SOURCE: Timmer, B. J. Introduction to Judith, edited by B. J. Timmer, pp. 1-16. Exeter, Eng.: University of Exeter, 1978.

[In the following essay, originally published in 1952, Timmer surveys previous scholarly perspectives on Judith and offers his own theory regarding the work's date as well as comments on its literary merits.]

DATE

Judith is a good example of the difficulty of assigning a date to Old English poetry, for it has been put at various dates from the seventh to the tenth century or even later. Some of the earlier editors ascribed it to Cædmon, others to Cynewulf or his school. Both these theories may now be rejected on account of the phonological evidence, if not for other reasons.

The first to give a definite date to the poem was Cook, who propounded the theory (ed. 1904, xi) that “the poem of Judith was composed in or about the year 856, in gratitude for the deliverance of Wessex from the fury of the heathen Northmen, and dedicated … to the adopted daughter of England, the pride, the hope, the darling of the nation”, i.e. Judith, the stepmother of King Alfred, whom Alfred's father Æthelwulf had married on the continent in 856. This theory, too, must be rejected, for the state of the language, the metre, and the complete absence of early West Saxon forms point to a much later time. It is moreover difficult to see how the Northern origin—Cook prints a Northumbrian transcription of the poem in his 1904 edition—fits in with the theory that the poem was composed in gratitude for the deliverance of Wessex from the Danes.

In 1892 Foster (op.cit. 90 ff) advanced the theory that Judith really represented Queen Æthelflæd of Mercia, Alfred's daughter, and he arrived at the conclusion: “Æthelflæd, then, is Mercia's Judith, for she by no ordinary strategy, we are told, raised her Kingdom and people to their old position. She, like the Hebrew Judith, abandoned the older strategy of raid and battle, not indeed to murder the Danish chief, but to build fortresses and beleaguer her enemies. Æthelflæd, then, is a suitable and worthy heroine to have stirred a contemporary poet to his theme. … This suggestion would place our poem between the years 915 and 918 or soon after, during which period she obtained her greatest victories, dying in the last-mentioned year.” Though this theory is attractive, and though—as we shall see presently—the date is not impossible, there are objections to it. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does not go into raptures over Æthelflæd but simply calls her Myrcena hlæfdige, or merely Æðelflæd, and only gives information about her deeds. Not till the twelfth century do we find her treated as a heroine. William of Malmesbury (ed. Stubbs I. 136) calls her “fauor civium, pauor hostium” and Henry of Huntingdon (ed. T. Arnold 158) even writes a dithyrambic poem about her. Pre-Conquest England was not given to hero-worship. There is, then, no justification for assuming that Judith stands for Æthelflæd and this theory can certainly not be added in favour of Mercian origin of the poem, for a West Saxon, who had been with Alfred and later remained in the service of his daughter, might have written the poem.

There is, moreover, another objection that may be raised against Foster's theory. Judith belongs to the type of poetry to which Juliana and Elene belong, the religious epic describing the deeds of a fighting saint. In this kind of poetry the religious element was of paramount importance. Judith is saved, like Elene and Juliana, by the firmness of her Christian belief and her trust in God. The person is glorified in this poetry only on account of his or her belief. The religious strength of the heroines of these poems is placed in the foreground. This makes it very unlikely that a religious heroine like Judith would represent a secular queen, like Æthelflæd. But there was in the tenth century another kind of poetry devoted to secular figures. To this belong the poems in the Chronicle, Brunanburh, Eadmund, Edgar, the Death of Ælfred and Edward, as well as Maldon (991). These poems were written to commemorate a single worldly event in history. As Campbell (Brunanburh 37) remarks: “Such poems must have been a popular form of composition with certain poets of the age.” With the exception, possibly of Brunanburh, certainly of Maldon, their literary value is virtually negligible.

Thus we find in the tenth century two types of poetry: the poems dealing with certain historical events, panegyrics on historical figures, describing their worldly deeds and based on the heroic epic of former times, and on the other hand Judith, the religious epic, describing a saint in her religious deeds. There is no evidence that in the tenth century—or in any previous century, for that matter—poems were written about religious figures which symbolized historical figures. Judith represents the religious epic of a former period, just as Maldon represents the heroic epic of former times. On these grounds we reject Foster's theory that Judith represents Æthelflæd, and with it the Mercian origin of the poem is rejected, which agrees with the phonological evidence. But the possibility that our poem was inspired or suggested by the attacks of the Danes remains. It may have been written, as Brandl (Literaturgeschichte in Paul's Grundriss 1091) remarks, “to exhort man and woman to the utmost resistance, in the same way as Maldon”, but also, we would like to add, to strengthen their belief and trust in God.

METRE

The metre of Judith shows some irregularities that may have a bearing on the date of the poem. Campbell (op.cit. 33) remarks that in tenth-century poetry g and ȝ cannot be proved to alliterate. In Judith, however, g and ȝ do alliterate:

1. Judith ¦ gleaw 22. goldwine gumena ¦ gytesalum
2. on account of line 13 we may assume double alliteration in the first half-line: Judith æt guðe ¦ Gode
3. Judith gingran sine ¦ gegnum
4. ongeaton ¦ grame
5. Judith ¦ galmoda

Doubtful are lines 2, 9, 112, 149.

There is one case in which the alliteration is not in the first lift of the second half-line: 273 hogedon þa eorlas with vowel-alliteration in the first half-line. Lines 200, 212, 231, 243 are doubtful, for the verbs may be taken in unstressed anacrusis.

Double alliteration occurs in lines 78, 83, 85, etc, all in the form a b a b, which is proportionally more than in Beowulf (over 100 cases, see Klaeber, Beowulf, lxx).

Enjambment occurs in lines 1/2, 14/15, 28/29, etc, again more than in Beowulf proportionally (some 200 cases, see Klaeber, op.cit. p. lxx).

In some cases the finite verb bears the alliteration in the second half-lines, not the noun or verbal noun: 183, 204 (with double alliteration), 207, etc. In line 55 sn alliterates with st; cf st/s in Maldon 271.

There is in our poem a frequent use of rhyme; see 2, 23, 29, 60, etc, to which may be added e/æ in line 36. I do not think that 202 can be cited as proof of a Mercian origin on the ground that rhyme would be obtained, if the Mercian form for gerihte were restored (so Brandl, op.cit. 1091). The most striking thing, however, is the large number of expanded lines.¹ They are lines 2-12, 16-21, 30-34, 54-61, 63-68, 88-99 (with the exception of 96), 132, 272-274, 287-290, 338-349.

All these irregularities in the metre point to the late West Saxon period. Campbell's statement (op.cit. 33) that in the tenth century g and ȝcannot be proved to alliterate has now to be modified to the second half of that century; cf Timmer, Later Genesis 54. Kemp Malone (in Baugh, A Literary History of England 28) remarks: “Judith exemplifies the late stage of the run-on style”, and refers to his article in RES xix. 201-204. There are, however, some other considerations which will help in dating the poem rather more precisely.

As we have seen, there is a total lack of early West Saxon forms or traces of such forms in Judith. In the Later Genesis, which was composed about 900 or soon after and copied about the year 1000 in MS Junius 11, we still find early West Saxon forms (see LG, op. cit. 21 ff). If Judith belonged to the same period or to an earlier one, we should expect at least some traces of early West Saxon forms. Now when we consider the proportion of o or a before nasals—in Judith about 29 o to 32 a—we may say that Judith belongs to the first half of the tenth century, when in West Saxon (and Kentish) a became more and more frequent before a nasal, until it became almost exclusively used in the period of Ælfric. If the poem is of Mercian origin, there would surely have been a greater proportion of o's before nasals. The metre points to this period, too, as also the frequent use of article + adjective + noun, as in line 3 æt ðam mæran þeodne. In the older poetry this use was less frequent. In prose it became quite regular in the course of the tenth century. The first half of the tenth century as the date of our poem fits in very well with this syntactical peculiarity.

This period, however, can be limited down even more. In the passage describing the eagle hovering over the battlefield (lines 205-212), the adjectives urigfeðera, salowigpada and hyrnednebba are used of the eagle. Of these urigfeðera occurs in two well-known earlier poems, Elene 29, 111, Seafarer 25; salowigpada is found applied to the raven in Fortunes of Men 37, and in Brunanburh 61; hyrnednebba only in Judith and Brunanburh 62. Of these poems only Elene and Brunanburh give similar descriptions of the eagle, the raven and the wolf on the battlefield. As Elene is earlier than Judith, and as Brunanburh is a very artificial poem, which for its vocabulary draws largely upon older Old English poetry, it seems likely that the words urigfeðera, salowigpada and hyrnednebba were taken over by the Brunanburh poet from older poetry like Elene, but in the case of hyrnednebba this would point to the fact that Judith was composed before Brunanburh (937).

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that Judith may be dated round about 930, but before 937.

A few words may be added on the relationship between Judith and the Later Genesis. There are certain indications that the poet of Judith knew the Later Genesis (i.e. before it was inserted in the longer poem, generally called Genesis A, for this insertion was probably not made until MS Junius 11 was written down (cf. L.G., 15)). The word hreowigmod occurs only in Judith and the Later Genesis. Hearra, in the sense of ‘lord’, is frequent in the Later Genesis, but it is also found in Judith 56 (and in Maldon 204). Similarly, gingra ‘servant’ is the feminine form of geongra, which occurs in the Later Genesis. The compounds galferhð (62) and galmod (256) have gāl- as a first element, as in galscipe, LG 341; otherwise -gal only occurs as the second element of a compound. To these may be added some words discussed in the notes, fylgan 33; on lustum 161; perhaps hinsið 117; geweorðan + acc. 260.

The large number of expanded lines in Judith may well point to familiarity with the Later Genesis, for Judith is the only tenth-century poem with such a large proportion of expanded lines.

LITERARY APPRECIATION

In spirit Judith belongs to the religious epics, especially those dealing with the life of a female saint, such as Elene and Juliana. Its vocabulary shows the same characteristic: the use of stereotyped epic phrases common to that type of poetry. The kennings for God are those known from other religious epics, frymða Waldend, dugeða Waldend, swegles weard, etc: for ‘lord’ we find gumena baldor, wigena baldor, rinca baldor, etc, all known from heroic poetry. The epic formula gefrægen ic occurs twice. On the whole the reminiscences of the Germanic spirit are less prominent in Judith than in earlier religious epics. Apart from the use of the kennings for ‘lord’ we may note that Holofernes has a retinue of warriors who conduct him to his tent (69 ff) and who are called eorlas and beornas: Holofernes' feast is distantly reminiscent of the revelry in a Germanic hall, with this important difference, that in Judith the feast is a disorderly one. The warriors are actually called bencsittende and fletsittende; their armour is that of the Germanic warriors: byrne, helm, sweord, scild (and its synonyms), etc, with the cumbol and the guðfana; the battle is called æscplega, ecgplega or swyrdgeswing; the kennings for the warriors are the familiar ones, byrnwiga, cumbolwiga, etc; we even find the Germanic method of fighting in a scildburh. In these things the poem owes much to the religious epics. The poet may be assumed to have been familiar with the Cædmonian poems, Andreas, the Cynewulf poems, the Later Genesis and Beowulf, as may be seen from the notes to the text. A possible reminiscence of an incident in Beowulf is in lines 273 ff, where the poet says that the heathen warriors intended to rouse Holofernes, but him wiht ne speow. We may compare Wiglaf's attempt to revive Beowulf with water, but him wiht ne speow (Beowulf 2854). There is, however, no indication of the comitatus-idea: when the warriors find Holofernes dead, they take to their heels. On the whole the distance between Judith and her Hebrew followers, or between Holofernes and his followers, is much greater than between a Germanic lord and his retainers, even though the terminology is retained: the men are called ðegnas and Holofernes is sinces brytta. One characteristic feature in descriptions of a battle was taken over from older poetry. In his description of the battle (205-212) the traditional wolf, raven and eagle are introduced, who are eager for prey; cf Genesis 1442-49; Exodus 164; Elene 110 ff; Brunanburh 61 ff; Finnsburg 34; Beowulf 3024 ff; also Maldon 106 and cf the allusion in Wanderer 82.

Yet, in spite of this conventional side of the poem, it has been lavishly praised from the days of Sharon Turner down to the latest edition of Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Reader, where the poem is called “one of the noblest in the whole range of Old English poetry”. Such high praise is no doubt due to the picture of Judith as a human being and to the vividness of the descriptions. The drinking scene (17-32), Judith's prayer (83-94), the battlefield (205 ff), the battle (199 ff), all these are depicted with gusto and exuberance. The poet is fond of putting in details which give reality to his descriptions, such as the fleohnet round Holofernes' bed, the two blows with which Judith kills Holofernes, the rejoicing of the crowd at the news of Holofernes' death, the fear and excitement of the Assyrians as they are waiting outside Holofernes' tent (267-275). These descriptions show the poet's fondness for realistic detail. In this respect special attention may be drawn to the poet's attempt to put in some ironical effect. When the Assyrians are waiting for Holofernes to come out of his tent and lead them in the battle they are described as ‘coughing’, no doubt to attract his attention, for they do not know that he is dead, and in the next lines as gnashing their teeth and tearing their hair and clothes (271 and 281 ff) in their annoyance at having no success. There can be little doubt that this detail was put in by the poet with a view to the humorous effect, but as always when irony occurs in Old English poetry, it is of a grim nature (cf Timmer ‘Irony in Old English Poetry’, English Studies xxiv, 171-175).

There are really only two characters in the poem, Judith and Holofernes. Judith's maid remains very vague. Both Holofernes and Judith are clearly drawn characters, Holofernes in his cruelty, sinfulness and drunkenness and Judith in her courage and her goodness. The poet has given Judith the features of an Anglo-Saxon woman, with everything the Anglo-Saxons admired in their women. She is white and shining (beorht, ælfscinu), with curly hair (wundenlocc); she is noble and holy, but courageous (ides ellenrof) and above all wise (gleaw, snotere, searoðoncol, gleawhydig, gearoþoncol).

But though the poem deserves the high praise that has been bestowed upon it—even if one does not go quite so far as Henry Sweet did—it is the poet's character that wins it its high praise more than his art. His style is stereotyped and conventional, there are none of the bold metaphors of the Wanderer, nor is there the deeply moving tone of the Dream of the Rood. Like Maldon, it is imitatory in its art, but, as in Maldon, one feels behind it the strong character of the man who made it.

With regard to the source (see 14 f), the Apocryphal Book of Judith chapters xii. 10 to xvi. 1,² it may be remarked that the poet has reduced the number of characters, for the eunuch Vagao is not mentioned by name, nor are Nebuchadnezzar, Achior and Ozias. Moreover, the poet has only taken the main incidents, namely the Feast, the Slaying of Holofernes, the return to Bethulia, the fight against the Assyrians and their pursuit, winding up with a short description of the spoil and Judith's thanksgiving to God. Some details are faithfully taken over from the source: in quarto die xii. 10 in þy feorðan dogore, line 12; the handing over of Holofernes' head to the maidservant; per dies autem triginta xv. 13 in anes monðes fyrst, line 324. There are, however, some points of divergence. In the Vulgate (xii. 10), Judith is brought in to Holofernes during the feast, in the poem she is taken to Holofernes after the conclusion of the banquet. Perhaps the poet wanted to stress the sinfulness of excessive drinking, for the drinking habits of the Danes were notorious. So the poet gave a glowing description of the feast and then went on to say how, after his excessive drinking, Holofernes' thoughts turned to the sinful desire for Judith. A minor point of difference is that, whereas there is no battle in the original after the slaying of Holofernes (xiv. 2), in the poem there is a real fight at this point, when Judith has returned to Bethulia (lines 199 ff). In the original the Assyrians are so overcome by fear that they take to their heels at once (xiv. 7-xv. 8). Our poet, however, could not miss the opportunity of giving a wonderfully spirited description of a battle. But apart from these two cases the poet followed the original story, concentrating on the main incidents, but altering the order of events.

ABBREVIATIONS

• BTSu … J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (with Supplement).
• Beow … Beowulf, ed. F. Klaeber.
• D … Beowulf and Judith, ed. by E. Van Kirk Dobbie.
• ELH … English Literary History.
• ELN … English Language Notes.
• ES … English Studies.
• Foster … J. Gregory Foster, Judith (1892).
• Girvan … R. Girvan, Angelsaksisch Handboek, Haarlem 1932.
• Grein-Köhler C. W. M. Grein, Sprachschatz der angelsächsischen Dichter, ed. J. J. Köhler.
• JEGP … Journal of English and Germanic Philology.
• OHG … Old High German.
• Klaeber … Beowulf, ed. F. Klaeber.
• LG … B. J. Timmer, The Later Genesis (1948).
• Luick … K. D. Luick, Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache, Leipzig 1921, etc.
• MLN … Modern Language Notes.
• MLR … Modern Language Review.
• Mossé … F. Mossé, Manuel de l'Anglais du Moyen Age, Paris 1945.
• Nb … Northumbrian.
• NED … A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles.
• NM … Neuphilologische Mitteilungen.
• OE … Old English.
• ON … Old Norse.
• OSax … Old Saxon.
• PrGerm … Primitive Germanic.
• Pope … J. C. Pope, The Rhythm of Beowulf (1942).
• RES … Review of English Studies.
• SB … K. Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers, Halle 1951.
• Sisam … K. Sisam, Studies in the History of Old English Literature (1953).
• WSax … West Saxon.
• ZfdA … Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum.

Notes

1. Cf Timmer ‘Expanded Lines in Old English Poetry’, Neophilologus xxxv, 226-230.

2. The poet will have known the apocryphal book in the Latin translation by St. Jerome of Stridon (second quarter of the fourth century—420).

Bibliography

Editions

1904 A. S. Cook, Judith (Belles Lettres Series).

Criticisms, Studies, Etc.

1892 T. Gregory Foster, Judith, Studies in Metre, Language and Style, Quellen und Forschungen 71.

1908 A. Brandl, in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie II, 1091.

1948 Kemp Malone, in A. C. Baugh, A Literary History of England, Book I, Part I.

1971 J. J. Campbell, ‘Schematic technique in Judith’, ELH xxxviii 155-72.