No abstract

In the dramatic confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh that preceded the Israelites' departure from Egypt, Pharaoh's magicians played a prominent role: they turned their rods into serpents, if only to have them devoured by Moses's serpent, and then matched the first two plagues brought down on the Egyptians before failing to perform the third (Ex. VII. 11–VIII. 19). Although not named here or elsewhere in the Old Testament, they were identified in II Timothy III.8 as ' ιανν⋯ς and ιαμβρ⋯ς (the Latin forms are usually ‘Iannes’ or ‘Iamnes’ and ‘Mambres’) in a remark that suggests that a considerable tradition had already arisen concerning them: ‘Now just as jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.’ Two fragmentary Greek papyri (Pap. Vindob. G 29456 verso, in the Nationalbibliothek, Vienna; and Pap. XVI, in the Chester Beatty Library and Gallery of Oriental Art, Dublin), dated to the third and fourth centuries respectively, confirm the existence of at least one early apocryphon about the brothers. The problem of interpreting these fragments, however, is complicated by a bewildering array of references to the two in various languages, which results from both the importance of Exodus to Jews and Christians, and the connection of the brothers to magic. Albert Pietersma and R. Theodore Lutz note that ‘the precise relationship between the loose traditions and the written composition’ is ‘not yet entirely clear’.

Whether a source or an analogue, 1 Decameron 3.4 has much to tell us about how Chaucer constructed The Miller's Tale, and yet establishing which it is may help us to perceive more clearly what he hoped to accomplish with the second story of the Canterbury Tales. Both sources and analogues can sharpen our understanding of a work, sources by revealing what an author has chosen to retain and omit, and analogues by indicating how others have handled similar material, although sources almost always make these points more forcefully and, of course, clarifying source relationships is useful in itself since this information can contribute to other literary-historical discussions. Within studies of the Canterbury Tales, however, the distinction between sources and analogues has become blurred, with analogues often considered second-best sources. 2 This blurring is due mainly to Chaucer's way of composing, 3 which usually entails working I would like to thank

No abstract

No abstract