Hebrews, Israelites, and Wicked Jews: An Onomastic Crux in ‘Andreas’ 161-67

þa w æs gemyndig, se Ðe middangeard

gestaÐelode strangum mihtum.

hu he in ellþeodigum yrmÐum wunode

belocen leoÐubendum, þe oft his lufan adreg

for Ebreum ond Israhelum,

swylce he Iudea galdorcræftum

wiÐstod stranglice.1

All quotations of Andreas are from the edition of the poem by Brooks, Kenneth R., Andreas and the Fates of the Apostles (Oxford 1961 ); since the interpretation of this passage is a point at issue, I cite the translation of Gordon, R. K., which I believe is substantively correct: ‘Then He who had established the work with mighty power forgot not how he dwelt in misery among strange people, bound with fetters, He who had often shown forth His love for the Hebrews and Israelites; also He had sternly withstood the magic arts of the Jews’ (Anglo-Saxon Poetry [London 1954] 184). For a recent study of another onomastic problem in Andreas, see Robinson, Fred C., ‘Anglo-Saxon Onomastics in the Old English Andreas,’ Names 21 (1973) 133-36. a

Brooks, , op. cit. 69. a

Blumenkranz, Blumenkranz, Les auteurs chrétiens latins du Moyen Age sur les Juifs et le Judaisme (Paris 1963); Blumenkranz's book is a survey of the attitude of every major medieval author (from the fifth through the eleventh century) concerning the Jews and is thus a very valuable treatment of a vast body of material. a

De gubernatione Dei 4.1, ed. Pauly, F., Opera omnia (CSEL 8) 63-64 (PL 53.71). a

Blumenkranz, , op. cit. 42. a

For documentation and discussion, ibid. 31-33 (on Leo); and 26-7 (on Peter Chrysologus). a

Ibid. 85. a

Ibid. 133 n. 6. a

Brooks, , op. cit. 69. a

Ibid. ; the entries in Bosworth-Toller under galdor and galdorcræft show very clearly the implications of the term in the context of Old English Christian culture. The Old Norse/Icelandic cognate galdr is attested as meaning charm or spell in the Edda; see for example Hávamály stanza 152: a

þat kann ec it siaunda, ef ec sé hávan loga sal um sessmogom:a

brennrat svá breitt, at ec hánom biargigac, þann kann ec galdr at gala.a

I quote from the edition of Gustav Neckel, rev. Hans Kuhn (4th ed.; Heidelberg 1962) 1.42.a

The point is of course that the fact of translation need not necessarily imply that a translator is unaware of the significance of what he transposes from one language to another. a

I have examined the prose Old English version of Andreas and the various versions of the Andrew legend ed. Blatt, Blatt, Die lateinischen Bearbeitungen der Acta Andreae et Matthiae apud anthropophagos (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 12; Giessen 1930 ). I have also checked the version of the Acta Andreae et Matthiae ed. Lipsius, R. A. and Bonnet, M. in Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Leipzig 1898) 2 .1, and the brief portion of a text edited by Holthausen, F., ‘Eine neue lateinische Fassung der Andreaslegende,’ Anglia 62 (1938) 190-92. a

For other instances of this kind of apparent creativity on the part of the Andreas-poet, see my discussion of the figure of the draco malitiae in ‘Two Notes on Patristic Allusion in Andreas,’ Anglia 84 (1966) 156–60; and Szittya, Penn R., ‘The Living Stone and the Patriarchs: Typological Imagery in Andreas, Lines 706-810,’ Journal of English and Germanic Philology 72 (1973) 167-74. a