Cossmós, Mycrocossmós, and the Use of Greek in Orrm's Exegesis Of

Home , John Scotus Eriugena, Ormulum, Patrologia Graeca

"Wurrþlike Shridd": Cossmós, Mycrocossmós , and the Use of Greek in Orrm's Exegesis of John 3:16

Samuel Cardwell

Early Middle English, Volume 1, Number 2, 2019, pp. 1-12 (Article)

Published by Arc Humanities Press

For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/732815

[ Access provided at 27 Sep 2021 08:15 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] “WURRÞLIKE SHRIDD”: COSSMÓS, MYCROCOSSMÓS, AND THE USE OF GREEK IN ORRM’S EXEGESIS OF JOHN 3:16

SAMUEL CARDWELL

Orrm has not received a great deal of praise from either literary critics or historians.1 Scholars have lined up to heap abuse on Orrm’s idiosyncracies,The twelfth- centhet uglinessury poe tof his autograph manuscript and the dullness of his poetic style.2 One historian even used the Orrmulum lengthy work of Middle English verse homilies, as evidence that Augustinian canons rarely, if ever, preached to lay audiences, since “it is doubtful, Orrm’s whether unfinished regular but clergy still could have produced anything better calculated to induce widespread somnolence in their congregation.”3 on the spelling of English, It is had true no that imitators; Orrm had no littlecopies if anyexist contemporary of his work, which influence. only His unique system of orthography, which attempted to impose a rigid consistency of the Orrmulum: is it a collection of homilies, a biblical commentary, or a para- phrase?survives Itin is his tempting, own autograph. then, to Itsee is thedifficult Orrmulum even to as define sui generis the genre, occupying and purpose a “no man’s land all of its own.”4 However, no author exists in a vacuum. Orrm was, like anybody else, a person of his time. In his exegesis he reveals his intellectual background, and his intellectual background opens a window on the cultural history of late twelfth-century England.5 This essay explores Orrm’s theological background

1 Some scholars favour the spellings “Orm” and Ormulum; I adopt the author’s own spelling (“Orrm” and Orrmulum) throughout, unless citing a secondary source. In what follows, all translations from Middle English, Latin, and Greek are mine unless otherwise stated. I would like to acknowledge Prof. Stephen Pelle of the University of Toronto for his invaluable comments on an early draft of this paper. 2 The Vulgar Tongue: Medieval and Postmedieval Vernacularity, ed. Fiona Somerset and Nicholas Watson (University Park: PennsylvaniaMeg Worley, State “Using University the Ormulum Press, 2003), to Redefine 19–30 Vernacularity,”at 19–20. in 3 J. C. Dickinson, The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England (London: S.

4 Bella Millett, “The English Sermon before 1250,” in The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Literature P. C. K., 1950), 228n1. in English, ed. Elaine Treherne and Greg Walker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 221–39 at 232. 5 Laura Ashe has recently defended Orrm as an original and creative thinker, who was deeply between Benedictine and Augustininian approaches to preaching and lay experience (Laura Ashe, “Theengaged Originality not only of with the Orrmuluma broad range,” Early of Middletheological English debates 1, no. but1 (2019): also with 35-54). contemporary Similarly, Adrienne conflicts Williams Boyarin notes that “[Orm] creatively mixes sources, translates loosely, makes independent author as sophisticated as many to whom we give more credit” (in Saming the Jew: Jews and the and unique connections between disparate texts, and writes much original content […] [he] is an 2 Samuel Cardwell through an analysis of his use of Greek words, particularly in relation to his exegesis of John 3:16. By closely studying a small slice of Orrm’s vast work, his originality and thoughtfulness becomes apparent. His choice of sources—especially the Glossa Ordinaria and Eriugena’s commentary on John—placed him at the “cutting edge,” or even the “avant-garde,” of twelfth-century exegesis. Moreover, he used these sources thoughtfully and independently. Orrm is therefore to be considered not as a provincial eccentric, but as a serious exegete.

Orrm’s Greek There is no evidence that Orrm knew Greek himself. He only shows an interest in Greek in three passages of the Orrmulum on Luke 2, he develops a numerological argument around the letters of Jesus’s name, which is “iss writenn o Grickisshe .boc” At lines ΙΕΣΟΥΣ 4302–83,.6 These in letters his commentary add up in end).Greek7 numeralsThis exegesis to 888, appears which to Orrm have interprets ultimately as derived referring from to Christ’sBede’s commentaryresurrection on“o þehhtenndeLuke, whether daʒʒ directly affterr or þe via wukess an intermediate. ende” (on the eighth day after the week’s 8 The second significant use9 Here of OrrmGreek againappears uses in numerology,his commentary this ontime John on 2:20the name (“dixerunt “Adam” ergo which Iudaei amounts quadraginta to 46 et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc et tu tribus diebus excitabis illud”). second Hebrew temple but also the number of days before Christ was “all shap- in Greek numerals; this signifies not only the number of years it 10took He tothen build inter the- enn rihht” (completely formed, or quickened) in Mary’s womb. Jewess in Medieval English Literature, forthcoming 2020). My thanks to Prof. Williams Boyarin for providing a pre-publication draft of a chapter of her forthcoming book, as well as an advanced copy of Ashe’s article for the inaugural issue of this journal. 6 Robert Holt, ed., The Ormulum: With the Notes and Glossary of Dr. R. M. White Orrmulum, 2 vols. research projects at Stockholm University and the Archive of Early Middle English aim to produce new(Oxford: editions. Clarendon, 1878), vol. 1, lines 4302–83. Holt’s edition remains standard, although ongoing 7 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 1, lines 4341–42. 8 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 2, p. 361; Bede, In Lucam, 1.2.21, for which see D. Hurst ed., Bedae Venerabilis Opera

, vol. 2, Opera Exegetica 3, CCSL 120 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1960), 58: “Sex quippe litteris apud Graecos scribitur ‘IECOYC uidelicet I et H et C et O et Y et C quorum numeri sunt X et VIII et CC et 9 Holt, Ormulum LXX et CCCC et CC qui fiunt simul DCCCLXXXVIIII.” Weber and Roger Gryson, eds., Biblia Sacra Vulgata, 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), available online, vol. at2, www.academic-bible.com/en/home/scholarly-editions/vulgate/.lines 16328–495. All references to the Vulgate are taken from Robert 10 in the womb until the forty-sixth day may be based on a misreading of Augustine, De Trinitate 4.5, whichThe states idea that Christ’sChrist (and body presumably was fully formed by extension in forty-six all human times sixfoetuses) days. However, was not thequickened idea of ensoulment at forty days (rather than forty-six) has a long history: it derives from Aristotle, Historia animalia 7.3, and appears in England in the seventh-century Penitential of Theodore. It is also echoed in the Old Testament prescription of a forty days’ wait (seven days’ “uncleanness” and thirty-three Cossmós, Mycrocossmós 3 , and the Use of Greek in Orrm’s Exegesis of John 3:16 prets the individual letters “affterr Gricclandess spæche” (Allfa, Dellta, Allfa, My) as the four corners of the Earth: Anatole (East), Dysiss (West), Arctoss (North) and Mysimmbrión (South).11 dæledd” (driven and scattered This throughout in turn signifies this earth, that which Adam’s is divided offspring into would four regions).be “todrifenn12 annd toskeʒʒredd inn all þiss middellærd tatt issOracula o fowwre Sibyllina daless, a collection of Hellenised Jewish prophecies in Greek dactylic hexameters, collected This exegesis has a long history, first appearing in the - ond century CE.13 Deby aduobus Byzantine montibus scholar Sina in the et Sionsixth (Oncentury the Twobut probablyMountains, dating Sinai to and the Zion).first or14 secIt is picked up by Augustine This tradition in his Infinds Evangelium its way into Joannis Christianity Tractatus via Pseudo, which-Cyprian’s is most likely Orrm’s source.15 Orrm’s exegesis of these passages is essentially mystical; both rely on the belief that God leaves echoes of salvation history in the most min- ute and arcane details of scripture. Orrmulum is less arcane and more etymological. In his homily (lines 17493–905) on John 3:16 (“sic enim The third significant discussion of Greek words in the non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam”), Orrm devotes eighty-seven lines to the singledilexit wordDeus mundummundum (whichut Filium he suum translates unigenitum as werelld daret). He ut explainsomnis qui that credit in eum Þe werelld iss uss here sett To tacnenn mannkinn ane.

Annd forr þatt manness bodiʒ iss Off all þe werelld feʒedd, child (Leviticus 12:1–5). Forty-six days was also suggested by Bartholomaeus Anglicus, writing a days’ purification) before entering the tabernacle/temple for women after giving birth to a male Existance of Christ in Medieval Literature and Thought,” Medium Aevum generation or two after Orrm. See Jacqueline Tasioulas, “Heaven and Earth in Little Space: The Foetal 11 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 2, lines 16400–25. 76, no. 1 (2007): 24–48. 12 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 2, lines 16446–49. 13 Johannes Geffcken, ed., Die oracula Sibyllina, Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller (Leipzig:

Hinrichs, 1902), 47–48: αὐ�τὸ�ς δὴ� θεό�ς ἐ�σθ’ ὁ� πλά� σας τετραγρά� μματον Ἀ�δά� μ / τὸ�ν πρῶτον “West,”πλασθέ �ντα“South,” καὶ� οὔand� νο “North”).μα πληρώ�σαντα For the /context ἀ� ντολί �ofην theτε, δOraculaύ� σιν τε, Sibyllina μεσημβρ, seeί�αν H.τε W.καὶ� Parke, ἄ� ρκτο Sibylsν (This and is Sibyllinethe same Prophecy God who informed Classical four Antiquity-lettered Adam, the first-formed one, and filled his name with “East,” 14 Anni Maria Laato, Jews and Christians in De duobus montibus Sina et Sion: An Approach to Early , ed. B. C. McGing (London: Routledge, 1988). Latin Adversus Iudaeos Literature De Plasmatione Adam,” in The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone, ed. Lorenzo DiTomasso, (Å� bo: Å � boMatthias Akademis, Henze 1998); and WilliamCharles AdlerD. Wright, (Leiden: “ Brill, 2017), 941–1003. 15 Augustine, Tractatus in Johannis evangelium 10.12, possibly via Alcuin’s Expositio in Iohannis euangelium 2.4: see Patrologia Latina Tractatus, see Michael Gorman, “The Oldest Epitome of the Tractatus, ined. Ioannen Jacques -andPaul Commentaries Migne, 221 vols. on (Paris: the Gospel Garnier, of John 1844–65), in the Early100:777 Middle (numbered Ages,” Revue by column). des études On Augustiniennes the influence of 43 Augustine’s (1997): 63–99. 4 Samuel Cardwell

Off waterr, annd off erþe; AnndOff heffness forr þatt fir, manness annd off sawleþe lifft, iss her Wel þurrh þe werelld tacnedd, Forr baþe fallenn inntill an Affterr Grickisshe spæche, Forr werelld iss nemmnedd Cossmós, Swa summ þe Grickess kiþenn, Forr þatt itt iss wurrþlike shridd Wiþþ sunne annd mone annd sterrness, Onn heffness whel all ummbetrin Þurrh Godd tatt swillc itt wrohhte. “The world” is here appointed to signify mankind alone, because man’s body is com-

wordsposed ofcombine all [the intoelements one according of] the world: to the of Greek heaven’s language; fire and for of “world” the sky, isof called water Cosand- mosof earth;, just andas the for Greeks that reason, make known,man’s soul because is well it issignified worthily by clothed “the world,” in the forsun both and the moon and the stars, all set around on heaven’s wheel, by God who created it so.16 He goes on to explain that the world is further “wurrþlike shridd” with “fele kinne shaffte” (many kinds of creatures), just as the soul is “wurrþlike shridd” with term “wurrþlike shridd” is Orrm’s rendering of Latin ornatus (furnishing, decoration,“unndæþshildiʒnesse” clothing), which is (immortality), the translation and given with in reason,numerous intelligence patristic andand earlya will. medi This- eval sources for the Greek κόσμος (see below).17 We can see the sensitivity of Orrm’s - tion” and that of “furnishing/clothing” in a single word, he scrupulously translates ornatustranslation as “wurrþlike here. Recognising shridd.” the Many difficulty of the “defects”of capturing of Orrm both asthe a sensepoetic of stylist “decora can be ascribed to this assiduity. He rarely varies his vocabulary, even when repeating an idea several times, which sometimes makes for dull reading, but leaves little room for exegetical sloppiness. Orrm goes on to explain that “the world,” which God so loved that he sent his

Forr baþe fallenn inntill an, only-begotten son, signifiesSwa summ “mannkinn icc habbe ane” shæwedd. (mankind alone)

Acc nohht onn ane wise, Forr eʒʒþerr iss wurrþlike shridd Þurrh Cossmós wel bitacnedd. annd forrþitohh iss mahht þeʒʒre tu baþrenemmnenn shrud mann Affterr Grikkishe spæche Mycrocossmós, þatt nemmnedd iss

16 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 2, lines 17549–64. 17 κόσμος. In Homeric Greek, it can mean either “order” opposedThis is,to indeed,heaven; a γῆ reasonable is more common definition for for the idea of the physical earth, while οἰκουμένῃ tends to mean(the original ‘the inhabited/known meaning) or “ornament.” world’) by It Pythagoras. is first applied to “the created order” (that is, the earth as Cossmós, Mycrocossmós 5 , and the Use of Greek in Orrm’s Exegesis of John 3:16 Affterr Ennglisshe spæche Þe little werelld, all forrþi Forr þatt te manness sawle Iss shridd þurrh Godd wurrþlike annd wel Wiþþ god annd wurrþfull kinde, All all swa summ þiss werelld iss Wel shridd wiþþ scone shafftess. because both [werelld and mannkinn] combine into one, just as I have shown. For both are worthily clothed, albeit not in one respect, but nevertheless the clothing of Cosmos. And therefore you might call man Microcosmos, according to the Greek language, which is called in the English tongue “theboth little of them world,” is rightly because signified the soul through of man is clothed worthily and well by God with a good and honourable form, altogether just as this world is well clothed with beauti- ful creations. 18 His interest in the idea of cosmos and microcosmos is not especially mystical, nor is it indeed, the former serves the latter, and the idea of cosmos as clothing illustrates themerely creation antiquarian. of man Orrm in God’s moves image: deftly “annd between forrþi etymology nemmneþþ and natural Drihhtin philosophy; Godd þe sawle hiss onnlicnesse” (and for that reason the Lord God calls the soul his image).19 In turn, Orrm uses the idea of man as a microcosmos to explain the gospel text: “annd forrþi shall þe werelld her bitacnenn mannkinn ane þatt Godess word wass sennd þurrh Godd to lesenn út off helle” (and therefore shall “the world” here signify mankind alone, to which God’s Word was sent by God to ransom it out of hell).20

Orrm’s Sources Orrm’s analysis of Greek words and numerology in his exegesis of Luke 2 and John 2:20 appears to have been drawn from single sources: Bede’s In Lucam for the numerology of ΙΕΣΟΥΣ, and Augustine’s Tractatus for the mystical interpretation of Adam’s name. His exegesis of John 3:16 is different; in that case, we can see him not only incorporating multiple sources but doing so selectively. It has long been recog- nised that Orrm made use of a wide range of sources in compiling the Orrmulum.21

18 Holt, Ormulum literally “Little Orrm,” writing that this captures something of Orrm’s “participation in distinctively Victorine allegorical, vol. readings 2, lines of 17587the world,-602. man, Ashe and creatively scripture” relates (Ashe, this “The to Originalitythe title of ofOrrm’s Orrm,” work, 39). 19 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 2, lines 17573–74. 20 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 2, lines 17609–12. 21 des Orrmulum,” Englische Studien Die Einheitlichkeit des TheOrrmulum: first dedicated Studien zurstudies Textkritik, of Orrm’s zu den sources Quellen were und Gregor zur sprachlichen Sarrazin, “FormÜ� ber vondie OrrminsQuellen Evangelienbuch (Heidelberg: Winter, 6 1933). (1882): These 1–27, earlier and studiesHeinrich tended Matthes, to search for one or two ultimate sources for the Orrmulum, with Matthes suggesting that Orrm was heavily reliant on the Glossa ordinaria that Orrm made use of the Ennarationes in Matthaeum, Bede, and Isidore: see Morrison’s “New Sources for the Ormulum. Stephen,” Morrison Neophilologus expanded the understanding of Orrm’s use of sources,Ormulum finding:

68, no. 3 (1984): 444–50, and “Sources for the 6 Samuel Cardwell Stephen Morrison examined Orrm’s discussion of cosmos and microcosmos and argued that the essentials of this commentary were derived from the Glossa ordinaria, which includes the following: in 1983

- Cosmos grece quod latine mundus interpretatur, ornatus dicitur. Per mundum igitur adhumana hoc diligit nostra deus significatur, ut eam eternam non quod faciat. secundum corpus ex quattuor elementis con stet, sed quia secundum animam a deo est ornata et ad imaginem dei est facta, quam Cosmos, which is translated mundus in Latin, means ornatus. So, by mundum is sig-

according to the body, but because the soul, which God so loved that he would make itnified eternal, our washumanity decorated [lit. “humanby God and things”], made notin the because image itof consists God.22 of four elements Certainly, we can see the basic outline of the Orrmulum’s commentary here. There is, however, no mention of microcosmos in the Glossa ordinaria for John 3:16. Morrison suggested that Orrm took the idea of microcosmos from Isidore’s De natura rerum: - dus’, est appellatus” (indeed in Greek the world is called “cosmos”; moreover man is“siquidem called “micros graece cosmos,”mundus cosmos,that is “a homo smaller autem world”). micros23 cosmos,His argument id est ‘minorrests on mun the association in both Isidore and Orrm of cosmos and the four elements of the Earth. However, there are other possible sources. Bede (himself probably using Isidore as a source) refers to the microcosmos in both De tabernaculo, here:

terraeQuibus in non ipsa incongrue soliditate forte membrorum. addere valemus Unde a quod physiologis in unoquoque Graece homohominum microcos figura- mos,omnium id est elementorum minor mundus, continetur, vocatur. ignis in calore, aeris in alitu, aquarum in humore, -

Perhaps we might add, not inappropriately, that the figure of all the elements is con tained in every single human being: that of fire in heat; that of air in nourishment; A Re-examination,” Neuphilologische mitteilungen Lennart Johannesson has demonstrated that Orrm used a much wider range of sources than previously thought, including Augustine and Eriugena: 84, no. see 4 Johannesson’s (1983): 419–36. “On More Orm’s recently, Relationship Nils- to his Latin Sources,” in Studies in Middle English Forms and Meanings, ed. Gabriella Mazzon, Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 19 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2007), 133–43, and

Ormulum,” in Bells Chiming from the Past: Cultural and Linguistic Studies on Early English, ed. Isabel Moskowich“The Four-Wheeled and Begoña Quadriga Crespo and (Amsterdam: the Seven Sacraments: Rodopi, 2007), On the227–45. Sources for the ‘Dedication’ of the 22 Cited in Morrison, “New Sources,” 445 (translation mine). The Glossa ordinaria was an early twelfth-century compendium of patristic and early medieval exegesis compiled at the School of Laon. See Lesley Smith, The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 23 Isidore, De natura rerum Isidore de Séville: Traité de la nature (Paris: μικρὸς κόσμος ultimately goes back to the pre-Socratic philosopher 9.2, Democritus in Jacques ( Fontaine,Fragments ed., 34). The phrase appears rather incidentally inInstitut Aristotle, d’É� tudes Physica Augustiniennes, 2002), 207. The idea of the Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 155. See Lars Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor 8.2, but, 2nd probably ed. (Chicago: owes itsOpen patristic/medieval Court, 1995), 133–34. popularity The termto Philo, minor mundus In Ecclesiastem 9.13/15 and In Ezechielem without its Greek equivalent is found in Jerome, 1.1.6/8. Cossmós, Mycrocossmós 7 , and the Use of Greek in Orrm’s Exegesis of John 3:16 that of water in humour; that of earth in the very solidity of its members. For that reason, in Greek man is called microcosmos – that is, “a smaller world” – by natural philosophers.24 and in De temporibus, here: -

Sed et homo ipse, qui a sapientibus microcosmos, id est minor mundus, appellatur, his demBut also per manomnia himself, qualititatibus who is calledhabet temperamicrocosmostum corpus. by wise people, that is a “smaller four seasons, which produce the four humours and distinguish the four elements].25 universe,” has a body moderated in all things by the same qualities [referring to the shows evidence that he used other works by Bede (such as the commentary In LucamOn this evidence, it is difficult to say whether Orrm used Bede or Isidore. His work directly or via an intermediary.26 De tabernaculo seems to have had a boost in popularity in) extensively,the twelfth century,though again with threeit is difficult times as to many judge copies whether (thirty-one he used Bede’sand a half) text surviving Europe-wide from that century as from the previous hundred years (nine and a half).27 De temporibus was slightly less popular, with twelve copies surviving from the twelfth century; its popularity seems to have remained steady from the time it was written. Isidore’s De natura rerum survives in twelve manuscripts Europe-wide from each28 of the eleventh and the twelfth centuries; only one copy survives from England from each century (British Library MS, Cotton Vitalian A XII from the eleventh, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. F.3.14 from the twelfth).29 It seems reasonable to suggest that Orrm would have been more likely to have access to Bede than to De natura rerum. The inclusion of both microcosmos and the four elements tradition do make it likely that he was working from one or the other; however, it is worth noting that by the twelfth century, the phrase “microcosmos/us, id est minor mundus” is something of a stock phrase in theological writings.30 Even if

24 Bede, De tabernaculo, 3.1172–77 in Hurst, Bedae Venerabilis Opera, 123. 25 Bede, De temporibus, 35, in Charles W. Jones, ed., Bedae: Opera de temporibus (Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1943), 247. 26 Johannesson, “On Orm’s Relationship to his Latin Sources.” 27 Joshua A. Westgard, “Bede and the Continent in the Carolingian Age and Beyond,” in The Cambridge Companion to Bede, ed. Scott DeGregorio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 201–15, with table at 211. 28 Westgard, “Bede and the Continent,” 201–15, with table at 211. The De temporibus was known and used (along with other works by Bede and indeed Isidore) in the De temporibus anni of Ælfric (see Martin Blake, ed. and trans., Ælfric's De temporibus anni [Cambridge: Brewer, 2009]) and the Enchiridion of Byrhtferth (see Peter S. Baker and Michael Lapidge, eds., Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion, EETS s.s. 15 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995]). Neither transmits the term microcosmos (despite Byrhtferth’s fondness for deploying a spectacular array of Greek words). 29 Fontaine, Traité de la nature 30 For example in John of Salisbury’s Policraticus 4.1, as in Eugene R. Fairweather, trans., A Scholastic , 37–38. Miscellany: From Anselm to Ockham

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), 248: “In [government] […] we follow nature, the best guide for living, which arranged all the senes of its microcosm— 8 Samuel Cardwell Orrm’s actual source (the volume or volumes he had on his desk or in his memory when he sat down to write) remains a mystery, the ultimate origin of this phrase appears to be Isidorean. The ultimate source for the entry in the Glossa ordinaria for John 3:16 appears to be John Scotus Eriugena’s commentary In Johnannis evangelium for the same verse: - - Sed notandum quod mundus quem Pater dilexit, id est homo, non propterea mundus uocatur quod quattuor elementis constiterit […] sed ideo homo “cosmos” uoca tur quoniam ornatus est ad imaginem et similitudinem dei quae, uel solum uel max condita?ime, in anima intelligitur. “Cosmos” quippe grece ornatus proprie interpretatur, non mundus. Et quae creatura tam ornata est, quam ea, quae ad imaginem Creatoris But it must be noted that “the world,” which the Father loved (that is “man”), is not

cosmos, since he is furnished in the image and likeness of God, which, whether solely orcalled mostly, “the isworld” understood because in it the consists soul. Indeed of four cosmoselements in […].Greek But is indeed properly man translated is called “decoration,” not “world.” And what creature is so decorated as that which is put together in the image of the creator?31 cosmos to John 3:16, Eriugena is distinctive for connecting the idea of the imago Dei Apartto the fromcosmos being.32 the first Latin author to directly apply this understanding of for transmitting the ideas of Greek theologians, such as Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nazianzus Eriugena and was Gregory a prolific of Nyssa,translator to theof Greek West. and33 the main conduit detects an echo in Eriugena’s commentary on John 3:16 of Gregory of Nyssa’s De hominis opificio, which Eriugena translated into Latin.34 Gregory, É� douard commenting Jeauneau on and rather caustically against the entire idea of the microcosmos againstGenesis humans1:26 (“let glorying us make in man being in composed our image, of after four our elements: likeness”) warns specifically and specifically that is, its littler world, man—in the head.” At around the same time as the composition of the Orrmulum, Godfrey of St. Victor (an Augustinian canon like Orrm) composed a treatise entitled Microcosmus (Philippe Delhaye, ed., Le Microcosmus de Godefroy de Saint Victor, 2 vols. [Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1951]). Even as far back as Aldhelm (that is, before Bede), the same phrase appears in something close to its Isidorean form (Aldhelm, De virginitate 3, in Rudolf Ehwald, ed., Aldhelmi opera id est minorem mundum”). Compare J. E. Cross, “Aspects of Microcosm and Macrocosm in Old English, MGH Literature,” Auctores in Antiquissimi Studies in Old 15 English [Berlin: Literature Weidmann, in Honor 1919], of 230–31: Arthur “siquidemG. Brodeur ,microcosmum ed. Stanley B.

31 Jean Scot: Commentaire sur l'Évangile de Jean Greenfield (Eugene: University of Oregon Books, 1963), 1–22. (Paris: CERF, 1972), 232. É� douard Jeauneau, , Sources Chrétiennes 180 32 The idea of cosmos meaning ornatus can be found in (for instance) Cicero, Timaeus (translating Plato) 7, 10, and 35; Isidore, Etymologiae De natura rerum 3. 33 Bulletin du Cange 41 (1979); 8.1.1–2; and Bede, Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten, eds., Eriugena: East and West, Papers of the Eighth É� douard Jeauneau, “Jean Scot É� rigène et le Grec,” extracted from University of Notre Dame Press, 1994). International Colloquium of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies (Notre Dame: 34 Jeauneau, Commentaire, 232n3. Cossmós, Mycrocossmós 9 , and the Use of Greek in Orrm’s Exegesis of John 3:16

‘Ως μικρά� τε καὶ� ἀ� νά� ξια τῆς τοῦ ἀ� νθρώ�που μεγαλοφυΐ�ας τῶν ἔ�ξωθέ�ν τινες ἐ�φαντά� σθησαν, τῇ πρὸ�ς τὸ�ν κό�σμον τοῦτον συγκρί�σει μεγαλύ� νοντες, ὧ� ς ᾤ�� οντο, τὸ� ἀ� νθρό�πινον. Φασὶ� γά� ρ μικρὸ�ν εἶ�ναι κό�σμον τὸ�ν ἄ� νθρωπον, ἐ�κ τῶν αὐ�τῶν τῷ παντὶ� στοιχεί�ων συνεστηκό�τα. Οἱ� γὰ� ρ τῷ κό�μπῳ τοῦ ὀ�νό�ματος τοιοῦτον ἔ�παινον τῇ ἀ� νθρωπί�νῃ χαριζό�μενοι φύ� σει, λελή�θασιν ἑ�αυτοὺ� ς τοῖς περὶ� τὸ�ν κώ�νωπα καὶ� τὸ�ν μῦν ἰ�διώ�μασι σεμνοποιοῦντες τὸ�ν ἄ� νθρωπον. Καὶ� γὰ� ρ κἀ� κεί�νοις ἐ�κ τῶν τεσσά� ρων τού� των ἡ� κρᾶσί�ς ἐ�στι, διό�τι πά� ντως ἑ�κά� στου τῶν ὄ�ντων ἢ� πλεί�ων ἢ� ἐ�λά� ττων τις μοῖρα περὶ� τὸ� ἔ�μψυχον θεωρεῖται, ὦ� ν ἄ� νευ συστῆναι τι τῶν αἰ�σθή�σεως μετεχό�ντων, φύ� σιν οὐ�κ ἔ�χει. Τί� οὖ� ν μέ�γα, κό�σμου χαρακτῆρα καὶ� ὁ�μοί�ωμα νομισθῆναι τὸ�ν ἀ� νθρωπον; […] ᾿Αλλ’ ἐ�ν τί�νι κατὰ� τὸ�ν ἐ�κκλησιαστικὸ�ν λό�γον τὸ� ἀ� νθρωπινον μέ�γεθος; Οὐ�κ ἐ�ν τῇ πρὸ�ς τὸ�ν κτιστὸ�ν κό�σμον ὁ�μοιό�τητι, ἀ� λλ ἐ�ν τῷ κατ’ εἰ�κό�να γενHowέ�σθα meanι τῆς and το howῦ κτ unworthyί�σαντος φ ύof� σε theως. majesty of man are the fancies of some heathen writers, who magnify humanity, as they supposed, by their comparison of it to this world! for they say that man is a little world, composed of the same elements with the universe. Those who bestow on human nature such praise as this by a high-sounding name, forget that they are dignifying man with the attributes of the gnat and the mouse: for they too are composed of these four elements, because assuredly about the animated nature of every existing thing we behold a part, greater or less, of those elements without which it is not natural that any sensitive being should exist. What great thing is there, then, in man’s being accounted a representation and like- In what then does the greatness of man consist, according to the doctrine of the Church? Not in his likeness to the created world, but in his being in the imageness of of the the world?[…] nature of the Creator.35 Gregory’s distaste for the idea of the microcosmos Eriugena and thence into the Glossa, which cautions against a reading of cosmos that emphasizes “the four elements according to the body.” makes This isits thoroughly way (obliquely) ignored into in

36 It is entirely possible that Orrm’s copyOrrm’s of discussionthe Glossa of how “manness bodiʒ iss off all þe werelld feʒedd, off heffness offir, the annd idea off of þe microcosmos lifft, off waterr, from annd Bede off and/or erþe.” Isidore drew him towards this kind of “natural philosophical” was defective,interpretation. although it is equally likely that his interpolation Nils-Lennart Johannesson has recently made the remarkable claim that Orrm knew Eriugena’s commentary on John independently of its transmission in the Glossa ordinaria—remarkable because the only surviving manuscript of the com- used by the School of Laon to produce the Glossa on John.37 His argument is convinc- ing:mentary he notes is Laon, several Municipal passages Library, where MS Orrm 81, drawswhich ison assumed passages to of be Eriugena the same which text

35 Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio, in Patrologia Graeca William Moore and Henry Austin Wilson, trans., Select Writings and Letters of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene, 44.178D–180A, Fathers 2nd Series emphases 5 (Oxford: mine; De hominis opificio,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7, no. 2 (1999): 219–47 at 233. Parker, 1893), 748. See also John Behr, “The Rational Animal: A Rereading of Gregory of Nyssa’s 36 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 2, lines 17551–54. 37 Johannesson, “Orm’s Relationship to his Latin Sources,” 135 and passim. 10 Samuel Cardwell Glossa. Additionally, Johannesson focuses on the different ways in which Orrm and the compositor38 of the Glossa, Anselm of Laon, responded toare lacunae not reflected in their in copiesthe of Eriugena: both Anselm and Orrm “stop the gaps” in Eriugena by searching for other sources, but the choice of “stop-gap” sources differs between the two, implying that Orrm was aware of the lacunae in the Eriugena text and not simply following the Glossa.39 In the case of John 3:16, it is unclear whether Orrm used Eriugena or the Glossa, but, in any case, we can see Orrm’s “independent” thinking at work. The interpolation of the microcosmos is not suggested—

Glossa). Even though it is not a startlingly imaginative leap to make, no other early medievaland is even commentary implicitly cautioned on John that against—by I am aware Eriguena of draws (and such consequently a line from cosmos by the to microcosmos. In this example, although we cannot say with absolute certainty which sources Orrm employed (whether he used Eriugena or the Glossa for cosmos, or Bede, Isidore or something else for microcosmos), we can clearly see that Orrm was not merely a translator or an excerpter. Even if his exegesis was not strictly

R. W. Hunt observed that “a large proportion” of the most innovative theologians original, his combination of sources was unique and considered. and Alexander of Canons Ashby) were Augustinian canons.40 Orrm, who tells us thatin late he twelfth was a canon-century under England the rule (including “swa summ Alexander Sannt Nequam,Awwstin sette,”Robert was of Cricklade, excluded from the list.41 J. C. Dickinson, likewise, does not mention him when describing the “strong studious tendency” within the Augustinian order.42 It is common to see Orrm patronisingly as a man out of time, a rather eccentric and harmless scrivener, an Englishman (or Anglo-Scandinavian) in a French world. However, even by using the Glossa ordinaria, Orrm was aligning himself with a certain kind of theological modernism (for the time). The spread of the Glossa in late twelfth-century England was a kind of pre-modern publishing sensation, with monastic and cathedral librar- ies working hard to collect as complete a set of glosses as possible.43 Some conser-

38 Johannesson, “Orm’s Relationship to his Latin Sources,” 136–39. 39 Johannesson, “Orm’s Relationship to his Latin Sources,” 136. 40 R. W. Hunt, “English Learning in the Late Twelfth Century,” in Essays in Medieval History, ed. R.

41 Holt, Ormulum, vol. 1, “Dedication” line 10 (note that Holt’s edition gives no page numbers W. Southern (London: MacMillan, 1968), 102–28 at 120. kinde”between Walter, the end and of the the fact editorial that both introduction he and Walter and thewere beginning secular canons of the firstin the homily Augustinian proper). order. The Parkesonly personal has argued details convincingly, given by Orrm if circumstantially, were his own name, that the Orrm name was of hismost brother likely “affterra canon þe at flæshess Bourne Orrmulum “On the Presumed Date and Possible Origin of the Manuscript of the Orrmulum: Oxford, Bodleian Library,Abbey in MS Lincolnshire Junius 1,” in and Five finished Hundred his Years work of on Words the and Sounds: before A Festschrift 1180. See for Malcolm Eric Dobson B. Parkes,, ed. E.

42 Dickinson, Origins of the Austin Canons G. Stanley and Douglas Gray (Cambridge: Brewer, 1987), 115–27. 43 R. M. Thomson, “Books and Learning in Twelfth-Century England: The Ending of ‘Alter Orbis’,” , 186. Lyell Lectures 2000–2001 (Walkern: Red Gull, 2006). Cossmós, Mycrocossmós 11 , and the Use of Greek in Orrm’s Exegesis of John 3:16 vative authors, such as Robert of Melun, who taught in Paris in the 1130s before coming to England as Bishop of Hereford in the 1160s, argued vigorously against the use of the glossed text, which he considered “a new kind of teaching.”44 If the use of the Glossa placed Orrm in a new theological mainstream, the independent use of Eriugena’s commentary on John (if it can be proven) places him closer to the avant-garde cosmos and microcosmos in his exegesis of John 3:16 reveals him to be an independent and thoughtful theologian. His unification whose ofwork patristic deserves and more early than medieval philological discourses interest. on

44 Constant J. Mews, “Orality, Literacy, and Authority in the Twelfth-Century Schools,” Exemplaria on glosses as opposed to the older scholastic model of oral teaching and discussion. 2, no. 2 (1990), 475–500 at 486–89. Theologians like Robert of Melun were suspicious of reliance 12 Samuel Cardwell SAMUEL CARDWELL is a second-year PhD student in Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto. Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), he is researching the intellectual history of the Christian mission in Anglo-Saxon England. He completed an MPhil in Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at the University of Cambridge in 2015. Before that, he studied History and Classics as an undergraduate at the University of Melbourne and Monash University.

Abstract: This essay contributes to our understanding of the intellectual contexts of the Orrmulum, a twelfth-century collection of verse homilies by the Augustinian canon Orrm. In three passages of the Orrmulum (those discussing Luke 2, John 2:20, and John 3:16), the poet made reference to Greek words and concepts. Although there is no evidence that he knew Greek himself, these references open a window onto Orrm’s intellectual background. Through source analysis of these relatively brief passages, this essay demonstrates Orrm’s sophistication and selectivity as an exegete. In his use of the Glossa ordinaria, Orrm aligned himself with the theological “modernists” of his era. His independent use of Eriugena’s commentary on John placed him closer to the avant-garde. This analysis contributes to ongoing reassessments of an underappreciated and often patronised author, whose work is of more than philological interest.

Keywords: Orrmulum; medieval exegesis; Augustinian canons; intellectual history; use of Greek; Glossa ordinaria; Bede; twelfth-century England