Talk:Judith (poem)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Why is this separate from Judith? Wetman 00:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


This section is for discussing the merger of this article and Judith (homily).

I thought it was better that (poem) be the main article title, because we generally call it "Old English poetry" which is more commonly known than the more specialized term homily. -- Stbalbach 12:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a duplicate article: the poem and the homily are two different works that merely happen to draw on the same source. I am adding "see also" links to make that more clear. — Haeleth Talk 10:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I didn't realize there were two. I've updated Anglo-Saxon literature to read:

The Nowell Codex contains a Biblical paraphrase (homily), which appears right after Beowulf, called Judith, a retelling of the story of Judith. This is not to be confused with the Anglo-Saxon poem Judith, which retells the same Biblical story as a poem.

I'm pretty sure the Homily is in the Nowell Codex - not sure where the poem is from. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the wrong way round, I'm afraid - the poem's in the Nowell Codex, while the homily appears in two MSS, the more complete version in CCCC MS 303 and a fragment in BL MS Cotton Otho B.x. (I'll add those details to the homily article in a moment.)
Confusing, isn't it? — Haeleth Talk 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes confusing. My source Dictionary of the Middle Ages has judith across three different articles/volumes but they all seem to infer the Nowell Codex version which they call a "poetic paraphrase" (which I take to mean a hybrid prose and poem), no mention of the alliterative prose version. -- Stbalbach 13:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
"Paraphrase" probably makes reference to the fact that the poem takes some liberties with the original story; it is definitely purely poetry. Also, the link to the translation broken - while the linked page survives, that links to a redirect which goes to a new version of the page link to which has a broken link to the translation. That's confusing. -- 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd, over-definite wording.[edit]

'Opposite of Judith’s portrayal in the Book of Judith, her character is rendered blameless and virtuous.'As I have just written a paper on Judith, I know this to be false. Jerome, in the Vulgate, adds two verses praising Judith's chastity to the Hebrew original: quae cum exisset ad illum benedixerunt illam omnes una voce dicentes tu gloria Hierusalem tu laetitia Israhel tu honorificentia populi nostril, quia fecisti viriliter et confortatum est cor tuum eo quod castitatem amaveris et post virum tuum alterum non scieris ideo et manus Domini confortavit te et ideo eris benedicta in aeternum’ [And when she had come out to him, they all blessed her with one voice saying: you are the glory of Jerusalem, you are the joy of Israel, you are the honour of our people, for you have done this in a manly way, and your heart has been strengthened, because you loved chastity, and you have not known any other man after your husband and therefore also the hand of the Lord hath strengthened you, and therefore you shall be blessed for ever] , and Rabanus Maurus (9th c.) discusses her impeccable virtue at length. The author of the Judith poem would almost certainly have drawn on the Vulgate, and not obscure Hebrew versions of the text (of which only late copies survive), thus he would have been familiar with Jerome's addendum. Given Maurus' temporal and geographical proximity, I believe it reasonable to posit that the poet would have known either directly or indirectly of Maurus' commentary on the Book of Judith. I believe it fallacious to simply state that the Vulgate Judith does not exhibit similar virtuosity to the Old English rendering of her character, but it is true that stylistically, as is wont for many Old English poets, her epithets and the lengthy descriptions of the extent to which God loves her do emphasise these aspects of her character. I would like to edit the article myself to address these issues, but would like to hear opinions on the matter first. --Nihil impossibile arbitror. 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Nihil impossibile arbitror. 23:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ðœð (talkcontribs)