THE 'PALMTWIGEDE' PATER NOSTER: HORTICULTURAL SEMANTICS AND THE OLD ENGLISH "SOLOMON AND SATURN I"

Abstract

In the initial exchange in the Old English Solomon and Saturn I, both Saturn, the pagan spokesman, and Solomon, the spokesman for Christian truth, refer to the Pater Noster as 'gepalmtwigoda'/'gepalmtwigede', a compound which Menner's glossary renders as 'adorned with palm branches'.Later in the poem in the discussion of the power of the Pater Noster, specifically its power to overcome battle magic, the compound 'palmtreow' is apparently used as a synonym for the Pater Noster itself.No explanations or parallels for this usage have ever been proposed. Menner, whose comments and annotations are full and consistently informed, discusses the use and symbolism of palms and palm branches in the early medieval Church at some length, but other than the general association of palms with victory, an association which would be appropriate for the powerful Pater Noster described in the poem, he could not elucidate this usage,3 and in the sixty years or so since Menner published his edition of the poem, no one has even attempted to resolve this problem.One reason why this problem is so difficult is that the word has seemed more straightforward and simple than it is. The root elements of the compound 'palm' and 'twig' seem understandable enough; the terms with at least approximately the same meanings are well attested in Middle and Modern English,4 and palm branches are prominent in Christian iconography and liturgy in both the medieval and modern churches. The literal meaning of the word seems relatively simple. And indeed the word is straightforward in that the meaning which the various dictionaries and glossaries assign to it is at least partially correct. But it is very difficult to see why the Pater Noster, even the quasi-divine being envisioned in this poem, should be 'adorned with palms'. A solution to this difficulty (or at least the beginning of a solution) hinges on issues in Latin semantics and the interpretation of biblical metaphor. One particularly striking instance of the usage which concerns me occurs in John xv.i-5. This text presumably reflects the preaching of Jesus and articulates an extended and complex horticultural metaphor.Ego sum vitis vera: ct Pater meus agricola est. Omncm palmitem in me non ferentem fructum, toilet cum: ct omnem qui fert fructum, purgabit eum, ut fructum plus afferat. Jam vos mundi estis propter sermonem, quern locutus sum vobis. Manete in me, et ego in vobis. Sicut palmes non potcst ferre fructum a semetipso, nisi manserit in vite: sic nee vos, nisi in me manseritis. Ego sum vitis, vos palmitcs: qui manet in me, et ego in eo, hie fert fructum multum; quia sine me nihil potestis facere. (John xv.i-5)(I am the true vine; and my father is the husbandman. Every [green] branch in me that beareth not fruit he will take away; and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more truit. Now you are clean by reason of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me and I in you. As the [green] branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you the [green] branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit; for without me you can do nothing.)3Although this is one of the richest and most complex extended metaphors in the New Testament, there is no need in the context of the present argument to discuss either its implications in context in John or the tradition of exegesis elucidating it in the Latin West. What is relevant, however, is that the metaphor presumes familiarity with vines and viticulture. If one is not familiar with this mode of agriculture, the passage is not easily comprehensible. Another potentially confusing problem is the Vulgate's repeated use of the term 'palmes'/'palmitem' to characterize the branches of the vine. The Vulgate's usage is, of course, wholly accurate and correct both philologically and in terms of viticulture. …