I
selected Genesis 20 as my section for particular analysis in large part because
of Godden’s note that although “The Old Testament was the word of God… too many
of the practices which had been acceptable in the Old Testament were perilously
close to practices which the Anglo-Saxon Church considered pagan or at least
objectionable” (216). With this in mind, I started looking for trouble at the
end of Genesis 19 – the rape of Lot by his daughters. Ælfric is clearly either
too committed to the importance of translating the Bible (certainly a weighty
task) or does not see the Word of God to be something to be controlled by
translation, but rather by allegorical interpretation (if such can be called
control because he does not make major changes. I will examine instead some of
the minor changes he makes in verses 4-6 of chapter XX which, I think, allow
him to provide tacit moral instruction while translating.
My
initial attempt to catch Ælfric doctoring the awkward claims of the Abraham
when he meets Abimelech was, I thought, fruitless. It seemed that Ælfric was
quite willing to represent the Vulgate accurately in nearly every aspect; I
found no major changes nor softening of some of the more difficult actions of
the patriarchs. Rather, I found that Ælfric accomplished his goal (as I see it)
by simplifying those phrases which delineate between action and intent. For
instance, in XX.5, Abimelech’s self-defense, he cries out “…in simplicitate
cordis mei, et munditia manuum mearum, feci hoc” [in the candor of my heart,
and the cleanness of my hands, I did this], that is to say, he makes a
distinction between innocent intent and irreproachable action.[1] Ælfric translates this,
according to our editor, “đis ic [dyde] mid bylewitnesse” [this I did with
innocence].[2]
The translation essentially collapses the connotations of ‘simplicity’ from simplicitate and the
‘elegance/graciousness’ of munditia
as well as intent cordis and action, manuum.
Because
Ælfric has made this decision, he must also overlook the same phrase of intent
in verse 6 when God responds, “…Et ego scio quod simplici corde feceris” [and I
know that which you did in simplicity of heart]. It appears in the Heptateuch
“ic wat þæt ðu swa dydest” [I knew that you did so], which again does not
explicitly delineate between the motivation of the heart and the action of the
hands. This leaves God free to say that Abimelech’s motivations were good, but
also allows him to say something along the lines of ‘I know you didn’t mean to, but you did it’.
And
now for conjecture: at the beginning of this note, I said that I did not find
the trouble I was looking for. Ælfric’s decision to collapse will and action
(if that is indeed what he is up to) means that he can correct ‘pagan’
practices (perhaps having to do with kings and other men’s wives) by
acknowledging the fact that they did not know the action was sinful but not
allowing that to serve as an excuse for the continuation of the practice. As
the Pearl-poet reminds us centuries
later, cleanness is a dangerous thing to think you have and perhaps something
impossible to achieve. Ælfric has, I think, reinforced God’s denial of
Abimelech’s munditia when God only
repeats ‘simplici corde’ by collapsing the two earlier, making it difficult to
niggle about intent when the action is clearly wrong.
God himself comes to Abimelech in the illustration which
follows. He carries a stone (?) or book (?), which seems to indicate the law or
commandments. Regardless of which it is precisely, one thing is very clear:
Abimelech is in bed with a woman (albeit her figure has not been drawn in) and
seems pleased with himself. God (standing on the cloudy floor of a dream)
points with what – according to the story – must be reproach. Whether the woman
is Sarah or another of Abimelech’s wives (it seems that he has at least one
other wife: cf. 20:17), the message is clear: Abimelech may have been innocent
in his heart when he took Sarah to wife, but his actions, as I think Ælfric is
trying to show in his translation, are nonetheless unclean and to be repented
of.
[1] Clement’s Vulgate includes
“Abimelech vero non tetigerat eam…” in verse four, while the Vulgate Crawford
quotes reads simply “Abimelech ait” without the interjection of his innocence,
and it is clear that Ælfric follows the latter Latin. What version of the
Vulgate appears in the notes and to what version did Ælfric have access?
[2] Why the MS. has cydde instead of the suggested
emendation dyde is unclear to me at
this time, and may contribute to understanding Ælfric’s decision.
