In the summer of 1901 I was able to study thoroughly and to make a copy of the manuscript, and to see, as a result thereof, the insufficiency of my own and Wülker's characterization of the piece. Later in the same year my attention was directed to the value of the Vespasian version by Professor Max Förster's article in Archiv.[1] An examination of the MS led me to conclude that the version is neither an auszug from nor a "résumé" of the original, or the Cambridge version — a conviction which was strengthened by the reading of Forster's discussion of the relation of the MSS.'[2] It seems, moreover, very doubtful[3] whether the piece may be considered a homily at all, although evidence in favor of such an assumption is not altogether wanting. It has been preserved in a MS that has a decidedly homiletic character, and among pieces that are undoubtedly homilies, though there are a number of non-homiletic pieces in the same codex. There are, also, two passages in the text, which have nothing to do with the traditional narrative of the Gospel of Nicodemus, and which begin with words that belong especially to the homiletic vocabulary of OE. Neither of these passages has anything exactly corresponding in the other two versions of the Gospel of Nicodemus. The passages in question are as follows:
1. Eala mæn þa leofeste, hwu laðlic and hwu grislic wæs þære deoflene gemot, þa seo helle and se deofel heom betweonen cidden![4]
2. Eala mæn, hwu grislic hit waes þa-þa seo deofellice helle þone feond Beelzebub underfeng and hine fæste geheold! For-þan se deofol wæs ær þære helle hlaford and eallra þære deofellicre þingen þe hire on wæron.[5]
The words Eala mæn are especially characteristic of OE. homilies. But it is, of course, possible that the peculiar language and style of the Vespasian version, as compared with those of the earlier versions, are due to the copyist of the manuscript,[6] and that these passages were added by him. Whatever one may think on this point, there is, apparently, no valid reason for attributing them to Aelfric.[7] But before going further into the questions
- ↑ Cf. op. cit.
- ↑ Cf. p. 314.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Cf. p. 25 of text.
- ↑ Cf. p. 28 of the text.
- ↑ Förster, p. 320
- ↑ Ibid. Professor A. S. Napier, who knows the MS thoroughly, sees no reasons for believing in Aelfrician authorship. Wülker thinks (Geschichte der englischen Litteratur, p. 69) that the original version of the OE. Evang. Nicod. was a product of the Aelfrician school.
