anxiety over the proper use of e and se, as in tene alterednbsp;to tyne, Gen. 248, alefan altered to alyfan, Christ and Satannbsp;115; peegne altered to pegne, Gen. 409, and the reverse, as innbsp;Christ and Satan 47, heled corrected to hxled. But strikingnbsp;as these agreements are, the most significant single instance ofnbsp;similarity between the corrections of Liber II and Liber I isnbsp;to be found in the change of heofne, Gen. 339 and Gen. 350, bynbsp;altering final e to o and adding n above the line, giving heofnon,nbsp;as in Christ and Satan 10, where original heofene is altered tonbsp;heofenon by altering final e to o in the same way and adding nnbsp;above the line. It would be very remarkable if such an exceptional correction should occur independently to two differentnbsp;correctors. It is of course possible, but highly improbable,nbsp;that a corrector in Genesis merely followed the model of annbsp;earlier corrector in Christ and Satan, though if this was so,nbsp;he must have had a combined Liber I and Liber II to work with.nbsp;It by no means follows that all of the corrections in Liber Inbsp;Hot made by the scribe were made by the corrector of Liber II,nbsp;but there seems to be very good reason for supposing that some ofnbsp;them were, and that therefore the book as a whole, both Liber Inbsp;and Liber II, lay before that first annotator of the text, whoevernbsp;he was, who occupied himself with it in the eleventh century.nbsp;The value of the corrections and additions in the manuscriptnbsp;greater from the orthographic and linguistic point of view

INTRODUCTION

than it is from that of one interested in establishing the meaning of the text of the poems. There is no indication that thenbsp;eleventh century reviser or revisers had before them othernbsp;copies of the texts from which they made their revisions, or thatnbsp;they were led to make their corrections through any desire tonbsp;restore the readings of the manuscript to what they conceivednbsp;to be their original forms. In the preparation of this text, thenbsp;first readings of the scribes have generally been preferred tonbsp;those of the correctors, but the corrections will repay study andnbsp;they have aU been indicated at their appropriate places at thenbsp;foot of the page.

IV

ANGLO-SAXON IN THE ILLUSTRATIONS

Some of the numerous illustrations in the manuscript contain lettering in Anglo-Saxon, but only one phrase, that on p. 56, isnbsp;quoted from the text which the illustrations accompany. As nonbsp;illustrations are present in the manuscript after p. 96, except annbsp;unfinished design on p. 225 which has no relation to the textnbsp;and is apparently there by accident, it follows that all of thenbsp;illustrations relate to Genesis. A great many blank spacesnbsp;were left in Liber I of the manuscript for illustrations whichnbsp;were never filled in, but none in Liber II, which has neithernbsp;illustrations nor spaces for them. Most of the illustrations innbsp;the manuscript are without lettering, though the intentionnbsp;probably was to provide inscriptions for all of them. Thenbsp;Anglo-Saxon and other phrases in the illustrations are asnbsp;follows:

Frontispiece. A full page illustration, with the Latin phrase in a later hand Genesis in anglico at the top.

Page 2. God enthroned, with the marginal inscription hxlendes hehseld. Below the illustration is the medallion portrait,nbsp;withnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;inscribed on it, which has already been mentioned.

Page 3. Hu se engyP ongon ofermod wesan.

‘ The MS. has sengyl. This descriptive sentence has been partly cut off by the binder of the manuscript (see Gollancz, Tiie Csedmon Manuscript,nbsp;p. xxxix).

INTRODUCTION

Her se haelend gesceop' helle heom to wite.

Her se^

6. Her he® gesyndrode wiEter and eorSan.

^^ge 7. Her he todaelde daeg wiS nihte. The word Salvator, in a late hand, appears in a picture of the Deity,nbsp;i^nge 9. Her godes englas astigan of heouenan into paradisum.nbsp;Her drihten gescop adames wif euam.

Her drihten gewearp sclep on adam and genam him an rib of ha sidan and gescop his wif of ham ribbe. The name Evanbsp;is written above the picture of Eve, and michael above anbsp;picture of Michael.

I'age 13. The words qodda mare, i.e., quoddam mare, “a certain water,” are inscribed on a picture of water with fishes in it.nbsp;^age 56. Seth wees seeli. The picture containing these words,nbsp;which are in a different hand from that in the other inscriptions, is on the same page as Gen. 1138, Seth wses gesaelig.

MINOR ADDITIONS

Besides the corrections and additions in the manuscript already mentioned, a few minor details are to be noted: {a) Atnbsp;ihe top of p. 1, above the opening lines of Genesis, a latenbsp;aiedieval hand has written Genesis in lingua Saxania. (b)nbsp;Occasionally the letters x 6 appear in the margin of the manuscript, as on pp. 1, 2, etc., and less frequently merely x, as onnbsp;PP- 11, etc. The letters stand for an abbreviated prayer, a: fornbsp;Christus, or some form of this word, and 6 for some form ofnbsp;henedicere. At the foot of p. 22 the letters x m (misread bynbsp;various editors as xiii) stand in the margin, the m here probablynbsp;¦representing some form of the verb misereri. These prayersnbsp;Appear only in Liber I of the manuscript. They may have beennbsp;Written by the scribe or the illustrator at the beginning of thenbsp;^ay’s work, but if so, the custom was not carried through sys-

¦ The MS. has gesce, the rest of gesceop being cut off.

‘ This is an unfinished inscription above a picture of hell. Within the picture stands the word inferni.

* her h has been cut off by the binder of the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

tematically even in Liber I. (c) On p. 98 at the lower left margin appear the words healf trymt, with a mark probably of abbreviation above m, and on p. 100, healf tmt, with the mark above the t.nbsp;The abbreviated word stands for tramel, “page,” and the phrasenbsp;is a direction that the next half page is to be left vacant for thenbsp;illustrator, as it is in both instances in the manuscript, (d) Atnbsp;the top of p. 164 occurs the phrase tribus annis transactis, the restnbsp;of the page being vacant, (e) Page 211 is also blank, exceptnbsp;that at the bottom appears the word innan. This may refernbsp;to the words innan healle, Dan. 718, which are on p. 210 of thenbsp;manuscript, facing this blank page. The word may have beennbsp;an indication to the illustrator that the passage containing itnbsp;should be the subject of a full page illustration, i.e., the handwriting on the wall, if) On the margin of p. 212, opposite 11.nbsp;739-740 of Daniel, stands the phrase en rex uenit mansuetusnbsp;lt;fbi sion jilia} (g) At the top of p. 219 stands: omnis homonbsp;primum bonum.

VI

SECTIONAL DIVISIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT

The general division of the manuscript into Liber I and Liber II has already been described. Each of the four poems of thenbsp;manuscript begins at the top of a page, but none has a titlenbsp;supplied by the scribe. A late hand has written above thenbsp;opening of Genesis the words Genesis in lingua Saxania, and anbsp;different hand has inserted the words Genesis in Anglico at thenbsp;top of the full page illustration which serves as frontispiece.nbsp;But the scribe himself has indicated the opening of Genesisnbsp;only by capitalizing all of the words in the first line of his text,nbsp;that is, the first five words of the poem. The first word, VS,nbsp;has a large, ornamental capital. The beginning of Exodus isnbsp;indicated in the same way, but the beginning of Daniel hasnbsp;only the first letter of the first word capitalized, and this capitalnbsp;is a very plain G, probably made by the scribe himself, whereasnbsp;the ornamental capitals at the beginning of Genesis andnbsp;Exodus were made by a professional hand. The beginning of

* The roman letters indicate resolved abbreviations.

INTRODUCTION

Christ and Satan is similar to the beginning of Daniel. Genesis ends on p. 142 with nothing to indicate the ending;nbsp;Exodus breaks off on p. 171, obviously incomplete, withnbsp;nothing again to mark the ending. Only about one-third of p.nbsp;142 and of p. 171 was used, the rest of the pages remaining blank.nbsp;Eaniel extends to the foot of p. 212, and is also incomplete,nbsp;though more of the poem, including the ending, may have beennbsp;contained on a folio lost between p. 212 and p. 213. Christnbsp;and Satan ends on p. 229 with Finit Liber II. Amen. But thisnbsp;poem, in spite of the ending, is also incomplete, though notnbsp;because anything has been lost, since the writing on this lastnbsp;page occupies only about one-half of the page.

Liber I is divided into sections, in all fifty-five, which run continuously through the book. Many of these sections arenbsp;numbered, and the sectional division is regularly indicated bynbsp;spacing and capitalization. In general these sectional divisionsnbsp;correspond to natural breakings in the thought, and “it wouldnbsp;seem that the sectional divisions, not always correctly indicatednbsp;by scribes, were originally structural divisions due to the poet,nbsp;influenced by general considerations as to the approximate lengthnbsp;of a reading, say anything from about 50 to 100 lines.Libernbsp;is also divided into sections, with numberings of their own.nbsp;4ii all there are twelve sections in Liber II; two, three, five,nbsp;S-Hd six are provided with numbers, and all of them with indication of sectional division by spacing and capitalization. Thenbsp;sectional divisions in the manuscript are not always happilynbsp;oiade, but this may be partly due to the accidents of trans-Kiission, though it must be acknowledged also that structure in itsnbsp;iarger aspects was never a strong point with Anglo-Saxon poets.nbsp;The origin and purpose of these structural divisions in Anglo-Saxon poetic manuscripts remains, however, more or less an opennbsp;question. The Sections of the manuscript are listed in Tablenbsp;^4) Pp. xxxix-xl.

VII

CAPITALIZATION IN THE MANUSCRIPT

As in the other Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, the capitals in the Junius Manuscript are relatively infrequent and they are to a

' Gollancz, The Csedmon Manuscript, p. xxxii.

INTRODUCTION

large extent sporadic. They are of two kinds, large capitals and small capitals. The large capitals are used at the beginnings ofnbsp;poems or sections in poems, and nowhere else in the manuscript.nbsp;They usually run through a whole word, sometimes throughnbsp;several words. The first five words of Genesis are all writtennbsp;with large capitals. Many of these large initial capitals in thenbsp;manuscript are elaborately ornamental and were probably donenbsp;by the same person who drew most of the illustrations and whonbsp;presumably had general charge of the decoration of the book.nbsp;The last of these elaborate ornamental capitals appears on p.nbsp;143, at the opening of Exodus, After that, spaces for largenbsp;capitals are vacant or the capitals were supplied in plainer style,nbsp;probably by the scribe. Nothing further need be said aboutnbsp;these large capitals at the beginnings of poems and sections innbsp;poems. The practice of the manuscript in this respect isnbsp;regular and obvious. But the small capitals, though lessnbsp;conventionally used, are more significant. They are not thenbsp;work of the professional illustrator of the manuscript, but of thenbsp;scribes themselves as they wrote. They are not systematicallynbsp;used, but when they appear it is alm^ost always possible to see anbsp;definite purpose in their use. Proper names are sometimes butnbsp;not systematically capitalized. Most frequently the smallnbsp;capitals are logical and mark the beginning of a minor divisionnbsp;in the narrative, that is, of a paragraph. But in Gen. 198-205nbsp;the word inc is capitalized three times, apparently for emphasis.nbsp;In Gen. 279-288 the pronoun ic is capitalized four times,nbsp;evidently to emphasize the parallelism of phrase in this passage.nbsp;In Gen. 2617-2619 the word odre is capitalized twice to enforcenbsp;the antithesis. In Gen. 715 and 2750 the connective isnbsp;capitalized, and in 1. 1248 a section begins with this word,nbsp;ornamented wdth a large capital. Here again the capital seemsnbsp;to mark a rhetorically emphatic word.^

In the first three poems of the manuscript, the use and the relative frequency of small capitals are about the same, thoughnbsp;in Daniel the scribe seems to have been more systematic thannbsp;in the other two poems. In almost every instance in which the

* GoUancz, The Csdmon Mamiscripl, p. xxx, notes that two sections in the manuscript of Beowulf start with this same word.

INTRODUCTION

scribe has used a small capital, modern custom would agree, ®*cept perhaps in the case of Nalles, Dan. 529, and WearS,nbsp;I^an. 604, and even in these two words the capitals may verynbsp;^cll Suit the taste of many modern readers. In Christ andnbsp;Satan the first scribe uses small capitals freely, but the secondnbsp;scribe very sparingly. The few lines written by the third scribenbsp;i^idicate that he would have used small capitals abundantly ifnbsp;had written more. These small capitals throughout thenbsp;Rianuscript will repay study, and a full list of them will benbsp;found in Table III at the end of this Introduction.

VIII

ABBREVIATIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT

The abbreviations in the manuscript are relatively few in number and are for the most part of familiar types. Thenbsp;Common way of indicating abbreviations is by a stroke abovenbsp;fhe letter before the omitted latter, as in Gen. 185, englü glice,nbsp;for englum gelice. But abbreviations in datives like englum,nbsp;ffiough not uncommon in the manuscript, are by no means thenbsp;regular practice, and the abbreviated form glice is very unusual.nbsp;•'Apparently the scribe abbreviated here in order not to start anbsp;new line, which would have run into an illustration. We maynbsp;infer from this that the illustration on this page (p. 9) wasnbsp;drawn before the scribe wrote his text. At various othernbsp;places we can see the scribe resorting to abbreviation under thenbsp;Momentary pressure of the necessity of gaining space. But thisnbsp;is not in general characteristic of the scribal habit in thenbsp;nianuscript. The only two words that are consistently abbreviated in the manuscript are and and pxt. The abbreviationnbsp;for and is regularly 7. Only once or twice is this word writtennbsp;Out as a conjunction, as and, Gen. 1195, and in Gen. 1335.nbsp;fn this second passage it is probable that the scribe first wrotenbsp;by mistake, and then corrected his error by changing 7nbsp;into 0 as the easiest way of disguising the miswritten symbol.nbsp;This abbreviation is also frequently used in forms of andswaru,nbsp;^ndswarian, but only three times in other awd-compounds:nbsp;in andgiettacen, Gen. 1539; andsaca, Ex. 503; and andleofan,

INTRODUCTION

Christ and Satan 520. Whether the abbreviation should be resolved as and or and is perhaps a matter of indifference, andnbsp;the practice of the manuscript in the writing of a or o before ndnbsp;in other words is certainly far from consistent. If the conjunction had been always, or frequently, written out, no doubt thenbsp;same inconsistency would have appeared in its spelling. Thenbsp;regular abbreviation for pxt is p, and this abbreviation standsnbsp;only for pxt in the manuscript. There are a few occurrences ofnbsp;the abbreviation in passages in which it might stand for something else, for example Dan. 189, p hie, which is a little morenbsp;readily explicable as pe hie, “who,” than as pxt hie, or Dan. 717,nbsp;where pa would seem a little more appropriate than pxt. Butnbsp;when one recalls the almost unlimited opportunities the scribenbsp;had for writing the abbreviation forpa,pe, or other forms besidesnbsp;pxt, and did not do so, it is unreasonable to interpret the abbreviation in these few doubtful cases as meaning anything othernbsp;than pxt. If pxt for the abbreviation seems at any time annbsp;inappropriate form, the difficulty must be surmounted bynbsp;emendation, not by a special interpretation of the abbreviation.

IX

PUNCTUATION IN THE MANUSCRIPT

There is a good deal of punctuation of one kind and another in the manuscript. A dot under a letter is frequently used tonbsp;indicate that the letter thus marked is to be deleted. Ends ofnbsp;sections in the manuscript sometimes have a distinctive mark,nbsp;though not always, and there are a few other occurrences ofnbsp;sporadic punctuation in the manuscript. Attention has already been called to the use of small capitals at the beginningsnbsp;of paragraphs, and this also may be considered a kind of punctuation. But the two most abundantly used marks of punctuation are accents over words, and dots marking the hemistichnbsp;divisions of the lines of verse. This latter is obviously anbsp;metrical punctuation, and it is used with remarkable regularitynbsp;and correctness throughout the whole manuscript. Ordinarilynbsp;it consists merely of a dot between one hemistich and thenbsp;following hemistich, but sometimes there is a dot and also a

INTRODUCTION

check-like mark above the dot, or occasionally beneath the dot. A few lines from p. 18 (Gen. 345 ff.) will best illustrate thesenbsp;uses:

• si tan sib (San Vhét hine haere sweartan helle V grundes gyman • nalles wiS god winnan 7 Satan mabelode • sorgiende spraec • senbsp;Se belle forb • healdan sceolde • gilman )7®s grundes • wses

godes engel • hwit on heofne^ • ob hine his hyge forspéon • 7 his ofer métto • éalra swibost • ^ he ne wolde 'Z weredanbsp;drihtnes • word wurbian •

The impression of a slightly unsystematic but on the whole quite definite metrical punctuation which one derives from thesenbsp;lines is confirmed by further examination of the manuscript.nbsp;Only rarely is the manuscript punctuation an unsafe guide tonbsp;the metrical reading, as on p. 39 (Gen. 839) where the manuscript reads

• uton gan on hysne weald • innan • on Jgt;isses holtes hleo • with innan set off by itself probably because the word wasnbsp;emphatic or because the scribe was disturbed by the unusuallynbsp;inng half-line in which the word occurs. Again on p. 123 (Gen.nbsp;2600) the scribe was misled apparently by the slightly unusualnbsp;word order of the passage, thus writing

Hie dydon swa drunenum • code seo yldre to • instead of

Hie dydon swa • drunenum eode • seo yldre to •

This metrical punctuation must obviously have been of the very greatest assistance to anyone who undertook to read the poems ofnbsp;the manuscript aloud, and it is still helpful.

The accent marks of the manuscript are not so systematically employed as the metrical marks, and indeed the purpose of themnbsp;IS often far from clear. They are not used consistently to marknbsp;long vowels, for short vowels frequently have accent marks,nbsp;^nr to mark the alliterating or metrically stressed syllables ofnbsp;lines, nor to make emphatic logically or rhetorically important words in a passage. Apparently they were used fornbsp;^ny of these purposes, when it struck the fancy of the scribe sonbsp;*^o use them. But whatever may have been the purpose of

^Altered to heofnen.

INTRODUCTION

accent marks in other Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, in the Junius Manuscript at least, the accent marks seem to be used morenbsp;frequently for rhetorical emphasis than for any other purpose.nbsp;A complete record of these very numerous accent marks cannotnbsp;be attempted here, but for illustration all the accents on anbsp;single page (p. 14 of the manuscript, Gen. 11.246-270) are given;nbsp;téne (1. 247), his (1. 250), gewit (1. 250), gesétt (1. 252), hienbsp;(1.252), geséliglice (1.252), swa (1. 253a), his (1. 253), lét (1.253),nbsp;him (1. 254), f (1. 255), lóf (1. 256), djiran (1. 257), his 11. 2575),nbsp;léte (1. 258), ac (1. 259), awénde (1. 259), hit (1. 259), him (1.nbsp;259), óngan (1. 259), him (1. 259), up (1. 259), siteS (1. 260),nbsp;ón (1. 260), hé (1. 261), né (1. 261), his (1. 262), ófermod (1. 262),nbsp;ahóf 11. 263), his (1. 263), héte 11. 263), ongéan 11. 264), hisnbsp;(1. 265), lie (1. 265), né (1. 266), hé 11. 266), his 11. 266), géon-gordome (1. 267), J?ühte (1. 268), maran (1. 269), sé (1. 270),nbsp;gód (1. 270).

Occasionally a double accent is found, as in men (Gen. 451), beamas (Gen. 460), but these are rare, whereas the singlenbsp;accents are extraordinarily numerous and extraordinarilynbsp;varied in their application.

Although the accents occur throughout the whole manuscript, in both Liber I and Liber II, they are very unevenly distributed.nbsp;Sometimes there will be no accents throughout an extensivenbsp;passage, and when the accents do occur they often come togethernbsp;in groups. It is quite possible that some of the accents werenbsp;put in by other hands than those of the scribes, perhaps bynbsp;various readers as interpretations of their reading of thenbsp;manuscript.

X

UNITY OF THE POEMS IN THE MANUSCRIPT 1. Genesis

By common consent. Genesis has always been accepted as an appropriate title for this poem. It is, in effect, a versificationnbsp;of the first book of the Old Testament, though it carries thenbsp;story only from the Creation to the sacrifice of Isaac, that is,nbsp;through the 13th verse of the 22d chapter. But there is nonbsp;telling how much more may have been contained in the poem as

INTRODUCTION

originally written, and how much may possibly have been lost. The sequence of events follows the Old Testament narrativenbsp;without deliberate reorganization or reconstruction of thenbsp;material,' and the plan of the poem permitted therefore thenbsp;versification of the whole of Genesis without violation of anynbsp;artistic unity.

The text of the poem as it is preserved in the Junius Manuscript is a composite of the work of at least two different poets. The main body of the text, extending from 1.1 to 1. 234 and fromnbsp;1. 852 to the end is commonly known as Genesis A, or the Oldernbsp;Genesis. The passage from 1. 235 to 1. 851 is known as Genesisnbsp;B, or the Later Genesis.^ Genesis B may certainly be regardednbsp;as an interpolation in Genesis A. The evidence that it is annbsp;interpolation was cogently presented by Sievers in Der Heliandnbsp;und die angelsdchsische Genesis (1875). Sievers pointed out thenbsp;great difference in tone and in detail between Genesis A andnbsp;Genesis B, and he came to the conclusion that Genesis B wasnbsp;not the original work of an Anglo-Saxon poet, but a translationnbsp;into Anglo-Saxon from an Old Saxon poem, no longer extant,nbsp;written by the author of the Old Saxon Heliand in the earlynbsp;part of the ninth century. By a happy accident of discovery,nbsp;this theory was placed beyond question when a fragment of thenbsp;Old Saxon poem of which the Anglo-Saxon is a translation wasnbsp;found in 1894 in the Vatican Library,^ The Old Saxon fragmentnbsp;contains twenty-five lines and one word of the twenty-sixth,nbsp;corresponding to Gen. 791-817. The Anglo-Saxon translationnbsp;follows the Old Saxon so closely that all thought of accidental

^ Sievers, BeitrSge L, 426, would make a threefold division of the text: h- 1-234, Genesis A, in which he finds some slight but genuine survivals ofnbsp;Csedmon’s work as revised by a later Genesis poet; 11. 235-851, Genesis B;nbsp;^¦ad 11. 852 to the end, Genesis C, which he thinks has not the slightestnbsp;connection with Csdmon. These views were more fully elaborated bynbsp;Sievers in “Casdmon und Genesis,” Britannica (Forster Festschrift), 1929,nbsp;PP. 57-84. See also Klaeber, Anglia LIII, 225-234.

^ See Zangemeister und Braune, Bruchsiilcke der altsdchsischen Bibel-dichtung, Heidelberg, 1894. In a review of this book, ZfdPh. XXVII (1895), 534^538, Sievers modified his earlier opinion as to the authorshipnbsp;the OS. fragment and was inclined to regard it as the work of a pupil andnbsp;lautator of the Heliand poet.

INTRODUCTION

similarity or mere imitation is excluded. It may be taken as established, therefore, that Genesis B could not have beennbsp;written before the early ninth century. Intercourse betweennbsp;the Saxons of the Continent and the Anglo-Saxons was notnbsp;uncommon at this time, and no special knowledge of Oldnbsp;Saxon would be needed to enable an Anglo-Saxon to translatenbsp;from that language into his own. It is quite possible, indeed,nbsp;that the translation was one of the many effects of the cosmopolitan activity at Alfred’s court in the second half of the ninthnbsp;century.

No direct evidence is available for dating Genesis A, the Older Genesis, although the end of the seventh or the beginningnbsp;of the eighth century is generally accepted as a probable timenbsp;for the original composition of the poem. Sarrazin has endeavored, on the evidence of meter, to show that Genesis A isnbsp;older than Beowulf and, in fact, the oldest English literarynbsp;monument.! Klaeber, on the evidence of apparent borrowings,nbsp;also decided that Genesis A was older than Beowulf.^ On thenbsp;other hand, Jovy was disposed to consider Beowulf the oldernbsp;of the two poems,^ while Blackburn thought Genesis A youngernbsp;than Beowulf, Exodus, and Daniel.'^ The same uncertaintynbsp;rules concerning the other poems of the manuscript. Althoughnbsp;Blackburn gave Exodus as later than Beowulf, Klaeber,nbsp;working from parallel passages, considered Exodus the oldernbsp;poem of the two.® Daniel, except for the interpolated Prayernbsp;and Song, is, according to Thomas, older than Beowulf,®nbsp;and, according to Hofer, younger than Genesis A.^ But all thenbsp;arguments for relative chronology remain indecisive, through thenbsp;conflicting results to be obtained by the application of differentnbsp;criteria. The language of Genesis A as it is preserved is, innbsp;general. West Saxon of a later period than 700, but there occurnbsp;in the recorded text of the poem a number of forms which are

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Englische Studiën XXXVIII, 170-195.

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Englische Shidien XLII, 321-338.

2 Bonner Beitrage V, 27.

* Exodus and Daniel, p. xxiii.

6 Modern Language Notes XXXIII, 218-224.

® Modern Language Review VIII, 537-539.

' Anglia XII, 191-199.

INTRODUCTION

commonly accounted for as indications of an original Anglian dialect in which the poem was composed and which were blurrednbsp;over when the poem was transcribed into West Saxon.

If the poem was written in the north of England, about the year 700, time and theme fit so exactly the description ofnbsp;Cffidmon as poet given by Bede that the ascription of the poemnbsp;to Caedmon might seem to be beyond cavil. On the whole,nbsp;however, modern scholars have hesitated to assign even Genesisnbsp;A to Caedmon, preferring rather to characterize it as Caedmonian,nbsp;or of the school of Caedmon. Nevertheless the argument isnbsp;by no means all on one side. “Having weighed all thenbsp;evidence,” declares Gollancz, “having tested and investigatednbsp;all the points at issue, I can find nothing against the authenticity of Genesis A, including even the paraphrases of thenbsp;genealogies, as the work of Caedmon.Against this may benbsp;placed Sievers’ characterization of the notion of Caedmon asnbsp;the inventor of a Buchepos as one of the most wrong-headednbsp;delusions that philology has ever fallen into.^

2. Exodus

Though long custom has established Exodus as the title for the second poem in the Junius Manuscript, the name is not wellnbsp;chosen. For Exodus is not in intent merely a paraphrase ofnbsp;the second book of the Old Testament as Genesis is of the first.nbsp;On the contrary it is a carefully organized epic narrative, singlenbsp;in time, in place, and in action. The story moves directlynbsp;to its climax in the passing of the Red Sea, and it ends swiftlynbsp;after the destruction of the Egyptians. The conclusion isnbsp;lacking, but if we may judge from the feeling for structurenbsp;exhibited in the poem as a whole, not much can have been lost.nbsp;The internal evidence of style also separates Exodus sharplynbsp;from Genesis.

The main source of Exodus is the second book of the Old Testament; but of the Old Testament narrative, the poem usesnbsp;only chapters xiii and xiv, with some brief allusions to earlier

^ The Csedmon Manuscript, p. Ixii.

^ Beitrage L (1927), 426. See also his article “Caedmon und Genesis,” in Britannica (Forster Festschrift), 1929, pp. 57-84.

INTRODUCTION

and to later events in the life of Moses. A question of interpolation is raised in Exodus as in Genesis by the presence in Exodus of 11. 362-446, which tell first, briefly, the story ofnbsp;Noah’s Flood, and then at greater length the story of Abrahamnbsp;and Isaac. This digression is greater than many critics havenbsp;thought to be appropriate in a story of the passing of the Rednbsp;Sea, but it is not indefensible. The poet of Exodus has beennbsp;telling the story of a great flood, the flood which drowned thenbsp;evil Egyptians. What more natural than that he should pause,nbsp;having passed the highest point of interest in his narrative, tonbsp;tell about that other great flood which drowned the whole racenbsp;of wicked men, and that having spoken of Noah, he shouldnbsp;proceed to Abraham, with whom also, as with Noah and Moses,nbsp;God made a covenant and to whom he gave the promise of thenbsp;land of Canaan. It will be observed that this episode of Noah’snbsp;Flood and the story of Abraham, is treated in a somewhat simplernbsp;style than the rest of the poem, and perhaps it is not too muchnbsp;to suppose that the poet of Exodus, with his sensitiveness tonbsp;style, consciously reverted in this passage of falling action innbsp;his poem to that older manner of the Ciedmonian poetry asnbsp;appropriate to an episode properly belonging to the story ofnbsp;Genesis. Viewed in this light, the story of Noah’s Flood andnbsp;of Abraham in Exodus is not an inept interpolation, but annbsp;evidence of the artistic skill of the poet. After this quieternbsp;episode, the poet returns to his original theme and manner, andnbsp;except for the loss of some possibly few final lines, the poemnbsp;closes with no effect of incompleteness or disorganization.^

In connection with the latter part of the poem, however, further question has been raised, not as to interpolation, but asnbsp;to possible displacement of parts. After the episode of Noahnbsp;and Abraham, the poet returns to his main theme, which he

* Blackburn, Exodus and Daniel, p. 54, thinks it possible that the scribe was copying a defective manuscript and that in the original copy the poetnbsp;made the transitions to and from this digression more fully and explicitly.nbsp;But there is no evidence that he did so, and episodic passages like this arenbsp;frequently allusive and compact. Gollancz, The Caedmon Manuscript,nbsp;p. Ixxii, says that though the passage may seem a digression and so have thenbsp;appearance of an interpolation, it is in his opinion “an integral part of thenbsp;poet’s elaboration of his theme.”

INTRODUCTION

develops descriptively, ending with the account of the complete destruction of the Egyptians, corresponding to Genesis xiv. 28,nbsp;and with a final statement, 1. 515, “They have striven againstnbsp;God.” The poem, as a poem, might have ended here, but as anbsp;versification of chapters xiii-xiv of Exodus it would have beennbsp;incomplete, since there are three more verses in chapter xiv.nbsp;As the poem stands in the manuscript, however, the poet doesnbsp;not proceed directly to the material of these three verses. On thenbsp;contrary, the poem takes a glance into the future: “After that,nbsp;Moses spake lasting counsels to the Israelites on the seashore.”¹nbsp;Or panon, 1. 516, might be translated “at a later time,” “afterwards,” since there is no indication that what Moses said wasnbsp;said to the army at the moment of victory, nor is the matter ofnbsp;this passage immediately relevant or contained in chapter xiv ofnbsp;Exodus. It seems to be indeed a reference to Deuteronomynbsp;and to Moses as the lawgiver, an allusion therefore to matternbsp;far in advance of the theme of this poem. The allusion is verynbsp;brief, however, for the poet passes quickly into a general homileticnbsp;mood, and this passage ends at 1. 548 with a picture of the joysnbsp;of heaven. Then follows a second passage, 11. 549-580, innbsp;which Moses actually does address the army briefly, callingnbsp;their attention to the fulfillment of the Lord’s promise on thisnbsp;day. The passage continues through 1. 579 with an accountnbsp;of the exultation of the children of Israel—they praised thenbsp;Lord, the warriors raised a song of glory, the women in turn,nbsp;the greatest of folk-bands, sang a battle hymn with reverentnbsp;voices. But the words of this song are not given, and apparentlynbsp;we have here a brief and not very exact allusion to the Song ofnbsp;Moses, in Exodus xv, for in the poem it is the Hebrew men andnbsp;women who sing the song, not Moses. It seems quite evidentnbsp;that the poet avoided entering on the matter of Exodus xv,nbsp;perhaps feeling—and rightly—that though the Song of Mosesnbsp;was excellent material for elaboration into poetry, it did notnbsp;properly belong to his poem. Then comes a third passage, 11.

1

This reference to the seashore should not be connected with the destruction of the Eg3rptians, but with Deuteronomy i. 1, where it is said that Moses spoke to all Israel “in the plain over against the Red Sea.” See 1.nbsp;519, note.

INTRODUCTION

5S0-590, which concludes the poem and in which the poet returns once more to the main theme, with emphasis now on the spoilingnbsp;of the Egyptians dead upon the seashore. This corresponds tonbsp;Exodus xiv. 30. The remaining verse, if it was utilized, as itnbsp;may well have been in the lost concluding lines, would havenbsp;returned to Moses as leader of the Israelites and servant of thenbsp;Lord, thus linking the end of the poem with the beginning.

But the question has been raised whether this third passage, 11. 580-590, was at the end of the poem as the poet wrote it, andnbsp;whether these lines ought not to be joined directly to thenbsp;preceding passage in which the final overthrow of the Egyptiansnbsp;has been described in detail, that is, to the passage ending at 1.nbsp;515. Thus Gollancz maintains^ that these three passages arenbsp;all “integral parts of the poem, but have by some mischancenbsp;been copied in the wrong order. We should expect that immediately after the overthrow of the Egyptians, the poet wouldnbsp;describe how Israel was thus saved from the Egyptians, hownbsp;they saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore, how theynbsp;‘feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses,’nbsp;Exodus xiv. 30, 31, the verses preceding the song of Moses.”nbsp;All of this Gollancz thinks is contained in 11. 580-590, and henbsp;would therefore place 11. 580-590 after 1. 515; 11. 549-579, thenbsp;speech of Moses to the army, he would place after 1. 590; andnbsp;11. 516-548, the forward glance at Moses as the lawgiver, henbsp;would place after 1. 579, as the conclusion of the poem. In othernbsp;words, Gollancz would reverse the position of these passages,nbsp;placing them in the order (3) 11. 580-590, (2) 11. 549-579, (1)nbsp;11. 516-548. In this interpretation the poem would be finishednbsp;at the end of 11. 516-548, these lines being intended “as a fittingnbsp;epilogue—Moses is the hero of the epic, and in the story of hisnbsp;achievements as general is added the glorification of his teachingnbsp;as set forth in Deuteronomy.”

That this would have been a possible arrangement of the material of the poem cannot be denied, but it is doubtful if wenbsp;are doing the poet a service in thus rearranging the text. Gollancz maintains that this new arrangement makes the poemnbsp;“an organic whole,” but does not the placing of 11. 516-548 at

* The Cxdmon Manuscript, p. Ixxv.

INTRODUCTION

the end make it less a whole than the present arrangement? To have told the exciting story of the drowning of the Eg3^tiansnbsp;and then to end with a general allusion to Moses as lawgiver,nbsp;would have been an anticlimax. But the rearrangement isnbsp;even worse, for the allusion to Moses as lawgiver is only a smallnbsp;part of 11. 516-548, and the main part of this passage is butnbsp;commonplace, homiletic amplification. In its present positionnbsp;after 1. 515 it is appropriate enough. Just as in the earliernbsp;passage about Noah and Abraham, the poet had stopped for anbsp;momentary glance backward, so now he stops for a momentarynbsp;glance forward, but only a glance, for his present concern is withnbsp;Moses as captain, not as lawgiver. He therefore quickly passesnbsp;on to that kind of didactic sermonizing which is so frequent asnbsp;episodic embellishment in Anglo-Saxon poetry, and when this isnbsp;ended, he comes back to Moses in the address of Moses to thenbsp;Israelites, and in conclusion to the gathering of the booty, theirnbsp;rightful due, from the bodies of the dead Egyptians.

The date of composition of Exodus cannot be determined exactly, and it can be determined relatively, as has been pointednbsp;out, p. xxvi, only with some degree of probability. As tonbsp;authorship, little can be said except that for stylistic reasons itnbsp;seems scarcely credible that the poet or poets who wrote Genesisnbsp;A, in spite of the many excellences in their kind of that poem,nbsp;could have written Exodus.

3. Daniel

The central figure of this poem is Daniel, as it is of the Old Testament book upon which the poem is based. The poemnbsp;utilizes materials from the Vulgate, Daniel i-v, ending with thenbsp;Feast of Belshazzar. It opens with a conventional epic formula,nbsp;followed by a short account of the Jews in Jerusalem (11.1-45), asnbsp;introductory to the main narrative. It is incomplete at thenbsp;end, probably through loss in the manuscript. The subjectnbsp;matter of the missing part was presumably Daniel’s interpretation of the writing on the wall and the account of the slaying ofnbsp;Belshazzar. This would have made a fitting climax for thenbsp;poem, and it seems improbable that the poem ever comprised anbsp;paraphrase of all of the Vulgate Daniel. The story moves

INTRODUCTION

along in regular order, except that 11. 279-439 have the appearance of being an interruption. These lines constitute a kind of lyric interlude in the general narrative course of the poem.nbsp;The main content of them is the Prayer of Azariah and the Songnbsp;of the Three Children, with the necessary connecting linesnbsp;between these and other parts of the poem. The first of thesenbsp;two lyric passages, that is, 11. 279-361, Gollancz regards an annbsp;interpolation and as the work of some other poet.^ He believesnbsp;that the poet of Daniel intentionally omitted this passage fromnbsp;his paraphrase, and that someone else made good the omissionnbsp;by inserting here a version of the Prayer already extant in annbsp;Anglo-Saxon poem. This interpolated passage was taken from anbsp;poem which has fortunately been preserved in the Exeter Booknbsp;and is now commonly entitled Azarias. There can be nonbsp;question of the practical identity of the Azarias and thenbsp;Daniel versions of the Prayer, but just how the one is related tonbsp;the other is not quite so certain. It is clear, however, that thenbsp;Prayer is awkwardly fitted into the poem Daniel. Gollancznbsp;thinks the proper place for it was after 1. 231, when the childrennbsp;had just been put into the fiery furnace, but that the scribe whonbsp;interpolated the Prayer made a mistake and placed it after 1.nbsp;278, with the result that a prayer for aid is sung after the aidnbsp;had been given. The interpolator continued the interpolatednbsp;passage to 1. 3S6b, and continued it too long, since 11. 335J-356anbsp;repeat what the Daniel poet had already paraphrased, 11.232 ff.,nbsp;the account of the angel and of the pleasant summer weather innbsp;the fiery furnace. With 1. 356amp; we apparently return to thenbsp;words of the poet of Daniel, 11. 356J-361 leading up to thenbsp;introduction of the Song of the Three Children. This may benbsp;the right explanation of the presence of the Prayer in Daniel,nbsp;but it should be pointed out that even if the Prayer had beennbsp;interpolated, or inserted by the poet himself, after 1. 231, itnbsp;would still have been awkward to have this somewhat long andnbsp;irrelevant lyric thrust in just at a moment of high suspense innbsp;the action.

The Song of the Three Children, 11. 362-408, corresponds to the Benedicite in the Vulgate, Daniel iii. 52-90, the Benedicite

' The Cxdmon Manuscript, p. Ixxxvi.

INTRODUCTION

proper beginning with verse 57. This Song follows the Prayer in the Exeter Book Azarias as in Daniel, but the differencesnbsp;between the Azarias Song and the Daniel Song are so greatnbsp;as to make of them separate versions of the same material.nbsp;The Daniel Song cannot be an interpolation, therefore, as thenbsp;Daniel Prayer may well be, though the evidence of phrasingnbsp;indicates that the two versions of the Song are not independentnbsp;of each other. The doubtful point is, which is the earlier of thenbsp;two versions? Gollancz thinks that the poet of Azarias knewnbsp;and in some details followed the version of the poet of Daniel.^nbsp;The earlier investigations of the question arrived at no convincing results, and perhaps the whole matter may be said to be stillnbsp;open for consideration.^ For if it is true that Daniel is indebted to Azarias for the Prayer of Azariah, i.e., Dan. 279-361,nbsp;and Azarias is indebted to Daniel for some of the phrasingnbsp;of the Song of the Three Children, the possibilities obviouslynbsp;become more numerous than those of simple borrowing andnbsp;interpolating. We may have to do with different poems andnbsp;versions by the same author, or with collaboration, or withnbsp;dependence on common sources.

The Song of the Three Children corresponds to the Benedicite in the Vulgate, Daniel iii. 57-90, but neither the poet of Azariasnbsp;nor the poet of Daniel used the Vulgate version of the Benedicite, but a Canticle version which differed in a number ofnbsp;respects from the Vulgate version.^ A copy of this Canticlenbsp;version, in Latin with an interlinear Anglo-Saxon gloss, isnbsp;readily accessible in Sweet’s Oldest English Texts, pp. 414-415,nbsp;among the hymns in the Vespasian Psalter, where it is entitlednbsp;Hymnum trium puerorum. The Vulgate passages which underlie the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Childrennbsp;are not present in the authorized English Bible.

4. Christ and Satan

The vexed question of unity raises its head again in connection with the fourth and last poem in the Junius Manuscript. So

' The Cximon Manuscript, pp. xc-xci.

“ See Blackburn, Exodus and Daniel, p. xxiv.

® See Steiner, Ueber die Interpolation im angelsachsischen Gedichte Daniel (1889), pp. 21-25.

INTRODUCTION

far as the record of the manuscript goes, there is nothing to indicate that this is not a single unified poem. It begins in thenbsp;usual way and it is divided into sections in the same manner asnbsp;the other poems of the manuscript. The opening lines are anbsp;slight variation of the customary Anglo-Saxon epic formula fornbsp;the beginning of a poem. And the poem is so uniform in content, in manner, and in language, that no separation into parts ofnbsp;different origin is indicated on these grounds. The chiefnbsp;reason for doubting the unity of the poem, for viewing it, asnbsp;some have done, as a loose collection of fragments, has beennbsp;found in the vague continuity of the narrative or structuralnbsp;interest in the poem. Grein treated the poem as a unit in thenbsp;Bibliothek (1857), and was the first to give to it the title Christnbsp;AND Satan. In his revision of Grein, Wülker (1894) dividednbsp;the poem into three parts, each with a title of its own. Thenbsp;first part, 11. 1-364, he called Die Klagen der Gefallnen Engel,nbsp;the second part, U. 365-662, he called Christ! Höllenfahrt,nbsp;Auferstehung, Himmelfahrt und Kommen zum Jüngstennbsp;Gericht, and the third part, 11. 663-729, he called Versuchungnbsp;Christi. These titles were well chosen, and they serve to callnbsp;attention to the fact that whatever continuity the poem has,nbsp;it is not that of a sustained narrative. Clubb prefers Grein’snbsp;single title for the poem, but in his analysis of the structure of it,nbsp;he recognizes the appropriateness of Wiilker’s three divisions,nbsp;which he designates as Part I, The Laments of the Angels whonbsp;rebelled against Christ and fell from Heaven; Part II, Events innbsp;the career of Christ from the Crucifixion to the Last Judgment;nbsp;and Part III, The Temptation of Christ. Another arrangementnbsp;proposes that these three parts be placed in the order I, III, II,nbsp;in order to improve the logical coherence of the parts.^ Gollancznbsp;likewise approves the three main divisions of the poem, thoughnbsp;he thinks the second division should end with 1. 596 and thenbsp;third begin with 1. 597.

It is obvious therefore that Christ and Satan does not contain a simple story, like Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel,nbsp;that in fact it is not primarily a narrative poem. It is betternbsp;described as a set of lyric and dramatic amplifications of a

iR. L. Greene, Modern Language Notes XLIII (1928), 108-110.

INTRODUCTION

number of Biblical and legendary themes of a familiar character, as a poem therefore more in the manner of Cynewulfian thannbsp;in that of Csedmonian verse. In a poem of this kind onenbsp;would not look for as obvious a structural form as would benbsp;expected in a narrative poem. Clubb makes a good case fornbsp;the poem as “the product of a single molding spirit.’'^ Gollancznbsp;also sees in the poem “a unity with three divisions,” and henbsp;detects “the same type of mind at work in the various sectionsnbsp;forming Book II of the manuscript, and the same unusualnbsp;theological knowledge and outlook.”^ It is quite probablenbsp;that the poet began to write without a developed plan in hisnbsp;mind, that his design grew as he wrote, and it is possible alsonbsp;that the poem was still in a growing and formative stage whennbsp;the manuscript from which the extant copy was made passednbsp;out of the hands of the poet.

No single source has been found for Christ and Satan as a whole, and it is probable that it never had one. The first part,nbsp;containing the laments of the fallen angels, rests upon the laternbsp;legendary development of this theme, and upon the meagernbsp;statements of the Old Testament. But there is little evidencenbsp;that the poet in this part of his poem “was drawing from Latinnbsp;documents, either Scriptural, apocryphal, or patristic.”® Anbsp;number of parallels indicate that the poet was well acquaintednbsp;with the Cynewulfian poems, and certain similarities betweennbsp;Christ and Satan and Guthlac A seem best accounted for asnbsp;the result of the use of a common source. The second part isnbsp;mainly occupied with the theme of the Harrowing of Hell,nbsp;the Resurrection, the Ascension (the second part ending here,nbsp;at 1. 596, according to Gollancz), and the Judgment Day. Thenbsp;general tone of this part of the poem, as well as the similarity itnbsp;bears to certain extant examples of homiletic literature, suggestsnbsp;that this part of the poem may have had a homily for Easternbsp;Sunday as its source.^ No homily which exactly fits thenbsp;situation has been found, however, and perhaps it is not neces-

^ Christ and Satan, p. Ivi.

^ The Cxdmon Manuscript, p. cv.

® Clubb, Christ and Satan, p. xxxii. * See Clubb, ibid., pp. xxxiv ff.

INTRODUCTION

sary to look for one. For manifestly an ecclesiastic as well supplied with good pulpit material as the poet of Christ andnbsp;Satan must have been could easily write his own Easternbsp;homily—at the same time that he was writing his poem. Innbsp;the third part of the poem, apart from passages which seem to benbsp;due to his own imagination, the poet “would seem to havenbsp;depended upon his well-stocked, but not especially accurate,nbsp;memory of Gospel story.’”^

With respect to authorship, the most definite thing that can be said is that Christ and Satan was not written by Ciedmonnbsp;and is not a Caedmonian poem. Its closest literary relationsnbsp;are with Cynewulfian poetry, and this connection is importantnbsp;also in determining the date of composition of the poem. Itnbsp;seems most probable that the poem was written in the eighthnbsp;century, but according to Clubb, what we know does not “warrant assigning a moré precise period for the composition ofnbsp;Christ and Satan than 790-830.”^

XI

INTRODUCTION

‘ Written twice in MS., at the end and at the beginning of a page.

INTRODUCTION

XII

Table II

SECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The sectional divisions as they are contained in the manuscript are given according to the lines of this edition in the following table, the numbers in square brackets not beingnbsp;present in the manuscript.

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Incomplete at the end owing to the loss of probably three folios betweennbsp;pages 8 and 9, which contained the end of [III] and the opening of [IV].

2 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Incomplete at the beginning owing to the loss of folios in the manuscript.nbsp;2 Incomplete at the beginning owing to the loss of probably two folios

between pages 12 and 13.

1 Section VII begins with brand, in the middle of a sentence, and Section [VI] ends with tomiddes, probably through a mistake of the illustrator.nbsp;The original ending of [VI] was probably 1. 320 and the beginning of VIInbsp;was 1. 321 (Gollancz, The Csedmon Manuscript, p. cix).

INTRODUCTION

Vn[I] Gen. 389-441gt;

[IX-X] Missing»

[XI] Gen. 442-546 [XII] Gen. 547-683nbsp;[XIII] Gen. 684-820nbsp;[XIV] Gen. 821-871nbsp;[XV] Gen. 872-917nbsp;XVI Gen. 918-1001nbsp;XVII Gen. 1002-1081nbsp;XVIII Gen. 1082-1166nbsp;[XPVIIII Gen. 1167-1247nbsp;XX Gen. 1248-1326nbsp;XXI Gen. 1327-1406nbsp;XXII Gen. 1407-1482nbsp;XXIII Gen. 1483-1554nbsp;XXIIII Gen. 1555-1636nbsp;XXV Gen. 1637-1718nbsp;[XXVI] Gen. 1719-1804nbsp;[XXVII] Gen. 1805-1889nbsp;[nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;] Gen. 1890-1959^

XXVIII Gen. 1960-2017 XXVIIII Gen. 2018-2095nbsp;[XXX] Gen. 2096-2172nbsp;[XXXI] Gen. 2173-2260nbsp;[XXXII] Gen. 2261-2337nbsp;[XXXIII] Gen. 2338-2398nbsp;XXXIIII Gen. 2399-2418=nbsp;XXXV Gen. 2419-2512nbsp;[XXXVI] Gen. 2513-25750nbsp;XXXVII Gen. 2576-2620nbsp;XXXVIII Gen. 2621-2690

‘ Incomplete at the end through the loss of a number of folios. Marked VII at the bottom of p. 19, probably a mistake for VIII.

» Sections IX and X must be assumed to be missing because counting back from XVI, the next numbered section in the manuscript, all the sectionsnbsp;from XV to XI appear regularly in the manuscript, though without numbering, and VIII follows regularly after numbered VII.

= The X for the nineteenth number was apparently omitted inadvertently.

* The section following this is numbered XXVIII and the one before it is without number, but follows in order after XXV and [XXVI ]. Apparentlynbsp;the scribe omitted to count this section.

= A leaf has been cut out of the manuscript between pages 110 and 111.

® The beginning of [XXXVI] is lacking, a leaf having been cut out between pages 116 and 117.

’’ This section begins at the middle of a sentence. It is incomplete at the end through the loss of two folios.

INTRODUCTION

XIII

Table III

SMALL CAPITALS IN THE MANUSCRIPT

Since the small capitals are sometimes merely the ordinary small letters made larger, it is not always possible to tell whethernbsp;a letter was intended to be a capital or not. If the capitals hadnbsp;rhetorical value, as it seems they must have had, the scribenbsp;may have felt that there were degrees of capitalization, anbsp;feeling that would be reflected in the size of his letters. In thenbsp;following lists, only those words are listed in which the capitalnbsp;letter is distinctly different from the ordinary small latter,nbsp;and in all instances only the first letter of the word is capitalized.nbsp;Occasionally the conventions of Modern English have requirednbsp;the substitution in the text of a small letter for the capitalsnbsp;of the manuscript.

Genesis

INTRODUCTION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Manuscript and Reproductions

1705 Wanley, Humphrey. Antiquas literaturae Septentrionalis Liber Alter. Seu Humphredi Wanleii Librorum Vett.nbsp;Septentrionalium, qui in Angliae Bibliothecis extant, nec nonnbsp;multorum Vett. Codd. Septentrionalium alibi extantiumnbsp;Catalogus Historico-Criticus, cum totius Thesauri lingu-arum Septentrionalium sex Indicibus. Oxoniae . . .nbsp;MDCCV. Description of the MS., p. 77.

1833 Ellis, Henry. Account of Caedmon’s Metrical Paraphrase of Scripture History, an illuminated manuscript of thenbsp;Tenth Century, preserved in the Bodleian Library atnbsp;Oxford. London, 1833. Originally published in Archaeo-logia XXIV, 329-343. Contains reproductions of the MS.nbsp;illustrations.

1872 SiEVERS, Eduard. Collationen angelsachsischer Gedichte. Zeitschrift fiir deutsches AUertum XV, 456-467. The poemsnbsp;of the Junius MS., pp. 457-461.

1887 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Stoddard, Francis H. Accent Collation of Caedmon’s

Genesis B. Modern Language Notes 11, nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Collation

with Thorpe’s report of the accents.

1888 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Stoddard, Francis H. The Caedmon Poems in MS. Junius

XI. Anglia X, 157-167. Description of the MS., especially the gatherings and chapter numbering.

1895 Piper, Paul. Die Heliandhandschriften. Johrbuck des Vereins fur niederdeutsche Sprachforschung XXI, 17-59.nbsp;Collation of Genesis B, pp. 58-59.

1927 Gollancz, Israel. The Caedmon Manuscript of Anglo-Saxon Biblical Poetry, Junius XI in the Bodleian Library. Oxford, 1927. Complete, full-sized facsimile of the MS.

II. Complete Texts

1655 Junius, Francis. Caedmonis Monachi Paraphrasis Poëtica Genesios ac praecipuarum Sacrae paginae Historiarum,nbsp;abhinc annos M.LXX. Anglo-Saxonicè conscripta, amp;nbsp;nunc primum edita . . . Amstelodami . . . MDCLV.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1832 Thorpe, Benjamin. Caedmon’s Metrical Paraphrase of Parts of the Holy Scriptures, in Anglo-Saxon. London, 1832.nbsp;With a literal rendering in Modern English.

1851, Bouterwek, Karl W. Caedmon’s des Angelsachsen biblische

1854 Dichtungen. 1. Theil, Gütersloh, 1854; 2. Theil, Elberfeld, 1851. The Text appeared as 1. Abth., Elberfeld, 1849,nbsp;paged 1-192. 1. Theil was completed by 3. Abth., Gütersloh, 1854, paged i-ccxxxviii and 193-353, containingnbsp;Kirchen- und literarhistorische Einleitung, Übersetzung,nbsp;and Erlauterungen.

1857 Grein, Christian W. M. Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Poesie. 1. Band, Gottingen, 1857. The Junius XI poems,nbsp;pp. 1-114, 129-148.

1894 WÜLKER, Richard P. Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Poesie. 2. Band, Leipzig, 1894. The Junius XI poems,nbsp;pp.318-562.

III. Editions of Separate Texts

1. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Genesis A

1914 Holthausen, Ferdinand. Die altere Genesis mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen, Glossar und der lateinischen Quelle. Heidelberg, 1914. Addenda and errata in Anglia XLVInbsp;(1922), 60-62.

2. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Genesis B

1875 SiEVERS, Eduard. Der Heliand und die angelsachsische Genesis. HaUe, 1875.

1894 Zangemeister, Karl, and Wilhelm Braune. Bruchstucke der altsachsischen Bibeldichtung aus der Bibliothecanbsp;Palatina. Heidelberg, 1894. Old Saxon Genesis, pp.nbsp;42-55.

1897 Piper, Paul. Die altsachsische Bibeldichtung (Heliand und Genesis). Stuttgart, 1897. Genesis B, pp. 460-486.

1903 Behaghel, Otto. Heliand und Genesis. Halle, 1903 (3d ed., 1922). Genesis B, pp. 211-235.

1913 Klaeber, Fr. The Later Genesis and Other Old English and Old Saxon Texts Relating to the Fall of Man. Heidelberg,nbsp;1913. Contains also Genesis A 852-964, Christ and Satannbsp;408-419, 468-492, and the Old Saxon text of Genesisnbsp;791-817.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

3. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Exodus

1883 Hunt, Theodore W. CEedmon’s Exodus and Daniel. Edited from Grein. Boston, 1883 (2d ed., 1885; 3d ed.,nbsp;1888).

1907 Blackburn, Francis A. Exodus and Daniel, Two Old English Poems Preserved in MS. Junius 11 in the Bodleiannbsp;Library of the University of Oxford, England. Boston andnbsp;London, 1907.

4. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Daniel

1883 Hunt, Theodore W. See under 3.

1907 Blackburn, Francis A. See under 3.

1907 Schmidt, Wilhelm. Die altenglische Dichtung ‘Daniel’ (Bearbeiteter Text). Halle, 1907.

1907 Schmidt, Wilhelm. Die altenglischen Dichtungen Daniel und Azarias. Bearbeiteter Text mit metrischen, sprach-lichen und textkritischen Bemerkungen, sowie einemnbsp;Wörterbuche. Bonner Beitrage XXIII, 1-84.

5. Christ and Satan

1925 Clubb, Merrel D. Christ and Satan, an Old English Poem, New Haven, 1925.

IV. Partial Texts

1826 CoNYBEARE, JOHN J. Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. London, 1826. Genesis 356-378, Exodus 447-463a, 489-494a, with translations in Latin.

1838 Leo, Heinrich. Altsachsische und angelsachsische Sprach-proben. Halle, 1838. Genesis 547-820.

1849 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Klipstein, Louis F. Analecta Anglo-Saxonica. Vol. H.

New York, 1849. Genesis 1-820, 1371-1482, 1964-2017, 2542-2575, Exodus 68-85, 107-129, 447-513.

1850 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ettmüller, Ludwig. Engla and Seaxna Scopas and Boceras.

Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1850. Genesis 246-964, Christ and Satan 1-223, 365-511.

1852 Greverus, J. P. E. Casdmon’s Schöpfung und Abfall der bösen Engel aus dem Angelsachsischen iibersetzt nebstnbsp;Anmerkungen. Oldenburg, 1852. Genesis 1-441, with anbsp;German translation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1854 GreVerus, J. P. E. Csdmon’s Sündenfall aus dem Angel-sachsischen übersetzt nebst Anmerkungen. Oldenburg, 1854. Genesis 442-964, with a German translation.

1861 Rieger, Max. Alt- und angelsachsisches Lesebuch. Giessen, 1861. Genesis 246-321, 347-452, Christ and Satan 159-188.

1870 March, Francis A. Introduction to Anglo-Saxon. An Anglo-Saxon Reader, with Philological Notes, a Briefnbsp;Grammar, and a Vocabulary. New York, 1870. Genesisnbsp;103-134, 347-388, Exodus 68-85, 106-134, 154-182.

1875 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Carpenter, Stephen H. An Introduction to the Study

of the Anglo-Saxon Language. Boston, 1875. . Genesis 103-134, 143-163, 169-191, 206-215, 239-245, 261-397(i,nbsp;432-437, 1285-1482, Exodus 54-62, 68-85, 876-97, 1076-140a, 154-306, 447-515.

1876 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sweet, Henry. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. Oxford, 1876

(9th ed., revised by C. T. Onions, 1922). Genesis 246-441. 1880 KÖRNER, ELare. Einleitung in das Studium des Angel-sachsischen. 2. Teil. Heilbronn, 1880. Genesis 246-441,nbsp;2846-2936, Exodus 1-67, 252-306, Daniel 1-103, withnbsp;German translations.

1888 Kluge, Friedrich. Angelsachsisches Lesebuch. Halle, 1888. Genesis 1-441, Exodus 1-361,447-590.

1891 Bright, James W. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. New York, 1891 (4th ed., 1917). Genesis 2846-2936.

1893 MacLean, G. E. An Old and Middle English Reader. New York, 1893. Genesis 2846-2936, based on Zupitza.

1909 Williams, O. T. Short Extracts from Old English Poetry. Bangor, 1909. Genesis 9696-1021, 1356-1399, 1407-1476a,nbsp;1960-2013a, 2018-2089a, 24066-2418, 2535-2562a, 2576-2586, Exodus 252-298, 397-442, 447-487, Daniel 224-267,nbsp;495-522, 546-582, 695-740, Christ and Satan 19-64, 75-124,nbsp;383-434, 679-722.

1911 Napier, Arthur S. See under VI.

1913 Klaeber, Fr. The Later Genesis. See under III, 2.

1913 Forster, Max. Altenglisches Lesebuch fur Anfanger.

Heidelberg, 1913 (3d ed., 1928). Genesis 2885-2936.

1915 Zupitza, J., and J. Schipper. Alt- und Mittelenglisches Übungsbuch. 11th edition, Wien and Leipzig, 1915.nbsp;Genesis 2846-2936. This first appeared as J. Zupitza,nbsp;Altenglisches Übungsbuch, Wien, 1874.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wyatt, Alfred J. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. Cambridge, 1919. Genesis 304-437.

Sedgefield, W. J. An Anglo-Saxon Verse Book. Manchester, 1922. Exodus 1-361,447-590.

Craigie, W. a. Specimens of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. I. Biblical and Classical Themes. Edinburgh, 1923. Genesisnbsp;12-46, 65-77, 103-166, 187-205, 246-598, 1002-1054,nbsp;1285-1482, 1644-1701, 1960-2045, 2049-2095, 2261-2298,nbsp;2399-2458, 2492-2512, 2535-2575, 2846-2936, Exodusnbsp;54-134, 154-188, 252-304, 397-515, 549-579, Danielnbsp;104-162, 188-278, 335-354, 430-453, 495-588, 612-644,nbsp;671-746, Christ and Satan 1-74.

Craigie, W. A. Specimens of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. II. Early Christian Lore and Legend. Edinburgh, 1926.nbsp;Christ and Satan 665-709.

1926 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Wyatt, Alfred J. The Threshold of Anglo-Saxon. New

York, 1926. Genesis 5335-546, 8125-826.

1927 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Turk, Milton H. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. New York,

1927. Genesis 2846-2936.

1929 Krapp, George P., and Arthur G. Kennedy. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. New York, 1929. Genesis 1356-1482.

V. Translations¹

1826 CoNYBEARE, JOHN J. See under IV.

1832 Thorpe, Benjamin. See under II.

1852 Greverus, J. P. E. See under IV.

1854 Greverus, J. P. E. See under IV.

1854 Bouterwek, Karl W. See under II.

1857 Grein, C. W. M. Dichtungen der Angelsachsen stabreimend übersetzt. Vol. I, pp. 1-118,128-148. Gottingen, 1857.nbsp;1860 Bosanquet, W. H. F. The Fall of Man or Paradise Lost ofnbsp;Caedmon. London, 1860. Genesis 1-956.

1880 Körner, KIarl. See under IV.

1896 Gurteen, S. Humphreys. See under VI.

1902 Cook, Alberts., and ChaunceyB. Tinker. Select Translations from Old English Poetry. Boston, 1902. Genesis l-131a, 246-457a, Exodus 98-128,154-165, 477-506a.

1

The interleaved copy of the edition of the manuscript by Junius in the Harvard University Library, the same copy which was used by Thorpe innbsp;the preparation of his edition, contains an autograph translation by W. D.nbsp;Conybeare of Genesis 1-2265 and Exodus 1-482.

1 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;BIBLIOGRAPHY

1903 Johnson, Williams. Translation of the Old English Exodus. Journal of English and Germanic Philology V, 44-57.

1915 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Mason, Latoence. Genesis A, translated from the Old

English. New York, 1915.

1916 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Kennedy, Charles W. The Caedmon Poems, translated

into English Prose. London, 1916. Contains reproductions of the illustrations.

1921 Spaeth, J. Duncan. Old English Poetry. Translations into Alliterative Verse, with Introductions and Notes. Princeton, 1921. Genesis 246-764 (with slight omissions),nbsp;Exodus 447-515.

1927 Gordon, Robert K. Anglo-Saxon Poetry. London and Toronto, 1927. Genesis 1-111, 235-851,1960-2095, Exodusnbsp;1-306, 447-590, Daniel 1-45, 224-488a, Christ and Satannbsp;1-223,365-467.

VI. Critical Discussions

1845 Bouterwek, Karl W. Über Caedmon den altesten angel-sachsischen Dichter, und desselben metrische Paraphrase der heiligen Schrift. Beilage zum Jahresbericht über dasnbsp;Gymnasium zu Elberfeld, September, 1845.

1845 Bouterwek, KIarl W. De Cedmone poeta Anglo-Saxonum vetustissimo brevis dissertatie. Elberfeld, 1845.

1856 Dietrich, Franz. Zu Cadmon. Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Altertum X, 310-367. Textual and interpretative notes.

1859 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Sandras, S. G. De Carminibus Anglo-Saxonicis Caedmoni

adjudicatis disquisitio. Paris, 1859.

1860 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Götzinger, Ernst. Über die Dichtungen des Angelsachsen

Caedmon und deren Verfasser. Gottingen, 1860.

1865 Grein, Christian W. M. Zur Textkritik der angelsach-sischen Dichter. Germania X, 416-429. Errata and textual notes on the Bibliothek; the Junius XI poems,nbsp;pp. 417-420.

1875 Watson, Robert Spence. Caedmon, the First English Poet. London, 1875.

1875 Strobl, Joseph. Angelsachsische Studiën. Germania XX, 292-305. Textual notes on Exodus.

1882 Balg, Hugo. Der Dichter Caedmon und seine Werke. Bonn, 1882.

1882 Ebert, Adolf. Zur angelsachsischen Genesis. Anglia V, 124-133. Genesis 852-2936 not by Caedmon; comparisonnbsp;with Vulgate text.

lü nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;BIBLIOGRAPHY

1889 Steiner, Georg. Über die Interpolation im angelsachsischen Gedichte Daniel. Leipzig, 1889. Daniel 279-408 annbsp;interpolation.

1889 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Heenze, Alfred. Zur altenglischen Genesis. Berlin, 1889.

Disagrees with A. Ebert, Anglia V, 124; examines use of Vulgate as a source.

1890 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Merrill, K., and C. F. McClumpha. The Parallelisms of the

Anglo-Saxon Genesis. Modern Language Notes V, 328-349.

1891 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Seyfarth, Hermann. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des

Verbums in dem Csedmon beigelegten angelsachsischen Gedicht von der Genesis. Leipzig, 1891.

1893 Lawrence, John. Chapters on Alliterative Verse. London,nbsp;1893. “Metrical Pointing in Codex Junius XI: its relationnbsp;to theories of 0. E. Verse-Structure: collation with Thorpe,”nbsp;pp. 1-37.

1893 Spaeth, J. D. Die Syntax des Verbums in dem angelsachsischen Gedicht Daniel. Leipzig, 1893.

1893 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ferrell, C. C. Teutonic Antiquities in the Anglosaxon

Genesis. Halle, 1893.

1894 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bright, James W. The Anglo-Saxon Poem Genesis,

11. 2906-7. Modern Language Notes IX, 350-351.

1894 Hempl, George. Caedmon’s Genesis, 2906-7. Academynbsp;XL V, 331.

1894 Bradley, Henry. Caedmon's Genesis, 2906-7. Academy XLV, 350.

1894 Holthausen, Ferdinand. Beitrage zur Erklarung und Textkritik altenglischer Dichter. Indogermanische Forsch-ungen IV, 379-388.

1894 CosijN, Peter J. Anglosaxonica. Beitrage XIX, 441-461.

Textual notes on Genesis and Exodus, pp. 444-461.

1894 CosijN, Peter J. Zu Genesis 204. Beitrdge'Kl'X.,526.

1894 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Graz, Friedrich. Die Metrik der sog. Caedmonschen

Dichtungen mit Beriicksichtigung der Verfasserfrage. Weimar, 1894. (Stud, zum germanischen Alliterationsvers,nbsp;3. Heft.) From the point of view of the “Vierhebungs-theorie”; see M. Kaluza in Nos. 1 and 2 of the same series.

1895 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Steche, Georg. Der syntaktische Gebrauch der Conjunc-

tionen in dem angelsachsischen Gedichte von der Genesis. Leipzig, 1895.

1895 CosijN, Peter J. Anglosaxonica. 11. Beitrage XX, 98-116.nbsp;Textual notes on Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Graz, Friedrich. Beitrage zur Textkritik der sogenannten Caïdmon’schen Dichtungen. EngUsche Studiën XXI, 1-27.

SiEVERS, Eduard. Wie man Conjecturen macht. Beitrage XX, 553. Note on Graz, Englische Studiën XXI, 2.

Holthausen, Ferdinand. [Review of Grein-Wiilker, Vol. II, Part II.] Anglia, Beiblatt V, 193-198, 225-234. Textual notes on the Junius XI poems, pp. 227-233.

Graz, Friedrich. Beitrage zur Textkritik der sogenannten Csedmonschen Genesis. In Festschrift zum 70. Geburts-tage Oskar Schade, Königsberg, 1896, pp. 67-77.

Gurteen, S. Humphreys. The Epic of the Fall of Man: a Comparative Study of Caedmon, Dante and Milton. Newnbsp;York and London, 1896. Contains a verse translation ofnbsp;Genesis 1-964.

CosijN, Peter J. Anglosaxonica. III. Beitrage XXI, 8-26. Textual notes on Christ and Satan, pp. 21-25.

Napier, A. Zu Daniel 266-7. Archin XCVIII, 397.

Bradley, Henry. Daniel 266-7. Archiv'K£AX.,\n.

Lawrence, John. A Mutilated Word in Codex Junius XI. Modern Quarterly of Language I {Mod. Lang. Quarterly II),nbsp;50. Wreccum, Exodus 533.

MÜRKENS, Gerhard. Untersuchungen über das altenglische Exoduslied. Bonner Beitrage II, 62-117. Textual notes,nbsp;pp. 113-117.

Holthausen, Ferdinand. [Review of Bonner Beitrage II; see Mürkens, above.] Literaturhlatt XXI, 62-64.

Jovy, Hans. Untersuchungen zur altenglischen Genesis-dichtung. Bonner Beitrage V, 1-32. Textual notes, pp. 27-32.

Fulton, Edward. The Anglo-Saxon Daniel 320-325. Modern Language Notes XVI, 122-123.

Bright, James W. Notes on the Casdmonian Exodus. Modern Language Notes XVH, 424-426.

Gaskin, Robert T. Ca;dmon the First English Poet. 3d ed., London, 1902.

Holthausen, Ferdinand. Zur altsachsischen und jüngeren altenglischen Genesis. Anglia, Beiblatt XIII, 266. Genesis 813-814.

Binz, Gustav. [Review of Bonner Beitrage II; see Mürkens, above.] Anglia, Beiblatt XIV, 353-360.

Bright, James Mb Jottings on the Casdmonian Christ and Satan. Modern Language Notes XVIII, 129-131.

liv nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;BIBLIOGRAPHY

1903 Bechtel, Feitz. Ein Einwand gegen den aolischen Homer.nbsp;In Vepas, Abhandlungen zur indogermanischen Sprach-geschichte, Gottingen, 1903, pp. 17-32. Examination ofnbsp;the Old Saxon elements in Genesis B in relation to thenbsp;analogous problem of an Aeolic Homer.

1903 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Kock, Ernst A. Interpretations and Emendations of Early

English Texts. HI. Anglia XXVII 218-237.

1904 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Klaeber, Fr. Zu altenglischen Dichtungen. Arckiv CXIII,

146-149.

1905 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Holthausen, Ferdinand. Zur Quellenkunde und Text-

kritik der altengl. Exodus. Archiv CXV, 162-163.

1905 Grüters, Otto. Über einige Beziehungen zwischen altsach-sischer und altenglischer Dichtung. Bonner Beitragenbsp;XVII, 1-50. Comparison of Genesis B, considered as anbsp;translation from Old Saxon, with the Christ, pp. 5-34.

1905 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Route, James E., Jr. Two Studies on the Ballad Theory of

the Beowulf. Baltimore, 1905. Note on Exodus 580, p. 54.

1906 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Robinson, F. N. A Note on the Sources of the Old Saxon

Genesis. Modern Philology IV, 389-396.

1907 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Holthausen, Ferdinand. Zur Textkritik altenglischer Dicht

ungen. Englische Studiën XXXVII, 198-211.

1907 Holthausen, Ferdinand. Zur altenglischen Literatur. IV. Anglia, Beiblatt XVHI, 201-208. Textual notes; note onnbsp;sources of Exodus.

1907 Dethloff, Robert. Darstellung der Syntax im angel-sachsischen Gedicht Daniel. Rostock, 1907.

1907 Meyer, Ernst. Darstellung der syntaktischen Erschein-ungen in dem angelsachsischen Gedicht Christ und Satan. Rostock, 1907.

1907 Walter, Ludwig. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Verbums in dem angelsachsischen Gedichte Christ und Satan.nbsp;Rostock, 1907.

1907 Sarrazin, Gregor. Zur Chronologie und Verfasserfrage angelsachsischer Dichtungen. Englische Studiën XXXVIII,nbsp;145-195. “Das Beowulflied und die altere Genesis,” pp.nbsp;170-195.

1909 Williams, 0. T. A Note on Exodus, 11. 56 fl. Modern Language Review IV, 507-508. Explanation of gu'Smyrce.

1909 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Klaeber, Fr. [Review of Blackburn’s Exodus and Daniel.]

Englische Studiën'KL1, 105-113.

1910 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Holthausen, F’erdinand. Zur altenglischen Literatur. IX.

Anglia, Beiblatt XXI, 12-14.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1910 Richter, Carl. Chronologische Studiën zurangelsachsischennbsp;Literatur auf Grund sprachlich-metrischer Kriterien.nbsp;Halle, 1910. The Junius XI poems, pp. 16-18,23-35.

1910 Schmitz, Theodor. Die Sechstakter in der altenglischennbsp;Dichtung. Anglia XXXIII, 1-76, 172-218. Containsnbsp;discussions of long lines in the Junius XI poems, withnbsp;textual notes.

1910 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Klaeber, Fr. Die altere Genesis und der Beowulf. Eng-

lische Studiën XLII, 321-338.

1911 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;GajSek, Stephanie von. Milton und Caedmon. Wien,

1911.

1911 Gerould, Gordon H. The Transmission and Date of Genesis B. Modern Language Notes XXVI, 129-133.

1911 Frings, Theodor, and Wole von Unwerth. Miscellen zur ags. Grammatik. Beitrage XXXVI, 559-562. Notenbsp;on wergum, Christ and Satan 42.

1911 Napier, Arthur S. The Old English Exodus, II. 63-134.nbsp;Modern Language Review VI, 165-168. Assumes misplacement of leaves; gives critical text of passage in question.nbsp;1911 Moore, Samuel. The Old English Genesis, 11. 1145 andnbsp;1446-8. Modern Language Review VI, 199-202.

1911 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Moore, Samuel. On the Sources of the Old-English Exodus.

Modern Philology IX, 83-108.

1912 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bright, James W. On the Anglo-Saxon Poem Exodus.

Modern Language Notes XXVII, 13-19. Textual notes. 1912 Holthausen, Ferdinand. Zur altenglischen Literatur.

XIII. Anglia, Beiblatt XXIII, 83-89.

1912 Sperber, H. Exegetische Miszellen. Beitrtige XXXVII,nbsp;148-156. Note on Christ and Satan 42.

1912 SiEVERS, Eduard. Zu Satan 42. Beitrdge XXXVII, 339-340.

1912 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bright, James W. The Relation of the Caedmonian Exodus

to the Liturgy. Modern Language Notes XXVII, 97-103.

1913 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Frings, Theodor. Christ und Satan. Zeitschrift fUr deutsche

Philologie XLV, 216-236. Grammar and MS. corrections as tests of age and authorship.

1913 Seifpert, Friedrich. Die Behandlung der Worter mit auslautenden urspriinglich silbischen Liquiden oder Nasalennbsp;und mit Kontraktionsvokalen in der Genesis A und imnbsp;Beowulf. Halle, 1913.

1913 Klaeber, Fr. Notes on Old English Poems. Journal ofnbsp;English and Germanic Philology XII, 252-261.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1919 Kock, ErnstA. KontinentalgermanischeStreifziige. Lundsnbsp;Universitets Arsskrift, N.F., Avd. 1, Bd. 15, Nr. 3.

1919 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Kock, Ernst A. Interpretations and Emendations of Early

English Texts. V. Anglia XLIII, 298-312.

1920 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Klaeber, Fr. [Review of Kock, Jubilee Jaunts and Jottings.]

Journal of English and Germanic Philology XIX, 409-413. 1920 Bradley, Henry. The ‘Casdmonian’ Genesis. Essays andnbsp;Studies VI, 7-29. Oxford, 1920. Appreciation of Genesis B.nbsp;1920 Holthausen, Ferdinand. Zu altenglischen Dichtungen.nbsp;Anglia XLIV, 346-356.

1920 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Kock, Ernst A. Interpretations and Emendations of Early

English Texts. VI. Anglia XLIV, 97-114; VII. Anglia XLIV, 245-260.

1921 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Holthausen, Ferdinand. Zu altenglischen Gedichten.

Anglia, Beiblatt XXXII, 136-138. Notes on Kock, Anglia XLIV, 106 f.

1921 Sedgeeield, W. J. Suggested Emendations in Old Englishnbsp;Poetical Texts. Modern Language Review XVI, 59-61.

1921 Kock, Ernst A. Interpretations and Emendations of Earlynbsp;English Texts. VHI. Anglia XLV, 105-131.

1921 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;McKillop, Alan D. Illustrative Notes on Genesis B.

Journal of English and Germanic Philology XX, 28-38. Originality of Genesis B.

1922 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Kock, Ernst A. Plain Points and Puzzles. 60 Notes on

Old English Poetry. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, N.F., Avd. 1, Bd. 17, Nr. 7.

1922 Kock, Ernst A. Interpretations and Emendations of Earlynbsp;English Texts. IX. Anglia XLVI, 63-96; X. Anglianbsp;XL VI, 173-190.

1922 Holthausen, Ferdinand. Studiën zur altenglischen Dicht-ung. Anglia XLVI, 52-62. Addenda and Errata to his edition of Genesis A, pp. 60-62.

1924 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Crawford, S. J. A Latin Parallel for Part of the Later

Genesis? A nglia XL VHI, 99-100.

1925 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Klaeber, Fr. Zur jiingeren Genesis. Anglia XLIX,

361-375. Addenda to his edition of Genesis B.

1925 Crawford, S. J. The Caedmon Poems. Anglia XLIX, 279-284. Influence upon Caedmon of the Confession ofnbsp;Faith.

1925 Strauss, Otto. Beitrage zur Syntax der im Codex Junius enthaltenen altenglischen Dichtungen. Die neuerennbsp;Sprachen, 6. Beiheft, 172-182.

Iviii nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;BIBLIOGRAPHY

1925 Berthold, Luise. Die Quellen für die Grundgedanken von V. 235-851 der altsachsisch-angelsachsischen Genesis.nbsp;In Germanica, Eduard Sievers zum 75. Geburtstage, Halle,nbsp;1925, pp. 380-401.

1927 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Klaeber, Fr. Weitere Randglossen zu Texterklarungen.

Anglia, Beiblatt XXXVIII, 354-360.

1928 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Greene, Richard L. A Rearrangement of Christ and Satan.

Modern Language Notes XLIII, 108-110.

1928 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Clubb, Merrel D. The Second Book of the 'Cadmonian’

Manuscript. Modern Language Notes XLIII, 304-306.

1929 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Klaeber, Fr. Jottings on Old English Poems. Anglia

LIII, 225-234.

1929 Sievers, Eduard. Ceedmon und Genesis. In Britannica, Max Forster zum 60. Geburtstage, Leipzig, 1929, ppnbsp;57-84.

GENESIS

GENESIS

GENESIS

Us is riht micel Sset we rodera weard, wereda wuldorcining, wordum herigen,nbsp;modum lufien! He is maegna sped,nbsp;heafod ealra heahgesceafta,

5 frea aelmihtig. Naes him fruma aefre, or geworden, ne nu ende cym]jnbsp;ecean drihtnes, ac he biS a ricenbsp;ofer heofenstolas. Heagum J^rymmumnbsp;sobfasst and swiSfeorm sweglbosmas heold,nbsp;10 pa, waeron gesette wide and side

hurh geweald godes wuldres bearnum, gasta weardum. Haefdon gleam and dream,nbsp;and heora ordfruman, engla hreatas,nbsp;beorhte blisse. Waes heora blaed micel!

15 pegnas prymfaeste peoden heredon, saegdon lustum lof, heora liffreannbsp;demdon, drihtenes dugepum waeronnbsp;swibe gesaelige. Synna ne cupon,nbsp;firena fremman, ac hie on fribe lifdon,

20 ece mid heora aldor. Elies ne ongunnon raeran on roderum nympe riht and sop,nbsp;aerbon engla weard for oferhygdenbsp;dwael on gedwilde. Noldan dreogan lengnbsp;heora selfra raed, ac hie of siblufannbsp;25 godes ahwurfon. Haefdon gielp micelnbsp;pset hie witS drihtne daelan meahtonnbsp;wuldorfaestan wic werodes prymme,nbsp;sid and swegltorht. Him paer sar gelamp,nbsp;aefst and oferhygd, and paes engles modnbsp;30 pe pone unraed ongan aerest fremman,nbsp;wefan and weccean, pa he worde cwaeb.

14 beorhte] beorte wilh h added above the line

I nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;GENESIS

nijjes ofjjyrsted, pxt he on norödaele ham and heahsetl heofena ricesnbsp;agan wolde. pa wearS yrre godnbsp;35 and pam werode wratS pe he asr wurSodenbsp;wlite and wuldre. Sceop pam werlogannbsp;wrfficlicne ham weorce to leane,nbsp;helleheafas, hearde niSas.

Heht peet witehus wraecna bidan,

40 deop, dreama leas, drihten ure, gasta weardas, pa he hit geare wiste,nbsp;synnihte beseald, susle geinnod,nbsp;geondfolen fyre and faercyle,

rece and reade lege. Heht pa geond paet raedlease hof 45 weaxan witebrogan. Haefdon hie wrohtgeteme

grimme wi'5 god gesomnod; him paes grim lean becom!

Cweedon paet heo rice, rebemode, agan woldan, and swa eaöe meahtan.

Him seo wen geleah, siSban waldend his,

50 heofona heahcining, honda araerde,

hehste wiS pam herge. Ne mihton hygelease, msne wib metode, maegyn bryttigan,nbsp;ac him se maera mod getwaefde,nbsp;baelc forbigde. pa he gebolgen wearS,

55 besloh synsceapan sigore and gewealde, dome and dugebe, and dreame benamnbsp;his feond, fribo and gefean ealle,nbsp;torhte tire, and his torn gewraecnbsp;on gesacum swibe selfes mihtumnbsp;60 strengum stiepe. Haefde styrne mod,nbsp;gegremed grymme, grap on wrabenbsp;faum folmum, and him on faebm gebraecnbsp;yrre on mode; aebele bescyredenbsp;his wiberbrecan wuldorgestealdum.

65 Sceof pa and scyrede scyppend ure oferhidig cyn engla of heofnum,nbsp;waerleas werod. Waldend sende

52 bryttigan] bryttigin 63 yrre] yr at the end of a line nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;65 Sceof] Sceop

GENESIS

laSwendne here on langne siS, geomre gastas; waes him gylp forod,

70 beot forborsten, and forbiged Kym, wlite gewemmed. Heo on wrace sy'SSannbsp;seomodon swearte, sibe ne }?orftonnbsp;hlude hlihhan, ac heo helltregumnbsp;werige wunodon and wean cubon,

75 sar and sorge, susl ]?rowedon hystrum be^eahte, Jjearl sefterleannbsp;)?8es he heo ongunnon wib gode winnan.nbsp;pa. waes sob swa aer sibb on heofnum,nbsp;faegre freohoheawas, frea eallum leof,

80 heoden his hegnum; nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;weoxon

duguba mid drihtne, dreamhaebbendra.

Waeron pa gesome, pa pe swegl buab, wuldres ebel. Wroht waes asprungen,nbsp;oht mid englum and orlegnib,

85 sibban herewosan heofon ofgaefon, leohte belorene. Him on laste setl,nbsp;wuldorspedum welig, wide stodannbsp;gifum growende on godes rice,nbsp;beorht and geblaedfaest, buendra leas,

90 sibban wraecstowe werige gastas under hearmlocan heane geforan.

pa heahtode h^oden ure modgehonce, hu he pa maeran gesceaft,nbsp;ebelstabolas eft gesette,

95 swegltorhtan seld, selran werode, ha hie gielpsceahan ofgifen haefdon,nbsp;heah on heofenum. Forham halig godnbsp;under roderas feng, ricum mihtum,nbsp;wolde haet him eorbe and uprodernbsp;100 and sid waeter geseted wurdenbsp;woruldgesceafte on wrabra gield,nbsp;hara he forhealdene of hleo sende.

Ne wses her pa giet nymhe heolstersceado wiht geworden, ac hes wida grund

82 buaS] buan nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;100 geseted] gesetet the final t perhaps altered from d

6 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;GENESIS

105 stod deop and dim, drihtne fremde, idel and unnyt. On Jjone eagum wlatnbsp;stiöfrih)? cining, and pa. stowe beheold,nbsp;dreama lease, geseah deorc gesweorcnbsp;semian sinnihte sweart under roderum,

110 wonn and weste, oSJ^ast J?eos woruldgesceaft ]7urh word gewearS wuldorcyninges.

Her aerest gesceop ece drihten, helm eallwihta, heofon and eorban,nbsp;rodor araerde, and J^is rume landnbsp;115 gestaJ?elode strangum mihtum,nbsp;frea aelmihtig. Folde waes pa, gytanbsp;grses ungrene; garsecg J^eahtenbsp;sweart synnihte, side and wide,nbsp;wonne wsgas. pa waes wuldortorhtnbsp;120 heofonweardes gast of er holm borennbsp;miclum spedum. Metod engla heht,nbsp;lifes brytta, leoht forS cumannbsp;ofer rumne grund. Rape was gefyllednbsp;heahcininges haes; him waes halig leohtnbsp;125 ofer westenne, swa se wyrhta behead,nbsp;pa gesundrode sigora waldendnbsp;ofer laguflode leoht wiS peostrum,nbsp;sceade wiS sciman. Sceop pa bam naman,nbsp;lifes brytta. Leoht waes aerestnbsp;130 purh drihtnes word daeg genemned,nbsp;wlitebeorhte gesceaft. Wei licodenbsp;frean aet frymbe forpbaero tid,nbsp;daeg aeresta; geseah deorc sceadonbsp;sweart swiSrian geond sidne grund.

13.5 pa seo tid gewat ofer timber sceacan middangeardes, metod aefter sceafnbsp;scirum sciman, scippend ure,nbsp;aefen aerest. Him arn on last,nbsp;prang pystre genip, pam pe se peoden selfnbsp;140 sceop nihte naman. Nergend ure

116 gyta] gyt with a following letter erased sceaft] gescaft 13S timber] tiber

GENESIS nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;7

hie gesundrode; siSSan aefre drugon and dydon drihtnes willan,nbsp;ece ofer eorSan. Da com oSer dasg,nbsp;leoht aefter Jjeostrum. Heht j^a lifes weardnbsp;145 on mereflode middum weorSan

hyhtlic heofontimber. Holmas daelde waldend ure and geworhte })anbsp;roderas faesten; pset se rica ahofnbsp;up from eorSan Jjurh his agen word,

150 frea selmihtig. Flod waes adaeled under heahrodore halgum mihtum,nbsp;waeter of waetrum, pa,m pe wuniaS gytnbsp;under fsestenne folca hrofes.nbsp;pa com ofer foldan fus siSiannbsp;155 maere mergen pridda. Naeron metode Sa gytanbsp;widlond ne wegas nytte, ac stod bewrigen faestenbsp;folde mid flode. Frea engla hehtnbsp;purh his word wesan waeter gemaene,nbsp;pa nu under roderum heora ryne healdaS,

160 Stowe gestefnde. Da stod hraSe

holm under heofonum, swa se halga behead, sid astsomne, ba gesundrod waesnbsp;lago wiS lande. Geseah pa lifes weardnbsp;drige stowe, dugoSa hyrde,

165 wide aeteowde, pa se wuldorcyning eorban nemde. Gesette y'Sum heoranbsp;onrihtne ryne, rumum flode,nbsp;and gefetero

sK *

Ne puhte pa gerysne rodora wearde,

170 paet Adam leng ana waere

neorxnawonges, niwre gesceafte,

hyrde and healdend. Forpon him heahcyning,

frea aelmihtig fultum tiode;

wif aweahte and pa wrabe sealde,

175 lifes leohtfruma, leofum rince.

150 Flod] fold 155 metode] Final e above the line gyta] gyt mth a following letter erased 170 Adam] Followed by e erased

GENESIS

He ])3dt andweorc of Adames lice aleoSode, and him listum ateahnbsp;rib of sidan. He waes reste faest,nbsp;and softe swasf, sar ne wiste,

180 earfoba dael, ne psei aenig com blod of benne, ac him brego englanbsp;of lice ateah liodende ban,nbsp;wer unwundod, of )5am worhte godnbsp;freolice faemnan. Feorh in gedyde,

185 ece saula. Heo waeron englum gelice,

]gt;a, waes Eve, Adames bryd, gaste gegearwod. Hie on geogoSe bunbsp;wlitebeorht waeron on woruld cennednbsp;meotodes mihtum. Man ne cubonnbsp;190 don ne dreogan, ac him drihtnes waesnbsp;bam on breostum byrnende lufu.nbsp;pa gebletsode bliSheort cyning,nbsp;metod alwihta, monna cynnesnbsp;lt;5a forman twa, faeder and moder,

195 wif and waepned. He pa worde cwaeS:

“TemaS nu and wexaS, tudre fyllab eorSan aelgrene, incre cynne,nbsp;sunum and dohtrum. Inc sceal sealt waeternbsp;wunian on gewealde and eall worulde gesceaft.nbsp;200 BrucaS blaeddaga and brimhlaestenbsp;and heofonfugla. Inc is halig feohnbsp;and wilde deor on geweald geseald,nbsp;and lifigende, Sa be land tredaS,nbsp;feorheaceno cynn, ba be flod weccebnbsp;205 geond hronrade. Inc hyrab eall.”nbsp;pa sceawode scyppend urenbsp;his weorca wlite and his waestma blaed,nbsp;niwra gesceafta. Neorxnawong stodnbsp;god and gastlic, gifena gefylled

184 freolice] freo lieu gedyde] ge cMed above the line 185 saula] Final a. altered to de gAict] the final a in a different ink 186 Eve]nbsp;Not in MS. 190 ne] Abbreviation for and, with a dot beneath and ne addednbsp;above

GENESIS nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;9

210 fremum forSweardum. Faegere leohte pset liSe land lago yrnende,nbsp;wylleburne. Nalles wolcnu Sa gietnbsp;ofer rumne gmnd regnas baeron,nbsp;wann mid winde, hwaebre waestmum stodnbsp;215 folde gefrsetwod. Heoldon forbrynenbsp;eastreamas heora seSele feowernbsp;of ]7am niwan neorxnawonge.nbsp;pa waeron adaelede drihtnes mihtumnbsp;ealle of anum, pa he pas eorban gesceop,

220 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;waetre wlitebeorhtum, and on woruld sende.nbsp;pasra anne hataS ylde, eorbbuende,

Fison folcweras; se foldan dael brade bebugeb beorhtum streamumnbsp;Hebeleac utan. On paere eSyltyrfnbsp;225 ni'Sbas findab nean and feorran

gold and gymcynn, gumpeoda beam,

Sa selestan, paes pe us secgab bee. ponne seo aeftre Ethiopianbsp;land and liodgeard beligeb uton,

230 ginne rice, paere is Geon noma, pridda is Tigris, seo wiS peodscipe,nbsp;ea inflede, Assirie beliS.

Swilce is seo feorbe, pa nu geond folc monig weras Eufraten wide nemnab.

^ nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;4:

235 “ac niotaö inc paes oÖres ealles, forlaetaS pone asnne beam, wariab inc wiS pone waestm. Ne wyrS inc wilna gaed.”

Hnigon pa mid heafdum heofoncyninge georne togenes and saedon ealles pane,nbsp;lista and para lara. He let heo paet land buan,

240 hwaerf him pa to heofenum halig drihten, stiSferhb cyning. Stod his handgeweorcnbsp;somod on sande, nyston sorga wiht

218 adaelede] A letter erased and d written above the line before the final e

221 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;paera] paere anne] Not in MS. 222 se] sae 223 bebugeS] Withnbsp;u altered to i 229 liodgeard] liod geard with i altered to e 232 Assirie]nbsp;assirig 238 togenes] First e altered from a by the scribe

GENESIS

to begrornianne, butan heo godes willan longest Iffisten. Heo wseron leof godenbsp;245 lt;5enden heo his halige word healdan woldon.

Hasfde se alwalda engelcynna }jurh handmaegen, halig drihten,nbsp;tone getrimede, J^aem he getruwode welnbsp;]?aet hie his giongorscipe fyligan wolden,

250 wyrcean his willan, for^on he him gewit forgeaf and mid his handum gesceop, halig drihten.

Gesett haefde he hie swa gesaeliglice, aenne haefde he swa

swiSne geworhtne,

swa mihtigne on his modgebohte, he let hine swa

micles wealdan,

hehstne to him on heofona rice, haefde he hine swa

hwitne geworhtne,

255 swawynlicwaeshiswsestmonheofonum him com from

weroda drihtne,

gelic waes he b^m leohtum steorrum. Lof sceolde he

drihtnes wyrcean,

dyran sceolde he his dreamas on heofonum, and sceolde

his drihtne hancian

Jjaes leanes )je he him on barn leohte gescerede— jjonne laete he his hine lange wealdan.

Ac he awende hit him to wyrsan Jgt;inge, ongan him winn

up ahebban

260 wi3 }?one hehstan heofnes waldend, siteS on J^am

halgan stole.

Deore waes he drihtne urum; ne mihte him bedyrned

weoröan

Jjaet his engyl ongan ofermod wesan, ahof hine wiS his hearran, sohte hetespraece,

245 Senden] Glossed in the margin J;a hwile 246 alwalda] With e added above the line before the first a 248 tene] tfne with y above the first enbsp;getrimede] With i altered to y 250 him] hjm with eo written above i 255nbsp;wrestm] wsewtm 258 laste] With » altered to e 259 awende, ahebban]nbsp;wende and hebban, initial a added above the line in both words by the scribenbsp;260 waldend] With e added above the line before a 261 urum] ur? with quot;bnbsp;above e weorSan] wfgrSan, with y above eo 263 hearran] herran withnbsp;a above the line after e

GENESIS

gylpword ongean, nolde gode Jjeowian,

265 cwaeS J^aet his lie waere leoht and scene,

hwit and hiowbeorht. Ne meahte he set his hige hndan }gt;aet he gode wolde geongerdome,nbsp;jjeodne )gt;eowian. puhte him sylfumnbsp;jjset he msegyn and erseft maran haefdenbsp;270 l^onne se halga god habban mihtenbsp;folcgestaelna. Eeala worda gespaecnbsp;se engel ofermodes. pohte )?urh his anes craeftnbsp;hu he him strenglicran stol geworhte,nbsp;heahran on heofonum; ewaeS jjset hine his hige speonenbsp;275 })set he west and norS wyreean ongunne,nbsp;trymede getimbro; ewseS him tweo Jpuhtenbsp;)jset he gode wolde geongra weorban.

“Hwast sceal ic winnan?” cwseS he. “Nis me wihtae

Jjearf

hearran to habbanne. Ic maeg mid handum swa fela 280 wundra gewyreean. Ic hsebbe geweald micelnbsp;to gyrwanne godlecran stol,

hearran on heofne. Hwy sceal ic sefter his hyldo beowian, bugan him swilces geongordomes? Ic mseg wesan god

swa he.

BigstandaS me strange geneatas, pa ne willa^ me set

))am stride geswican,

285 hselel^as heardmode. Hie habbatS me to hearran gecorene, rofe rincas; mid swilcum maeg man raed ge]?encean,nbsp;fon mid swilcum folcgesteallan. Frynd synd hie mine

georne,

holde on hyra hygesceaftum. Ic mseg hyra hearra wesan, rsedan on J^is rice. Swa me pset riht ne JjinceS,

290 pset ic oleccan awiht jjurfe

gode sefter gode senegum. Ne wille ic leng his geongra

wurjjan.”

267 he] Added above the line 274 heahran] A letter erased before r, probably o, and the second h altered from n ewasS] Followed by a large caret-shaped mark, with space before and after for one letter; the space betweennbsp;ewreS and pset probably left inadvertently speone] speonne 277nbsp;weorSan] weorS with an added above the line

GENESIS

J)a hit se allwalda eall gehyrde,

})8et his engyl ongan ofermede micel ahebban wiS his hearran and spraec healic wordnbsp;295 dollice wiS drihten sinne, sceolde he ]gt;amp; daed ongyldan,nbsp;wore Jjaes gewinnes gedaelan, and sceolde his wite habban,nbsp;ealra morSra maêst. Swa deS monna gehwilcnbsp;J»e wiS his waldend winnan ongynnebnbsp;mid mane wiS Jjone maeran drihten. pa wearb se mih-

tiga gebolgen,

300 hehsta heofones waldend, wearp hine of pan hean stole. Hete haefde he aet his hearran gewunnen, hyldo haefde

his ferlorene,

gram wearb him se goda on his mode. Forpon he sceolde

grund gesecean

heardes hellewites, paes pe he wann wiS heofnes waldend. Acwaeb hine pa fram his hyldo and hine on helle wearp,nbsp;305 on pa deopan dala, paer he to deofle wearb,

se feond mid his geferum eallum. Feollon pa ufon of

heofnum

purhlonge swa preo niht and dagas, pa englas of heofnum on helle, and heo ealle forsceopnbsp;drihten to deoflum. Forpon heo his deed and wordnbsp;310 noldon weorbian, forpon he heo on wyrse leohtnbsp;under eorban neoSan, aellmihtig god,nbsp;sette sigelease on pa sweartan heUe.nbsp;paer haebbaS heo on aefyn ungemet lange,nbsp;ealra feonda gehwilc, fyr edneowe,

315 ponne cymS on uhtan easterne wind, forst fyrnum cald. Symble fyr obbe gar,nbsp;sum heard geswinc habban sceoldon.

Worhte man hit him to wite, (hyra woruld wees ge-

hwyrfed),

forman sibe, fylde helle 320 mid pam andsacum. Heoldon englas forb

heofonrices hehbe, pe aer godes hyldo geteston.

317 geswinc] gewrinc 319 siSe] siS with e added in a different hand, and a curved stroke of the pen below e

GENESIS

Lagon )5a ot5re fynd on ]gt;a.m fyre, ]7e aer swa feala

haefdon

gewinnes wiS heora waldend. Wite ]7oliaS, hatne heaSowelm helle tomiddes,

325 brand and brade ligas, swilce eac }5a biteran recas, ))rosm and jjystro, for}?on hie J^egnscipenbsp;godes forgymdon. Hie hyra gal beswac,nbsp;engles oferhygd, noldon alwaldannbsp;word weorjjian, ha;fdon wite micel,

330 waeron )ja befeallene fyre to botme on ]ra hatan hell Jjurh hygeleastenbsp;and Jjurh ofermetto, sohton oper land,nbsp;bset waes leohtes leas and waes liges full,nbsp;fyres faer micel. Fynd ongeatonnbsp;335 J)aet hie haefdon gewrixled wita unrim

jpurh heora miclan mod and purh miht godes and J)urh ofermetto ealra swiSost.

pa spraec se ofermoda cyning, pe aer waes engla scynost, hwitost on heofne and his hearran leof,

340 drihtne dyre, oS hie to dole wurdon, paet him for galscipe god sylfa wearbnbsp;mihtig on mode yrre. Wearp hine on paet mortSer innan,nbsp;niSer on paet niobedd, and sceop him naman siSSan,nbsp;cwaeb se hehsta hatan sceoldenbsp;345 Satan siSSan, het hine paere sweartan hellenbsp;grundes gyman, nalles wib god winnan.

Satan mabelode, sorgiende spraec, se Se helle forS healdan sceolde,nbsp;gieman paes grundes. Waes aer godes engel,

350 hwit on heofne, oS hine his hyge forspeon and his ofermetto ealra swiSost,nbsp;paet he ne wolde wereda drihtnes

328 alwaldan] With e above the line after w 330 waeron] waero with n added above the line 336 heora] herra, the first r changed to o 339nbsp;hwitost] A second t added above the line after i 339 heofne] The final enbsp;altered to o and n added above the line 344 cwsecS se] With the abbreviationnbsp;for hast inserted between 346 winnan] widnan 349 gieman] gifmannbsp;with y added above ie 350 heofne] Final e altered to o and n added abovenbsp;the line

GENESIS

word wurSian. Weoll him on innan hyge ymb his heortan, hat waes him utannbsp;355 wrablic wite. He J^a worde cwstS:

“Is {jses asnga styde ungelic swiSe })am oSrum ham ]gt;amp; we ser cuSon,nbsp;hean on heofonrice, ])t me min hearra onlag,

)7eah we hine for )jam alwaldan agan ne moston,

360 romigan ures rices. Nsefb he ))eah riht gedon pxt he us haefS befaelled fyre to botme,nbsp;helle pxie ha tan, heofonrice benumen;nbsp;hafaS hit gemearcod mid moncynnenbsp;to gesettanne. paet me is sorga maest,

365 pxt Adam sceal, pt waes of eorSan geworht, minne stronglican stol behealdan,nbsp;wesan him on wynne, and we )?is wite Jjolien,nbsp;hearm on Jjisse helle. Wa la, ahte ic minra handa

geweald

and moste ane tid ute weor'San,

370 wesan ane winterstunde, Jjonne ic mid pya werode—

Ac licgaS me ymbe irenbenda, rideb racentan sal. Ic eom rices leas;nbsp;habbab me swa hearde helle clommasnbsp;faeste befangen. Her is fyr micel,

375 ufan and neobone. Ic a ne geseah labran landscipe. Lig ne aswamab,nbsp;hat ofer helle. Me habbab hringa gespong,nbsp;slibhearda sal sibes amyrred,nbsp;afyrred me min febe; fet synt gebundene,

380 handa gehaefte. Synt }7issa heldora

wegas forworhte, swa ic mid wihte ne maeg of Jjissum liobobendum. Licgab me ymbenbsp;heardes Irenes hate geslaegene

356 )j£es] With ae altered to e senga] With i added above the line after n styde] With y canceled and e written above it 357 ham] Not in MS. 358»nbsp;on] Added in the margin; the first word on p. 19nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;359 alwaldan] With e

added above the line after w 361 befaelled] With y written above se 371 irenbenda] With a long s added at end 382 ymbe] ymb with a followingnbsp;e erased, and utan added above the line

GENESIS

grindlas greate. Mid py me god hafaci 385 gehaefted be )7am healse, swa ic wat he minne hige cube;nbsp;and Jjaet wiste eac weroda drihten,

Jjaet sceolde unc Adame yfele gewur'San ymb Jjaet heofonrice, pser ic ahte minra handa geweald.nbsp;Ac Solia}? we nu gt;rea on helle, (pst syndon Jjystro

and haeto),

390 grimme, grundlease. Hafab us god sylfa

forswapen on Jjas sweartan mistas; swa he us ne maeg

aenige synne gestaelan,

pxt we him on l7am lande lab gefremedon, he haefb us )7eah )7aes leohtes bescyrede,

beworpen on ealra wita maeste. Ne magon we j?aes wrace

gefremman,

geleanian him mid labes wihte pst he us hafab ]?aes

leohtes bescyrede.

395 He haefb nu gemearcod anne middangeard, psi he haefb

mon geworhtne

asfter his onlicnesse. Mid J^am he wile eft gesettan heofona rice mid hluttrum saulum. We )j»s sculon

hycgan georne,

pst we on Adame, gif we aefre maegen, and on his eafrum swa some, andan gebetan,

400 onwendan him J?aer willan sines, gif we hit maegen

wihte ajjencan.

Ne gelyfe ic me nu J^aes leohtes furbor })aes Jje he him

Jjenceb lange niotan,

Jjaes eades mid his engla craefte. Ne magon we Jjaet on

aldre gewinnan,

jjaet we mihtiges godes mod onwaecen. Uton obwendan

hit nu monna bearnum,

pxt heofonrice, nu we hit habban ne moton, gedon Jgt;aet

hie his hyldo forlaeten,

405 pst hie pst onwendon pst he mid his worde behead.

ponne weorb he him wrab on mode, ahwet hie from his hyldo. ponne sculon hie pas helle

secan

401 him] hjm udth eo written above niotan] i altered to e

GENESIS

and )jas grimman grundas. ponne moton we hie us to

giongrum habban,

fira beam on hissum faestum clomme. OnginnaS nu ymb

pa. fyrde )?encean!

Gif ic aenegum Jjsegne j^eodenmadmas 410 geara forgeafe, Jgt;enden we on J^an godan ricenbsp;gesaslige saeton and haefdon ure setla geweald,

Jjonne he me na on leofran tid leanum ne meahte mine gife gyldan, gif his gien woldenbsp;minra hegna hwilc ge^afa wurban,

415 pxt he up heonon ute mihte

cuman Jjurh has clustro, and hsfde craeft mid him hast he mid feSerhoman fleogan meahte,nbsp;windan on wolcne, geworht stondabnbsp;Adam and Eue on eorbrice

420 mid welan bewunden, and we synd aworpene hider on has deopan dalo. Nu hie drihtne syntnbsp;wurhran micle, and moton him hone welan agannbsp;he we on heofonrice habban sceoldon,nbsp;rice mid rihte; is se raed gescyrednbsp;425 monna cynne. J)aet me is on minum mode swa sar,nbsp;on minum hyge hreoweS, h^^t liic heofonricenbsp;agan to aldre. Gif hit eower aenig maegenbsp;gewendan mid wihte pxt hie word godesnbsp;lare forlaeten, sona hie him he laSran beob.

430 Gif hie brecaS his gebodscipe, h^nne he him abolgen

wurSeh;

siSSan biS him se wela onwended and wyrS him wite

gegarwod,

sum heard hearmscearu. HycgaS his ealle, hu ge hi beswicen! SibSan ic me sefte maegnbsp;restan on hyssum racentum, gif him haet rice losab.

435 Se he haet gelaesteS, him biS lean gearo asfter to aldre, haes we her inne magonnbsp;on hyssum fyre forS fremena gewinnan.

409 hsgne] se altered to e 417 feSerhoman] The first e altered from se and ?S altered from d ^ 425 minum mode] mode minum with marks for transposingnbsp;431 gegarwod] With e above the line before a

GENESIS

Sittan laete ic hine wiS me sylfne, swa hwa swa J^aet sec-

gan cymeS

on })as hatan helle, ]gt;stt hie heofoncyninges 440 unwur'Slice wordum and dsedumnbsp;lare”

Angan hine ))a gyrwan godes andsaca, fus on fraetwum, (haefde faecne hyge),nbsp;haeleShelm on heafod asette and })one full hearde gehand,nbsp;445 spenn mid spangum; wiste him spraeca fela,nbsp;wora worda. Wand him up })anon,nbsp;hwearf him jjurh jja helldora, (haefde hyge strangne),nbsp;leolc on lyfte lajjwendemod,nbsp;swang Jiaet fyr on twa feondes craefte;

450 wolde dearnunga drihtnes geongran, mid mandaedum men beswican,nbsp;forlaedan and forlaeran, pxt hie wurdon laS gode.

He pz, geferde Jjurh feondes craeft oSSaet he Adam on eorSrice,

455 godes handgesceaft, gearone funde, wislice geworht, and his wif somed,nbsp;freo faegroste, swa hie fela cu'Sonnbsp;godes gegearwigean, J^a him to gingran selfnbsp;metod mancynnes mearcode seHa.

460 And him hi twegin beamas stodon pa. wasron utan ofaetes gehlaedene,nbsp;gewered mid waestme, swa hie waldend god,nbsp;heah heofoncyning handum gesette,nbsp;pxt pxr yldo beam moste on ceosannbsp;465 godes and yfeles, gumena aeghwilc,

welan and wawan. Naes se waestm gelic!

OtSer waes swa wynlic, wlitig and scene, liöe and lofsum, pxt waes lifes beam;

445 spenn] With o added after e 446 wora worda] Glossed in the margin wrajira worda 451 men] With a second n added above the line 453nbsp;geferde] geferede with e after t erased 459 metod] metot 460 twegin] inbsp;altered to e 466 and wawan] Repeated in the margin because blurred innbsp;the text 467 and scene] Repeated in the margin because blurred in the text

GENESIS

moste on ecnisse aefter lybban,

470 wesan on worulde, se Jjss wsestmes onbat, swa him after \gt;y yldo ne derede,nbsp;ne suht sware, ac moste symle wesannbsp;lungre on lustum and his lif agan,nbsp;hyldo heofoncyninges her on worulde,

475 habban him to waron witode gehing^o

oh Jjone hean heofon, Jjonne he heonon wende.

J)onne was se oSer eallenga sweart, dim and hystre; was dea'Ses beam,nbsp;se bar bitres fela. Sceolde bu witannbsp;480 ylda aghwilc yfles and godes

gewand on )jisse worulde. Sceolde on wite a mid swate and mid sorgum siSSan libban,nbsp;swa hwa swa gebyrgde ]gt;3zs on pa,m beame geweox.nbsp;Sceolde hine yldo beniman ellendada,

485 dreamas and drihtscipes, and him beon deab scyred. Lytle hwile sceolde he his lifes niotan,nbsp;secan }jonne landa sweartost on fyre.

Sceolde feondum J)eowian, )gt;ar is ealra frecna maste leodum to langre hwile. ]3at wiste se laBa georne,

490 dyrne deofles boda ])e wib drihten wann.

Wearp hine Jja on wyrmes lie and wand him ])Si

3nnbutan

Jjone deabes beam h^rh deofles craft,

genam pxi J^as ofates and wende hine eft }7anon

}gt;ar he wiste handgeweorc heofoncyninges.

495 Ongon hine Jja frinan forman worde

se laba mid ligenum: “Langab Jje awuht,

Adam, up to gode? Ic eom on his arende hider

feorran gefered, ne pset nu fyrn ne was

hat ic wib hine sylfne sat. J)a het he me on J^ysne sib

faran,

500 het ]7®t Jju J?isses ofates ate, ewab pxt hin abal and

craft

473 agan] Second a altered from o 475 witode] witod with final e above the line ge}7ing})o] gening, then p added on an erasure and o above the linenbsp;476 he] heo 481 gewand] With o added above the line after n

GENESIS

and ]3in modsefa mara wurde, and J7in lichoma leohtra micle,

)?in gesceapu scenran, cwaeS J?aet })e aeniges sceattes

Searf

ne wurde on worulde. Nu )7U willan haefst,

505 hyldo geworhte heofoncyninges, to )7ance ge}7enod ]7inum hearran,

haefst ])amp; wiS drihten dyrne geworhtne. Ic gehyrde hine

)?ine daed and word

lofian on his leohte and ymb ])in lif sprecan.

Swa Jju laestan scealt h^et on })is land hider 510 his bodan bringa’S. Brade synd on woruldenbsp;grene geardas, and god sitebnbsp;on ]9am hehstan heofna rice,nbsp;ufan alwalda. Nele ))a earfebunbsp;sylfa habban ])vet he on jjysne sib fare,

515 gumena drihten, ac he his gingran sent to )7inre spraece. Nu he J?e mid spellum hetnbsp;listas laeran. Laeste })u geornenbsp;his ambyhto, nim ])e ]jis ofa3t on hand,nbsp;bit his and byrige. pe weorb on pinum breostum rum,nbsp;520 waestm py wlitegra. pe sende waldend god,

))in hearra pas helpe of heofonrice.”

Adam mabelode paer he on eorSan stod, selfsceafte guma: “ponne ic sigedrihten,nbsp;mihtigne god, maeblan gehyrdenbsp;525 strangre stemne, and me her stondan het,nbsp;his bebodu healdan, and me pas bryd forgeaf,nbsp;wlitesciene wif, and me warnian hetnbsp;paet ic on pone deaSes beam bedroren ne wurde,nbsp;beswicen to swibe, he cwaeb paet pa sweartan hellenbsp;530 healdan sceolde se be bi his heortan wuhtnbsp;labes gelaede. Nat peah pu mid ligenum farenbsp;purh dyrne gepanc pe pu drihtnes eartnbsp;boda of heofnum. Hwaet, ic pinra bysna ne maeg,

503 sceattes] sceates 506 hearran] hearan 509 his] hs i inserted above the line 519 byrige] byrige 521 helpe] Final e altered to anbsp;of] f blurred, the result of changing n to i?

GENESIS

worda ne wisna wuht oncnawan,

535 siSes ne sagona. Ic wat hwaet he me self behead, nergend user, )5a ic hine nehst geseah;nbsp;he het me his word weorSian and wel healdan,nbsp;laestan his lare. pu gelic ne bistnbsp;aenegum his engla pe ic aer geseah,

540 ne pu me oSiewdest aenig tacen pe he me purh treowe to onsende,nbsp;min hearra purh hyldo. Py ic pe hyran ne cann,nbsp;ac pu meaht pe forb faran. Ic haebbe me faestne geleafannbsp;up to pam aelmihtegan gode pe me mid his earmum

worhte,

545 her mid handum sinum. He masg me of his hean rice geofian mid goda gehwilcum, peah he his gingran ne

sende.”

Wende hine wraSmod paer he past wif geseah on eorSrice Euan stondan,nbsp;sceone gesceapene, cwaeS paet sceaSena maestnbsp;550 eallum heora eaforum aefter sibSan

wurde on worulde: “Ic wat, inc waldend god abolgen wyrb, swa ic him pisne bodscipenbsp;selfa secge, ponne ic of pys sibe cumenbsp;ofer langne weg, paet git ne laestan welnbsp;555 hwilc aerende swa he easten hider

on pysne sih sendeb. Nu sceal he sylf faran

to incre andsware; ne maeg his aerende

his boda beodan; py ic wat paet he inc abolgen wyrb,

mihtig on mode. Gif pu peah minum wilt,

560 wif willende, wordum hyran,

pu meaht his ponne rume raed gepencan.

Gehyge on pinum breostum paet pu inc bam twam

meaht

wite bewarigan, swa ic pe wisie.

.(Et pisses ofetes! ponne wurSaS pin eagan swa leoht 565 paet pu meaht swa wide ofer woruld eallenbsp;geseon sibban, and selfes stol

540 ne] Repeated after me but with cancel marks beneath 546 geofian] With y above e

GENESIS

herran )jines, and habban his hyldo forS.

Meaht ]gt;u Adame eft gestyran,

gif bu his willan haefst and he })inum wordum getrywtS, 570 Gif })u him to soSe sffigst hwylce })u selfa haefstnbsp;bisne on breostum, j^aes })u gebod godesnbsp;lare laestes, he )Jone laSan strib,nbsp;yfel andwyrde an forlaeteSnbsp;on breostcofan, swa wit him bu tunbsp;575 an sped sprecab. Span Jju hine georne

j^aet he J^ine lare laeste, jjy laes gyt laS gode, incrum waldende, weorban )jyrfen.

Gif ])u })aet angin fremest, idesa seo betste, forhele ic incrum herran )gt;aet me hearmes swa felanbsp;580 Adam gesprasc, eargra worda.

TyhS me untryowSa, cwyS )?set ic seo teonum georn, gramum ambyhtsecg, nales godes engel.

Ac ic cann ealle swa geare engla gebyrdo, heah heofona gehlidu; waes seo hwil j^aes langnbsp;585 ])3it ic geornlice gode Jjegnodenbsp;J7urh holdne hyge, herran minum,nbsp;drihtne selfum; ne eom ic deofle gelic.”

Laedde hie swa mid ligenum and mid listum speon idese on )?aet unriht, oSJjaet hire on innan ongannbsp;590 weallan wyrmes ge]?eaht, (haefde hire wacran higenbsp;metod gemearcod), Jjaet heo hire mod ongannbsp;laetan aefter )jam larum; forjjon heo set Jjam laöan onfengnbsp;ofer drihtnes word deaSes beamesnbsp;weorcsumne waestm. Ne wearb wyrse deednbsp;595 monnum gemearcod! paet is micel wundornbsp;])S£t hit ece god aefre woldenbsp;Jjeoden Jjolian, j^aet wurde jjegn swa monignbsp;forlaedd be )jam lygenum ]7e for {jam larum com.

Heo {ja }jaes ofaetes aet, alwaldan braec 600 word and willan. pa meahte heo wide geseonnbsp;jjurh )?aes laSan laen jje hie mid ligenum beswac,nbsp;dearnenga bedrog, ]gt;e hire for his daedum com,

{jaet hire {juhte hwitre heofon and eorSe,

603 jjuhte] Jjuht e mih a letter erased between t and e

GENESIS

and call )jeos woruld wlitigre, and geweorc godes 605 micel and mihtig, J^eah heo hit jjurh monnes gej^eahtnbsp;ne sceawode; ac se sceaSa geornenbsp;swicode ymb })a sawle \)t hire aer pa, siene onlah,nbsp;j^set heo swa wide wlitan meahtenbsp;ofer heofonrice. pa se forhatena sprcecnbsp;610 purh feondscipe (nalles he hie freme laerde):

“pu meaht nu pe self geseon, swa ic hit pe secgan ne

pearf,

Eue seo gode, paet pe is ungelic

wlite and waestmas, siSSan pu minum wordum getruw-

odest,

laestes mine lare. Nu scineS pe leoht fore 615 glaedlic ongean past ic from gode brohtenbsp;hwit of heofonum; nu pu his hrinan meaht.

Saege Adame hwilce pu gesihbe hasfst purh minne cime craefta. Gif giet purh cuscne siodonbsp;laest mina lara, ponne gife ic him paes leohtes genognbsp;620 pass ic pe swa godes gegired haebbe.

Ne wite ic him pa womcwidas, peah he his wyrbe ne sie to alaetanne; paes fela he me laSes spraec.”

Swa hire eaforan sculon aefter lybban: ponne hie lab gedoS, hie sculon lufe wyrcean,

625 betan heora hearran hearmcwyde and habban his hyldo

forb.

pa gieng to Adame idesa scenost, wifa wlitegost pe on woruld come,nbsp;forpon heo waes handgeweorc heofoncyninges,nbsp;peah heo pa dearnenga fordon wurde,

630 forlaed mid ligenum, past hie lab gode

purh paes wraban gepanc weorban sceolden, purh paes deofles searo dom forlaetan,nbsp;hierran hyldo, hefonrices poliannbsp;monige hwile. Bib pam men full wanbsp;635 pe hine ne warnab ponne he his geweald hafab!

Sum heo hire on handum baer, sum hire aet heortan laeg,

610 feondscipe] feonscipe milA d above the line after n 625 and] ond written out 626 gieng] giennbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;631 sceolden] The second e altered to o

GENESIS

aeppel unsaelga, })one hire aer forbead drihtna drihten, deaSbeames ofet,nbsp;and pset word acwasS wuldres aldor,

640 pset psamp;t micle morS menn ne Jjorfton }?egnas )?olian, ac he ]?eoda gehwamnbsp;hefonrice forgeaf, halig drihten,nbsp;widbradne welan, gif hie })one wsestm annbsp;laetan wolden Jje )?aet laSe treownbsp;645 on his bogum baer, bitre gefylled;

psdt waes deaSes beam pe him drihten forbead.

Forlec hie pz, mid ligenum se waes laS gode, on hete heofoncyninges, and hyge Euan,nbsp;wifes wac gejjoht, J^aet heo ongan his wordum truwian,nbsp;650 laestan his lare, and geleafan nom

pctt he pz bysene from gode brungen haefde pe he hire swa wasrlice wórdum saegde,nbsp;iewde hire tacen and treowa gehet,nbsp;his holdne hyge. pz heo to hire hearran spraec:

655 “Adam, frea min, Jjis ofet is swa swete, bliSe on breostum, and })es boda sciene,nbsp;godes engel god, ic on his gearwan geseonbsp;}?aet he is aerendsecg uncres hearran,nbsp;hefoncyninges. His hyldo is unc beterenbsp;660 to gewinnanne }?onne his wiSermedo.

Gif )7U him heodasg wuht hearmes gespraece, he forgifS hit }jeah, gif wit him geongordomnbsp;laestan wiUaS. Hwaet seal pe swa laSlic striSnbsp;wiS ))ines hearran bodan? Unc is his hyldo Jjearf;

665 he maeg unc aerendian to pzm alwaldan, heofoncyninge. Ic maeg heonon geseonnbsp;hwaer he sylf siteS, {pxt is suS and east),nbsp;welan bewunden, se Sas woruld gesceop;nbsp;geseo ic him his englas ymbe hweorfannbsp;670 mid feSerhaman, ealra folca maest,

wereda wynsumast. Hwa meahte me swelc gewit gifan, gif hit gegnunga god ne onsende,

644 laSe] laS 656 bliSe] blicS 661 gesprsce] gespr^ce 667 hwaer] h*r with w added above the line after h

GENESIS

heofones waldend? Gehyran maeg ic rume and swa wide geseon on woruld eallenbsp;675 ofer )jas sidan gesceaft, ic meeg swegles gamennbsp;gehyran on heofnum. WearS me on hige leohtenbsp;utan and innan, siSJian ic })8es ofaetes onbat.

Nu hsebbe ic his her on handa, herra se goda; gife ic hit ]?e georne. Ic gelyfe jjaet hit from gode come,nbsp;680 broht from his bysene, Jjaes me ]3es boda ssegdenbsp;wasrum wordum. Hit nis wuhte gelicnbsp;elles on eorSan, buton swa jjes ar saegeS,

Jjaet hit gegnunga from gode come.”

Hio spraec him )?icce to and speon hine ealne daeg 685 on )ja dimman daed )?set hie drihtnes heoranbsp;willan braecon. Stod se wraSa boda,nbsp;legde him lustas on and mid listum speon,nbsp;fylgde him frecne; wass se feond full neahnbsp;Jgt;e on pa. frecnan fyrd gefaren haefdenbsp;690 ofer langne weg; leode hogode

on ]jaet micle morS men forweorpan, forlaeran and forlaedan, pset hie laen godes,nbsp;aelmihtiges gife an forleten,nbsp;heofenrices geweald. Hwast, se hellsceaSanbsp;695 gearwe wiste }?aet hie godes yrrenbsp;habban sceoldon and hellgejjwing,

Jjone nearwan niS niede onfon, siSSan hie gebod godes forbrocen haefdon,nbsp;pa he forlaerde mid ligenwordumnbsp;700 to pava unraede idese sciene,

wifa wlitegost, jjaet heo on his wiUan spraec, wees him on helpe handweorc godesnbsp;to forlaeranne.

Heo spraec 6a to Adame idesa sceonost 705 ful J)iclice, o6 pam J^egne ongan

his hige hweorfan, pset he para gehate getruwode pe him })aet wif wordum saegde.

Heo dyde hit Jjeah Jjurh holdne hyge, nyste pset pser

hearma swa fela,

696 heiige J)wing] hell ge})win with a letter following erased nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;702 him] hire

GENESIS

fyrenearfeSa, fylgean sceolde 710 monna cynne, j^aes heo on mod genamnbsp;JjcBt heo )78es laSan bodan larum hyrde,nbsp;ac wende J^aet heo hyldo heofoncyningesnbsp;worhte mid jjam wordum pe heo J^am were swelcenbsp;tacen obiewde and treowe gehet,

715 ob})£et Adame innan breostum

his hyge hwyrfde and his heorte ongann wendan to hire willan. He aet ^am wife onfengnbsp;helle and hinnsib, b^a-h hit naere haten swa,nbsp;ac hit ofetes noman agan sceolde;

720 hit waes beah deabes swefn and deofles gespon, hell and hinnsib and haeleSa forlor,nbsp;menniscra mor‘5, past hie to mete daedon,nbsp;ofet unfaele. Swa hit him on innan com,nbsp;hran aet heortan, hloh pa, and plegodenbsp;725 boda bitre gehugod, saegde begra |?anc

hearran sinum: “Nu haebbe ic }?ine hyldo me witode geworhte, and binne willan gelaestnbsp;to ful monegum daege. Men synt forlaedde,

Adam and Eue. Him is unhyldo 730 waldendes witod, nu hie wordcwyde his,nbsp;lare forleton. For^on hie leng ne magonnbsp;healdan heofonrice, ac hie to helle sculonnbsp;on Jjone sweartan siS. Swa p\x his sorge ne bearftnbsp;beran on Jjinum breostum, paer pu gebunden hgst,nbsp;735 murnan on mode, j^aet her men bunnbsp;bone hean heofon, peah wit hearmas nu,nbsp;breaweorc bohaS, and bystre land,nbsp;and burh bin micle mod monig forletonnbsp;on heofonrice heahgetimbro,

740 godlice geardas. Unc wearb god yrre forbon wit him noldon on heofonricenbsp;hnigan mid heafdum halgum drihtnenbsp;burh geongordom; ac unc gegenge ne waesnbsp;baet wit him on begnscipe b^owian wolden.

745 Forbon unc waldend wearS wrab on mode, on hyge hearde, and us on helle bedraf.

GENESIS

on Jjaet fyr fylde folca mseste, and mid handum his eft on heofonricenbsp;rihte rodorstolas and psdt rice forgeafnbsp;750 monna cynne. Mjeg pin mod wesan

bliSe on breostum, forj^on her synt bu tu gedon: ge pxt haeleba beam heofonrice sculonnbsp;leode forlsetan and on p3£t lig to penbsp;hate hweorfan, eac is hearm gode,

755 modsorg gemacod. Swa hwaet swa wit her morSres jjoliaö, hit is nu Adame eall forgoldennbsp;mid hearran hete and mid hsleSa forlore,nbsp;monnum mid morSes cwealme. Forjjon is min mod

gehaïled,

hyge ymb heortan gerume, ealle synt uncre hearmas

gewrecene

760 laSes pset wit lange Jjoledon. Nu wille ic eft pa,m lige

near,

Satan ic peer secan wille; he is on J^aere sweartan helle haeft mid hringa gesponne.” Hwearf him eft niSernbsp;boda bitresta; sceolde he pa bradan ligasnbsp;secan helle gehliSo, peer his hearra lasgnbsp;765 simon gesaeled. Sorgedon ba twa,

Adam and Eue, and him oft betuh gnornword gengdon; godes him ondredon,nbsp;heora herran hete, heofoncyninges niSnbsp;swiSe onsaeton; selfe forstodonnbsp;770 his word onwended. poet wif gnornode,nbsp;hof hreowigmod, (hoefde hyldo godes,nbsp;lare forlaeten), pa heo peet leoht geseahnbsp;ellor scriSan peet hire purh untreowanbsp;tacen iewde se him pone teonan gereed,

775 peet hie helle niS habban sceoldon, hynSa unrim; forpam him higesorganbsp;burnon on breostum. Hwilum to gebede feollonnbsp;sinhiwan somed, and sigedrihtennbsp;godne gretton and god nemdon,

780 heofones waldend, and hine baedon

752 heofonrice] heofon rices

GENESIS

pxt hie his hearmsceare habban mosten, georne fulgangan, ]gt;amp;, hie godes haefdonnbsp;bodscipe abrocen. Bare hie gesawonnbsp;heora lichaman; ncefdon on ]?ani lande Jja gietnbsp;785 saslSa gesetena, ne hie sorge wihtnbsp;weorces wiston, ac hie wel meahtonnbsp;libban on pam lande, gif hie wolden lare godesnbsp;forweard fremman. pa hie fela sprseconnbsp;sorhworda somed, sinhiwan twa.

790 Adam gemselde and to Euan spreec:

“Hwset, pu Eue, hsfst yfele gemearcod uncer sylfra siS. Gesyhst pu nu pa sweartan hellenbsp;grasdige and gifre. Nu J7U hie grimman meahtnbsp;heonane gehyran. Nis heofonricenbsp;795 gelic pam lige, ac Jjis is landa betst,

)7aet wit hurh uncres hearran pane habban moston, j)8er J5U jjam ne hierde pe unc Jjisne hearm geraed,nbsp;pxt wit waldendes word forbraecon,nbsp;heofoncyninges. Nu wit hreowige magonnbsp;800 sorgian for J^is sibe. ForJjon he unc self bebeadnbsp;pxt wit unc wite warian sceolden,nbsp;hearma maestne. Nu slit me hunger and Jjurstnbsp;bitre on breostum, J^aes wit begra sernbsp;waeron orsorge on ealle tid.

805 Hu sculon wit nu libban oSöe on })ys lande wesan, gif her wind cymS, westan obbe eastan,nbsp;suSan obSe norSan? Gesweorc up faere‘5,nbsp;cymeb haegles scur hefone getenge,nbsp;faereS forst on gemang, se byS fyrnum ceald.

810 Hwilum of heofnum hate scineS,

blicb }?eos beorhte sunne, and wit her baru standab, unwered waedo. Nys unc wuht beforannbsp;to scursceade, ne sceattes wihtnbsp;to mete gemearcod, ac unc is mihtig god,

815 waldend wrabmod. To hwon sculon wit weorban nu? Nu me maeg hreowan J^aet ic baed heofnes god,nbsp;waldend )?one godan, Jjaet he pe her worhte to me

781 his] Written in above the line

GENESIS

of liSum minum, nu Jju me forlaered haefst on mines herran hete. Swa me nu hreowan maegnbsp;820 aefre to aldre past ic \)t minum eagum geseah.”

Da sprasc Eue eft, idesa scienost, wifa wlitegost; hie waes geweorc godes,

})eah heo Jja on deofies craeft bedroren wurde:

“J)u meaht hit me witan, wine min Adam,

825 wordum )jinum; hit J)e jjeah wyrs ne maeg

on pinum hyge hreowan ))onne hit me aet heortan deS.”

Hire ))a Adam andswarode:

“Gif ic waldendes willan cube,

hwaet ic his to hearmsceare habban sceolde,

830 ne gesawe Jju no sniomor, Jjeah me on sae wadan hete heofones god heonone nu ]?a,nbsp;on flod faran, naere he firnum ]5aes deop,nbsp;merestream ]?aes micel, jjaet his o min mod getweode,nbsp;ac ic to )jam grunde genge, gif ic godes meahtenbsp;835 willan gewyrcean. Nis me on worulde niodnbsp;aeniges Jjegnscipes, nu ic mines jjeodnes hafanbsp;hyldo forworhte, ]gt;xt ic hie habban ne maeg.

Ac wit )5us baru ne magon bu tu aetsomne wesan to wuhte. Uton gan on )?ysne weald innan,

840 on jjisses holtes hleo.” Hwurfon hie ba twa, togengdon gnorngende on Jjone grenan weald,nbsp;saeton onsundran, bidan selfes gesceapunbsp;heofoncyninges, pa. hie pa habban ne mostonnbsp;pe him aer forgeaf aelmihtig god.

845 J)a hie heora lichoman leafum bejjeahton, weredon mid by wealde, waeda ne haefdon;nbsp;ac hie on gebed feollon bu tu aetsomnenbsp;morgena gehwilce, baedon mihtignenbsp;Jjaet hie ne forgeate god aelmihtig,

850 and him gewisade waldend se goda,

hu hie on pam. leohte forb libban sceolden.

pa com feran frea aelmihtig ofer midne daeg, maere J^eoden,nbsp;on neorxnawang neode sine;

826 Jjinum] J)inu 828 ic] Added above the line after gif

GENESIS

855 wolde neosian nergend usser,

bilwit feeder, hwaet his beam dyde; wiste forworhte he eer wlite sealde.

Gewitan him pa. gangan geomermode under beamsceade bleede bereafod,

860 hyddon hie on heolstre, pa hie halig word drihtnes gehyrdon, and ondredon him.nbsp;pa sona ongann swegles aldornbsp;weard ahsian woruldgesceafta,nbsp;het him recene to rice peodennbsp;865 his sunu gangan. Him pa sylfa oncwaeb,nbsp;hean hleoSrade hraegles pearfa:

“Ic wreo me her weeda leasne, liffrea min, leafum pecce.

Scyldfull mine sceaben is me sare,

870 frecne on ferhSe; ne dear nu forS gan

for öe andweardne. Ic eom eall eall nacod.”

Him Sa eedre god andswarede:

“Saga me paet, sunu min, for hwon secest öu sceade sceomiende? pu sceonde eet menbsp;875 furSum ne anfenge, ac gefean eallum.

For hwon wast pu wean and wrüist sceome, gesyhst sorge, and pin sylf pecestnbsp;lie mid leafum, sagast lifeearenbsp;hean hygegeomor, paet pe sie hraegles pearf,

880 nympe 6u aeppel aenne byrgde

of Sam wudubeame pe ic pe wordum forbead?”

Him pa Adam eft andswarode:

“Me Sa blaeda on hand bryd gesealde, freolucu faemne, freadrihten min,

885 Se ic pe on teonan gepah. Nu ic paes tacen wege sweotol on me selfum. Wat ic sorga 3y ma.”

Da Saes Euan fraegn aelmihtig god:

“Hwaet druge pu, dohtor, dugepa genohra, niwra gesceafta neorxnawanges,

857 Jgt;am] ]gt;a. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;875 ne] Noi in MS. 876 pu] The p of pu perhaps crowded

in by a corrector 880 byrgde] st added above the line 883 3a] 3e with e canceled and a written above 885 nu ic] ic added above the line after nu

GENESIS

890 growendra gifa, ^a J)u gitsiende on beam gripe, blaeda namenbsp;on treowes telgum, and me on teonannbsp;aete J^a unfreme, Adame sealdestnbsp;waestme pa inc wasron wordum minumnbsp;895 faeste forbodene?” Him pa freolecu masg,nbsp;ides aewiscmod andswarode:

“Me naedre beswac and me neodlice to forsceape scyhte and to scyldfrece,nbsp;fah wyrm Jmrh faegir word, objjaet ic fracoSlicenbsp;900 feondraes gefremede, fashSe geworhte,nbsp;and pa reafode, swa hit riht ne waes,nbsp;beam on bearwe and pa blaeda aet.”

pa naedran sceop nergend usser, frea aelmihtig fagum wyrmenbsp;905 wide siSas and )ja worde cwaeS:

“J)u scealt wideferhS werig l^inum breostum bearm tredan bradre eorSan,nbsp;faran febeleas, Jjenden pe feorh wunaS,nbsp;gast on innan. pu scealt greot etannbsp;910 )?ine lifdagas. Swa pu lablice

wrohte onstealdest, pa pxt wif feoS, hatab under heofnum and J^in heafod tredebnbsp;fah mid fotum sinum. pu scealt fiersna saetannbsp;tohtan niwre; tuddor bib gemaenenbsp;915 incrum orlegnib a penden standeb

woruld under wolcnum. Nu pu wast and canst, lab leodsceaba, hu pu lifian scealt.”

Da to Euan god yrringa spraec:

“Wend pe from wynne! pu scealt waepnedmen 920 wesan on gewealde, mid weres egsannbsp;hearde genearwad, hean prowiannbsp;pinra daeda gedwild, deabes bidan,nbsp;and purh wop and heaf on woruld cennannbsp;purh sar micel sunu and dohtor.”

925 Ahead eac Adame ece drihten.

GENESIS

lifes leohtfruma, laS eerende;

“pu scealt o^erne eSel secean, wynleasran wic, and on wr£ec hweorfannbsp;nacod niedwEedla, neorxnawangesnbsp;930 dugeSum bedaeled; pe is gedal witodnbsp;lices and sawle. Hwset, pu laSlicenbsp;wrohte onstealdest; forpon pu winnan scealtnbsp;and on eorban pe pine andlifnenbsp;selfa geraecan, wegan swatig hleor,

935 pinne hlaf etan, penden pu her leofast, oSpaet pe to heortan hearde gripebnbsp;adl unlibe pe pu on aeple asrnbsp;selfa forswulge; forpon pu sweltan scealt.”

Hwset, we nu gehyraS hwser us hearmstafas 940 wraSe onwocan and woruldyrmSo.

Hie pa wuldres weard wsedum gyrede, sc3TDpend usser; het heora sceome peccannbsp;frea frumhraegle; het hie from hweorfannbsp;neorxnawange on nearore lif.

945 Him on laste beleac libsa and wynna hihtfulne ham halig engelnbsp;be frean hsese fyrene sweorde;nbsp;ne mseg pser inwitfull senig geferannbsp;womscyldig mon, ac se weard hafabnbsp;950 miht and strengSo, se paet maere lifnbsp;dugeSum deore drihtne healde'S.

No hwsebre selmihtig ealra wolde Adame and Euan arna ofteon,nbsp;faeder set frymSe, peah pe hie him from swice,nbsp;955 ac he him to frofre let hwaeSere forb wesannbsp;hyrstedne hrof halgum tunglumnbsp;and him grundwelan ginne sealde;nbsp;het pam sinhiwum sees and eorbannbsp;tuddorteondra teohha gehwilcrenbsp;960 to woruldnytte waestmas fedan.

Gesseton pa aefter synne sorgfulre land, card and ebyl unspedigran

954 hie] he 959 gehwilcre] gehilcre

GENESIS

fremena gehwilcre })onne se frumstol w®s ]gt;e hie after dade of adrifen wurdon.

965 Ongunnon hie ])a, be godes base

beam astrienan, swa him me tod bebead. Adames and Euan aforan waronnbsp;freolicu twa frumbearn cenned,

Cain and Abel. Us cySaS bee,

970 hu Jja dadfruman dugejja stryndon, welan and wiste, wiUgebroSor,

Oöer his to eorSan elnes tilode, se was arboren; oSer ahte heoldnbsp;fader on fultum, oSjjat forS gewatnbsp;975 dagrimes worn. Hie pa, drihtne lacnbsp;begen brohton. Brego engla beseahnbsp;on Abeles gield eagum sinum,nbsp;cyning eallwihta, Caines ne woldenbsp;tiber sceawian. J)at was torn werenbsp;980 hefig at heortan. Hygewalm asteahnbsp;beorne on breostum, blatende niS,nbsp;yrre for afstum. He pa unradennbsp;folmum gefremede, freomag ofsloh,nbsp;broker sinne, and his blod ageat,

985 Cain Abeles. Cwealmdreore swealh }7as middangeard, monnes swate.

Miter walswenge wea was arared, tregena tuddor. Of Sam twige siSSannbsp;ludon laSwende leng swa swiSornbsp;990 reSe wastme. Rahton widenbsp;geond werjjeoda wrohtes telgan,nbsp;hrinon hearmtanas hearde and sarenbsp;drihta bearnum, (doS gieta swa),nbsp;of pam brad blado bealwa gehwilcesnbsp;995 sprytan ongunnon. We }?at spell magon,nbsp;walgrimme wyrd, wope ewiSan,nbsp;nales holunge; ac us hearde sceodnbsp;freolecu famne purh. forman gylt

980 Hygewaslm asteah] hyge waelmos teah writkn over an erased letter

GENESIS nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;33

Jje wiS metod aefre men gefremeden,

1000 eorSbuende, siSban Adam wearb of godes mu3e gaste eacen.

Da worde frasgn wuldres aldor Cain, hwaer Abel eorSan w£ere.

Him Sa se cystleasa cwealmes wyrhta 1005 aedre aefter ])on andswarode:

“Ne can ic Abeles or ne fore, hleomaeges sib, ne ic hyrde wsesnbsp;broSer mines.” Him pa. brego engla,nbsp;godspedig gast gean J^ingade:

1010 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“Hwset, befealdest )7u folmum binumnbsp;wraSum on waelbedd wasrfaestne rinc,nbsp;brobor ]jinne, and his blod to menbsp;cleopab and cigeb. J)u Jjaes cwealmes scealtnbsp;wite winnan and on wraec hweorfan,

1015 awyrged to widan aldre. Ne seleb J^e waestmas eorbe wlitige to woruldnytte, ac heo waeldreore swealhnbsp;halge of handum binum; forjjon heo pe. hrobra oftihb,nbsp;glaemes grene folde. pu scealt geomor hweorfan,nbsp;arleas of earde pinum, swa pu Abele wurdenbsp;1020 to feorhbanan; forjjon pu flema scealtnbsp;widlast wrecan, winemagum lab.”

Him pa aedre Cain andswarode:

“Ne pearf ic aenigre are wenan on woruldrice, ac ic forworht haebbe,

1025 heofona heahcyning, hyldo pine,

lufan and freode; forpon ic lastas sceal wean on wenum wide lecgan,nbsp;hwonne me gemitte manscyldigne,nbsp;se me feor obbe neah faehbe gemonige,

1030 broborcwealmes. Ic his blod ageat, dreor on eorban. pu to daege pissumnbsp;ademest me fram dugube and adrifest fromnbsp;earde minum. Me to aldorbanannbsp;weorbeb wrabra sum. Ic awyrged sceal,

1035 peoden, of gesyhbe pinre hweorfan.”

1011 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;waeifasstne] W8er faesne 1022 ssdie] Not in MS.

GENESIS

Him pa, selfa oncwceö sigora drihten;

“Ne J^earft Su pe ondrcedan deaSes brogan, feorhcwealm nu giet, pea.h J^u from scylenbsp;freomagum feor fah gewitan.

1040 Gif pe. monna hwelc mundum sinum aldre beneoteS, bine on cymeSnbsp;after paeie synne seofonfeald wracu,nbsp;wite after weorce.” Hine waldend on,nbsp;tirfast metod, tacen sette,

1045 freobobeacen frea, py las hine feonda hwilc mid guS}?race gretan dorstenbsp;feorran obbe nean. Heht pa from hweorfannbsp;meder and magum manscyldigne,nbsp;cnosle sinum. Him pa Cain gewatnbsp;1050 gongan geomormod gode of gesyhbe,nbsp;wineleas wrecca, and him pa wic geceasnbsp;eastlandum on, ebelstowenbsp;fadergeardum feor, peer him freolecu mag,nbsp;ides after abelum eaforan fedde.

1055 Se aresta was Enos haten,

frumbearn Caines. Sibban fasten ongon mid Jjam cneomagum ceastre timbran;nbsp;past was under wolcnum weallfastennanbsp;arest eaka pam pe abelingas,

1060 sweordberende, settan heton.

J)anon his eaforan arest wocan, beam from bryde, on pam burhstede.

Se yldesta was lared haten, sunu Enoses. Sibban wocan,

1065 pa J?as cynnes cneowrim icton, magburg Caines. Malalehel wasnbsp;after larede yrfes hyrdenbsp;fader on laste, ob]?at he forb gewat.

Sibban Mathusal magum dalde,

1070 beam after bearne brobrum sinum abelinga gestreon, ob^at aldorgedal

1040 ))e] Not in MS. 1056 fassten] Not in MS. 1069 Mathusal] matusal with h above the line after t

GENESIS

frod fyrndagum fremman sceolde, lif ofiaetan. Lameh onfengnbsp;aefter faeder daege fietgestealdum,

1075 botlgestreonum. Him bryda twa, idesa on eble eaforan feddon,

Ada and Sella; j^ara anum waes labal noma, se Jjurh gleawne gejjancnbsp;herbuendra hearpan aerestnbsp;1080 handum sinum hlyn awehte,

swinsigende sweg, sunn Lamehes.

Swylce on Saere maegSe maga waes haten • on ]7a ilcan tid Tubal Cain,

se Jjurh snytro sped smicScraeftega waes,

1085 and |?urh modes gemynd monna aerest, sunu Lamehes, sulhgeweorcesnbsp;fruma waes ofer foldan, siSSan folca beamnbsp;aeres cubon and isernes,nbsp;burhsittende, brucan wide.

1090 J)a his wifum twaem wordum saegde Lameh seolfa, leofum gebeddum,

Adan and Sellan unarlic spel:

“Ic on morbor ofsloh minra sumne hyldemaga; honda gewemdenbsp;1095 on Caines cwealme mine,

fylde mid folmum faeder Enoses, ordbanan Abeles, eorban sealdenbsp;waeldreor weres. Wat ic gearwenbsp;l^aet pam lichryre on last cymebnbsp;1100 sobcyninges seofonfeald wracu,

micel aefter mane. Min sceal swibor

mid grimme gryre golden wurban

fyll and feorhcwealm, ]ronne ic forb scio.”

])a wearb Adame on Abeles gyld 1105 eafora on eble ojjer feded,

sobfaest sunu, pam waes Seth noma.

Se waes eadig and his yldrum bah freolic to frofre, faeder and meder,

1088 aeres] aerest 1093 sumne] sune l09Sic] Not in MS.

GENESIS

Adames and Euan, waes Abeles gield 1110 on woruldrice. pa word acwaeSnbsp;ord moncynnes: “Me ece sunnnbsp;sealde selfa sigora waldend,nbsp;lifes aldor on leofes stael,nbsp;paes pe Cain ofsloh, and me cearsorgenbsp;1115 mid pys magotimbre of mode asceafnbsp;peoden usser. Him pses pane sie!”

Adam beefde, pa he eft ongan him to ehelstasfe oSres strienannbsp;bearnes be bryde, beorn ellenrof,

1120 XXX and C pisses lifes,

wintra on worulde. Us gewritu seegah paet her eahtahund iecte siSSannbsp;maegSum and maeegum maegburg sinenbsp;Adam on eorSan; ealra haefdenbsp;1125 nigenhund wintra

and XXX eac, pa he pas woruld purh gastgedal ofgyfan sceolde.

Him on laste Seth leod weardode, eafora aefter yldrum; epelstol heoldnbsp;1130 and wif begeat. Wintra haefde

lif and hundteontig pa he furSum ongan his masgburge men geiceannbsp;sunum and dohtrum. Sethes eaforanbsp;se yldesta waes Enos haten;

1135 se nemde god niSpa bearna aerest ealra, siShan Adam stopnbsp;on grene graes gaste geweoröad.

Seth waes gesaelig; siSSan strynde seofon winter her suna and dohtranbsp;1140 and eahtahund. Ealra haefde

XH and nigonhund, pa seo tid gewearS paet he friSgedal fremman sceolde.

Him aefter heold, pa he of worulde gewat,

1111-1112 sunu sealde] sealde sunu 1118 eSelstaefe] edulf staefe 1120 and] The runic symbol for w instead, of the usual abbreviation for andnbsp;1128 leod] leof 1131 he] heo 1133 Sethes] sedes 1140 and] ond

GENESIS nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;37

Enos yrfe, siöSan eorSe swealh 1145 saedberendes Sethes lice.

He wees leof gode and lifde her wintra hundnigontig aer he be wife hernbsp;burh gebedscipe beam astrynde;nbsp;him pa, cenned wearb Cainan aerestnbsp;1150 eafora on eble. Sibban eahtahundnbsp;and fiftyno on friSo drihtnesnbsp;gleawferhS haeleS geogoSe strynde,nbsp;suna and dohtra; swealt, pa he haefde,nbsp;frod fyrnwita, V and nigonhund.

1155 paere cneorisse waes Cainan siSSan aefter Enose aldordema,nbsp;weard and wisa. Wintra haefdenbsp;efne hundseofontig aer him sunn woce.nbsp;pa wearS on eSle eafora feded,

1160 mago Cainanes, Malalehel waes haten.

SibSan eahtahund aeSelinga rim and feowertig eac feorum geictenbsp;Enoses sunu. Ealra nigonhundnbsp;wintra haefde pa he woruld ofgeafnbsp;1165 and tyne eac, pa his tiddaege

under rodera rum rim waes gefylled.

Him on laste heold land and yrfe Malalehel sibban missera worn.

Se frumgara fif and sixtig 1170 wintra haefde pa he be wife ongannnbsp;bearna strynan. Him bryd sununbsp;meowle to monnum brohte. Se maga waesnbsp;on his maegbe, mine gefraege,nbsp;guma on geogobe, lared haten.

1175 Lifde sibban and lissa breac

Malalehel lange, mondreama her,

woruldgestreona. Wintra haefde

fif and hundnigontig, pa he forb gewat,

1148 Jjurh] })ur 1154 -wita] a altered from e 1155 Cainan] cain mth two letters following erased 1160 Cainanes] caines 1162 feowertig]nbsp;feowertigum

GENESIS

and eahtahund; eaforan lasfde 1180 land and leodweard. Longe siSSannbsp;Geared gumum gold brittade.

Se eorl waes sebele, sefaest hasleb, and se frumgar his freomagum leof.

Fif and hundteontig on fyore lifde 1185 wintra gebidenra on woruldricenbsp;and syxtig eac )ja seo sasl gewearbnbsp;)?8et his wif sunu on woruld brohte;nbsp;se eafora waes Enoc haten,nbsp;freolic frumbearn. Faeder her pa. gyt

1190 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;his cynnes forS cneorim icte,nbsp;eaforan eahtahund; ealra haefdenbsp;V and syxtig, pa he forb gewat,nbsp;and nigonhund eac nihtgerimes,

wine frod wintres, pa he )7as woruld ofgeaf 1195 and Geared )gt;a gleawum laefdenbsp;land and leodweard, leofum rince.

Enoch siSSan ealdordom ahof, freobosped folces wisa, nalles feallan letnbsp;dom and drihtscipe,

1200 leenden he hyrde waes heafodmaga.

Breac blaeddaga, bearna strynde {jreohund wintra. Him waes })eoden hold,nbsp;rodera waldend. Se rinc heononnbsp;on lichoman lisse sohte,

1205 drihtnes dugube, nales deabe swealt middangeardes, swa her men do]?,nbsp;geonge and ealde, }?onne him god heoranbsp;aehta and aetwist eorban gestreonanbsp;on genimeb and heora aldor somed,

1210 ac he cwic gewat mid cyning engla of Jjyssum laenan life ferannbsp;on )?am gearwum )?e his gast onfengnbsp;aer hine to monnum modor brohte.

He pava yldestan eaforan laefde 1215 folc, frumbearne; V and syxtig

1191 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;eaforan] eafora 1195 and] ond written out 1211 feran] frean

wintra hsefde J»a he woruld ofgeaf, and eac III hund. prage siSSannbsp;Mathusal heold maga yrfe,nbsp;se on lichoman lengest ]jissanbsp;1220 worulddreama breac. Worn gestryndenbsp;ser his swyltdsege suna and dohtra;nbsp;haefde frod hasle, pa. he from sceoldenbsp;ni)j)jum hweorfan, nigonhund wintranbsp;and hundseofontig to. Sunu aefter heold,

1225 Lamech leodgeard, lange sibSan woruld bryttade. Wintra haefdenbsp;twa and hundteontig pa. seo tid gewearSnbsp;pset se eorl ongan aebele cennan,nbsp;sunu and dohtor. SibSan lifdenbsp;1230 fif and hundnigontig, frea moniges breacnbsp;wintra under wolcnum, werodes aldor,nbsp;and V hund eac; heold Jjaet fok teala,nbsp;bearna strynde, him byras wocan,nbsp;eaforan and idesa. He ])one yldestannbsp;1235 Noe nemde, se nibSum aer

land bryttade siSSan Lamech gewat.

Haefde aeöelinga aldorwisa V hund wintra pa, he furbum ongannbsp;bearna strynan, })aes pe bec cweSa]?.

1240 Sem waes haten sunu Noes, se yldesta, oSer Cham,

Jjridda lafeth. peoda tymdon rume under roderum, rim micladenbsp;monna maegSe geond middangeardnbsp;1245 sunum and dohtrum. Da giet waes Sethes cynn,nbsp;leofes leodfruman on lufan swiSenbsp;drihtne dyre and domeadig,nbsp;dSpait beam godes bryda ongunnonnbsp;on Caines cynne secan,

1250 wergum folce, and him pxi wif curon ofer metodes est monna eaforan.

GENESIS

scyldfulra msegS scyne and faegere.

pa reordade rodora waldend wraS moncynne and pa worde cwaeS:

“Ne syndon me on ferhSe freo from gewitene cneorisn Caines, ac me pset cynn hafaSnbsp;sare abolgen. Nu me Sethes beamnbsp;torn niwiaS and him to nimaSnbsp;maegeS to gemaeccum minra feonda;

1260 paer wifa wlite onwod grome, idesa ansien, and ece feondnbsp;folcdriht wera, pa aer on friSe waeron.”

SiSSan hundtwelftig geteled rime wintra on worulde wraece bisgodonnbsp;1265 faege peoda, hwonne frea woldenbsp;on waerlogan wite settannbsp;and on deaS slean daedum scyldigenbsp;gigantmaecgas, gode unleofe,nbsp;micle mansceaSan, metode laSe.

1270 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;pa geseah self a sigoro waldend

hwast waes monna manes on eorSan and pact hie waeron womma Sriste,nbsp;inwitfulle. He paet unfaegerenbsp;wera cneorissum gewrecan pohte,

1275 forgripan gumcynne grimme and sare, heardum mihtum. Hreaw hine swiSenbsp;paet he folcmaegpa fruman aweahte,nbsp;aeSelinga ord, pa he Adam sceop,nbsp;cwaeb paet he wolde for wera synnumnbsp;1280 eall aaeSan paet on eor'San waes,

forleosan lica gehwilc para pe lifes gast faeSmum peahte. Eall paet frea woldenbsp;on Saere toweardan tide acwellannbsp;pe pa nealaehte niSSa bearnum.

Noe waes god, nergende leof, swiSe gesaelig, sunu Lameches,nbsp;domfaest and gedefe. Drihten wiste

1264 bisgodon] bisgodon with e added above the line after s 1283 toweardan] The second a made by altering e

GENESIS nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;41

l^aet ]78es aecSelinges ellen dohte breostgehygdum; forbon him brego saegde,

1290 halig set hleobre, helm allwihta,

hwset he fah werum fremman wolde; geseah unrihte eorSan fulle,nbsp;side sselwongas synnum gehladene,nbsp;widlum gewemde. pa waldend sprsec,

1295 nergend usser, and to Noe cwseS:

“Ic wille mid flode folc acwellan and cynna gehwilc cucra wuhta,nbsp;para pe lyft and flod Isedab and fedaS,nbsp;feoh and fuglas. pu scealt friS habbannbsp;1300 mid sunum pinum, bonne sweart wseter,nbsp;wonne wselstreamas werodum swelgab,nbsp;sceabum scyldfuUum. Ongyn pe scip wyrcan,nbsp;merehus micel. On pam pu monegum scealtnbsp;reste geryman, and rihte setl

1305 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;aelcum aefter agenum eorban tudre.

Gescype scylfan on scipes bosme. pu paet fser gewyrc fiftiges wid,nbsp;brittiges heah and preohund langnbsp;elngemeta, and wib yba gewyrc

1310 gefeg fseste. paer sceal faesl wesan cwiclifigendra cynna gehwilcesnbsp;on paet wudufaesten wocor gelsedednbsp;eorban tudres; earc sceal py mare.”

Noe fremede swa hine nergend heht,

1315 hyrde pam halgan heofoncyninge, ongan ofostlice paet hof wyrcan,nbsp;micle merecieste. Magum sae;gdenbsp;paet waes preaHc ping peodum toweard,nbsp;rebe wite. Hie ne rohton pses!

1320 Geseah pa ymb wintra worn waerfaest me tod geofonhusa msest gearo hlifigean,nbsp;innan and utan eorban lime

1306 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;gescype] y made by altering i {or u, HoUhausen) 1307 paet] paernbsp;1308 and] Not in MS. 1314 fremede] freme 1319 ne] A letter, apparently g, erased before n

GENESIS

gefaastnod wiS flode, faer Noes, selestan. past is syndrig cynn;

1325 syitile biS py heardra pe hit hreoh waster, swearte saestreamas swiSor beataS.

Da to Noe cwaeb nergend usser:

“Ic )?e jjaes mine, monna leofost, waere gesylle, past )ju weg nimestnbsp;1330 and feora faesl pe. }?u ferian scealtnbsp;geond deop waster daegrimes wornnbsp;on Hdes bosme. Laed, swa ic pe hate,nbsp;under earce bord eaforan )?ine,nbsp;frumgaran pry, and eower feower wif.

1335 Ond jju seofone genim on pxt sundreced tudra gehwilces geteled rimes,nbsp;jjara pe to mete mannum lifige,nbsp;and )jara oSerra aelces twa.

Swilce pu of eallum eorSan waestmum 1340 wiste under woegbord werodum gelaede,nbsp;pam he mid sceolon mereflod nesan.

Fed freolice feora wocre oS ic Jjasre lafe lagosiSa eftnbsp;reorde under roderum ryman wille.

1345 Gewit pn nu mid hiwum on haet hof gangan, gasta werode. Ic he godne wat,nbsp;faesthydigne; h^ eart freoSo wyrSe,nbsp;ara mid eaforum. Ic on andwlitannbsp;nu ofor seofon niht sigan lastenbsp;1350 waellregn ufan widre eorSan.

Feowertig daga faehbe ic wille on weras stslan and mid waeghreatenbsp;aehta and agend eall acwellannbsp;ha beutan beoS earce bordumnbsp;1355 honne sweart racu stigan onginneS.”

Him ha Noe gewat, swa hine nergend het, under earce bord eaforan Isedan,

1335 Ond] Written out in MS., a large 0 over the abbreviation? oSerra] oSe ra with an erasure ajter e

1338

GENESIS nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;43

weras on wsegjjEel and heora wif somed; and call Jjset to fsesle frea aelmihtignbsp;1360 habban wolde under hrof gefor

to heora aetgifan, swa him aelmihtig weroda drihten ]5urh his word ahead.

Him on hoh beleac heofonrices weard merehuses mucS mundum sinum,

1365 sigora waldend, and segnade earce innan agenum spedumnbsp;nergend usser. Noe haefde,nbsp;sunu Lameches, syxhund wintranbsp;))a he mid bearnum under bord gestah,

1370 gleaw mid geogobe, be godes haese, dugebum dyrum. Drihten sendenbsp;regn from roderum and eac rume letnbsp;willeburnan on woruld Jjringannbsp;of aedra gehwasre, egorstreamasnbsp;1375 swearte swogan. Saes up stigon

ofer staeSweaUas. Strang waes and rebe se be waetrum weold; wreah and jjeahtenbsp;manfaehbu beam middangeardesnbsp;wonnan waege, wera ebelland;

1380 hof hergode, hygeteonan wraec

metod on monnum. Mere swibe grap on faege folc feowertig daga,nbsp;nihta ober swilc. Nib waes rebe,nbsp;waellgrim werum; wuldorcyningesnbsp;1385 yba wraecon arleasra feorh

of flaeschoman. Flod ealle wreah, hreoh under heofonum hea beorgasnbsp;geond sidne grund and on sund ahofnbsp;earce from eorban and pa aebelo mid,

1390 pa segnade selfa drihten,

scyppend usser, pa he Jjaet scip beleac.

Sibban wide rad wolcnum under ofer holmes hrincg hof seleste,nbsp;for mid fearme. Faere ne moston

1358 wsgl^ael] The second se altered to e 1388 sidne] d written over n erased

GENESIS

1395 wsegliSendum wsetres brogan haeste hrinon, ac hie halig godnbsp;ferede and nerede. Fiftena stodnbsp;deop ofer dunum se drenceflodnbsp;monnes elna; Jjaet is msero wyrd!

1400 J)am ast niehstan waes nan to gedale,

nymjje heof waes ahafen on pa, hean lyft, pa se egorhere eorSan tuddornbsp;eall acwealde, buton J?aet earce bordnbsp;heold heofona frea, pa hine halig godnbsp;1405 ece upp forlet edmodne flod

streamum stigan, stiSferhS cyning.

pa gemunde god merelibende, sigora waldend sunu Lamechesnbsp;and ealle pa wocre pt he wiS waetre beleac,

1410 lifes leohtfruma, on lides bosme.

Gelaedde pa wigend weroda drihten worde ofer widland. Willflod ongannbsp;lytligan eft. Lago ebbade,nbsp;sweart under swegle. Haefde sob metodnbsp;1415 eaforum egstream eft gecyrred,nbsp;torhtne ryne, regn gestilled.

For famig scip L and C nihta under roderum, sibban nasgledbord,nbsp;fffir seleste, flod up ahof,

1420 ob}7aEt rimgetael rebre I^rage

daga forb gewat. Da on dunum gesaet heah mid hlaeste holmaerna maest,nbsp;earc Noes, pe Armenianbsp;hatene syndon. paer se halga bad,

1425 sunu Lameches, sobra gehata

lange prage, hwonne him lifes weard frea aelmihtig frecenra sibanbsp;reste ageafe, paera he rume dreahnbsp;pa hine on sunde geond sidne grand

1398 se] sse blurred and imperfectly altered to se 1401 heof] heo edmodne] ed monne flod] Not in MS. 1416 torhtne] torhtnbsp;J)aera] Jjaere

GENESIS

1430 wonne ySa wide baeron.

Holm wses heononweard; haeleb langode, waegliSende, swilce wif heora,nbsp;hwonne hie of nearwe ofer naegledbordnbsp;ofer streamstaSe staeppan mostennbsp;1435 and of enge ut aehta laedan.nbsp;pa fandode forbweard scipes,nbsp;hwaeber sincende saeflod pa gytnbsp;waere under wolcnum. Let pa ymb worn daganbsp;paes pe heah hliobo horde onfengonnbsp;1440 and aebelum eac eorSan tudresnbsp;sunu Lameches sweartne fleogannbsp;hrefn ofer heahflod of huse ut.

Noe tealde past he on neod hine, gif he on paere lade land ne funde,

1445 ofer sid waeter secan wolde

on wffigpele. Eft him seo wen geleah, ac se feonde gespearn fleotende hreaw;nbsp;salwigfeSera secan nolde.

He pa ymb seofon niht sweartum hrefne 1450 of earce forlet aefter fleogan

ofer heah waeter haswe culufran on fandunga hwaeber famig saenbsp;deop pa gyta dael aenignenbsp;grenre eorSan ofgifen haefde.

1455 Heo wide hire willan sohte

and rume fleah. Nohwebere reste fand, paet heo for flode fotum ne meahtenbsp;land gespornan ne on leaf treowesnbsp;steppan for streamum, ac waeron steap hleoSonbsp;1460 bewrigen mid waetrum. Gewat se wilda fugelnbsp;on aefenne earce secannbsp;ofer wonne waeg, werig sigan,nbsp;hungri to handa halgum rince.

Ba waes culufre eft of cofan sended 1465 ymb wucan wilde. Seo wide fleahnbsp;obpaet heo rumgal restestowe

1447 feonde] feond nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;1451 heah] hea with final h added above the line

GENESIS

fsegere funde and pa, fotum stop on beam hyre; gefeah bliSemodnbsp;]ja£s heo gesittan swibe werignbsp;1470 on treowes telgum torhtum moste.

Heo feSera onsceoc, gewat fieogan eft mid lacum hire, liSend brohtenbsp;elebeames twig an to handa,nbsp;grene blsedae» ])a ongeat hraSenbsp;1475 flotmonna frea J^aet waas frofor cumen,nbsp;earfoSsiSa bot. ])a gyt se eadega wernbsp;ymb wucan )gt;riddan wilde culüfrannbsp;ane sende. Seo eft ne comnbsp;to lide fieogan, ac heo land begeat,

1480 grene bearwas; nolde gladu tefre under salwed bord sySSan aetywannbsp;on Jjellfaestenne, pa hire Jjearf ne waes.

pa to Noe spraec nergend usser, heofonrices weard, halgan reorde:

1485 “pe is eöel'stol eft gerymed, lisse on lande, lagosiSa restnbsp;fa^er on foldan. Gewit on freSo gangannbsp;ut of earce, and on eorban bearmnbsp;of pam hean hofe hiwan laed punbsp;1490 and ealle pa wocre po ic waegjjrea onnbsp;liSe nerede Jjenden lago haefdenbsp;Jjrymme gej?eahtne J?riddan ebyl.”

He fremede swa and frean hyrde, stah ofer streamweall, swa him seo stefn behead,nbsp;1495 lustum miclum, and alasdde panbsp;of waegjjele wraSra lafe.nbsp;pa Noe ongan nergende lacnbsp;raedfaest retSran, and recene genamnbsp;on eallum dael aehtum sinum,

1500 6am 6e him to dugebum drihten sealde, gleaw to pam gielde, and pa gode selfumnbsp;torhtmod haele tiber onsaegde.

1491 liSe] hliSe 1492 gejieahtne] ge)?eahte

GENESIS

cyninge engla. Huru cuS dyde nergend usser, pa. he Noenbsp;1505 gebletsade and his beam somed,

)?3et he pstt gyld on }7anc agifen hsefde and on geogobhade godum daedumnbsp;ser geearnod pxt him ealra wsesnbsp;ara este selmihtig god,

1510 domfaest duge})a. pa gyt drihten cwSeS, wuldris aldor word to Noe:

“TymaS nu and tiedrab, tires brucaS, mid gefean frySo; fyllaS eorSan,nbsp;eall geiceacS. Eow is eSelstolnbsp;1515 and holnies hlaest and heofonfuglasnbsp;and wildu deor on geweald geseald,nbsp;eorSe aelgrene and eacen feoh.

Naefre ge mid blode beodgereordu unarlice eowre picgeab,

1520 besmiten mid synne sawldreore.

^Ic hine selfa aerest begrindeb gastes dugeSum paera pe mid gares ordenbsp;obrum aldor oSpringeb. Ne bearf he py edleane gefeonnbsp;modgepance, ac ic monnes feorhnbsp;1525 to slagan sece swibor micle,

and to broSor banan, paas pe blodgyte, waellfyll weres waspnum gespedeb,nbsp;morb mid mundum. Monn waes to godesnbsp;anlicnesse aerest gesceapen.

1530 dElc hafaS magwlite metodes and engla para pe healdan wile halige peawas.

Weaxab and wridab, wilna brucab, ara on eorban; aebelum fyllabnbsp;eowre fromcynne foldan sceatas,

1535 teamum and tudre. Ic eow treowa paes mine selle, paet ic on middangeardnbsp;najfre egorhere eft geliaede,nbsp;waeter ofer widland. Ge on wolcnum paes

1508 pEBt] pa 151So and] Not in MS. heofonfuglas] heofon fugla 1517 feoh] With r written above h 1522 paera] pasre 1525 sece] seSe

GENESIS

oft and gelome andgiettacen 1540 magon sceawigan, J^onne ic scurbogannbsp;minne iewe, pset ic monnum J^asnbsp;wsere gelseste, banden woruld standeb.”

Da waes se ^notra sunn Lamehes of fere acumen flode on lastenbsp;1545 mid his eaforum )?rim, yrfes hyrdenbsp;(and heora feower wif;nbsp;nemde waeron Percoba, 011a,

Olliua, Olljuani),

waerfest metode, wsetra lafe.

1550 Haeleb hygerofe hatene waeron, suna Noes Sem and Cham,nbsp;lafeS Jjridda. From jjam gumrincumnbsp;folc geludon and gefylHed wearSnbsp;eall )7es middangeard monna bearnum.

1555 Da Noe ongan niwan stefne mid hleomagum ham stabeliannbsp;and to eorSan him aetes tilian;nbsp;won and worhte, wingeard sette,nbsp;seow saeda fela, sohte geornenbsp;1560 pa him wlitebeorhte waestmas brohte,nbsp;geartorhte gife, grene folde.

Da J^aet geeode, jjaet se eadega wer on his wicum wearb wine druncen,nbsp;swaef symbelwerig, and him selfa sceafnbsp;1565 reaf of lice. Swa gerysne ne was,nbsp;laeg pa limnacod. He lyt ongeatnbsp;pctt him on his inne swa earme gelamp,nbsp;pa him on hreSre heafodswimanbsp;on bass halgan hofe heortan clypte.

1570 SwiSe on slaepe sefa nearwode

pcet he ne mihte on gemynd drepen hine handum self mid hraegle wryonnbsp;and sceome ]?eccan, swa gesceapu waeronnbsp;werum and wifum, siSSan wuldres begnnbsp;1575 ussum faeder and meder fyrene sweorde

1539 and] Not in MS. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;1549 metode] metod 1567 inne] innne

GENESIS

on laste beleac lifes eSel, pa com aerest Cam in siSian,nbsp;eafora Noes, pser his aldor laeg,nbsp;ferhSe forstolen. paer he freondlicenbsp;1580 on his agenum feeder are ne woldenbsp;gesceawian, ne pa sceonde humnbsp;hleomagum hel9,n, ac he hlihendenbsp;broSrum saegde, hu se beorn hinenbsp;reste on recede. Hie pa rabe stopon,

1585 heora andwlitan in bewrigenum

under lobum listum, paet hie leofum men geoce gefremede; gode waeron begen,

Sem and lafeb. Da of slajpe onbriegd sunu Lamehes, and pa sona ongeatnbsp;1590 paet him cynegodum Cham ne wolde,nbsp;pa him waes are pearf, aenige cybannbsp;hyldo and treowa. paet pam halgan waesnbsp;sar on mode, ongan pa his selfes beamnbsp;wordum wyrgean, cwaeb, he wesan sceoldenbsp;1595 hean under heofnum, hleomaga peow,

Cham on eorpan; him pa cwyde sybban and his fromcynne frecne scodon.

pa nyttade Noe sibban mid sunum sinum sidan ricesnbsp;1600 breohund wintra pisses lifes,

freomen aefter flode, and fiftig eac, pa he forb gewat.

Sibban his eaforan ead bryttedon, bearna stryndon; him waes beorht wela.nbsp;pa wearb lafebe geogob afeded,

1605 hyhtlic heorbwerod heafodmaga, sunu and dohtra. He waes selfa til,nbsp;heold a rice, ebeldreamas,nbsp;blaed mid bearnum, obpaet breosta hord,nbsp;gast ellorfus gangan sceoldenbsp;1610 to godes dome. Geomor sibban

faeder flettgesteald freondum daelde,

1579 ferhSe] ferSe with h above the line after r

GENESIS

swsesum and gesibbum, sunn lafebes; JjcBS teames waes tuddor gefyllednbsp;unlytel dcel eorban gesceafta.

1615 Swilce Chames suno cende wurdon, eaforan on eble; )ja yldestannbsp;Chus and Chanan hatene waeron,nbsp;ful freolice feorh, frumbearn Chames.nbsp;Chus w£ES aec5elum heafodwisa,

1620 wilna brytta and worulddugeSa broSrum sinum, botlgestreona,nbsp;feeder on laste, siSSan forS gewatnbsp;Cham of lice, pa him ewealm gesceod.nbsp;Se magoraeswa meegSe sinrenbsp;1625 domas saegde, oS}?aet his dogora waesnbsp;rim aurnen. pa se rinc ageafnbsp;eorScunde ead, sohte oher lif,nbsp;feeder Nebroöes. Frumbearn siSSannbsp;eafora Chuses yrfestole weold,

1630 widmaere wer, swa us gewritu seegeab, )?£et he moncynnes maeste haefdenbsp;on pam maeldagum maegen and strengo.nbsp;Se waes Babylones bregorices fruma,nbsp;aerest aeSelinga; eöelSrym onhof,

1635 rymde and raerde. Reord waes pa gieta eorhbuendum an gemaene.

Swilce of Cames cneorisse woe wermasgSa fela; of J^am widfolcenbsp;cneorim micel cenned waeron.

1640 pa wearb Seme suna and dohtra on woruldrice worn afeded,nbsp;freora bearna, aer Son frod curenbsp;wintrum waelreste werodes aldor.

On ]?aere maegSe waeron men tile,

1645 para an waes Eber haten,

eafora Semes; of pam eorle woe unrim peoda, pa nu aeSelingas,

1628 NebroSes] nebreSer 1630 swa] wwa 1638 widfolce] wid folc 1642 frod] forS

GENESIS nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;51

ealle eorSbuend, Ebrei hataS.

Gewiton him pa eastan ashta laedan,

1650 feoh and feorme. Folc waes anmod; rofe rincas sohton rumre land,nbsp;oSJjaet hie becomon corSrum miclum,nbsp;folc ferende, pxi hie faestlicenbsp;seSelinga beam, eard genamon.

1655 Gesetton pa Sennar sidne and widne leoda raeswan; leofum mannumnbsp;heora geardagum grene wongas,nbsp;faegre foldan, him forSweardenbsp;on Saere daegtide dugucSe waeron,

1660 wilna gehwilces weaxende sped.

Da J7aer mon maenig be his masgwine, aebeling anmod, oSerne basdnbsp;jjaes hie him to maerbe, aer seo mengeo eftnbsp;geond foldan bearm tofaran sceolde,

1665 leoda maegbe on landsocne

burh geworhte and to beacne torr up araerde to rodortunglum.nbsp;paes pe hie gesohton Sennera feld,nbsp;swa pa foremeahtige folces raeswan,

1670 pa yldestan oft and gelome

liSsum gewunedon; larum sohton weras to weorce and to wrohtscipe,nbsp;obj^aet for wlence and for wonhygdumnbsp;cySdon craeft heora, ceastre worhtonnbsp;1675 and to heofnum up hlaedrae raerdon,nbsp;strengum stepton staenenne weallnbsp;ofer monna gemet, maerba georne,nbsp;haeleb mid honda. pa com halig godnbsp;wera cneorissa weorc sceawigan,

1680 beorna burhfaesten, and pxt beacen somed, pe to roderum up raeran ongunnonnbsp;Adames eaforan, and paes unraedesnbsp;stiSferh’S cyning steore gefremede,

1664 bearm] beam 1674 ceastre] ea altered from some other letter, probably m 1676 stasnenne] stcennene

GENESIS

)7a he reSemod reorde gesette 1685 eorSbuendum ungelice,

]gt;3it hie jjaere spaece sped ne ahton.

pa hie gemitton mihtum spedge, teoche aet torre, getalum myclum,nbsp;weorces wisan, ne paer wermaegöanbsp;1690 aenig wiste hwaet oSer cwaeö.

Ne meahte hie gewurSan weall staenenne up forS timbran, ac hie earmlicenbsp;heapum tohlocon, hleoSrum gedaelde;nbsp;waes oSerre aeghwilc wordennbsp;1695 maegburh f remde, siSban me tod tobrsdnbsp;purh his mihta sped monna spraece.

Toforan pa on feower wegas aeSelinga beam ungepeodenbsp;on landsocne. Him on laste bunbsp;1700 stiblic stantorr and seo steape burhnbsp;samod samworht on Sennar stod.

Weox pa under wolcnum and wribade maegburh Semes, obpaet mon awocnbsp;on paere cneorisse, cynebearna rim,

1705 pancolmod wer, peawum hydig.

Wurdon pam aebelinge eaforan acende, in Babilone beam afedednbsp;freolicu tu, and pa frumgaran,nbsp;haeleb higerofe, hatene waeronnbsp;1710 Abraham and Aaron; pam eorlum waesnbsp;frea engla bam freond and aldor.

Da wearb Aarone eafora feded, leoflic on life, bam waes Loth noma.

Da magorincas metode gepungon,

1715 Abraham and Loth, unforcublice, swa him from yldrum aebelu waeronnbsp;on woruldrice; forbon hie wide nunbsp;dugebum demab drihtfolca beam.

1693 tohlocon] tohlodon 1694 oSerre] oSere 1710 wass] wees mth the first e altered to a, 1711 freond] freed 1718 drihtfolca beam] drihtanbsp;bearnum

GENESIS

J)a )5aes maeles waes mearc agongen 1720 ])xt him Abraham idese brohte,nbsp;wif to hame, Jjser he wic ahte,nbsp;faeger and freolic. Seo faemne waesnbsp;Sana haten, ))aes )je us secgeaS bee.

Hie Jja wintra fela woruld bryttedon,

1725 sine aetsomne, sibbe heoldon

geara mengeo. NohwaeSre gifeSe wearb Abrahame ))a gyt pEst him yrfeweardnbsp;wlitebeorht ides on woruld brohte,

Sarra Abrahame, suna and dohtra.

1730 Gewat him pa, mid enosle ofer Caldea foie feran mid feorme faeder Abrahames;nbsp;snotor mid gesibbum seeean woldenbsp;Cananea land. Hine eneowmaegas,nbsp;metode geeorene mid siSedonnbsp;1735 of Jjaere ebeltyrf, Abraham and Loth.

Him pa eynegode on Carran aeSelinga beam eard genamon,nbsp;weras mid wifum. On Jjam wieum hisnbsp;faeder Abrahames feorh gesealde,

1740 waerfaest haele; wintra haefde twa hundteontig, geteled rime,nbsp;and fife eae, pa he forS gewatnbsp;misserum frod metodseeaft seon.

Da se halga spraee, heofonriees weard, 1745 to Abrahame, eee drihten:

“Gewit Jju nu feran and l^ine fare laedan, eeapas to enosle. Carran ofgif,nbsp;faeder eSelstol. Far, swa ie J^e hate,nbsp;monna leofost, and pu minum welnbsp;1750 larum hyre, and pset land geseenbsp;pe ie pe aelgrene ywan wille,nbsp;brade foldan. pu gebletsad seealtnbsp;on mundbyrde minre lifigan.

Gif Se aenig eorSbuendra 1755 mid wean greteS, ie hine wergSo on

1722 waes] Added above the line 1747 Carran] carram

GENESIS

mine sette and modhete, longsumne niS; lisse selle,nbsp;wilna waestme Jiam {je wur^iaS.nbsp;purh )7e eorSbuende ealle onfoS,

1760 folcbearn freobo and freondscipe, blisse minre and bletsungenbsp;on woruldrice. WriSende scealnbsp;maegSe jjinre monrim wesannbsp;swiSe under swegle sunum and dohtrum,

1765 ob}?aet fromcyme folde weorbeb,

)?eodlond monig Jjine gefylled.”

Him Jja Abraham gewat aehte laedan of Egipta ebelmearce,nbsp;gumcystum god, golde and seolfrenbsp;1770 swiSfeorm and gesaelig, swa him sigora weard,nbsp;waldend usser }?urh his word ahead,nbsp;ceapas from Carran; sohton Cananeanbsp;lond and leodgeard. pa com leof godenbsp;on pa ebelturf idesa laedan,

1775 swaese gebeddan and his suhtrian wif on willan. Wintra haefdenbsp;fif and hundseofontig Sa he faran sceolde,

Carran ofgifan and cneowmagas.

Him pa feran gewat feeder aelmihtiges 1780 lare gemyndig land sceawian

geond pa folcsceare be frean haese Abraham wide, obpaet ellenrofnbsp;to Sicem com siSe spedig,nbsp;cynne Cananeis. pa hine cyning englanbsp;1785 Abrahame iewde self a,

domfaest wereda and drihten cwaeS:

“pis is seo eorbe pe ic aelgrene tudre pinum torhte willenbsp;waestmum gewlo on geweald don,

1790 rume rice.” pa se rinc gode

wibed worhte and pa waldende

1758 wilna] n over 1 erased? 1764 swegle] segle with w added above the line after s 1783 Sicem] siem

GENESIS

lifes leohtfruman lac onsaegde gasta helme. Him pa gyt gewatnbsp;Abraham eastan eagum wlitannbsp;1795 on landa cyst, (lisse gemunde

heofonweardes gehat, pa him })urh halig word sigora selfcyning sob gecySde),nbsp;objjffit drihtweras dugu])um geforannbsp;pxT is botlwela Bethlem haten.

1800 Beorn blibemod and his broSor sunu forS oferforan folcmaero landnbsp;eastan mid sehtum, aefseste mennbsp;weallsteapan hleobu, and him pa wic curonnbsp;J^aer him wlitebeorhte wongas gejjuhton.

1805 Abraham pa obere siSe

wibed worhte. He padt wordum god torhtum cigde, tiber onsaegdenbsp;his liffrean, (him pets lean ageafnbsp;nalles hneawlice )5urh his hand metend),

1810 on pam gledstyde gumeystum til.

Baer rassbora J^rage siSSan wicum wunode and wilna breac,nbsp;beorn mid bryde, o‘5pstt brohjjreanbsp;Cananea wearb cynne getenge,

1815 hunger se hearda, hamsittendum, waelgrim werum. Him J^a wishydignbsp;Abraham gewat on Eg5q3te,nbsp;drihtne gecoren, drohtab secan,nbsp;fleah waerfsest wean; waes psti wite to strang.nbsp;1820 Abraham mabelode, geseah Egyptanbsp;hornsele hwite and hea byrignbsp;beorhte blican; ongan pa his bryd frea,nbsp;wishydig wer, wordum laeran:

“Sibban Egypte eagum moton 1825 on ))inne wlite wlitan wlance monige,

)7onne sebelinga eorlas wenab, maeg aelfscieno, pstt )?u min sie

1809 hneawlice] hnea lice with space for one letter

GENESIS

beorht gebedda, J)e wile beorna sum him geagnian. Ic me onegan maegnbsp;1830 ]gt;xt me wraSra sum waepnes ecgenbsp;for freondmynde feore beneote.

Saga ]gt;\i, Sarra, )jaet )5U sie sweostor min, lices maege, Jjoniie he leodwerasnbsp;fremde fricgen hwaet sie freondlufunbsp;1835 ellSeodigra uncer twega,

feorren cumenra. pu him faeste hel soSan spraece; swa pu minum scealtnbsp;feore gebeorgan, gif me freoSo drihtennbsp;on woruldrice, waldend usser,

1840 an aelmihtig, swa he aer dyde,

lengran lifes. Se us has lade sceop, haet we on Egiptum are sceoldenbsp;fremena friclan and us fremu secan.”nbsp;pa com ellenrof eorl siSian,

1845 Abraham mid aehtum on Egypte, haer him folcweras fremde waeron,nbsp;wine uncube. Wordum spraeconnbsp;ymb h®s wifes wlite wlonce monige,nbsp;dugetSum dealle; him drihtlicu maeg,

1850 on wlite modgum maenegum Suhte, cyninges pegnum. Hie h®t cub dydonnbsp;heora folcfrean h^l faegerro lytnbsp;for aebelinge idesa sunnon,nbsp;ac hie Sarran swibor micle,

1855 wynsumne wlite wordum heredon, obpset he laedan heht leoflic wif tonbsp;his selfes sele. Sinces brytta,nbsp;aebelinga hehn heht Abrahamenbsp;dugubum Stepan. Hwaebere drihten wearb,

1860 frea Faraone fah and yrre

for wifmyne; p®® wrabe ongeald hearde mid hiwum haegstealdra wyn.

Ongaet hwaebere gumena aldor

1829 onegan] on agen 1836 feorren] n altered from m 1852 pst] Ab-breviationfor and 1853 idesa] idese

GENESIS

hwast him waldend wraec witeswingum;

1865 heht him Abraham to egesum geSreadne brego Egipto, and his bryd ageaf,nbsp;wif to gewealde; heht him wine ceosan,nbsp;ellor aetielingas, oSre dugeSe.

Ahead J^a })eodcyning Jjegnum sinum,

1870 ombihtscealcum, ])set hie hine arlice ealles onsundne eft gebrohtennbsp;of Jjaere folcsceare, J^aet he on friSe waere.

Da Abraham aehte laedde of Egypta eSelmearce;

1875 hie ellenrofe idese feredon,

bryd and begas, )jaet hie to Bethlem

on cu6e wic ceapas laeddon,

eadge eorSwelan obre si'Se,

wif on willan and heora woruldgestreon.

1880 Ongunnon him Jja by than and heora burh raeran, and sele settan, salo niwian.

Weras on wonge wibed setton neah J^am ])e Abraham aeror raerdenbsp;his waldende ])a. westan com.

1885 paer se eadga eft ecan drihtnes niwan stefne noman weorSade;nbsp;tilmodig eorl tiber onsaegdenbsp;peodne engla, pancode swiSenbsp;lifes leohtfruman lisse and ara.

1890 Wunedon on pam wicum, haefdon wilna geniht Abraham and Loth. Ead bryttedon,nbsp;otipaet hie on pam lande ne meahton leng somednbsp;blasdes brucan and heora begra paernbsp;aehte habban, ac sceoldon arfaeste,

1895 pa rincas py rumor secan