BOOK OF JUDGES: EXPLANATORY NOTES

ABBREVIATIONS: CA: Gower, Confessio Amantis; CM: Cursor mundi; CT: Chau­cer, Canterbury Tales; DBTEL: A Dic­tionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, ed. Jeffrey; HS: Peter Comes­tor, Historia Scholastica, cited by book and chapter, followed by Patrologia Latina column in paren­theses; K: Kalén-Ohlander edition; MED: Middle English Dictionary; NOAB: New Oxford Annotated Bible; OED: Oxford English Dictionary; OFP: Old French Paraphrase, British Library, MS Egerton 2710, cited by folio and column; Whiting: Whiting, Proverbs, Sentences, and Pro­verbial Phrases; York: York Plays, ed. Beadle. For other abbreviations, see Textual Notes.

3165–67 The cyté of Salem . . . Sythen cald Jerusalem. Judges 1:21 does not give the earlier name of the town. Nor does Joshua 15:63 or 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 5:6. The Paraphrase is parallel to OFP 26d here (“Tant unt conquis qu’il venent a Salem / Que chrestiens apelent Jerusalem”), which has probably either picked up the old name from Vulgate Psalm 76:2 or HS 2 Reg. 7 (1329), which corresponds to the 2 Kings passage cited above and in which Comestor discusses the etymology and history of the name Jerusalem (Ohlander, “Old French Parallels,” p. 211).

3187–88 Bot in Ebron fast have soyght / unto mowntans wher gyantes dweld. These two lines, K notes (1:clxxxvi), do not correspond precisely with Judges 1:20. The spies sent by Moses to reconnoiter the Promised Land report back, in Numbers 13:33, that giants — the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 — live in the area, and among those locations that they have specifically visited is, indeed, Hebron. This exchange is perhaps behind HS Jud. 2 (1273): “Ascendit et Caleb in Hebron terram, scilicet gigantum, et percussis hostibus, plenius possedit eam,” which in turn has given the detail to OFP 26d (Ohlander, “Old French Parallels,” p. 212).

3239 Next Salen nere besyde. “Gibeah is identified with Tell el Ful, four miles north of Jerusalem” (NOAB, p. 327).

3241–88 The vengeance upon Benjamin for the rape and murder of the Levite’s con-cubine is out of place here, as it should follow Samson and Delilah rather than precede it. This alteration of events has no parallel in either HS or OFP, though Ohlander points out that the latter does, at least, correspond with the Paraphrase in ending Judges with Samson’s death (“Old French Parallels,” p. 212).

3245–46 An Ebrew com ther in the way / with his wyfe, full fayre and fre. Judges 19:1 specifies that the man is a Levite from near Ephraim, and the woman is his concubine from Bethlehem, rather than his wife.

3247–48 Amang themself then can thei say, / “Yond woman this nyght weld wyll we.” The Paraphrase-poet has omitted some of the less-savory details of this gruesome event. The man and his concubine, foreigners in the area, found shelter in the home of an old man, and the townspeople (all reported to be Benjaminites) surrounded the house and demanded that the foreigner be brought out so that they could “abuse him” (i.e., have intercourse with him, Judges 19:22). In order to prevent his own rape, the man took his concubine — most commentators, like the Paraphrase, have read this as his own wife — and “abandoned her to their wickedness” (Judges 19:25), allowing her to be raped all night. The woman manages to crawl back to the house at dawn but dies with her hand upon the threshold, where her master/husband finds her in the morning.

3257 He sent to cetys lesse and more. Again, the poet has cleaned up his text (see note to lines 3247–48, above), as Judges 19:29–30 reports that he does not just send word to all the parts of Israel that she needs to be avenged: using his sword he hacks her body into twelve pieces to be sent to the twelve parts of Israel.

3263 Ten thowsand sone. Presumably this is the first wave of fighting, led by Judah, in which Judges 20:21 reports Israelite losses as twenty-two thousand.

3267–68 For Fynyes then was not fayn / of the feyghyng, for all ware Jews. Phinehas’ reluctance short-circuits the biblical story, as it should not occur until a second day of the fighting, after several defeats. It is then that he asks God whether or not they should thus fight and kill their kin (Judges 20:28). The Lord answers yes, and He promises to deliver the Benjaminites into their hands on the third day.

3271 Twenty milia sone ware slayn. Judges 20:35 indicates that 25,100 Benjaminites were killed in Phinehas’ decisive attack.

3277–88 The twin stories of the women of Shiloh are here omitted entirely, probably as the picture they paint of Israelite behavior is far too dark for the positive account that the poet wished to create. According to Judges 21:1, the Israelites had sworn an oath not to give any of their daughters to the six hundred surviving men of the Benjaminites. Yet having wiped out all of the remainder of that lineage, they came to realize that they were facing the extinction of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Unable to provide wives from their own peoples due to the oath, the Israelites opted for two different methods of procuring wives for the six hundred. The first (Judges 21:1–14) involved a technical loophole: the town of Jabesh-gilead had sent no one to make the oath, so their daughters were fair game. The rest of the Israelites promptly killed all of the town’s inhabitants aside from four hundred young virgins who were brought to Shiloh where they were given to the surviving Benjaminites. Unfortunately, two hundred men were still without wives. So the Israelites then allowed the Benjaminites to abduct girls from the town of Shiloh when they were dancing in the fields (21:15–24). In other words, to repopulate the nearly extinct tribe the “other tribes resorted to murder, kidnap, and rape,” which “paints a pathetic picture of Israelite society” to close out the book of Judges (NOAB, p. 330). Here, of course, the book does not end, as the story has been moved to set the stage for the coming of Samson, marking him even more as an early “savior” of his people.

3279 Bot sex hunderth that fled on lyve. Judges 20:47 explains that the six hundred survivors fled to the rock of Rimmon, where they remained for four months while the victors pillaged their lands and set their homes to the torch. These survivors were all fighting men. See the note to lines 3277–88.

3313 Cenys. The Paraphrase-poet has misunderstood the name of this early judge. Properly speaking, this hero is not Kenaz, but the son of Kenaz, named Othniel (compare Judges 3:9). This is probably the result of misreading HS Jud. 5 (1274): “Othoniel, fratrem Caleb, quem Josephus Cenem vocat, quasi equivocum patri. Et dicitur Cenem, quasi Cenezaeus a loco.”

3355 aghtene yeres. Judges 3:30 has eighty years, as does HS Jud. 6 (1275).

3368 in batell to hym them betwene. Compare CM Cotton, line 16454.

3376–78 for hungar . . . no fode thei fand. That the Israelites were first stricken with a seven-year famine and then by the power of the Midianite and Amelekite invasions stands somewhat against Judges 6:1–6. In the biblical account, it is the invaders who for seven years cause the famine by destroying Israel’s crops. Perhaps the Paraphrase-poet desires to provide a stronger Israel that could not have been susceptible to attack.

3389 He in His trowth was trew. That is, God is true to His promise to protect Israel against its enemies.

3398 in a prevé stede. Judges 6:11 explains that Gideon did this work in private in order to keep it from the prying eyes of the oppressors, who would have destroyed or looted such things.

3405–08 he suld asay . . . that God His servant had hym sent. The poet skips over Gideon’s specific doubts and the first signs of divine presence, which are accounted in Judges 6:13–35. Instead, the Paraphrase moves quickly to the sign of the fleece.

3434 and fenys not for scheld ne spere. The detail about the men’s treatment of their weaponry is apparently an attempt on the part of the poet to produce a rational explanation for this puzzling biblical story. The Bible says nothing about weapons, explaining only that those who draw the water to their mouths will be better fighters than those who draw their mouths to the water. The former are associated with dogs in the Bible, just as the latter are associated with mules in the Paraphrase. The poet, clearly dissatisfied with such “explanations,” tries to explain that those who draw water to their mouths do so because they do not want to set down their weaponry and thus make better fighters.

3464 sexty fayr suns. Both Judges 8:30 and HS Jud. 9 (1281) agree on the number of sons as seventy.

3478 for gold and grett maystry. Again and again the Paraphrase-poet marks the falling away of the Israelites into idolatry as a result of avarice (compare line 3230), whereas the Bible tends more to view their wanderings from God as simple issues of religion: they are habitual idolaters, not habitual misers. That the Paraphrase alters this perception could be due to any number of factors, but two possibilities stand out most strongly. First, the poet may be altering in accordance with the stereotypical presentation of Jews as rich, greedy, and miserly. While this accords well with many late medieval perceptions of the Jews, it stands somewhat at odds with the otherwise positive portrayal of the Jews in his account. Another possibility, then, is that the poet is altering for the purpose of example, projecting a primary vice of his time back onto the biblical story in order to make a moral point for his audience.

3493 Gepte was a knyght in armys clere. Jephthah’s position as an outcast is unmentioned here. Judges 11:1–3 relates that he was the son of a prostitute who was driven away from his father’s home due to his unsavory mother. Perhaps such details are unworthy of the noble light that the poet seems so keen on casting upon his biblical subjects.

3517–88 In his edition of the story of Jephthah and his daughter, Peck observes that the Paraphrase-poet “alters several details of the Vulgate text by developing Jephthah’s concern for his daughter, his falling from his horse in grief, his daughter’s self-sacrificing responses to his vow; by deleting the daughter’s lament for her virginity; and by adding details of Jephthah’s execution of the vow with beheading and cremation” (Heroic Women from the Old Testament, p. 148). It is interesting to note that the poet does not follow HS Jud. 13 (1284) in his expansion and alteration of the tale. Clearly the drama of the story itself moved him to make such shifts.

3557 graunteys me grace two wekes to wake. Judges 11:37 records that she was given two months in order to mourn her virginity. Here, however, such mourning is done away with and replaced by what Peck calls “a premium on virginity” (Heroic Women from the Old Testament, p. 149). Thus, like the condemned Virginia in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale, Jephthah’s daughter celebrates rather than mourns her chaste death; indeed, Virginia cites Jephthah’s daughter as an example for her willingness to suffer death at the hand of her father (CT VI[C]235–50).

3573–76 Therfor hyr fader noyght leved . . . and bad scho suld be brent. The detail of the beheading, like so many of the details in this expansion of the biblical story, is from the hand of the poet (see note to lines 3517–88). Both the Bible and HS record the offering as a burnt offering, saying nothing of her execution prior to being put to the flames. The added detail here — in addition to heightening simultaneously the horror and the mercy of the scene — emphasizes Jephthah’s blind obedience and nobility. He is noble in smiting off his daughter’s head with one clean stroke, thus diminishing her suffering, but he is also foolish in admirably not breaking his vow, as the poet protests: he should never have given the vow to begin with, and, having given the vow, he probably should not have kept it (lines 3581–84). The story, no doubt like Jephthah’s blade, is double-edged.

3592 Achyron. As Ohlander has observed, the Paraphrase-poet is in accordance with OFP 30b (“Apres cestui regna Abialon; / Dis anz apres e puis regna abdon”) in mistaking the burial place of the judge Elon for his name. Thus we have here not Elon, but Aijalon, the place where Elon is buried (“Old French Parallels,” p. 212); compare Judges 12:11–12.

3601–4440 It is interesting to compare the story here with other Samson stories in Middle English, such as CM, lines 7083–7262, Chaucer’s Monk’s Tale (CT VII [B2]2015–94), and Lydgate’s Fall of Princes 2.6336–6510. Generally, these fictional retellings emphasize the heroic quality of Samson’s story and his fall at the hands of a woman, rather than any theological characteristics (compare, too, Gower’s CA 8.2703–04, where Samson is with the company of the ill-fated lovers Paris, Troilus, and Hercules [CA 8.2529–60]). The Paraphrase, not surprisingly, follows precisely this line of purpose, treating the story as a romantic narrative. The poetic license that the Paraphrase-poet takes in working to this end is notable and, as Ohlander has observed, often parallels OFP (“Old French Parallels,” pp. 212–13). To record all variances of the Paraphrase from the biblical account would be superfluous, as this story has the feel of a set piece dropped into the otherwise straightforward paraphrasing of the Bible. For an overview of literary treatments of Samson, see DBTEL, pp. 677–79.

3605 Was haldyn chefe of chewalry. The Bible gives little detail about Manoah, but the poet seems to have no difficulty filling in the blanks with an anachron-istic reference to his chivalric qualities. It would make sense, of course, for the great warrior Samson to come from such stock.

3609–12 The mourning of Manoah’s wife over their inability to conceive a child stands in juxtaposition with the mourning over Jephthah’s daughter about her virgin fate.

3670 bare withowtyn blame. The language here, giving details original to the poet, borders on that reserved for Mary and the Immaculate Conception and birth of Christ. The basic features of that story have certainly been put into place here: a couple with no children, an annunciation by God’s angel, the doubts of the husband, a miraculous birth that leaves no blemish on the woman. Such relationships were familiar in the allegorical tradition of Christian biblical exegesis, where Samson was often viewed as a prefiguration of Jesus (see, e.g., Augustine’s Sermo de Samsone [PL 39:1639–45] or Isidore of Seville’s Mysticorum expositiones sacramentorum [PL 83:389–90]). But while the poet has heightened such connections with his various alterations to the story, he stops short of producing definite parallels. That is, though the poet pushes against the envelope of a literal reading of the text here, he does not go so far as to cross the border into allegorical exegesis: in the end the elu-sive parallels remain only allusive hints of deeper significance. On the essentially Victorine quality of such behavior, see the introduction.

3701 Hym toyght her. The poet’s use of dative of agency here is interesting. It is as if her beauty possesses him, making him passive in the face of it — which is, indeed, how most of Samson’s troubles begin.

3713 His moyder morned. The detail is not in the Bible, but the personal touch fits well with the poet’s work to heighten verisimilitude throughout this poem.

3845 Of turnamentes ther. The poet continues to paint his story in contemporary chivalric strokes, here presenting the tournaments that would accompany a fourteenth-century aristocratic wedding. In addition to presenting Samson as a man of knightly excellence, such details would no doubt put the poet’s audience into the romantic mindset, associating Samson more with Guy of Warwick, Bevis of Hampton, and other romance figures than with Gideon, Saul, and other biblical figures. For more on the blurring of the line between romance and Scripture in the Paraphrase, see the introduction.

3849–56 Becawse he was so strang . . . for ferd of fare that myght befall. The Paraphrase neatly explains the cause of the thirty people who follow Samson about the town, an offhand and unexplained detail given in Judges 14:11, by claiming that Samson’s prowess was so great that the people feared to leave him alone in town.

3873–74 Avyse yow . . . the question this es. The poet emphasizes Samson’s skills in rhetoric here and elsewhere. This brand of oratory in dialogue, a mannered rhetoric, heightens the ties to romance in this section of the poem.

3875–76 Owt of the herd come fode, / and of the swalowand swettenes. The need to meet rhyme has apparently taken precedence over the need to present an accurate rendition of the riddle: the terms have here been reversed. Judges 14:14 presents the riddle thus: “Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.” Strangely, the “revised” version of the riddle is almost more intelligible: “Out of the strong came forth food, and out of the eater came forth sweetness.”

3881 Of sevyn days respeyt thei hym prayd. In Judges 14:12 Samson presents a seven-day window as a part of the initial riddle agreement. The poet alters this, perhaps, to heighten Samson’s magnanimity, as he graciously allows them a full week at their request. Even his reply picks up the language of authority and grace: “I grawntt your askyng, sers” (line 3883).

3889 When thei had soyght faur days or fyve. The detail here, though seemingly insignificant, might tell us a great deal about the biblical text that the poet has at hand, as the Vulgate reads seven days, following the Hebrew (as does HS Jud. 17 [1287]). But the Greek (LXX) and Syriac versions of the text read four (a reading followed in most modern translations, such as NRSV). It is possible, then, that such a small difference provides further evidence of the poet’s reliance on Cassiodorus’ translation (see the introduction).

3985–4020 Samson’s response to the people of Timnah and his subsequent attack on Ashkelon are presented quite differently than they are in the Bible. Here, Samson’s response is to determine that he is at a disadvantage among the Philistines in Timnah, as they have a thirty-brute squad watching his every move. Samson is thus a calculating hero, willing to bide his time for revenge. Ashkelon becomes a way of passing the time, apparently, as he goes to rescue the beleaguered city and hand it over to its rightful owner, the Jews, who not incidentally point out that all of their grief is due to the Philistines (Ashkelon was actually historically a Philistine city, on the southern coast of the Mediterranean). The Bible, on the other hand, presents Samson as a man of immediate action in response to the deceptive Philistines in Timnah: he sets off at once for Ashkelon, and he plunders it for the reward that he gives to the men who “solved” the riddle. Such action, of course, does not well fit the romance hero that the Paraphrase-poet is working to present.

4043–44 Of swylke maner he noyed / Phylysteyns for his wyfe. The fate of Samson’s wife is not here given. Judges 15:6–8 relates that the Philistines, when they learned that Samson had destroyed their crops because of Samson’s wife, took the young woman and her father (who had given her to the second man) and burned them both. Samson, angered at this action, too, makes great slaughter among them to avenge the deaths of those whose actions had set in motion his initial need for vengeance. The tempestuousness of this Samson is here reduced, as the two sides, Philistine and Jew, good and evil, be-liever and pagan, hero and enemy, Samson and all comers, are much more clearly defined.

4097 He fand a cheke bone of an asse. The detail of the killing weapon (given in Judges 15:15–17) might be the ultimate source for the tradition that such an object was also utilized by Cain in killing Abel (see the note to line 236). A jawbone weapon, whether in the hands of Cain or Samson, is not as far-fetched as it might seem at first glance: NOAB notes that jawbones can easily be “worked into a sickle” (p. 322). Samson’s early story thus has vestiges of crops and harvesting throughout (note, for instance, the need for water in Samson’s “seson” in line 4127).

4184 Tabor, that was a heygh hyll. The Paraphrase ought to read Hebron, as does HS Jud. 18 (1289), following Judges 16:3. Tabor is, indeed, a high hill, but it is in the wrong part of the Holy Land, being in the north, near the Sea of Galilee, rather than in the south near the Dead Sea. To be sure, the geography is exaggerated in either case — Gaza to Hebron is almost a fifty mile trek with a vertical ascent of over three thousand feet — but we can hardly suspect that the poet knew enough of the geography (or intended his audience to be familiar enough with it) to make the exaggeration that much more exaggerated by tripling the distance that Samson carries the gates of Gaza. Perhaps, then, the poet has mistakenly transplanted Tabor from elsewhere in Judges: it is the staging ground for Deborah and Barak in 4:6, and it is where Gideon’s brothers are killed in 8:18.

4201 With wemen wold he wun and wend. The moralia of the story are clear, as the indomitable Samson proves Herculean to the core. Such readings of the story were common, especially in the all-too-often misogynist Middle Ages. See, for example, Abelard’s Planctus Israel super Samson, where connections, too, are made to Adam’s fall at the hand of a woman’s wiles.

4225 Dalida, doyghtur dere. The Bible does not actually say that Delilah was a Philistine, the Sorek valley being of mixed population. Nevertheless, her willingness to aid the Philistines has long been taken as indicative of her own ancestry — though this is only assumption. That Delilah is a harlot is not made clear in the Bible, but that tradition, too, has a long history, reaching back at least as far as Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 5.8.11). Pseudo-Philo not only regards her as a harlot but also as Samson’s wife (43.5).

4229 Wold thou qwayntly of hym enquere. It is difficult not to see a pun on qwayntly, which I have glossed as “cunningly.” Delilah will no doubt use her cunning to achieve her ends, but she will also use her cunt to effect her desires. The same pun is famously utilized in Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale, when Nicholas, who is “ful subtile and ful queynte,” catches Alisoun by her “queynte” and has sex with her (CT I[A]3275–76).

4233–36 So may thou stynt all stryve, / and gyftes we sall thee gyfe / To lede a ladys lyve, / os lang os thou may lyfe. Though the poet follows so much of the tradition in associating Delilah with dangerous lust and wanton sexual behavior, thus making the story one that follows antifeminist traditions, he is apparently reluctant to allow such generalizations to stand without comment. Thus he problematizes such readings by introducing the possibility that Delilah is acting, if not entirely honorably, at least with ultimately good intentions: she is told that learning Samson’s secrets might lead to peace in the land. Even more, she is given the chance to lead the life of a “lady,” a term that would resonate in the late Middle Ages as the marker of a good woman, far from the life of harlotry that Delilah had previously led. These possible excuses are not paralleled in the Bible, but we must also observe that the poet is ultimately quite condemning of her despite these additional details; see line 4311.

4311 I deme hyr a dewle os I dare. A rare seemingly personal comment from the poet — whose occasional first-person intrusions are generally of simple narrative relation (e.g., “as I told you earlier”) — but an intrusion that fits in perfect consort with the long tradition of antifeminist readings of the Samson and Delilah story. E.g., Abelard, toward the end of his short poem Planctus Israel super Samson, writes:

O semper fortium
Ruinam maximam,
Et in exitium
Creatam feminam! (lines 54–57)

[O woman, always the greatest ruin of the strong,
and created to destroy!]

Even more pertinent for the Paraphrase-poet, of course, is Comestor, HS Jud. 19 (1289–90), who also regards Delilah as a type of the inconstant woman and makes a succinct and devastating attack on women in concluding his tale: “Omnis enim mulier fere naturaliter avara, et levis, unde addam: Quid levius flumine? flamen. Quid flamine? fama. Quid fama? mulier. Quid muliere? nihil.” [Everyone knows woman to be naturally greedy and fickle, to which I will add: What is more fickle than the river? Fire. What more than fire? Fame. What more than fame? Woman. What more than woman? Nothing].

4313–14 Now nedes Sampson forto beware, / les he be wrethed with his awn wand. The poet seems to be pushing a pun upon wand: if Samson might be chastised with a metaphorical rod of his own making it will be because of his inability to control the urging of his physical rod.

4339 Scho dyd hym drynke of dyverse wyn. In Judges 16:19 Samson simply falls asleep in Delilah’s lap. Here she gets him to drink himself into a stupor. This change clearly compounds her duplicity, while it also makes his lack of awareness more plausible. In addition, it allows the poet to make a moral point about the dangers of alcohol as well as the foolish rituals of sexual infatuation.

4341 So yll wemen wyll glose. Glossing, the act of interpreting a text (by commenting that can either clarify or obscure its meaning), has various reverberations in Middle English, ranging from the Summoner’s famous statement that “Glosynge is a glorious thyng, certeyn, / For lettre sleeth, so as we clerkes seyn” (CT III[D]1793–94) to the Wife of Bath’s happy proclamation that her fifth husband could wel “glose” her in bed when he handled her “bele chose” (CT III[D]509–10). The Paraphrase-poet, being a man of the letter, would surely attack the Summoner, but he might well confirm the Wife of Bath’s pride as the mark of a wicked woman’s glossing and its effects. It is interesting to note, in this regard, that the Wife of Bath reports that her husband Jankyn read her a sequence of stories about wicked women in order to convince her to behave more properly, beginning with the biblical examples of Eve and Delilah (CT III[D]721–23). His plan famously failed as she turned the tables (and the book) on him and got more of the marriage bridle in her hand than ever before. Chaucer’s repeated use of Delilah, an exegetical type of the inconstant woman, in the Wife’s Prologue is no mistake.

4343–44 For men sall not suppose / in them none yll entent. The sententious statement here functions like a full stop, tying up what has gone before. This literary device is used with frequency through Samson’s story.

4351 Hys hare scho cutt of ylka dele. In Judges 16:19 she calls a man into the room to shave off his hair, but in most popular imaginings of the tale, as here, she does the deed herself. Compare, for example, Milton’s Samson Agonistes or Albrecht Dürer’s 1493 woodcut.

4368 lady of landes. The legality of this title is noteworthy, as it makes Delilah into a woman of property, of estate and entitlement. See note to lines 4421–22.

4411–12 And on a pyller war thei brayd / that bare up all on ylka syde. Judges 16:29 records the structure as supported by two pillars, but the Paraphrase here parallels OFP in providing only one. Likely such a “centerpole” structure was more easily understood by poet and audience alike.

4419 ther by his bake myght rest. This additional detail (Judges 16:26 says only that he wants to “rest a little”) is a part of Samson’s lie, his use of rhetoric to destroy his enemies.

4421–22 Dame Dalyda on deese was drest / with mony a wyght in worthy wede. The Paraphrase-poet follows both popular tradition and OFP in specifically mentioning Delilah as present in the destruction and thereby killed (Ohlander, “Old French Parallels,” p. 213). The Bible says nothing of her fate.

4427–28 Bot the boy, that he can warne / to wend owt of the wons. That Samson warns the boy who has brought him to the pillar, and thus gives him time to escape the destruction, is a detail not found in the Bible. The Paraphrase is here parallel to OFP (Ohlander, “Old French Parallels,” p. 213).

4431 All for he wold that woman slo. Judges 16:28 gives Samson’s rationale as vengeance for the taking of his eyes, but the majority of medieval accounts, as here, center the vengeance on Delilah’s treachery. In CM, for instance, we find the remarkable detail (apparently original) that Samson pulls down the pagan temple not at a feast in honor of Dagon but at Delilah’s marriage feast (she having become engaged to a fellow Philistine behind Samson’s back); see CM, lines 7247–62. Later Renaissance retellings shifted the purpose of Samson’s final action once more, regarding Samson (in exegetical incarnation as a prefiguration of Christ) as a martyr whose sole desire in destroying the temple is to fulfill God’s bidding against the Philistines and their pagan god, Dagon (thus Milton’s Samson Agonistes or Francis Quarles’ Historie of Sampson). To some degree, this Renaissance view moves the commentary of the tale full circle, as Josephus, one of the first writers to treat Samson in any large way, casts Samson in a very sanctified light (see Jewish Antiquities 5.8.12).

4435–36 So wakynd weyre and mekyll wo / all throw a wekyd woman wyle. Ohlander notes (“Old French Parallels,” p. 213) that the Paraphrase-poet diverges from OFP considerably at this point:

The OFr. poet denounces woman’s cunning most energetically, one might say with great personal engagement. He addresses to Samson an earnest entreaty not to let himself be deceived, he holds up Adam and Joseph as warning examples. Then he exclaims: “Pur nent, seignurs, pur nent les chastiun, / L’engin de femme l’ad pris en mal laçun” (fol.33d). Against the background of this personal approach the ME. poet seems rather tame in his matter-of-fact statement.

4440 more yett men may lere. The more immediately to follow is Ruth, since the poet has altered the order of Judges (see note to lines 3241–88). The result juxtaposes Samson and Delilah with Ruth: Samson was unable to control his sexual impulses and could at times be disloyal to the Jewish cause; Ruth is profoundly loyal to the Jews (even if she is not one herself) and is in complete control of her impulses. Delilah is made the epitome of the worst of women; Ruth is made the best. Delilah is “wyld” while Ruth is “tame” (see line 4441). Though we cannot know whether this juxtaposition was intentional, it is effective. If one of the lessons of the Samson story as told by the poet is that people get what they deserve, it is a lesson that is continued in the story of Ruth. There is, indeed, more that men may lere.

BOOK OF JUDGES: TEXTUAL NOTES

ABBREVIATIONS: L: MS Longleat 257; H: Heuser edition (partial); K: Kalén-Ohlander edition; O: Ohlander’s corrigenda to K; P: Peck edition (partial); S: MS Selden Supra 52 (base text for this edition).

3157, 59 Lines indented to leave space for an initial capital; first letter of line 3157 writ¬ten in the middle of the space.

3171 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 30r): no heading.

3175 layd. S: inserted above the line.

3176 fell. So S, O, Stern (p. 281). L, K: few.

3184 bot. So L, K. S: bo.
unteld. So L, K. S: vntyll.

3191 land. So L, K. S: landes.

3197 thore. S: þer þore.

3207 God. So L, K. S omits.

3210 whyls. So L, K. S: whys.

3219 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 30v): no heading.

3228 kepe to. So L, K. S: to kepe.

3235 Bynjamyns. S: beniam byniamyns.

3239 nere. S: þ nere.

3248 we. S: inserted above the line.

3250 qwat₂. So S. L: what. K: qwatt.

3263 thei. S, L, K: the.

3266 rews. S: s inserted below canceled ed.

3273 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 31r): no heading.

3276 syn. So L, K. S: sym.

3278 pyn. So L, K. S: payn.

3281 thryve. So L, K. S: thyrn.

3282 acordyd. So L, K. S: acordyng.

3297–98 So L, K. S omits lines.

3302 maynten. So L, K. S: mayntem.
hym. So L, K. S: he.

3308 them. So L, O. S, K: thei.

3323 come the. So L, O. S, K: come to the.

3327 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 31v): no heading.

3353 then ordand. So L, K. S: ordand þen.

3356 surely. So L, K. S: serely.

3357 regned. So L, K. S: remeued.

3381 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 32r): no heading.

3386 thei. So L, K. S: þat.
Hys. So L, K. S: hy.

3417 the. S: vnto þe cuntre.

3431 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 32v): no heading.

3445 Gedion. So K. S: Gedian. L: Gedeon.
yt. So L, K. S: ys.

3447 panyms. So L, K. S: payms.

3453 and. S: and þ.

3458 folke. So L, K. S omits.

3466 pyn. So L, K. S: payn, with a canceled.

3473 harnys. So L, O. S, K: armys.
owt. So L, O. S, K: of.

3481 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 33r): no heading.

3491 Gepte. So K. L: Iepta. S: Septe.

3493 Gepte. So K. L: Iepta. S: Septe.

3499 os. So L, K. S: of.

3502 to. So L, K. S omits.
myght. So L, K. S omits.

3505 hertly. So L, K. S: herthy.

3520 home. So L, K. S omits.

3521 byd. So L, K. S: hyd.

3523 saw. So L, K. S omits.

3526 not. So L, K. S omits.

3529 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 33v): no heading.

3538 comforth. So L, K. S: comferth.

3546 schent. S: inserted below the line.

3554 gud. S: gy gud.

3555 Leues. S: leys leues.
fader. So L, K. S omits.

3570 fader. So L, K. S omits.

3575 swopped. So K. S, L: swapped.

3577 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 16v): no heading.

3580 heddyd. S: he heddyd.

3581 be. So L, K. S omits.

3582 avysed. So L, O. S, K, P: abayst.

3583 Foyle vow. So L, K. S: ffeyle bow.

3584 sakles. So L, K. S: sakes.

3587 Both of. So S, L. K: of.

3592 Achyron. So S, K. L: Ailaon. The judge’s name is Elon (or Ahialon), as the L reading correctly reads. S’s Achyron appears to be tainted by Aijalon, which is the name of the place where Elon is buried.

3593 aght. Stern: VIII (Review, p. 281). S, K: XX. L: ?????? Compare Judges 12:14.
yere. So S, Stern (Review, p. 281). L, K omit.

3600 ware. S: inserted above canceled whar.

3603 in. So L, K. S: and.

3605 chewalry. S: chyl chewalry.

3606 worthy. So L, K. S: worth.

3612 Marginalia in S (at right of fol. 34v): Sampson.

3625 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 34v): no heading.

3627 of. So L, K. S omits.

3641 ferse. So L, K. S: forse.

3652 bycause. S: u inserted above the line.

3660 process. So L, K. S: processer.

3679 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 35r): no heading.

3694 Tanna. S: tannar.

3706 ther lay. So L, K. S: þat lady.

3720 he hys hert hade. So L, K. S: hys hert to hyre hade.

3724 kyng. So L, K. S: 3yng.

3729 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 35v): no heading.

3745 not. So L, K. S omits.

3763 forto. So L, K. S: fort.

3781 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 36r): no heading.

3816 to. S: inserted above canceled owt of.

3831 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 36v): no heading.
wore. So L, K. S: was borne.

3835 to. So L, K. S omits.

3841 of. S: oser of.

3852 tresty. So S. L: thryfty. K: trefty.

3864 abays. So O. S: abayst. L, K: abavst.

3868 it. So L, K. S omits.

3872 mony. S: inserted above canceled many.
to. S: inserted above the line.

3874 this. So L, K. S: þis þis.

3884 in hy. So L, K. S: a way.

3885 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 37r): no heading.

3890 clene. So L, K. S: clere.

3902 thiselfe. So S, L. K: thi folke.

3924 thryty. So L, K. S: thryrty.

3925 fayre. S: fader fayre.

3939 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 37v): no heading.

3941 How. So K. S, L: And how.

3944 lyon. S: inserted above the line.

3948 dyscrye. S: dr dsycrye.

3951 I not. So L, K. S: not I.

3956 fro. So L, K. S: to.

3957 is. So L, K. S omits.

3958 say. S: see say.

3962 sett. S: inserted above the line.

3968 mett. S: inserted below the line.

3987 if. So L, K. S: of.

3988 tyme. So L, K. S omits.

3990 well to deme. S: inserted below the line.

3991 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 38r): no heading.

3992 fayn. So L, K. S omits.

3997 has. S: corrected from hath.

4000 told. S: inserted above the line.

4010 fayn. S: inserted above the line.

4036 fers foxys. So Stern (Review, p. 281). S: fers wulfes. K: wulfes. L: wolves, corrected to foxes by a later hand.

4043 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 38v): no heading.

4046 was born. S: inserted above the line.

4058 mone. S: inserted above the line.

4062 S: scribe mistakenly copied line 4064 before canceling it and copying the correct line in the interlinear space.

4065 bynd. S: bryng bynd.

4071 lordes. So L, K. S: lord.

4075 he. So L, K. S omits.

4076 that ryot. So L, K. S: yt.

4083 bede. So L, K. S: bode.

4089 thei. So L, K. S: þer.

4090 thei. So L, K. S, Stern (Review, p. 281): þat.

4093 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 39r): no heading.

4094 well he. So L, K. S omits.

4099 panyms. So L, K. S: payms.

4106 them. So L, K. S omits.

4108 in. S: son in.

4117 God. S: w god.

4122 a. So L, K. S omits.

4134 moyght. S: inserted above canceled my3t.

4141 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 39v): no heading.

4165 whatso. S: t inserted above the line.

4179 fro. S: corrected from for.

4180 His. So L, K. S omits.

4182 postes. So L, O. S, K: postrons
tyll. S: inserted below the line.

4185 that. So L, K. S: þen, altered from þem.

4189 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 40r): no heading.

4198 he. So L, K. S omits.

4203 yf. So L, K. S: of.

4205 Soreth. So L, K. S: secrett.

4207 hert all hale to. So L, K. S: hale.

4218 thei. So L, K. S omits.

4222 dyssayve. So S, L. K: dyssauyue.

4230 wyghtnes. S: t inserted above the line.

4238 Marginalia in S (at bottom of fol. 40r): quintus.

4239 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 40v): no heading.

4243 myghtis. So L, O. S, K: myghis.

4251 me. So L, K. S omits.

4288 scho. S: scho sch.

4290 and. So L, K. S: A.

4291 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 41r): no heading.

4300 wast. S: inserted above the line.

4310 hed. So L, K. S: hend.

4314 be. So L, K. S omits.

4330 by. So L, K. S omits.

4333 pyn. So L, K. S: payn.

4337 fyn. So L, K. S: feyn.

4345 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 41v): no heading.

4353 delfull. So L, K. S: defull.

4358 hyd. S: inserted above the line.

4362 byd. S: inserted below the line.

4365 Gaza. So L, K. S: ga all.
ga. So L, K. S omits.

4380 gret. So L, K. S: gre.

4386 hyd. S: inserted below the line.

4388 dyd. So L, K. S: dy3t.

4389 hir. So L, K. S: his.

4399 Marginalia in S (at top of fol. 42r): no heading.

4424 that. S: and that.

4438 he. So L, K. S omits.