Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1)


Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) book. Happy reading Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) Pocket Guide.


Get A Copy

This resemblance does not necessarily mean, however, that the Paris litany had a monastic provenance, since the devotion of the Seven Penitential Psalms was also popular among the secular clergy and devout laity. Indeed, the absence in the Paris litany of a petition for an abbot, which was obligatory in monastic litanies, tells against it. In contents the Paris litany closely agrees with a litany for the Visitation of the Sick in the Lanelet Pontifical 68 of St.

Germans in Cornwall dated ca. Both lists have the same nucleus of saints and petitions in the same sequence. More importantly, differences are not substantive.

WHAT HAPPENED TO GOLDEN SUN? + Will Golden Sun 4 be on the Switch

Thus, the additional categories in the Paris litany of Angelic Powers and English Martyrs are frequently omitted from English litanies; likewise, its fuller lists of Virgins and Petitions involve no more than the ready insertion or removal of blocks of items, the absence of which in the corresponding Lanelet categories is understandable in an abbreviated litany for the dying; and the differences in English Confessors probably reflect tailoring of a basic list to local needs.

Moreover, both litanies share significant correspondences: 1 a list of Apostles based on Luke, but with two variations, one the location of John before James Zebedee common to all English litanies, 70 the other the location of James Alpheus between Bartholomew and Matthew found only in a few; 71 2 full agreement in names and their sequence for the categories of Universal Martyrs and of Virgins; 3 similar agreements for the ab nos.

Although neither litany can have derived immediately from the other, as shown by the presence in each of material not in the other, their essential similarities suggest a common archetype. That archetype may well have been composed at Winchester, given that the Lanelet Pontifical has close links with Winchester 72 and that the Paris litany has names of saints associated with Wessex. Dunstan d. A less certain terminus ad quem could be adduced from the absence of St. Elphege, Archbishop of Canterbury, martyred in , whose name appears in English litanies and Calendars after this date.

The presence of St. Martial of Limoges as an Apostle, which points to a date later than , 74 is best explained as a later addition to the original litany, as suggested by its location at the very end of the list of Apostles. Thus, the original litany was probably composed between and , perhaps at Winchester. The preces nos. All are commonplace. The preces are found associated with the recitation of the Office in penitential seasons; the Collect comes from a prayer at the beginning of Mass.

Collections of such prayers are a regular feature of devotional psalters from the Carolingian period on, though none of the Paris prayers has yet been identified elsewhere. The number of prayers may have been designed to provide one for each of the eight daily canonical Hours. The subject matter of the prayers is supplication for forgiveness of sin nos.

Thus, their predominantly penitential and private character would harmonize well with private recitation of the psalms. All of the colophon is in the same hand as the rest of the manuscript, though with smaller and thinner letters. Notes and glosses are written in various hands on the empty leaves after fol. The final two glosses confirm that the manuscript was in France during the fourteenth century.

Unfortunately, the first gloss is not so specific; its place of writing could be England or France.

Archives and Special Collections: Eugene and Carlotta O'Neill Library

In attempting to answer questions about the purpose and audience of Ps P , certain possibilities can be eliminated. For instance, the total absence of glosses and commentary rules out use as a study or classroom book. Its layout of the long alphabetical Ps. That such evidence for the observance of the Roman Office should be found in a psalter from the mid-eleventh century is remarkable, since by this time the Benedictine Office, which had been promulgated in the Regularis Concordia ca.

The only group who might have followed the Roman Office and used a Romanum psalter at such a late date would be pious laity who recited the psalms as a daily devotional exercise. Psalters for such use are attested from as early as Carolingian times and their general contents of psalms, canticles, litany, and prayers are those of the Paris Psalter. The deluxe character of the manuscript suggests a wealthy lay patron, but not necessarily a woman as commonly claimed, since the scribe is careful to provide masculine above the feminine pronouns in the Latin prayers.

The manuscript cannot be dated with any precision. Martial of Limoges among the Apostles makes a date before unlikely. Thus, the cumulative evidence points to a date after , perhaps ca. The internal evidence of the Paris Psalter also tells against this attribution. Although its rubrics and litany point to Winchester, the influence is neither pervasive nor necessarily direct. Moreover, the possibility that a Romanum psalter would have been copied there almost a century after that version had been abandoned in favor of the Gallicanum is remote. A Canterbury origin, specifically St.

Emms argues that the scribe Wulfwinus of the Paris Psalter colophon should be identified with the Wulfwinus scriptor commemorated in a St. Internal evidence from the Paris Psalter lends some support to the Canterbury attribution.

The Paris text of the Latin psalms shows close textual affinity with the Bosworth Psalter and Harley , both from Canterbury. Even closer is the relationship between the Paris Psalter and Bosworth Psalter texts of the canticles, though the value of this evidence is somewhat tempered by the limitation that textual evidence on the canticles all comes from Canterbury.

The presence in the Paris Psalter of drawings similar to those in certain Canterbury manuscripts is also telling, yet it could be alternatively explained as the work of an artist visiting from there, perhaps the same one who, as implied by Ker, replaced the illumination on the first page. Other doubts remain. Nevertheless, of the numerous proposals for the place of origin of the Paris Psalter so far made 97 his is undoubtedly the most plausible. Bertram Colgrave, hereafter referred to as Facsimile preceded by the name of the relevant contributor. Guiffrey, Inventaires de Jean duc de Berry , 2 vols.

Paris, , no. Champollion-Figeac et Aime Champollion fils, 4 vols. Paris, , vol. D below. See now M. Arguably, it was passed over because of its proximity to Ps. Hanssens, ed. G below. Bruce, The Anglo-Saxon Version, pp. The obit is printed in W. Frere, ed. David Parsons London, , p. Ernest O.

Western Sydney University

Blake, London, , which mentions three different people with this name. Conversely, the Latin Caroline a occasionally replaces insular a in the Old English; likewise with Caroline r once ; see apparatus to present edition under Pss. The Prose Psalms contain about occurrences. Alfred Bammesberger Regensburg, , pp.

For a list of the drawings, see Wormald in Facsimile, pp. Sisam in Facsimile, pp. Sisam in Facsimile, p. Ure, ed. Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, p. MS Theol. The former lost its Romanum readings when it was converted to a Gallicanum text; the latter has only a small proportion one third of variants in common with the Paris Psalter, as indicated by a collation of the two for the same selection of psalms listed above. Contrast the early-tenth-century Junius Psalter B , which for the same psalms has a proportion of Other Carolingian readings in the Paris Psalter rubrics are at Ps.

Sisam, Salisbury Psalter, pp. Unfortunately, Schneider deals only with the early textual history of these canticles in Anglo-Saxon England. See Ker, Catalogue, no. Watson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts. The British Library, 2 vols. London, , , who dates it between and The two non-biblical canticles, the Te Deum and Quicumque nos.


  • About this product;
  • Touchstones.
  • Post navigation.
  • When Sorrows Come!
  • Dark Dawn DS O Neill 1 McGuire Matt for sale online | eBay!

Wright, ed. See also Wormald in Facsimile, pp. Parsons, pp. In the Lanelet list a corresponding agreement receives the same number, a disagreement is noted, and a deficiency is indicated by three dots. However, the sequence John-James is characteristic of the Mozarabic liturgy and occurs also in the Gallican rite; see F. Edmunds Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Litanies, no. Pierre Salmon et al.

See also section I. E above. Eleanor Roach, and to Dr. Bright, Gospel of St. John Boston, , p. Otho C. Michael Korhammer et al. Cambridge, , pp. Korhammer, pp.

Recensie(s)

Excepting Ps. Thus, the Introduction combines two characteristic features of medieval biblical exegesis, an argumentum and a structured scheme of interpretations. Take, for example, Introd. The guiding theme for this psalm is the appeal to God for relief in time of trouble. Such schemes of multiple interpretation were widely used in medieval biblical exegesis, the best known being St. What makes this second historical interpretation unusual is its application of the psalms to Old Testament figures and events other than David, the traditional subject of historical interpretation.

Its origins go back to the exegetical school of Antioch, perhaps even to Jewish exegesis. A number of psalters and psalter commentaries either from Ireland or from centers of Irish influence abroad, dating from the eighth and ninth centuries, have the scheme with two historical interpretations. There are four things that are required [to be discerned] in the psalms, that is, the first historical interpretation and the second historical interpretation, the mystical meaning and the moral meaning. The first historical interpretation [refers] to David and to Solomon and to the above-mentioned persons, to Saul, to Absalom, to the persecutors generally.

The second historical interpretation [refers] to Ezechias, to the [Jewish] people, to the Maccabees. The mystical meaning [refers] to Christ, to the earthly and the heavenly Church; the moral meaning to every holy person. These interpretative directions and specific applications are exactly those found in the Old English Introductions. However, not all of the Introductions follow this fourfold scheme. Fifteen have a threefold scheme and four others have only one interpretation. To understand these accommodations it is necessary to examine his normal modus operandi.

His main source was the pseudo-Bede Argumenta, 9 a seventh- or eight-century Latin commentary, which provided for each psalm two or three discrete interpretations: a historical, the Arg. Normally, the composer was able to construct his fourfold scheme for the Introductions from the Arg. Take, for example, the Arg. The same Arg. Likewise, for the final two interpretations: he simply took the generalized theme of the first historical interpretation and with suitable modifications applied it to every just man moral and to Christ Christological. Such was his normal method of composition, which produced the fourfold scheme found in the majority of the Introductions.

But where the Arg. Its contents provided suitable matter for the first historical interpretation; by the same token they were unsuited to a second historical. Consequently, Introd. Why did the composer not use the idea of the Arg. Finally, four other Introductions provide only a single interpretation, 15 presumably because the Arg. There are a few exceptions. In three instances the Arg. That the Introductions are by the same author who composed the paraphrase can be demonstrated from their shared use of distinctive interpretations similarly phrased in both.

Take, for example,. Not only do both passages display verbal similarities in their common use of the verb onhyrian and its object yfelwillende, more significantly both additionally qualify the latter as orsorg. Also indicative of common authorship is the consistent agreement between the interpretations proposed in the Introductions and those expressed or implied in the paraphrase. For example, in Introd. The Introductions were entered on the margins beside the relevant psalm by the same scribe who wrote the Old English gloss. That he had a full copy of Ps P , psalms and Introductions, is suggested by his gloss on pestilentiae Ps.

Compare in Introd. Whether Pa and Vi drew on the same exemplar is more difficult to answer. The translation is my own. The main exceptions are the paraphrases of Pss. See also n. The Vitellius Psalter is edited by James L. The latter are partially edited in Bright and Ramsay, The West-Saxon Psalms, and in the apparatus of the present edition.

For example,. It is difficult to be more precise about the type of Romanum that served as exemplar for Ps P because potential evidence in the form of unusual or variant readings admits of other explanations. Granted these caveats, Ps P seems to be based on a text that has its closest affinities with an early group of English Romanum psalters dating from before the ninth century. Positively, it is suggested by agreements in Ps P with variants found in early English Romanum psalters.

The presence of these variants and the consistent absence of variants associated with the later family of psalters suggests that Ps P is based on an early text of the Romanum. Although firmly based on the Romanum, Ps P shows some agreements with the Gallicanum, 8 where these two versions differ. Even when the majority of these agreements are rejected because they admit of other explanations, some 40 instances of clear dependence remain.

That the paraphrast might have unwittingly picked up these Gallicanum readings as contaminations present in his Romanum exemplar, or from psalter commentaries based on the Gallicanum, is unlikely for several reasons. First, none of these readings is an attested variant in extant English Romanum psalters. Third, at least twelve of them occur in Ps P side by side with the corresponding Romanum reading, a combination that implies conscious collating of the two versions of the psalter.

Five correspondences between Ps P and the Vetus Latina VL , the oldest version of the Latin psalter, most likely originated as readings in Latin commentaries on the psalms or as contaminations in a Ro. In translating the Latin psalms, the paraphrast added numerous explanations and interpretations, which derive mainly from Latin psalter commentaries current in the Western Church during the early Middle Ages. These commentaries present two distinct types of exegesis: 1 the allegorical including Christological , first developed at Alexandria, practiced by Augustine, Cassiodorus, Jerome, et al.

The influence of the allegorical commentaries, although widespread in Ps P , is rarely decisive or even systematic, tending towards the interpretation of individual words a notable exception is Ps. Second in importance as a source of allegorical interpretations were the two commentaries of Jerome, the Commentarioli and the Tractatus though addressing only Pss. However, some of this influence was almost certainly transmitted to Ps P through an intermediary, the Breviarium in Psalmos no. Pseudo-Jerome Breviarium in Psalmos Brev. Glosa Psalmorum ex traditione seniorum. The influence of the Brev.

In addition to ten examples of the latter noted above, there are twenty-six other instances where Ps P agrees with the interpretations of the Brev. Such interpretations, since they had no obvious parallels in the known commentaries, were assumed to be original to the Brev. This work, composed in a Benedictine monastery in southern Gaul during the first half of the seventh century, has now been shown to have been the main source of the Brev. Ps P shows no evidence of dependence on the numerous derivative Carolingian psalter commentaries that circulated in the second half of the ninth century.

The dominant influence on Ps P was the historical exegesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore ca. It survived in the West, however, thanks to a Latin translation by the Pelagian bishop, Julian of Eclanum, made sometime after Subsequently, an anonymous author produced a Latin epitome of Julian.

For example, Ps. Vitulamina uero Libani dicuntur parua uirgulta. For example, 28 Ps P agrees with Julian in. Conversely, the influence of the Epitome, as against Julian, is apparent in instances such as. At first sight such correspondences suggest that the paraphrast had access to full versions of both Julian and the Epitome, but the reality of the manuscript evidence indicates otherwise. Significantly, there exist two Hiberno-Latin psalter commentaries that conflate parts of Julian and the Epitome, 31 thus providing a possible model for the type of Theodorean source used by Ps P.

Expositio Psalmorum. Since the Epitome was transmitted incomplete it lacks commentary on Pss. Although drawing on Theodore, the Expositio is more radical in its literal and historical approach than his commentary. Thus, it ignores the Messianic interpretations of Pss. Remarkably, Ps P also interpreted these two psalms literally.

Moreover in Ps. Thus, at Ps. Likewise at Ps. On this evidence it seems likely that Ps P drew on a source that for Pss. The influence of other sources is apparent in instances where Ps P contains an interpretation unattested in, unrelated to, or even at variance with the psalter commentaries. That these ideas come directly from Alfred, not his Latin originals, is indicated by close verbal similarities between Ps P and Alfred in their expression of these ideas in Old English. Another, though minor, source used for Ps P is the Bible, especially the historical books of the Old Testament, which provided supplementary information for the historical clauses of the Old English Introductions.

This dependence inevitably raises the question of how the paraphrast gained access to works that were outside the mainstream of Western psalter exegesis. In fact this claim flies in the face of what little is known about Theodore of Tarsus. In fact, Theodorean exegesis was known from an early date in Anglo-Saxon England, as evidenced by a Latin psalter commentary written in Northumbria in the eighth century preserved in Vatican Library, MS Palatinus latinus 68 , which contains excerpts from the Epitome.

Of fourteen extant Latin psalters and psalter commentaries that carry Theodorean exegesis, all but three can be traced either to Ireland or to centers of Irish influence. This presumption is strengthened by other kinds of evidence. The fourfold scheme of the Old English Introductions with its two historical clauses is most likely an Irish invention; 42 and the pseudo-Bede Argumenta, which provided the matter for these Introductions, may also have been composed in Ireland—at least the historical part, the Arg.

Besides these major influences Ps P occasionally contains explanatory matter that does not belong to Psalter exegesis but seems to derive from other Hiberno-Latin sources. At Ps. Some of these arguments, though with far less evidence, were made by Robert L. Ramsay, who went so far as to propose a specific source for Ps P , the ninth-century Old-Irish Treatise on the Psalter. As evidence for the existence of the latter, he pointed to the Latin glosses in a late-tenth-century Irish psalter, the Southampton Psalter Cambridge, St. Ps P also used passages that derive ultimately from at least two other Hiberno-Latin works.

Rather than claim individual borrowings from these several sources, it seems more reasonable to posit that Ps P drew them all from a single source of Hiberno-Latin origin, perhaps a heavily glossed Gallicanum Psalter. How such a Hiberno-Latin psalter commentary reached the author of Ps P may never be explained, though his identification with King Alfred 58 suggests possible channels. A more central question, however, is why the author of Ps P chose to follow Theodorean exegesis in preference to the allegorical and Christological interpretations that then dominated Western biblical exegesis.

Arguably, what attracted him was its realistic approach, its explanations of the difficult text of the psalms in concrete and historical Old Testament terms.

Former Speaker O'Neill Funeral Service

Nor is dependence on this exegesis incompatible with his recourse to allegorical interpretations, if one sees him as a pragmatic paraphrast with didactic concerns, choosing whichever interpretation, literal or allegorical, best clarified the meaning of the immediate passage while harmonizing with the guiding first clause of his Introduction. In fact, judging by the Irish evidence, he may have found his Theodorean material attributed to that most orthodox of commentators, St. The most likely sources of VL readings would have been the commentaries of Cassiodorus and Augustine.

Steenbrugge, , no. All suggest that the Brev. Interestingly, the Anglo-Saxon artist who drew the illustration in the Paris Psalter adjacent to the corresponding Old English paraphrase portrays the Devil as the archer. Claims made by Br. Rome, , Theodore frequently emends the mood or tense of verbs, but it is uncertain whether corresponding changes in Ps P are borrowed from him or are the independent work of the paraphrast.

On the first, see Robert Devreesse, ed. I am indebted to Dr. De Coninck for providing me with a copy of this privately printed edition. Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes Cambridge, , pp. William H. See also Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great, p. Among Old English translations of the psalms Ps P is unique in presenting a prose paraphrase. Of these the most serious was textual: the psalms contain many difficult and obscure passages, and the relationship between verses within a psalm is often ill-defined.

In a literal, word-for-word translation, such as those found in the Old English interlinear glossed psalters, these textual difficulties could be and were simply transposed to the Old English, or ignored, but in a paraphrase they had to be confronted. The author of Ps P dealt with them as follows. Structurally, he treated each psalm as an independent unit, providing for it an individual introduction, which sketched the historical circumstances of its composition and stated its guiding theme.

A striking example of this dependence is found in Ps. Whereas in continental Romanum psalters this Latin phrase ends v. This method of working from verse to verse, 2 which found confirmation among psalter commentators such as Cassiodorus, would have eased the task of translation; at the same time it made possible ready comparison with the parallel Latin text. For clarifications and interpretations of problematic words, clauses, and verses, he drew heavily, and eclectically, on Latin psalter commentaries. Yet despite the variety of sources used, he achieved a degree of coherence by superimposing on his paraphrase the guiding interpretation from the Introduction usually historical , with which different interpretations and textual difficulties were forcibly reconciled.

For example, in Ps. In Ps. Syntactically, he replaced the characteristic asyndetic parataxis of the Latin psalms with hypotaxis and syndetic parataxis. The hypotaxis is mainly causative and adversative, 3 establishing logical relationships between clauses and thereby combining them into larger units of meaning somewhat resembling a modern paragraph.

Using such techniques he achieved a syntactically coherent if not entirely consistent translation. A second problem for the paraphrast was how to reconcile the natural tendency to elaborate and clarify with the need to respect the textual integrity of the biblical book that he was translating. One negative reflection of this method of translation is the omission of non-essential words, notably words that repeat or parallel concepts already expressed in the same verse s.

Conversely, when faced with textual difficulties the paraphrast employed a variety of expository techniques. At the simplest level an important or difficult concept in the Latin is rendered by an Old English collocation, the elements of which are complements to a full meaning or combine a literal with a contextual or interpretative translation; for example, Ps. Biblical names or concepts are explained by an appositional title or an explanatory clause; for example, Ps.

Within the individual sentence or clause the relationship of elements is frequently clarified by the addition of demonstratives and pronouns. Take, for example, Ps. Dominus de caelo prospexit super filios hominum ut uideat si est intellegens aut requirens Deum , and Ps.

Audite haec omnes gentes auribus percipite qui habitatis orbem. Yet these numerous expository additions do not overwhelm or distort the basic text because the paraphrast subordinates them to or coordinates them with the main idea. Or consider the adjectival clauses that explain Pss. Another example is his paraphrase of Ps. Domine Deus meus si feci istud si est iniquitas in manibus meis si reddidi retribuentibus mihi mala decidam merito ab inimicis meis inanis persequatur inimicus animam meam et conprehendat eam et conculcet in terra uitam meam et gloriam meam in puluerem deducat.

He has expanded the eight clauses of the Latin into thirteen of Old English. At the same time numerous pronouns and demonstratives serve to clarify the relationship between subject and object both within and between clauses. A third problem for the paraphrast was aesthetic. The psalms, both in their original Hebrew and in the Latin translations used for the recitation of the Divine Office, are hymns, ornamented with poetical imagery and diction and structured in rhythmical, balanced verses.

The paraphrast could, of course, have chosen to ignore these literary characteristics; instead, he tried to capture something of them in his translation. Stylistic awareness is also revealed in deliberate variations in word choice, where the paraphrast departs from his normal translation of a concept in favor of one that offers the euphonic advantages of alliteration or assonance; 12 for example, Ps. Likewise, at Ps. A more common reason for such variations is to avoid the stylistic awkwardness of repeating a word that has been used just before.

Occasionally, he chooses a word to provide figura etymologica or wordplay. For example, to translate alienis Ps. The parallelism that characterizes the Latin psalms 17 probably inspired the balanced structure of Ps P. At the simplest level it finds expression in a collocation of synonymous nouns, adjectives, or verbs; for example, Ps. Elsewhere it is synthetic, the parallel members completing the thought; for example, Ps. In imitating the parallelism of his original, the paraphrast often embellishes it; for example, Ps. Other rhetorical figures and modes of discourse in the Latin are not only reproduced but even embellished in translation.

Thus Ps. Yet rhetorical effect never comes at the expense of clarity. This priority is evidenced by the absence from Ps P of numerous instances of metaphor, hyperbole, and figurative language present in the Latin. Presumably the paraphrast chose not to reproduce such tropes because they might mislead his Old English audience. Likewise, hyperbolic descriptions of the psalmist in dire straits are deflated in the Old English by the qualifier fulneah, as in Ps.

Except for some minor differences in word order, CP has the same literal translation found in the Old English interlinear glossed psalters. The result is a translation with balanced structure reinforced by three assonating and rhyming verbs and tight rhythm, one that captures the meaning of the Latin while imitating its style. Jeanette Beer Kalamazoo, Mich.

For other examples, see astellan Ps. See also bysnian Ps. On the latter word, see R. Thomas A. Kirby and Henry B. Woolf Baltimore, , p. The analysis that follows is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it focuses on those features of language under the headings of spelling and phonology, accidence, and vocabulary that provide potential evidence for establishing the date and place of composition of Ps P its authorship, and its later provenance.

Forms earlier than those characteristic of late West Saxon and late Old English predominate:. They predominantly reflect West Saxon usage. Judged simply by spelling and phonology, the language of Ps P is clearly West Saxon. Within that broad category, however, it is not easy to decide between the early and late periods of that dialect.

It certainly has many of the spellings especially of stressed vowels associated with late West Saxon, yet it lacks or scarcely manifests such characteristically late West Saxon features as smoothing only four doubtful occurrences 80 and the spellings mage, 81 ge sugian, 82 and s wur -. The occasional non-West Saxon Anglian features in phonology and inflections are entirely compatible with an early West Saxon origin.

The first, occurrences of hapax legomena, was treated by J. Tinkler, 87 but his list of such words omits nine genuine and includes six false hapax. A few are borrowings from Latin, with the addition of native inflections; thus, cama and gecoronian. Although such glossing was probably already well established by the ninth century and over the next two centuries exercised great influence on Old English, Ps P shows no evidence of that influence. The conclusion, as argued most convincingly by Bately, 98 is that the work is early West Saxon and Alfredian. Other significant agreements shared by Ps P and Alfred are as follows:.

Since the concepts denoted by the words in these different categories of agreement are common in Old English prose translations, the correspondences between Ps P and Alfred cannot be dismissed as coincidental agreements arising out of a scarcity of occurrences. Nor does a small number of differences between Ps P and Alfred in word choice prejudice the claim for common authorship. Clearly, this pattern of usage is very different from that of CP and quite the opposite of Bo, yet it does not necessarily prejudice the case for Alfredian authorship of Ps P.

That he was deliberative in this word choice, not merely translating mechanically in the manner of the glossed psalters , is indicated by two instances where he translated uirtus by wundor. References by section are mainly to A. Throughout this chapter Old English works are referred to by the standard abbreviations given in Bruce Mitchell et al.

Bagby Atwood and Archibald A. Hill Austin, Tex. On halsa, see Hallander, Old English Verbs, pp. Cotton Otho B. Tolkien, ed. Norman Davis and Charles L. Wrenn London, , pp. This spelling also occurs in West Saxon transcripts of Old English poems. Teala with ea for eo may also belong here, though it also occurs occasionally in late West Saxon. See also Norman O. A doubtful hapax in Ps P is gehyldnes; cf. See Chap. Clem; on earsling, see OED s. Arseling s ; with gehrespan, cf.

Productbeschrijving

Seaway and Tinkler, Vocabulary, p. See C. Interlinear-Psalters, Palaestra Leipzig, , p. Entsprechungen von lat. Bernhard Fabian and Ulrich Suerbaum Munich, , pp. Leipzig, , p. Venezky, comps. On the single occurrence of this word in Ps G , see Chap. Apple of the eye.

Besides Ps P The normal Old English translation of pupilla is seo. Geweorpan IV. But they failed to make a convincing case, partly because of their faulty definition of the Alfredian canon, 5 but mainly because they did not take into account dissimilarities as well as similarities between Ps P and Alfred and, in noting similarities between the two, made no reference to the respective Latin sources. Clearly, these deficiencies must be addressed in making the case for Alfredian authorship. One type of supporting evidence are the Latin works identified as sources for Ps P. Although in theory these sources could have been available throughout most of the Old English period, in practice the most important ones enjoyed currency in the period before the tenth century.

Thus, the version of the Romanum psalter on which Ps P is based is textually akin to the early family pre of English psalters. Also compatible with Alfredian authorship is the pragmatic approach to translating Scripture evident in Ps P. Quis ostendit nobis bona , and For common syntactical constructions Ps P and Alfred frequently agree in their choice of formula. Moreover, in the case of words that are found severally in other early West Saxon works Or, the Chronicle , only Ps P and Alfred share them in the same combination.

Differences in vocabulary between the two can be plausibly explained by different stylistic or thematic concerns or by the absence of the concept in one or the other. It might be expected that these translations would share distinctive features or at least be very similar to the corresponding translations of Ps P if the two works were composed by the same author.

But a study of the two sets of translations by Albert S. Cook 34 concluded that since there is no strong resemblance—indeed there are notable discrepancies—between them, the claim for their common authorship is doubtful. However, Cook neglected two important considerations. First, the shared translations reflect very different contexts: those from CP are polemical, used by Gregory to bolster an argument, to illustrate a point of doctrine or morals; those from Ps P belong in each instance to a paraphrase of an individual psalm, shaped by the literal, historical interpretation proposed in the Introduction.

Second, they reflect different concerns in translation: in CP, an overriding concern with clarity, with conveying the sense of Gregory; 35 in Ps P , an attempt to enhance sense with a style appropriate to a biblical book of sapiential poetry. Thus, context and method of translation must be considered in the comparison between the two works. Of the ten translations of the psalms in common, two Pss. Four others are basically similar, with readily explainable differences. The only significant difference, the translation of cor, admits of a contextual explanation.

Thus, the overall context of the Latin determined the choice of wisdom as a translation of cor in CP. Thus, Alfred uses a stylistic technique commonly attested in Ps P.

Ameise1 (Barbara)'s third ROOT | ROOT Challenge - (Read Our Own Tomes) | LibraryThing

The remaining four shared quotations reveal significant differences that require fuller explanations. Otherwise, CP and Ps P translate very similarly. First, the differences in vocabulary. For Lat. Next, the differences in content and interpretation. Significantly, the same interpretation is given in a subsequent comment in CP Thus, the difference between the two translations arises from the different physical layout of their respective sources.

Although the two passages present such fundamentally different interpretations as to preclude meaningful comparison, both find the same meaning in placationem suam, the necessity of good works to save a man. Thus, a comparison between the shared psalter translations in Ps P and CP shows that the differences between them do not necessarily indicate different authorship; all could be explained as the work of a single author adjusting his translation to different sources and contexts. In fact, underlying the differences are agreements in word choice, in methods of translation, and in interpretation, which can be added to the numerous agreements in content and phrasing about to be discussed.

Ps P and the works of Alfred show numerous agreements in phrasing. The following are noteworthy because they depart from a literal, word-for-word, translation of their respective Latin sources:. More significantly, Ps P and Alfred have in common additions to their respective Latin sources, which agree in both content and phrasing. The central idea of both is that a man genuinely unable to provide alms ne onhagian can adequately compensate with good will towards his neighbor.

Sed ea nihil est maius. Since these correspondences did not originate in the respective Latin sources, they would have to be explained as 1 independently composed by two different Old English authors, or 2 independently borrowed from the same external sources by these putative authors, or 3 borrowed by one author directly from the other, or 4 composed by the same author. The first alternative would require an improbable coincidence; the second is hardly more credible since it involves accepting that two different authors not only borrowed exactly the same additions from the same external sources but also expressed them with the same phrasing; the third alternative is possible, though it presupposes a complicated nexus of borrowing among three texts—either the author of Ps P borrowing from both Bo and Solil, or Alfred borrowing from Ps P for these two works on three different occasions.

Moreover, the latter possibility can be ruled out by another type of correspondence: Ps P has phrases and passages, with no basis in the Latin psalms or commentaries, that agree in thought and phrasing with translation passages in Alfred. The process of perception explained in Solil is implied in Ps P : looking aspicere precedes seeing videre.

Both works use the same verbs hawian, geseon for the two stages of perception. In both passages the imprecatory force of the psalms is mitigated by presenting David as simply prophesying, rather than willing, the harsh sentiments he expresses. In both passages, tacere is translated to mean that God simulates indifference to flagrant sin. Of the two possibilities, the first seems more likely, judging by the close verbal similarities in the phrasing of shared ideas, including the unusual usage of hreowsian with a genitival object.

What makes the latter alternative likely are certain passages in Ps P that have close correspondences in Alfred, where the respective Latin originals differ significantly from each other. Both passages describe the obdurate sinner, blind to the evil of his sin and, when it is pointed out to him, unwilling to admit it. Whereas the Latin psalter commentaries interpret patens as the physical corruption of the tomb Cassiodorus, for example, describes its fetidos odores , Ps P expresses the opposite idea: the tomb is outwardly beautiful, inwardly and secretly corrupt.

The idea ultimately derives from Mt. Although taking from the Arg. Discussing the same type of correspondence between passages in Solil and Bo, Frank G. Ps P shares with Alfred idiosyncratic translations of certain Latin words and phrases. Not only do these shared translations differ significantly from the conventional translations of such words, they imply a personal interpretation or preference. Peculiar in both is the translation of the noun pestilentiae by an attributive adjective wolberende and the choice of the latter, which properly translates pestifer.

In CP this choice was probably determined by an immediately preceding occurrence of wolberende In the Vulgate Old Testament the dwelling of Yahweh is called either tabernaculum or templum, the former denoting the tent that temporarily housed the Ark of the Covenant, the latter the permanent home of the Ark, the Temple at Jerusalem. But in the above Old English passages it is translated by butan scylde, the phrase normally used for Latin sine culpa. All three, although from different contexts in the psalms, present the same theme of David as the innocent victim of persecution at the hands of those whom he tries to love.

Significantly, outside of this special context, both Ps P and CP observe the normal usage of butan gewyrhtum scylde translating sine culpa. Distinctive in Ps P is the translation of Latin ut pupillam oculi which admits of several syntactical interpretations 60 as a simile with an exact syntactical correspondence of elements with the preceding clause, so that God protecting the psalmist is paralleled by man protecting the pupil of his eye.

In order to incorporate this idea, the translator in both passages has done violence to the Latin root illumina -. When to these fundamental agreements are added many other types of evidence especially that of word choice , which, despite their disparate nature, harmonize as to time, place, or person, the only reasonable conclusion is that Alfred was the author of Ps P.

Granted this claim, where does Ps P fit in the chronology of his works? And whereas the shared ideas can be accounted for in these three works by reference to their respective Latin sources, either as direct translation or paraphrastic elaboration, in Ps P they are manifestly additions. Moreover, some of the latter are sufficiently awkward in their new context to suggest the activity of an author superimposing on his paraphrase of the psalms favorite ideas developed in his earlier works.

The psalter was the book of the Old Testament most widely used in the Middle Ages: it was the school book from which the beginner learned to read and write Latin, a concern that Alfred specifically addressed in his preface to CP, 69 and it provided the basic text for both private devotions and the liturgical observance of the Divine Office. At the same time personal considerations cannot be ignored. London, , Garmonsway, ed. Derek A. Pearsall and Ronald A. Waldron London, , pp. On the triple division of the Psalter, see Chap. I and 3.

II and IV. See, most recently, M. Paul E. Szarmach Albany, , pp. Matthew with Text of the Four Gospels Amsterdam, , pp. See now R. Samuel J. O'Neill's Island Three design, commonly called an O'Neill cylinder , consists of a pair of counter-rotating cylinders, each 3. This design requires mastery of carbon nanotubes. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Main article: Dyson spheres in popular culture. Space stations and habitats. Chinese large modular space station. Bigelow Commercial Space Station. Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway. List of space stations List of films featuring space stations Space stations and habitats in fiction Space Station 3D documentary A Beautiful Planet documentary.

Categories : Science in popular culture Science fiction themes Fictional spacecraft by type Fictional space stations Fictional buildings and structures. Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from January All articles needing additional references All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from May Namespaces Article Talk.

Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1)
Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1)
Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1)
Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1)
Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1)
Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1) Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1)

Related Dark Dawn (Ds ONeill Book 1)



Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved