¹ All citations are from the edition of Gordon, E. V. (Oxford 1953). In line 596, I substitute pertermynable (which Gordon considers the MS reading) for his preferred reading pretermynable; Osgood, C. G., ed. (Boston 1906), reads pretermynable without comment. The actual reading of the MS is ‘termynable’; see the facsimile ed. of Israel Gollancz (EETS, OS 162 [1923]) fol. 47^r.Google Scholar

² For close parallels, see 1 Reg. 26.23; Matt. 16.27; and particularly Rom. 2.6. Google Scholar

³ See Gordon's notes, pp. 65–6; and Osgood's, pp. 75–6. Google Scholar

⁴ Besides the references cited immediately, see the N(ew) E(nglish) Dictionary) ‘Term, sb.,’ 13 and 14. Google Scholar

⁵ NED, ‘Termine, v.,’ 2, supported by three clear examples from before 1430. Google Scholar

⁶ Hans Kurath and Kuhn, Sherman M., Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor, Mich.), A.1, p. 27, ‘-āble, adj. suf.’ On the numerous examples in OF and MF, see Eva Thorné Hammar, Le développement de sens du suffixe Latin -bilis en Français (Études romanes de Lund 6 [1942]) 78–102, 107–9, 150–73.Google Scholar

⁷ See NED, ‘Per-, prefix ¹,’ I, meanings 1 and 2. The following words, given here with the dates of their earliest listing in the NED, either contain or might easily have been thought to contain a durative per-: perdurable and perdurablyte (ca. 1374); perdurableliche (ca. 1250); perdure (ca. 1450); perhenuall (ca. 1485); permayn (1456); permanable (1413); permanence and permanente (1432–50); perpetuel (ca. 1340); perpetuelly, perpetualte, and perpetuacion (ca. 1380); perpetuitee (1406); perseuerable (ca. 1450); perseueraunce (ca. 1340); perseuerant (1413); perseuerantliche (1340); perseuere (ca. 1374). Google Scholar

⁸ PL 152.927; Damian Van den Eynde, O.F.M., ‘Complementary Note on the Early Scholastic Commentarii in Psalmos,’ Franciscan Studies 17 (1957) 164–6. disputes Bruno's authorship and places the Expositio after the middle of the twelfth century. On ‘Semel locutus,’ see also Anselm of Laon, PL 116.401 (assigned to Haymo of Halberstadt): ‘ “Deus locutus” scilicet omnia creans, locutus est nobis, dico locutus est “semel,” id est immutabiliter omnia creavit …’; Bruno of Asti, PL 164.920: ‘Ille semel loquitur, cujus verbum firmum, stabile et immutabile est’; Peter Lombard, PL 191.567: ‘… semel, id est æternaliter, locutus est Deus, id est disposuit omnia… .’; Gerhoch of Reichenberg, PL 193.1785: ‘locutione irretractabili’; Hugh of St. Cher, Opera omnia in universum Vetus, & Novum Testamentum (Venice 1732) 2 fol. 155^v: ‘… immutabiliter … per Prophetas, per filium, per Apostolos’; Albertus Magnus, Opera omnia, ed. Borgnet, A. 16 (Paris 1892) 100: ‘… semel locutus est Deus, id est, perfecte ordinavit ab æterno’; The Psalter … by Richard Rolle of Hampole, ed. Bramley, H. R. (Oxford 1884) 217: ‘for ane tyme, that is endelesse, spake god, that is, he ordeyned all thinge… .’; and Nicolas of Lyra and Denis the Carthusian as quoted below and in note 9. The interpretation is also included in the Distinctiones by Alanus of Lille, PL 210.939–40.Google Scholar

⁹ Moralia super totam Bibliam (Cologne 1478; Huntington Library copy). The fifteenth-century Denis the Carthusian, Doctoris ecstatici Dionysii D. Cartusiani opera omnia (Montreuil 1898) 6.125: ‘ “Semel,” id est sine retractatione, utpote immobiliter, firmiter atque certissime, locutus est Deus, per se ipsum jam incarnatum, et per Prophetas ac Apostolos. “Duo hæc audivi,” in illa locutione occulta et interna, scilicet in illuminatione supernaturali facta per Spiritum Sanctum. Quæ autem sint duo hæc, subdit: “quia potestas Dei est,” id est justa potentia ad puniendum iniquos; “et tibi, Domine, misericordia” ad coronandum bonos ultra condignum. Et hoc sic esse, constat ex eo, “quia tu reddes unicuique juxta opera sua” tanquam justissimus judex… . Videtur autem hic potestas pro justitia accipi, quia ad exercendum justitiam præcipue est necessaria potestas.’ See also the interpretations accompanying all the references in note 8 above.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Opera omnia 7 (Quaracchi 1895) 352. In his sermon for the fifth Sunday after Epiphany (ibid., 9.193), Ps. 61.12–3 is related, rather distantly, to the Parable of the Vineyard.Google Scholar

¹¹ Illustrated, for example, by his remarkable variations of meaning in the key words of the refrain-lines; and by word play like that in lines 947–8 and 1046–7. Like determynable (594) and many other words in Pearl, pertermynable shows all the essential characteristics of the ‘aureate’ terms which, if still unnamed, had already some vogue in the later fourteenth century; see Mendenhall, John C., Aureate Terms: A Study in the Literary Diction of the Fifteenth Century (Lancaster, Pa. 1919), and Elfriede Tilgner, Die Aureate Terms als Stilelement bei Lydgate (Germanische Studien 182; Berlin 1936) 7–15.Google Scholar

¹² See the discussions by Gordon, pp. 67–8; and Osgood, pp. 76–7. Google Scholar

^12a Pearl 609 -11, English Studies 39 (1958) 20–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Though space forbids a detailed listing at every point, each of my references to medieval interpretation of John 1.14–8 is supported by all or many of the following exegeses: Chrysostom, Homil. 12, 14–15 on John, PG 59.81–6, 91–102; Augustine, Tract. in Iohan. 2, 3 (CCL 36.19–28; PL 35.1396–1403); Bede, PL 92.642–6; Alcuin, PL 100.749–53; Scotus Eriugena, PL 122.296, 299–303; Glossa ordinaria, PL 114.357–8; Rupert of Deutz, PL 169.223–30; Hugh of St. Cher, Opera 6 fol. 285^r-286^r; Albertus Magnus, Opera 24.51–6; Thomas Aquinas Commentarium super Joannem, ed. Fretté, S. E., Opera omnia (Paris 1876) 19.718–28, and his assembly of earlier commentators in the Catena aurea, ibid. 17.401–5; Bonaventura, Opera 6.254–6; Nicolas of Lyra, Moralia (cit. supra, note 9), and Postilla super totum Novum Testamentum (Cologne [1483–90]; Huntington Library copy); Denis the Carthusian, Opera 12.288–96.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Gordon's observation, p. 67, that ME dare ‘bears usually a connotation of fear’ is not well supported by the evidence. See the examples in NED, ‘Dare, v. ²,’ 4, ‘To be hid, lie hid, lurk’; Owl and Nightingale 384, where dare is used by the owl to describe her own hiding; and probably ‘An Old Man's Prayer’ 86 (ed. Brook, G. L., The Harley Lyrics [Manchester 1948] 48). The Wycliffite Bible, ed. Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden (Oxford 1850) IV 108, in the 1382 text renders ‘et non potuit latere’ (Mk. 7.24, referring to Christ) as ‘and he miƷte not dare, or be priuy’; the 1388 text substitutes ‘and he myƷte not be hid.’ The Promptorium parvuloriim, ed. Way, A. (Camden Society 25 [1843]) I 113, also defines ‘Daryn, or drowpyn, or prively to be hydde’ as Latito, lateo. In the probable works of the Pearl-poet, dare appears once more in Pearl itself (839), with a meaning at least as strong as ‘stand in awe’; and twice in Gawain (315, 2258), with the clear meaning ‘shrink from.’ Such evidence is much less strong than it seems, however, in a poem notable for its unusually wide variation in the meanings of individual words (cf. date, take, deme, pyƷt).Google Scholar

¹⁵ For this construction elsewhere in Pearl, see particularly lines 827–8; also 681–3. Google Scholar

¹⁶ Str. 1, ed. Bergman, J. (CSEL 61 [Leipzig 1926] 32); see also Prudentius’ extended analysis of the idea in the Apotheosis 9–83 (ibid. 82–5), including references to John 1.18 in lines 9–10, 77. Besides the repetition of ‘Deum nemo vidit unquam’ in 1 John 4.12, note Ex. 33.20–3, Matt. 11.27, John 5.37 and 6.46, and 1 Tim. 6.16, all frequently cited in commentaries on John 1.18.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Opera (cit. supra note 8) 6 fol. 286^r. See also particularly Albertus, Opera 24. 55.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Hugh of St. Cher on 1.14 (Opera 6.285^r-v). Besides the basic development by Augustine PL 35.1397, 1400–2, see for example on 1.14 Albertus, Opera 24.51: ‘… gratiam in remissione peccatorum,’ and Bonaventura, Opera 6.254: ‘plenum gratiae, ad exhaurienda peccata’; on 1.16, Chrétien of Stavelot, PL 106.1515; on 1.17, Denis, Opera (ed. cit. note 9) 12.293: ‘Gratia, id est liberatio a peccatis … per Jesum Christum facta est.’ Pertinent references throughout the New Testament are of course legion; but note 1 Tim. 1.15; Heb. 7.25; 1 John 1.7, 2.1, 3.5. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Opera 6 fol. 286^r. See also particularly Albertus, Opera 24.55; and Denis, Opera 12. 295–6.Google Scholar

²⁰ See for example Matt. 11.27; and John 3.35; 6.37; 10.15–7, 29–30, 38; 14.10–1, 13, 16; 15.16; 16.15, 23, 26–7. Google Scholar

²¹ Postilla (cit. supra note 13). See also Albertus, Opera 24.51: ‘“A Patre,” qui propter affectum paternum nihil Filio subtrahit: et propter hoc quod unigenitus est totum indivisum affectum Filio impertitur, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiæ et scientiæ absconditi. Ideo dicitur, Joan, iii, 34: Non enim ad mensurara dat Deus Spiritum: quia Filio non dat ad mensuram.’Google Scholar

²² Opera 12. 288–9; see also Bonaventura, Opera 6.255. These references are apparently to Eph. 1.23 rather than to 1 Cor. 12.12–7, 21–7, which forms the basis for the stanza in Pearl. A prominent reference to 1 Cor. 12.13 occurs in Chrysostom's homily on John 1.18, PG 59.101.Google Scholar

²³ For pronouns comparably far from their antecedents, see Pearl 30, hit; and 879, hem (where the pronoun is not a part of the parallel with Apoc. 14.2–3). For similar uses of plural pronouns with grammatically singular antecedents, see 621–3; 626–8; 687–8 and Gordon's note, p. 70. Google Scholar

²⁴ The fons is conventionally identified with Christ; for its association with John 1.16, see for example Rupert, PL 169.226: ‘Unde et ejusdem gratiæ dividua nobis fluenta, de semetipso vivo fonte, profudit. Non enim sic plenus erat infusionibus aliunde petitis, sed sicut fons ex propriis venis erat, imo est plenus “aquæ in vitam æternam salientis.” ’ Google Scholar

²⁵ PG 59.91. Google Scholar

²⁶ Opera 6 fol. 285^v.Google Scholar

²⁷ Opera 24.53.Google Scholar

²⁸ See for example on John 1.16, ‘patriæ’ as one of Hugh's glosses on gratiam (6 fol. 285^v); or Rupert, PL 169.227: ‘… scilicet gratiam æternæ salutis… .’ Google Scholar

²⁹ Though it does not appear explicitly in the text of Pearl, a further pertinent relation between the biblical passages themselves may exist in their contrasting ‘speeches’ by which God is expressed to man: ‘Semel locutus est Deus’ and ‘unigenitus Filius … ipse enarravit.’ Google Scholar

³⁰ Opera 6 fol. 285^v; and on 1.14, ibid.: ‘… plenitudo gratiæ legis rigorem evacuat.’ See also Nicolas, Postilla, on 1.16, gratiam pro gratia: ‘quia tamen ista lex [vetus] erat imperfecta, loco illius data est lex noua que est perfecta et mayor gratia … . non tamen conferebat [lex vetus] gratiam iustificantem sicut facit lex noua.’Google Scholar

³¹ Enarrat. in Psalm. 61.19 (CCL 39.787; PL 36. 743), repeated in Glossa, PL 113.933. See also Cassiodorus, Expos. in Ps. 61 (CCL 97.548; PL 70.432–3); a commentary attributed to Remigius of Auxerre, PL 131.453–4; and most of the commentaries cited in notes 8–9 above.Google Scholar

³² Opera 2 fol. 155^v.Google Scholar