¹ Kuypers, A. B., The Prayer Book of Aedeluald the Bishop, Commonly Called the Book of Cerne (Cambridge, 1902), v–vi. An important new study of this prayerbook has appeared, by Brown, Michelle P., The Book of Cerne: Prayer, Patronage, and Power in Ninth-Century England (Toronto, 1996). In his book, The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature (Cambridge, 1993), 3–7, Charles Wright provides a cogent discussion of the pitfalls of “impressionistic characterizations” of Irish and Roman devotional expression based on tempermental differences in style. Ultimately, Wright concludes that “the traditional contrast between ‘Roman’ and ‘Irish’ piety and stylistic expression can still be useful,” but warns that “such impressionistic criteria as ‘sobriety’ and ‘imagination’ as tests of national origin” should be abandoned (7). In this essay, I hope to indicate a few more examples of the Irish influence on Anglo-Saxon culture and literature.Google Scholar

I wish to thank Raymond J. S. Grant of the University of Alberta, Thomas N. Hall of the University of Illinois-Chicago, Phillip Pulsiano of Villanova University, and E. Gordon Whatley of Queen's College for their constructive criticisms at various stages of this essay. I should also like to thank Timothy Graham of the Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University, specifically for his aid in clarifying manuscript readings and other technical matters, and more generally for his friendly support of my research. Finally, I should like to thank Mildred O. Budny, Director of the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence, for her patience with and unfailing encouragement of my work on the marginalia of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41. Versions of this essay were presented as a paper for the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence Seminar concerning CCCC 41, held at the Parker Library on December 11, 1993; the Medieval Studies Division of the Annual Meeting of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts & Letters held at Ferris State University on March 10, 1995; and a session of the 31st International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University on May 12, 1996.Google Scholar

² See Kuypers, , The Book of Cerne, xxix–xxx. Although there are exceptions to this paradigm (e.g., according to Bede [Historia ecclesiastica, Book 2, ch. 9–14], Paulinus, the Roman companion of Augustine, first evangelized Northumbria), its general parameters hold true. On the early history of the cult in England, see Finberg, H. P. R., “The Archangel Michael in Britain,” in Millénaire monastique du Mont Saint-Michel, vol. 3, ed. Baudot, M. (Paris, 1971), 459–69; and Rojdestvensky, O., Le culte de Saint Michel au Moyen Âge latin (Paris, 1922), 18–28.Google Scholar

³ On the non-Roman, possibly Irish, provenance of the offertory, see Serpilli, B. M., L'Offertorio della Messa dei Defunti (Rome, 1946), 21–30, and Grogan, Brian, “Eschatological Teaching in the Early Irish Church,” in McNamara, Martin, Biblical Studies: The Medieval Irish Contribution (Dublin, 1976), 52–55.Google Scholar

⁴ For a full treatment of Irish representations of St. Michael, see Chapter Two, “The Genesis and Migration of the Archangel's Cult,” of my Ph.D. dissertation, “The Cult of Saint Michael the Archangel in Anglo-Saxon England” (Northwestern University, 1998).Google Scholar

⁵ For a discussion of representations of the Archangel in Old English literature, see Four, Chapter, “Representations of St. Michael in Old English Literature,” of my dissertation.Google Scholar

Archangel in the Margins Google Scholar

⁶ Grant, Raymond J. S., Three Homilies from Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (Ottawa, 1982), 26 and passim.Google Scholar

⁷ Detailed descriptions of the manuscript can be found in Wanley, H., Librorum Veterum Septentrionalium Catalogus, vol. 2 of Hickes, G., Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archaeologicus (Oxford, 1705, rear. New York, 1970), 114–15; Schipper, J., König Alfreds Übersetzung von Bedas Kirchengeschichte, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 4 (Leipzig, 1897–99), 1, xxv–xxviii; Miller, T., The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, EETS o.s. 95, 96, 110, 111 (London, 1890 and 1898, repr. New York 1976); Ker, N., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), 43–45; James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1912), 1, 81–85; and the “Introduction” to Grant, , Three Homilies (1–12). Grant has also published much of the marginal material in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41: The Loricas and the Missal (Amsterdam, 1979).Google Scholar

⁸ Ker states that the Bede text was written “in two parts simultaneously by two scribes” and that the marginalia were written “probably all in one unusual angular hand” (Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon [Oxford, 1957], 45).Google Scholar

⁹ By “charm,” I refer to any solemn ritual utterance, generally sung or intoned, in a metrical form. As with the connotations of Latin carmen and Middle English charme, my use of the word “charm” indicates that the incantation works by means of the recitation of words, rather than by the application of some medicinal concoction. I denote the use of herbal remedies by the term “medicinal recipe,” of which there is one among the eleven incantatory verses. From the Irish lúirech (corselet or breast-plate), a lorica is a subset of charms that offers general protection for the body and soul, as opposed to the protection of animals and material goods against theft. According to Gougaud, L. (“Etude sur les loricœ celtiques et sur les prières qui s'en rapprochent,” Bulletin d'ancienne littérature et d'archéologie chrétiennes 1 [1911]: 265–81 and 2 [1912]: 33–41, 101–27), a lorica is “une prière de forme litanique, généralement prolixe, écrite soit en latin soit en langue celtique, dans laquelle on réclame en termes pressants la protection des trois personnes divines, des anges, et des saints contre les maux et les dangers spirituels ou materiels, surtout contre ces derniers.” Although only one of the Corpus 41 loricas includes an invocation of the Trinity, as a whole they call variously upon angels and saints. For a discussion of the tradition of loricas in Old English, see Hill, Thomas D., “Invocation of the Trinity and the Tradition of the Lorica in Old English Poetry,” Speculum 56 (1981): 259–67.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Keefer, Sarah Larratt, “Margin as Archive: The Liturgical Marginalia of a Manuscript of the Old English Bede,” Traditio 51 (1996): 147–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ In addition to her analysis of the liturgical material on pages 2 through 17 of the manuscript, Keefer provides a full list of all the other liturgical marginalia (ibid., 148, n. 6).Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., 151.Google Scholar

¹³ Grant, , Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 41, 26; and Willard, Rudolph, Two Apocrypha in Old English Homilies, Beiträge zur englischen Philologie (Leipzig, 1935), 2.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The first of these charms is the Old English Bee Charm found on page 186 of the manuscript and printed by Cockayne, O., Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft in Early England, 1 (London, 1864), 384; Storms, G., Anglo-Saxon Magic (The Hague, 1948), no. 1, 132; and Dobbie, E. V. K., The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, Anglo-Saxon Poetical Records 6 (New York, 1942), 125. The charm beginning, “Ne forstolen ne forholen nanuht Ϸæs ðe ic age,” is found on p. 206 of the manuscript and has been printed by Cockayne, , Leechdoms 1, 384; Storms, , Anglo-Saxon Magic, no. 15, 208–11; and Dobbie, , Minor Poems, 125. The third charm, “Dis mon sceal cweðan,” is also found on p. 206 of the manuscript and has been printed by Cockayne, , Leechdoms 1, 392; Storms, , Anglo-Saxon Magic, no. 13, 206–7; and Dobbie, , Minor Poems, 126.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The charm is found on p. 326 of the manuscript and has been printed by Cockayne, , Leechdoms 1, 387; and Storms, , Anglo-Saxon Magic, Appendix no. 5, 315.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The charm is found on p. 326 of the manuscript and has been printed by Cockayne, , Leechdoms 1, 387; Storms, , Anglo-Saxon Magic, Appendix no. 4, 314. A virtually identical charm is found in the Anglo-Saxon leechbook known as Lacnunga, and is printed in Grattan, J. H. and Singer, Charles, Anglo-Saxon Magic and Medicine (Oxford, 1952), 182–85.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The charm is found on p. 326 of the manuscript and has been printed by Cockayne, , Leechdoms 1, 387; Storms, , Anglo-Saxon Magic, Appendix no. 6, 315; and James, M. R., Descriptive Catalogue (Cambridge, 1912), 84.Google Scholar

¹⁸ M. R. James reads “Sanielem” in the manuscript. Cockayne reads “Lanielum” in Corpus 41 and Storms reads “Lanielem” from the same charm found in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College MS 379 (f. 49r). Timothy Graham of the Medieval Institute (Western Michigan University) has looked at this passage in the manuscript under cold fiber-optic light and has communicated to me that he is “pretty confident that the correct reading is ‘lanielum’ ” (private correspondence, dated August 29, 1995). Graham writes, “It was possible clearly to see a curved stroke towards the right at the bottom of the letter, such as would be appropriate for the foot of this scribe's ‘l.’ By contrast, I could see no trace of a curved stroke towards the right at the top of the letter, such as would be necessary for this scribe's tall ‘s’ (‘ʃ’). I also examined the area under ultra-violet light, but this did not add anything further.” Google Scholar

¹⁹ Lists of archangels in Irish sources include the Liber de numeris (McNally, R. E., Der irische Liber de numeris [Munich, 1957], 126–27), the Leiden Lorica (Herren, M., The Hisperica Famina: II. Related Poems [Toronto, 1987], 90, lines 26–28); “A Prayer to the Archangels for Each Day of the Week” (O'Nowlan, T. P., Ériu 2 [1905]: 92–94); “Imchlód Aingel” (T. P. O'Nowlan, in Miscellany Presented to Kuno Meyer , ed. Bergin, O. and Marstrander, C. [Halle, 1912], 253–57); the Saltair na Rann (Stokes, W., Saltair na Rann [Oxford, 1883], 12, lines 793–804); Recension 3 of the Tenga Bithnua (Dottin, G., “Une rédaction moderne du Teanga Bithnua,” Revue Celtique 28 [1907]: 277–307 at 298). See also Cary, J., “Angelology in Saltair na Rann,” Celtica 19 (1987): 1–8; and Sims-Williams, P., Religion and Literature in Western England 600–800 (Cambridge, 1990), 286, with more references at n. 57.Google Scholar

²⁰ The loricas of Corpus 41 have been studied by Grant, , Cambridge, 1–26.Google Scholar

²¹ The poem begins “Saturnus cwæð: Hwæt, ic iƷlanda eallra hæbbe boca on byrƷed” on p. 196 of the manuscript and continues for some ninety odd lines to the bottom of p. 198. It is printed by Menner, R. J., The Poetical Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn, MLA Monograph Series 13 (New York and London, 1941), 80–86, and Dobbie, , Minor Poems, 30–48.Google Scholar

²² There are extant four dialogues between Solomon and Saturn in Old English: two are in verse and two are in prose. The two verse versions are found in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 422, which also includes one of the prose versions, and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 41, which includes only the first 91 lines of the verse dialogue and none of the prose dialogue. The other prose version is found in Cotton Vittelius A. xv.Google Scholar

²³ Although Menner argues that it is impossible to determine whether both poetical versions derive from a common exemplar, he does allow that neither manuscript was copied directly from the original (Solomon and Saturn, 3–8). Raymond J. S. Grant is in general agreement with Menner but is willing to consider the likelihood that the poems were copied from a common exemplar (Grant, , Cambridge, 24).Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., 24.Google Scholar

²⁵ This charm is found on p. 329 of the manuscript and has been printed by Storms, , Anglo-Saxon Magic, no. 43, 281; and Grant, , Cambridge, 18–19.Google Scholar

²⁶ Willard, , Two Apocrypha, 2.Google Scholar

²⁷ For a list and description of these six homilies, see Grant, , Three Homilies, 5–9.Google Scholar

²⁸ For a summary of the complicated textual history of the Assumption apocrypha, see Clayton, Mary, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 1990), 8–10; and Mimouni, Simon Claude, Dormition et Assomption de Marie: Histoire des traditions anciennes (Paris, 1996).Google Scholar

²⁹ For a succinct discussion of the Latin versions relevant to the study of Anglo-Saxon knowledge of Assumption apocrypha, see Clayton, Mary, “De Transitu Mariae,” Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version, ed. Biggs, F. et al. (Binghamton, New York, 1990), 41–43.Google Scholar

³⁰ Transitus Mariœ B¹ has been edited by Tischendorf, Constantin, Apocalypses Apocryphae Mosis, Esdrœ, Pauli, Iohannis item Mariœ Dormitio (Leipzig, 1866), 124–36. Following Tischendorf, I will refer to alternate B¹ readings as “MB” variants. Transitus Mariœ B² has been edited by Haibach-Reinisch, Monika, Ein neuer ‘Transitus Mariœ’ des Pseudo-Melito (Rome, 1962), 63–87. Both B¹ and B² are versions of the so-called Gospel of Pseudo-Melito, which has recently been translated in Elliott, J. K., Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1993), 708–14. Transitus Mariœ C has been edited by André Wilmart, , Analecta Reginensia (Rome, 1933), 325–57. Transitus E is a variant of Transitus B and is found in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS Lat. 58. Tischendorf has printed excerpts from it in the prolegomena to his Apocalypses Apocryphae (xliii–xlvi). Rudolph Willard first designated this text Transitus Mariœ E (“On Blickling Homily XIII: ‘The Assumption of the Virgin,’ ” Review of English Studies 12 [1936]: 4).Google Scholar

³¹ Principal among these is Rudolph Willard in Two Apocrypha, 3 and “The Two Accounts of the Assumption in Blickling Homily XIII,” Review of English Studies 12 (1936): 2; Tristram, H. L. C., Vier altenglische Predigten aus der heterodoxen Tradition, mit Kommentar, Übersetzung und Glossar sowie drei weiteren Texten im Anhang (Freiburg, 1970), who points out that the Old English of the Corpus 41 homily and the Latin of Tischendorf's Transitus B text do not always correspond; and Grant, , Three Homilies, who edits and translates the homily (18–31).Google Scholar

³² Clayton, Mary, “The Assumption Homily in CCCC 41,” Notes & Queries n.s. 36 (1989): 293–95. In this article (293), Clayton also points out that Transitus B² is the older of the two versions of the Pseudo-Melito and was known in England from at least the first half of the eighth century, as Bede quotes from it in his Retractatio in Acta Apostolorum (ed. Laistner, M. L. W., CCL 121 [Turnhout, 1983], 134–35).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Clayton discusses three anomalies: the year of Mary's death, the angel's assurance to Mary that the apostles will be brought from Paradise to her bedside, and Michael's roles (“The Assumption Homily in CCCC 41,” 294).Google Scholar

³⁴ Transitus B² puts the Virgin's death in the second year after Christ's ascension. Clayton remarks that the Corpus homily is unique in assigning it to the third year and that the date “must stem from a misreading of. iii. for. ii.” (ibid., 294).Google Scholar

³⁵ The angel's assurance in the Corpus homily reads, “Nu todæƷe hi beoð Ʒenumene of NeorhxnaϸonƷes Ʒefean 7 her to ðe cumað” (This very day they will be taken from the glory of Paradise and will come hither to thee) (Grant, , Three Homilies, 18). The Transitus B² text reads, “Ecce hodie omnes apostoli per virtutem Domini assumpti huc venient” (ed. Haibach-Reinisch, , 67). This anomaly is discussed by Clayton, who reviews Tristram's conjecture that the Corpus text may rely at this point on a parallel passage in the Greek “Discourse of St. John the Divine concerning the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God,” in which Mary requests that all the apostles, “both those who have already come to dwell with you and those who are in this present world” (trans. Elliot, J. K., Apocryphal New Testament, 701) be brought to her side. Clayton concludes that Tristram's argument is ultimately unsatisfactory as it relies both on the “loss of part of a sentence and … the knowledge of a detail which does not otherwise appear in any version of Transitus B or, indeed, in any known Latin apocryphon” (“The Assumption Homily in CCCC 41,” 294).Google Scholar

³⁶ Grant, , Three Homilies, 24.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid. Google Scholar

³⁸ In her book, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England, Mary Clayton argues that the justification for the corporal assumption of Mary lies in her “virginal maternity: that the body which had given birth without corruption should not suffer corruption in death” (8).Google Scholar

³⁹ Citing Haibach-Reinisch (Ein neuer ‘Transitus Mariae,’ 122–24), Mary Clayton notes that this anomaly was also copied into some versions of Transitus B² (“The Assumption Homily in CCCC 41,” 294).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ This is in pointed contrast to Gabriel's role in the Assumption homily found in the anonymous Blickling collection (Morris, R., The Blickling Homilies , EETS 58, 63, 73 [London, 1874–80]; repr. as one volume, 1967). There Gabriel is only introduced to remove the stone from before the Virgin's tomb (ibid., 156–57).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Donahue, Charles, The Testament of Mary: The Gaelic Version of the Dormitio Mariae together with an Irish Latin Version (New York, 1942). For example, the Old English text does not contain the apostolic controversy, an episode central to the Irish versions of this apocryphon. Neither does the Old English text include a tour of Hell and a successful intercession by the Virgin Mary and Michael.Google Scholar

⁴² This homily is found on pp. 287–95 of the manuscript. The text has been printed in part by Förster, M., “A New Version of the Apocalypse of Thomas in Old English,” Anglia 73 (1955): 17–27, who prints the equivalent of manuscript pages 287–92 of the homily, and by Willard, R., Two Apocrypha (3–6), who picks up where Förster leaves off and prints all but a final portion of the homily. This final section of the homily contains a full account of the pains of hell and a brief comparison of these pains with the joys of heaven.Google Scholar

⁴³ For a general discussion of the knowledge of this apocryphon among the Irish, see McNamara, Martin, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin, 1975), no. 108, pp. 141–43; McNally, R. E., The Bible in the Early Middle Ages (Westminster, Md., 1959); and Grogan, Brian, “The Eschatological Doctrines of the Early Irish Church” (Ph.D. Diss., Fordham University, 1973), 185–91.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The doctrine is discussed in terms of its relation to Greek, Oriental, Jewish, and Christian literature in the preface (xxx–xlvii) to Charles, R. H. and Morfill's, W. R. edition of The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford, 1896).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Principal among the Jewish sources are The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (2 Enoch or Slavonic Enoch) and the Testament of Levi. In the apocrypha of the early Christian era, the doctrine can be found in the Ascension of Isaiah and the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch. Among the Church Fathers, Irenaeus, Ambrose, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen each refer to the doctrine of the Seven Heavens in their writings. For a discussion of the views of the Church Fathers with regard to the doctrine of the Seven Heavens, see de Bruyne, D., “Fragments retrouvés d'apocryphes priscillianistes,” Revue Bénédictine 24 (1907): 318–35 at 319–20, where a full bibliography can be found.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ As will be evident from my notes, I am indebted to Charles D. Wright's discussion of this apocryphon in his book, The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature (218–20) and in his entry on the Apocrypha Priscillianistica in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version (ed. Biggs, F. et al., Binghamton, 1990, 69–70).Google Scholar

The Latin epitome of the apocryphon is among the Apocrypha Priscillianistica from a florilegium in Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek Aug. CCLIV, published by de Bruyne, D., “Fragments retrouvés,” 318–35. The three Irish versions of the apocryphon are found in sections 15–20 of the Fís Adamnán, Recension 3 of the Tenga Bithnua, and in the Liber Flavus Fergusiorum. Google Scholar

In his study of the Seven Heavens apocryphon, Rudolph Willard (Two Apocrypha, 3, n. 113) notes that there is an allusion to the doctrine of the seven heavens in an unpublished Easter homily in CCCC 162 (384). Willard prints the relevant passage in his note. Since Willard's study appeared, however, the homily has been edited several times, most recently by Lees, Clare, “Theme and Echo in an Anonymous Old English Homily for Easter,” Traditio 42 (1986): 115–42. The passage in question occurs at lines 35–38 (118) of Lees's edition. Willard also points out that the Seven Heaven apocryphon must have influenced another Old English homily, “Be heofonwarum 7 be helwarum,” which describes hell in terms closely resembling the Latin and Old English versions of the apocryphon. Willard prints the passage (24) and analyzes its significance in relation to the other versions of the Seven Heavens apocryphon (25–28). Wright discusses this homily in several places as an Old English homily influenced by Irish sources (31, 149–51, 159, 219–20, 229 and passim). The entire homily is printed in Callison, T. C., “An Edition of Previously Unpublished Anglo-Saxon Homilies in MSS C.C.C.C. 302 and Cotton Faustina A. ix” (Ph.D. Diss., University of Wisconsin, 1973). Wright also notes that Vercelli 4 refers to the seventh heaven in terms identical to those found in the Old English version of the apocryphon, in Irish lists of the seven heavens, and in the Easter homily published by Lees (Wright, , Irish Tradition, 265). There occur several references to the seventh heaven in two homilies of Pseudo-Wulfstan: Homily 43 and 44 (ed. Napier, A., Wulfstan. Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Untersuchungen über ihre Echtheit [Berlin, 1883], 207, line 2; 213, line 13; and 217, line 16). Yet another reference to the doctrine of the Seven Heavens occurs in a Rogationtide homily edited by Bazire, J. and Cross, J. E., Eleven Old English Rogationtide Homilies, King's College London Medieval Studies 4 (London, 1990), 64, line 90.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Wright, , Irish Tradition, 218. The Liber de numeris has been edited by McNally, R. E., Der irische Liber de numeris (Munich, 1957), who argues for the Irish composition of the text. For bibliography on the Reference Bible, see Wright, Charles D., “Hiberno-Latin: Biblical Commentaries Google Scholar

Old and New Testament” 1, Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version (Binghamton, 1990), 90–92.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ These references are pointed out by Martin McNamara in his useful discussion of the Seven Heavens apocryphon in The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin, 1975), no. 108, pp. 141–43. Blathmac's poem has been published by Carney, James, The Poems of Blathmac Son of Cú Brettan together with the Irish Gospel of Thomas and a Poem on the Virgin Mary, Irish Text Society 47 (Dublin, 1964), 84–87.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Wright, , Irish Tradition, 218.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Stevenson, Jane, “Ascent through the Heavens, from Egypt to Ireland,” Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 5 (1983): 21–35 (quoted in Wright, , Irish Tradition, 218). M. R. James has argued that the Latin text in the Karlsruhe manuscript is a fragment of a lost apocryphon from which the Irish versions derive (“Irish Apocrypha,” Journal of Theological Studies 20 [1918–19]: 9–16 at 16).Google Scholar

⁵¹ These three texts are summarized and discussed by Seymour, St. John, “The Seven Heavens in Irish Literature,” Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 14 (1923): 18–30. Each of these texts is also discussed by McNamara, Martin, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin, 1975). See also Grogan, Brian, “The Eschatological Doctrines of the Early Irish Church” (Ph.D. Diss., Fordham University, 1973), 185–91. Fís Adamnán has been published by H. Windisch in his Irische Texte 1 (Leipzig, 1880), 180–84 (McNamara, no. 100). Recension 3 of the Tenga Bithnua has been printed by Dottin, G., “Une rédaction moderne du Teanga Bithnua,” Revue Celtique 28 (1907): 277–307 (McNamara, no. 94). The Liber Flavus Fergusiorum text has been printed by Mac Niocaill, Gearóid, “Na Seacht Neamha,” Éigse 8 (1956): 239–41 (McNamara, no. 108).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² The Seven Heavens portion of this homily is printed by Willard, , Two Apocrypha, 4–6.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., 4, lines 7–9. In his study, Willard compares eleven versions of this apocryphon and notes a close correspondence between the Latin, Irish, and Old English texts in the names of the seven heavens, the doors of the heavens, and the guardian angels, except in the instance of this second door in the first heaven. Here the Old English is unique in mentioning a second door.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ In each of the first two heavens, there are two attendants assisting the guardian angel. In the Corpus homily, these attendants are named as four cardinal virtues: Equitas and Estimatio are found in the first heaven, Continentia and Contentia in the second. The Liber Flavus Fergusiorum text names only the pair found in the second heaven. All accounts refer to these attendants as “youths” or “virgins.” Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Willard, , Two Apocrypha, 5, lines 50–51.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For an overview of the subject of guardian angels in the Old Testament, see Heidt, William G., Angelology of the Old Testament (Washington, D.C., 1949), 40–50; and in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, see Daniélou, Jean, Les Anges et leur Mission (Chevetogne, Belgium, 1953); The Angels and their Mission , trans. Heimann, David (Westminster, Md., 1957), 68–82.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Stevenson, , “Ascent through the Heavens,” 22 and 34.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Although the anonymous homily “Be heofonwarum 7 be helwarum” is clearly related to the Corpus version of the apocryphon, it differs in significant details, particularly in its virtual neglect of St. Michael. For an edition of this homily, see Callison, T. C., “An Edition of Previously Unpublished Anglo-Saxon Homilies in MSS C.C.C.C. 302 and Cotton Faustina A ix,” (Ph.D. Diss., University of Wisconsin, 1973), 243–48.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ This homily is found on pp. 295–301 of the manuscript and has been printed by Hulme, W. H., “The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus,” Modern Philology 1 (1904): 32–36 (610–14). Virtually the same text for Easter appears in CCCC 303 (fols. 72–75), where the intercession scene is lacking.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For an exhaustive study of the influence of the Gospel of Nicodemus in Anglo-Saxon England, see Campbell, Jackson J., “To Hell and Back: Latin Tradition and Literary Use of the ‘Descensus ad Inferos’ in Old English,” Viator 13 (1982): 107–58. For the most recent consideration of this apocryphon, see Hall, Thomas N., “The Euangelium Nichodemi and Vindicta Saluatoris in Anglo-Saxon England,” in Two Old English Apocrypha and Their Manuscript Source: The Gospel of Nichodemus and the Avenging of the Saviour , ed. Cross, J. E., Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 19 (Cambridge, 1997), 36–81.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Mary Clayton has treated this scene in her article, “Delivering the Damned: A Motif in Old English Homiletic Prose,” Medium Ævum 55 (1986): 92–102. The following discussion of this motif is indebted to her many insights.Google Scholar

⁶² Clayton, Mary, “Delivering the Damned,” 92 and Hill, Thomas D., “Delivering the Damned in Old English Anonymous Homilies and Jón Arason's Ljómur,” Medium Ævum 61 (1992): 75–82 at 75. Ælfric's condemnation is found in his homily “In Natale Sanctorum Virginum” in Ælfric's Catholic Homilies: The Second Series, ed. Godden, M., EETS s.s. 5 (London, 1979), 333.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ic cweðe nu to eow, gewitað ge awirgede fram me in Ϸæt ecce fyr; and ic eow betyne to dæg heofona rices duru to geanes, swa ge betyndon eowra dura togenes Ϸearfum ð[e] an mine naman to eow cigdon. Nelle ic gehiran to dæg eowre stefne Ϸe ma ðe ge woldon gehiran Ϸæs earman stefne. (Hulme, William H., “The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus,” Modern Philology 1 [1904]: 35.)Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The mathematics of this passage has troubled several critics (e.g. Clayton and Hill) as it seems illogical that there should remain any souls after the three intercessions of one third each. Given the identical rhetorical structure of each intercessory appeal, however, it is possible that the third portion which each saint acquires is not a third of the total number of sinners at the beginning of the scene, but rather a third of the sinners left after each successful intercession. This accounting scheme ensures that some souls would remain to be damned.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Hulme, , “The Old English Gospel of Nicodemus,” 35.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Mary Clayton has considered the complex relationships between these various texts in her article “Delivering the Damned” (100–101). Vercelli 15 has been printed by Scragg, Donald, The Vercelli Homilies , EETS 300 (Oxford, 1992), 253–65. Pseudo-Wulfstan 45 appears in Napier, , Wulfstan, 226–32. The “Sunday Letter” homily in CCCC MS 140 is printed in Priebsch, R., “The Chief Sources of Some Anglo-Saxon Homilies,” Otia Merseiana 1 (1899): 135–38. The Last Judgment homily in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton MS 114 is printed in Fadda, A. M. L., Nuove omelie anglosassoni della rinascenza benedettina (Florence, 1977), 42–53.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Scragg, Donald, The Vercelli Homilies, 251. See also Scragg, , “Vernacular Homilies and Prose Saints’ Lives before Ælfric,” Anglo-Saxon England 8 (1979): 223–77, at 231.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Clayton, , “Delivering the Damned,” 96.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ For a summary of the Sunday Letter tradition in Anglo-Saxon England, see Clare Lees's entry under “Sunday Letter,” Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: A Trial Version (Binghamton, 1990), 38–40.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Priebsch, Robert, “The Chief Sources of Some Anglo-Saxon Homilies,” Otia Merseiana 1 (1899): 129–47.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Clayton, , “Delivering the Damned,” 97.Google Scholar

⁷² For the purposes of this study the most important versions of the Greek form are the Greek, Syriac, and Old Irish. The Greek Apocalypse is printed in James, M. R., Apocrypha Anecdota, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1893), 109–26, and has been translated as, “The Apocalypse of the Virgin, or the Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God concerning the Chastisements,” by Rutherford, R. in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. 9, ed. Menzies, A. (Edinburgh, 1897), 167–74. The Syriac version is printed in Wright, W., Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament (London, 1865), 42–51. The Old Irish version is printed in Donahue, Charles, The Testament of Mary: The Gaelic Version of the Dormitio Mariae together with an Irish Latin Version (New York, 1942). The sole Ethiopic witness has been edited by Chaîne, M., “Apocalypsis seu Visio Mariae Virginis,” in Apocrypha de Beata Maria Virgine: Scriptores Aethiopici, series 1, vol. 7 (Rome, 1909), 43–68. For a succinct discussion of both forms of the Apocalypse with full bibliography, see Bauckham, R., “Virgin, Apocalypses of the,” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. Freedman, D. N., vol. 6 (New York, 1992), 854–56.Google Scholar

⁷³ The efficacy of the intercession of Mary and Michael is also a popular motif in Coptic homiletic literature where they are often associated with natural phenomena. See below for a discusssion of several Coptic homilies in which the Virgin Mary and St. Michael are depicted as intercessors whose advocacy before the Lord guarantees the rising and setting of the sun and other such natural phenomena as keep the world functioning properly.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Clayton, , “Delivering the Damned,” 96.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Hill, , “Delivering the Damned,” 83.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ibid., 79.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Cutforth, Sarah, “Delivering the Damned in Old English Homilies: An Additional Note,” Notes & Queries, n.s. 40 (1993): 435–37. Ker dates the marginalia of Corpus 41 to the same date as the Bede text or a little later. He dates CCCC 303 about a century later than the Bede (i.e., first half of the twelfth century) (Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon [Oxford, 1957], 45 and 105).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Cutforth, , “Delivering the Damned,” 436.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid., 437, and Clayton, , “Delivering the Damned,” 95–96.Google Scholar

⁸¹ In Old Testament apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, Michael is most commonly understood as the protector of Israel (Dan. 10:13, 21 and 12:1; 1 Enoch 20:5; 2 Enoch 22:6 and 33:10). In the Testament of Levi 5:6–7, Michael is the angel who intercedes for Israel and all the righteous. He is a mediator between God and man in the Testament of Dan 6:2. In the Testament of Abraham 14, Michael and Abraham intercede successfully on behalf of a sinful soul. In the Latin and Slavonic versions of the Ascension of Isaiah 9:23, Michael is the “magnus angelus deprecans semper pro humanitate.” Although the New Testament generally seems to oppose the doctrine of the mediation of angels, in New Testament apocrypha Michael is often regarded as a powerful protector of Christians. Thus, in the Oil of Mercy exempla in the Latin A version of Christ's “Descent into Hell,” Michael tells Seth that he is set over the human race as protector. In the Apocalypse of Paul, in a speech to sinful souls who beg him to intercede on their behalf, Michael acknowledges his role as intercessor before the Lord. As has been shown above, Michael is also regarded as a powerful intercessor in many versions of the Assumption narrative.Google Scholar

⁸² Thorpe, Benjamin, The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church. The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici or Homilies of Ælfric, vol. 1 (London, 1844), 510.Google Scholar

⁸³ These prayers are too numerous to provide a full accounting of here. The sheer volume of prayers invoking St. Michael as an intercessor suggests the wide currency of this belief through the Anglo-Saxon age. For a selection of such prayers, see Kuypers, A. B., The Prayer Book of Aedeluald (Cambridge, 1902), passim. For a discussion of St. Michael in the liturgy of the Anglo-Saxon church, see Three, Chapter, “St. Michael in Anglo-Saxon Liturgy,” of my dissertation (“The Cult of Saint Michael”).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Mary Clayton remarks that Ælfric may have been referring to a Corpus-like text, “as he specifies that no one can rescue a soul ‘Ϸe crist Ϸus to cweð: Discedite …’ ” (Clayton, , “Delivering the Damned,” 96).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ The homily is found on pp. 402–17 of the manuscript and has been edited by Grant, , Three Homilies, 56–61.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Grant, , Three Homilies, 7. It should be noted, however, that in the manuscript the homily is written continuously in the margins and appears only in sections when modern editorial conventions are applied.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Grant, , Three Homilies, 52.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ September 29. Most Anglo-Saxon martyrologies and calendars before a.d. 1100 only mention the feast of September 29th in connection with St. Michael (see Wormald, F., English Kalendars before A.D. 1100 [London, 1934]). The Old English Martyrology seems to have been an exception as it mentions the feasts of both May 8 and September 29.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Grant, , Three Homilies, 56.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹³ Wright, Charles D., The Irish Tradition, 262, n. 167. The Irish sequences of praises are found on folios 1v^a, margin and 34v^b of the Liber Flavus Fergusiorum (Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, MS 23. O. 48, pt. II).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ The poem has been edited and translated by Carney, James, The Poems of Blathmac Son of Cú Brettan together with the Irish Gospel of Thomas and a Poem on the Virgin Mary, Irish Texts Society 47 (Dublin, 1964), 88.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Wright, , The Irish Tradition, 262, n. 167.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Cross, J. E., “An Unpublished Story of Michael the Archangel and its Connections,” Magister Regis: Studies in Honor of Robert Earl Kaske (New York, 1986), 23–35 (cited in Wright, , The Irish Tradition, 262, n. 167).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Cross, , “An Unpublished Story,” 26.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Wright, , The Irish Tradition, 262, n. 167.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Grant, , Three Homilies, 50. Budge, E. A.W., ed., Saint Michael the Archangel. Three Encomiums by Theodosius, Archbishop of Alexandria, Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, and Eustathius, Bishop of Trake (London, 1894).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Budge, , Saint Michael, 893–947.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Ibid., 908.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ibid., 735–60.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., 757.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Simon, Jean, “Homélie copte inédite sur S. Michel et le Bon Larron, attribuée à S. Jean Chrysostome,” Orientalia n.s. 3 (1934): 217–42 (introduction and Coptic text), and Orientalia n.s. 4 (1935): 222–34 (French translation).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ The theme of the Archangel's intercession seems to have suggested to the homilist the story of the Good Thief, which according to the editor, Jean Simon, was inserted after the third St. Michael section at a later date.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Saxer, Victor, “Jalons pour servir a l'histoire du culte de l'archange Saint Michel en orient jusqu’à l'Iconoclasme,” Noscere Sancta: Miscellanea in memoria di Agostino Amore, OFM (Rome, 1985), 357–426.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Pantoleonis, Diaconi et Chartophylacis magnae Ecclesiae: “Narratio miraculorum maximi Archangeli Michaelis,” PG 140. 573–88.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., 574–75.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ For a discussion of Ireland's relations with the East, see Stokes, Whitley, “Ireland and the East,” in Ireland and the Celtic Church (London, 1888), 166–88. For discussion of specifically Coptic and Egyptian influences in medieval Ireland, see Schlauch, Margaret, “On Conall Corc and the Relations of Old Ireland with the Orient,” Journal of Celtic Studies 1 (1950): 152–66; Hillgarth, J. N., “The East, Visigothic Spain and the Irish,” Studia Patristica 4 (1961): 442–56; Robert K. Ritner, Jr., “Egyptians in Ireland: A Question of Coptic Peregrination,” Rice University Studies 62 (1976): 65–87; and Carey, John, “The Sun's Night Journey: A Pharaonic Image in Medieval Ireland,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37 (1994): 14–34.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Hughes, Kathleen, “On an Irish Litany of Pilgrim Saints Compiled c. 800,” Analecta Bollandiana 77 (1959): 305–31, at 325. The text also mentions “twelve dogheads,” or devotees of St. Christopher's cult, whom Hughes suggests were also possibly eastern ascetics. The litany has been edited by Plummer, C., Irish Litanies, HBS 62 (London, 1925), 60–67.Google Scholar

¹¹² The Book of Litanies, as the list is known, is written in the form of a litanic sequence (not unlike the “meter” of the anonymous praise-homily to St. Michael in Corpus 41) and has been published in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, vol. 8, no. 32 (May-June 1867).Google Scholar