¹ Based on the text of Krapp, G. P. and Dobbie, E.V.K., The Exeter Book (Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 3; New York 1936) 225–7, repunctuated passim. In my lines 9a and 66a (‘Husband's Message’ 49a), I have replaced the respective readings ofer meodubence and Gecyre with those of the MS. Quotations from Old English poetry throughout will follow the texts of the A(nglo)-S(axon) P(oetic) R(ecords), ed. Krapp, and Dobbie, (New York 1931–53), 6 vols. For previous suggestions of continuity between ‘Riddle 60’ and ‘The Husband's Message,’ see particularly Blackburn, F. A., ‘The Husband's Message and the Accompanying Riddles of the Exeter Book,’ Journal of [English and] Germanic Philology 3 (1900) 1–13; Sedgefield, W. J., An Anglo-Saxon Verse Book (Manchester 1922) 36–7; and Elliott, Ralph W. V., ‘The Runes in The Husband's Message,’ Journal of English and Germanic Philology 54 (1955) 1–8.Google Scholar

² Though it is impossible to do justice to the previous interpretations here, I note briefly the gist of each in chronological order: Hicketier, F., ‘Klage der Frau, Botschaft des Gemahls und Ruine,’ Anglia 11 (1889) 363–8: when read backwards the runes spell dwears, the meaning of which remains in doubt; and other suggestions. Trautmann, Moritz, ‘Zur Botschaft des Gemahls,’ Anglia 16 (1894) 219–22: the runes stand for the names of friends of the bridegroom who vouch for the sincerity of his oath—among various possibilities, Sigerêd, Eadwine, Monna. Bradley, Henry, Modern Language Review 2 (1906–07) 367–8: the runes spell the name Sigeweard. Sieper, Ernst, Die altenglische Elegie (Strassburg 1915) 212–4: the runes have no other purpose than to cast an air of magic over the exhortation to the lady; their meaning may perhaps be paraphrased, ‘Der Sigerûne gelobt sich Êadwine als Mann.’ Imelmann, Rudolf, Forschungen zur altenglischen Poesie (Berlin 1920) 163–79: the names of the runes reflect the governing motifs of the poem; alphabetically they spell Eadwacer. Kock, Ernst, ‘Interpretations and Emendations of Early English Texts,’ Anglia 33 (1921) 122–3; the runes stand for heaven, earth, and man, corresponding to the three invocations of oaths prohibited in Matt. 5.34–6. Sedgefield, Anglo-Saxon Verse Book 159: slightly rearranged, the runes spell sweard (i.e., sweord), the instrument used in oath-taking. Grubl, Emily Doris, Studien zu den angelsächsischen Elegien (Marburg 1948) 128: the runes probably contain some hint of the sender's own name or family. Elliott, , ‘Runes in The Husband's Message’: the names of the runes reflect the governing motifs of the poem itself. Karl Schneider, Die germanischen Runennamen (Meisenheim a. G. 1956) 570–4: the runes stand for the name of the husband, Sigelræd; of his wife, Ealhwynn; and of his father-in-law, Ealhdæg. Leslie, R. F., Three Old English Elegies (Manchester 1961) 15–7: the husband has sworn by heaven and earth; the messenger accordingly announces that he has witnessed an oath by heaven, earth, and the man himself. Swanton, ‘Wife's Lament’ 289: the solution proposed by Kock (supra), with the further implication that the oath is therefore ‘that of God himself.’ Henry, P. L., The Early English and Celtic Lyric (London 1966) 192–4: The runes reflect an early Irish oath by sky, earth, moon, and sun (first pointed out by Leslie, supra); with the final rune read as D (dseg), the are to be understood as ‘heaven (sky), earth, and day.’ Google Scholar

³ See my note ‘The Reading genyre in The Husband's Message Line 49,’ Medium Ævum 33 (1964) 204–6, along with the ultra-violet photograph facing p. 169. The transcript of 1831 (Brit. Mus. MS Add. 9067) also reads genyre; see Sieper, , Die altenglische Elegie 136, 293.Google Scholar

⁴ For the first two possibilities, see ‘The Reading genyre’ 205–6; for the third, I am indebted to the suggestion of Professor Kemp Malone, who has very kindly written me the following explanation (based on OE nierwan): ‘West Germanic ^∗ narwju would become proto-English ^∗ nærwju. Here the -u would by rule be lost after the long syllable, but it was restored on the analogy of the verbs with short syllables (Luick, Karl, Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache 1.2, ed. Wild, F. and Koziol, H. [Stuttgart 1964] 282). By breaking, umlaut, and loss of j after the long syllable, the form would become West Saxon ^∗ nierwu. The w would then be lost before -u according to rule (Luick, Hist. Gram. 920–1; Bülbring, Karl, Altenglisches Elementarbuch [Heidelberg 1902] 183). The -u would eventually be replaced by -e… . Relics like genyre are commonplace in the history of languages; leveling (in this case, restoration of w under the influence of other conjugational forms, where w was kept according to rule) is seldom so thoroughgoing as to leave no trace of the original pattern. When a form can be explained as such a relic, this explanation, in my opinion, is the one to be preferred.' Google Scholar

⁵ A few other possibilities are suggested in ‘The Reading genyre’ 206. For a use of genyrwan with the more specific meaning ‘bind (together?),’ note the 'apparent variation in Crist 364b-365a (ASPR 3.13): ‘… hearde genyrwad, / gebunden bealorapum.’ Google Scholar

⁶ Förster, Max in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry (London 1933) 62 n. 21: ‘Where the scribe puts whole groups of runes between dots … he means to point out that each group of runes is to be taken for one word… . But where he dots each rune separately … the runes are to be used as separate letters, or as symbols for the word suggested by the name of the rune.’ Google Scholar

⁷ The identification of ‘sky’ with ‘heaven’ exists, of course, both in OE heofon (Grein, C.W.M., Sprachschatz der angelsächsischen Dichter , rev. Köhler, J.J. [Heidelberg 1912] 328) and in Latin coelum. Google Scholar

⁸ Similar explanations of EA-W are proposed by Kock, , ‘Interpretations and Emendations’ 122–3, and Leslie, , Three Old English Elegies 16—both of whom also present ‘heaven, earth, and man’ as the solution to the series of runes as a whole.Google Scholar

⁹ The statement frequently made (e.g., by Elliott, , ‘Runes in Husband's Message’ 4) that this rune can be read either as M or as D (dæg, ‘day’) is not supported by a close examination of the three other relevant runes in the Exeter Book. On fol. 105a, the third rune in line 19 (Riddle 19 line 5a; ASPR 3.189) is identified as M by its position in the reversed spelling NOM, i.e. MON, ‘man.’ On fol. 124a—immediately following the folio containing the runes of ‘The Husband's Message’ —the rune in line 17 (Ruin line 23: ASPR 3. 228) is identified as M by its necessary part in the alliteration of the line, together with the obvious appropriateness of the resulting compound mondreama. On folio 127a, the first rune in line 1 (Riddle 75 line 2; ASPR 3.234) has been taken as a D in all explanations proposed so far (see ASPR 3.371), and from its position in the runic word could hardly be taken as even a possible M. In ASPR, the first of these three runes is represented quite misleadingly by the conventional M-rune , while the last two appear as identical with the rune in ‘The Husband's Message.’ In the MS, however, the first two runes (i.e., those on fols. 105a and 124a, whose contexts identify them as M's) are in fact identical with our rune in ‘The Husband's Message’ (fol. 123b line 19); for present purposes, the important fact is that in all three the top ends of the crossed diagonal lines actually meet the top knobs of the vertical outer lines. In the third rune (i.e., on fol. 127a, whose context indicates a D), the top ends of the diagonal lines meet the vertical lines on each side at a point distinctly below these upper knobs. Expressed in somewhat exaggerated form, then, the scribe's M-rune is , and his D-rune . The difference is clearly discernible in the facsimile edition, The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry (London 1933).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Quoted from Rahner, Hugo, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery , trans. Battershaw, Brian (London 1963) 54; for the Greek text, Martyrium Andreae 14, ed. Bonnet, M., Acta Apostolorum apocrypha (Leipzig 1891–1903) 2.1.54–5: ‘[ω σταυρὲ] γνωρίζω σου τὸ μυστήριον δἰ καὶ πέπηγασ πέπηξαι γὰρ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ να τὰ στατα στηρίξσ ˙ καὶ τὸ μέν σου εἰσ οὐρανοὺσ ἀνατείνεται να τὸν νθρωπον λόγον σημαίνσ…. τὸ δέ σου πέπηκται εἰσ γῆν να τὰ εἰσ γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖσ καταχθονίοισ συνάψσ τοῖσ ἐπουρανίοισ…. σταυρὲ ἐπὶ γῆσ φυτευθεὶσ καὶ τὸν καρπὸν ἐν οὐρανοῖσ χων …’ Ps.-Hippolytus, De Pascha homilia 51.9–10, ed. Nautin, P., Homélies pascales (SC 27; Paris 1950) 1.177–9; trans, in Rahner, H., Greek Myths 67. The poem De Pascha , ed. Hartel, W. v., S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani opera omnia (CSEL 3; Vienna 1871) 3.305–8. For this and other relevant motifs concerning the Cross, see in general Rabanus Maurus, De laudibus S. Crucis (PL 107.133–294); Jakob Gretser, S.J., De Sancta Cruce 1 passim and 3.5, Opera omnia (Ratisbon 1734) 1 and 3.281–359; Zöckler, Otto, Das Kreuz Christi (Gütersloh 1875); Jacoby, Adolf, art. ‘Kreuzbaum, Kreuzholz,’ Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens 5 (Berlin 1932–33) 487–99; Greenhill, Eleanor Simmons, ‘The Child in the Tree: A Study of the Cosmological Tree in Christian Tradition,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 323–71; and Rahner, H., Greek Myths 46–68.Google Scholar

¹¹ Hom, . on Matt. 26.39 (PG 51.35). See also ps.-Chrysostom, hom. De veneranda Cruce (PG 63.849); Andrew of Crete (7th-8th c.), Hom. 10 (PG 97.1020, 1028); and Ladner, Gerhart B., ‘St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine on the Symbolism of the Cross,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. , ed. Weitzmann, Kurt (Princeton 1955) 88–95. In view of the apparent survival of some Greek learning in England into the eighth century—emphasized for example by Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England (2nd ed.; Oxford 1947) 181–2—I have made a certain limited use of Greek authors in the present study, without at any point allowing my argument to depend on them.Google Scholar

¹² De errore profanarum religionum 27.3, ed. Pastorino, A. (Florence 1956) 260–1. See also Quodvultdeus (5th. c.), De cataclysmo 6 (PL 40.698); the sixth-century Latin Martyrium Petri 11, ed. Lipsius, R. A. and Bonnet, M. Acta Apost. apoc. 1.13; and Rabanus, , De laud., 1.1 (PL 107.157–8) et passim. A sermon by Maximus of Turin (Serm. 38; CCL 23.150) exemplifies a different kind of figurative relation established by the Cross among earth, heaven, and man: ‘Hoc igitur dominico signo [i.e., cruce] scinditur mare terra colitur caelum regitur homines conseruantur.’ Google Scholar

¹³ Comm. in Ep. ad Eph. 1 (PL 26.474); note also cols. 473–5 generally, and his comment on Eph. 3.10–1 (ibid. 483), quoted e.g., by Amalarius of Metz, De eccles. off. 4.14 (PL 105. 1028). On Col. 1.20, see for example Augustine, Enchirid. 62 (PL 40.261), quoted by Florus of Lyon (ps.-Bede), Commentarii in omnes divi Pauli Epistolas (Venice 1543) 485^v-486^r ; Rabanus, , Enarr. in Epp. Pauli 20 (PL 112.516–7); and Scotus, Sedulius, Collect. in Epist. ad Col. (PL 103.225). Some relevant exegeses of Eph. 3.18 are assembled by Schönbach, Anton E., Altdeutsche Predigten 2 (Graz 1888) 177–89.Google Scholar

¹⁴ De Symb. 4 (PL 40.1192–3). De div. off. 18 (PL 101.1208). See also Otfrid's Evangelienbuch 5.1.19–30, ed. Erdmann, Oskar (Germanistische Handbibl. 5; Halle 1882) 262.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For further information on this stone, see Zarnecke, George, ‘The Newent Funerary Tablet,’ Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 72 (1953) 49–55; the reproduction is from pl. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶ On the subject generally, see Greenhill, E., ‘Child in the Tree,’ and the other references in n. 10 supra. A rectangular stone slab set into the north wall of the nave in the Church of St. Peter at Diddlebury (Salop) contains what seems to be an Anglo-Saxon sculpture of this same motif: a tree strongly resembling the conventional lignum vitae, with two human figures in its branches. Is the same significance to be attributed to the lofty tree in the Old English Fenix (lines 171–222, 447 ff., 642–54; ASPR 3.99–100, 106, 112)? Google Scholar

¹⁷ Dream of the Rood , ASPR 2.61–5. Enigmata Tatwini 9, ‘De Cruce Christi,’ ed. Ebert, Adolf, ‘Die Räthselpoesie der Angelsachsen,’ Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Classe 29 (1877) 34. Enigmata Eusebii 17, ‘De Cruce,’ ibid. 45–6.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Among countless examples of the simple formula, see Ambrose, , Expos. Evang. sec. Luc. 10.110 (CCL 14.337); for the image of Jacob's ladder, Zeno of Verona, Tractatus 2.13 (PL 11.433), and Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 87 3 (CCL 103.358–9).Google Scholar

¹⁹ From Eric Hunt, J., English and Welsh Crucifixes 670–1550 (London 1956) 29 pl. 11 (Brit. Mus. MS Arundel 60, fol. 12^r); note also 27 pl. 10. A small stone Anglo-Saxon crucifix now on the east wall of the south aisle in the Church of St. Catherine at Wormington, Glos. (ibid. 19 pl. 8) carries a similar suggestion, especially when seen at first-hand. Note also Commodian, Carmen de duobus populis 771–2 (CCL 128.101); and the Oracula Sibyllina 6. 26–7, ed. Geffcken, J. (Leipzig 1902) 132:Google Scholar

ξύλον μακαριστόν, ἐφ‘ ο Θεόσ έξετανύσθη, οὐχ ξει σε χθών, ἀλλ’ οὐρανὸν οκον ἐσόψει… . Google Scholar

²⁰ Maternus, Firmicus, De errore 21.5 (ed. Pastorino, ) 220. For this extremely common association, see the works cited in n. 10 supra. Google Scholar

²¹ Stevens, William O., The Cross in the Life and Literature of the Anglo-Saxons (Yale Studies in English 23; New York 1904) 32–4.Google Scholar

²² 1.1 (PL 107.154, along with the figure in 149–50); see also 1.14 (ibid. 205–6) et passim. According to Paulinus of Nola, Carmina 18.612 ff., ed. Hartel, W. v. (CSEL 30: Vienna 1894) 139–40, the Cross signifies Christ in a manner resembling that of the chi-rho monogram, which contains within itself all the letters of the word χριστόσ. For further references, see Aloys Grillmeier, S.J., Der Logos am Kreuz (Munich 1956) 76–7.Google Scholar

²³ Serm. 155 1 (PL 39.2047). A fuller Latin version of this homily circulated under the name of Chrysostom himself: see n. 37 infra, and Wilmart, André, ‘La collection des 38 homélies latines de Saint Jean Chrysostome,’ Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1917–18) 313–4.Google Scholar

²⁴ Serm. 120 8 (PL 39.1987). Caesarius of Aries, Serm. 87 3 (CCL 103.359): ‘… [dominus noster] in cruce occubuit, et postea sibi ecclesiam sociavit, dans ei in praesenti arras sanguinis sui, daturus dotem postmodum sui regni.’ Rabanus, , De laud. 1.16 (PL 107.211):Google Scholar

In cruce quam [i.e., sponsam] sponsus regali sanguinis ostro Dotavit, desponsavit in scammate saecli hoc.Google Scholar

Note also 1.1 (ibid. 153) et passim. Andrew of Crete, Hom. 10 (PG 97,1021), includes in a series of praises, ‘σταυρόσ … συζυγίασ σύνδεσμοσ’; in Hom. 11 (PG 97.1037), in a passage on the discovery of the Cross, he refers to '… ὁ τοῦ Kυρίου σταυρὸσ, διῷ ο τῳ χριστῷ νυμφευθεῖσα ἡ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ‘εκκλησία …’ and adds shortly, 'εικότωσ ον ἡ ‘εκκλησία τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Kυρίου συγχαίρουσα, τὸν έαυτῆσ χιτῶνα στολίζεται, καὶ τὸ νυμφικον ἐκκαλύπτουσα κάλλοσ…’ Google Scholar

²⁵ A possible objection to such a reading might, I suppose, be suggested by the hope expressed in line 49b that the lovers' reunion may be granted by alwaldend god—which, in view of Christ's own participation in the Godhead, may seem inappropriate to an allegory in which the lover is himself made to signify Christ. Such distinctions between what might be called the ‘personalities’ of God the Father and God the Son, however, have an inevitable basis in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 26.39; Luke 23.46; and John 14.28) and are frequent in patristic literature, if not always theologically consistent.Google Scholar

²⁶ 1.5 (PL 107.167); see also 1.11 (ibid. 191); 1. 8 (ibid. 179–80); et passim. Google Scholar

²⁷ Augustine, , De civ. Dei 16.27 (CCL 48.532).Google Scholar

²⁸ See for example the illustrations of around 1000 in MS. Oxford, Bodl. Junius XI, repr. Israel Gollancz, The Cædmon Manuscript of Anglo-Saxon Biblical Poetry (Oxford 1927) 9–11, 41, 44–5; and note Tertullian, , Adv. Praxean 16.3 (CCL 2.1181).Google Scholar

²⁹ 1.16 (PL 107.214).Google Scholar

³⁰ Is. 49.18; Jer. 22.24; Ezeeh. 5.11; 17.16, 19; 18.3; 20.3, 31, 33; 33.27; 34.8. The third-person vivit Deus or Dominus is used more than thirty times. It should be noted, however, that the expression be him (me, pe) lifgendum occurs regularly in OE with the simple meaning ‘so long as he (I, you) live(s)’; see for example Beowulf 2665; Exodus 324 (ASPR 1.100); GuÐlac 1234 (ASPR 3.84); and Juliana 133 (ASPR 3.116).Google Scholar

³¹ ASPR 5.71. The parallel has been pointed out by Kershaw, N., Anglo-Saxon and Norse Poems (Cambridge 1922) 176; and Swanton, , ‘Wife's Lament’ 286.Google Scholar

³² Remigius of Auxerre, Enarr. in Ps. (PL 131. 656): ‘“Oculi mei ad fideles terrae” … id est, ad illos qui fideliter terrenitatem suam colunt. Et quid hoc illis? Ut tandem “sedeant mecum” in regno meo.’ Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 100.10 (CCL 39.1415): ‘“Ambulans in uia immaculata, hic mihi ministrabat” … Quid est, Christo ministrare? Ea quae Christi sunt quaerere.’ Google Scholar

³³ Gregory of Elvira (ps.-Ambrose), sermon De Salomone 4.10, on Prov. 30.19 (PL 17.697). Besides the reference in the following note, see for example Ambrose, De Spir. Sane. 1.9. 110 (PL 16.730); Augustine, Tract. in Ioh. 2.2–4, on John 1.6–14 (CCL 36.12–4); a ps.-Augustinian sermon possibly by Eraclius of Hippo (PL 39.1884–5); a seventh-century ps.-Hieronymian Comm. in Evang. sec. Marc. now attributed to the Irish exegete Cummeanus (see McNally, R. E. S.J., The Bible in the Early Middle Ages [Westminster, Md. 1959] 107 and Bischoff, B., Sacris Erudiri 6 [1954] 199 ff.) on Mark 15.21 (PL 30.638); Maximus of Turin, Serm. 37–8 (CCL 23.145–6, 149); Venantius Fortunatus, Carmina 8.3.397, ed. Leo, Fr. (MGH, Auct. antiq. 4.1; Berlin 1881) 191; Gregory, , Hom. in Ezech. 1.6.13 (PL 76.834–5); and two early engravings repr. Dalton, O. M., Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities and Objects from the Christian East in the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities … of the British Museum (London 1901) pl. 2.40, 70; and pp. 7, 11.Google Scholar

³⁴ Expl. sup. Ps. xii , on Ps. 47.8 (PL 14.1151).Google Scholar

³⁵ It should be remembered that the bulk of our external evidence for the Germanic 'rune-staff itself is provided by the rúnakefli in Icelandic sagas and romances of the thirteenth century and after; see for example Arntz, Helmut, Handbuch der Runenkunde (Halle 1944) 250–2. Note, however, what sounds like a clear reference to a rune-staff by Venantius Fortunatus, Carmina 7.18.19–20, ed. cit. (n. 33 supra) 173:Google Scholar

Barbara fraxineis pingatur rhuna tabellis, quodque papyrus agit virgula plana valet.Google Scholar

³⁶ For the definitions ‘tabulatum navis’ and ‘deck of a ship,’ see Grein, , Sprachschatz 86, Bosworth, Joseph, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary , rev. Toller, T. N. (Oxford 1898) 151, and Clark Hall, John R., A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary , rev. Meritt, Herbert D. (Cambridge 1962) 67; and cf. especially buruhÐelu, ‘hall-floor,’ Battle of Finnsburg 30b (ASPR 6.4). The combination ceol, ‘ship,’ and þelu (þel?), ‘plank or floor,’ in a context requiring that some object be carried on the surface so designated, can hardly be explained as anything except the deck. The general picture is parelleled in Maxims II (Cotton Gnomes) 24–5 (ASPR 6.56): ‘Msest sceal on ceole, /segelgyrd seomian.’ Google Scholar

³⁷ Opera D. Joannis Chrysostomi … quotquot per Graecorum exemplarum facultatem in Latinam linguam hactenus traduci potuerunt … 3 (Basle 1547) 839; the Greek text (PG 50.818) includes an additional nautical image: ‘… ἐν πλοίῳ ἐκάθιοεν, να σε ὑπεράνω τῶν χερουβὶμ καθίσ … ὡδοιπόρησεν, να σε ἀκάματον ποίηση πλευσε, να σε φοβον καταστήσ .’ The homily includes also an extended figure in which God sits on a rock watching men ply their ships over the sea of this life (Opera 3.838; PG 50.817–8). The Latin translation forms part of a collection of thirty-eight Latin homilies attributed to Chrysostom—which, though our earliest complete manuscripts date from the ninth century, are known through partial quotation to have existed in Latin as early as the fifth. Our present homily, for example, is quoted briefly by Augustine, Contra Jul., 2.6.17 (PL 44.685), and by Cassiodorus, , Exp. in Ps. 4.7 (CCL 97.60); and parts of it appear in at least three manuscript homiliaries from the seventh or eighth centuries. See Wilmart, , ‘La collection des 38 homélies latines’ (n. 23 supra) 305–6, 315; and Berthold Altaner, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der altlateinischen Übersetzungen von Väterschriften,’ Historisches Jahrbuch 61 (1941) 217–22.Google Scholar

³⁸ In Matth. Evang. exp. 2 (PL 92.42). See also his In Marc. Evang. exp. 2, on Mark 4.38 (PL 92.174), and In Luc. Evang. exp. 3, on Luke 8.22 (PL 92.434); and Cummeanus (?), Comm. in Evang. sec. Marc, on Mark. 4.38 (PL 30.605).Google Scholar

³⁹ Fortunatus, Venantius, Carmina 2.2.1–3 (ed. cit., n. 33 supra) 27. Among countless repetitions of this commonplace, see for example the hymn ‘Decus sacrati nomimis’ 19–20, ed. Walpole, A. S., Early Latin Hymns (Cambridge 1922) 391, ‘… quo [i.e. Christo] per crucis uictoriam / caeli petamus patriam’; and Rufinus, Exp. Symb. 12 (CCL 20.149).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See for example Eucherius of Lyon, Lib. formularum spiritalis intelligentiae 3 (PL 50.741); the eighth-century Clavis Scripturae 3.17.2–3, ed. Pitra, J. B., Spicilegium Solesmense 2 (1852–58) 79; and Rabanus, , De universo 9.pr. (PL 111.261).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hom. in Ezech. 2.10.7, 11 (PL 76.1062, 1064). See also 2.7.13 on Ezech. 40.24 (PL 76.1020–2), repeated by Rabanus, , Comm. in Ezech. 15 (PL 110.934); Jerome, , Comm. in Ezech. 12, on the same verse (PL 25.387–8); and Gregory, , Mor. in Iob 12.4.5, on Job 14.7–10 (PL 75.988); ‘In die etenim mortis suae justus ad Austrum cadit, peccator ad Aquilonem, quia et Justus per fervorem spiritus ad gaudia ducitur, et peccator … in frigido suo reprobatur.’ Google Scholar

⁴² Enarr. in Ps. 125.10 (CCL 40.1852). A popular tradition locates the heavenly kingdom to the southeast; see for example Bede, , Hist, eccles. 4.3 and 5.12, ed. Plummer, Charles (Oxford 1896) 208 and 307, and Cook, Albert S., The Christ of Cynewulf (Boston 1900) 180–1; I am grateful to Hill, Thomas D. of Cornell University for calling this to my attention.Google Scholar

⁴³ Lines 135–44 (ASPR 2.65). For the role of the Cross as convoy of the soul to its heavenly rest—clearly reflected in 138–39a—see Bousset, W., ‘Platons Weltseele und das Kreuz Christi,’ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 14 (1913) 283.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Beowulf 2174 (restored from MS ðeod dohtor); and Riddle 45 5 (ASPR 3.205). For the sense of the latter, see Baum, Pauli F., Anglo-Saxon Riddles of the Exeter Book (Durham, N. C. 1963) 58.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ In Cant Cantic. 10 (PLS 1.974). Bede, , In Cant. Cantic. alleg. exp. 5.7 (PL 91.1188): ‘Filiam autem principis eam vocat, illius utique de quo scriptum est: “Omnis gloria ejus, filiae regis ab intus” [Ps. 44.14]. Qui inter alia coelestium donorum promissa, loquitur ei ipse per prophetam: “Patrem vocabis me, et post me ingredi non cessabis” [Jer. 3.19].’ See also the ninth-century Enarr. in Cant. Cantic. by Haimo of Auxerre (PL 117.342); and on the variant filia Aminadab , Ambrose, , In Ps. 118 exp., 17.14 (PL 15.1445).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Quoted by Jerome, , Adv. Jov. , 1.30 (PL 23.253).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Seafarer 53–5 (ASPR 3.144), ‘sumeres weard.’ GuÐlac 743–4 (ASPR 3.70), ‘geacas gear budon.’ Alcuin, , Versus de cuculo 13, ed. Dümmler, Ernst, Poetae latini aevi Carolini (MGH, Poetae 1; Berlin 1881) 1.269, ‘veniet [cuculus] sub tempore veris’ (cf. line 27); and the anonymous Conflictus veris et hiemis, ibid. 1.270–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ 10.11 (PL 111.303). See also Augustine, , Enarr. in Ps. , 73.20 (CCL 39.1018); Eucherius, , Lib. form. spir. intell., (PL 50.741); Clavis Script. 3.51.3 (ed. cit., n. 40 supra) 115; and Remigius of Auxerre, Enarr. in Ps., on Ps. 73.17(PL 131.531). Augustine, , Serm. 36.4 (PL 38.216): ‘Sic aestas nostra, Christi est adventus; hiems nostra, Christi occultatio; aestas nostra, Christi revelatio.’ Gregory, Hom. in Evang. 1.3 (PL 76.1080); ‘Bene autem regnum Dei aestati comparatur, quia tunc moeroris nostri nubila transeunt, et vitae dies aeterni solis claritate fulgescunt.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁹ E.g., Eucherius, , Augustine, and Remigius as in n. 48 supra; Clavis Script. 3.50.1, ed. cit. 115; Rabanus, , De univ. 10.11 (PL 111.302).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ No. 66, ed. Dümmler, Ernst, Epp. Karol. aevi (MGH, Epp. 4; Berlin 1895) 2.109–10. For whatever complication the fact may introduce, Cuculus was clearly a familiar nickname for the much-exhorted Dodo (ibid. 110 n.).Google Scholar

⁵¹ ‘Alcuin's Versus de Cuculo: The Vision of Pastoral Friendship,’ Studies in Philology 62 (1965) 523: ‘… the cuckoo's return [in the De Cuculo] has a richer mystique of overtones: that of the dove which as the Holy Spirit brings in the springtime of history …’; and 523–4 n. 28: ‘In the substitution of the cuckoo … for the allegoric dove of Genesis and the Canticle, we have the key to the effective blurring of its symbolic overtones… .’ We find exactly the same device—of muting and transcending allegory by symbolic substitution—in the cuckoo of the Conflictus veris et hiemis… .' Google Scholar

⁵² Sermo in Dominica IV post Pascha , ed. de La Haye, John, Opera omnia (Lyon 1653) 205. The words ‘cucus seu’ do not appear in the modern text ed. Locatelli, A. M., S. Antonii Pat … Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus 1 (Padua 1895–1913) 184.Google Scholar

⁵³ Quotation from Origen, , Hom. in Cant. Cantic. 2, trans. Jerome, (PG 13.58). See also Isidore, , Etym. 12.7.60, ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Oxford 1911), who describes the turtle-dove as dwelling ‘in montium iugis’ and ‘in silvis’; and Bede, quoted infra. Google Scholar

⁵⁴ In Cant. Cantic. alleg. exp. 2.9 (PL 91.1111). It may be worth noting incidentally that the names of both birds are somethimes explained as derived from their songs (e.g. , Isidore, , Etym. 12.7.60, 67, ed. cit.); and that both cuculus and turtur are reduplicating.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ in Cant. Cantic. 4 (PG 13.184–8).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Tract, in Ioh. 117.5 (CCL 36.653–4); repeated by Bede, , In S. Joan. Evang. exp. (PL 92.910–1), and Alcuin, , Comment, in Joan. 7 (PL 100.981–2). Ps.-Cyprian, De montibus Sina et Sion 9, ed. cit. (n. 10 supra) 3.113: ‘… Pontius Pilatus impulita mente a Deo accepit tabulam et titulum et scripsit… .’ On the subject generally, see Gretser, , De S. Cruce 1.28–30, ed. cit. (n. 10 supra) 1.41–6; and Honorat Nicquet, S.J., Titulus Sanctae Crucis (Antwerp 1670).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Collect, in Ep. ad Col. , (PL 103.227). Andrew of Crete, Hom. 10 (PG 97.1021) describes the Cross as a τύποσ γραφοσ, or ‘unwritten decree’—a concept which could, I suppose, contribute to a figurative understanding of the Cross as a decree that is not ‘written’ in the usual sense, being formulated in the ‘writing’ (i.e., the work of Atonement) of God Himself. But without more specific evidence, such an explanation remains highly conjectural.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ De cataclysmo 6 (PL40.698). An example of agrafan with the meaning ‘make by carving or sculpting’ occurs in the Old English Heptateuch, Deut. 27.15, ed. Crawford, S.J. (EETS 160; London 1922) 358: ‘Beo se man awyrged ðe wyrce agrafene Godas oÐðe gegotene & on diglum sette’ (rendering ‘Maledictus homo qui facit sculptile et conflatile’). See also Lev. 26.1, ibid. 300.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See for example Collingwood, W. G., Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age (London 1927) 54, 63; and Henry, Françoise, La sculpture irlandaise pendant les douze premiers siècles de l'ère chrétienne 1 (Paris 1933) 16–21.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ed. Thorpe, Benjamin, The Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric (Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church 1; London 1844–46) 2.306. Note also Elene 1224–6 (ASPR 2.100).Google Scholar

⁶¹ On the arbor vitae and the stream of Paradise generally, see for example Thomas Malvenda, O.P., De paradiso voluptatis (Rome 1605) 207–41, 145–58; Piper, Ferdinand, ‘Der Baum des Lebens,’ Evangelischer Kalender 14 (1863) 1–94; Holmberg, Uno, Der Baum des Lebens (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia B.16.3; Helsinki 1922) 71–2; Reybekiel, W. v., ‘Der Fons vitae in der christlichen Kunst,’ Niederdeutsche Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 12 (1934) 91–5; Schlee, Ernst, Die Ikonographie der Paradiesesflüsse (Studien über christliche Denkmäler N. F. 24; Leipzig 1937); Bauerreis, Romuald O.S.B., Arbor Vitae: Der ‘Lebensbaum’ und seine Verwendung in Liturgie, Kunst und Brauchtum des Abendlandes (Abh. der Bayerischen Benediktiner-Akademie 3; Munich 1938) 28–31; Bergema, Hendrik, De Boom des Levens in Schrift en Historie (Hilversum 1938) 175–81; and Rahner, H., Greek Myths 61–4.Google Scholar

⁶² ‘Vegetation Symbolism and the Concept of Renaissance,’ De artibus opuscula XL: Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky , ed. Meiss, Millard (New York 1961) 1.312.Google Scholar

⁶³ Cummeanus (?), Comm. in Evang. sec. Marc. 15.23 (PL 30.638). Amalarius of Metz, De eccles. off. 4.14 (PL 105.1031): ‘Sicut istud lignum [scientiae] fuit in causa probationis, ita lignum vitae in causa sempiternae vitae. Hoc lignum attulit nobis Dominus noster Jesus Christus per lignum crucis in Ecclesia nostra… .’ Rabanus, , De laud. 1.11 (PL 107.191), with reference to the Cross: Google Scholar

Nam Genesis vitae laudat mirabile lignum hoc Inter cuncta fuit plantatum quod paradiso, Vivificans ligna tribuens et munera fructus.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See Quinn, Esther C., The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life (Chicago 1962) 53 ff., and the accompanying references; Traditio 21 (1965) 185–222.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The remark by Quinn, , ibid. 77, that ‘the first actual statement that the cross was made of the wood of the tree of knowledge is, according to Otto Zöckler, to be found in the Greek writer, Anastasius Sinaitica (ca. 650)’ is clearly in error; cf. Zöckler (n. 10 supra) 469–71, and Anastasius, , Anagogicae contemplationes in hexaemeron 7 (PG 89.944–5). For typical early statements of the relation between Cross and lignum scientiae, see Irenaeus, , Adv. haer. 5.16–7 (PG 7.1168, 1171); and Maternus, Firmicus, De errore 25.2, ed. Pastorino, 244–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Photograph taken by the author; reproduced with the kind permission of the vicar of Newent. For a dating in the early or middle eighth century, see Clapham, A. W., English Romanesque Architecture Before the Conquest (Oxford 1930) 67 and pl. 19; for a dating in the ninth century, Kendrick, T. D., Anglo Saxon Art to A.D. 900 (London 1938) 182, and Zarnecke, , ‘Newent Funerary Tablet’ (n. 15 supra) 55. All remark on the Northumbrian or Mercian style of the carvings.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ From Gollancz, , Cædmon Manuscript (n. 28 supra) 7 (detail). A thirteenth-century mosaic of the Expulsion of Adam and Eve, in the outer circle of the south dome in the atrium of the Cathedral of San Marco, Venice, shows the lignum vitae bearing a similar though larger cross; repr. Bettini, Sergio, Mosaici antichi di San Marco a Venezia (Bergamo [1944]) pl. 50.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Antiquitates Judaicae 1.1.32, 1.3.37–8, ed. Blatt, Franz, The Latin Josephus (Acta Jutlandica 30.1, Humanistisk Serie 44: Copenhagen 1958) 127–8; see also Damascene, John, De fide orthod. 1.9 (PG 94.904). Such concepts, of course, derive ultimately from the Classical world-river ' ωκενόσ. See for example Weizsäcker, P., art. ‘Okeanos,’ Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie , ed. Roscher, W. H. (Leipzig 1897–1937) 3.809–20; and the eighth- and ninth-century maps of the world repr. Brown, Lloyd A., The Story of Maps (Boston 1949) opp. pp. 126 and 119, which show Paradise adjoining this cosmic river.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ From Gollancz, , Cædmon Manuscript (n. 28 supra) 13. Reybekiel, W. v., ‘Fons vitae in der christlichen Kunst’ (n. 61 supra) 91, remarks that the stream of Paradise ‘frei in ihrer Naturform als Quelle oder See gegeben wird.’ I am indebted to Hill, Thomas D. of Cornell University for pointing out to me that if this tree growing by the water in our present poem is identified as an ancestor of the Cross, the identification in turn speaks strongly for the MS reading ofer holmwudu (usually emended to ofer holtwudu) in Dream of the Rood 91a (ASPR 2.64); its meaning would be that the Cross was honored above the other ‘trees by the water’—i.e., the other trees of Paradise.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Dobbie, , ASPR 3.362. The emendation meodubyrig (infra) was suggested to me by Professor, C. Wrenn, L. Google Scholar

⁷¹ Riddle 55 (ASPR 3.208) describes the carrying ‘in healle, þær hæleÐ druncon, / on flet’ (1–2a) of a mysterious object, one component of which is described openly as the Cross (5–10a); see von Erhardt-Siebold, Erika, Die lateinischen Rätsel der Angelsachsen (Anglistische Forschungen 61; Heidelberg 1925) 83–4. Though this connection of a cross with a hall and men drinking offers in some ways a tantalizing resemblance to the Cross ofer meodubence, its significance is of course limited by the fact that the Cross is mentioned only as a device to help identify the unnamed subject of the riddle.Google Scholar

⁷² 9, ed. Bonnet, M., Acta Apostolorum apocrypha (Leipzig 1898) 2.1.223–4. Note also the seventh- or eighth-century De plasmationem [sic] Adam 1, ed. Förster, Max, ‘Das älteste mittellateinische Gesprächbüchlein,’ Romanische Forschungen 27 (1910) 343: ‘Et posuerunt [angeli limum terrae] iuxta arbore [sic] necteris [sic], qui est in medio ligni paradisi’ (cf. Gen. 3. 8).Google Scholar

⁷³ See n. 43 supra. Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Wadstein, Ernst, Die eschatologische Ideengruppe (Leipzig 1896) 37–8; and Bousset, W., The Antichrist Legend , trans. Keane, A. H. (London 1896) 233–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Note Bede's description ( Hist, eccles. , 1.25, ed. Plummer, Charles [Oxford 1896] 1.46) of Augustine and his company approaching Canterbury ‘more suo cum cruce sancta… .’ Google Scholar

⁷⁶ The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 883 (ed. Earle, John, rev. Plummer, Charles, Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel 1 [Oxford 1892] 79) records that Pope Marinus ‘sende þa lignum dñi Ælfrede cynge;’ a similar entry appears for 885 (ibid. 1.80, 81). On relics of the Cross in Anglo-Saxon England, see Stevens, , Cross in the Life and Literature of the Anglo-Saxons 11–2.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Quinn, , Quest of Seth ch. 3–5, and the accompanying references.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Pp.: 61–62 supra. See Henri de Lubac, S.J., Exégèse médiévale 1.2 (Paris 1959) ch. 8–10.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See particularly Cross, J. E., ‘The Conception of the Old English Phoenix,’ New Approaches to Old English Poetry , ed. Creed, Robert P. (Providence, R. I. 1967) 129–52.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ For the typology from Canticles, see Jean Daniélou, S.J., The Bible and the Liturgy (Notre Dame 1956) 191–207; for the Cross and the waters of Baptism, Lundberg, Per, La typologie baptismale dans l'ancienne Église (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 10; Uppsala 1942) 167–200, especially 198 ff.; for the typology of the dove, Daniélou, J., Bible and Liturgy 73–85 passim; and for that of Paradise, ibid. 30–53 passim. Google Scholar

⁸¹ To whatever extent this interpretation has carried conviction, it suggests inevitably the possibility of a similar allegory in ‘The Wife's Lament’ (ASPR 3.210–1). Swanton, , Wife's Lament 289, proposes ‘an exploration of the relationship between Christ and the Church, which yearns for the re-establishment of a previous union … while the world in its Last Age after the death and departure of the Man, presents images only of death and decay.’ A promising alternative might be to understand the poem as a lament by the divorced and abandoned Synagogue; without attempting a complete interpretation, let us consider briefly the single indicative detail of the lady's having been commanded to dwell ‘under actreo’ (28a). In patristic literature, the Cross is very often identified figuratively as an oak-tree. See for example the poem De Pascha 3, ed. cit. (n. 10 supra) 305; Proba, , Cento 616 (cf. Aen. 11.5), ed. Schenkl, Carl, Poetae Christiani minores (CSEL 16; Vienna 1888) 1.605; Ambrose, , De Joseph 9.46 (PL 14.661), and De Spir. Sanc. 1.pr.1 (PL 16.703); Clavis Script. 7.13, ed. cit. (n. 40 supra) 2.366; and various other exegeses of oak-trees in the Old Testament, eg. , Isidore, , Quaest. in lib. Iudic. 3 (PL 83.381), and ps.-Bede, Quaest. sup. lib. Iudic. 3 (PL 93.424), on Judges 6.11. In the light of this apparently familiar correspondence, the image of the Synagogue exiled beneath the ‘oak-tree’ of the Cross would be accounted for by commentary on Cant. 8.5: ‘Sub arbore malo suscitavi te; ibi corrupta est mater tua, ibi violata est genetrix tua’; for example Bede (In Cant. Cantic. alleg. exp. 6.8.35; PL 91. 1210–1) explains, ‘Arbor malus aptissime lignum sanctae crucis exprimit, in quo ipse pendere pro omnium salute dignatus est… . Sub arbore ergo malo suscitavit Dominus Synagogam, quam per fidem suae passionis a perpetua morte revocavit. Sub qua etiam arbore corrupta violataque est mater ac genetrix ipsius, major videlicet ac senior ejusdem portio plebis. Illa nimirum quae principum suorum persuasione seducta, Barabbam pro Domino elegit; stulta temeritate conclamans, “Sanguis ejus super nos et super filios nostros” [Matt. 27.25]. Et haec enim sub arbore crucis erat, non hujus se quidem fidei humiliter mancipando, sed hujus super se vindictam pertinaciter imprecando. A cujus societate secernens eam, quae credere consensit plebem, hortatur Dominus ut memoriam collatae sibi gratiae fixo in corde retineat, sed et opera perceptae fidei digna conjungat.’ Google Scholar