Concluding from the evidence, it seems likely that more than one glossator was at work. The double-glossed items are perhaps the most solid proof. The heterogeneity and partial ambiguity displayed by the glosses are another. With regard to the marginal glosses no incontrovertible evidence can be gathered. The fact that we have marginal glosses alone does not built a convincing argument for a second glossator as the constraints of space may have triggered the 'main' glossator to resort to the margin occasionally. Yet, the marginality of some items may be explained by having a different glossator. It appears that the 'main' glossator put in the bulk of the glosses, while the other glosses were inserted later. Whether the glossators worked in tandem as master(s) and amanuensis/es cannot be ascertained.

#### **The Scratched Glosses and the OEHE**

The more pressing question is perhaps whether the scratched glosses betray any sign of a proto-translation of the *OEHE*. The present analysis will approach the problem from two different angles. First, the distribution of the glosses can give valuable insight into the thematic interests of the glossator(s) as well as the scale of the glossing enterprise. Second, the lemmata and the corresponding vernacular interpretamenta need to be analyzed to gauge any correlation with the *OEHE*. If

the scratched glosses are linked to the *OEHE* in the sense of a proto-translation, it is to be expected that chapters which are not glossed in Tiberius C.II correspond to omitted chapters in the *OEHE* and that omitted chapters in the *OEHE* had not undergone intensive glossing in the Tiberius MS. Furthermore, if the scratched glosses represented a proto- or intermediary stage to the *OEHE*, one would expect that the glossing is evenly distributed, beginning with the preface or at least *HE* I.1 and ending with Bede's *recapitulatio* at the end of Book V. A caveat must be inserted here. As Patrizia Lendinara pointed out:

[t]he frequency of the glosses in unpredictable, as is the choice of the words needing explanation. Unpredictability is one of the principal features of medieval glosses: they often accompany Latin words which were not difficult, and often occur in texts which were not particularly difficult. However, in the Middle Ages, when the vocabulary of Latin had to be mastered through memory, it was not easy to differentiate between what was commonplace and what was hard.63

Nevertheless, the distribution of the glosses in the present case reveals some interesting results. It is evident that there is no even distribution or a continuous wire-to-wire approach, as 182 of the 314 pages (58%) of Tiberius C.II are not glossed.64 Likewise, 58 of 140 chapters (41.4 %) of the *HE* escaped the glossing process altogether. Although these overall numbers let us glimpse general tendencies, the analysis of the particular books can help to refine the results and get a better understanding of the glossator's approach.

A total of twenty-three of thirty-four chapters (67.6 %) in Book I are not glossed. Of these, only ten have been left out in the *OEHE* as well. The other thirteen find their way into the Old English translation. The bulk of the glosses (59 of 69 = 85.5%) gloss items in *HE* I. 1-7, whereas the remaining ten glosses are scattered over the final twenty-seven chapters. The *adventus Saxonum,* as well as the greater part of Augustine's mission and the life of the early Church in Kent, are not glossed. Six papal letters are left out, which corresponds to the general editorial policy of the *OEHE* translator. Interestingly also the *Libellus Responsionum* is not glossed, which is paralleled in the *OEHE* where it has been removed from Book I. Even so, it is not omitted from the *OEHE* for good but purposefully shifted to the end of Book III.65 Lack of interest or a dire respect for the text may have prevented the *LR* from being glossed. Probably the most prominent omis-

63 P. Lendinara, "Anglo-Saxon Glosses and Glossaries: an Introduction", in her *Anglo-Saxon Glosses*

*and Glossaries* (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 27-70, at p. 4. 64 The longest intermission runs thirty-one pages (fols. 22v-37v). 1r-5r (Preface, Capitula: 9 pages), 15v-17v (I.16-I.19: 5 pages), 22v-37v (I.27-I.34: 31 pages), 38v-49r (II.1-10: 21 pages), 52v-55v (II.12-16:7 pages), 58v-60v (II.20-III.1: 5 pages), 111v-115v (IV.20-23: 9 pages), 147r-157v (V.21-end: 24 pages). 65 Cf. my chapter 'Mission and Conversion', *infra*.

sion in the *OEHE* – *HE* I.17-22 – finds its parallel in the non-glossing in Tiberius C.II (except for one gloss in I.20), but given the overall impression of the glossing of Book I this appears negligible. The glossator(s) appear to be interested in the *Descriptio Britanniae* (I.1), which carries nineteen glosses and the passion of St. Alban (I.7), which carries 23. The preoccupation with the almost Edenic opening of the *HE*, which evokes notions of Britain as a 'Promised Land', might let us glimpse important aspects which are central to both Bede and his translator, namely, questions of religious identity, as well as of the *gens Anglorum* – being a chosen people like the Israelites and having the promise of a promised land to inherit.66 The interest in St. Alban illustrates the general interest in edifying literature and saints' lives in particular. However, St. Alban, as Britain's proto-martyr, is of interest for the question of religious and political identity in the *OEHE* as well.67

Book II is the least glossed. The twelve items account for only 3% of all the scratched glosses in Tiberius. Fourteen of twenty chapters (70%) are un-glossed, including three letters, which in turn are only summarized or mentioned in the *OEHE*. There is no connection to the vernacular rendering of the *HE,* as it includes all fourteen chapters which are not glossed in Tiberius. No distinct interest of the glossator can be ascertained as the few glosses are spread quite evenly throughout the book. Thus, the early history of conversion and especially the Christianization of Northumbria under Paulinus do not appear to have attracted the interest of the glossator(s). As a Southener, it is possible that northern affairs were of secondary importance to him.

Book III stands in stark contrast to its predecessor. The 112 items account for 29% of all scratched glosses, which makes Book III the most heavily glossed. Only four of thirty chapters (13%) are left without glosses. All of them, however, find their way into the *OEHE*. The most conspicuous choices are *HE* III.17, which includes Bede's lengthy comment on Aidan's spiritual life, including his position on the dating of Easter, which is not glossed. This might pertain to the disinterest in northern affairs and/or the person of Aidan. If we look more closely, we might detect another item of interest for the vexing question of the apparently difficult textual criticism of Book III, chs. 16-20.68 This must remain a matter of speculation, though. The chapters which carry the greater part of the glosses are III.19 (on St. Fursey: twenty-four glosses) and III. 25 (Synod of Whitby: seventeen glosses). Regarding the latter, this shows an interest in one of the most important events in the history of the Anglo-Saxon church as well as in

66 Those aspects are treated at length later in my chapters 'The Role of the Britons' and 'Reinventing the *gens Anglorum*?: Identity and *Angelcynn*', *infra*. 67 Cf. my chapter 'The Role of the Britons', *infra*.

68 Then again, the fact that it was left un-glossed does not necessarily relate to our text-critical problem. Thus, any surmise of a direct connection between to non-glossing in Tiberius C.II and the omission in T and B would be far-reaching but unsubstantiated.

questions of orthodoxy and computus. The *OEHE* neglects the Synod of Whitby as such but puts a premium on the questioning of orthodoxy. Therefore, we cannot establish a direct link between the thematic interest expressed by the scratched glosses and the *OEHE*. What can be said is that apparently the Synod of Whitby and/or the issue of the correct reckoning of Easter still occupied the minds of the monks at mid-ninth century Canterbury.69 The story of Fursey, which Bede took from the *Vita Sancti Fursei*, is interesting in his streamlining of the account.70 He shortens the account significantly but summarizes the key details. The focus of the version in the *HE* is now clearly on scriptural teachings and the advice of the celestial figures. The account centers on Fursey's experience, his learning process and his dissemination of the knowledge to others, meticulously recounting the dialogues between Fursey and his angelic guides and also between himself and the demons.71 The spiritual didacticism of the story might have made the story appealing to the glossator for private reading as well as recitation during the monastic night office. Moreover, the text is of general interest to a monastic audience as it combines themes of pilgrimage, mission, conversion and judgment. In addition, the passage also foreshadows not only the missionary activities on the continent, which are central to Book V, but also the destruction of Fursey's monastery by heathen invaders. This surely would have found interest among ninth-century readers who had witnessed the recent Viking invasions.72 The glossator(s) possibly had experienced the events first-handed as Canterbury was sacked by the Vikings in 851.73

Book IV has 85 glosses. Eleven of the thirty-two chapters are not glossed, and only two of these are not in the *OEHE* (IV.20 and 23). Chapter 25 has twelve glosses. It deals with Adamnan's story of the fire which destroyed the monastery of Coldingham. It is an edifying account, and warns against being lackluster in one's faith as the vile behavior of the monks brought the fire as expression of God's vengeance upon them. A story like this is quite likely to have caught the

69 Cf. S. Rowley, "Translating History: The Paschal Controversy in the Old English Bede", in *Bède le Vénérable*, pp. 297-308. She argues for a lively interest in matters of computus in the ninth cen-

tury. 70 For the *Vita* as a source cf. *HEGA*, II, 533-8 and *FAS* database <accessed: 01/10/2014>. 71 See Rowley, pp. 140-41.

72 See Rowley p. 145.

73 "AN. . dcccli. […] þy ilcan geare cuom feo`rðe´ healf hund scipa on Temese muþan bręcon Contwaraburg Lundenburg gefliemdon Beorhtwulf Miercna cyning mid his fierde foron þa suþ ofer Temese on Suþrige."(*MS A*, p. 44). *And the same year came 150 ships into the mouth of the Thames and sacked Canterbury and London and put Beorhtwulf the King of the Mercians to flight and journeyed then south over the Thames to Surrey*. The glossator(s) were not alone with the interest in the *Life of Fursey*, which Bede used as a source. According to the *FAS* database, it was used as source material in the eighth (*HE* and Felix of Crowland's *Vita Sancti Guthlaci*), ninth (*Old English Martyrology*), late tenth (Ælfric, *CH* 2.20) and late eleventh (*Vision of Leofric*) centuries by authors all over England (*FAS* <accessed: 01/10/2014>); cf. also Rowley, for a brief comparison of Bede's and Ælfric's different approaches towards their source (Rowley, p. 150).

attention of a monastic glossator or be the subject of study in a monastic classroom. It was probably not a special interest in the Irish strand of Christianity (Adamnan was Irish by birth and monastic training), but rather an interest in Adamnan as prominent figure in insular Christianity, who wrote an important treatise on the Holy Land (*De Locis Sanctis*).

Book V ranks second with regard to the number of glossed items (110 = 28.3%). Six of the twenty-four chapters are not glossed, all of them are in the *OEHE*. The aforementioned interest in Adamnan is revived as chs. 16 and 17, which deal with his treatise *De Locis Sanctis* and carry eighteen glosses. These chapters are of importance in the *HE* as Bede inserts them to relate Britain firmly to the Holy Land and Christian eternity. Interestingly, those chapters are left out by the translator of the *OEHE*. 74 *De Locis Sanctis* is a text which was seldom used as a source in Anglo-Saxon England.75 The most important chapter as far as the glossing is concerned is the *Vision of Dryhthelm* (V.12: nineteen glosses). Interest in Dryhthelm's vision during the Anglo-Saxon period is discernible in Ælfric's oeuvre, who uses Bede's account as a source for his *Alio Visio*. 76 Dryhthelm's vision was popular during the Middle Ages and was of interest to readers from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries as the signs of medieval use in our manuscripts confirm.77 The episode might have been appealing to them for two reasons. First, because of Dryhthelm's vision and his penance and second, because of Dryhthelm's low status as a layman, who could provide "a useful example for preaching to the laity."78 It cannot be ruled out that the glossator(s) of Tiberius had a

74 Cf. Rowley, who argues that the omission of those chapters as well as Bede's final annalistic recapitulation are made good for by the heightened importance of the otherworldly visions in Book V, which relate Britain "to heaven hell and Christian eternity." (Rowley, p. 135) 75 Apart from the *HE* it was only used by the compiler of the *Old English Martyrology*. *FAS* <ac-

cessed: 01/10/2014>. 76 see *Ælfric's Catholic Homilies*, ed. Godden, pp. 199-203. 77 Dryhthelm's story was decorated, glossed and annotated in three manuscripts of the *OEHE inter alia* by Coleman and the 'Tremulous Hand'. In Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (B) p. 422 we find neumes (musical annotations) in the top margin above the first line which resemble eleventh-century neumes of Exeter origin (Rowley, p. 165). Rowley comes up with the tantalizing suggestion that given Dryhthelm's status as a layman this might be good evidence for the story being read to a lay audience but admits that this must remain speculative. Coleman annotated Dryhthelm's story in Cambridge, University Library, Kk.3.18 (Ca). This section was also glossed by the 'Tremulous Hand'. The interest in Dryhthelm's story is also evident by the annotations in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115, possibly by Coleman as well. The interaction with Dryhthelm's account fit well Coleman's and Tremulous's preoccupation in their work with the patterns of sacrifice, pilgrimage and penance (see Rowley, pp. 184-5). Finally, a later hand (or hands) probably from the late thirteenth to the third quarter of the fourteenth century has added three drawings on fols. 127v and 131r of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 10 (T). On fol. 131r we find a four-headed dragon-like creature which marks the beginning of Dryhthelm's vision. This is all the more remarkable as the Thorney glossator of T did not gloss that chapter. Rowley concludes that the drawings might have served as place-markers for that reader or readers after him (or her) (Rowley, pp. 192-93). 78 See Rowley, p. 193.

similar interest as there are various examples of heavy glossing of edifying material (stories of St. Alban, Fursey etc.). A miracle by John of Beverly (V.6) has raised the interest of the glossator as twelve items are glossed, whereas the preceding four miracles of his are sparsely glossed.79 The reasons for the last miracle being in the center of attention may be the following: the story is about obedience to bishops, the duties of the clergy and the rejection of youthful temper. Herebald, living among Bishop John's clergy, disregards his command not to join a horserace of youngsters, most of them layman.80 The narration also deals with unorthodox baptism.81 Finally, the chapter ends with the death of John. Obedience towards the bishop, the realization that God determines the course of everyone's life and the question of orthodoxy are appealing themes, which also play a role in the *OEHE*. Accounts of John of Beverly as one of the most distinguished figures in Anglo-Saxon Church history would naturally have been read with eagerness among the clergy. This is also corroborated by the fact that the fourteenth-century annotator of T has called marked attention to outstanding figures of Anglo-Saxon (church) history. He dedicates his most elaborate running-title to John: <Incipit vita sci' Joh(an)is archiesp(iscop)i de Beverlaco> (fol. 116v/12-13).82 One of the annotators's marginal additions is <\\Ceadwalla reg//>, which appears in brackets (fol. 87r).83 The West Saxon King Cædwalla appears to be a man of interest, not only for the annotator 400 years later, but also for the glossator(s) of Tiberius C.II Cædwalla renounces the crown and leaves England for Rome to become a monk. His epitaph (V.7) in the *HE* carries fifteen glosses. Presumably, the glossator had a special interest in the story of the West Saxon king, who had been won over for the love of Christ and entered the heavenly realm.84 The glossator's interest might be owed to the fact that either the House of Wessex was on the rise and had extended its influence onto Kent when the glosses were inserted, or because Cædwalla's story is a microcosm of the conversion process, as Cædwalla had acted like a savage before, when (re-) conquering Wessex (IV.15) and ravaging the Isle

79*HE* V.2 (4 glosses), *HE* V.3 (3 glosses), *HE* V.4 (1 gloss), *HE* V.5 (1 gloss). 80 Herebald's horse trips and he is gravely wounded. Eventually, he is cured by the prayers of the bishop after he had realized that his fate depended on the bishop's deprecations and God's will: "Potes" inquit "uiuere?" Et ego, "Possum" inquam "per orationes uestras, si uoluerit Dominus." *HEGA*, II, 346,348. *'Will you live', he asked. And I responded, 'I will trough your prayers if the Lord wants it.'*

81 Herebald had been unduly baptized and recovers his full strength only after his catechizing by John. "Tantumque mox accepta eius benedictione conualui, ut in crastinum ascendens equum cum ipso iter in alium locum facerem; nec multo post plene curatus uitali etiam unda perfusus sum."; *HEGA*, II, 348. *And soon after I had received his blessing I recovered tremendously, so that I mounted a horse and made a journey to another place; not long after I had recovered fully, I was then washed in the water of life.*

82 Cf. Rowley, p. 192.

83 *Ibid.*

84 It is explicitly stated that Cædwalla was not yet baptized when he ravaged the Isle of Wight: "uoto se obligans quamuis necdum regeneratus, ut ferunt, in Christo." *HEGA*, II, 232.

of Wight (IV.16), struggling for worldly power. Thus, this epitaph carries some weight, as the conversion of Anglo-Saxon England, Christian salvation history, and England's close connection to Rome in church matters are concerned.

The glossing process focuses on books III and V, which is also corroborated by the number of glosses. Book I has sixty-nine glosses (17.73%), Book II twelve (3.08%), Book III has 112 (29.05%), Book IV eighty-five (21.85%) and Book V 110 (28.28%). Books I and II account for 20.82% of the glosses, whereas the remaining three books combine to 79.18%. 57.35% of the glosses go into Books III and V. The glossator(s) did show much interest in the early history of the Anglo-Saxon Church neglecting Augustine's mission, as well as the *adventus Saxonum* in Book I, Bede's chapter on Gregory, and most of the conversion history of Northumbria in Book II and in the conclusion to Bede's work in Book V. Edifying material, which could have been used for private reading and/or preaching, appears to be one of the important issues, as are questions of orthodoxy and salvation history. In general, an interest in the changing fortunes of the Anglo-Saxon Church and religious debate (Book III), the reorganization of the Church under Theodore, the completion of the conversion process in England, the life of exemplary characters (Book IV), the mission on the continent and stories of the otherworld (Book V) is apparent. The glossator(s) did not gloss 58 of 140 chapters, only fifteen of which do correspond with omissions or synopses in the *OEHE*. Regarding the treatment of the papal letters, which are left out or only summarized in the *OEHE*, it can be stated that eleven of fifteen are not glossed.85 As four letters are glossed, it is hard to argue that the non-glossing of most of the letters does correspond to the editorial practice as we find it in the *OEHE*.

When we turn to the similarities in lexis between the scratched glosses and the *OEHE* we get similar results. In the choice of the vernacular items we have disagreement in 256 cases – 121 of which are due to the fact that those passages are left out or paraphrased in the *OEHE*. There are thirty-one cases where the Tiberius glosses disagree with the *OEHE,* but where we have an OE precedent in the glossaries or *VPG* that matches the choice in the scratched glosses (sixteen times *VPG*), whereas in sixteen cases there is disagreement, but it is the *OEHE* that has a precedent gloss (fifteen times *VPG*). There is agreement between the scratched glosses and the *OEHE* in 144 cases (eighty-nine for which there is no precedent, twenty-three a different precedent, i.e., a different Latin lemma, thirytwo the exact precedent, i.e., Latin lemma + Old English gloss; in twenty-one cases matching entries from *VPG*). In cases the glosses agreed with the *OEHE,* we have forty-seven precedents from *VPG*, forty-five from *Cp*, nineteen *É-E*, thirteen *Ld*, although there is not necessarily an exact correspondence in the Latin lemma. The 112 incidents where we have agreement but no or a different prece-

85 We find glosses in the letters of Boniface to Æthelburgh (*HE* II.11: 2 glosses), Honorius to Edwin (*HE* II.17: 2 glosses), Honorius to the Irish clergy (*HE* II.19: 4 glosses) and Vitalian to Oswiu on the death of Wigheard (*HE* III.29: 8 glosses.

dent do not yield conclusive results. We cannot discern a general tendency that those are very rare words, which had escaped glossing in other texts. It would be haphazard to conclude that in those 112 cases, the scratched glosses and the *OEHE* were mutually dependent and thus closely connected. In a lot of cases those are commonplace words where the similarity might be coincidental.86 Therefore, we cannot assume a close and exclusive relationship between the *OEHE* and the scratched glosses on the basis of that evidence. Nevertheless, there are interesting correspondences which might help us to locate precedents for the *OEHE*. In 21 of 32 cases where the scratched glosses and the *OEHE* agree, we have a 100% match with the *VPG* and – even more interesting – that in 15 of 16 cases (93.8%) where the *OEHE* and the scratched glosses disagree but the former has a precedent for the OE gloss, we have agreement with the *VPG*. We are welladvised not to overstate such figures, as the sample is relatively small but they are nonetheless worth noting.

Given the evidence outlined above, it is hard to find a direct connection between the scratched glosses and the *OEHE*. The evidence rather speaks against it. We can certainly rule out that they represent an intermediary stage on the road to a full-blown translation. Although the number of scratched glosses is remarkable, it is only a trifle compared to the overall number of words in the *HE* and the uneven distribution. Greg Waite in his analysis has argued for a possible connection and claimed that the glosses were inserted by one or more readers of the Tiberius MS in the course of the tenth century. This is difficult to ascertain, as the precise dating of the glosses is almost impossible. Yet, the present analysis favors an early date, probably even pre-tenth-century. This would undermine Waite's argument that if there was a connection, the *OEHE* would have been a source for the gloss and not vice versa.87 Waite further argues that the distribution of the glosses can be explained by the fact that the glossator(s) did not gloss chapters where the Old English translation was available. He admits, however, that the glossator also glossed sections where the Old English translation was available, which is confirmed by my analysis. He further states that some correspondences of commonplace words might be coincidental, but there were batches of correspondence that went beyond the "limits of probability in this respect."88

However, he lists several words which are used in both texts to translate the same Latin word and occur in no other English texts.89 His first example is *afæd*/*afed* (no. 50),90 which translates *depictus* in the Latin original, in sense of 'adorned'. In the passage in question it refers to the hill where Alban faces his

86 Cf. *DOEC* <accessed: 01/10/2014>. 87 Waite, "Vocabulary", p. 200.

88*Ibid.*, p. 202. 89 *Ibid.* 90 The first Old English item is the gloss in Tiberius and the second the corresponding word from the *OEHE*.

martyrdom, which is "uariis herbarum floribus *depictus* [my italics]."91 Waite is right in that this prefixed participle does occur nowhere else in Old English. However, the process of its composition might have been a common reflex, combining the prefix  to render the Latin <de-> with the participle <fæd>/<fed> to render <pictus>. The word itself is difficult though as *fæd*/*fed* as participle is ambiguous. Waite argues that it stems from the infinitive *fægan*, which however occurs as an adjective only and does not carry the meaning of 'adorned', but rather 'glad, rejoicing, joyful'.92 Another option would be a form of *fadian* in a sense of 'arrange'. This could be translated as "arranged with various flowers of every kind." However, the participle of *fadian* would be *fadod* so that a form such as \**afadod* is to be expected. The problematic nature of *afæd*/*afed* and its occurrence in the scratched glosses and the *OEHE* only, favors a link between the two. With regard to *imo . nyðernesse/niþerness* (no. 131) Waite is right in that this word occurs only twice in Old English and strongly suggests a connection between the *OEHE* and the glosses. On the other hand, *imo* occurs in the *VPG* and is glossed *niðerlic*, which in turn is not a rare word in old English.93 Waite's other pairs *secundi* . *gesyngan*/*gesyndge* (no. 285) and *et in cumulum* . *ō in heapunga* /  *in heapunge* (no. 355) are unparalleled elsewhere. In addition to those unique words, Waite finds a number of rare words which he regards as being probably of Anglian origin. These are *fylacteria* . *lyfesne*/*lyfesne* (no. 259) *scrupulo . hincan*/*incan* (no. 305) *intercapedine . firstmearce/fyrstmearce* (no. 334) and *uiror* . *growines*/*grownes* (no. 155). With regard to *firstmearc* and *grownes*, some modifications are necessary. Waite suggests that *firstmearce* is an interesting lexical choice. First, it was a relatively rare word. According to the *DOE* it appears as *first(ge)mearc* thirty-one times in Old English.94 Second, both the scratched glosses and the *OEHE* translate *intercapedine* alternatively with *firstmearc* on one occasion and later with *first*/*fyrst* on its second occurrence. Although this appears to be more than a coincidence, the word *fyrst* as an alternative to *fyrst(ge)mearc* is used commonly in Old English.95 Therefore, both items might just have been viable choices without any direct connection, which however cannot be ruled out. [*G*]*rownes* as such is a rare word.96 If we consider common word-formation processes at work here, it is not unthinkable that two monks formed the word independently, as *growan* is a common word in Old English,97 of which to form a noun corresponding to *uigor* the use of –*ness* as a ubiquitous suffix would be the logical step.

91*HEGA*, I, 46. *Adorned with flowers of every kind*. 92 *Ibid.* He further argues that the gloss occurs in *ClGl*, *Cp*, *Ép-Erf* This is misleading, however, as it glosses the Latin word *conpos* 'to be overwhelmed by sth.', 'to be immersed', which does not fit the context of the *HE* passage. 93 Cf. *DOEC* <accessed: 01/10/2014>. 94 See Waite, "Vocabulary", p. 203 and *DOE*, s.v. *firstmearc*, *firstgemearc* <accessed: 01/10/2014>. 95 c. 350 occurrences in Old English. *DOE*, s.v. *first* <accessed: 01/10/2014>. 96 Two occurrences in Old English. *DOE*, s.v. *growness* <accessed: 01/10/2014>. 97 Ninety occurrences. *DOE*, s.v. *growan* <accessed: 01/10/2014>.

A direct dependence of the scratched glosses on the *OEHE* due to the given evidence is an intriguing idea, but not based on conclusive evidence. What seems more likely is the point that Waite raises at the end of his discussion. He suggests that if the *OEHE* was not used as a source for the scratched glosses, both translators may have come from the same dialectal backgrounds or from similar monastic literary traditions. If there was a link, he argues, we would get a unique glance of Anglo-Saxon learning for the use of vernacular texts side by side with its Latin original.98

In sum, taking all aspects into consideration, it is not possible to argue in favor of a direct connection between the Tiberius glosses and the *OEHE* – at least not in the sense of the former being a proto-translation of the latter. In addition, the evidence for both texts being used simultaneously in a monastic classroom or scriptorium does not yield conclusive results. It cannot be ruled out completely given the admittedly few items which ought to catch our attention. We could speculate about the *OEHE* and the scratched glosses being written at Canterbury by King Alfred's Mercian helpers and a possible connection between those two. The glosses, then, might have resembled an experimental stage towards a fullblown translation, which was discarded to a high degree in the final translation process of the *OEHE*. But given the lack of strong evidence to underscore this hypothesis, it remains wishful thinking if not a wishful fantasy. It is also not clear to what end the scratched glosses were inserted. In general, it is quite difficult to elucidate the original purpose of scratched or dry-point glosses.99 In the present case, the items could have been gloss trials by novices in the scriptorium, which served as placeholders to be filled by ink glosses.100 The same might be true for senior monks who scratched the glosses and gave them to their inferiors to be filled in. Both possibilities must remain conjectural, however. Graham raises the interesting point that scratched glosses have been inserted in order to avoid interference with or distraction from the main text, or that they were entered by instructors who did not wish their pupils to know that they used such 'teaching aids'.101 As the *HE* was not a typical text for the monastic classroom it could have been "the hand of the lonely reader intrigued by a text he was perusing for his own study or entertainment,"102 who inserted the glosses, although it appears that it was more than one reader who set himself to this text.

The only conclusion we can safely draw is that we see a lively interest in the *HE* at Canterbury, probably between 850 and 900. The text underwent heavy glossing either for the sake of glossing practice in the monastic classroom or intensive study of certain aspects such as the edenic *Descriptio Britanniae*, edifying

98 Waite, "Vocabulary", p. 204.

99 See Gretsch, "Glosses", p. 209.

100 We have traces of ink in no. 70: *eruti* . *generede*. 101 Graham, "Glosses and Notes", p. 177. 102 Lendinara, "Glosses and Glossaries.", p. 2.

material for devotional reading and/or praying, questions of orthodoxy or aspects of mission and salvation history. Those aspects also play an important role in the *OEHE*. We should be aware of this fact, but not assign it any more or any less value.

# **The Ink Glosses in British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius C.II**

In addition to the scratched glosses, we find four batches of Old English glosses together with their lemmata, added in the blank spaces at the end of the table of chapters of books I, II and III and at the end of Book IV (fols. 5r, 34v, 6ov, 124v), which encompass eighty-nine items. They were written in two hands in the late ninth century or the beginning of the tenth-century.103 They were subsequently edited by Sweet, Holthausen and Zupitza, who identified the Latin items to come from *HE* I.10-22.104 Sweet states that they were apparently written in the Kentish dialect without procuring evidence for that statement.105 Indeed, we see Kentish dialectical features at work such as <e> for <æ> (nos. 10: *erendwrica*, 67: *gefegan*, 63: *mehte*).106 If we regard this as the most distinct feature of the Kentish dialect, we have to concede that it is not applied with rigor in the glosses. Better evidence is provided by the preponderance of <io> spellings instead of <eo> (e.g. nos. 12: *ðiostrum*, 17: *burgliod*, 19: *wæstembiornis*, 23: *bioð stiocod*e, 33: *nior*, 40: *geðioded*), which is also a criterion for assigning a text to the Kentish dialect. Another point in favor of a Kentish touch is no. 42: *genihtsumra*. 107

The ink glosses do not appear to be directly connected to either the scratched glosses or to the *OEHE.*108 With regard to the scratched glosses, there are only a few lexical matches. Similar Latin lemmata are *edax*, *reliquia*, *infestis*, *adcelerauit*, *inprobis*, *conspicui.*109 We also find similarities in some Old English glosses: *utende* (read *etende*),110 *erendwrica*, *bærnde*, *upahebban*, *foldan*, *lafe*, *genihtsumra*. 111 Except for *edax* .

103 See Ker, *Catalogue*, p. 261. He argues that batches I-III were written in one hand and batch IV in another. Merrit ("Scratched Glosses", p. 308) specifies "late ninth-century" and H. Sweet (*Oldest English Texts*, pp. 179-82, at p. 179) states "end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century.";

cf. also Graham, "Glosses and Notes", p. 179. 104 Sweet, *Oldest English Texts*, pp. 179-82; F. Holthausen, "Die altenglischen Beda-Glossen", *Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen* 136 (1917), 290-292; J. Zupitza, "Altenglische Glossen zu Beda.", *Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur* 31 (1887), 28-31. 105 See Sweet, *Oldest English Texts*, p. 179. 106 The numbers refer to Appendix IV (available online from http://univerlag.uni-goettingen.de.). 107 See Kalbhen, *Kentische Glossen*, 7.3.11; for an different attribution of the glosses (Mercian dialect),

see Vleeskruyer, *Life of St. Chad*, p. 52. 108 See Zupitza, "Altenglische Glossen", p. 31 and Waite, "Vocabulary" , p. 200. 109 Scratched glosses nos. 60, 189, 73, 64, 130, 61. Ink glosses nos. 6, 25 29, 32, 38, 62. 110 Cf. Zupitza, "Glossen zu Beda", p. 29.

*etende* and *reliquia* . *laf* there are no exact matches in the pairs, i.e., Latin lemmata are glossed differently in the scratched glosses and vice versa. These examples do not refer to the same passage in the text but rather point out the use of those items at some point in the text. There is actually only one instance where the Latin lemma is glossed with the same vernacular term at the same point in the manuscript: *edax* . *utende* (*read* etende), which refer to the same passage in *HE* I.10. The Latinity of the glossator leaves much to be desired, as there are numerous occasions where he misread or misunderstood the lemmata.112 This points to a novice rather than an experienced scholar.

There are some interesting lexical matches with the *VPG*, yet the sample is too small to draw final conclusion: nos. 10: *legatis . erendwrica* (*VPG legatus . erendwrece*), 12: *obscuris cauernis* . *ðæm ðiostrum holum* (*VPG obscurare . aðeostrian*), 13: *miserum anguiculum* . *ða earman nedran* (*VPG miser . earm*), 15: *tollere . upahebban* (*VPG tollere . onhebban, uphebban*), 22: *funerum . hra* (*VPG funis . rap*), 25: *paupercula reliquia . ða earman lafe* (*VPG reliquiae . laf*), 32: *adcelerauit . geratade* (*VPG accelerare . hreðian*), 56: *pelagi . ðæs sæs* (*VPG pelagus . widsæ*), 66: *evulsam . on[we]g alocene* (*VPG euellere . alucan, utalucan*), 67: *exultant . gefegan* (*VPG exultare . gefi*an), 71: *tegebatur . wæs bewrigen* (*VPG tegere . biwrean*), 76: *spolia . herereaf* (*VPG spolium . herereaf*), 86: *exterminia . ðara abreotnissa* (*VPG exterminare . abreotan*), and 87: *recente memoria . neowre gemynde* (*VPG recens . niowe*, *memoria . gemynd*). However, this congruence in fifteen of eighty-nine cases is not sufficient to make a strong point. Nevertheless, the idea that the *Vespasian Psalter Gloss* was used as a crib for the ink glosses while both were at Canterbury in the late ninth century is quite intriguing, but lacks more conclusive evidence than this study can come up with at the present.

If we compare the ink glosses with the *OEHE,* the results show that sixty-two out of eighty-nine items do not occur in the vernacular translation, as the chapters which include them have been left out. Only nine items agree with the *OEHE* on the level of lexis, disregarding inflectional endings. Those are nos. 8: *pontes* . *brycg* (*OEHE brycge* 44.5),113 10: *legatis . erendwrica* (*OEHE ærendwrecan* 44.11 or *ærendracan* 44.24), 19: *fertilitas* . *wæstembiornis* (*OEHE wæstmbærnysse* 50.27), 23: *iugulamur* . *we bioð stiocode* (*OEHE we* […] *sticode beoð*), 32: *adcelerauit . geratade* (*OEHE gehradode* 48.28), 35: *litigia . gecid* (*OEHE geciide* 48.31), 40: *adiuncta . to geðioded* (*OEHE togædere geþeodde* 50.29), 46: *de miserandis reliquiis* . *of ðæm earmum lafum* (*OEHE ðære earman lafe* 54.1), and 48: *nunc . wilum* (*OEHE hwilum* 54.17). Thus, a direct connection between the ink glosses and the *OEHE* can probably be ruled out.

The glossator seems chiefly interested in the Pelagian heresy, especially in Prosper of Aquitaine's rhyming couplets on the matter (*HE* I.10: twelve glosses, *HE* I.17: fourteen glosses), the domestic struggle and moral corruption of the

111 Scratched glosses nos. 60, 190, 134, 98 (*ahefen*), 264, 189, 121. Ink glosses nos. 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 25, 42. 112 See Zupitza's comments, "Altenglische Glossen", *passim*. 113 The reference is to page and line number in Miller's edition.

Britons (*HE* I.14: thirteen glosses), the *adventus Saxonum* (*HE* I.15: eleven glosses) and Germanus's 'Allelujah' victory over the Germanic invaders (*HE* I.20: seventeen glosses). This choice is quite interesting as it shows a preoccupation with heretical accounts, the moral corruption of the Britons, Germanus as the one who eradicates heresy and aligns the British to the Roman Catholic Church, and the coming of the Germanic tribes. It appears as if there is a glossator at work who wants to follow Bede's argumentation about the morally corrupted Britons and their supersession by the Germanic invaders.

Apart from these things, there are old English items of which one is of interest concerning the correspondence to the *OEHE*. 114 On fol. 73r *beneath x ferme milia passuum contra solstitialem occasum* (Plummer, I, 155) we find the gloss *x mila westrihte* in a tenth-century hand.115 The corresponding passage in the *OEHE* also gives *tyn milum westrihte* (194.18). Given the rarity of the word *westriht* in the Old English Corpus (nine instances),116 one might wish to argue that there is a connection between the *OEHE* and the ink glosses in Tiberius. However, such a commonplace rendering of a geographical note could be ubiquitous in style and also could be incidental. At best it reflects a similar monastic training of the glossator and the translator of the *OEHE*. The evidence for a mutual dependence and the romantic vision of the glossator using the *HE* and the *OEHE* side by side is not given, and seems even less so if we keep in mind that this is a sole gloss.

In summation, neither the scratched glosses nor the ink glosses show close ties to the *OEHE* although there are some interesting similarities, especially between the Tiberius glosses and the *OEHE*, which however, await further research. Similarities with the *VPG* are evident but not entirely conclusive. It remains a matter of speculation whether or not there is any textual connection between the glossing processes of the *VPG*, the scratched glosses, and the ink glosses. If there is, we have a brilliant glimpse of monastic training, in particular centers and the (re-)use of texts for study and manuscript production. Despite some intriguing similarities, neither the scratched glosses nor the ink glosses appear to be conscious intermediary steps in a planned scheme towards the full-blown *OEHE* translation. At best, both sets of glosses show that the *HE* attracted continuous interest for study at Canterbury between 850 and 900. The text was ostensibly regarded as a quarry of knowledge in various aspects. It cannot be ruled out that this interest in the *HE* had any connection to the *OEHE*'s translation in the wake of the Alfredian program. Given the incessant glossing activity and the interest of the glossators (that overlaps to some degree with the *OEHE* translator) and the value of the work it appears to be a work of high interest.

114 See Ker, p. 261. His articles *b* and *c*. both refer to geographical length specifications. 115 *Ibid*.; cf. Napier, *Old English Glosses*, n. 112. 116 *DOEC* <accessed: 01/10/2014>.

#### **VII. The Two Bedes: Differences and Similarities between the OEHE and its Latin Source**

After having considered theoretical questions on textuality and translation, authorship and authority, dealt with the material evidence of the manuscripts and signs of medieval usage and delineated the cultural and historical context against which the *OEHE* needs to be measured, the present study will now turn to a closereading analysis of the similarities and differences between the *HE* and its Old English translation. This includes treating some major thematic issues that appear to have been important for both Bede and the Old English translator: the Roman history in Book I, mission and conversion, the role of the Britons and questions of identity. This part of the study aims at analyzing how the Old English translator imitated or reshaped his Latin source in matters of content and thematic correlations. As the analysis proceeds, the findings will be categorized and measured against the theoretical, cultural and historical background and tentative results, which have been outlined. This, in turn, will facilitate our understanding of the interdependencies between the *OEHE* and the context in which its initial translation may have been undertaken.

# **The Role of Rome**

One of the most remarkable editorial changes in the *OEHE* is the reshaping of Roman history in Book I. Long passages of Bede's account in the *HE* are omitted in the vernacular translation. Although this fact has already been noted by Anglo-Saxonists, their analyses have seldom gone beyond the point of mere observation. The omissions have been regarded as making the *OEHE* specifically Anglocentric, ridding itself of all matters not primarily concerned with Anglo-Saxon England, or highlighting the ineptitude of the Britons and their dependence on Rome's military strength.1 Without questioning the correctness of these observations, this study wishes to argue that a meticulous analysis of the accounts of Roman history in both the *HE* and the *OEHE* reveals more of the translator's attitude and editorial agenda than has been previously acknowledged. Based on a close-reading comparison, it proposes new and more detailed aspects of the driving principle behind the modified account of imperial Roman history in the *OEHE*. The most simple explanation for this editing-out of substantial passages of Roman history may be a disinterest and insufficient relevance for the translator, who worked c.890x930 and therefore was chronologically and spatially detached from Rome. Despite its plausibility, this assumption does not seem to be sufficient. Rome loomed large in the mind-frame of the Anglo-Saxons and is a recurring theme in the corpus of Old English literature. The city of Rome has even been termed "The capital of Anglo-Saxon England."2 Therefore, it would be haphazard to readily assume a wholesale disinterest in the affairs of (imperial) Rome on part of the *OEHE*'s translator or the implied audience. In the course of this chapter it will become clear that the translator had a overtly didactic focus towards his audience with regard to the *res gestae* of imperial Rome.

### The Roman Legacy

Despite the general tendency that the Roman history in Book I is abbreviated to foreshadow Anglo-Saxon matters in an attempt to separate the history of the English from the Roman Empire, we can see a thoughtful editorial agenda behind the omissions, which reveals an accentuation of Rome's specific role with regard to the Anglo-Saxons. Even though the *OEHE* streamlines Bede's account considerably, imperial Rome continues to loom large on the mind of the Old English translator.

1 Cf. Discenza, "Anglo-Saxon Authority", pp. 77-78; Whitelock, "Old English Bede"; Rowley, pp. 71-92. 2 N. Howe, "Rome: Capital of Anglo-Saxon England", *Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies*

34.1 (2004), 147-72; cf. Y. Coz, who argues that Roman history and ancient history in general never seem to have had a similar impact on Anglo-Saxon intellectual and political life, as in the Carolingian and post-Carolingian age on the continent, basing his argument on scarce manuscript evidence. He admits, however, that "the translation and compilation of works dealing with Roman history made under King Alfred's reign imply that at least some historical works were available."("The Image of Roman History in Anglo-Saxon England", in *England and the Continent in the Tenth Century: Studies in Honour of Wilhelm Levison (1876-1947)*, ed. D.W. Rollason and W. Levison (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 545-58, at pp. 545-47. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons harkened back to Rome is not at least shown by poems such as *Elene*, the early entries in the *Anglo-Saxon Chronicles* and the fact that until the mid-twelfth century the *Psalterium Romanum* (as opposed to the *Psalterium Gallicanum* and the *Psalterium Hebraicum*) was popular in the Anglo-Saxon Church, and the version in almost universal use in England before the Benedictine Reform, which is also testified by the extent glosses; cf. Gretsch, "Junius Psalter Gloss", pp. 85-89 and notes.

From the very beginning, the *OEHE* is set in what can be described as traditional Roman geography.3 Bede's Latin opening, modeled on Orosius's account of Britain in his *Historia Adversum Paganos*, is followed by the Old English translator almost verbatim and situates Britain firmly in a Romano-centric world view:

Breoton ist [sic!] garsecges ealond, ðæt wæs iu geara Albion haten: is geseted betwyh norðdæle and westdæle, Germanie Gallie Hispanie þæm mæstum dælum Europe myccle fæce ongegen.

(*Britain is an island in the ocean, formerly called Albion, lying between the north and the west, opposite, though far apart, to Germany, Gaul and Spain*.)4

This viewpoint, which situates Britain in the northwest, and the assessment of Germania, Gaul and Hispania as the chief divisions of Europe (and therefore neglecting Scandinavia and Eastern Europe) is clearly Roman. In the same vein, Britain's location in *garsecges ealond*, which translates Bede's *Oceani insula*, despite its poetic ring, is closely associated with *romanitas* and takes up the classical image of the personified *Oceanus*. 5 Thus, Bede as well as his translator stressed Britain's initially marginal role in a Rome-centered European geography. This shows their perception of the island's history as intricately connected to and shaped by Rome.6 From a Anglo-Saxon Christian viewpoint, the mapping of the world stretched from England through Rome to the Holy Land. For Bede, Jerusalem was the center of the world. Within the political and conversion history of the Anglo-Saxons, however, Rome was the 'Capital of England'.7 When we take into account that the *OEHE* drops the account of Adamnan's *De Locis Sanctis* in *HE* V.16-17, the Old English translation becomes even more Rome-centered than the Latin, as it edits out the account of the Holy Land.

Finally, the inclusion of the Roman term *Albion* (a Greek word but applied by Roman writers with regard to Britain) links Britain's history firmly to its Roman legacy. Even though the island adopted the name of its first settlers – as Bede and his translator relate later on – the audience is confronted with the distant past of their homeland, which harks back to classical antiquity and Rome in particular. Moreover, Bede's description of the five languages of Britain elevates Latin to the status of a unifying language, since it is the language of Christian knowledge. Apart from this spiritual dimension, Latin is the unifying language of imperial Rome, although Classical Latin as the elite *koine* had been long superseded by Vulgar Latin and then its daughter languages in the former provinces of the Ro-

3 The spiritual meaning of this *descriptio Britanniae* will be elaborated on in the next two chapters. 4 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 24-25. 5 Cf. Rowley, pp. 71-72 and Scully, "Location and Occupation" and *idem*, "'Proud Ocean Has Become a Servant': A Classical Topos in the Literature of Britain's Conquest and Conversion", in E. Mullins and D. Scully (ed.), *Listen, o Isles, unto Me: Studies in Medieval Word and Image in Hon-*

*our of Jennifer O'Reilly* (Cork, 2011), pp. 3-15. 6 Howe, "Rome: Capital of Anglo-Saxon England", pp. 150-52.

7 *Ibid.*, pp. 150-56.

man Empire by the time that Bede and his translator worked. The perception of Rome in the *HE* and its translation appears to be one of past glory and veneration at the same time. The translator remarks a little further on:

Wæs þis ealond eac geo gewurðad mid þam æðelestum ceastrum, anes wana þrittigum, ða þe wæron mid weallum torrum geatum þam trumestum locum getimbrade, butan oðrum læssan unrim ceastra.

(*Formerly this island was also embellished with the noblest of towns, twenty-nine in number, furnished with walls, towers, gates and the strongest of locks, besides other towns of smaller size*.)8

The splendor of the buildings with which Britain was adorned seems to come from a bygone age. The cities are venerated or at least presented as ancient to the point of being half-mythical. The past tense *wæs gewurðad* conveys the impression that Britain was devoid of such outstanding cities and towns by the time the translator worked. These lines are reminiscent of the poem *The Ruin*, where the *ubi sunt*motif of Old English poetry is combined with a sensation of being over-awed by the works of the Romans, now in ruins but yet unmatched and glorified:

The poem probably refers to the ruined city of Bath. It suggests what we may call a 'larger-than-life' view of the Romans, who are called *enta* 'giants' and *waldendwyrhtan* 'powerful makers' and whose work, though decayed, nevertheless has survived the centuries and the rise and fall of kingdoms, to bear witness to the splendor of an age unattained and wondrous in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, that en-

8 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 26-27. 9 *Wondrous is this stone wall, smashed by fate. The buildings have crumbled, the work of giants collapsed, the towers in ruin, the frosted gate is unbarred, hoar-frost on mortar, the storm-protection mutilated, cut down, declined, undermined by age. The earth's grip holds the powerful makers, decayed, passed-away, the hard grasp of the earth, until a hundred generations of the nation of men have passed away. Often this wall has survived, grey with lichen and stained with red, one kingdom after another, endured under storms, high and arched, it perished*  (Text and translation E. Treharne, E. Treharne, *Old and Middle English c. 890-c.140: an Anthology,* 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2004), pp. 84-85).

dured after one hundred generations of men have passed away. These edifications seem almost supernatural and unreal. The same holds true for the cities with which Britain was once adorned. Their endurance is even heightened in the *OEHE* as the passage in *HE* I.3, which recounts that during Nero's time, two very noble cities were captured and destroyed, which is omitted in the *OEHE*. 10

We find other references to buildings from the Roman period which have survived the ages. In *HE* I.5 it is related how Emperor Severus built a wall from sea to sea. Roman architectural legacy is also emphasized in *HE* I.11. When relating the sack of Rome by the Goths the Old English translator, following Bede, remarks:

Of þære tide Romane blunnun ricsian on Breotene. Hæfdon hi Breotona rice feower hund wintra þæs fiftan hundseofontig, ðæs ðe Gaius, oðre naman Iulius, se casere þæt ylce ealong gesohte. ceastre torras stræta brycge on heora rice geworhte wæron, þa we to dæg sceawian magon. Eardædon Bryttas binnan þam dice to suðdæle, þe we gemynegodon þæt Seuerus se casere het þwyrs ofer þæt ealond gedician.

(*From that time the Romans ceased to have dominion in Britain: they had dominion for 47[5] years, since Gaius, also called Julius, the emperor landed on the island. Cities, towers, roads and bridges had been constructed under their rule, which may be seen at the present day. The Britons dwelt to the south within the dyke we spoke of, built by order of the emperor Severus right across the island.*) 11

Although the Romans ultimately ceased their political and military dominion of Britain, their material legacy survives their withdrawal as a kind of timeless witness of their civilization, which endured into the present of the Anglo-Saxons. The same holds true for the wall (i.e. the Antonine Wall) which the Romans advised the Britons to built, "ðone man nu to dæg sceawian mæg."12 The buildings mentioned in the first passage and the wall built at Roman instigation have endured the sands of time apparently unharmed. In the second case, it is even more pronounced in the *OEHE* than in the *HE,* as the Latin implies the ruined state of the monument: "usque hodie certissima *uestigia* cernere licet [my italics]."13 Materially, the Roman legacy is still discernible in England. There is an interesting passage in the *ASC*, which links this material legacy of the Romans to the Anglo-Saxons as their rightful successors. In 418 the annal relates:

10 "[N]am duo sub eo nobilissima oppida illic capta atque subuersa sunt." (*HEG*A, I, 36); *For two*

*very noble cities were captured and destroyed there during his reign*; trans.: C&M, p. 25. 11 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 44-45. Miller mistranslated the date, which was amended by me. 12 *OEB*, I.1, 46. 13 *HEGA*, I, 58. *It is possible to see the clearest remnants until this present day*.

Her Romane gesomnodon al þa goldhord þe on Bretene wæron sume on eorþan ahyddon þæt hie nænig mon siþþan findan ne meahte sume mid him on Gallia lęddon.14

(*Here the Romans gathered all the goldhoards which were in Britain and some they hid in the earth so that no man thereafter could find them and some they took with them to Gaul*).

This metaphorical import stresses the worth of Britain and at the same time implies that the Romans buried part of their legacy in the island.15 It further shows that whoever would find the gold could lay claim to Britain through a chain of authority when excavating the Roman heritage. Although it is not explicitly mentioned that the Anglo-Saxons excavated the gold, this passage is embedded in a greater narrative which downplays the role of the Britons in the history of Britain as presented in the *ASC*, in whose early annals they become somewhat shadowy figures. Only the Roman history is highlighted in the chronicle, which creates a narrative that presents the Anglo-Saxons as the direct successors of Rome. The burial of the gold-hoard is situated within a "wider pattern that strives both to associate the Anglo-Saxons with their prestigious Roman predecessors and to link them to the land of Britain."16 The importance of Rome for Anglo-Saxon history can be gauged by the fact that the first entry in the *ASC* following the genealogy and the *origo gentis* of the house of Wessex is Julius Cesar's attempt to conquer the island:

AER Cristes geflæscnesse .lx. wintra, Gaius Iulius, se casere ærest Romana Bretenlond gesohte Brettas mid gefeohte cnysede hie oferswiþde swa þeah ne meahte þær rice gewinnan.17

(*60 years before the incarnation of Christ, Gaius Julius, the emperor of the Romans went to Britain and overcome the Britons by battle and defeated them and nevertheless could not win their kingdom*).

This is a synopsis of chapter I.2 in the *HE*. It generally follows Bede's account in the Latin but abbreviates it massively due to the laconic nature of annals. The *OEHE* also begins with Cesar's attempted conquest, yet abridges the account even more:

Wæs Breotene ealond Romanum uncuð, oððæt Gaius se casere, oðre naman Iulius, hit mid ferde gesohte geeode syxtygum wintra ær Cristes cyme.

14*MS A*, ed. Bately, p. 16. 15 Cf. F. Michelet, *Creation, Migration, and Conquest. Imaginary Geography and Sense of Space in Old English Literature* (Oxford, 2006), p. 264. 16 Michelet, *Migration and Conquest*, p. 264. 17 *MS A*, ed. Bately, p. 2.

(*The island of Britain was unknown to the Romans, till the Emperor Gaius, also called Julius, came with an army and overran it, sixty years before the advent of Christ*.)18

This is an interesting modification of the chapter in the *HE*, which is longer and more detailed. There, Bede expounds the reasons why Caesar was drawn into Britain, and that his attempts (not just one) at conquering the island were thwarted by weather conditions and by defeats at the hands of the Britons. Caesar finally triumphed, but the Romans were pestered by partisan attacks, which inflicted severe losses on his army. Only after heavy fighting and the defection of some British tribes did Caesar capture the town of the British chieftain Cassebelaunus and return to Gaul. The account ends with a remark that after he had sent his troops to winter quarters, he was surrounded by insurgences and tumults.19 Although Bede does not specifically refer to Britain as the area of upheaval, it appears as though Caesar left Britain in an uncertain political condition and did not succeed in his attempts to conquer the island, let alone to bring it under lasting Roman dominion. The *OEHE* thus portrays Caesar's expedition as a smooth conquest without any resistance, which excels his military stratagem and also the superior martial power of the Romans.20 The beginning of the Old English passage is also of great interest. The wording in the *HE* runs "usque at Gaium Iulium Caesarem inacessa atque incognita fuit."21 The Latin, besides its rendering that the island was unknown to the Romans, stresses that it was *inacessa* 'unaccessed', which heightens the exotic if not barbarous character of the island and the remoteness from the rest of the Roman civilization. This inaccessibility is left out in the *OEHE*, which shows a paradigm shift in the vernacular narration. Britain is no longer the barbaric and remote island in the sea but a natural part of the *orbis terrae* of the Roman empire. Moreover, the fact that Bede and his translator begin the entry with Britain entering the spatial awareness of the Romans, gives a special significance to the island. To be recognized by the dominating world empire (and the last empire before the coming of the Anti-Christ) and deemed worthy of being subsumed in their *oikomene*, charges the island with a particular significance. Although other tribes had settled in Britain before, it is the Roman conquest which is seen as important. From now on in Bede's narration and in the *OEHE,* the

18 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 30-31. This chapter is wanting in B. Thus it is only transmitted in Ca. 19 Cf. *HEGA*, I, 30 and 32. 20 It therefore is similar to the account in the *OE Orosius*, which records that the expedition was by

no means an easy enterprise with setbacks, but ends on a victorious note, leaving the uncertainty und unstable political situation out of its account. The last sentence is especially telling: "Æfter þæm gefeohte him eode on hond se cyning þa burhware þe wæron on Cirenceastre, siþþan ealle þe on þæm iglonde wæron" (Bately, *Old English Orosius*, p. 126). *After that battle the king and the citizens who were in Cirenchester did him homage and then all who were in that island*. This sounds as if

the Romans had conquered Britain for good. 21 *HEGA*, I, 30; [*which*] *until Gaius Julius Cesar had been unaccessed and unknown*.

history of the island is intricately connected with the rise (and decline) of the Roman Empire.

Two other aspects are noteworthy with regard to this chapter in the *OEHE*. First, Bede dates Julius Caesar's expedition as follows: "[A]nno ab urbe condita sescentesimo nonagesimo tertio, ante uero incarnationis Dominicae tempus anno sexagesimo."22 In contrast, his translator gets rid of the *ab urbe condita dating* and gives just the AD date, similar to the compiler of the *ASC*. 23 This seems to be part of his editorial agenda as he deletes the *ab urbe condita* date in I.3 as well. The only case where he retains this dating formula is in the chapter on the sack of Rome: "Fracta est autem Roma a Gothis anno millesimo CLXIIII suae conditionis,"24 which is translated as "Wæs Romaburh abrocen fram Gotum ymb þusend wintra hundteontig feower syxtig ðæs þe heo geworht wæs."25 In *HE* I.3 Bede and his Old English translator give the date according to three formulae: A.D., *ab urbe condita* and after Caesar had come to Britain. The retention of the *ab urbe condita* date together with the 'Caesarian' dating is surely due to the Roman focus in this passage. Both events (Caesar's invasion and the sack of Rome) mark

22*Ibid.*. [*I*]*n the year of the foundation to Rome 693, that is, in the year 60 before our Lord's incarnation*. 23 The manuscripts of the *ASC* in general apply the AD dating, which is not surprising given their origin in the Easter tables of the Church. However, there is an interesting addition for the year 409 in MS A. The original entry "AN. .ccccviiii. Her Gotan abręcon Romeburg, næfre siþan Romane ne ricsodon on Bretone." is extended by "þæt wæs embe .xi. hund wintra .x. wintra þes heo getimbred was. Ealles hi ðær rixodon on Brytene feower hund wintra hund seouanti wintra syþþan ærost Gaius Iulius þæt land ærost gesohte."(*MS A*, ed. Bately, p. 15). This addition was made by Hand 8, which Bately identifies as an interpolator who can be identified as the principal scribe of MS F (*MS A*, ed. Bately, p. xl). This addition, although erring in the *ab urbe condita*, reproduces the dating formulas as we have it in the *OEHE*. MS F has the entry as follows: ".ccccix. Her was tobrocen Rome seo burh fram Gotum, siððan ouer ðæt ne rixodan Romana cingas on Brytene. Quadringentos & .lxx. geara hi rixodan syððan Gaius Iulius ærost ðæt land gesohte. Romani a Gothis fracta est. Ex quo tempore Romani in Britannia regnare cessarunt; .cccclxx. annis regnabant postquam Gaius Iulius primus uenit in Brittanniam."(*MS F*, ed. Baker p. 18). As the scribe of F, working at Christ Church, Canterbury around 1000, made extensive use of the archetype of MS E 'Peterborough Chronicle' as a source, he might have drawn that reading from that copy. This archetype was at Canterbury by the middle of the eleventh century. It (or a copy of it) was sent to Peterborough, apparently to make good the loss of the house's chronicle due to the fire in 1116. Its twelfth-century copy is MS E (Whitelock, *Anglo-Saxon Chronicle*, pp. xiv-xvi). The text of MS runs as follows: "AN.cccxix. Her wæs tobrocen Romana burh fram Gotum ymb .xi. hund wintra .x. wintra þæs þe heo getimbred wæs. Siððan ofer þet ne rixodan leng Romana ciningas on Brytene. Ealles hi ðær rixodan .iiii. hund wintra hundseofenti wintra siððan Gaius Iulius þet land erost gesohte." (*MS E*, ed. Irvine, p. 14). It is interesting that the F scribe does not have the *ab urbe condita* dating, which he interpolates in MS A but he appears to have taken that from the archetype of MS E as MS E shows exactly the same wording. The question is why the compiler of F chose to omit the *ab urbe condita dating* for his own account, but adding it, probably after he had read it in the archetype of MS E, into MS

A. 24 *HEGA*, I, 56. *And also Rome was destroyed by the Goths in the year 1164 of its foundation*. 25 *OEB*, I, 42 and 44. The *OE Orosius* has "Æfter þæm þe Romeburg getimbred wæs m wintra c [] iiii siextigum" (Bately, *Old English Orosius*, p. 156); *1163 years after the city of Rome was built*.

the beginning and end of the Roman influence in Britain. The translator might have found it worthwhile to show how long the city of Rome prevailed, contributing yet again to the Romans as larger than life, and their chief city to be the work of giants as in *The Ruin*. 26 Other than that, the translator does not omit the dating because he did not share Bede's penchant for computus.27 Rather, he wanted to stress – even more than Bede – that the story of the English and their Church was not to be seen primarily with regard to the rise and fall of Rome. It needed to be embedded in Christian salvation history, as the AD dating places the events recorded as being a part of God's plan from the incarnation of Christ to Doomsday, the sixth age of the world. In reference Augustine, it was not the *ciuitas terrena* (Rome) mattered, but the *ciuitas Dei*. This also marks a shift in importance from secular Rome to spiritual Rome, represented by the pope as Christ's vicar on earth, for the history of the Anglo-Saxons. The importance of the Rome of the papacy becomes clear in the developing narration in the *HE* and the *OEHE,* as will be shown in the next chapter.

The second noteworthy aspect, although it is not limited to *HE* I.2, is illustrated by the following example. When Bede relates to Julius Caesar he writes: "Qui […], functus gradu consulatus cum Lucio Bibulo, […]."28 The *OEHE* passes over Caesar's co-consul in silence. There are similar omissions in I.13, where the

26 It may be worth speculating whether there was a close connection between the *OEHE* and the archetype of MS E of the *Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,* as they share a conspicuously similar wording for the year 409. "AN.cccxix. Her wæs tobrocen Romana burh fram Gotum ymb .xi. hund wintra .x. wintra þæs þe heo getimbred wæs. Siððan ofer þet ne rixodan leng Romana ciningas on Brytene. Ealles hi ðær rixodan .iiii. hund wintra hundseofenti wintra siððan Gaius Iulius þet land erost gesohte." (*MS E*, ed. Irvine, p. 18) and "Wæs Romaburh abrocen fram Gotum ymb þusend wintra hundteontig feower syxtig ðæs heo geworht wæs. Of þære tide Romane blunnun ricsian on Breotone. Hæfdon hi Breotona rice feower hund wintra þæs fiftan hundseofontig, ðæs ðe Gaius, oðre naman Iulius, se casere, þæt ylce ealong gesohte." Although the wording is not exactly the same it is nevertheless remarkable, as MSS ABC *s.a* 409 only mention the fact that Rome was sacked, but not the rest, MS F omits the *ab urbe condita dating* and MS D does not have that entry at all. Thus, there may have been a close connection between the archetype of MS E and a copy of the *OEHE*, which would testify for its authoritative importance, which apparently overshadowed that of the *ASC* as a historiographical source. The compiler of the MS E archetype may alternative have consulted a copy of the *HE* and translated the passage himself, but given the fact that there existed a full-blown translation of that episode (the

*OEHE*), this seems unlikely. 27 It is worth noting that in fact the translator is more accurate in his account, as he writes that this happened 475 years after Julius Caesar had come to Britain, instead of 470 years as the Latin *HE* states. The 470 years is broadly correct if we assume the sack of Rome to have occurred in 409/410 given the preceding statement in I.2 that states that the Romans came to Britain in 60 B.C. In fact, the *OEHE* is more correct with the 475 years, as Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55/54 B.C. and not 60 B.C. MS Ca displays an incongruence here as it adheres to the date of 60 B.C. in the vernacular version, but at the same time dates the sack of Rome to 475 years after that. MS B, in contrast, omits chapter I.2 altogether and thus rectifies this apparent incongru-

ence. 28 *HEGA*, I, 30. *Who* […] *while he was consul together with Lucius Bibulus*.

vernacular translation mentions Aetius's consulship but omits his co-consul Symmachus,29 and in I.15, where Bede records: "Anno ab incarnatione Domini CCCCXLVIIII Marcianus cum Valentiniano quadragesimus sextus ab Augusto regnum adeptus VII annis tenuit,"30 whereas the *OEHE* has: "þæt Martianus casere rice onfeng VII gear hæfde."31 Shared reigns are omitted by default in I.9 (Gratian/Valens/Valentinian) and I.10 (Arcadius/Honorius) as those chapters are omitted in the *OEHE*. Another related omission occurs in I.5, where the *HE* says that upon his death Emperor Severus left two sons: "Bassanium et Getam, quorum Geta hostis publicus iudicatus interiit, Bassanius Antonini cognomine assumto regno potitus est."32 The *OEHE* laconically notes: " Basianus his sunu feng to Breotenrice,"33 without making mention of Geta. The translator might have chosen to omit Geta as he was judged an enemy of the state and therefore was not worthy of being mentioned. At the same time, he may have wanted to avoid the impression that the Roman emperors had unworthy or evil offspring, thus elevating the position of the Caesars. Quite another explanation is probably inspired by the contemporary context of late ninth-century England. Male royal succession was an important contemporary issue, which had brought about severe consequences for the House of Wessex and England. Upon Æthelwulf's death, his sons had struggled for the West Saxon inheritance, a problem that was also relevant during his lifetime.34 The problem of succession and inheritance appears to have troubled Alfred as well, as his will is a modified version of a now-lost earlier version, which imbues that something made or possibly forced him change his mind. According to Asser, Æthelwulf had drawn up a similar document in order to prevent any struggle over his succession amongst his sons. Alfred's eldest brother Æthelbald, however, violated that will.35 Both documents testify to a deep concern with succession (and peace and prosperity of the realm being contingent upon it) in Æthelwulf's and Alfred's times. Moreover, Alfred's reign was troubled from the start as his nephew Æthelwold, son of Alfred's elder brother Æthelred, put forth his claim to the West Saxon throne and rose in rebellion against Alfred's son Edward.36 Thus, Anglo-Saxon England had experienced woe from unsettled

29*Ibid*., 62. 30 *HEG*A, I, 68; *In the year of our Lord 449 Marcian, forty-sixth from Augustus, became emperor with Valentinian and ruled for seven years*; trans.: C&M, p. 49. 31 *OEB*, I.1, 50. 32 *HEGA*, I, 38; *Bassianus and Geta. Of these Geta perished, having been judged an enemy of the state, while*

*Bassianus, who assumed the surname of Antoninus, gained the empire; trans*.: C&M, p. 27. 33 *OEB*, I.1, 32; *And Basianus his son received dominion over Britain*. 34 Cf. *VÆ*, chs. 12, 16-21, corroborated by entries from the *ASC*. 35 See K&L, pp. 173-178 and 313-326 for King Alfred's will and *VÆ* ch. 16 for Æthelwulf's pro-

visions. 36 The *ASC* records s.a. 900 that after immediately after Alfred's death and Edward's Æthelwold rose in rebellion and made a treaty with Danes in Northumbria. Only in 904 Edward succeeded in subduing the rebellion in the Battle of Holme (Cf. *MS A*, ed. Bately, pp. 61-62); cf. Keynes, "England, 900-1016", pp. 460-63.

questions of succession first-hand. If the translator was aware of that fact, he possibly deemed it better to portray a smooth, uncontested succession in this case. The same might be true for the omission of the co-rulers in the narration of the *OEHE*. The translator's intention may have been to excise cases of shared rule, as this had negative connotations in his own day. At the same time, accounts of shared rule may have been regarded by the translator as setting an unwanted precedent that bolstered the claim of other pretenders or strongmen to important offices or even to the throne. In times of turmoil, due to the Viking onslaughts and the ill-health of Alfred, such a scenario was to be avoided in order to hold the English together against the common foe. The *ASC* MS A, however, does retain the joint rule: "Her Ma[uricius] Ualentines onfengon rice ricsodon .vii. winter."37 The compiler apparently did not make use of the *OEHE*, but rather referred to the *HE*. The motivation to omit the second ruler in the Old English translation cannot always have been due to political reasons, as we have positive evidence for shared rule in I.4 (Marcus Antonius/Aurelius Commodus) and I.6 (Diocletian/Maximianus). A different explanation might be sought in the fact that the translator was not familiar with the complex political system of Rome, which underwent changes during the times of the republic, the empire and the tetrarchy. The confusion of the foreign cultural concepts is shown in the British plea to Aetius, about whom the *OEHE* says: "se wæs iu ær heah ealdorman, þa wæs þriddan siðe consul cyning on Rome." Aetius is further addressed "ðriga cyninge."38 The corresponding Latin terms in the *HE* are *patricius*, *consulatum* (signifying the office) and *consul*. The translations *cyning* and *ealdorman* are feasible in an Anglo-Saxon context, although *cyning* refers to a concept which is the opposite of what *consul* as a representative of the non-monarchial republican system of Rome originally meant. The omission of Symmachus in this case can be accounted for by the absence of shared rule with regard to kingship in Anglo-Saxon England.39 He was lost due to *cultural substitution* if we may put it that way.40 But the fact that

37 *MS A*, ed. Bately, p. 17. <Mauricius> was later altered to <Martianus>, probably by the interfering Hand 8 (*ibid.*) 38 *OEB*, I.1, 48; *He had been a high ealdorman for a long time before, and then was for the third time consul and*

*king in Rome*. 39 Flavius Aetius (390-540) was *magister militum* of the Western Empire and three-time consul (432, 437, 446). Apart from his military achievements, he was one of the dominating figures in Roman politics in the 430s, which made him the factual ruler in the Roman west. Therefore, the translator's choice of *cyning* to refer to Aetius is acceptable. On Flavius Aetius see H. Börm, *Westrom. Von Honorius bis Justinian* (Stuttgart, 2013), pp. 64–93 and A. Demandt, "Magister militum", in *Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft*. Supplementband XII (Stuttgart, 1970), cols. 653–790, at cols. 654–59 and J.R. Martindale, "*Aetius*", in *The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire*, ed. A.H.M. Jones *et al*., 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1971-) vol. II: *A. D. 395 - 527* , ed. J.R.

Martindale (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 21–29. 40 The term is found in Sauer, "Language and Culture", p. 439. In his survey of glossaries he also treats words which refer to the world and culture of classical antiquity (pp. 442-43 and pp. 459- 63). A prime example with relevance for us is the rendering *cynedome* for *res publica*, two cultural

there had been shared rule in Rome is acknowledged elsewhere in the *OEHE* as has been outlined. Moreover, the translator keeps the account of the polycratic Old Saxons in *HE* V.10, who did not have permanent kings: "[N]æfdan agene cyning; ah monige aldormenn wæran þeode foresette," of whom in case of one was marked out as *heretogan* and *lattowe* by casting lots.41 If the translator of the *HE* wanted to avoid the notion of shared kingship and put everything behind the claim of one king (be it Alfred or Edward), this may be seen as counter-evidence. It appears that the question of omission or retention of shared rule and/or succession with regard to the Roman history in the *OEHE* is difficult to answer, since the evidence is ambiguous.

Related to the question of shared rule is the translator's habit of retaining the line of Caesars. Whenever Bede makes mention of a Roman emperor he assigns him a place in the line going back to Augustus, telling his audience which position the emperor in question assumes in that line with the notation *ab Augusto*. 42 This practice, however, does only apply to the 'principal' emperor at the beginning of the particular entry. The co-ruler is never assigned his place in the line of Caesars, nor are the emperors who are mentioned in the course of the chapters. This bestows a special importance on the emperor, according to whose reign the entry is dated. Even though there was shared rule, Bede (following Orosius) singles out one of the Caesars to have pre-eminence. The *OEHE* faithfully reproduces Bede's procedure. Why did the translator choose to do so? There are various explanations. First, he had to rely on Bede's authority and did not want to alter the dating formulae more than necessary. Second, the line of Caesars closely resembles a genealogical succession. The importance of genealogies in Anglo-Saxons England hardly needs to be stressed here.43 Therefore, despite the different cultural spheres, the translator retained a means which appealed and related to the cultural capital of his (probably chiefly) English audience. At the same time it set a precedent for uninterrupted rule. The fact that the Caesars came from different lines/families is not evident in the *HE*, nor is it in the *OEHE*. It appears as if the Roman emperors all sprung from the same genealogical line. This may have been of interest to the *OEHE*'s translator, who wanted to bolster the claim to rule of a

concepts represented by a king and a consul respectively. Thus the translator's choice of *cyning*

for *consul* is apposite. 41 *OEB* I.2, 416; [*They*] *did not have their own king, but many ealdorman were set to rule above this people.*

42 I.3 (Claudius, 4th), I.4 (Marcus Antonius Verus, 14th), I.5 (Severus, 17th), I.6 (Diocletian, 33rd), I.9 (Gratian, 40th), I.10 (Arcadius, 43rd), I.11 (Honorius Augustus, 44th), I.13 (Theodosius the

Younger, 45th), I.15 (Martian, 46th), I.23 (Mauritius, 54th). 43 For the importance of royal genealogies see Sisam, "Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies"; D.N. Dumville "The Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies and Regnal Lists", *ASE* 5 (1976), 23- 50; *idem*, "Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists", in *Early Medieval Kingship*, e.d. P. H. Sawyer and I. N. Wood (Leeds, 1977), pp. 72-104; A. Plassmann, *Origo gentis. Identitäts- und Legitimitätsstiftung in früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Herkunftserzählungen* (Berlin, 2006); and F. Lenegham, "The Alfredian Context of *Cynewulf and Cyneheard*", *ASE* 39 (2011), 71-104, at pp. 80-82.

particular house. In a politically unstable situation, the retention of the caesarian line from Augustus might mirror the genealogical interest of the translator and his implied audience. Similarly, it may be an expression of a desire for stable political circumstances when it comes to royal succession, which, due to genealogical discourse, should be undisputed and smooth. There is more than one example in the *HE* and the *OEHE* where the division of rule after the death of a king entails chaos and woe for the kingdom and the subjects.44 Against this backdrop, retaining the line of succession may be an example or even political statement concerning how power should pass on in order to make a people prosper. For Bede, Israel was the archetype of a kingdom divided against itself and which subsequently is superseded due to divine wrath.45 To him, the inner struggle of the Britons was one reason for their downfall and will be focused on in more detail in the chapters to come. Bede pursued a didactic aim, with his narration having a strong exegetical drive, so his translator tried to follow in his footsteps.

Using the emperor Augustus as point of reference has yet another important connotation. The reign of Augustus marks a turning point in the history of Rome, with a long-lasting *pax romana* after almost 100 years of revolution and civil war that finally brought an end to the republic. The reign of Augustus became a *locus amoenus* of historical consciousness. The other important fact concerning his reign is marked out in Orosius's *Historia Adversum Paganos*. For Orosius "the pacific condition of the Roman Empire was ordained by God to be amenable to his Son's entrance into human history," as Stephen Harris remarks.46 The birth of Christ, as the focal point of Christian salvation history, happened during the reign of Emperor Augustus, with Jesus being born in the Roman province Judea. The *OE Orosius* re-shapes Orosius's Latin *Historia* and de-centers Rome in the historical perspective and in God's plan for salvation. Instead, the translation's main theme is a "historical validation of Germanic Christendom,"47 an ethno-religious identity, which decentralizes the Roman Empire and shifts the focus to the Germanic tribes, united by a common descent and religion as successors of Rome in Europe. This 'germanizing' of Orosius's *Historia*, based on a reinterpreted concept of Bede's *gens Anglorum*, fits the apparent Anglo-centrism of the *OEHE*, where the account of historical Rome is distinctively abbreviated. Nevertheless, the image of Augustus's peaceful reign and the fact that Jesus Christ was born in a Roman province during his time, certainly did loom on the translator's mind and would fit his story of the Anglo-Saxons in salvation history. Retaining Augustus while similarly cutting out most of Roman history in the *OEHE* is no paradox when we see

44 E.g. III.1 (Northumbria)

45 P. Wormald, "The Venerable Bede and the 'Church of the English'", in *The English Religious Tradition and the Genius of Anglicanism*, ed. G. Rowell (Wantage, 1993), pp. 13–32, at pp. 23-26. 46 S. Harris, "The Alfredian World History and Anglo-Saxon Identity", *JEGP* 100 (2001), 483-510,

at p. 490. 47 *Ibid*., p. 509.

a distinct Anglo-Saxonization at work in the editorial process of the translator. Let us now consider the other omissions in more detail.

Despite the important aspects just outlined, chapter I.2 omits almost everything on the difficulties during Caesar's expedition to Britain. This exalts the emperor's strength even more. The Romans conquer Britain with relative ease, which highlights their military superiority and implicitly the weakness of the Britons in the *OEHE*. 48 In the following chapter (I.3) the account of Claudius is abbreviated significantly. The personal account of the Roman emperor is omitted in the *OEHE* as well as his motif for invading Britain, i.e., a punitive expedition due to a rebellion. The translator further omits Bede's remark that no-one had dared to conquer the island before and after Julius Caesar until Claudius's attempt: "quam neque ante Iulium Caesarem neque post eum quisquam adire ausus fuerat."49 In the Old English translation, Claudius appears to have met with even less resistance, which portrays him as a man of extraordinary power. The translator also omits that Claudius assigned his son the honorary title of 'Britannicus.' This omission can be explained by the translator's attempt to diminish the notion of Roman dominion of Britain, since by the time he was translating his agenda was to de-emphasize the role of Rome and assert an Anglo-Saxon dominion of the island. Keeping this epithet, which denotes the successful subjugation of a certain geographical area by the bearer of the honorary title, would have run counter to this endeavor, as the title alone invokes claims for Roman dominion over Britain. Despite the omissions, both Bede and the *OEHE* make mention of Emperor Vespasian, who – dispatched by Claudius to Britain – conquers the Isle of Wight quickly and without blood-shed. In contrast to those exceptional emperors, who wielded considerable power and overcame Britain and the Britons – without bloodshed, we learn about Nero, who was of no service to Rome: "ac bewtuh oðera unrim æwyrdleana Romwara rices, þæt he Breotone rice forlet."50 This is not only a good example for the juxtaposition of good and bad emperors in the *HE* and the *OEHE*, but also highlights Nero's faults, since the Latin makes him lose dominion over Britain *paene* 'almost'. Due to his wickedness, Rome lost worldly dominion – a topic which is prominent in the prose translation of the Alfred circle such as the *Preface to the Pastoral Ca*re or the *OE Boethius*.

The next chapter (I.4) is left almost untouched content-wise. It recounts the reign of Marcus Antonius Verus and his brother Aurelius as the narrative frame into which the first coming of Christianity to Britain is to be found. The British king Lucius pleas with Pope Eleutherius in order to be Christianized. This request

48 A detailed analysis of the Roman history with regard to the Britons will be given in my chapter 'The Role of Britons', *infra*. For the time being this study will limit itself to brief remarks in this chapter. 49 *HEGA*, I, 34. *Which neither anyone before Julius Cesar nor after him had dared to undertake*. 50 *He did no service to the state, but among other countless disasters to the Roman empire, he also lost the dominion*

*of Britain*; text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 30-31.

is granted and the Britons, who ardently keep the faith ("onwealhne unwemmende on smyltre sibbe")51 until the time of Emperor Diocletian, who is called *yfel* 'wicked' by the OE translator. This chapter shows the initial coming of Christianity to Britain but also foreshadows its downfall. It is interesting that the chapter is kept unchanged. Apparently, the account of the Christian faith coming to Britain was of overriding importance to the translator, just as the fact that it was not longlasting Christianity, but rather a fleeting success. This in turn not only foreshadows the mission of St. Augustine to the English, but also highlights the fact that the Gregorian initiative was successful and long-lasting. This fist episode of the Christian faith was bound to fail due to both the Britons themselves and to the Romans, as Diocletian is portrayed as an opponent of Christianity in this and the chapters to come.

In chapter I.5 on emperor Severus, the internal struggles of his reign are omitted, probably as they pertained to domestic Roman policy and were of no interest to an Anglo-Saxon audience. Again, the punitive character of his expedition to Britain (due to the defection of the federate tribes) is not mentioned. Severus recovers after many hard-fought battles the greater part of the island, which we have seen was lost due to Nero's ineptitude, and fortified it with a wall from sea to sea. The translator omits the description of a turf wall from Vegetius's *Epitoma rei militaris*, as it was of no narrative value and possibly no interest to him and/or the intended audience.52 The *OEHE* retains the fact that he died at York and that his son Basianus received the dominion over Britain ("feng to Breotonrice").53 Here we have a distinctive Rome-Britain connection as the wall is one of the visible remnants of Roman rule at the time of the translation, Severus's death at York, and the continuation of father-son rule. Therefore, the chapter was deemed worthy of being retained by the translator.

In chapter I.6 the translator mentions that Diocletian ascended to the empire for twenty years and chose Maximianus as his co-ruler, both also mentioned as part of Bede's narrative. However, the translator makes slight modifications. Bede recounts that Diocletian was made emperor by the acclamation of the army: "imperator ab exercitu electus."54 This is omitted in the *OEHE*. The translator may have chosen not to mention this fact as his own lifetime had seen the trouble caused by a ruler who proclaimed himself king with military support, namely Æthelwold, who raised the Viking army in Northumbria in revolt against Edward. The translator probably wanted to avoid precedents for assumption of power, that challenge the genealogical royal succession. He is likely to have seen this matter cause trouble to the extent of civil war. We might deduce a possible date for the translation of Bede's *HE* from this strategy, i.e., after Alfred's lifetime. However,

51*OEB,* I.1, 32. *Unimpaired and undefiled in quiet and peace*. 52 Cf. C&M, p. 26 n.1 and *HEGA*, I, 296. 53 *OEB*, I.1, 32. 54 *HEGA*, I, 38. *After he had been elected emperor by the army*.

the translator may have been aware of the impending troubles caused by Æthelwold's claim already during Alfred's reign. In that case the omission would have been a plea against such a *coupe-d'etat*. With regard to Maximianus the translator adds that he was assigned to be co-ruler over the Western Empire: "ge sealde him westdæl middaneardes."55 This explicatory note shows how Diocletian and Maximianus shared the rule. After this, the translator cuts out a considerable chunk of Bede's chapter. The *HE* includes a long passage on Carausius, whose duty it was to guard the British shores ("ad obseruanda oceani litora"),56 and his *socius* Allectus, who in turn had seized the power in Britain for nine consecutive years before the Roman prefect Aclipiodotus, in the name of Maximianus, put an end to that rebellion and restored Britain to the Roman Empire. The Latin passage does not shed a favorable light on the Saxons, as it states that the they raided the seashores.57 The Saxons are termed *hostes* 'enemies', with whom Carausius plotted. Neither would have pleased the ears of an Anglo-Saxon audience at the end of the ninth century. Furthermore, the omitted rebellion of Carausius and Allectus fit with the translator's agenda. As with the expeditions of Claudius and Severus, where Bede wrote that the emperors were drawn to Britain because of rebellions or defections of federate tribes, this episode in the Latin contributed to the picture of Britain as an unruly island, poised to rebel and therefore opposed to the Roman Empire. The *OEHE* does systematically remove this aspect from the narration and portrays Britain as less belligerent and more under the control of the Roman Caesars. Finally, leaving out this passage makes smooth reading from the opening lines of the chapter about Diocletian and Maximianus to its conclusion, dealing with the persecutions of Christians under those emperors in the East and the West of the Roman Empire. From a narrative point of view, the modified narrative sequence does emphasize the aspect of Christianity and paves the way for the subsequent chapter on St. Alban, Britain's proto-martyr. It appears as if the *OEHE* wanted to highlight aspects of Christianization (including persecutions and martyrdom) and thus omitted aspects which rather concerned the domestic affairs of imperial Rome, even though Britain sets the stage for the story. This factor, combined with the rather negative picture of the Saxons and the notion of Britain as anti-Roman, appears to be the trigger for the omission in the Old English translation. It is interesting to note that the translator mistranslated the Latin. Right after making mention of Maximianus assuming the western half of the empire, the *OEHE* adds: " he onfeng cynegewædum com on Breotone."58 In Bede's Latin, however, this passage pertains to Carausius: "quam ob rem a Maxi-

55*OEB*, I.1, 33. *And assigned him the western part of the world*. 56 *HEGA*, I, 38. *To guard the shores of the ocean*. 57 *Ibid.*, "[T]unc Franci et Saxones infestabant." *Which then the Franks and the Saxons attacked*. 58 *OEB*, I.1, 32; *And he received royal vestment and came to Britain*.

miano iussus occidi, purpuram sumsit ac Britannias occupauit."59 Apparently, the translator did not see the participle construction and was confused about who actually assumed the purple. Nonetheless, it seems strange that the translator chose to retain that passage, given the fact that it was embedded in a passage which had been omitted. It is possible that the Latin MS was defective and only had the *purpuram sumsit ac Britannias occupauit*, which, depending on the length of the lacuna, could have followed Bede's account that Maximianus was created *socium imperii*. This is unlikely, as we would have to assume that the Latin MS was defective after this sentence, and that therefore the translator omitted the rest of the passage because the subsequent part no longer made sense in the light of the omission of the previous lines. These are a lot of assumptions. Therefore, the attribution to Maximianus may have been intended. This establishes a direct link between Britain and the Western Empire since this is Maximianus's sphere of influence. With the next chapter on St. Alban's martyrdom, the stage is set and the narration becomes more vivid, as now the audience was enabled to imagine these events to have happened while Maximianus had direct sovereignty over Britain. Diocletian was far removed from the island, ruling the eastern half of the empire as mentioned. The chapter (in the *HE* and the *OEHE*) ends with the account of Diocletian and Maximianus's persecutions of Christians. Both emperors, in contrast to the other Caesars of the *ab Augusto* line, are embedded in a very ignominious 'genealogy': "Onfengon hi ða teoþan stowe on ehtnysse Godes cyrcena æfter Nerone casere."60 This is a remarkable point, as for the first time we get a negative portrayal of Roman emperors. They appear to be anti-Christian, a character trait which is depicted as having some tradition, as it is already the tenth persecution since Nero. The positive impression of the Romans, which the audience has been presented with so far, is tainted to a certain degree as they are guilty of crimes against Christendom. The kings are portrayed as even more wicked in the *OEHE* than in the *HE,* as the vernacular translation has an addition that presents the persecutions as just one aspect of the emperors' evil deeds ("Þa betwyh ða monigan yfel þe hi dydon […]")61 and singles them out as *arlesan* 'impious', which the *HE* does not do.62 The persecution of Christians is condemned with more emphasis than in Bede's Latin. These evil emperors fit well the gallery of 'bad' exempla that Bede and his translator wanted to present to their audience. At the same time, the inclusion of these evil characters and their role in the persecutions is integral to the narrative. Keeping in mind that both the *HE* and the *OEHE* are part of unfolding salvation history on an exegetical level, the persecutions are

59 *HEGA*, I, 38 and 40. *Although he because of that had been sentenced by Maximianus to be killed, he as-*

*sumed the purple and occupied Britain*. 60 *HEGA*, I, 34; *They received the tenth place in the persecution of God's churches after the emperor Nero*. 61 *OEB*, I.1, 32; *Then among the many evil things which they did* […]. 62 Ca omits the passage "in eastdæle middangeardes Maximianus on westdæle." This is a mere explicatory note and may not have been deemed worthy of copying by the Ca scribe.

necessary as they provide Britain with martyrs in the process of Christianization. This is most evident in the *OEHE* as well as the *HE* in chapter I.7, which narrates the martyrdom of St. Alban. This hagiographic account thus becomes a pivotal point in the early narration of the *HE/OEHE,* as it provided a touchstone for all Christians in Britain. Thus, in the *OEHE* the focus of chapter I.6 is not so much on the treason and defection of Carausius and Allectus, as it is in the *HE*, but rather on the early history of Christianity in Britain, which confirms the island as part of the universal Church. This aspect seems even more important to the translator than it was to Bede given the omissions and additions. The redaction of the Latin chapter followed a narrative purpose and was not just undertaken because it was not relevant to the translator.

Chapter I.8 deals with the Arian heresy and its condemnation at the Council of Nicaea. It further narrates that Emperor Constantius died in Britain and bestowed his power on his son Constantine. But whereas the *HE* relates that he was elected in Gallia ("imperator creatus in Galliam"),63 the *OEHE* seems to stress the handover of a sphere of influence, which probably included Britain: " Constantinus his sunu þam godan casere, se wæs of Elena þam wife acenned, his rice forlet."64 Constantinus is portrayed as a child of Britain as the *OEHE* continues: "Writeð Eutropius þæt Constantinus se casere wære on Breotone acenned, æfter his fæder to rice feng."65 The chapter concludes with the condemnation of the Arian heresy during the reign of Constantine. Constantine and Diocletian are juxtaposed by the translator, who added the adjective *god* to the former and the *yfel* to the latter. Moreover, it appears as if Constantine's father, who is also portrayed as a man of clemency and goodness ("wæs se mon monðwære for weorulde god"),66 upon his death in Britain has passed on the rule to his son, who was born in Britain and who displays similar qualities and is presented as a champion of Christianity right from the start, as the Nicaean Council was held during his reign. The fact that "on Constantinus dagum"67 is actually an addition by the translator strengthens that impression. This chapter was clearly retained as it refers to the first Roman emperor who helped Christianity become the state religion of Rome (although that did ultimately only happen sixty years after his death in the reign of Theodosius II) and who also had a strong connection to Britain. Constantine and his mother Helena are important figures in Anglo-Saxon literature.68

67 *Ibid.*

63*HEGA*, I, 52. 64 *OEB*, I.1, 42; *And left his realm to his son Constantine, who was born of the wife Helen*. 65 *Ibid*.; *Eutropius writes that the good emperor Constantine were born in Britain, and after his father assumed the power*. 66 *Ibid.*

68 117 hits according to the *DOEC* <accessed: 01/10/2014>. Apart from the *OEHE* and the Old English poem *Elene* Constantine finds mention in *Metrical Charm* 3, Napier 50, *Vercelli Homily 18*, *OE* Orosius, *OE Dialogues*, Wulfstan's *Institutes of Polity* and the *OE Martyrology* but most frequently in Ælfric: Catholic Homilies II, 19, 31-32, the *Lives of Saints* (Agnes, Abdon and Sennes

The following chapters (I.9 and I.10) are omitted entirely from the *OEHE*. Chapter nine deals with the emperors Gratian and Theodosius, who tried to engage the problems which endangered the empire. Within this narrative frame Bede tells the story of Maximus, who rose to the rank of dictator and was elected emperor by the army in Britain ("ab exercitu creatus imperator").69 Thereafter he crossed the channel to Gaul, murdered Gratian and drove his brother Valentinian to Italy before he was finally trapped and killed in Aquilea.70 Again, the chapter may have been left out as the account of a rebellion. Assuming power by military force and killing the rightful ruler may have been regarded as undesirable by the translator and his audience who were confronted or had been confronted with a similar situation in Anglo-Saxon England. Chapter I.10 chiefly deals with the Pelagain heresy. There is not much about the history of Rome in this chapter, except for the two rulers who are mentioned (Arcadius and Honorius). Therefore, it will be dealt with later when this study focuses on the Britons and the Pelagian heresy in the penultimate chapter.

A side effect of the omission of these chapters (I.9 and I.10) is that Bede's narration is sped up in the *OEHE*. The chapter on Constantine and the defeat of the Arian heresy (I.8) is immediately followed by the sack of Rome by the Goths and the subsequent loss of Roman dominion over Britain in *HE* I.11. The presentation of these events is more concise than in the *HE*, with a new quick succession of events being established. Similarly, the translator abbreviates I.11 significantly. The *HE* relates that a certain Gratian became tyrant in Britain and was killed: "apud Britannias […] tyrannus creatur et occiditur."71 This happened in the same year when Germanic tribes defeated the Franks and ravaged Gaul. The *HE* then mentions that after Gratian, a man called Constantinus was elected in his place, who crossed into Gaul and was tricked by the barbarians into making dubious treaties. Bede comments on this issue: "detrimento magis reipublicae fuit."72 Constantinus then was killed by Constantius, his *comes* 'officer,' on the orders of Emperor Honorius. Furthermore, Constans, the son of the Constantinus, whom the latter had created as a Caesar, was killed at Vienne by Gerontius, also "comes suus"73 'his own officer'. The streamlining of the chapter may have been due to the general agenda of the translator to edit out accounts of defection, rebellion and opposition to the Roman empire in Britain. Furthermore, these details could have been omitted, as they mainly concerned the domestic policy of imperial Rome. Finally, the passage is quite confusing. We have Constantinus, Constantius

and St Martin), his homilies *Wyrdwritera*s and *Dominica XII post Pentecosten* and his pastoral letter to Wulfstan and the *Old English Heptateuch*). 69 *HEGA*, I, 52. 70 This chapter is taken almost verbatim from Orosius (vii. 34,45) except for the year of grace; cf.

C&M, p. 37 n. 4 and *HEGA*, I, 302-03. 71 HEGA, I, 54. *Is made tyrant and is killed*. 72 *Ibid.*, *He did great harm to the state*. 73 *Ibid.*, p. 56.

and Constans within a few lines, which are difficult to tell apart, especially if we are to assume an aural context for the *OEHE*. These similar sounding names surely would have confused an audience. Therefore, the omission could be owed to pragmatism. Furthermore, given the fact that the chapter on Constantine the Great, whom the translator portrayed in a very favorable light, preceded this chapter, the audience was endangered of getting lost while listening to the account. Abbreviating the account in I.11 had the further advantage that the picture of Constantine could not be besmirched due to an misunderstanding of the passage because of those who have similar names.

#### The Sack of Rome and the Declining Power of Rome

This chapter on Constantine and the Arian heresy is immediately followed by the passage on Alaric sacking Rome and dwindling Roman power in Britain. From an allegorical point of view, this event foreshadows the coming of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in Bede's narration. At the same time, it legitimizes the Germanic Conquest of Britain, as the passage shows that even the 'half-mystical' powerful Romans could not muster the resources to hold Britain, as they were overpowered by a Germanic tribe. The passage in Bede, together with the accounts of the sack of Rome in the *OE Orosius* and *OE Boethius,* are blunt re-writings of Orosius's original account.74 The Old English accounts all have in common – despite slight differences – that they herald the end of Roman dominion in Britain and exalt the role of the Goths, with whom the Anglo-Saxons appear to have identified as their ancestors or at least as partakers of a shared Germanic imperial identity. This identity had a strong ethno-religious character, as it portrayed the Christianized Germanic peoples as rightful heirs to the heritage of the Roman empire after its fall.75 The *OE Orosius* depicts the settlement of the Goths as a peaceful process of transition and negotiation rather than conquest:

Æfter þæm þe Romeburg getimbred wæs m wintra c [] iiii a siextigum, God gedyde his miltsunge on Romanum, þa þe he hiora misdæda wrecan let, þæt hit þeh dyde Alrica se cristena cyning se mildesta, he mid swa lytle niþe abræc Romeburg þæt he bebæd þæt mon nænne mon ne sloge, eac þæt man nanuht ne wanade ne ne yfelade þæs þe on þæm ciricum wære, sona þæs on þæm þriddan dæge hie aforan ut of þære byrig hiora agnum willan, swa þær ne wearð nan hus hiora willum forbærned. þær genom Hettulf, Alrican mæg, Onorius swostor þæs cyninges siþþan wið hine geþingade hi him to wife nam. Siþþan sæton þa Gotan þær on lande, sume be

74 Cf. Harris, "Alfredian World History" and M. Godden, "The Anglo-Saxons and the Goths:

Rewriting the Sack of Rome," *ASE* 31 (2002), 47-68. 75 Cf. Harris, "Alfredian World History" and Godden, *Misapropriation of the Past*, pp. 6-16.

þæs caseres willan, sume be his unwillan; sume hi foron on Ispanie þær gesæston, sume on Affrice.76

(*1164 years after the foundation of Rome, God showed mercy on the Romans, when he let their misdeeds be avenged, that it though did Alaric the Christian king and the mildest, and he conquered with so little hatred the city of Rome that be decreed that no man should be killed, and also that no one should neither steal nor befoul those things which were in the churches, 7 soon after that on the third day they left the city because of their own will, so that no house was burned because of their intent. There took Hettulf, Alaric's uncle, the king Honorius's sister and with him bound and him took as wife. Then the Goths settled there in the country, some by the will of the emperor, some against his will; some went to Spain and settled there, some in Africa*).

Godden remarks that given the fact that in the 890s the Carolingian Empire was in disarray, it may be possible that this account of peaceful transition in the *OE Orosius* was designed to invigorate the idea that Rome has been transferred to the Anglo-Saxons, assuming that Harris was correct with his assumption of the Goths to be related to the them. Moreover in the preceding chapter (VI.XXXVII), Orosius criticized the Romans for complaining about the Goths, and insisted that those were not destroying Rome. This is difficult to imagine not having had considerable resonance in the translator's time as Godden suggests.77

The sack of Rome in the *OEHE* stands at the beginning of a narrative, which on the one hand stresses the military dominion and protector function of the Romans over and for the Britons, but on the other tells of the decline of Roman power, which we find in chapters I.12-I.14. The military superiority of Rome with regard to the Britons is expressed by depicting them as unable to resist the onslaught of the Picts and the Scots after the withdrawal of the Roman forces. The Britons thrice call on the Romans for help. Their reverence for the Romans becomes most clear in their second petition:

And hi ða eft sendon ærendracan to Rome wæpendre stefne him fultumes bædon, þæt þæt earme eðel mid ealle ne fordiligad ne wære, ne se nama ðære Romaniscan þeode, se ðe mid him swa lange scean bryhte, fram fremdra ðeoda ungeþwærnesse fornumen fordilgad beon sceolde.

(*Then once more they sent messengers to Rome and in plaintive tones begged for aid, that their poor country might not be utterly destroyed, nor the name of the Roman people, which so long was bright and shining among them, be overcast and obscured by the violence of foreign nations*). 78

76 Bately, *Old English Orosius*, p. 156. 77 Cf. Godden, *Misapropriation of the Past*, pp. 7-10. 78 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 44-45.

What is implied in this passage is an esteem for the Roman rule, which appears (from a British point of view) as glorious and long-lasting. The Old English translation of this passage has a peculiar translation. The Latin stands as follows: "ne nomen Romanae prouinciae, quod apud eos tam diu claruerat, exterarum gentium improbitate obrutum uilesceret."79 The *nomen Romanae prouinciae* is rendered as *nama ðære Romaniscan þeode* in the *OEHE*. Whereas the Latin formulation seems to refer to Britain as the Roman province *Britannia*, the Old English appears not to refer to the fact that indeed Britain was once under Roman dominion and administration, being an integral part of the empire. The phrase *nama ðære Romaniscan þeode* rather implies a reference to the fame and reputation of the Romans, which seems to be at the brink of fading away. This passage, which shows the Roman legacy endangered by foreign nations, reads like yet another foreshadowing of the Germanic conquest of Britain. We can also discern an interesting Germanization of Bede's Latin, which is reminiscent of Old English heroic poetry. The wording of the *HE* stresses the esteem of the Roman province, which, however, is transitory. The *OEHE*, in contrast, seems to focus on the reputation and fame of the Romans and their past deeds in general, which is more sustainable but could yet be endangered. This underscores the semi-heroic image the *OEHE* seeks to give of the Romans. In any case, this passage shows the decline of the Roman power in Britain, with foreign peoples trying to assume its place. This clearly foreshadows the *adventus Saxonum* in *HE* I.15.

Nonetheless, the Romans prove their capability to defend their former province and to bestow their military knowledge upon the Britons. These in turn show a blatant ineptitude in construction works and military craftsmanship in comparison to the Romans. This aspect lessens the claim that the Britons – in succession to the Romans – are true successors, as they are not able to hold and defend their own territory. The account of declining Roman power, however, continues as the final British attempt to seek help from Rome goes awry. Their petition to the Roman *magister militum,* Aetius, is unsuccessful as he apparently had overstretched his resources:

Ðeah ðe hi þas ðing sædon, ne mihton hi nænigne fultum æt him begitan, forþon on ða ylcan tid he wæs absgayd mid hefigum gefeohtum wið Blædlan Attilan Huna cyningum.

(*Though they pleaded thus, they could not get any help from him, for at that time he was engaged in severe struggles with Blaedla and Attila, kings of the Huns*). 80

It becomes clear that it was not so much Aetius's unwillingness to help the Britons, but rather his inability to do so, as he had to cope with the Huns. The fact

79 *HEGA*, I, 60; [*T*]*he name of a Roman province, long renowned amongst them, might not be obliterated and disgraced by the barbarity of foreigners*; trans.: C&M p. 43. 80 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 48-49.

that Rome apparently had overstretched its military resources had been hinted at before. Right after the Britons had petitioned to help uphold their once shining legacy, the Romans embarked on a final expedition to fight against the Picts and Scots. After having won the victory against the northern foes, they reveal to the Britons that they no longer could help them:

Ða gesægdon Romane on an Bryttum þæt hi no ma ne mihton for heora gescyldnysse swa gewinnfullicum fyrdum swencte beon.

(*Then the Romans said to the Britons once for all, that they could no longer exhaust themselves in such toilsome expeditions for their defence*). 81

Despite their previous fame and military power, Rome seems to in decline. It could no longer safeguard all its boarders and provinces. On a figurative level, the old order of the Roman empire gives way to the new order, in which the successor states emancipate themselves under the aegis of the (Germanic) barbarian tribes, i.e., the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Franks etc., all to be united in what Harris has termed 'Christendom', or Germanic imperial identity. Rome's tragic flaw in Bede's narration and the *OEHE* seems to be that they had wielded unprecedented military power, owned the most efficient administration and displayed unmatched building skills, but failed in the end as they lacked divine backing. The decline of Roman power is portrayed as being part of the Almighty's plan of salvation. The story of Rome in Britain draws to an end, and the story of the Germanic invaders, who will become the dominant force instead, is about to begin. This rhetoric of change is discernible in both the *HE* and the *OEHE*. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes assume the role of protectors and military role-models for the British, just as the Romans did:

Þa gesomnedon hi gemot þeahtedon ræddon, hwæt him to donne wære, hwær him wære fultum to secanne to gewearnienne to wiðscufanne swa reðre hergunge swa gelomlicre þara norðþeoda. þa gelicode him eallum mid heora cyninge, Wyrtgeorn wæs haten, þæt hi Seaxna þeode ofer þam sælicum dælum him on fultum gecygdon gelaðedon. Þæt cuð is þæt þæt mid Drihtnes mihte gestihtad wæs, þæt yfell wræc come ofer ða wiþcorenan, swa on þam ende þara wisena sweotolice ætywed is.

(*Then they gathered an assembly and took counsel together, as to what should be done, and where they should look for help to avoid and repel such savage and repeated devastations of the northern nations. Then it seemed best to all, and to their king, Vortigern by name, to invite and call into their aid the people of the Saxons from the parts beyond the sea. It is evident that this was so arranged by*

81 *OEB*, I.1, 44-45.

*the divine power, that heavy vengeance should come on these outcasts, as is clearly shown by the issue of events*).82

Not only do the Britons choose the Saxons as their new protectors, but it becomes clear that the coming of the Germanic tribes in order to fill the void caused by the withdrawal of the Roman forces was part of the divine plan for humankind.

By condensing the chapters I.8-11 and the portrayal of the gradually diminishing power of Rome in Britain the Roman history in the *OEHE* becomes more of a prelude to the Germanic conquest in I.15. Imperial secular Rome had ceased to exert power in Britain, but spiritual Rome, the Rome of the papacy, was to play the overriding role in the *HE* and the *OEHE*. The last vestiges of Roman military power are embodied by the Briton Aurelianus Ambrosius, under whose leadership the Britons rise up against the Germanic tribes:

Wæs in ða tid heora heretoga latteow Ambrosius, haten oðre noman Aurelianus. Wæs god mon gemetfæst, Romanisces cynnes mon.

(*Their general and leader in that time was Ambrosius, also called Aurelianus. He was a good man and moderate, a man from the stock of the Romans*.)83

It is then related how the fortunes of war swayed between the Britons and the Saxons until the Battle of Mount Badon:

oð þæt gear ymbsetes þære Beadonescan dune, þa heo micel wæl on Ongolcynne geslogon, ymb feower feowertig wintra Ongolcynnes cymes in Breotone.

(*Until that year of the siege of Mount Badon, when they made great slaughter among the English, about 44 years after the arrival of the English in Britain*.)84

This episode has the air of a final moment of glory of an otherwise diminishing Roman power in Britain. Ambrosius is depicted as the last survivor of the once mighty and venerated Roman people in Britain. This notion is somewhat mitigated in the *OEHE* as the Latin portrays as the sole Roman survivor of the turmoil caused by the Picts, Scots and Germanic tribes:

[Q]ui solus forte Romanae gentis praefata tempestati superfuerat, occisis in eadem parentibus regium nomen et insigne ferentibus.

(*Who as the only one of the Roman nation survived the force of the aforementioned storm, in which his parents who carried a noble name were killed*.)85

82 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 50-51. 83 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 54. 84 Text and trans.: *ibid.* 85 *HEGA*, I, 72.

It stands to reason that the translator would omit such a passage, as it referred to the slaughter which the treacherous Germanic mercenaries had made among the Britons. This may hint at the intended audience. In front of an Anglo-Saxon or a mixed Anglo-Saxon/British audience, such a reference would have been troublesome, especially if we read Ambrosius's campaign as feud-like vengeance, given that his parents had been murdered. It is not hard to imagine a context where some (British) members of the audience may still carry a grudge against the Anglo-Saxons as their kingdoms had just been subdued by King Alfred. In the light of this significant omission, this assumption deserves serious consideration.

The consequence of the Battle at Mount Badon is that the Germanic invasion of Britain was repelled for the moment. What sets in is a narrative silence, as the translator does not elaborate further on the repercussions of the story. The victory of the Britons under Roman leadership is recorded, but the consequences are taken out. The narrative sequence which follows omits chapters I.17-22 in the *OEHE*. We have no further records of enmities between the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons, let alone Ambrosius Aurelianus. Consequently, the Mount Badon episode is immediately followed by the dispatch of the Augustinian mission from Rome in I.23. The last account of Roman military strength in Britain fades away and gives way to the emergence of the spiritual power of Rome. The martial power of the once most powerful empire in the history of mankind gives way to the universality of the Church with its message of peace and the eternal kingdom.

The episode on the mission in *HE* I.23 is of great importance as only with their conversion are the Anglo-Saxons entered the community of the faithful, in what can be described as the story of the heathen peoples at the outer ends of the world converting before the Second Coming of Christ. The *OEHE* nicely portrays this transition from secular imperial Rome to spiritual papal Rome:

Ða wæs æfter forðyrnendre tide ymb fif hund wintra tu hundniontig wintra from Cristes hidercyme; Mauricius casere feng to rice þæt hæfde an twentig wintra. Se wæs feorða eac fiftegum frim Augusto. Ðæs caseres rices ðy teoðan geare Gregorius se halga wer, se wæs on lare on dæde se hehsta, feng to biscophade þære Romaniscan cyrican þæs apostolican seðles: þæt heold reahte þreotteno ger syx monað tyn dagas. Se wæs mid godcundre inbryrdnesse monad þy feowertegeðan geare þæs ylcan caseres, ymb fiftig wintra hundteontig Ongelcynnes hidercymes in Breotone, ðæt he sende Agustinum oðre monige munecas mid hine Drihten ondredende bodian Godes word Ongolþeode.

(*Then, as time went on, about five hundred and ninety-two years after Christ's advent, the emperor Mauricius succeeded to the throne, and occupied it for twentyone years. He was the fifty-fourth from Augustus. In the tenth year of this emperor's reign the holy Gregory, foremost both in learning and in active life, suc-* *ceeded to the bishopric of the Roman church and of the apostolic see, which he held and directed for thirteen years six months and ten days. In the fourteenth year of the same emperor, about one hundred and fifty years after the Angles came into Britain, he was directed by divine inspiration to send Augustine and many other monks with him, men who feared the Lord, to preach the word of God to the Angles*). 86

Although the account acknowledges that Rome and its emperors were still of some importance, the reign of Mauritius appears to be a mere footnote. However, it seems to be an apt point of transition from a Britain dominated by imperial Rome to a Britain under the influence of papal Rome. The transition appears even smoother in the *OEHE* due to another omission. In *HE* I.21, which did not find its way into the *OEHE*, a miracle of Germanus of Auxerre is recounted, after which he returned to Ravenna. There he was received by the co-emperor of Marcian, Valentinian. After Germanus's death Bede then relates:

Nec multo post Valentinianus ab Aetii patricii, quem occiderat, satellitibus interimitur, anno imperii Marciani sexto, cum quo simul Hesperium concidit regnum.87

(*Not long after this was Valentinian murdered by followers of the patrician Aetius, whom he had murdered, in the sixth year of the reign of Marcian, with which then the Western Empire collapsed*).

This passage is significant in many ways. First, it testifies to the domestic strife and power struggle of the Roman Empire, a fact which the translator subsequently tries to obfuscate in his narrative. This is done with all probability in order to rid the *OEHE* of notions of political instability and disputed claims to power. Second, the omission fits the editorial agenda of the translator. Valentinian is omitted from chapter I.15, and the translator paves over a loose end without reference. Finally, making mention of the fall of the Western Empire carried important implications. The medieval mind-frame recognized the succession of world empires, of which the last and present empire was the Christian Roman Empire, which was to endure until the coming of the Antichrist.88 Highlighting of the fall of the Roman Empire – although it was only a part – could have stirred anxieties among the readers that the coming of Antichrist was near. In a time of constant Viking onslaughts, the Scandinavians may have been perceived as signs denoting the last days before the Antichrist's coming, which consequently would have evoked notions of the impending end of the world in this passage. It is interesting that the fall of the Empire is neither mentioned in the *OEHE* nor the *ASC*. Malcolm Godden therefore remarked that is was difficult to say whether Alfredian readers

86 Text and trans.: *OEB*, I.1, 54-55. 87 *HEGA*, I, 90. 88 Cf. Ohly, *Sensus Spiritualis*, p. 35.

perceived Rome as still flourishing in their own time.89 With the Western Empire not having fallen in the narration of the *OEHE,* and the embedding of the Gregorian mission in the context of Mauritius's reign, the Christianization of England appears to have happened while the fourth world empire, Christian Rome, had not yet ceased to exist.

Through Gregory's initiative and the Augustinian mission, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons entered a new era within the course of salvation history. The balance of power in Britain had shifted already. Imperial Rome had lost its influence and was superseded by the English. This is underlined by the introduction of a new dating formula: *ab adventum Saxonum*. Moreover, as with the coming of the Germanic tribes, their conversion is also willed by God ("mid godcundre inbryrdnesse").90

#### Conclusion

The present chapter has shown that the streamlined account of imperial Roman history was governed by a specific editorial agenda and was by no means haphazard.91 The Romans are portrayed as powerful figures, sometimes larger than life, whose military power was unmatched and who left a visible material legacy to the Anglo-Saxons through edifices and buildings. Much of the domestic strife of Rome is left out even if it pertained to Britain. This can be explained by the effort on part of the translator to get rid of the image of Britain as an unruly country, which is prone to rebellion and opposed to the Roman Empire. Furthermore, questions of usurpation combined with states of political turmoil might have been avoided by the translator, who had either witnessed the West Saxon succession crisis firsthand, or at least saw it coming in his or her own time. However, the Romans were not able to hold Britain, as the sack of Rome by the Visigoths heralds the historical turning point when the Germanic tribes supersede the Roman Empire and start their own ascension in Europe. The Anglo-Saxons in turn succeeded to the vacuum the Romans had left in Britain. They share the military strength of the Romans and therefore appear as rightful heirs to them. In contrast to the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons established a lasting rule in Britain, as they have one advantage over the Romans: their Christianization is embedded in God's plan of salvation. The Anglo-Saxon claim to Britain is willed by God. In contrast, Roman Christianity is nowhere explicitly mentioned. On the contrary, Diocletian,

89 Godden, *Misappropriation of the Past*, p. 9. 90 *OEB*, I.1, 54. 91 After having consulted the *OE Orosius*, any claim that the passages in question were left out in the *OEHE* because they had complementary accounts in the *OE Orosius* cannot be upheld. Its historical account from 60 BC to 410 AD differs from the *HE* as well as the *OEHE*, but does not necessarily provide the narrations of the latter. For details see Bately, *Old English Orosius*, chs. V.xii, VI.xv, VI.xxx, Vi.xxxv, VI.xxxvi, VI.xxxvii, VI.xxxviii.

Maximianus and Nero are singled out for their persecutions of Christians, which, however, are necessary to provide Britain with martyrs, an important point in the medieval self-understanding of being part of universal Christianity. The Romans pose as role models for the Anglo-Saxons, but only insofar as they displayed extraordinary military power and left their mark on Britain. But the *OEHE*, even more than the *HE*, reduces the Roman history to the status of a prelude for the coming of the Germanic tribes, who follow in the footsteps of imperial Rome, but exceed it as their dominion of Britain was divinely ordained. The English had taken over the secular power of Rome in Britain but their connection to the eternal city is not severed, it is rather of another nature. The secular Rome, Augustine's *civitas terrena*, is superseded by the spiritual Rome, representing the *civitas Dei*. And it is with the latter that the Anglo-Saxons cast their lot.

# **Mission and Conversion**

Although imperial Rome had left its mark on the minds of the Anglo-Saxons in general and obviously on Bede in his *HE* in particular, the accounts of Roman history serve as a mere prelude to the coming of the Germanic tribes to Britain and its subsequent evangelization. It was not so much the Rome of the Caesars that preoccupied Bede, but it was rather the Rome of the papacy, with Pope Gregory I – 'the Apostle of the English' – being the central figure. Gregory himself celebrates Britain's conversion in his *Moralia in Iob*:

Ecce lingua Britanniae, quae nihil aliud nouerat, quam barbarum frendere, iam dudum in diuinis laudibus Hebraeum coepit Alleluia resonare.

(*Lo the mouth of Britain, which once only knew how to gnash its barbarous teeth, has long since learned to sing the praises of God with the alleluia of the Hebrews. See how proud Ocean has become a servant, lying low now before the feet of the saints, and those barbarous motions, which earthly princes could not subdue with the sword, are now, through the fear of God, repressed with a single word from the lips of priests; and he, who, as an unbeliever, did not flinch before troops of warriors, now, as a believer, fears the word of the humble*.)92

Gregory is harping on a classical topos here, namely, the conquest of the indomitable *Ocean* and the victory over the barbarous peoples at the ends of the world,

92 *Moralia in Iob*, ed. Adriaen (Turnhout, 1985), III, 1346; trans.: Scully, "'Proud Ocean", p. 3.