W Winchester Cathedral, early s. xiii.
Meyer's Group III
- (4) Codex Clm. 4656, s. xv, fol. 214.
- (15) Codex Clm. 15610, s. xv, fol. 165.
- (18) Codex Clm. 18406, s. xv, fol. 95.
- (2) Codex Clm. 2778, s. xv, fol. 264.
This text has minor additions and omissions at various places.
Moreover, it omits Chapter 51 a-d, but tells the story of the wood of the
Cross in four large additions in Chapters 42-44, 48. [13] A
separate subgroup of this text type was identified by Thomson.
[15]
Meyer's Group IV
manusc
This text has certain of the additions mentioned above, but is also
much abbreviated. Codicological considerations lead to the conclusion
that this manuscript was made from an original dating between 730 and
740, making it an exceptionally old witness to the text.
Mozley's Group "(iv)"
This is a compilation of the Vita Adam et Evae with the legend
of the Holy Rood, parts of which occurred in Meyer's Group III. They are
combined with the material on Adam's body and name to form a connected
narrative. [17] Halford
prepared a list of all known manuscripts, consulting the published
editions and catalogues of manuscripts. She listed a total of
seventy-three manuscripts, and it is possible that even more exist.The Text and Its Problems
Meyer's text is fundamentally based on Group I of manuscripts, but he
often has recourse to readings of Groups II and III. The fact that Meyer
selected Group I as his text
[22]
Mozley discusses the character of the additional passages found in
his manuscripts in some detail. In particular he stresses manuscripts
containing additional Sethite and Holy Rood portions and the account of
the formation and naming of Adam.
[24] We might add that a comparison with the Armenian Penitence of
Adam and the Georgian Book of Adam is also likely to show
certain common points. [26]
Halford also draws attention to the vernacular versions of the Latin
Vita Adae et Evae. Meyer had already known of some versions in
French, English, Italian and German. Referring to the work of Greene,
Kelley and Murdoch on the Saltair na Rann, she mentions additional
texts in German, Breton, and Italian. [28] Indeed, the relationships of the
vernacular versions to the Latin, and to one another, are impossible to
determine without a fuller edition of the Latin, giving all the
"additional" passages to be found in the various Latin recensions.
In our judgment, Halford's comments are significant, though they are
not completely satisfactory (see below). The presently known Latin text
must be regarded as largely tentative, until at least sample collations
and a preliminary classification of all the known manuscripts are
undertaken. The role of the vernacular versions in the knowledge of the
text should be clarified. Moreover, some of the material found in
manuscripts other than those of Meyer's Group I, which is often
considered "secondary" or "interpolated", may come, as both Mozley and
Halford observe, from rather ancient sources.Date
Meyer observed that the Latin Vita Adam et Evae was translated
later than the Latin of The Gospel of Nicodemus and consequently after
the third or fourth century C.E.Vita Adam et Evae. [32] No new considerations
bearing on the date of the Latin Vita Adam et Evae have
been adduced since Mozley's time.Issues in Research
Almost none of the discussions we have seen has dealt in any detail
with the purpose, shape or function of this version, nor with it in
comparison with the Greek Apocalypse of Moses or with other primary Adam
writings. The only exception, to a limited extent, is the work of Levison
in his book Portraits of Adam. He proposes that the Latin Vita Adam et
Evae is divided into two main parts and that each such part contains
three subsections. The two main parts are chapters 1-29 and 30-48. In
each main part he discerns a quest (1-8 and 30-36 + 40); an interruption
by Satan (9-17 and 37-39); and an outcome of the quest (18-29 and
41-48). [36] As was true of his analysis of
Apocalypse of Moses, here too Levison does not concern himself
with the possible function of the book in its Christian context, nor does
he deal in any depth with the interrelationship of the two versions he
chose to present. Yet his analysis goes beyond anything existing so far.
One wonders how the relationship of Latin Vita Adam et Evae
with Greek Apocalypse of Moses, or else an assessment of the primary
or secondary nature of its special materials, could be carried out
without first gaining a better picture of its development and functioning
in the context of medieval literature. It was Murdoch who devoted some
remarks to this, and we quote his apt comments at length:
The VA [Vita Adam et Evae] does not exist, then, in a single
text, but is rather a labile sequence of distinct chapters. Even at its
earliest stages there are elements that appear to be contractions or
expansions of passages attested at greater or lesser length in say, AM
[Greek Apocalypse of Moses]. É Emphases may shift more clearly in
the comparison of the extant versions with one another. É The context of
the VA must also be considered (both with regard to the Latin texts and
more especially with the vernacular adaptations). É The work is
frequently seen as a preface to the Holy Rood material, for example, but
it also forms part of a chronicle presentation of world history without
the explicit soteriological bias.A List of the Latin Manuscripts of Vita Adam et
Evae
- Aberystwyth.--The National Library of Wales MS 335A
(Hengwrt 239); 14th century, fols. 131-40. This probably belongs to
Mozley's "Arundel" class.
- Admont.--Stiftsbibliothek MS 25; 13th century, parchment,
fols. 270-72v = Eis A.
- Brussels.--Bibliothéque Royale Albert 1er MS IV F.15;
mid I5th century, paper, fols. 1-11v.
- Cambridge 1.--Corpus Christi College MS 275; I5th century,
parchment, fols. 9-14 = Mozley P; Stegmüller 74, 7.1
- Cambridge 2.--St John's College MS 176; 15th century,
parchment, fols. 67-74 = Mozley J; Stegmüller 74, 7.1.
- Chicago.--Newberry Library MS Ry 6; llth/12th century, fols.
224r-228v.
- Copenhagen.--Royal Library, Ny Kgl. Saml. MS 123; 15th
century, paper, fols. 47v-49v = Stegmüller 74,3.
- Donaueschingen.--Hofbibliothek MS 449; 15th century, paper,
fols. 1-5r.
- Dublin.--Trinity College MS 509; 15th century, parchment.
Related to Mozley D + Q. No siglum in Mozley; Stegmüller 74, 7.1.
- Graz.--Universitätsbibliothek MS 904 (38/3); 15th century,
paper, fols. 164-169v = Class II. Meyer's MS 33/3 (p. 210n.) =
Stegmüller 74, 10.
- London 1.--British Library MS Arundel 326; 13th/14th century,
parchment, fols. 42-50 = Mozley A; Stegmüller 74, 7.1.
- London 2.--British Library MS Royal 8 1 XVI; 14th century,
parchment, fols. 55-59 = Mozley R; Stegmüller 74, 7.1.
- London 3.--British Library MS Harley 495; 14th century,
parchment, fols. 43-50 = Mozley D; Stegmüller 74, 7.1. VA 1-7
missing.
- London 4.--British Library MS Harley 526; 14th century,
parchment, fols. 68-77 = Mozley C; Stegmüller 74, 7.1.
- London 5.--Lambeth Palace Library MS 352; 14th century,
parchment, fols. 1-4 = Mozley L; Stegmüller 74, 7.
- London 6.--British Library MS Harley 275; 15th century, paper,
fols. 153-158v = Mozley E; Stegmüller 74, 7.1.
- London 7.--British Library MS Harley 2432; 15th century,
parchment, fols. 1-10 = Mozley F; Stegmüller 74, 7.1.
- London 8.--British Library MS Sloane 289; 15th century,
parchment, fols. 70v-79v. No siglum given by Mozley who regards it as a
close copy of Mozley A; = Stegmüller 74, 7.1. Fols. 70v-73v contain
the Holy Rood legend.
- London 9.--Inner Temple Library MS Petyt 538 Vol. 36; 15th
century, paper, fols. 140-148. Belongs to Mozley's "Arundel" class.
- Lund.--Medeltid MS 30; fol. 144-153 = Stegmüller 74, 6.1.
- Munich 1.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 17740 (St.Mang.
10); 10th and 11th centuries, parchment, fols. 37-46 = Meyer S (Class I);
Stegmüller 74, 10.
- Munich 2.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 18525b (Teg. 525b);
10th century, parchment fols. 89-95 = Meyer T (Class I); Stegmüller
74, 10.
- Munich 3.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 19112 (Teg. llll);
12th century, parchment fols. 156-162 = Meyer M (Class I);
Stegmüller 74, 10.
- Munich 4.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 21534 (Weihenst.
34); 12th century, parchment fol. 101 = Meyer (21) Class II.
- Munich 5.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 17151 (Scheftl.
151); 12th century, parchment fol. 177 = Meyer (17) Class II;
Stegmüller 74, 6.
- Munich 6.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 4350 (Aug.S.Ulr.
50); 14th century, paper, fols. 28-29 = Meyer (43) Class II.
- Munich 7.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 2778 (Ald. 248);
15th century, paper, fol. 227. Class III.
- Munich8.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 2778 (Ald. 248);
15th century, paper, fol. 264 = Meyer (2) Class III; Stegmüller 74,
10.
- Munich 9--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 2800 (Ald. 270);
15th century, paper, fols. 240-50. Class III.
- Munich 10.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 4756 (Bened. 256);
15th century, paper, fols. 192-200 = Meyer (4) Class III; Stegmüller
74, 10.
- Munich 11.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 5604 (Diess. 104);
15th century, paper, fols. 156-59. Class I; Stegmüller 74, 10.
- Munich 12.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 5865 (Ebersb. 65);
15th century, paper, fols. 342-45 = Meyer (5) Class II; Stegmüller
74, 6.
- Munich 13.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 5976 (Ebersb.
176); 15th century, paper, fol. 82. Class III.
- Munich 14.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 7685 (Ind. 285);
15th century, paper, fols. 122-26. Class I; Stegmüller 74, 10.
- Munich 15.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 9022 (Mon.Frans.
322); 15th century, paper, fols. 311-17 = Meyer (9) Class II;
Stegmüller 74, 6.
- Munich 16. -- Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 11740 (Polling.
440); 15th century, paper, fols. 291-97. Class I; Stegmüller 74, 10.
- Munich 17.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 11796 (Polling.
496); 15th century, paper, fols. 152-55. Class I; Stegmüller 74, 10.
- Munich 18.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 15610 (Rot. I 10);
15th century, paper, fols.165-68 = Meyer (15) Class III; Stegmüller
74, 10.
- Munich 19.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 18406 (Teg. 406);
15th century, paper, fols. 95-98 = Meyer (18) Class III; Stegmüller
74, 10.
- Munich 20.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 26630; 15th
century, paper, fols. 351-53.
- Munich 21.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek cgm 3866; 15th
century, paper, fols. 194-99 = Meyer (3) Class II; Stegmüller 74, 6.
- Munich 22.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 11601 (Polling.
301); 14th century, fols. 87-88.
- Munich 23.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 16472 (S.Zen. 72);
14th century, fols. 165-73. Cf. Stuttgart MS.
- Munich 24.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 17668 (Semansh.
68); 15th century, fols. 77-83.
- Munich 25.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 18597 (Teg. 597);
15th century, fol. 273.
- Munich 26.--Bayerische Staatsbibliothek clm 23929 (ZZ. 929);
15th century, fols. 32-35.
- Namur.--Bibliothéque du MusŽe ArchŽologique MS 162;
15th century, paper, fols. 128r-131r = Stegmüller 74, 6.1
- Oxford 1.--Queens College MS 213; 15th century, parchment,
fols. l-8: VA fols. 14-18. Belongs to Mozley's "Arundel" class.
- Sparks, 1984, 143. In that volume, the
introductory remarks on the Adam literature were written by Sparks.
German translations of the Latin Vita Adam et Evae were prepared by
Fuchs, 1900 and by Riessler, 1928, 668-681, with comments on pp.
1311-1312. An Italian translation was made from Meyer's text by Piatelli,
1968-69, 9-23. The work was translated into Spanish by Fernandez Marcos,
1983, 338-352.
- References to all these works may be found in the
following paragraphs where they will be discussed in detail. A brief
summary of the situation of the Latin text was included by Brian O.
Murdoch in his article: Murdoch, 1973a, 209-223: see particularly pp.
211-213.
- Whittaker, 1984, 141-167. In fact, this selection
of material provides a fairly inclusive representation of the contents of
the work.
- Meyer, 1878, 187-250. He discusses the manuscripts
and translations of the Vita Adam et Evae on pp. 209-220 of his
publication. The information given below is drawn from his work,
supplemented by that in Mozley's, Denis' and Halford's writings.
- Eis, 1967, 241-255.
- Stegmüller, 1950 gives many details of
manuscripts: nos. 74-74.10, pp. 26-27. He lists nine further copies.
- Halford, 1981, 417-427: W. Lechner-Schmidt
informs me privately of the existence of yet further Latin manuscripts.
- Thomson, 1933, 271-278. Halford's views
regarding groups of manuscripts are of a different character and are
considered below.
- See Meyer, 1878, 210-214. Further medieval
renderings exist, which have come to light since Meyer's day: see Chapter
4 below, particularly sections 9 and 11. The relationship between these
medieval renderings and the Latin text should be further investigated.
Below, the influence of the Latin Vita Adam et Evae on northwest Slavonic
literature is pointed out. Furthermore, a translation of the Latin into
Croatian also exists: see below, note 56.
- Then he compares this with the material
published by Förster, 1907-1908, 477-529. This is part of a complex
literary tradition: see below, chapter 4, section 2.
- Mozley, 1929, 121. He also mentions two
incunabula in the British Museum, identical with one of those used by
Katona, Magyar Tudomanos Akad. köt. 18, sz. 10 (1904), (non vidi),
and witnessing to Meyer's Group III (ibid). A.C. Dunstan studied the
points at which Lutwin's Adam und Eva differs from Latin Vita Adam et
Evae as published by Meyer. He argued that these points often reflect
different Latin readings unknown to Meyer. He examined eleven manuscripts
of the Latin Vita Adam et Evae from Britain that were subsequently
published by Mozley and analyzed a number of passages in this vein: see
Dunstan, 1929, 191-99.
- Some further witnesses and forms of this
textual type are mentioned by Meyer, 1878, 215 including an incunabulum,
a French translation, and a German poem.
- Halford, 1981. Eis, 1935, 64 notes, following
in Meyer's footsteps, the particular relationship of the Middle High
German poem Adam und Eva by Lutwin with Group III type manuscripts.
However, this is the object of some discussion: see Eis, 1935, 66-72.
- Thomson, 1933.
- Thomson, 1933, 275-278 published this material
and also some comparisons with other group of manuscripts.
- Mozley, 1929, 122. The literature on the Holy
Rood legend is discussed by Murdoch, 1973a, 213.
- Halford, 1981, 417-427.
- Halford, 1981, 421-427.
- Meyer, 1878, 219; see also Halford, 1981, 418.
- See Halford, 1981, 418-19 for a full discussion
of this issue.
- Halford, 1981, 419. She sees the vernacular
versions as further points along this continuum. It is perhaps
appropriate to remark that Jagio(c,ù), in Chapter 7 of his study of the
Slavonic Vita Adam et Evae, referred to in the next section, discussed
the influence of the Latin Vita Adam et Evae on northwest Slavonic
literature, in Bohemian and Polish (pp. 64-69). Turdeanu, 1981, 437
observes that the Croatian version of the primary Adam book was made from
the Latin.
- Halford, 1981, 18-19.
- See also Murdoch, 1976, 19-20. The account of
the creation of Adam is dealt with below, in Chapter 4, under the title
Adam Octipartite. The account of the naming, in particular, belongs with
the versions of Latin Vita Adam et Evae: see Murdoch, ibid, 20.
- Mozley, 1929, 123. He also notes, on p. 125,
that the early English text of Adam's life edited in 1885 derives from
his Ms L: see further on this in Chapter 4, section 12.
- The complexity of the whole tradition is shown
by the fact that the incident of the penitence occurs in certain Greek
manuscripts, as Nagel already showed. In the Gospel of Bartholomew,
printed by Vassiliev, 1893, 19-20 is a passage explaining Satan's fall in
terms and language strikingly like that of the Latin, Armenian and
Georgian forms of chap. 14of the primary Adam book. Here again, a unit of
material, not preserved in the Greek Apocalypse of Moses, is reflected in
a Greek text. The Gospel of Bartholomew in Greek probably goes back to
the fifth century. See on this Turdeanu, 1981, 329-31.
- See the discussion of these texts below in
Chapter 4.
- Halford, 1981, 416 refers to Murdoch, 1976,
2.25-31.
- Dunstan, 1931, 431-442. He also discussed
another Middle English poem to be found in Ms. Auchinl. Edinb. Advoc.
Libr. This latter manuscript was the source of one text of the Canticum
de Creatione published by C. Horstmann, 1878, 139-147. He also published
a text from another manuscript, Oxford, Trinity College, 57, ibid,
124-138. See further, chapter 3 below on these poems.
- This view is echoed by Sparks who opines that
there is much additional material in the Latin Vita Adam et Evae: some
old and Jewish (e.g. chaps. 50-51) and other parts Christian (e.g.
41:2-42:5 taken from Acts of Pilate).
- According to F. Scheidweiler (apud R. Hennecke
and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R.M. Wilson, 447)
by the time of Epiphanius in Haer. 50.1 (ca. 375 C.E.), "the Grundschrift the creation of Adam is dealt with belo [i.e. of the Gospel of Nicodemus
M.E.S.] at any rate was in existence, but possibly already in an
expanded version as compared with the original." This dating would
probably make us push Meyer's date down some decades.
- Mozley, 1929, 125.
- Mozley, 1929, 127.
- Murdoch, 1973a, speaks of a fourth century
date, although the basis for this is unclear (p. 209).
- Levison, 1988, 174.
- Levison, 1988, 164.
- Levison, 1988, 184.
- Murdoch, 1976, 20.
- Halford lists this as "Oxford 3," but obviously it should be
"Oxford 1"; this is presumably a typographical error.