Linguistic means of determining the dates of Old English literary texts 9780910956703

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
List of Charts (page ix)
Acknowledgments (page xi)
List of Abbreviations (page xiii)
Introduction (page 1)
1 Phonological-Metrical Tests (page 13)
1.1 Syncope and Apocope, Particularly U-Apocope (page 18)
1.2 Loss of Post-Consonantal Prevocalic H and Subsequent Compensatory Lengthening (page 30)
1.3 Contraction (page 40)
1.4 Parasiting and the Syllabic Compounds (page 70)
1.5 Purely Metrical Tests (page 92)
1.6 Purely Phonological Tests (page 103)
2 Syntactic and Grammatical Tests (page 109)
2.1 The "Lichtenheld Tests" of the Definite Article and the Weak Adjective (page 110)
2.2 The Instrumental Test (page 125)
2.3 The Test of the Relative Pronoun (page 129)
2.4 The Test of the Unexpressed Subject: Personal and Impersonal Pronouns in Subject Position (page 132)
2.5 Sentence Structure as a Chronological Test (page 136)
3 Lexical Tests (page 141)
4 Stylistic Tests (page 157)
Conclusion (page 167)
Appendix: Scribal Variants in Passages from Two Prose Texts (page 171)
1. Alfred's Pastoral Care (page 177)
2. Ælfric's "De Initio Creaturae" (page 180)
Bibliography (page 197)
Index (page 209)

Citation preview

Linguistic Means

of Determining the Dates of Old English

Literary Texts

Medieval Academy Books No. 90

Linguistic Means of Determining the Dates of Old English Literary Texts Ashley Crandell Amos

Gaipsy The Medieval Academy of America Cambridge, Massachusetts 1980

The publication of this book was made possible by grants of funds to the Medieval Academy from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Copyright © 1980 By the Medieval Academy of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-89570

ISBN: 910956-70-7 } Printed in the United States of America |

To my mother and father

BLANK PAGE

List of Charts 1x Acknowledgments xi List of Abbreviations xii Introduction 1

1 Phonological-Metrical Tests 13 1.1 Syncope and Apocope, Particularly U-Apocope 18 1.2 Loss of Post-Consonantal Prevocalic H and Subsequent Compensatory Lengthening 30 1.3 Contraction 1.3.1 After Loss of Intervocalic H and in Other Environments 40

: 1.3.2. In Compounds 64

1.4 Parasiting and the Syllabic Compounds 70 1.5 Purely Metrical Tests 92 1.6 Purely Phonological Tests 103

2 Syntactic and Grammatical Tests 109 2.1 The ‘‘Lichtenheld Tests’’ of the Definite Article and the Weak Adjective 110 2.2 The Instrumental Test 125 2.3. The Test of the Relative Pronoun. 129 2.4 The Test of the Unexpressed Subject: Personal and Impersonal Pronouns in Subject Position 132 2.5 Sentence Structure as a Chronological Test 136

3 Lexical Tests 141 4 Stylistic Tests 157 Conclusion 167 Appendix: Scribal Variants in Passages from Two Prose Texts 171 1. Alfred’s Pastoral Care 177 2. AElfric’s ‘‘De Initio Creaturae’’ 180 Bibliography 197

Index 209

Vil

BLANK PAGE

1. Metrically Attested Vowel Lengths in Words with Loss of Post-Consonantal Prevocalic H 37

2. Metrically Attested Uncontracted and Contracted Forms of Words 50

3. Sarrazin’s Test of Contraction 67 4. Metrically Attested Forms of Words Containing Syllabic Consonants with and without Parasiting 78

1X

BLANK PAGE

| Acknowledgments An earlier form of this study was submitted to the Department of English at Yale University as a dissertation, and I am grateful to the librarians of Sterling Library for their courteous assistance, to the professors of English for their interest, instruction, and direction,

and to the School of Graduate Studies at Yale for very generous financial support. This study is a record and analysis of the work of earlier scholars of Old English, and my first debt is to those whose ideas I have sum-

marized and interpreted. I hope I have managed to convey some of their contagious enthusiasm and excitement, and I apologize to those whose theories I may have unwittingly misstated or distorted. It is appropriate, if undeserved, that in studying an earlier community of scholars I should have been so richly gifted with the assistance and encouragement of their successors. I owe particular thanks to

Miss Barbara Eick, Drs. Antonette diPaolo Healey and Stephen A. Barney, and Dean John Leyerle, who read my dissertation; to Professor Angus Cameron, who generously allowed me to use the archives of the Dictionary of Old English project in the summer of 1975, and who has since given me every encouragement to revise and publish this study; to Professors John C. Pope and Helmut Gneuss, who each gave time-consuming, careful, critical readings to the typescript, and whose recommendations sharpened many points and saved me from many errors; to Professor E. G. Stanley, whose presence brightened the corridors of Sterling, whose rigorous scrutiny exposed many errors, and whose influence can be seen

in whatever is most useful in this study; and, most of all, to Professor Fred C. Robinson, whose teaching first drew me to Old English studies and whose example set my standards, who suggested

to me the topic of this study, and whose firm direction, generous counsel, and constant friendship guided me through the dissertation and subsequent revision, making the difficult seem easy and the murky, clear.

It is a pleasure to thank Elaine Quanz, who typed most of the revised version with her customary speed and accuracy, and the staff of the Medieval Academy, particularly Dr. Luke Wenger, who handled a much-revised and inconsistent typescript with dispatch, compassion, and consistency. The failures of substance and errors XI

Xi Acknowledgments of fact and judgment that have stubbornly resisted such generous and skilled assistance are all my own.

My greatest debts are to my husband, who gave a sparkle to the years in which I have worked on this book, and to my parents, for years of support and understanding and love.

| Abbreviations CGmec Central Germanic

Cleop. The Cleopatra Glossary. W. G. Stryker, The Latin—Old English Glossary in Ms Cotton Cleopatra A.III, Diss. Stanford, 1952; J. J. Quinn, The Minor Latin—Old English Glossaries in Ms Cotton Cleopatra A.III, Diss. Stanford, 1956

Cp. The Corpus Glossary. J. H. Hessels, An Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary (Cambridge, Eng., 1890); W. M. Lindsay, The Corpus Glossary (Cambridge, Eng., 1921)

EEMF Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile (Copenhagen, 195 1-)

EETS Early English Text Society. Original Series (London, 1864-); Extra Series (London, 1867-1920)

Ep. The Epinal Glossary. J. D. Pheifer, Old English Glosses in the Epinal-Erfurt Glossary (Oxford, 1974)

Erf. The Erfurt Glossary. J. D. Pheifer, Old English Glosses in the Epinal-Erfurt Glossary (Oxford, 1974)

Go. Gothic Harley Gl. The Harley Glossary. R. T. Oliphant, The Harley LatinOld English Glossary, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 20 (The Hague, 1966)

ME Middle English

ModE Modern English Napier, OEG A. S. Napier, Old English Glosses, Chiefly Unpublished (Oxford, 1900)

nWs non-West Saxon

OE Old English

Prim Gmc Primitive Germanic

WGmec West Germanic

Wrt. Voc. Thomas Wright, Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, 2nd ed. by R. P. Wiulker. 2 vols. (London, 1884)

WS West Saxon

Xill

BLANK PAGE

| Introduction Old English literature survives largely in manuscripts of the late tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. Some of the poetry (like Cadmon’s Hymn) was written as early as the late seventh century, some

(dike The Death of Edgar) as late as the mid-eleventh century, but other poems may well be earlier or later. The prose ranges in date from the early law codes of Aedelberht to the eleventh-century entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, where the language verges on Middle

English. But much of the poetry and some of the prose cannot be assigned a date on the basis of external evidence like authorship or historical references. A terminus ad quem for such texts is provided by the paleographic characteristics of the manuscripts in which they survive, but this date often leaves a period of two or three hundred years, or even more, during which they may have been composed. Scholars have become resigned to this uncertainty in dating, which is a basic feature of the Old English period, but the implications that this

ignorance has for Old English literary history should not be overlooked. It is as if we knew that Sir Philip Sidney wrote in the late sixteenth century and Wallace Stevens in the mid-twentieth century, but could not assign even relative dates within that period to the work of Dickens and Shakespeare. Any method that offers a reliable means of dating Old English literary texts relative to one another will make an invaluable contribution to our understanding of Old English literary history. Not a few texts in Old English can be dated by historical evidence. Cedmon’s Hymn, Bede’s Death Song, and the metrical prefaces by

King Alfred (to The Pastoral Care) and Bishop Werferth (to The Dialogues) can be dated by their authors’ lifetimes, as can the Alfredian translations and the works of Wulfstan and 4¢lfric. The entries in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the poems based on certain events, like The Battle of Maldon and The Battle of Brunanburh, can be given termini a quo by the dates of the historical happenings they describe. Glosses in the works of Alcuin, Aldhelm, and AElfric can also be given

termini a quo by the lifetimes of the authors of the works glossed. Certain laws and charters, and some other records, can be externally dated. Some works can be given informative termini ad quem by the dates of their manuscripts. Other, more internal evidence can also provide information about the date of composition of a text. The text may borrow material used elsewhere, or the author may write under 1

2 Introduction the influence of a datable work or school. External and internal evidence of this type, however, exists for only a fraction of all Old English

texts. Other, more general methods of determining the dates of composition for Old English texts must be found if we are to gain a clearer

understanding of Old English literary history. The purpose of this study is to evaluate what many scholars now regard as the most reliable general methods of dating Old English: the various linguistic tests.

A sense that the English language had changed over time was expressed at least as early as Chaucer (Troilus and Criseyde, I{.2228), but it was the historical attitude of the Renaissance that first suggested juxtaposing copies of the same text from different periods as a demonstration of the evolution of the language. The antiquary William Camden printed two Old English versions of The Lord’s Prayer and three later versions (from the reigns of Henry II, Henry III, and Rich-

ard II) in his Remaines of a greater Worke, published in 1605 and reprinted at least eight times in the seventeenth century.! The first explicit recognition that the Old English language itself did not form a single seamless whole but instead included several different stages and dialects was made by George Hickes in his great grammar, Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus & Archeologicus, published in 1705.2 Hickes distinguishes three stages of the language, which he calls dialects: British-Saxon, which includes Cedmon’s Hymn, the Old English translation of Bede, and perhaps the Heliand (which however Hickes later assigns to the poetry of the Franks; part 2, p. 101); Danish-Saxon, which includes the Rushworth and Lindisfarne Gospels and much of the poetry; and Norman-Saxon, which is virtually Middle English (pp. 87-88, 101). “‘“Linguam Saxonicam,’’ Edward Thwaites notes in his excerpt from Hickes, “*quz per Danorum incursus, seculis nono decimoque ex pura & simplici facta est mixta & hybrida, post ingressum Normannorum, quotidie festina-

tius labascentem intueamur.’’? Hickes lists a number of linguistic 1 Camden, Remaines of a greater Worke, Concerning Britaine, the Inhabitants there of, their Languages, Names, Surnames, Empresses, wise Speeches, Poesies, and Epitaphs (London, 1605), cited in Richard Wilker, Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsdchsische Literatur (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 9-10, and in Eleanor N. Adams, Old English Scholarship in England from 1566-1800, Yale Studies in English 55 (New Haven, 1917), . 43.

° 2 Hickes, Thesaurus (Oxford, 1705; rpt. Menston, 1970), esp. part 1, pp. 88-101. See also the excerpt by Edward Thwaites, Grammatica Anglo-Saxonica ex Hickesiano Linguarum Septentrionalium Thesauro excerpta (Oxford, 1711; rpt. Menston, 1970), pp. 26—36.

3 Grammatica, p. 35.

Introduction 3 changes that distinguish ‘““pure’’ British-Saxon from Danish-Saxon (pp. 88-101) and Danish-Saxon from Norman-Saxon (pp. 136-39). His lists

are marred by an occasional false generalization (as when he suggests that Saxon g is replaced by Danish-Saxon h, Saxon gesege going to Danish-Saxon ges@eh; p. 94) and by a constant failure to distinguish spelling changes from sound changes (Norman-Saxon k for DanishSaxon c 1s presented as of equal importance with Norman-Saxon -e for Danish-Saxon final -a; p. 137). The distinction between DanishSaxon and British-Saxon seems in practice to resemble the modern distinction between the early Northumbrian and late West Saxon dialects: Hickes contrasts Danish-Saxon a with Saxon o (nalde/nolde), -ia- With -eo- (bian/beon), ae with @ (baem/bem), b with f (diobul/ deoful), -io- with -eo- (gehriordadon/gereordedon), and so on (p. 94). Nevertheless, Hickes’s list of spelling changes in’Old and Middle En-

glish is remarkably sound, even if somewhat confused; he notes, among other changes, the blurring of unaccented vowels (stanes for stanas), the loss of inflectional endings (Jered for lareda), the Norman

changes in the spelling of certain sounds (ch for c, k for c, u for f), reversed spellings (hure for ure), syncope (lifge for lifige), dialectal variants (beran for beoran), and the normal chronological development of certain sounds (i- for ge-, e for ea; Thwaites, p. 35). The scholars who followed him—Maurice Shelton, Edward Lye, Johann Christoph Adelung, and Joseph Bosworth himself—merely qualified Hickes’s analysis of the stages or dialects of Old English. Bosworth’s list of the differences between pure Anglo-Saxon and Dano-Saxon in 1823 is still heavily indebted to Hickes.4 Although these early scholars clearly distinguished different eras of the Old English language by date, and classified various texts into various dialects, there was little recognition that the language of a text could reflect its date. Maurice Shelton accepts Hickes’s analysis of the Saxon tongue in his translation of Wotton’s reworking of the Thesau-

rus in 1735, and he dates pure Saxon from the Saxon invasions of England until the Danish invasions in the ninth century, Dano-Saxon from the Danish invasions until the Norman invasions.® But he classifies the language of Alfred, A4Elfric, and Wulfstan as pure Saxon be-

fore its corruption, and Genesis, which he attributes to Cedmon, as Danish-Saxon (pp. 11—13). Adelung more consistently terms only Ced* Bosworth, The Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar, With Copious Notes (London, 1823), pp. 249-57. ° Shelton, Wotton’s Short View of George Hickes’ Grammatico-Critical and Archeological Treasure of the Ancient Northern Languages (London, 1735), pp. 11-13.

4 Introduction mon’s Hymn ‘‘pure Anglo-Saxon or British Saxon’’ and cites Rushworth and Lindisfarne, Alfred, and the poetic Genesis as examples of Danish-Saxon.®

It is under the clear analysis of Erasmus Rask in 1817 that something like the modern understanding of Old English appears. Rask’s main emphasis, it is true, is on the continuity and homogeneity of the Old English language: We have here an ancient, fixed, and regular tongue, which during a space of five hundred years, preserved itself almost without change; for King Ethelbert adopted Christianity about 593 or 596, and his laws, which we may refer to about the year 600, are perhaps the oldest extant in AngloSaxon. ... A fragment of the Saxon Chronicle, published by Lye concluding with the year 1079, is still in pretty correct Anglo-Saxon... .”

His critical analysis of Hickes is clear-sighted. He notes on the one

hand that Hickes means to describe periods in the history of the , language rather than dialects in the modern sense, and on the other that the ‘‘Dialectus Dano-Saxonica’’ does not constitute ‘‘the Dano-Saxon historical period,’’ as Hickes claims, ‘‘but only the Northumbrian dialect’’ (p. 169). He points out that the Cottonian harmony of the Gospels is in Old Saxon, not British Saxon (p. 169). Most im-

portant, Rask observes that traces of the Northumbrian dialect are present *‘even in the purer A. S. pieces . . . which perhaps are to be ascribed to the dialect of the transcribers, and might, should this tongue ever become an object of critical investigation, possibly help to determine the age of M.S.S. and the place where they were written’’ (p. 172). As far as I know, this suggestion, put forth by Rask in 1817

and translated into English in 1830, is the first recognition that linguistic forms can localize and date the works employing them. Humphrey Wanley had relied on paleographic distinctions to date manu-

scripts over a century earlier,* but Rask is specifically referring to linguistic changes: ‘‘as a for an, and o for e, in the terminations, also eo for y and e for eo, ea in the middle of words’’ (p. 172). ® John Christopher Adelung, ‘‘A Concise History of the English Language, Its Changes, and Gradual Improvement,”’ in A. F. M. Willich, Elements of the Critical Philosophy .. . (London, 1798), pp. vi-ix. 7 Rask, A Grammar of the Anglo-Saxon Tongue, with a Praxis, trans. B. Thorpe (Copenhagen, 1830), pp. xlvii-xlviii. William Daniel Conybeare expresses a similarly sceptical point of view toward changes in the language: ‘‘With regard to the chronological arrangement of these remains, little can be offered. . . . The language and style of the earliest specimen of Saxon poetry, the Hymn of Cedmon, resembles so closely those of the latest specimens that no evidence which deserves reliance can be derived from that source,’’ in John Josias Conybeare, Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry, ed. W. D. Conybeare (London, 1826), p. Ixxxvi. 5 Wanley notes in a letter to Thomas Smith, June 20, 1697: ‘“The Charters I believe

Introduction 5 Rask’s suggestion that linguistic forms might contribute information as to date and dialect was argued more explictly in 1839 by J. M. Kemble.? Kemble states that the “‘great antiquity, and peculiarities of dialect’’ of the Old English wills “‘are of immeasurable value to those who attempt to trace the language of our various tribes’’ (p. 11), and adds: the great antiquity and peculiarities of the language in which they are for the most part written, is of itself a decisive guarantee of their authenticity. This is in itself a proof, unshakeable, irrefragable, far beyond any evidence we can offer for any other class of documents; and fortunately supplied in the very case where almost all other evidence fails us: for these documents being for the most part directions, to have effect upon a contingency, and the directions of private individuals of no great note or name, without dates or such formalities of signature as accompany the Latin charters, supply few tests of authenticity. (p. cviil)

In his discussion of the marriage contracts in Old English Kemble makes a similar point: ‘“‘their authenticity, hardly to be tested by any other means, is best proved by the philological investigation of the language in which they are written’’ (p. cxii). After the theoretical statement by the great philologists Rask and Kemble of the importance that linguistic characteristics could have in dating a text, various critics and editors began citing linguistic forms

to support their ascription of dates. As early as 1853 another great philologist, Franz Dietrich, used the distinction between two words for ‘to hope’, hycgan and hopian, as evidence that the Paris Psalter consists of two segments: one, which exclusively uses forms of hyht and hycgan, to be regarded as older than Alfred, eighth century; the other, which uses forms of hopa and hopian, as certainly older than fElfric, perhaps tenth century.!® Lichtenheld’s classic analysis of the development of the weak adjective and the definite article in Old English, published in 1873, did not itself try to date Old English texts, may be older than the books, and may determine the age of all the Saxon MSS. with the assistance of some other remarks, but one cannot rely upon them, till we know for certain which be genuine and which not; and to find this a man had need of altogether [sic],’> in Adams, Old English Scholarship, Appendix I, no. 10, p. 122. ® Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, 1 (London, 1839). John Petheram cites these passages from Kemble in An Historical Sketch of the Progress and Present State of Anglo-Saxon Literature in England (London, 1840), p. 172. 10 Dietrich, *‘Hycgan und Hopian,”’ Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Alterthum 9 (1853), 220-221. John Bromwich confirms Dietrich’s theory that the prose Psalter is to be dated

to the tenth century in ‘‘Who Was the Translator of the Prose Portion of the Paris Psalter,’’ The Early Cultures of North-West Europe (Chadwick Festschrift), ed. C. Fox and B. Dickins (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 290-303.

6 Introduction but it provided information that was quickly adopted by young scholars like Groth, Mirkens, and Foster for use in dating.

There may well be other scattered references, earlier than those I have found, to dating by linguistic means. But the great and systematic application of linguistic criteria in an attempt to date Old English texts came in the 1890s and the decades following. In Richard Wilker’s annotated bibliography of Old English studies in 1885 there is no mention of any attempts to date Old English literature by linguistic criteria.

If he had written thirty years later, in 1915, he would have had to devote a section of one of his chapters to the score of such studies that had since appeared. At first scholars attempted to direct all they knew of the Old English language and literary culture to the reliable dating of a particular text: Groth (1883) and Mirkens (1899) to Exodus, Foster (1892) to Judith, Trautmann (1898) to Cynewulf’s work. Later scholars tried to present coherent sets of linguistic ““tests’’ that could be applied

to any poetic text to date it: Barnouw in 1902, Morsbach in 1906, Sarrazin in 1907 and 1913, Richter in 1910, Seiffert in 1913, Schiicking

(in a critical overview) in 1917, and Tupper (in an attack) in 1911. Other great scholars of the day supported the tests in print: Binz, Chadwick, and Brandl. Later scholars of Old English have, of course, also proposed, discussed, and sometimes dismissed the linguistic tests; notable are the comments of Cohn (1922), Scherer (1928), Ricci (1929), Sisam (1933), Girvan (1935), Whitelock (1949), Quirk (1950), and Lehmann (1968).

But the scholars of the turn of the century stand apart from those who preceded or followed them by their ambition to do more than discuss the chronological implications of isolated linguistic forms— they aspired to create a system of objective linguistic tests that could unambiguously date all Old English poetry. They were the heirs of the Neogrammarians, who had demonstrated the analytic power of a system of regular sound laws consistently applied.!! Eduard Sievers had revealed the regular metrical principles of Germanic verse in 1885 and 1893.12 The scholars of the turn of the century—Trautmann, Barnouw,

Morsbach, Sarrazin, Richter, and the others—merely hoped to illuminate the relative chronology of Old English poetry by an intelligent application of the powerful sound laws and rules of meter that had 11 Holger Pedersen, Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Webster Spargo (Cambridge, 1931), pp. 292—310; rpt. as The Discovery of Language (Bloomington, Indiana, 1959). 12 Sievers, ‘‘Zur Rhythmik des germanischen Alliterationsverses,’’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 10 (1885), 209-314, 451-545; Altgermanische Metrik (Halle, 1893).

Introduction 7 been discovered. They attempted to identify specific linguistic changes that might serve, like chemical reagents, to put a text in chronological

perspective: ‘‘effaced linguistic forms are conjured up again by the meter as if by means of chemical reagents.’’!*? Their goal was to dig back, through the irrelevant intervening deposits of scribal alterations, to the objective and indisputable fossilized remains of the text itself, as it was first composed. That the evidence they produced was rarely indisputable was a fact of which they were far from ignorant; they were highly conscious of uncertainties and inconsistencies in data, and of the opportunity for varied interpretations of their results. The cautious scepticism of Sisam, Klaeber, and Whitelock is no greater than that which Richter and Sarrazin at times express. Richter admits that his tests are less trustworthy than they might seem because the poetic idiom was archaic, because Sievers’s metrical rules apply in the strictest sense only to Beowulf, because certain uncontracted forms (doan, sie, etc.) were restored in late Old English by analogy, and because short poems do not provide sufficient evidence for confident ascriptions of date.!4 ‘‘It is not to be denied,’’ Richter continues, ‘‘that the value of our criteria is often overestimated and exaggerated. To provide secure dates and to set forth a certain chronology on the basis of these criteria alone is impossible.’’!> Sarrazin, who strongly advocates many chronological tests, nevertheless cautions against ‘‘false, ungrounded assumptions’? and ‘‘a one-sided, mechanical application of individual criteria’’; the tests are valuable, ‘‘only they are not to be too mechanically employed.’’!® But in spite of these careful qualifications to the

applications of the tests, as one of Richter’s early reviewers noted, ‘‘in practice however he disregards them too often in drawing conclusions from his material.’’!” 13 **4hnlich wie durch chemische Reagentien werden erloschene Sprachformen durch die Metrik wieder hervorgezaubert.’’ Gregor Sarrazin, Von Kddmon bis Kynewulf (Berlin, 1913), pp. 3-4. 14 Carl Richter, Chronologische Studien zur angelsdchsischen Literatur auf Grund sprachlich-metrischer Kriterien, Studien zur englischen Philologie 33 (Halle, 1910), pp. 82—83.

15 ““Fs ist nicht zu leugnen, dass der Wert unserer Kriterien oft tiberschatzt und ubertrieben worden ist. Auf Grund dieser Kriterien allein feste Daten zu geben und eine sichere Chronologie festzusetzen ist unmoglich. .. .’’ Ibid., p. 83. 16 Von Kadmon bis Kynewulf: *‘falsche, unbegrundete Voraussetzungen.. . einseitige, mechanische Anwendung einzelner Kriterien’’ (p. 7); ‘‘nur sind sie nicht allzu mechanisch anzuwenden’’ (p. 5). 17 “*in der praxis aber lasst er sie bei den schliissen aus seinem material zu oft ausser acht.’’ Gustav Binz, review of Richter, Chronologische Studien, in Anglia Beiblatt 22 (1911), 80.

8 Introduction Frederick Klaeber’s gentle admonition with respect to the linguistic tests deserves attention: It must be admitted that these criteria are liable to lead to untrustworthy ' results when applied in a one-sided and mechanical manner and without careful consideration of all the factors involved. Allowance should be made for individual and dialectal variations, archaizing tendencies, and (in the matter of the article and weak adjective tests) scribal alterations. Above all, a good many instances of [the metrical tests] are to be judged non-conclusive, since it remains a matter of honest doubt what degree of rigidity should be demanded in the rules of scansion. Yet it cannot be gainsaid that these tests, which are based on undoubted facts of linguistic development, hold good in a general way.'8

Klaeber’s qualifications to the tests—with respect to the variations due to authorial idiosyncrasy, dialect, the uncertainty of our understanding of the meter, and scribal alterations—are all important, and it is only with qualifications like these that the tests can ever yield valid results.

But if the tests are to have an authority that is more than subjective, they must be, in a sense, ‘‘mechanical’’; critics have too often condemned in them a quality to which they aspired. The designers of the tests, ‘“‘these mechanical appraisers of verse,’’ as Tupper calls them, tried to find criteria that were reliable, objective, and independent of the minds applying them.!® If the tests are mechanical in this sense— as the Lautgesetze and rules of meter are mechanical—they can offer invaluable guidance in dating, and therefore in interpreting, Old English literature. The question is whether we can, with a full knowledge of the reservations that must qualify the tests, formulate any tests that

are reliably mechanical. Subjective criteria for dating the literature exist in plenty, but a good, operator-blind, mechanical linguistic test, which takes into account the qualifications Klaeber and others have made, would be of special value. If the linguistic tests cannot be so qualified that they are reliable indicators of date, the *“undoubted facts of linguistic development’’ that Klaeber stresses will still be of value

to editors and critics in their analysis of Old English texts. But the scholars of the turn of the century aspired to something more—they wished to bring ‘‘order into the chaos of Old English poetry.’’?° I have tried, by a rigorous analysis of their proposed chronological tests, to determine the success they achieved in that venture. 18 Klaeber, Beowulf, 3rd ed. (Boston, 1950), pp. cvili—cix. 19 Frederick Tupper, Jr., ‘““The Philological Legend of Cynewulf,’’ Publications of the Modern Language Association 26 (1911), 276. 20 Sarrazin, review of Trautmann, Kynewulf (1898), in Literaturblatt fiir germanische und romanische Philologie 20 (1899), 10.

Introduction 9 For the purposes of discussion I treat the linguistic tests in four groups: the metrical and phonological tests, the syntactic and grammatical tests, the lexical tests, and the stylistic tests. Following current scholarly practice I distinguish between the three parts of Christ, between Genesis A and Genesis B, and between Guthlac A and Guthlac B in compiling statistics for the tests, but I treat Christ and Satan as one poem and elsewhere follow the division of texts in the AngloSaxon Poetic Records. Accepting E. V. Gordon’s assessment that Elphinstone is ‘‘a fairly accurate copyist,’’ I treat the text of The Battle of Maldon (taken from Elphinstone’s transcript) on a par with the texts of poems preserved in the great Old English poetic codices.?! Quota-

tions of the poetry are taken from The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records throughout. As a result I do not distinguish long and short vowels in any word quoted from a poetic (or, in general, a prose) text of Old English. Nevertheless, many of the linguistic tests, particularly those involved with the meter, depend on distinctions in vowel length, and so in general discussions, where I am not quoting from a specific text, I mark vowel length. Although this practice results in an appearance of inconsistency, I believe it is defensible. I have translated quotations from German, supplying the original text wherever it could be of interest. Transcriptions of runes follow Bruce Dickins’s system; thus

though ‘3’ and ‘Pp’ are in general replaced by ‘g’ and ‘w’, ‘3’ is used in the transcription of runes. Certain standard reference works, like the grammars of Campbell and Luick, are cited once in full and thereafter only by the last name of their authors; all works cited in this fashion can be found in the Bibliography. The terms ‘‘early’’ and ‘‘late’’ are not used with reference to particular centuries, but relatively. What is early with respect to one test may be late with respect to another. In general I discuss qualifications to the validity of the tests, like those Klaeber raises, in the context of the individual tests themselves. There are, however, two basic assumptions about Old English litera-

ture that if true might invalidate the tests: the assumption that the surviving texts of Old English poems represent a random record of one performance in a continuing oral tradition of poetry, and the assumption that the language of Old English poetry is consciously archaic.

Old English literature itself offers evidence that poetry was performed orally or sung (in Bede’s tale of Cedmon, in Beowulf, in Deor), 21 Gordon, The Battle of Maldon (London, 1937; rpt. with minor corrections, New York, 1966; rpt. with supplement by D. G. Scragg, Manchester, 1976), p. 36.

10 Introduction and it seems plausible that at least some Old English poems were improvised at the time of their performance. When I attempt to date the ‘‘composition’’ of a text, therefore, I am concerned only with its first written record—the ‘‘author,’’ for my purposes, being the man who gives the text written form and (I presume) literary shape. If, as

some assume, the man who first records the text incorporates unchanged large portions of the work of earlier poets, reproducing their words from his memory, it 1s their linguistic forms that will be scrutinized and dated; he will have no more effect on their language than later scribal copyists. But, as Girvan points out, “if the last [poet] to treat the subject made the poem anew from beginning to end, and we have his work as he made it, that is for our purpose identical with [a poem] written from the start.’’”” It 1s difficult enough to reconstruct and date the linguistic forms of the first exemplar of a text, obscured as these often are by later copies; it is futile to try to detect and date the linguistic forms of generations of oral poets beneath the work of the final improviser. Aldo Ricci assumes that ‘‘the Charms underwent centuries of oral transmission’’ before they were first recorded,”? but the linguistic tests make no claim to detect that sort of pre-history in a text. More damaging than the oral formulaic theory of Old English verse is the assumption that Old English poets used a consciously archaic language in which sound changes long completed in speech and prose only gradually made themselves felt. If this is so linguistic criteria for dating are worthless, for if a poet can use either archaic ‘‘poetic’”’ pronunciations or contemporary ‘‘normal’’ ones or a mixture of the two, his choice will depend as much on his personal style as on his

period. There is no reason to assume, once forms have become archaic, that poets will use gradually fewer and fewer of them in a smooth progression as time passes. As Whitelock properly notes: ‘‘if a poet feels himself able to use two pronunciations of a word, the extent to which he avails himself of the opportunity may be a matter of personal choice.’’*4 Yet it is precisely such a gradual, predictable development that Richter assumes:

72 Ritchie Girvan, Beowulf and the Seventh Century (London, 1935), pp. 12-13. 3 Ricci, ‘‘The Chronology of Anglo-Saxon Poetry,’’ Review of English Studies 5 (1929), 261.

*4 Dorothy Whitelock, ‘‘Anglo-Saxon Poetry and the Historian,’’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, 31 (1949), 81.

Introduction 11 Even in the oldest texts later linguistic forms are found next to earlier ones. The early state of the language had thus already been abandoned, and the poets still make frequent use of the earlier forms, which are to be considered archaic. ... As the older and oldest texts demonstrate, the later forms had already prevailed in the language, that is, in ordinary life. .. . Only in poetry did archaisms still have traditional currency. ... We must therefore suppose a gradual and slow conquest of the early linguistic usage in literature. . . . Archaisms die out slowly.”

It surpasses credibility, however, to assume that centuries could pass before a sound change already complete in the spoken language, like contraction or the syllabification of the liquids and nasals, made itself felt in a primarily oral poetic medium. Moreover, if poets are truly using metrical forms of words that have not been spoken for decades, even centuries, why have they made no mistakes? There are no unetymological archaisms (analogous, somewhat, to hyper-urbanisms).

We do not find, for example, words that could never have had an ‘“‘uncontracted’’ dissyllabic form occupying two syllables in the meter. Not all words of archaic form occur in formulas, where they might be

preserved long after their current pronunciation no longer satisfied metrical rules. (Moreover, there is evidence that formulas changed to fit metrical norms with new pronunciations; see the discussion of widan féore and to widan feore, section 1.2, pp. 35-36.) I believe it is far more likely that Old English poetry was composed in the spoken language of the time, with contemporary pronunciation, syllabification, and accent, although with a traditional vocabulary and a number of traditional formulas that might ‘‘sound all right’ to poets without meeting the metrical norms otherwise applied. Those poems, and they are many, that record both earlier and later forms of words subject to certain sound changes may be explained in several ways. There may be a subtle consistency in the treatment of words subject to the sound changes that we have hitherto overlooked: Lehmann sug25 Richter, Chronologische Studien: ‘‘Dazu kommt noch, dass sich schon in den altesten Denkmalern neben den Aalteren Sprachformen auch die jiingeren finden. Der alte Sprachzustand war also schon beseitigt und die Dichter machen noch von den 4lteren Formen, die als archaistische zu betrachten sind, reichlich Gebrauch’”’ (p. 81). ‘‘Wie die alteren und altesten Denkmialer zeigen, waren die jiingeren Formen schon sprachlich, d. h. im gewohnlichen Leben durchgedrungen; denn sie finden sich tiberall. Nur in der Poesie hatten sie [die alteren Formen] als Archaismen noch traditionelle Geltung, als

poetisches Sprachgut’’ (p. 82). ‘‘Wir mussen daher ein allmahliches und langsames Uberwinden des alten Sprachgebrauches in der Literatur annehmen... . Die alteren [Sprachformen] sind nur massig gebraucht, die Archaismen sterben langsam aus und sind gegen Ende der ags. Poesie vollig verschwunden”’ (p. 81).

12 Introduction gests that this may be the case in Beowulf’s treatment of the syllabic consonants.”° After the sound change in question had been completed—consistently—words may have been reformed on analogical principles as they were before the sound change: Quirk argues that this explains the many de-contracted forms found in late Old English.?7 Or the linguistic change in question may have occurred very slowly, leaving alternative pronunciations (or constructions) acceptable over a considerable period of time: this may have been true of the use of the definite article with the weak adjective. In either of the last two cases, or if the construction is already archaic in the spoken language and can be used or not at the discretion of any poet, it 1s clear that percentage differences in use will be of no aid to dating. That forty percent of the occurrences of a certain construction are of the old type in one poem, while sixty percent are of the old type in another, establishes nothing if later forms of the construction can be refashioned analog!cally to look old, or if the poets in question could use either the new or the old forms. ‘‘Absolutely nothing is to be concluded,’’ Sarrazin himself concedes, ‘‘from slight differences in percentage.’’?? Only those works which exhibit either exclusively older or exclusively newer linguistic forms can be clearly distinguished in date, as Binz points out in his review of Richter. Only such works can ‘‘hold a relatively accurate position in sequence; all texts exhibiting mixed forms can at best be placed between these end points, without allowing of an exact ordering.’’?? When for a given text the results of all the linguistic tests point independently to a certain date, however, even mixed evidence is likely to be meaningful. The consistency of the results makes it less likely that the mixture of early and late forms represents the chance choice of the author and more likely that it represents the actual linguistic usage of a given period. It is with these assumptions that I have interpreted the results of the linguistic tests in the analysis that follows. 26 Winfrid P. Lehmann, ‘‘Post-Consonantal / m nr and Metrical Practice in Beowulf,’’ Nordica et Anglica, ed. Allan H. Orrick (The Hague, 1968), pp. 148-67. 27 Randolph Quirk, “‘On the Problem of Morphological Suture in Old English,”’ Modern Language Review 45 (1950), 1-5. 28 “Aus geringen prozentualen unterschieden ist aber gar nichts zu schliessen.”’ Sarrazin, ‘‘Zur Chronologie und Verfasserfrage angelsachsischer Dichtungen,’ Englische Studien 38 (1907), 149. 29 “‘einen relativ richtigen platz in der reihe enthalten, alle formmischungen aufwelsende denkmaler konnten héchstens zwischen diese endpunkte hineingelegt werden, ohne eine genaue ordnung zu gestatten.’’ Binz, review of Chronologische Studien, p. 79.

Phonological-Metrical Tests Among the first linguistic tests proposed for dating Old English were the phonological-metrical (sprachlich-metrische) tests. Eduard Sievers, in the first thoroughgoing analysis of the meter of Beowulf, assumed that certain words had a different number of syllables in the original poem than was indicated in our late manuscript; certain lines scanned in a normal manner only if they were assumed to include an older form of a word—an uncontracted form where later Old English typically used a contracted version, or a form with a long vowel where later Old English typically had a short vowel, and so forth.! Scholars

were quick to realize that if the meter preserved evidence of older linguistic forms, these older forms could be used to date the poetry. Texts with many metrically attested older linguistic forms must be earlier than those with only more modern forms. Moritz Trautmann in 1898 was already applying some metrical tests in an attempt to date

Cynewulf’s work with reference to the other major Old English poems.” But the first theoretical attempt to specify the date at which changes attested in the meter—apocope, syncope, loss of medial h and contraction—occurred was undertaken by Lorenz Morsbach in 1906. He tried to show that u-apocope and loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h were not completed before 700, and that loss of intervocalic h occurred at approximately the same period.? One of his students, Carl Richter, attempted a relative dating of most of the Old English poetic corpus by four metrical tests: u-apocope, loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h with subsequent lengthening and then re-shortening of the vowel by analogy to forms which retained h, loss of intervocalic h with subsequent contraction, and the appearance of words ending in 1 Eduard Sievers, ‘‘Zur Rhythmik des germanischen Alliterationsverses,’’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 10 (1885), 451-52. 2 Trautmann, Kynewulf, der Bischof und Dichter, Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik 1 (Bonn, 1898), pp. 120-22 and passim (hereafter cited as Trautmann). 3 Morsbach, ‘‘Zur Datierung des Beowulfepos,’’ Nachrichten von der kéniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse (1906), pp. 251-77 (hereafter cited as Morsbach). 13

14 Phonological-Metrical Tests syllabic /, m, n, or r in mono- or dissyllabic forms. Richter’s analysis appeared in 1910,* and was followed in 1913 by a more restricted study

by Friedrich Seiffert that applied the last two tests to Beowulf and Genesis A, demonstrating that Genesis A had more uncontracted (older) forms than Beowulf, but that Beowulf had more monosyllabic (old-

er) forms than Genesis A—that is, that the results of the two tests conflicted.°®

Gregor Sarrazin had discussed much of the early poetry in an article of 1907, using many linguistic criteria.® In addition to the four - previously discussed metrical criteria he proposed the attestation of contracted or uncontracted forms of negated verbs (ne wolde/nolde, ne wes/nes, etc.) and of certain compound words (@ghweder/awéer, etc.) as a sign of date. He also applied this criterion and others in his systematic attempt to date the poetry in Von Kadmon bis Kynewulf, published in 1913.7 In 1935 Ritchie Girvan summarized such of the

, tests as applied to Beowulf,® and later scholars and editors have frequently cited the metrical tests as a means of dating their texts. The major theoretical analysis of the tests and the general application of them to Old English poetry, however, belong to the first decades of this century.’ In 1917 L. L. Schtcking attacked the reliability of all tests proposed for dating by linguistic criteria, and in 1929 Aldo Ricci restated the grounds on which scepticism rests.!° In general the modern response has been wariness of the tests, and caution in applying them has been urged by Klaeber, Whitelock, and Sisam, among oth-

ers.1! ,

* Richter, Chronologische Studien zur angelsdchsischen Literatur auf Grund sprachlich-metrischer Kriterien, Studien zur englischen Philologie 33 (Halle, 1910) (hereafter cited as Richter). 5 Seiffert, Die Behandlung der Worter mit auslautenden urspriinglich silbischen Liquiden oder Nasalen und mit Kontraktionsvokalen in der Genesis A und im Beowulf, Diss. Halle-Wittenberg, 1913 (Halle, 1913). 6 Sarrazin, ‘“‘Zur Chronologie und Verfasserfrage angelsdchsischer Dichtungen,”’ Englische Studien 38 (1907), 145-95. 7 Von Kadmon bis Kynewulf: Eine litterarhistorische Studie (Berlin, 1913) (hereafter cited as Sarrazin).

8 Girvan, Beowulf and the Seventh Century: Language and Content (London, 1935), pp. 1-25 (hereafter cited as Girvan). .

® Winfrid P. Lehmann’s study may presage a recurrence of interest in the field: ‘‘Post-Consonantal / m nr and Metrical Practice in Beowulf,’’ Nordica et Anglica, ed. Allan H. Orrick (The Hague, 1968), pp. 148-67. 10 Levin L. Schucking, ‘‘Wann entstand der Beowulf?’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 42 (1917), 347—410 (hereafter cited as Schiicking). Ricci, ““The Chronology of Anglo-Saxon Poetry,’ Review of English Studies 5 (1929), 257—66 (hereafter cited as Ricci). 11 Friedrich Klaeber, ed., Beowulf, 3rd ed. (Boston, 1950), pp. cvili-cx (hereafter

Phonological-Metrical Tests 15 The metrical tests have one particular advantage among the linguistic tests in general. Forms attested by the meter are discernible through the medium of any scribal distortion. Whatever modernization the scribe, or successive scribes, may have introduced, the metrically attested older form is still likely to be ascertainable—and we can have as much confidence in ascribing it to the original poet as we have in our interpretation of the meter. Although there is some general agree-

ment now among experts on the principles of Old English metrics, there is much honest disagreement over the scansion of any particular line—and the metrical tests are no more secure than the scansion of the line involved. Even where agreement can be reached as to the proper rules of meter for Beowulf—the ‘‘classical’’ rules of Old English meter—there is no guarantee that all the other poetry that has survived was composed according to similar rules. Indeed, there 1s reason to believe that some of it was subject to only relaxed forms of those rules (e.g., the Paris Psalter). In some cases the linguistic tests can be qualified to include only those instances that are attested by the most basic and universal of the metrical rules—like the minimum num-

ber of four syllables per half-line—but even in these cases acceptance | of the results of the tests depends on agreement with the metrical theory involved. Those who find themselves sceptical of metrical theories So far proposed for Old English poetry will have no confidence in these tests.

In the analysis of the tests that follows I rely on A. J. Bliss’s analysis of the meter of Beowulf.'? In those cases where Bliss records no sequence of accented and unaccented syllables similar to those in the half-line in question, I record a null (2) in my charts, and where another reading of the half-line in question (by contraction or restoration of a contracted syllable, etc.) provides a metrical type normally found in Beowulf, it seems reasonable to believe that the poet originally wrote the line in normal form, and that therefore the line attests

the contracted (or uncontracted) form of the relevant word. I do so assume in my discussion of the various metrical tests, but I would like to note here that there are reasonable arguments against believing that the metrical rules underlying Beowulf were observed in all Old English

poetry, and that perhaps a certain scepticism should be reserved for cited as Klaeber). Dorothy Whitelock, ‘‘Anglo-Saxon Poetry and the Historian,’’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th Series, 31 (1949), 81. Kenneth Sisam, “‘Cynewulf and His Poetry,’’ Proceedings of the British Academy 18 (1933), rpt. in Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), p. 6. 2 Bliss, The Metre of Beowulf, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1967) (hereafter cited as Bliss).

16 Phonological-Metrical Tests the results of the metrical tests. The data the tests provide are no more secure than our understanding of Old English meter and no more pre-

cise than our ability to pinpoint Old English sound changes. Other qualifications will be made in the discussion of the individual tests, which are analyzed in roughly chronological order: first apocope and syncope, in particular u-apocope; change of vowel length after loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h; contraction of hiatus between originally neighboring vowels and of hiatus due to loss of intervocalic h, w, and j; contraction of negated verbs and of certain compounds; and finally the monosyllabic or dissyllabic form of words ending in syllabic l,m, n, OF Fr.

In addition to these tests, which depend primarily on older forms— attested in the meter—of words subject to certain sound changes, there are further tests that deal with the meter itself. In 1884 F. Kluge suggested that the incidence of rhyme increased in later Old English poetry, and in 1892 Thomas Gregory Foster discussed a number of metrical characteristics that changed from early to late Old English.!* Two of the various metrical tests seem more reliable than the others. Palatal

and velar g alliterated in early Old English verse and, it has been argued, do not alliterate in tenth-century verse. Bliss argues that originally ‘‘a short syllable followed by a short vocalic ending was equiv- | alent to a single long syllable, but a short syllable followed by a consonantal or a long vocalic ending could only be equivalent to a long syllable followed by a similar ending’’ (§40). Already in Beowulf this

distinction is blurred. My analysis of the usefulness of these changes , in Old English metrical technique as chronological tests follows the analysis of the other metrical tests. The section concludes with an analysis of the circumstances in which phonological changes can by themselves, without the evidence of the meter, assign a date to Old English texts. These purely phonological tests are useful only when the author’s original spelling can be distinguished (as, for instance, with inscriptions); the best known of the phonological criteria ascribes a date to Cynewulf’s work by the spelling of his name with an e. Throughout this section and the following sections I have in general used lines listed by the scholars who proposed the tests to supply 13 Kluge, “‘Zur Geschichte des Reimes im Altgermanischen,’’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 9 (1884), 422-50. Foster, Judith: Studies in Metre, Language, and Style, with a View to Determining the Date of the Oldenglish Fragment, Quellen und Forschungen 71 (Strassburg, 1892), pp. 1-103 (hereafter cited as Foster).

Phonological-Metrical Tests 17 the evidence for the tests. It seemed permissible to do this instead of reading through the corpus myself, because I am not now trying to date the poems individually, but to check the tests in general. If there are ten more examples of a certain contracted form in Genesis A than I have listed, the dating of the poem may be strikingly affected, but the status of the test itself will not. The statistical sections are included merely to indicate the sorts of results the tests give—in most cases, quite mixed forms—and it seemed possible to do this without meticulously checking to make sure that every relevant half-line for a certain sound change had been included. For the most part, then, the lines cited have been proposed by Richter, Trautmann, Seiffert, or Sarrazin. In all cases I quote the line number as it appears in The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records and give only my own scansion of the lines according to Bliss’s metrics (which, incidentally, not infrequently varies from that of the scholar who proposed the line as evidence). Many of the lines that earlier scholars considered certain examples of contraction or other changes I scan as ambiguous according to Bliss. Certain lines they thought ambiguous by allowing anacrusis in an A verse with the caesura after the second syllable (2A1) I scan as unambiguous since Bliss claims anacrusis in this type does not occur. I do not list those half-lines that the proposer himself considers metrically ambiguous and that I also find ambiguous by Bliss’s metrics. In no case should the statistics presented in the charts be presumed to carry authority as to the date of a particular poem. There may be several more in-

stances of half-lines relevant to each sound change in each of the poems analyzed. The relevance of the statistics 1s solely for the tests. The statistics are listed in an attempt to show to what extent the results of each test are unambiguous and consistent over the corpus.

1.1

Syncope and Apocope, Particularly U-Apocope Of phonological changes proposed for dating Old English texts, u-apocope, or the loss of final -u after long syllables, is the earliest.

Final -uv and final -i were lost at the same period,' after the -i had already caused i-mutation.? Karl Luick puts the loss of -u and -i at the beginning of the seventh century,® Alistair Campbell **before the period of the oldest texts’’ (§394). But in 1906 Morsbach argued that, in originally dissyllabic words (i.e., like flodu), u-apocope did not occur before the end of the seventh century and could thus be used to set a terminus a quo to Old English literature (p. 253). In an attempt at precise dating of w-apocope (which in a chronol-

ogy of phonological change can only be placed relatively, ‘after i-umlaut’’), Morsbach collected ten early instances of the retention of

final -u after a long syllable. Of these examples, three can be dismissed immediately. The conjectured reading ‘‘olwfwolbu’’ on the Bewcastle Cross depends on the questionable reading of the final rune

as a bind rune ‘‘p/u.’’ R. I. Page’s reconstruction of the reading is ‘Safo]w[o]wo[o]*,’’ where * represents the uncertain bind rune. Page argues that the inscription is ‘‘of uncertain validity’’ since it was very possibly tampered with in the nineteenth century;? it seems particularly

, likely that the crucial bind rune, *, was recut at that time. Therefore readings from ‘“‘the main Bewcastle inscription must be considered irrecoverable.’’®

The form dweoru, feminine nominative singular, from Vespasian Hymn 7.8.39, far from being an anomalous survival of final -w into the 1 Alistair Campbell, Old English Grammar (Oxford, 1959), §353 (hereafter cited as Campbell). 2 Karl Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik, nach der angelsadchsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers, 3rd ed. (Tubingen, 1965), §146 (hereafter cited as Sievers-Brunner). 3 Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache (Stuttgart and Oxford, 1964), §§ 304, 309, 350 (hereafter cited as Luick). 4 Page, ‘““‘The Bewcastle Cross,’’ Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 4 (1960), 50-53. Citation from p. 53.

5 [hid., p. 53. In addition it can be noted that no reading of the name has much in common with any known Old English name (‘‘alwfwolbu,’’ ‘‘alwowolbu,”’ etc.), and that, even if the reading were indisputable, names are often phonologically conservative. 18

Syncope and Apocope 19 early ninth century, is the standard form of the adjective still found in Campbell’s paradigm (§643.2). Whether it is to be explained, as Morsbach suggests, as a short diphthong due to back umlaut after smoothing (pp. 257-58; cf. Campbell, $247, n. 3), or, as Campbell assumes, by breaking with loss of -h- followed by a back vowel before the -h- could

cause smoothing (§§231, 643.2), dweoru has nothing to do with u-apocope. The forms néolecan, néoweste are, as Morsbach argues (p. 258), not survivals of -u from an original *nehu-, but merely the results of the breaking of Anglian e (from WGmc. @) caused by -h-, which afterwards drops off (Campbell, §152). Four more of Morsbach’s examples are proper names. The form Audubaldi, from Bede’s Ecclesiastical History 11.10.11, is, as the vowel au- shows, a foreign version of the name that in Old English usually

appears as Eadbaldi, Eadbaldum (Morsbach, p. 257). As a foreign ‘form its weight in the question of u-apocope is reduced. But there are other Old English forms of names with retained -u after a long syllable: a number of Northumbrian names in Tiu-, Tio- in Bede (and Tiouald

in the Liber Vitae); the name Osuiu, of a Northumbrian king; and Inguburg in the Liber Vitae 19. The Tiu-, Tio- names evidence a form where -iu-, -io- was stable in compounds, although the -u, -o apoco-

pated at the end of a word, leaving 7 (thus the name of the god Ti, with -w generalized from oblique cases; Campbell, §120.3, n. 2). Osuiu

ruled Northumbria 641-670, and even in that period we might expect u-apocope to be complete. But the -u remains in the Moore manuscript of Bede (first half of the eighth century) and in a later Northumbrian kings list. Inguburg is found in a section of the Liber Vitae from the turn of the eighth to ninth century. The evidence of these names, which retain -u long into the period when -u is regularly apocopated in all other words, can be compared with the southern coiner’s name found on nine coins dated 730-740, which retains a regularly apocopated -i. The inscription on seven of the coins is ‘“‘zpilired,’’ on one ‘‘edchilired,’’ and on only one in an apocopated form, ‘‘epil.rad.’’® Conservative, perhaps even archaic, forms that had vanished from the language as a whole clearly could be preserved in names. For this reason the evidence of the four names Morsbach cites for establishing the date of uw-apocope is, as he himself recognizes, inconclusive.’ °R. I. Page, An Introduction to English Runes (London, 1973), pp. 126-27. Cf. Girvan, p. 22. 7 “in proper names, in contrast to common nouns, such unsyncopated forms re-

20 Phonological-Metrical Tests Morsbach’s remaining three examples are all salient. He cites, following H. M. Chadwick,® the runic inscription ‘‘scanomodu’”’ on a

gold solidus minted in imitation of an issue of Honorius, a Roman emperor of the turn of the fourth to fifth century.® The inscription uses

the Anglo-Frisian form of the a-rune, &, the older version of the s-rune, 3 , and a c-rune that seems a compromise between continental and English forms, A . Moreover, the use of 8 as an o-rune indicates that the changes in the runic alphabet caused by i-umlaut were not yet complete. For these reasons Wimmer dates the coin to the sixth century, a dating Page accepts.!° The inscription would therefore seem to

be clear evidence for an unapocopated u-form in the sixth century, and indeed few philologists would wish to push u-apocope any further

back in date. But objections have been made to the evidence of the coin on two grounds: that it does not really read ‘“‘scanomodu’’ and that it is not Old English. Ivar Dahl, developing a suggestion made by Enlert Ekwall, sees the name ‘“‘scanomodu’’ as a Latin form and argues that ‘“‘there is an s-rune

added horizontally after the u in such a way as easily to be mistaken

, for part of the ornament.’’!! He therefore reads the inscription as ‘*scanomodus,’’ with a Latin -us ending. Campbell endorses this interpretation, which of course removes any evidential value for u-apocope (§613).

Page does not seem to have found the final s-rune in his examination. But he believes the coin is really Frisian: nothing is known about it before its appearance in the cabinet of George III, comparable

runic coins have come from the Low Countries, and there are no mained traditional somewhat longer’’ (“‘in Eigennamen, im Gegensatz zu den appellativen, derartige nicht synkopierte Formen etwas langer traditionell erhalten haben’’). Morsbach, p. 259. 8 H. M. Chadwick, **The Syncope of -u after a Long Syllable,” in his Studies in Old English, Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society 4, 2 (Cambridge, Eng., 1899), p. 156. Morsbach derives many of his examples from Chadwick, although he often takes issue with Chadwick’s interpretations. ° A photograph of the coin can be found in Reginald Stuart Poole, A Catalogue of English Coins in the British Museum, Anglo-Saxon Series I, ed. Charles Francis Keary (London, 1887), plate 1:1. 1° [bid., p. 1xxxvi, for Wimmer’s paleographical analysis. Page, English Runes, pp. 35, 186-88. 1 Tvar Dahl, Substantival Inflection in Early Old English, Lund Studies in Old English 7 (Lund, 1938), p. xii. Karl Schneider however finds Dahl’s reading of the final s-rune ‘‘not tenable’: ‘‘Six OE Runic Inscriptions Reconsidered,’’ Nordica et Anglica, ed. Allan H. Orrick (The Hague, 1968), p. 38.

Syncope and Apocope 21 numismatic objections to calling the coin Frisian. Moreover, if the first

element of the name derives from Gmc. *skaun, as Page believes it does, the coin shows the Frisian a for Gmc. au in contrast to the Old English e or ea (cf. OE Scenwulf). Other runic Frisian texts preserve unstressed -u, and there is, in short, nothing to show that the coin is not Frisian. ??

The attitude taken toward the evidence of the solidus scarcely matters. If it represents a genuine sixth-century Old English spelling, it is not a surprising one—no one seems to argue that u-apocope was complete before the sixth century (and certainly not before i-umlaut!). If, on the other hand, the solidus represents a runic spelling with Latin ending, or comes from Frisia, the loss of evidence for a pre-apocope sixth-century form is not distressing—none of our texts are so early. The remaining two instances Morsbach cites date from about 700,

however, and do constitute important evidence. They are etgeru, from the early glossaries, and ‘‘flodu,’’ from the Franks Casket. Epinal

440 and Corpus 922 read “‘framea aetgaeru’’ and Erfurt 440 reads ‘‘framea aetgaru.’’ The Erfurt reading is likely to be an error for Epinal, Corpus aetgaeru, as Chadwick suggested and Campbell endorses (§§613, 346, n. 2).42 The form may merely be the normal plural

of a neuter ja-stem, where aetgaere, Cp. 167, and etgare, Cleop. 1.404.15 (sweord odde etgare), represent the normal singular (Campbell, §346, n. 2). Under this interpretation the word provides no evidence for u-apocope, since the plural -u in this declension does not apocopate. But this reading does some violence to the agreement of number between lemma and gloss; the putative ja-stem plural etg@ru glosses the singular framea (Ep., Erf. 440, Cp. 922) and the singular falaricia (Cp. 839), while the putative singular wtg@re glosses the plu-

ral ansatae (Cp. 167) as well as the singular framea ... sweord (Cleop. I.404.15) and falarica.’4 Atg@éru could equally well be inter-

preted as the singular of a feminine io-stem, with a regular plural etge@re, aS Dahl suggests (p. 148) and Campbell mentions (§591, n. 2).

But scholars differ as to whether the -u would be expected to apocopate if etg@ru is a io-stem noun. In the feminine nominative singular io-Sstem adjectives retain -u (Campbell, §644), and several nouns with 12 Page, English Runes, pp. 186-88.

8 Luick ($121, n. 1) seems to support Morsbach’s argument that Erf. aetgaru represents a different development from Ep., Cp. aetgaeru, but the inter-relatedness of the glossaries makes scribal error more likely than ablaut or suffix variation. ‘4 Arthur S. Napier, Old English Glosses Chiefly Unpublished (Oxford, 1900), VIII.312, 1.5023 (hereafter cited as Napier).

22 Phonological-Metrical Tests suffixes, adopted into the jo-stem declension, also retain the -u: mynecenu, hyrnetu, ylfetu (Campbell, §592 d, e). But these nouns have short-syllabled suffixes and -u only apocopates after long syllables and short syllables followed by a syllable (Campbell, §345). Nouns of the simple, unsuffixed jo-stems that Campbell cites do not retain the -u in

the feminine nominative singular. Dahl assumes that the Old English io-stems without a -u in the nominative singular must have derived their nominative singular ending from -i, and that therefore there would

be nothing out of the ordinary in etg@ru, with an ending derived from -i0, retaining its -u unapocopated like the io-stem adjectives. But Campbell derives even the u-less forms from -jo (‘‘n.s. synn is from Gmc. *sunjo,’’ §591) and argues that loss of -u here, as with the nominative plural of cynn, is because ‘“‘u drops after syllables made long by West Gmc. consonant gemination’’ (§§591, 353, n. 5). It seems at least possible that the -uv in fem. nom. sing. etg@ru should also be expected to apocopate, since it too follows a long syllable, and -uv from Prim. Gmc. -o after a long syllable regularly apocopates (Luick, §304). If we argue that the -i- of the io-stems was vocalic (as Campbell argues of *rikiu, §353), we could get a form that would normally retain -u

(e.g., ricu), but Campbell argues that this is precisely what did not happen to the rest of the jo-stems (§591). If @tg@ru is seen as a fem-

inine jo-stem noun, I think, pace Dahl, that the -u should be interpreted as a survival of unapocopated -u where one would expect apocope. Nonetheless our understanding of the declension and gender of etgeru is uncertain. It is entirely possible that the word is a neuter jastem. It is possible that @tgar is masculine: the Old Norse cognate atgeirr 1s masculine, and other Old English occurrences seem to have regular masculine a-stem endings: ewtgar (Harley Gl. F 85), ewtgaras

(Wrt. Voc. 1.3.68), ategaras (Napier, II.502), ategarum (Napier, I.786). In the light of the last form, ategarum, which glosses the singular lemma, falarica, it is even conceivable that the occurrences of ceetgeru were meant for etgerum (for etgarum), a masculine dative plural with an omitted bar of abbreviation over the -u. (Such a theory, however, is probably farfetched in view of the four occurrences of etgeru.) The gender and declension of etge@ru are confused, and due to the range of interpretation of the form, no argument for the dating of u-apocope can safely rest on its evidence. If it represents an unapocopated -u form, it is the only one in the glossaries—which it may well be. The glossaries themselves, however, are not precisely datable. The interpretation of the final form, ‘‘flodu’’ from the Franks Cas-

Syncope and Apocope 23 ket, is almost as problematic as that of e@tg@ru. Flod is definitely a u-

stem noun (Go. flodus, Campbell, §614), and the casket is generally agreed to be Northumbrian from about 700, although as Alfred Becker points out, “‘any date between 650 and 750 may well be just as accu-

rate.’’'> Morsbach completely bases his argument for u-apocope on ‘‘flodu’’: ‘‘we meet with only one single indisputable and completely linguistically validated case of retention of -u, and that is flodu on the runic casket.’’!® In so heavily emphasizing ‘‘flodu’’ he perhaps underrates the glossaries’ wtg@ru and the solidus, but nevertheless any late

dating of u-apocope must rely on the Franks Casket. : The front panel of the casket has a runic legend apparently describing the origin of the whalebone from which the casket was carved.

It reads: on the left side, ‘‘hronzsban’’; above, ‘‘fisc. flodu. / ahof on fer3”’; on the right side, ‘‘enberiz”’; and below, ‘‘warp gasric 3rorn

per he on 3reut 3iswom.’’!” Recent scholars agree in interpreting ‘“hronzsban’’ as a statement describing the material of which the casket is made (‘‘this is whalebone’’) and as separate syntactically from

the rest of the runic legend, which then can be read as alliterative verse: fisc flodu ahof on ferzenberi3z, warp gasric 3rorn per he on 3reut 3iswom.!8

There is no general agreement on the translation of the first line. ‘‘Flodu’’ has been read as an instrumental form for flode (‘‘the fish lifted itself with the flood onto the seacliff’’), more plausibly as a masculine nominative singular (“‘the flood lifted the fish’’) or masculine accusative singular (‘‘the fish lifted water over the seacliff’’), as a masculine accusative plural, or as a neuter nominative or accusative plural.!9 If ‘‘flodu’’ is singular, it represents a relatively late unapocopated u form 15 **‘wenn also ‘um 700’ als Entstehungszeit anzunehmen ist, dann mag ebensogut jedes Datum zwischen 650 und 750 zutreffen.’’ Becker, Franks Casket: Zu den Bildern und Inschriften des Runenkdstchens von Auzon (Regensburg, 1973), pp. 117-18 (hereafter cited as Becker). 16 “‘wir finden nur einen einzigen unanfechtbaren und sprachlich vollig gesicherten Fall von Erhaltung des -u vor, und zwar in flodu auf dem RunenkAastchen.’’ Morsbach, . 259.

° 17 Becker, p. 17 and plate I. See also A. S. Napier, ‘‘Contributions to Old English Literature, 2: The Franks Casket,’’ in An English Miscellany Presented to Dr. Furnivall (Oxford, 1901), pp. 367-68 and plate II. 18 Becker sums up current opinion, pp. 17, 190, n. 43. 19 Becker traces critical support for the various interpretations, pp. 18, 191, nn. $2—56.

24 Phonological-Metrical Tests (or else the Franks Casket itself must be dated much earlier, which is unlikely for other linguistic and art-historical reasons).2° Morsbach ar-

gues for the late unapocopated form. If ‘‘flodu’’ is plural it can be explained as an anomalous -u plural with no implication as to dating, either due to the Old English confusion of back vowels ‘‘from an early date’? (Campbell, $613) if it is masculine, or due to the encroachment of the -a declension endings on the u-stems (Campbell, §§614, 570) if it is neuter.”! Other scholars have explained the form as an archaizing use of an old ending, suggesting that the carver gives himself away when he puts an inauthentic -u at the end of *‘3iupeasu.’’?? Still others assume the form is a blunder of some sort, and that the u belongs to a following word, perhaps ‘‘up,’’ which was never completed.”%

| No interpretation of ‘‘flodu’’ has established itself as preeminent. The form is clearly important—one no scholar can ignore. Nonetheless, as Girvan points out: ‘‘If one is to base conclusions on a single form, there are certain conditions which it must satisfy. The form must be beyond suspicion of tampering, the grammatical explanation must be beyond all doubt, and, if chronology is in question, the date must be certain’’ (p. 20). ‘‘Flodu’’ does not approach this kind of reliability as evidence, and it is astonishing, in retrospect, that Morsbach could refer to 1t as an ‘‘indisputable and linguistically completely validated case of retention of -u’’ (p. 259). Morsbach fails to demonstrate that u-apocope did not take place before the end of the seventh century. The gold solidus, if its reading is accepted as indicating an Old English example of unapocopated -u, is far too early to establish Morsbach’s date. The glossary reading ceetgeru and the Franks Casket’s ‘‘flodu’’ are alike problematic in interpretation—but if uw-apocope were indeed not yet complete in 700, why are there not more examples of unapocopated -u in the glossaries and the proper names in early manuscripts of Bede? Morsbach, in his search for early instances of already apocopated -u, claims to have found a number of examples in the glossaries and in the Moore manu20 Art historians date the casket between 650 and 750 (Becker, p. 118); and f for b in wylif and sefu and loss of -n in sefu militate against the seventh century (Napier, ‘*Contributions,’’ p. 380). “1 Page provides a lucid summary of possibilities for construing ‘“‘flodu’’ (English Runes, pp. 176-77) and opts for reading it as ‘‘an irregular plural.”’

22 For various interpretations of ‘‘3iubeasu,’’ see Morsbach, pp. 254-55; Napier, ‘‘Contributions,’’ p. 370; Becker, pp. 64-65, 213, nn. 323-24; and Page, English Runes, pp. 179-80. 23 Becker, pp. 191-92, n. 58; Campbell, §346, n. 2; Sievers-Brunner, §274, n. 4.

Syncope and Apocope 25 script of Bede.”4 He cites several misconstrued examples of early apoc-

opated -u,?° and two valid ones: Uuidmundes felth from a charter in Essex (Birch, no. 87, now dated 687),”° and Hetfled in an early ninthcentury manuscript referring to Streoneshealh, 700-731 (St. Gall 567). The high incidence of scribal alterations in spellings may well make | both spellings questionable, since each is recorded only in manuscripts written long after uw-apocope was completed. In general, however, the difficulty lies not in finding early reliable examples of apocopated final -u, but in finding anything else. Morsbach proceeds to apply his criterion of u-apocope to three early texts, Cedmon’s Hymn, The Leiden Riddle, and Bede’s Death

Song, as well as to Beowulf (pp. 269-73). In Cedmon’s Hymn he argues that verse 4b should read *oru astalde, which is indeed an acceptable A type (Bliss’s 1A*1). But the unamended, post-apocope version of the Moore manuscript, or astelid@, is also a perfectly acceptable A type (Bliss’s 1A1), so with respect to the scansion of verse 4b, Cedmon’s Hymn could be either before or after u-apocope, and Morsbach has proved nothing. Verse 5a in Bede’s Death Song, aefter deothdaege, scans if deoth is post-apocope (Bliss’s 2C1), but not if a final -u is inserted: *deothudaege. Similarly, verse la of The Leiden Riddle, mec se ueta uong, scans as it stands (Bliss’s 3B1), but is unmetrical if -u is restored in *wongu. SO Bede’s Death Song and The Leiden Riddle are definitely post-apocope. Morsbach also compiles a list of verses in Beowulf that will not scan if -w is unapocopated: 104b, 367b, 686a, 1297a, 1950a, and 2575b (pp. 270-71).?’ I have checked these and they are indeed 24 Examples are place names in -ford and -felth and personal names in -frid (for -frid): Morsbach, p. 261. 25 Morsbach, pp. 260-61. The suffix “‘-gar’’ (‘‘-gzr’’ in Page’s reading, ‘‘Bewcastle Cross,’’ p. 38) on the Bewcastle Cross is on the main inscription, possibly tampered with (see above, p. 18). In any case, the stone, now tentatively dated 750-850 (‘‘Bewcastle Cross,’’ p. 57), 1s late enough to expect apocopated -u. ‘‘Tidfirp’’ on the Monkwearmouth stone I also proves nothing, since the stone is now dated to “‘the late tenth or eleventh century’’ (Page, English Runes, p. 143). ‘‘Eoh’’ from the inscription at Kirkheaton probably represents eoh ‘horse’ rather than éoh, iw ‘yew’, but is in any case undatable (English Runes, p. 31). 26 Walter de Gray Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum, 3 vols. plus Index Saxonicus (London, 1885-1899; rpt. New York, 1964) (hereafter cited as Birch); C. R. Hart, The Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester, 1966), p. 125. P. H. Sawyer records some scholarly doubt as to the authenticity of the charter: Anglo-Saxon Charters, An Annotated List and Bibliography (London, 1968), no. 1246. 27 Morsbach also argues that verse 3133a of Beowulf is unmetrical if -u is restored to flod. The verse indeed scans as it is (flod fepmian) as Bliss’s 1D1, but flodu febmian

26 Phonological-Metrical Tests unmetrical. Beowulf was composed, as Morsbach argues, later than u-apocope. Such a conclusion, however, is scarcely as startling as Morsbach hoped, since he has failed to determine when u-apocope took place or

to demonstrate that any Old English literary text antedated uapocope.”® A particularly vigorous scholarly dispute later developed as to whether Genesis A was to be dated before or after u-apocope. Gregor Sarrazin argued in 1907 that there was metrically indisputable evidence for pre-apocope u-forms in Genesis A.?9 Richter dismissed Sarrazin’s examples, arguing that there was “‘nevertheless, among the numerous cases not a single secure example which required the restoration of final -u. On the other hand, several cases probably argue for the loss of -u.’’?° Sarrazin answered Richter in his Von Kadmon bis Kynewulf (pp. 25-27), refuting the post-apocope examples and introducing new verses for consideration. When the instances suggested by both scholars are evaluated on metrical grounds according to Bliss’s theory, most prove to be inconclusive. Of Richter’s four proposed lines, one (2294a) scans acceptably with (type 1A*1) or without (type 1A1) final -u, and two include words that could never have ended in -uw in the singular (879b, 1385b). Only the fourth example is telling: 1801b is definitely plural and will only scan if written post-apocope (as type 3E2). Sarrazin also proposes a number of lines for consideration with

singular nouns that need never have had -u (180a, 202a, 1183a, 1417a, 2614a)—and indeed, they all scan without -v. Lines 1087b, 1257b, 1334b, and 1516a all contain forms which would have had a pre-apocope -u, but which scan only if that -uv is lost: without -u they are of type 3B1, with -u they are of type 2A1 with anacrusis, a type Bliss says rarely or never occurs and must be unmetrical (§§46—48). Verses 1217a, 1232a, and 1308b are all metrically deficient as they stand and require an extra syllable in hund to scan normally as 2C1, also scans as Bliss’s 1D*1 (with 22 other similar a-verses with double alliteration in Beowulf)—so the example is inconclusive. 28 Carl Richter, Morsbach’s student, found that in every Old English text he examined, ‘‘final -u has already disappeared everywhere after long stressed syllables”’ (‘‘das auslautende -uv nach langer Tonsilbe schon iiberall geschwunden ist’’). Chronologische Studien, p. 71. 29 Sarrazin, “‘Chronologie,’’ pp. 178-79. 3° “‘doch kein einziger sicherer Beleg unter den zahlreichen Fallen, der eine Wiederherstellung des auslautenden -u erforderte. Dagegen sprechen doch wohl mehrere Falle fur Schwund des u.’’ Richter, p. 23.

Syncope and Apocope 27 3E2, and 3E2 respectively. But the extra syllable need not be an unapocopated -u: Campbell notes that hunde often appears as an accusative plural for hund ‘hundred’ (§687), so these lines too are inconclusive. Line 1638b, of bam widfolc, is also metrically deficient, but could as easily be emended folc[e] as folc{u]. Line 1951a, full wona bearn, is problematic in meaning but not in meter: its scansion is normal without -u (3E2) and unmetrical with -u.*! Richter thus provides one, and Sarrazin (unwittingly) five examples of verses in Genesis A that scan normally only if they were composed post-u-apocope (1801b, 1087b, 1257b, 1334b, 1516a, 1951a). Genesis A, like other Old English texts, cannot be shown to be pre-uapocope and seems likely (if its meter is reliable enough to base such tests on) to be post-apocope.

Since most authorities either decline to date u-apocope other than relatively (Brunner, Campbell) or place it quite early (Luick), however, even the knowledge that Old English literary texts follow u-apocope is virtually useless—after all, they postdate the conversion of England

in 597, too. As an attempted terminus a quo for Old English literary texts, u-apocope is Over-vague.

This discussion of Morsbach’s test of u-apocope should not end without mention of other more general tests relating to syncope and , apocope. Eduard Sievers noted in 1885 that a medial unaccented vowel in an open syllable was regularly syncopated after a long root syllable in Beowulf.*2 Syncope in this position, he pointed out, was normal in all Old English verse, and the few exceptions indicated a late rein-

troduction of the syncopated vowel. Thomas Gregory Foster cited” Sievers’s argument in his study of Judith in 1892 and singled out two verses that only scanned if unsyncopated; he interpreted the absence of syncopation as additional evidence for Judith’s late date.*® Moritz Trautmann (p. 120) argued from the consistent syncopation in all the works of Cynewulf (with the exception of Elene 377b, modcwanige,

which he felt was to be emended) that Cynewulf must predate the Judith poet, who uses unsyncopated forms. The modern grammars agree with Sievers that all Old English poetry postdates the regular 3! The emendation to foldwonga bearn in The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records also scans as a normal post-apocope type 3E2. 32 Sievers, ‘“‘Zur Rhythmik,”’ p. 459. 33 Foster, p. 50. The lines in question are 229a medowerige and 245a medowerigum,

both of which belong to the rare type 2C1- if the i in -werig- syncopates, but to the normal type 1D3 if unsyncopated (though they lack the double alliteration found in all forty instances of 1D3 in Beowulf).

28 Phonological-Metrical Tests syncope of fully unaccented medial vowels in open syllables after long syllables (Campbell, §392; Sievers-Brunner, §159). But the examples | Foster and Trautmann cite all involve adjectives with the suffix -ig < *.79; and originally long unaccented vowels (like *-ig), which were shortened in Primitive Old English (-ig), were only sporadically syncopated since they retained a kind of secondary accent (Sievers-Brunner, §162; Campbell, §358). Syncopation occurred ‘‘very frequently in the inflected cases in Angl. after long syllables, sometimes after shorts,

... and syncopation is the rule in OE metre’’ (Campbell, §358). But , unsyncopated forms predominate in West Saxon texts of all periods if the spellings in the prose can be trusted (Sievers-Brunner, § 162; Campbell, $358), and the distinction seems more one of dialect than of date.

| The situation is further complicated by the confusion of -ig < *-ig with -ig < *-wg: the latter regularly syncopates since it was never long and therefore lacked any secondary accent, while -ig < *-ig develops with ‘*starkes Schwanken’’ (Sievers-Brunner, §162). Only halig is normally

syncopated in all dialects, though unsyncopated forms occur in fElfric.** None of the grammars suggest that the irregular occurrence of syncope in inflected adjectives in -ig is at all tied to date, and the test must be judged unreliable because it is more reflective of dialectal than of chronological differences and because unsyncopated and syncopated forms are found in all periods. Most examples from the poetry

are metrically ambiguous, but Exodus 50a (ealdwerige) and Elene 377b are instances of unsyncopated forms in poems we would not otherwise wish to call late. And the two poems in which unsyncopated

forms are common are both West Saxon as well as late: The Meters of Boethius and The Menologium (see Sievers’s list of relevant lines, p. 121).

Ritchie Girvan discusses the apocope of -@ and -e as a chronological criterion. In general the syncope and apocope of -@- and -e-

occurred before syncope and apocope of -i- and -u-, though both changes follow i-umlaut (Campbell, §394). That unapocopated forms of long-stemmed words did exist in Old English is shown by the survival, in poetic words and in proper names, of the unapocopated hilde-, along with hild-, as the form the feminine jo-stem noun hild took in 34 John C. Pope, ed., Homilies of Alfric: A Supplementary Collection, EETS 260, vol. 2 (London, 1968), ‘‘Glossary and Word Index,” s.v. halig, adj. 35 Among them Brunanburh 31b; Deor 19b, 33a; Dream \i1b, 112a, 143b, I1S1b, 154a; Guthlac A 264b, 590a, 617a, 631b, 818a; Maldon 80b, 303a; Seafarer 116b; Wanderer 77b. Guthlac 760a must be syncopated (type 2Clc), as must Seafarer 12a (type 3E2).

Syncope and Apocope 29 compounds. Campbell (§349) notes that loss of final -e was less likely to occur before a long vowel in the second element of the compound: hilderinc, hildewisa, Hildiburg, but hildfruma, hildfreca, Hilduini; but

no other variant forms of words subject to apocope survive. Bede : refers to the abbess of Streoneshealh (Whitby) as Hild, and if we agree with Girvan that ‘‘there is no reason to doubt that that was what she called herself’ (p. 19), then apocope of -e had occurred before her lifetime, 614-680. Certainly the sound change was an early one: an occasional unsyncopated form of a proper name is attested in Old English (e.g., 4pilired, the coiner), but no certain unsyncopated or

unapocopated forms are attested in the poetry. Since syncope and apocope predate the oldest Old English texts, then, they are of little use for dating them. Girvan himself states that “‘to reintroduce apocopated and syncopated vowels would mean little less than rewriting [Beowulf]’’; “‘the insertion of [the syncopated vowels] would destroy the metre’’ (pp. 18—19). The syncope and apocope of unaccented vow-

els in Old English, like u-apocope, are useful only in offering a very general terminus a quo for Old English poetry and cannot serve as a chronological test.

1.2

Loss of Post-Consonantal Prevocalic H and Subsequent Compensatory Lengthening At the very beginning of the period from which the earliest Old English texts date, h was lost after a consonant (usually r or /) and before a vowel. Luick dates the loss of h in this environment to approximately the time of smoothing, at the end of the seventh, beginning of the eighth century (§§291, 250.2—4). Campbell notes that “‘loss of x 1S later than breaking, but generally earlier than smoothing’’ (§242), and more specifically, ‘““when a diphthong stood before /y or ry, the x was lost too early to occasion smoothing if a back vowel followed; if a front vowel followed, the y caused smoothing before it was lost’’ (§ 231). The value of this sound change for dating lies in the fact that loss of prevocalic A after a consonant caused compensatory lengthening of the vowel that preceded the consonant. Where forms with and without

an h alternated in the inflectional system after loss of h (mearh, meares), short forms of the lengthened vowel quickly developed in analogy to the forms that retained h. That is, mearh, *mearhes developed after loss of h to mearh, méares, and a doublet méares sprang up under the influence of the short vowel in mearh. The meter of Old English poetry indicates, in many cases, whether the short or the long vowel appears; such metrical evidence, indeed, constitutes the primary

indication that compensatory lengthening ever took place in certain words, like wala, genitive plural of wealh, and hale, dative singular of healh, for which place-name evidence points generally to a short vowel.! With the exception of a few words (ME mare, mere < OE meare [mearh|; ME, ModE ivy < OE jifig < “*if-hieg; etc.), the short form of the vowel was the one that survived in Middle English words.’ 1 Campbell, §240, n.1; but cf. Klaus Dietz, ‘‘Zur Vokalquantitat ae. Worter des Typus w(e)alh-w(e)alas,’’ Anglia 88 (1970), 1-25. Dietz presents evidence for the existence of Old English lengthening in southern place names incorporating the elements healh, sealh, sneare, and swira/sweora. 2 “‘The short forms gradually displace the long and finally prevail alone, which 1s also confirmed by Middle English’’ (‘‘die Kurzformen verdrangen die Lange allmahlich und sind schliesslich die allein herrschenden, was auch vom me. bestatigt wird’’). Richter, p. 4; cf. Sievers-Brunner, §281.1.

30

Loss of Prevocalic H 31 Both short and long forms, however, are amply attested in Old English poetry, and although a word with compensatory lengthening after loss

of h cannot be metrically distinguished from its predecessor with h (mearhes and meares are both metrically long), the appearance of analogically developed short forms can be used to mark a text as later than one with only long forms. For this reason Morsbach has described the loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h, with compensatory lengthening and shortening, as ‘‘an undoubted criterion for the dating of our oldest Old English poetic texts.’’? Morsbach attempts to date precisely the loss of post-consonantal

prevocalic h as he did u-apocope, by reference to spellings in externally datable early texts. He cites the spelling of a name Uelhisci in a Kentish charter of 679 (Birch, no. 45) as evidence that the h was not yet lost in Kentish. Campbell agrees, identifying the sound as a “‘medial breathing . . . between vowel and /, m, n, r’’ that was ‘‘lost early in OE,”’ but for which ‘‘a few forms occur . . . in which this breathing

is still written as h, e.g... . Uelhisci’’ ($461). Having established an early spelling with h, Morsbach cites a somewhat later instance without h: the genitive and accusative forms of the word ‘‘seal’’ found in the Vatican Northumbrian Glosses (a manuscript dated by Ker as s. vill), selaes, selas.* To narrow the ground between the early Kentish form with h and the later Northumbrian one without h, Morsbach discusses forms from the Franks Casket and the early glossaries. The unusual form of the names ‘‘romwalus’’ and *“‘reumwalus’’ on the Franks Casket has inspired much scholarly speculation.® One tin-

terpreter has gone so far as to see in -wal- a pun on the material of which the casket is made (“‘hronesban’’),® but it is generally assumed, as Morsbach suggests (pp. 264-65), that the Old English name element -walh blends with the Latin ending -ulus to produce the mixed ending -walus. Had the form produced been *-walhus, the h would ordinarily have remained, as it does in the oblique form of the later Old English name Dunuualhi from a charter of 740.7 Whatever the explanation of 3 ‘‘ein unzweifelhaftes Kriterium fiir die Datierung unserer 4ltesten altenglischen poetischen Denkmialer.’’ Morsbach, p. 269. 4 Napier, Old English Glosses, no. 54, refers to the manuscript as ‘‘ninth-century’’ (p. xxul); cf. Neil R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 388. > Becker traces the history of speculation on the topic, pp. 56, 209, nn. 276-80. 6 J. F. Hodgetts, Older England (London, 1884), p. 142: ‘‘I fear we have to charge our forefathers with the vice of punning,’’ quoted in Becker, p. 209, n. 276. 7 Henry Sweet, Oldest English Texts (London, 1885), p. 429, cited in Morsbach, p. 265. Page, English Runes, p. 178, agrees: ‘“The evidence of Latinized forms of -walh

32 ~ Phonological-Metrical Tests the unusual blended forms that yield ‘‘romwalus’’ and *‘reumwalus,”’ as R. I. Page has pointed out, ‘‘they cannot be dated from Old English loss of h.’’® Nor, conversely then, can Old English loss of post-con-

sonantal prevocalic h be dated from the Franks Casket, although it should be noted that even if the standard interpretation of the forms is wrong, and they do exhibit loss of h, the attestation of loss of A in forms from about 700 is not particularly disturbing.

. The most interesting evidence for loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h comes from the early glossaries at Epinal, Erfurt, and Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Morsbach does not discuss the individual

spellings, but merely refers to H. M. Chadwick’s list of forms with and without h.? Chadwick’s listings are not clearly or helpfully categorized, however, and his discussion is superseded by Pheifer’s terse, straightforward analysis in his edition of the Epinal and Erfurt glossaries.!° Initial h and h as the initial sound of the second element of a compound are regularly lost in all three glossaries. Medial h is sporadically preserved, most often in Epinal, slightly less often in Erfurt, and rarely in Corpus. Pheifer cites examples for the preservation intervocalically, between a vowel and a syllabic consonant, and between

a voiced consonant and a vowel. The last case 1s the relevant one. Ep., Erf. 854 reads ebhatis as against Cp. 1705 eobotum [eofot]. Ep. 981 reads sceolhegi as against Erf. 981 sceolegi and Cp. 1939 scelege.

Ep., Erf. 884 reads furhum as against Cp. 1794 furum. It should be particularly noted that the h retained in Ep., Erf. 884 furhum is lost a few lines earlier in Ep., Erf. 881 (Cp. 1761) thuerhfyri (< furh ‘furrow’). There is clearly no scribal consistency in the treatment of h. The simplest explanation, that the archetype for the three glossaries preceded loss of h (except perhaps initially and in the second elements of compounds) and that scribes modernized sporadically, is probably

the most plausible. But since that archetype can be dated only by linguistic means (including among other sound changes the loss of /), it is obviously futile and circular to try to date loss of h by its sporadic occurrence in the glossaries. The glossaries can offer good relative linguistic evidence: in their dialect, loss of h was already taking place names shows that they do not produce -walus at any Anglo-Saxon date, for in Latin contexts the nominative remains endingless as -walh while an oblique case adds the

vowel ending without loss of h.’’ ,

8 English Runes, p. 178. ® Chadwick, ““The Syncope of -u,’’ pp. 229-32. 10 J. D. Pheifer, Old English Glosses in the Epinal-Erfurt Glossary (Oxford, 1974),

§72.

Loss of Prevocalic H 33 while medial f and b ({v] and [6]) were still distinguished; u-apocope was apparently complete or virtually so while post-consonantal h’s

, still appeared in spellings, and so forth. But the precise date Morsbach wants (‘‘post-consonantal -h- before a vowel dropped out sometime around 700, shortly after the loss of -u following syllables bearing primary stress’’) is not to be established on the data of the glossaries." We are left with a late seventh-century Kentish form with h (Uelhisci) and an eighth-century Northumbrian form without h (selaes).

But the metrical evidence attests only to shortening of the vowel lengthened by loss of h. The important sound change to date, then, is the analogical shortening, not the original loss of h. Richter assumes that after compensatory lengthening ‘‘short forms, which are to be explained by the working of analogy, appeared very soon,’’ but he offers no evidence for the rapid appearance of the short forms.!? The infrequency of attestation of long forms in place-name evidence might be considered indirect evidence for the rapid appearance of short doublets next to the forms that underwent compensatory lengthening. It could even be argued that compensatory lengthening was far from an automatic and immediate development after loss of h, although, if that is true, metrically long and short forms will have no value whatsoever for dating. It is possible, in view of the different histories of individual words, that shortening occurred at different times in different words, or that short/long doublets coexisted for some time. At any rate, we cannot precisely date shortening after loss of h; most of our externally datable and localizable texts are non-poetic and hence do not provide the necessary metrical evidence as to length of vowel. The poetic texts, externally datable or not, in so far as Trautmann, Morsbach, Richter, and Sarrazin have analyzed them, present very mixed evidence. Theoretically, even if loss of post-consonantal h cannot precisely date Old English texts, it should be able to yield information as to their relative dating. Texts of any reasonable length that record only short vowels in words with loss of # (except for those words in which the 11 ““das postkonsonantische -h- vor Vokal kurz nach dem Schwund des -uv nach haupttoniger Silbe etwa um 700 ausgefallen ist’’ (p. 269). According to Campbell, sound changes, like the loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h, that are already evident to some extent in the earliest texts (although there are also spellings which predate the changes), cannot be dated “‘by observing their gradual appearance in texts, and we can establish their approximate dates and arrange them in chronological order by theoretical means only’”’ ($246).

12’treten schon sehr bald Kurzformen auf, die sich durch Analogiewirkung er-

klaren...”’ (p. 4).

34 Phonological-Metrical Tests vowels remained long throughout the Old English period, like ifig, firas, and orettan) should be considered later in general than texts that

record both long and short forms or only long forms. In fact, the externally datable late poems—TJhe Battle of Maldon and the poems in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle—include only one metrically attested long form (although several instances are not provably short, either).?° Texts that contain only long forms are not provably before or after loss of h (since a short vowel followed by consonant and h is metrically

long), but such texts seem likely to be earlier than those with some short forms. Only Cedmon’s Hymn, The Gifts of Men, Juliana and Precepts fall into this class, and the example from Cedmon’s Hymn (firum, 9a) must be dismissed because firum remained long throughout

the Old English period. Most of the texts that critics have subjected to this test yield mixed forms—a varying proportion of long and short. That this should be so is not in itself surprising: no sound change can have occurred overnight, and there are reasons (the survival of some long and some short forms into Middle English, for example) for assuming that long and short doublets may have coexisted over a considerable period. Richter has argued that the sound change was com-

pleted in contemporary language by the time the first short forms appear in the verse, but that since poetry is a conservative medium, poets continued to use archaic forms for some time, the earlier poets in general using a higher proportion of archaic forms than the later ones.!* Thus he sees significance in the fact that the Riddles attest five long and two short forms while Guthlac A attests three long and two

short. There seems to be no compelling reason to assume that the change in the proportion of long to short forms is a smooth progression

over time, however, nor can we assume that shortening was general in contemporary speech at the time the first short forms appear in verse. Moreover, since the number of relevant (in this case, loss of post-consonantal, prevocalic h) forms vouched for by the meter—or indeed used at all—must be at least partly a matter of chance, especially in relatively short poems, it is hard to share Richter’s confidence. Dorothy Whitelock’s caution seems more appropriate: ‘‘If a poet feels himself able to use two pronunciations of a word, the extent to which 13The exception is Maldon 239b, ba he on meare rad. If meare is long, the line scans as type 3Bic(1); if short, the line does not scan normally. See Chart 1, pp. 37-39, listing the lines proposed by various scholars as subject to this test. 14 J include a fuller discussion of this hypothesis, which is so crucial to Richter’s interpretation of the results of the tests, in the introduction, pp. 10-12.

Loss of Prevocalic H 35 he avails himself of the opportunity may be a matter of personal choice; moreover, the possibility of a different textual history must be reckoned with, for some works may have been exposed to a greater modernization than others.’’!> Gustav Binz, in his review of Richter’s work in 1911, makes precisely this point: whether the texts yield mixed evidence from authorial vacillation or from scribal corruption, valid relative dating is impossible on the basis of the percentages of their forms.!® Too many variables, especially with short texts, enter in. Nevertheless, other considerations tend to support the dating of texts by loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h with subsequent lengthening and re-shortening. The results, meager as they are (see Chart 1),

are reasonably consistent with the dates of the externally datable poems that have relevant forms: Cedmon’s Hymn (1 long), Maldon (1 long, 2 short). Guthlac A, possibly datable from the eighth-century Latin saint’s life by Felix, sits the fence with three long and two short forms. The Cynewulfian corpus, sizeable as it is, offers a great many short forms and only two long forms (in Juliana)—which indicates that some poets, at least, were consistent in their usage.'!’ Overall the test of vowel length after loss of post-consonantal h, although it does not lead to particularly fine-structured datings, has not been invalidated; it suggests that certain poems (those with only short forms) probably do not fall very early in Old English literary history. Moreover, the evidence accumulated for this test offers an interesting perspective on Old English poetic formulas. It has often been suggested that scraps of archaic phonology might lie fossilized in the poetic formulas that appear in Old English verse.!® A later poet, it has been argued, might use a formula that was once metrically correct but had changed in his contemporary speech because, although it did not satisfy his normal metrical criteria, it nevertheless somehow ‘‘sounded , 15 Whitelock, ‘‘Anglo-Saxon Poetry,’ p. 81. 16 Binz, review of Richter, Chronologische Studien, in Anglia Beiblatt 22 (1911), 79. 17 Trautmann (p. 27) proposed emendation of the long forms to short ones to preserve consistency in Cynewulf’s work, and it 1s certainly conceivable that the forms are

due to scribal corruption. But, as Richter points out (p. 36), emendations based on preconceptions about the results of the chronological tests are to be rejected (“‘natiirlich zuruckzuweisen’’). *® Richter “‘very justly remarked, for example, that less demonstrative power re. Ssides in frequently recurring formulas, which may be preserved unaltered for centuries, than in forms of words which appear occasionally and in isolation’’ (‘“‘bemerkte z.b. sehr mit recht. . . dass den oft wiederkehrenden formeln, die sich vielleicht jahrhunderte lang unverandert erhalten, weniger beweisende kraft innewohnen als den gelegentlich und isoliert auftretenden wortformen’’). Binz, review of Richter, p. 80.

36 Phonological-Metrical Tests all right.’’!° The loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h affects one common formula, widan feore, which became unmetrical after shortening.

In the long form this formula appears in Precepts 23b and Juliana 508b. What is particularly striking is that late, short forms of the formula abound: to widan feore (Beowulf 933b, Exodus 548b, Guthlac A 812a, Andreas 106a, 1452a, Elene 211a, 1321b, Christ 230b, 277b), on widan feore (Elene 1288b), and pes to widan feore (Christ 1344a),

and to widan feore (Psalm 71.17a), ic him to widan feore (Psalm 88.25a), and ic to widan feore (Psalm 88.26a). It is possible, of course, that some of these instances involve scribal alteration rather than authorial innovation, but the large number of occurrences makes it likely that at least some poets recast the formula to fit a later pronunciation. H. M. Chadwick even argues that such refashioning of formulas to accommodate linguistic change was the rule: *“‘Poems which are preserved by oral tradition alone are manifestly liable to small verbal changes, especially in a metre so flexible as that of the Teutonic alliterative verse.’’° This is heartening evidence that perhaps metrical practice did reflect contemporary language.

19 If such archaic uses were in fact widespread, it is perhaps surprising that no false constructions, ““hyperarchaisms’’ as it were, appear in analogy to them. See the discussion in the introduction, pp. 9—12. 20 Chadwick, The Heroic Age (Cambridge, 1912), p. 46.

Loss of Prevocalic H 37 Chart I Metrically Attested Vowel Lengths in Words with Loss of Post-Consonantal Prevocalic H Metrical types are recorded following A. J. Bliss, The Metre of Beowulf. Null, symbol 2, indicates that the metrical type does not occur in Beowulf. When a metrical type occurs only once or twice in Beowulf, it is listed, but marked (2) and counted as null.

Total Line Type if Type if

Poem forms , number long short Result A. Poems with only Long Forms

Cedmon’s Hymn 1 long 9a 2Ala 2Cl1-(2) Long

Gifts of Men 1 long 69b 3B1b a) Long

Juliana 2 long 191b 3Bl1b 508b 2Ala @ a) Long Long

Precepts 1 long 23b 2Ala Long B. Poems with Mixed Forms

Beowulf 11 long,855b 537a2Ala d2a a) a) Long Long 3 short 865b 2Ala a) Long 917a 2Ala a Long 1035b 2Ala a) Long 1152a 2Ala @ Long 1293a 2Ala a) Long 1306a 2Ala @ Long 2163b 2Ala a) Long 2664a d2c Q Long 3013b 2Ala @ Long 73b a) 2Cla Short

933b @ 3Bla Short

1843a QD 3Bl1b Short Christ LT 3 long, 1073a 2Ala 2C1-(2) Long

1 short, 1573b 3Bld a) Long

2 ambiguous 1592a Long 1343a @2Ala 3Bica)Short

952a 1A*la 2Ela Ambiguous 1562b 1A*la 1Ala Ambiguous

Daniel 1short long, 101b 225a 2Cla(2Ala) 2Short Long : 1 a) 2Cla Exodus 3 long, 171b 2Ala 2C1-(2) Long

1 short 404a 384b2Ala 2Ala a) Long 2C1-(2) Long 548b a) 3Bla Short

Genesis A 12short long,1342b 1330a 3Bla a) Long 2Ala 2C1-(2) Long 1184b a) 2Cla Short Guthlac A23short, long, 130b 2Ala a) Long 286a 2Ala 2C1-(@) Long

38 Phonological-Metrical Tests Chart 1 Continued

Total Line Type if Type if Poem forms number long short Result l ambiguous 548a 1A*1b 2EIb(e) ~~ Long

13a 2a 2Bib 291b 2C 1dShort Short

626b 1A*la 1Ala Ambiguous

Maldon 12long, a) Long short,239b 194b3Blic @ 2Clc Short l ambiguous 259b a) 2C1b Short

260b 1A*1b 1A1b Ambiguous

Psalms 1 5long, 68.la 3Blc a} Long short, 5§4.23a @ 3Bla Short

6 ambiguous 71.17a @ 3Bib Short

88.26a a) 3Bic 88.27a @ 3Blb Short Short 106.8b a) 2Cla Short 51.8b [A*la 2Ela Ambiguous

54.22b 1A*la 2Ela Ambiguous

60.3b 1A*la 2Ela Ambiguous

68.10a ale ele Ambiguous 101.25b 1A*la 2Ela Ambiguous 132.4b 1A*la 2Ela Ambiguous

Riddles 5 2long, 12.4a 2Ala @ Long short, 23.14b 2Ala 2C1-(2) Long 6 ambiguous 44.2b 1Ala 2 Long

Si.ila 2A1 2Cl1-(2) Long 91.5b 2Ala @ Long 15.21b a) 3Bla Short 72.9a @ 2Cla Short

12.8a 2A3a 2A3b Ambiguous 20.18b 2Cla 2C2a Ambiguous 22.5b 2C1b 2C2b Ambiguous 40.65b 1A*la 2Ela Ambiguous 52.6a 2A3a 2A3b Ambiguous 93.22a 2Cla 2C2a Ambiguous C. Poems with only Short Forms

Andreas 71short, 106a a) 3Bla Short ambiguous 284b @ 2C 1b Short 810a 1096aa)a)3Blic 2Cla Short Short 1130b a) 2C1b Short 1452a D 3Bla Short 1538b a 2C 1b Short

1107b 1D*2 1D2 Ambiguous Brunanburh 1 ambiguous 72b 1A*1b 1A1b Ambiguous

Christ I 2 short 230b @ 3Bla Short 277b a) 3Bla Short

Loss of Prevocalic H 39 Chart 1 Continued

Total Line Type if Type if Poem forms number long short Result

Elene 4 short, 134b a) 2Cla Short l ambiguous 2lla @ 3Bla Short

1288b 3Bla Short Short 1321b D a 3Bla 680b 1D*5 1D5 Ambiguous Guthlac B 1 short 840a @ 3Bla Short

Whale 49a @ a1A*2a Short Widsith1 1short short 78b 2Cla Short

1.3.1

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H and in Other Environments The same scholars who suggested the analogical shortening of vowels lengthened due to loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h as a test for dating Old English literature—Moritz Trautmann and Lorenz Morsbach—proposed contraction after loss of intervocalic h as a similar test. H was lost in both environments at about the same time,! and the loss of intervocalic h left a hiatus between (usually) an accented vowel and a following unaccented one. ‘‘As the prehistoric period of OE drew to a close,’’ Campbell states, this hiatus *‘ceased to be permitted’’ and was resolved by contraction into a diphthong (if the vowels were those which normally formed Old English diphthongs) or by

contraction to the first vowel, which was lengthened (§234). Just as the lengthening and later shortening of vowels after loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h is revealed by the meter of Old English poetry, so these contracted, monosyllabic forms are attested in the meter. ‘‘It

| is well known,’’ Campbell adds, ‘‘that these cases of hiatus, and also older ones, have frequently to be restored in OE verse to obtain the necessary number of syllables’’ (§234). The dating of contraction is less problematic than that of lengthening and shortening after loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h. The authoritative grammars assume, probably with justification, that hiatus between vowels was eliminated without any distinction as to how the hiatus arose; that is, that contraction of originally neighboring vowels

and contraction after loss of h, 7, and w occur at the same time.? If 1 Luick (§250, n. 3) argues that contraction due to loss of intervocalic / and lengthening due to loss of preconsonantal h are ‘‘essentially simultaneous’’ (‘‘im wesentlichen gleichzeitig’’). Loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h occurred only slightly earlier (§ — 250.3~4).

2 Campbell leaves this assumption, which clearly underlies his discussion of contraction, unstated (§§234—39). Luick spells it out: the two kinds of contraction occurred at the same time, ‘‘although the loss of w and j is much earlier, so that it consequently

| produced cases of hiatus in ur-English which remained undisturbed for a considerable period of time. Only when later cases of hiatus had developed in considerable numbers through the loss of A were they all, the earlier and the later, eliminated through con-

40

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 41 this is so, then contraction in general can only have occurred after the generation of a large number of cases of hiatus after loss of intervocalic h. Luick argues that contraction occurs ““presumably soon after that loss [of h],’’ and this too seems likely, though not susceptible of proof.? Loss of intervocalic h cannot have been long before the period of the earliest texts, since these texts still contain spellings with h and spell-

ings that seem to indicate hiatus (e.g., Bede’s Treenta). | Morsbach was the first to evaluate the early evidence closely in an attempt to date precisely loss of intervocalic h and the subsequent contraction. He cites spellings of the word for ‘river’, OE éda (< *eahu), to show that A was already lost in a Kentish charter of 679 (uuestan.ae, Birch, no. 45) and in a slightly later (700-715) Kentish charter (fluminis quae appellatur liminaea).* But, as Dorothy Whitelock notes, these spellings occur ‘‘in the second element of a compound place-name, and not in stressed position.’’® Her citation of the spelling of an abbot’s name, Heaha (Hean in later charters; Birch, nos. 29, 100, 101), in a list of witnesses, 705~709, seems more conclu-

sive: ‘‘h could be preserved as late as the beginning of the eighth century.’’® The Moore manuscript of Bede, though it apparently preserves hiatus between vowels in some spellings, shows consistent loss of intervocalic h.7 No early manuscript of Cedmon’s Hymn preserves traction’ (‘‘obwohl der Ausfall des w und j viel alter ist, dass es somit im Urenglischen Hiatusfolgen gab, die geraume Zeit unversehrt blieben. Erst als durch den Schwund des h neuerlich Hiatusfolgen in erheblichem Umfang sich entwickelt hatten, wurden sie alle—die alteren wie die neuentstandenen—durch Kontraktion beseitigt’’; §249). $ ““vermutlich bald nach jenem Ausfall [des h]’’ (Luick, §249). Girvan agrees, but

offers no rationale: ‘‘intervocalic h cannot have been lost much before 700... and contraction cannot have been long after loss’’ (p. 20). Frederick Norman in his edition of Waldere points out, however, that ‘‘no satisfactory evidence has ever been brought forward to enable us to determine when the €0 in such words as fléon (arising from €6 + a) ceased to be e + o and became a true diphthong’’ (London, 1933; 2nd ed., 1949), pp. 6—7.

* Morsbach, pp. 262-63. I cannot find a charter in Birch with the reading Morsbach cites, but Birch no. 160, a grant by King A2pilberht of Kent to a fishery, 741 (for 7407), has a similar construction: ‘“‘fluminis. cujus nomen est liminea,’’ as does Birch no. 161, a grant by King Eadbriht of fishing rights at Limenea, Kent, 741: ‘‘fluminis cujus nomen est limin @a.”’

° The Audience of Beowulf (Oxford, 1951), p. 27.

° [bid., pp. 27-28. If Heaha is a nickname, and the retention of h reflects a geminated consonant (*Heahha), the spelling can carry no implication for dating, since hh ordinarily remains in Old English (Campbell, §464). ” Girvan, p. 20, points to the spelling Treenta ‘Trent’ beside Treanta in Bede. Alois _ Pogatscher, *‘Angelsachsen und-Romanen,”’ Englische Studien 19 (1894), 347, n. 2, and

42 Phonological-Metrical Tests h in tiade ‘arranged’ (< *tixad@, Campbell, §238.2).° Only the early glossaries offer a number of spellings recording intervocalic h:° Ep. Erf. 171 crocha, Cp. 461 croha Ep. Erf. 579 scocha Ep. 785 faehit, Erf. 785 faethit, Cp. 1582 faehit Ep. Erf. 799 nihol, Cp. 1659 nihold Ep. 840 aehrian, Erf. 840 aegrihan, cf. Cp. 1696 aegnan (< *ehurjo(n) with metathesis) Ep. Erf. 1066 uuolohum, cf. Cp. 2122 uuloum Ep. Erf. 1080 ryhae, cf. Cp. 2126 rye, Ld. 42.2 rihum Ep. Erf. 1081 ryhae, cf. Cp. 2128 ryee Ep. 3 thohae, Erf. 3 thow, Cp. 207 thoae Ep. 654 scyhend, cf. Cp. 1286 scyend, Ld. 47.35 scyhend Ep. 1062 suehoras, cf. Erf. 1062 suweoras, Cp. 2121 sueoras

Erf. 1020 hryhae, cf. Ep. 1020 ryae, Cp. 1977 rye , Two spellings also seem to indicate vowels left uncontracted after loss of h: Erf. 384, Cp. 800 siid (although the ii may merely represent 7) and Ep. 1020 ryae (cf. Erf. 240 ciae for the probably contracted spelling of the diphthong i@ from y + @; Pheifer, §59.5). But in general, as Pheifer notes, ‘‘contraction, like Anglian smoothing, is a normal feature of Epinal-Erfurt’’ ($59), and the following forms may be taken as representative of the general contraction:!° Ep. 97 gitiungi, Erf. 97 getiong, Cp. 185 getiunge (< *tiuhung, §59.3) Ep. Erf. 106 sceptloum (< *-lohan, §59.4) Ep. 489 scaeptloan (< *-lohan, §59.4) Ep. Erf. 795 eorisc, Cp. 1503 eorisc (< *wohu-, §59.1) Ep. 797 faedun, Erf. 797 faedum, Cp. 1504 faedun (< *fehidun, §59.1) Ep. Erf. 1060 thuelan, Cp. 2120 thuelan, Cp. 1991 duaelum (< *bwahilo, cog. OHG duahila, duehila, 1060n., p. 132)

The mixed forms in these glossaries sustain no single interpretation. Certainly contraction following the loss of intervocalic A has already occurred in many words. But spellings with uncontracted vowels or with A preserved intervocalically are not rare, and therefore loss of intervocalic A could not have been complete at the time the ex-

Moore manuscript. ;

H. M. Chadwick, ‘“‘The Syncope of -u,’’ p. 115, give examples of h-less forms in the 8 Elliot Van Kirk Dobbie, The Manuscripts of Cedmon’s Hymn and Bede’s Death Song (New York, 1937), pp. 44-45. ® Pheifer refers to these forms in $72. 10H. M. Chadwick lists these forms, among others, with and without h: ‘‘The Syncope of -u,’’ pp. 229-32.

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 43 emplar for Epinal-Erfurt was composed. Whether the contracted forms are due to sporadic scribal modernization or coexisted with forms that still retained / in the exemplar is not ascertainable, though if the latter

is the case contraction after loss of h must have occurred swiftly indeed. All that can be established with any confidence is that the loss of intervocalic h and the subsequent contraction were not yet complete when the exemplar was composed—that is, probably in the last quarter

of the seventh century or shortly after. But, as I argued with respect to the testimony of the glossaries on the question of loss of post-consonantal prevocalic h, since the evidence for dating the glossaries is primarily linguistic, dating linguistic changes by their occurrence in the glossaries is circular. We are left with an occasional spelling in the Moore manuscript that seems to indicate hiatus between vowels, with a Kentish spelling of 679 showing loss of h in unstressed position in the second element of a compound place name, and with a spelling from a charter at Malmesbury Abbey 705-709 that retains h. There is not enough evidence to date either loss of intervocalic / or contraction with any precision, except to observe that spellings with 4 and with apparently uncon-

tracted vowels appear in the earliest texts, so presumably loss of h and contraction were not yet complete at that date. Even though we cannot date contraction precisely, however, the presence of uncontracted forms in a text could be of use in dating the text: poems of some length that exhibited only uncontracted or only contracted forms could be dated relatively as earlier or later. There are certain reasons, indeed, to regard contraction as a potentially valuable chronological test: Whitelock calls it “‘the most definite of the early linguistic features.’’!! First, most texts provide a sufficient number of relevant instances of contraction to admit a confident judgment as to how often

contracted or uncontracted forms appear. The abundance of attestation, particularly in the longer texts, is reassuring. Secondly, a number of the relevant instances occur in half-lines that would lack four syllables if the contracted form were not expanded. The evidence for use of the expanded form derives therefore from one of the most basic rules of Old English meter.!2 We can vouch for these instances on 11 The Audience of Beowulf, p. 27. 12 ““One can also raise the question of whether the rules of meter, very complicated and subtle at times, had validity for all periods and all poets. One would do well to keep only to the simplest rules, for example the minimum number of four syllables in the halfverse’ (‘‘Es kann auch die Frage aufgeworfen werden, ob zu allen Zeiten und bei allen Dichtern die zum Teil sehr komplizierten und subtilen metrischen Regeln Geltung hatten.

44 Phonological-Metrical Tests metrical grounds with much more confidence than we can with other metrically established linguistic forms, for though our understanding of Old English meter is far from perfect and though many Old English poets may not have restricted themselves rigidly to precise metrical standards, it seems clear that the minimal number of four syllables per half-line was honored in almost all, if not all, Old English verse. Finally, if the chronological test of contraction 1s limited to instances of contraction following loss of h (by far the majority), we have early spellings before contraction, prior to the loss of h (evidence that does not exist for loss of w or j), which can help to date the uncontracted poetic forms. Although Richter treats all cases of contraction together, Sarrazin (p. 2) and Girvan (p. 17) both argue for separate consideration of contraction due to loss of h. Accordingly, in the following tables I classify contraction due to loss of h separately; if this does nothing

else it prevents certain problematic forms, like sie and fréa, from confusing the other statistics. There are grounds, then, for considering contraction, and in particular contraction after loss of h, as an especially valuable linguistic test: “‘das zuverlassigste Kriterium,’’ in Sarrazin’s words (p. 2). There are also, unfortunately, factors undercutting the reliability of contraction as a test for dating. In the first place, certain vocalic combinations that occasionally contract are also commonly found at all periods of the language in uncontracted form, thus wa (biaian next to contracted gebun, Beowulf 117) and nWS ie (sie next to WS si, sy; Campbell, §234). These words can simply be dismissed from consideration, however. More damaging is the fact that outside of West Saxon no form of Old English was without ‘‘at least a sporadic tendency to preserve uncontracted forms.’’!? Morphological suture, the analogical addition of the normal ending to the contracted forms, simply restores the uncontracted state: doad becomes, by contraction, dod, which, by analogy to all third person endings in -ad, becomes doad again. Dissyllabic, ‘‘uncontracted”’ spellings occur in the prose of all periods of Old English. In his discussion of a late Old English manuscript, Cambridge University Library MS. 1.1.33 (Ker 18, art. 1; Cameron B.8.1.1), RanMan wird also gut tun, sich nur an die einfachsten Regeln zu halten, z. B. Mindestzahl von vier Silben im Halbvers’’). Sarrazin, p. 3. It must be noted, however, that A. J. Bliss allows six lines in Beowulf with only three syllables to count as ‘‘normal’’ metrical types: elb (once), 2B1- (once), 2C1- (three times), and 2C2- (once); App. C, Table II, pp. 124-26; cf. p. 77. 13 Randolph Quirk, ‘‘On the Problem of Morphological Suture in Old English,”’ Modern Language Review 45 (1950), 2.

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 45 dolph Quirk establishes that relevant forms of the verb to be could be pronounced as monosyllables or dissyllables as indicated by their spellings. Quirk concludes that ‘‘morphological suture was an active if spasmodic force operating throughout this period of the language just as it operates in our own,’’!* and Campbell quietly supports the conclusion: ‘‘it may be remarked that analogical forms with the contraction eliminated quite often occur’’ (§239).' This analogical addition of normal inflections after contraction affects contracted vowels regardless of their origin; analogical forms are attested for words with originally contiguous vowels and with vowels juxtaposed after loss of intervo-

calic w, j, or h. Dissyllabic forms then need not be ‘‘uncontracted”’ or necessarily early; they may occur long after contraction. The metrically attested presence of dissyllabic forms in a poem therefore need not testify to its date, and if a poet felt himself free to alternate between monosyllabic and dissyllabic forms of a word, the actual proportion of one to another attested by his meter will be merely a matter of chance or temperament. K6keritz shows that Shakespeare felt himself able to alternate between monosyllabic and dissyllabic pronunciations of the suffixes -iage, -ience, -ient, and -ion as metrically necessary.’ There is no reason that the Beowulf poet might not have felt himself free in

exactly the same way to alternate between gdad and gad, héaan and hean, and so forth. Not only might a dissyllabic form be reconstructed on analogical principles, but, as with all linguistic tests, there is the possibility that dissyllabic forms of certain words were acceptable in the poetry long after they had ceased to be used in the prose. Individual formulas involving uncontracted forms might have survived in poetic usage long after contraction. Moreover, there is some dispute among philologists as to the evolution of diphthongs produced by contraction. Eva Touster argues that the long diphthongs produced by contraction should be consistently scanned as dissyllabic, the short diphthongs as monosy]l-

labic. ‘‘The arbitrary ‘rules’ of scansion should not be invoked to in4 [bid., p. 5. 15 Girvan also makes the point: ‘“‘uncontracted forms occur in poetry which is demonstrably late, and analogical addition of the normal endings in verb, noun, and adjective is easy and frequent in prose as well as verse’’ (p. 17). 16 Helge KOkeritz, Shakespeare’s Pronunciation (New Haven, 1953), pp. 293-94. ‘‘In everyday speech these endings were normally reduced to monosyllables by the processes of synizesis and assibilation. The older pronunciation with syllabic [1] lingered on, however, and was frequently used in verse whenever an extra unstressed syllable

was needed”’ (p. 293). C. L. Wrenn makes a similar point in the introduction to his

edition of Beowulf (London, 1953; rev. ed., 1958), p. 31.

46 Phonological-Metrical Tests dicate pronunciation which the evidence of the MS does not support,’’ Touster insists.17 Nevertheless, there remains the strong probability that texts of some length for which only dissyllabic or only monosyIllabic forms are metrically attested are early or late, within broad limits. The results are not definitive (see Chart 2).!8 Only relatively short poems (with the exception of Solomon and Saturn, Phoenix, and Juliana) attest solely dissyllabic or solely monosyllabic forms. This 1s not surprising: contraction is already common in the early glossaries, and our earliest poetry is probably not so very much earlier than the glossaries, and dissyllabic forms by morphological suture are frequent even in late texts. But it means, again, that unless we wish to place great emphasis on the proportion of dissyllabic to monosyllabic forms used, we cannot cull much of value for dating from the test of contraction. It would be dangerous to rely too heavily on percentage differences which, if the dissyllabic and monosyllabic doublets were really freely available to the poet, probably reflect only idiosyncratic taste. In the case of the shorter poems the statistics probably mean nothing at all, although it is interesting that the tenth-century Chronicle poems have only monosyllabic forms. But it would do less than justice to the test of contraction not to note that Genesis A has mostly dissyllabic forms (23 uncontracted to 5 contracted for the hf test) and Beowulf about the same number of both forms (13 uncontracted to 18 contract-

ed), while the Cynewulfian corpus has almost entirely contracted forms. There does seem to be some sort of broad dating value in contraction as a chronological test. The results, unfortunately, can undergo a chameleonic change of

aspect because of honestly different metrical interpretations or because of special pleading. As Klaeber notes (p. cviii), there are “‘surprisingly wide discrepancies between computations made by different — scholars.’’ Sarrazin apparently failed to scan as monosyllabic any of the monosyllables that I have scanned in Genesis A: *‘contraction of vowels in the case of originally intervocalic h had not begun at all’’;?°. and, indeed, he offers a convincing piece of evidence for an early date 17 Touster, “‘Phonological Aspects of the Meter of Beowulf,’’ Essays in Honor of Walter Clyde Curry (Nashville, 1954), pp. 37-38. Citation from p. 38. 18 Below, pp. 50-63. Instances involving buan, sie, and réon have not been included in the statistics, since dissyllabic forms of these words are common throughout the Old English period. For buan and sie, see Campbell, §234; for reon see Campbell, §235.

19 “*Kontraktion von Vokalen bei urspriinglich intervokalischem h noch gar nicht eingetreten war’’ (p. 25).

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 47 for Genesis A when he notes that the biblical place name Sichem or Sihem appears as Siem (1783) in the late manuscript and the paradisal river Gihon as Geon (230). It seems as if the late scribe were used to dropping ‘‘superfluous’’ intervocalic h’s in his copying.?° Just as Sarrazin dismisses monosyllabic instances in Genesis A, Trautmann argues away the metrically attested dissyllabic instances in the Cynewulf corpus.”! Seiffert in his scanning of Beowulf manages to dismiss ten

of the monosyllabic, contracted examples by pointing out that they are | verb forms with ge- prefixed and could as easily be unprefixed uncontracted forms (ddan) as prefixed contracted ones (gedon). This argument would have force and would tend to undercut all the evidence of the verbs, if the substitution of a ge- form of a verb for an unprefixed one, or vice-versa, were a likely, easily understandable scribal error.

For if gedon could be doan, there is no reason doan could not also, in almost any occurrence, become gedon. But Richard Lindemann has argued that, though the precise shade of meaning in a ge- compound in comparison with its simplex may remain under dispute, ‘“‘each word [the ge- form and the simplex] is a separate and distinct lexical unit’’

and that pairs like gan and gegan, don and gedon do not ‘‘appear in our texts as pseudosynonyms produced by indifference or sheer caprice.’’?? Lindemann’s study is not entirely convincing, and we do not

know whether Old English scribes conceived of simplex verbs and their ge- prefixed forms as lexically distinct. A scribe may well have been more likely to substitute gegan for gan than faran for gan. But Seiffert’s reservations about the test of contraction are overstated and, in any case, apply only to verbs and a few nouns.”* The evidence may

be more reliable than he suggests. Frea, the only word appearing in the figures for contraction after loss of j, appears in both monosyllabic and dissyllabic forms in many poems, but is never recorded in dissyllabic form in a datably late text. Its testimony may be of some value as a chronological test. Guthlac A 1s a particularly interesting text to subject to the test of

contraction. It records about half dissyllabic and half monosyllabic 20 Sarrazin’s argument is weakened by the fact that Geon must be scanned as one

syllable (as 2C1c) and was apparently the normal Old English form of the word; it appears as Geon in AE lfric’s Genesis 2.13. Siem does require two syllables (3B1a); it does not appear in A Ifric. 21 Trautmann, pp. 29-30. 22 J. W. Richard Lindemann, Old English Preverbal Ge-: Its Meaning (Charlottesville, Virginia, 1970), p. 65. 23 Die Behandlung, pp. 54—56.

AS Phonological-Metrical Tests forms with respect to contraction after loss of h, a proportion similar to Beowulf’s. Girvan cites Guthlac A as an early poem with uncontracted forms, like Genesis A, Exodus, and Beowulf (p. 17). Whitelock points out how dangerous it would be to assume that a fair proportion of uncontracted forms dates a poem around 700, since Guthlac A is

externally datable to after 730 and it records many uncontracted forms.”4 That is, Whitelock accepts Guthlac A’s testimony and revises

her interpretation of the dating of the test of contraction in its light. Jane Roberts, on the other hand, in her recent analysis of the meter of Guthlac, seems eager to explain away the uncontracted forms in Guthlac A.”> She argues that the expansions of heah (16b, 63a, 412b) ‘‘could either be late analogical formations or due to the knowledge of

how this word was used in earlier poetry’’ (p. 96). The trisyllabic pronunciation of aflihd (504b) ‘‘need not be taken as an indication of earliness, for the poet rarely uses a contracted form for the third person singular of verbs’’ (p. 97). Two other verses that ‘‘seem to indicate that the A-poet is using uncontracted verbal forms’’ (301la, 574b) resemble an unusual metrical sub-type in which a short open syllable is stressed, and “‘need not therefore be included among verses in which decontraction 1s metrically necessary’’ (p. 109). The remaining case, ‘“‘the common poetic formula ealdfeonda 475a’’ may require emendation or may, on the analogy of similar verses (64a, 146a), stand as a unique example of morphological suture in the poem (p. 96). Roberts may be right and the examples of metrically necessary expansion of

contracted forms in Guthlac A may all be illusory in one way or another. Even if they were not to be so explained away, contraction cannot have been completely concluded so quickly as to render the presence of uncontracted forms in Guthlac A disquieting. But tf we are to manipulate the results of the test with so much latitude, arguing for analogical reformations, survival of older poetic forms, weakly evidenced metrical sub-types, and, on occasion, emendation, then clearly the “‘test’’ has no value as an indicator at all. Any unwelcome results it produces can be explained away, and it can then merely serve, as probably contraction must, to hint at a tendency toward earliness or lateness—with the hint subject to relatively easy denial if a reader’s preconceptions disagree. Since the test of contraction cannot be simply and rigorously applied with consistent, unambiguous 24 The Audience of Beowulf, p. 27. 25 Roberts, ‘““A Metrical Examination of the Poems Guthlac A and Guthlac B,”’ Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 71C (1971), 91-137.

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 49 results, its testimony can be qualified, ascribed to other causes than those of date, and in general dismissed. While its results are suggestive in some respects (for example, the statistics for Genesis A, Beowulf,

and the Cynewulfian canon), they may merely reproduce authorial taste. The test of contraction does not provide reliable evidence for dating Old English texts.

50 Phonological-Metrical Tests Chart 2 Metrically Attested Uncontracted and Contracted Forms of Words Words are considered ‘‘uncontracted’’ if they are attested by the meter (without regard to manuscript spelling) to include an extra syllable later lost in short, ‘‘contracted’’ forms of the word. The heading °‘Test’’ indicates the type of contraction that occurred (or could have occurred): contraction between vowels in original proximity (‘‘vowel’’), or contraction after loss of h, w, or j (‘‘h,”’ ‘‘w,”’ “‘j’’). The heading ‘‘Uncontracted forms in 4-syll. lines’’ (later ‘‘4-syll’’) refers to cases in which the half-verse will

lack four syllables if the word in question is not expanded to an uncontracted form. The poems are grouped according to the results of the tests and listed alphabetically by title within each group. The first part summarizes the total counts for each poem. The second part lists the individual lines. TOTALS

Uncon-

tracted

forms in Uncon- Con-

4-syll. tracted tracted AmbigPoem Test lines forms forms uous

Gifts of Men h I 2 Gloria I h 1 Husband’s Message J 1 Precepts h 1 vowel 1 Waldere h 1] Wife’s Lament J 1 A. Uncontracted Forms Only:

Danieljvowel h2 13 2 7 2 32 B. Mixed Forms, Mostly Uncontracted:

Genesis AWw h 102131 5l 11

j 6 3 15 9 vowel 2 5 l RiddlesjWw hI 3I24 |373

vowel 2 2 BeowulfjWw h18325 13 18611 17 C. Mixed Forms:

vowel 4 8 6

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H Sl Chart 2 Continued TOTALS

Uncontracted

forms in Uncon- Con-

4-syll. tracted tracted AmbigPoem Test lines forms forms uous

jjvowel 1 li| 3 2 Andreas h 8 3 WwW l j 1 7 1 Christ II h 1 7 1 Elenej h4 1 42 l2 Ww Guthlac B h 8 l J 1 I 1 Juliana h 1 3 j 1 1 2 vowel 2 I 4 Exodus h 1 2 l

Christ [II h 5 427 25 Ww Guthlacvowel A h 3 374 4

jj 2|1 jJ 3|3

Meters of Boethius h l ] 4 2

vowel 2 5

D. Mixed Forms, Mostly Contracted:

vowel 1 4 l

vowel 4 WwW 1 11 Psalmsvowel h 2 14 vowel 1 7 Soul andvowel Body hl 23

Christvowel I h 2l

E. Contracted Forms Only: ,

Coronation j i

52 Phonological-Metrical Tests Chart 2 Continued TOTALS

jjw211 jj 11 Uncontracted

forms in Uncon- Con-

tracted tracted AmbigPoem Test lines. 4-syll. forms forms uous

Exhortation h ij5 vowel

Fates of Apostles Genesis B hh3|

vowel 3 1 vowel | Maldon j 2 vowel Menologium vowel2|

Judith h |

Phoenix h 6 l vowel l Riming Poem h I Seafarer h l vowel Solomon and Saturn h lI

vowel 2| Whale h Dream of Rood WwW Widsith h ll F. Ambiguous Forms:

List oF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted A.

Gifts of Men h:4-syll 1 uncon 7b 1Ala a) h 2 ambig 30b 1A*la 34a 1A*la2Ela 2Ela

Gloria I h 1 uncon 27a 3Blb @

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 53 Chart 2 Continued List OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted Husband's j.4-syll 1 uncon 10b 2Ala Q Message

Precepts vowel h 1 uncon 82b 2Clic @ 1 uncon 70b 2C 1b a) Waldere h 1 uncon 15b 2Clic a)

Wife’s Lament j:4-syll 1 uncon 33a 2Ala 2

B.

Daniel h:4-syll {1 uncon 511b 2Cla@ 2 h 2 uncon, 665b 3Bl1b 7 ambig 721b 3B1b a) 38b 3Blc 2C2c 54b 3Blc 2C2c

111b 1A*la 2Ela 206b 3Blc 2C2c 410b dib alb 698b 3Bic 2C2c — 730b 2C1b 3Bl1b j:4-syll 2 uncon 159b 2Ala @

}2

350b Ss DAC la 2C1-(2) J 3 con, 185b 2Clic ambig 325b @@2Clc

377a1D2 a) 2C1b 46b 585a ?1D5 ?

vowel:4-syll 3 uncon 23b 2Ala a)

5$20b 2Cla@a 557b 2Ala

vowel 2 con 168b 2Cla 493b @ a) 3Blb

Genesis A h:4-syll 10 uncon 8&b 2Ala a) 62a 2Ala 2C1-(2)

904b 2Ala 2C 1-(2) 1387b 2Ala 2C 1-(2)

1938b 1Ala D

2091b 2Ala a 2486a 2Ala 2C 1-(2) 2721a d2a a)

2878b 2Ala 2C 1-(2) 2899b 2Ala 2C1-(2)

h 13 uncon, 911b 2C1b a) 5 con, 1103b 2Clc @ 11 ambig 1267a 2C 1b a

1401b 3Bl1b a)

54 Phonological-Metrical Tests Chart 2 Continued List oF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted 1743b 2A3a D 1821b 3Bla a) 2084b 2A3a a 2260b 2C 1b a) 2332b 3Bib D 2508b 2C1b a) 2519a 3Bib @

2762b 2C lb a)

57b Zg ;2C1b 875b 2C1b 1489a a 2C1b 1513a a 2C 1b 2458a @ 2C 1b 2855a 1AlaQ2Ala) @

70a 1A*la 1Ala

225b 1A*la 1Ala 953b 1A*la 2Ela 1047a LA*1b 2E1b

1759b 1A* la 2Ela 1789a 1A*la 2Ela

2040a 1A*la 2Ela 2260a 1A*la 2Ela 2473a 1A*la lAla 2669b 1A*la 2Ela 2919b 1A*la 2Ela

w:4-syll 2 uncon2547b 2509b1D2 2Cla@a

Ww 1 uncon, 1813b 2C1b a) 1 con 2134b a) 2C 1b j:4-syll 6 uncon1808a 868a 2Cla 3E2 a) es 2141b 2Ala a

2231b 2Ala 2C 1-(2) 2239b 2Ala — g

2784a 2Cla a) j 3 uncon, 16b 2C 1b a) 15 con, 1822b 2Clid a 9 ambig 1852a 2C 1b a 947a a) 2Cla 1265b a) 2C 1b

1282b 1b 1404aa)Z 2C 1DS

1493b a) 2Cla 1781b a) 2Cla 1951b a) 2Cla 2098b a) 2C lc

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 55 Chart 2 Continued LIsT OF LINES

Type Type . Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted

2371b a} 2Cla 2512b g 2C1b 2592a a 2Cla 2737b a) 2Cla 2837b g 2Cla 2861b ga 2C1b 2874b Sa 1D*22C1b 1D2 } 79b 1D*5 1DS 157b 1D*5 1DS

1230b 1D*5 1D5 1359b 1D*2 1D2 1427a 1D*2 1D2 171la 1D*5 1D5 2353b 1D*2 1D2 2711b [D*2 1D2 2760b 1D*2 1D2

vowel:4-syll 2 uncon 2236a 2Cla a)

2356b 1Ala @

vowel 5 1uncon, 870b 2Clc a con, 1206b 2C1b a

3 ambig 1789b 2C 1b a) 1918b 2Clc a) 2413b 2C 1b a)

2821b a 2Cla 190a 1A*la lAla 993b 1D*5 1DS 1970b 2Ala 3E1

Riddles h:4-syll 3 uncon 3.24a 2Ala 2C1-(2) 3.64b 2Ala a) 22.7b 2Ala a)

h 4 uncon, 5.3b 2C1b @ 1 con, 7.4b_ 3Bl1b @ 7 ambig 34.4b 2C1b a)

44.1b 2Cla a) 41.5b a 2C 1b 12.8b 1A*la 2Ela

21.5b 1A* Ib 2E1b

40.52a 1Alc 2EIb 50.5a 1A1b 3E1

62.5a alc elc 2Ela : 62.6b 1A*la 63.2a 1A*la 2Ela

w 1 uncon 3.50a 1D2 @ j:¢syll 1 uncon 3.66b 2Ala @

j 2 con, 20.24b 2g 2C1b

56 Phonological-Metrical Tests

Continued

Chart 2

List OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted 3 ambig 61.3bald a) 2Cla 3.1la eld

6.5a ald eld 80.2b 1D*5 3E2

vowel 2 uncon, 41.7b 2C 2C1b 2 con 63.5b 1ba)a

40.77a a 3Bic 49.10a a) 3Blb

C.

Beowulf h:4-syll 8 uncon116a 25b2Ala 1Ala2C@ 1-(2) 528b 2Ala 2C1-(2)

820a 2A3a @ 1036b 2Cla a) 1264b 2A3a a

1275b 2A3a a)

1926a 2Ala 2CI-(2) h 5 uncon, 88la 2Ela @ 18 con, 1048b 2Cl1d a) 17 ambig 1180a 2A3a a) 2736a 2Ala @ 3097b 1A1b 2B2-(2)

80a 562ba)a)2B2a 2Cla 571b a) D 2Cla 648b 2Cla 755b Zi 3Blc 910b a) 2Cla 91la @ 3E*2 920a a) 3E2 961b @ 2Cla 1078b a) 2Cla

1140b 1307b @ @ 2Cla 2Cla 1365b a) 3E2 1628b a) 2Cla 1875b @ 2Cla 1998b @ 2Cla 2510b g 3E2 2581b a) 2Cla 156b 2Ala 1D1

396b 1A*la 2Ela

470b 2Ala ID1 523b 1D*4 2E2a 681b 2Clid a2d

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 57

| Chart 2 Continued LIST OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted 713b 1A*la 2Bla 745b 3E*2 2E2a

839b 1A*la 2Ela 919b 1A*la 2Bla

1003a dib alb 1016b 1A*la 2Bla

1126b 1A*la 2Ela 1380b 1D*1 1D1 1984b 1A*la 2Bla 2076a d2b a2b 2525a 1D*5 1D5 3104b 1D*1 1D1

w:4-syll 2 uncon 178adla d2a D a) 629b Ww 1 uncon, a) 6 con2436b 284a2A3a a 2A3b

832a d2b 1081b ie a) 2C1b

1968a a) 1D1 | 2144b 2C2223a 1-(2)@2Ala d2b

j:4-syll 1 uncon 1883a 2Ala a) J 3 uncon, 27la 2Ala g 3 con, 359a 2Ala @ 11 ambig 1680b 2Ala Q

27b 641b a) mi2Cla 2Clc 2794b wo 3E2 16b d2b a2b 29la 2Ala 1D1 351la 2Ala 1D1 500b 2Ala 1D1 1319a 2Ala 1D1 1934b d2b a2b

2285b 2Ala 1D1 2537b 2Ala — 1D1 2853b 1D*5 3E2 3002b 2Ala 1D1 3107b 2Ala ID1 vowel:4-syll 4 uncon 112b dia a) 386b 2Cla a

2034b 2Cla a

2054b 2Cla @ vowel 8 uncon, 1058b 6 con 1116b 2Clic 2C Ib@a

58 Phonological-Metrical Tests Chart 2 Continued LisT OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted 1134b 2CIb a

, 1172b 2C1ib @@ 1534b 2C1b

1644a 2C1b a 2166b 2C1b a 2859b 2Clic g

1277b a) 2Cla 1462b @ 2Cla 1535b @ 2Cla 2090b @ 2Cla 2186b 2630b @ @ 2Cla 2Cla

Christ IT h:4-syll 5 uncon 1082a 1023a 3E2 2Claa)2 1270a 2Ala a 1416b 2Cla q h 4 uncon, 1064b 3Bib @ 7 con, 1300b 2Clc a) 5 ambig 1580a 2A3a @ 1611b 2A3a @ 1077b @ 3B*Ic 1081a a) 3B*l1c 3B* ib 1108a @ 1256b 1311b a) @2B1b 2Bic

. 1244a 2Cla a)

1253a @ 2Bid 1348b @ 919a dib 2Cla alb

1031a 1A*la 2Ela 1214b 1A*la 2Ela 1403a ale ele 1563a 1A*la 2Ela

Ww 2 con, 1063b a) 3B1b 2 ambig 1320b @ 3Blc 109la 1A*la _ QEla 1170a 1A*1b 2E1b

1 uncon 1168a 3Bla @ Jj:4-syll 1 con, 1188b @ 2C1b 2 ambig 1129b 1D*2 1D2 1378b 1D*2 1D2

vowel:4-syll 2 uncon 1070b 2Ala 2

1288a dla @ 4 con 894b DQ 3Blb

vowel 1 uncon, 1567b 2Cl1c g

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 59 Chart 2 Continued LisT OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted

1076a DQ 2C 1b 1167a g 3Bld 1307b g 3B* 1d

Exodus h:4-syll 1 uncon83b 308b a2Ala a) h 2 con, 2Cla 1 ambig 530b @ 2B1b 241b LA*la 2Ela

J 1 uncon, 19b 2C1b a 1 ambig 27la d2b a2b vowel:4-syll 1 uncon 526b [D2 2

Guthlac A h:4-syll 3 uncon475a 63a1D1 2Ala @ 2C1-(2)

504b lAla a) h 3 uncon, 252b 2C 1b g 4 con, 365a 2Cld @

4 ambig48b 412b a 3Blb a) 2Cla

74a a)a)1A*la 486a 2Cla 69la a 2C Ib 16b d1b alb 30la d3b elc 445a d1b alb 574a ald eld vowel 7 con73b 61baa)3Bl1b 2Bib 104b a2Cla 2Cla 272a 314a @ 2Cla 592a a) 3E1 700b a) 2Cla

Meters of h:4-syll 1 uncon 21.30b IDI 2C1-(2)

Boethius h 1 uncon, 20.218b 2Cl1b a) 4 con, 19.11b D 2Clic

2 ambig24.57b 20.273b a 2Cla 2 3B* 1b

29.64a Z 3B*1b

20.214b 2Ala 3E1 28.14b 1D*2 1D2

j 3 con, 4.52b 2 2C1b 2 ambig 11.67b a 2C 1b 26.9a a 2C1b 11.40b 1D*4 1D4 26.63b 2A3a 3E2

vowel 2 uncon, 13.74b 2C 1b a)

60 Phonological-Metrical Tests

Continued |

Chart 2

List OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted

5 con 20.207b 2Cl1b a)

8.17a a) 3B* 2Bl1b 9.62a @ 1b 18.1b a 3E*1 19.39b a)a 2Clc 26.102b 2Clc

D.

Andreas h 8 con, 327a 598a @ 3B*1b 3 ambig @ 3B* 1b 748b a)2C 2Cla 866a a) 1b

| 1500b a 2Bic | | 1714b a) 2Cla 1230a Q- 3E2

1670a @ 3B* 1b

391la1A*la dic 2Ela alc 782a

1693a 1A*la 3B*la

Ww 1 ambig 1166a 1D*2 1D2 J 1 uncon, 796a 1Ala(2Ala) 2 71 ambig con, 457b a) 2Cla 653b @ 2Cla

662a a) 1D*2 714a g 1D5 786b Z 2C lb

1401b 2Cla 1695b Da 2C1b

629b 1D*1 1D1

vowel:4-syll 1 uncon 775a 2Cla a)

vowel 41con, 342b @ 2Cla ambig 365b a) 3B1b 765b a) 2Cla 1444b a 2Cla 1609a ale ald Christ I h 1 uncon, 535b 2Clc @ 71 ambig con, 45la a) 1D*6 512a a) 3B*1b 522a a) 3B* 1b 585b a) 3B* Ic 743a @ 1D*6

j 1 con

829a @ 1D*5 830a a) 3E*2 749a did ald 475a a) 1D*2

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 61

Continued ,

Chart 2

List OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted

Elene h:4-syll uncon 197a a2Cla @1b h 4 1con, 171b 2C 2 ambig 869ba23B* 3B* 1b 1b 948a 1120a2Ala 2g 3B*1b 657b 1D1 674a 1A*la 2Ela

WwW 2 con 174b 758b@2 2Clic 2Cla

J 4 con, 488a 2 1D5 1 ambig 680a @ 1D*2

1067a a) 1D*2 1307b a} 3Bib 941la 1D*2 2A2 vowel 4 con 1158b @ 2Cla 1174b a) 1289b a) 3Blb 3E2

1308b a) 3Bl1b Guthlac B h 8 con, 1024a @ 1D4 1 ambig 1079a a 3B* 1b

1090b a} 3B*1b 1155a a) 1D4 118la a} 3B*1b 1186b a) 3B* 3B* 1b lb 1264a @ 1307a a) 3B*1b

1168b ~ 3Bic(il) 3Bl1c(i) J 1 uncon, 1222a 3Blic @ 1 con, 1080a @ 1D5

1 ambig 1148b 1A*la 1Ala

Juliana h 1 uncon, 142b 2Ala a) 3 con 344a a 3E*2 482b a)3B* 2Cla 670b a) 1b Ww 1 con 354b @ 2CI1b J 2 con, 328b 2 2Clc 1 ambig 678a a 3Bla 546a [D*2 2A2

vowel 1 con 330a @ 2Cla

Psalms h:4-syll 2 uncon 77.34a a) 90. la 3Bla dla @

| h 14 con, 54.196 2Cla 1 ambig 72.6a @ 2Cla

a 2C1b | 76.9b @73.8b 2C1b

62 Phonological-Metrical Tests Chart 2 Continued List OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted

| 88.12a g93.18b 2C ib g 2Cla 99. 1a Z 3B* Ib 103.17a 2 2Cla

108.13a @ 2Cla 118.74b o 3B*Ic

120.tb @ 2CIib

138.3b aa 1Ala 145.8b 2Bib 146.6a @ 2C1b

57.7a2C ? ?1b Jvowel:4-syll 1 con 104.31b 1 uncon 61.9b 2Cla @

vowel 7 con 57.4a @@3Bl1b 67.6a 3Bib 101.23b o 3Blb 103.5a 3Bib 104.4b aa 3B1b 118.173b @ 2Cla 138.lla 2 3Bla Soul and Body h 3 con I.119a 1.87b a) a)3B*1b 2Cla 1.130b Q 2C1b

vowel:4-syll 1 uncon [.69b 2A3a a)

vowel 2 con I.57a @a3B*le I.159b 3E2 E.

Christ I h 2 con 159b a 3B* 1b 282a a) 1A*la

j 3 con, 237b @ 3Blc 3 ambig 355b es 3Blic

404a q 1D5 15b d2b a2b 27a d2c a2c 395b 1D*2 1D2

vowel 1 con 213a a) 3Bl1b Coronation a) 3Blc Exhortation hj I1 con con 15b 76b @ 3Bib

vowel I con 61b a) 2Cla Fates of the h I con 81b a) 3B* 1c Genesis B h 3 con, 600b D 3B* 1d 1 ambig 6lia a) 2Bl1d Apostles

Contraction after Loss of Intervocalic H 63

Chart 2 | Continued , | List OF LINES

Type Type Conif unconif conPoem Test clusion Line tracted tracted 674a a} 3B* 1b 697b 1A*la 2Ela

vowel 3 con 624a 360bQ2 2Blc 2Blc 826b g 3Ble Judith hj 11ambig con 43b @ 3B*la 300b 1D*2 1D2 vowel 1 con 149b a) 3Blc Maldon j :2184a con l6a @3B2b 2Blc a) vowel 2 con 247b 197b a) a) 3Blic 2Cla

Menologium vowel 1 con 197b Q 3B* 1b Phoenix h 6 con, 276a 326a a) 3B* 1b 1 ambig a 1D6

389b a 3B*1b

400a 433ba}Z3B* 2Clalb

. 607b i)533b3B*1b 1A*la 2Ela

1 ambig 312b 2Ala 3E1 jWw 2 con 578b 2 2Cla 675a 2 1DS5

vowel 1 con 489b a) 3Bl1b Riming Poem h 1 con 87b a 3B*l1c Seafarervowel h 1 con 34b g@ 2C2Cla 1b 1 con 43b Solomon and h 1 con 166b a) 1D2 2Bld Saturn j vowel 1 ambig 34b 1D*2 2 con 283a 126b a) Q 3Blc 3E2

Whale h 1 con 85a a) 2Cla

F.

Dream of Rood W 1 ambig 22a 2A1(1A*1la) 2A1(2Ela)

Widsith hJ 11 ambig ambig 96b 126a1D*2 2Cle1D2 ele

1.3.2

Contraction in Compounds Many early scholars, including Trautmann, Richter, Sarrazin, and Seiffert, discussed and applied the phenomenon of contraction in individual words after loss of intervocalic h, j, or w as a chronological test. Sarrazin alone proposed (in 1907) and used the further test of contraction in compound words and in negated verbs. Certain compounds underwent contraction, involving the loss of h or w and often an unaccented vowel, producing (n)dteshwon < (n)adwihteshwon; (n)auht and (n)aht < (n)awiht; (n)adere < (n)ahwedere; (n)adwer < (n)ahwér; @gber < @ghweper (Campbell, §§393 and n. 1, 468 and n. 2, 718 and n. 3). Negated verbs beginning in a vowel or w or h contracted due to syncope of the unaccented vowel of ni, ne and subsequent loss of the w or A (if present): thus, nah, nahton < ne ah, ne ahton; nabban < ne habban; nes, nere < ne wes, ne were; noldon < ne woldon; nysse < ne wisse; nylle < ne wille; nat < ne wat; etc. Sarrazin does not make a systematic attempt to list all instances of contracted or uncontracted forms in the poems he discusses, as Richter does. He merely applies the test where he notices forms, assuming ‘‘that according to the evidence of the meter, in the oldest texts combined forms, like nes from ne wes, nolde from ne wolde, must have been scarcely or not at all customary, even if they are at times attested in the manuscripts. Contractions like aht, noht, dwder from awiht, ndwiht, Ghweder are also foreign to the oldest texts.’”! The poems from which he cites particular lines for this test (Andreas, Beowulf, Christ, Daniel, Genesis A, Guthlac, and the Riddles) do in fact seem to have more uncontracted than contracted forms of the relevant words (see Chart 3), though most examples, despite Sarrazin’s citing them as significant, are inconclusive. Unfortunately, even metrically attested uncontracted forms prove

nothing, since uncontracted forms of even the most commonly contracted expressions occur throughout the Old English period. The absence of contracted forms in even a provably late poem would only 1 “‘dass in den altesten Denkmalern zusammengezogene Formen, wie n@s aus ne wes, nolde aus ne wolde, nach Ausweis des Metrums wenig oder gar nicht tiblich gewesen

sein mlssen, wenn sie auch zuweilen in den Texten belegt sind. Auch Kontraktionen wie aht, néht, Gwder aus awiht, nadwiht, Ghweder sind den altesten Denkmalern noch fremd.”’ Sarrazin, Kadmon, p. 3.

64

Contraction in Compounds 65 reflect authorial inclination not to use contractions; it need not carry any implication as to date. And where poets mix contracted and uncontracted forms, perhaps according to the exigencies of meter, per-

haps for emphasis, nothing constrains a later poet to use a higher proportion of contracted to uncontracted forms than an earlier poet has.

It is, however, possible that certain contractions do not appear before a certain date, and their metrically attested occurrence could then place a poem after that date. Sievers-Brunner, for example, places

the contraction naht not before the Vespasian Psalter and Alfred (§ 172, n.), and in fact there are no instances among those Sarrazin cites of a metrically attested naht or aht. But, even if Sievers-Brunner is to be trusted as to the date, the absence of the contracted form in these texts merely allows the possibility of their being earlier than the mid-ninth century (the date of the Vespasian Psalter; Campbell, §11, n. 1); it does not prove them early. Poems with the metrically attested forms aht and naht, however, can be dated mid-ninth century (if Anglian) or later—unless their evidence is itself used to shake the statement in Sievers-Brunner. In general it seems that the contraction of each compound or negated verb should be considered independently, since contraction occurred at different times in the different words. As Luick confesses, ‘‘the more precise conditions of this process cannot be clearly understood from the available texts.’’2 Certain of the contractions, like naht < ndwiht, may indeed have occurred rather late. But ‘‘in all dialects at an early date the negative adverb ni contracted with a following accented wi- to produce ny-’’ (Campbell, §265). Luick dates the contraction ‘‘at the latest at the beginning of the ninth century’ (§283).

And in fact Genesis A, a poem often considered early, has the metrically attested contracted form nelle (for nylle). So if Sarrazin’s test is to have any consistency, it must be applied with respect to individual

word groups alone: nes, n@re, neron; nolde, noldon; nah, nahton; aht, noht; adere, nadere; nysse, nyston, nylle, nyllon; etc. Of these, the last group contracted so early that it is virtually useless as a test. The others may have some value, which can only be tested by reading a wider (and later) range of poems than Sarrazin has, but their usefulness too must be qualified.* For if each of the contractions must be 2 **die naheren Bedingungen fiir diesen Vorgang sind aus unserer Uberlieferung nicht deutlich zu erkennen’’ (Luick, §311). 3 The externally datable Old English poems include few decisive instances by which

66 Phonological-Metrical Tests tested by itself and not in comparison to the others (which probably contracted at different times), then the material for each test shrinks dramatically. Even the longest poems of the corpus do not provide examples of all the relevant verbs and compounds; many of the shorter poems do not include any. Moreover, since the presence of only contracted forms can prove lateness, but the presence of only uncontracted forms cannot prove earliness, a large part of the evidence becomes

inconclusive. Finally, since we cannot date these contractions with any precision, the only value the test can have is for relative dating within each word group—and the relative dating of the poetic corpus with respect to the use of the words addere and nadere (for example) in metrically attested contracted form will not yield much information.

More common words, like nes, nere, neron, could potentially yield more information, but in general Sarrazin’s test of contraction in negated verbs and in compounds seems of little value.

to judge the test. Cedmon’s Hymn, Bede’s Death Song, and the Chronicle poems have no relevant occurrences of contracted words. The Leiden Riddle includes an ambiguous case. Maldon has three metrically attested instances of a contracted nolde/noldon and one metrically attested example of an uncontracted ne wes.

Contraction in Compounds , 67 Chart 3 Sarrazin’s Test of Contraction RESULTS BY WORD GROUP

Word group Uncontracted Contracted Ambiguous

ne were/nere wes/nes Dan. 23 Dan. 6 ne Gen. Gen. 1 ne weron/neron Mald.1 1Ridd. Mald. 31 Ridd.

Beow. 10 Guth. A. 2 Guth. B. 3

ne woldon/noldon wolde/nolde And. 1 3Beow. 3 ne Gen. Gen. 3 Guth. A. 1 Guth. B. 2 Dan. 1 Dan. 2

Mald. 3 Mald. 3 ne wisse/nysse Beow. 12 Beow. | ne wiston/nyston Dan. Dan. 1 ne wille/nylle Gen. ne willon/nyllon Chr.11Gen. Chr. 11 Mald. 1 Ridd. 3

ne wat/nat Beow. 1Leid. Beow. 11 ne ah/nah Gen. | R. ne ahton/nahton Ridd. 1 awiht/aht Beow. 1 |Beow. 2 nawiht/naht Gen. Chr. 2 Ridd. 1 Ridd. 1 Dan. 3

nadhwedéere/nddere ahweéere/adere Beow. 1Gen. 2

Ohwer/ower Beow. 2 RESULTS BY POEM

Line Type if Type if Poem Word number uncontracted contracted

Andreas ne wolde 1660b LA La(i) 2C 1-(2)

Beowulf ne Wes 83b 3B*Ic 3B*1b nes 134b 3Blc 3B1b ne wiston 181b3Blc 3Bld3B1b 3Blic ne wes 716b ne wes 734b 2Blic 2Blb Ne WS 756b 3Blic 3Blb nolde 791la 3Blc 3BIb ne wiston alc2Ala o nolde | 803b798a 1A*la

68 Phonological-Metrical Tests Chart 3 Continued RESULTS BY POEM

Line Type if Type if

Poem Word number uncontracted contracted

nolde 812b 1A*la 2Ala ne wes 889b 3Bic 3Bib nes ~ 1299b 3Bib 3Bla ne wes 1304b 3Bl1d 3Bic ne wat 1331b 2C2b Q nes 145Sa ale ald nes 1463b 3Blic 3B1b ohwer 1737b 2C1b 2C1b owihte 1822b 3E1 @ noder 2124a a alf nah 2314b 2252b 3Bib 2C2c 2C2b 2C2b aht owihte 2870a 2432b 2A la(it) 2B2b 2A la(i) ower 2B2b Christ III owiht 922b 1A*1b [Alb ne wisses 1473b 1Ala 2C 1-(2) owitht 1A*1b LAIb nysses1474b 1498b a) 1A*la

Daniel nenewes 16b 2Bid @ were 102b lAla 2C 1-(2) nes 117b 3Blic 3Bib ne wisse [25a alc2C2b @ nes — 128b 2C2c neeron 136a ale 3Bib ald ne wiston 182b 3Bic noldon 189b as 2CIb noldon 197b or 1A*la @ ne willad 217a 207a 1A*la @ noldon ale ald : owtht 273b 1A*la lAla

| a) 2Cla

ne wes 1A*la 342b 3B*Ic 3Blic : owiht 343a 1lAla owihtes 428b 3B2b 3B1b

nes 499b 3B*Ic 3B*1b ne wes 668b 3E*3 3E3 - Genesis A nes 5b 2Cle 2C 1b noldan 23b 3Bic 3Bib : ne wiste 179b 1Ala 2C1-(2)

| ne wes1448b 901b1A*la 2B1b2Ala a nolde

nohwedere 1456b 3Bid2C1b 3Blc nolde 1480b 2Clc ne wolde 1590b 1Ala 2C1-(2) ne ahton 1686b 1Ala 2C 1-(2)

Contraction in Compounds 69 Chart 3 Continued RESULTS BY POEM

Line Type if Type if Poem Word number uncontracted contracted awiht 1905a 2Ala @ ne woldon 1979b {Ala 2C 1-(2)

ne wes2153a 1994b 2Bib a) nelle ale ald ne wolde 2423b 1Ala 2C 1-(2)

owoder 2A la(iii) 2A ala(i) ne wes2468b 2824b 2Blc Guthlac A ne wolde 196b 2C2c lAla 2C1-(2) ne wes 326b ne wes 355b 3Blc 2C2b 3Bib Guthlac Bnolde nes 903b 2C2c 2C2b 945b 2Clc 2C1ib nes 961b 2Clc 2CI1b

nes 966b d3c d3b nolde 1234b 3Blid Leiden Riddle ni uaat 3a ale3Blic ald

Maldonnolde nolde 9b 6a g a 2C 1b 2C1b noldon Sta Qalf2Cale noldon 185b 1b ne wes 190b 2Bib g noldon 201b 1A*ta 2Ala ve gder 224a ?ald ? nolde 275a ale ne wille 317b 1A1b 1Ala Nes 325a ale ald Riddles ne Wes 9.2b 2Bic 2P 1b

nowiht 11.5b 3Bl1b g ne wes 13.5b 3B*1d 3B*¥Ic nelle 23.15a 2Cl1d ne wat 35.3a ale 2Cle ald

ne Wes41.6b 36.9b2Ala 2Cl1d 2Clc owiht 2C 1-(a) ne wile 43.10b 2C2c 2C2b ne wille wes 49.9a 47.5b1A*la 2E2a2Ala a ne awéer 88.27a ? ?

1.4

Parasiting and the Syllabic Consonants The syllabic liquids and nasals of Primitive Germanic, Imnr, often appear in Old English with a parasite (or inorganic) vowel. Since spellings with such vowels appear even in the earliest texts, Campbell assumes that parasiting was uniform in Primitive Old English and that ‘‘the frequent early forms in which it is absent. . . [are] due to inflected cases in which the liquid consonant was not syllabic, or to scribal neglect of the parasite vowel’’ (§363). Sievers-Brunner agree, but note that it is possible that the parasite vowel did not develop in all cases ($152). Sievers himself noted in 1893 in his Altgermanische Metrik that

the expansion of syllabic consonants is often necessary for proper scansion,! and in 1898 Trautmann (pp. 120-21) argued that earlier poems would tend to use more unexpanded, monosyllabic forms of words with syllabic consonants than later poems do. Richter and Sarrazin both used the treatment of syllabic consonants as a criterion for dating the poetry. In order for a metrically attested monosyllabic form (without parasite vowel) to be of any value for dating, the form must represent an earlier stage in the development of the word than the dissyllabic form

(with parasite vowel) does. In other words, the monosyllabic form must document an earlier stage of the language, either before or during the development of parasiting. If Campbell is right, however, and parasiting 1s a prehistoric development and later forms without the para-

site vowel are mere analogic formations on the model of inflected cases, then the monosyllabic forms can have no relevance for dating. Luick argues that parasiting had already appeared prehistorically, and he points out that parasiting must have occurred before smoothing, or Anglian becun would have developed a front and not a back vowel:

not *beacn > *becn > *becen, but *béeacn > *beacun > bécun (§ 320). He emphasizes that the occurrence of many forms without parasite vowels ‘‘therefore does not reflect a sound change in progress, but one that was partially reversed by the working of analogy.’’? On 1 (Halle, 1893), §§79.4, 156.4 2 *“ist daher nicht das Spiegelbild eines im Gange befindlichen, sondern eines durch Analogiewirkungen zum Teil wieder aufgehobenen Lautwandels’’ (§320).

70

Parasiting 71 the authority of Luick and Campbell then, we should not expect the development or lack of development of a parasite vowel before a syllabic consonant to provide a useful chronological criterion—lack of parasiting is merely analogical and analogical formations are as likely

to occur at one time as another. The test of syllabic consonants should not, therefore, provide clear-cut dating evidence for Richter and Sarrazin. Richter’s analysis was indeed less decisive than he had hoped, and he resorted to the expedient of not including certain long-stemmed words that never occurred monosyllabically in the works he looked at, on the grounds that ‘‘they scarcely come into question as monosyllables.’’* Even so his analysis produced a relatively high proportion of monosyllabic forms for a work considered late by Richter and most others, like the Meters of Boethius, and a surprisingly low proportion of the supposedly older monosyllabic forms for a work like Genesis A that other chronological tests mark as early. Seiffert, in his analysis of Beowulf and Genesis A, found that the results of the test of syllabic consonants flatly contradicted the results of the test of contraction: Genesis A has far more forms that must be de-contracted for the meter to scan properly, and hence should be older than Beowulf, but Beowulf has more metrically attested monosyllabic forms of words with syllabic consonants, and hence should be older than Genesis A.* Sarrazin considers the test of syllabic consonants ‘‘not quite as reliable’ as contraction, because he feels it is more subject to ‘‘individual and dialectal variations,’’ though what precisely he means is not clear.” He reproves Richter for including in his statistics words with syllabic consonants that had always included parasite vowels, words that ‘‘are regularly used as dissyllables, and apparently were not originally monosyllabic: brodor, dohtor, modor (aldor?), edel, candel, sawel, weésten.’’® Once instances of these words were dismissed, Genesis A had a properly high proportion of monosyllabic forms and could be demonstrated to be early, in accordance with Sarrazin’s foregone conclusion (p. 27). In his review of Richter, Gustav Binz attacks precisely such manipulation of statistics: 3 **sie fir Einsilbigkeit wohl kaum in Frage kommen.”’ Richter, p. 73. 4 Seiffert, Die Behandlung, p. 57. Schiicking (p. 357) points out this contradiction in Seiffert’s results (Seiffert calmly attributes the contradiction to the different dialects of the poems), but he cites the contradiction as evidence for the worthlessness of both tests, whereas in fact it may argue against only one of them. > **nicht ganz so zuverlassig’’; ‘‘individuelle und mundartliche verschiedenheiten. ”’ Sarrazin, ‘‘Chronologie,”’ p. 174. 5 *‘regelmassig zweisilbig gebraucht werden, und offenbar nicht urspriinglich einsilbige waren’”’ (ibid., p. 27).

72 Phonological-Metrical Tests if a statistical method is to have any validity, it must be applied across

the board consistently without special, after-the-fact exceptions to doctor the results.’ Anyone approaching the question of the significance of the syllabic consonants for dating Old English poetry might well conclude at this point, with Jane Roberts, that ‘‘the syllabic con-

sonants or svarabhakti vowels present an insoluble problem for all who try to scan English poetry.’’® This confusion and the contradictory results of applying syllabic consonants as a chronological test are to be expected if Campbell and Luick are right. But if, as Sievers-Brunner suggest, the development of parasite vowels did not always follow (§152), then it is possible that

earlier works will preserve monosyllabic forms of words that later, perhaps, developed the parasite vowel. All the grammars agree that parasiting occurs more frequently after long syllables than short ones, most frequently before r and least frequently before m (Sievers-Brunner, §§153-56; Campbell, $363; Luick, §318). But none provides any explanation or description of when parasiting is to be expected and when not; none suggests a predictive rule. In 1968 Winfrid P. Lehmann published a study offering a coherent linguistic analysis of the Beowulf poet’s handling of the syllabic consonants.® Instead of assuming that scribal spelling offers a reliable guide to whether parasite vowels oc-

curred before syllabic consonants (as the grammarians have tended to), or assuming that metrical practice would be decisive (accepting the scansion that offered the simplest metrical reading, monosyllabic or dissyllabic, even where the other was a possible though rarer metrical type, as previous investigators like Richter have done), Lehmann took as hypothesis the assumption that parasite vowels developed before syllabic consonants in all originally long-stemmed words and did not in short-stemmed words.!° To assume this linguistic regularity in Beowulf causes surprisingly few metrical problems. Whether syllabic consonants counted as syllables after light syllables cannot in general be demonstrated, since setl is metrically equivalent to sete! in the great majority of occurrences: the monosyllabic version will end in two consonants and count as a heavy syllable while the dissyllabic version with two light syllables can resolve metrically to count as one 7 Binz, review of Chronologische Studien, p. 80. 8 Roberts, ‘‘A Metrical Examination,’’ p. 97. 9 Lehmann, ‘‘Post-Consonantal !mn_r,’’ pp. 148-67. 10 Ritchie Girvan (p. 18) had previously suggested that the development of the syllabic consonants should be interpreted as regular, and the resulting ‘‘doubtful metrical types were [to be] regarded as a permissible licence.”’

Parasiting 73 heavy syllable. Bliss’s point that two short syllables tend to resolve less frequently when the latter has a consonantal ending lends tentative support to Lehmann’s interpretation (that no parasite vowel develops),

but Bliss notes that the Beowulf poet is not absolutely consistent in this respect (§38). Lehmann adds that short-stemmed words in which

1 mnr were preceded by a vowel in Proto-Germanic, like micel, swutol, and weter, must sometimes count as dissyllabic (p. 161). He cites no examples, but 509b, 1989b, and 2473a are all instances in point, scanning as Bliss’s. type 2C2. In assuming that parasite vowels always arise before syllabic consonants after heavy syllables, Lehmann meets his first metrical problems. Certain words with double consonants that arose from two syllabic consonants (e.g., *cmbr) do not count as heavy syllables in this regard, and they are scanned as one syllable: cumbr, mordr, sundr, umbr, wuldr, wundr. Six examples of an inflected form of dogor must be scanned as dissyllabic rather than trisyllabic (dogores), and Lehmann suggests that these reflect the earlier declension of dogor (gen. dogor) rather than the lack of development of a parasite vowel (dogres, p. 164; Sievers-Brunner, §289, n. 1). Other lines are scanned as rare but normal metrical types, some lacking the double alliteration Bliss otherwise records for verses of that sub-type.'! But only four verses actually do not scan given Lehmann’s assumption: 611la, which is a normal 3Blb if hleahtor is monosyllabic, but becomes an otherwise unattested 2A la with double anacrusis if hleahtor is dissyllabic; 1763a, which is a rare but normal 2B2a if ad/ is monosyllabic, but an impossible type if dissyllabic; 1766b, which is a normal 3B2b if bearhtm is monosyllabic, but an otherwise unattested 2A1a (111) with double anacrusis if bearhtm is dissyllabic; and 2428b, also an unattested 2Ala with double anacrusis, the less acceptable because no type A verses with double anacrusis appear in the off-verse. Thus a consistent linguistic analysis of the words with syllabic consonants in Beowulf produces only four verses (out of over 350) that do not scan by Bliss’s metrical system;!” Bliss’s analysis itself classes 11 unmetrical verses out of 6,200 as ‘‘remainders.’’ As Lehmann says of line 2428b (the 112431 scans as 1Ala, though no other verse of this type has double anacrusis. 998b, 1459b, 1782b, 1918a, 2757b, 2833b, and 2894a all scan as 1D*5, though Bliss records this type only in a-verses with double alliteration. 768a and 2020b as 1D*1 and 1132b as 1D*6 also lack the double alliteration otherwise found in these sub-types. 12 T have checked the lines Lehmann cites by Bliss’s metrical system; all other verses are ‘‘normal’’ in Bliss’s terms.

74 Phonological-Metrical Tests only metrical irregularity he admits), ‘‘Decision between linguistic and metrical irregularity rests on esthetic grounds”’ (p. 165). In a language like Old English, with a limited amount of recorded material, reconstruction of the metrical system and of linguistic forms and development are interrelated; the investigation of either involves

making certain assumptions about the other. From the time Sievers pointed out that certain irregular verses scanned normally if older linguistic forms of words were assumed, the metrical types have been | regarded as established and linguistic forms have been deduced from them. When, as not infrequently happened, linguistically earlier and later forms were metrically attested in the same poem (as with contracted and de-contracted forms), it has been assumed that the poet used both forms as free metrical variants, much as Shakespeare varied the metrical value of certain suffixes (-ion, -ience) from one to two syllables to suit his verse. But, as Lehmann points out, we have a far vaguer linguistic knowledge of Old English than of Elizabethan English, and we should perhaps be warier about assuming the widespread use of metrical variants (p. 150). His analysis indicates, granted a minimal readjustment of distribution of metrical types, that the Beowulf poet’s handling of syllabic consonants can be interpreted as consistent: ‘‘Our preliminary conclusions indicate that he was consistent and that

his treatment is based on the spoken language, possibly somewhat anterior to his own time’’ (p. 153). There is a certain inconsistency in Lehmann’s rejection of analogies from Shakespeare because we cannot be sure they are justly applied to Old English, in the light of his assumption of a firm knowledge of Proto-Germanic pronunciation and

a strict adherence to it by early Old English poets. The ‘‘esthetic’’ choice he proposes between linguistic and metrical regularity must be weighted by the fact that many of his linguistic assumptions are not susceptible to proof.

Nevertheless, Lehmann’s demonstration that Beowulf can be scanned assuming consistent handling of the syllabic consonants suggests that the syllabic consonants might be treated consistently in other

poetry as well. Poems in which no parasiting was evident would be earlier than poems in which parasiting occurred only after heavy syllables, and latest would be poems with consistent parasiting, even after light syllables. In my analysis of lines suggested by Richter, Seiffert, Sarrazin, and Lehmann, I have divided the words into short stems and long stems in the hope of discerning some such pattern (see Chart 4). Since Bliss’s types d3 and 2C2 (Sievers’s type C3) avoid resolution in the first stress, a number of short stem words with syllabic consonants

Parasiting 75 are shown to be monosyllables and not merely resolved dissyllables. There are six examples each from Beowulf and Genesis A, and one from Elene. A few instances with short stems in other poems must be dissyllabic; some of these involve words in which a vowel preceded or might have preceded the syllabic consonant in the proto-form (wet-

er efre added in the scribe’s hand above the line.

Appendix 191 342 bada hire tima com. heo acende. 7 burhwunode meden; bet cild 178 baba hire tima com heo cende 7 burhwunode meden; ber cild C pada hyre tyma com heo acende 7 burhwunode meden. pet cild 198 Daba hire tima com heo acende. 7 burhwunode meden. Det cild 343 Dada hire time com heo acende 7 burhwunode meden bet cild A Pada hire time com hi acennede 7 purhwunedo meden. bat cild 43 Ris tua acenned. he is acenned of bam feeder on heofonum buton U sis tuwa acenned. he is acenned of bam feeder on heofonum buton V_ ys tua acenned; he ys acenned of 6am feeder on heofenum butan 162 is tuwa acenned. he is acenned of dam feeder on heofonum. buton 342 1s tua acenned. he is acenned of 6am feeder on heofonum buton 178 is tuwa acenned. he is acenned of bam feeder on heofonum buton Cis tua acenned he is acenned of pam feeder on heofonum buton 198 is tuwa acenned. he his acenned of bam feeder on heofonum buton 343 1s twyge acenned. he is acenned of bam feeder on heofene buton A his twies acenned. he is acenned of be feder on hefene buton 44R~ elcere meder. 7 eft pada he man gewearo. ba wes he acenned U_ elcere meder. 7 eft dada he man geweard. ba wes he acenned V_eicere meder. 7 eft bada he mann gewear6é. ba wes he acenned 162 zelcere meder. 7 eft pada. he man gewear6d ba wes he acenned 342 zlcere meder. 7 eft bada he mann gewear6o. ba wes he acenned 178 zlcre meder. 7 eft baba he mann gewear0d. ba wes he acenned C elcere meder 7 eft pada he man gewear6 ba wes he acenned 198 zlcere meder. 7 eft baba he mann gewearp: ba wees he acenned 343 zlcere moder. 7 eft baba he mon wear6d ba wes he acenned A elcer moder. 7 eft bade he man gewar6d. ba was he acenned 45 R_ of bam clenan medene marian buton zlcum eordlicum feeder; U_ of pam clanan medene Marian buton zlcum eordlicum feeder; VV iof 6am clenan mezdene marian. butan zlcum eord. .cum feeder. 162 of bam clanan mzdene marian. buton zelcum eordlicum feeder; 342 of dam clenan mzedene marian. buton zelcum eordlicum feeder: 178 of bam clenan medene marian butan zelcum eordlicum feeder: C of bam clanan mzdenne marian buton zelcum eordlicum feeder. 198 of bam clanan medene marian buton elcum eorplicum feder. 343 of bam clane mzgden marian buton zelcum eordlice fader. A of be clene meidene buton elce eordlice federe. 46 R_ God feeder geworhte mancyn 7 ealle gesceafta burh bzne sunu. U_ God feeder geworhte mancynn 7 ealle gesceafta burh done sunu. V__ God feeder geworhte mancyn. 7 ealle . .sceafta purh O6one sunu. 162 God feeder zelmihtig' geworhte mancyn. 7 ealle gesceafta burh pone 342 God feeder geworhte mancynn. 7 ealle gesceafta. burh pone sunu. 178 God feeder geworhte manncynn 7 ealle gesceafta burh bone sunu.

C God feeder geworhte mancyn 7 ealle gesceafta burh bone sunu. 198 God feder geworhte mancynn. 7 ealle gesceafta burh bone sunu. 343 God feeder wrohte moncyn 7 alle gesceafte burh done sune. A God fader geworhte mancin. 7 zlle gesceafte burh bane sune. 1 @lmihtig added in the scribe’s hand above the line.

192 Appendix 47 R_ 7 eft pada we forwyrhte weron. ba sende he bone ylcan sunu U_ 7eft. dada we forwyrhte weron. ba asende he done ylcan sunu V_ 7 eft pada we forwyrh. . .z2ron. pa sende he bone ylcan sunu 162 sunu. 7 eft bada we forwyrhte weron. ba sende he bone ylcan sunu. 342 7 eft bada we forwyrhte weron. ba sende he bone ilcan sunu 178 7 eft baba forworhte weeran: ba asende he bone ylcan sunu C 7 eft pada we forwyrhte weron ba sende he bone ylcan sunu 198 7 eft baba we forwyrhte weron ba asende he bone ylcan sunu 343 7 eft baba we forwruhte weron ba sende he pone ylce sune A 7 efft bade we forwyrhte were ba sende pan ilce sune 48 R_ to ure alysednysse; Seo halige moder maria pa afedde pet cyld U__to ure alysednesse; Seo halige moder Maria. ba afedde bet cild. V_ toure aly. . .sse; Seo halige modor maria ba afedde. . . | 162 to ure alysednysse; Seo halige modor sancta! maria ba afedde bet 342 to ure alysednysse; Seo halige modor maria ba afedde bet cild 178 to ure alysednysse: Seo halige modor maria ba afedde per cild C to ure alysednysse. Seo halige modor maria ba afedde bet cild 198 to ure alysendnysse. Seo halige modor maria pba fedde bet cild 343 to ure alysednysse. Deo halige moder mariz ba fedde bet child

A to ure alisendnesse.

49 R- mid micelre arwyrOnysse. 7 hit weox swa swa oore cyld dod U_ mid micelre arwuroOnesse. 7 hit weox swa swa oore cild dod V_=mid mycelre arwuronysse. 7 hyt weox . . . cild dod. 162 cild mid micelre arwur6dnysse. 7 hit weox swa swa oore cild dod. 342 mid micelre arwurodnysse. 7 hit weox swa swa o@6re cild dod.

178 mid mycelre arwyrOnesse 7 hit weox swa swa ore cild dod C mid micelre arwurnysse. 7 hit weox swa swa oore cild dod 198 mid micelre arwurpnesse. 7 heo weox ba swa swa opre cild dop. 343 mid mycele arwuronesse 7 hit weox swa swa ooer cild dod A

50 R_buton synne anum; he wes buton synnum acenned. 7 his lif wes U__buton synne anum; He wes buton synnum acenned. 7 his lif wes V__buton synne anum; He wes... acenned. 7 hys lif wes 162 buton synne anre? anum; He wes buton synnum acenned. 7 his lif wes

342 buton synne anum; he wes buton synnum acenned. 7 his lif wes 178 butan synne anum. He wes butan synnum acenned. 7 his lif wes C buton synne anum. he wes buton synnum acenned. 7 his lif wes 198 buton sinne anum. He wes buton synnum acenned. 7 his lif wes 343 buton sunne anum. He wes buton synne acenned. 7 his lif wes A heo was buton senne acenned. 7 his lif was 51 R_ eal buton synnum; ne worhte he beah nane wundra openlice er dan U_eal buton synnum; Ne worhte he deah nane wundra openlice. zr dan V_ eall butan ... .te he peah nane wundra openlice. zr dan 162 eall buton synnum; Ne worhte he beah nane wundru openlice. zr dan 342 eall buton synnum; Ne worhte he beah nane wundra openlice. zr dan 178 eall butan synnum. Ne worhte he beah nane wundra openlice zr ban

1 sancta added above the line. .

2 anre added above the line.

Appendix 193 C_ eall buton synnum. Ne worhte he beah nane wundra openlice zr ban 198 eall butan synnum. Ne worhte he beah nane wundra openlice zr ban 343 al buten sunnum. Ne wrohte he deah nane wundre openlice er ban A all buton synne. Nz worhte he bah nane wndre openlice. er ban 52 R_ 6e he wes pritig wintre on bare menniscnysse. ba sidpan U_ _6e he wes pritig wintre on bere menniscnysse; Pa siddan V__be he wes pritig wintre on 6zre menniscnysse. ba sypban 162 de he wes prittig wintra on édzere menniscnysse; Da syddan 342 be he wes prittig wintra. on dzre menniscnysse; ba syddan. 178 be he wes prittig wintre on pzre menniscnysse: ba syddan Cpe he wes pritig wintre on bere menniscnysse ba syddan 198 be he wes prittig wintre on bzre menniscnysse. Da sybban 343 de he wes .xxx. wintre on pare mznniscnesse. da syddan A be he was pritti wintre an bara mennisnisse. ba sedden 53 R_ geceas he him leorninccnihtas; zerest twelf. ba we hatad U_— geceas he him leorningcnihtas. zrest twelf. ba we hatad V_geceas he him leorningcnihtas. 4Zrest twelfe ba we hatad 162 geceas he him leorningcnihtas; 4Zrest twelf. ba we hatad 342 geceas he him leorningcnihtas. zrest twelf. ba we hatad 178 geceas he him leorningcnihtas zrest twelf ba we hatad C geceas he him leorningcnihtas. AErest twelf ba we hatad 198 geceas he him leorningcnihtas. zrest twelfe. ba we hatab 343 ceas he hyn leorningcnihtes. 4Zrest tweolfe ba we hatzd A aceas he him leorninchnihtes. erest twelf. ba we hatad 54 R_ apostolas bet sint zrendracan. sypdan he geceas twa 7 hund syfentig. U_ apostolas. bet sind erendracan; Sippan he geceas twa 7 hund seofontig.

V_apostolas. bet synd zrendracan; Sypban he geceas twa 7 hund seofontig

162 apostolas. bet synd zrendracan; Syddan he geceas twa 7 hund seofontig.

342 apostolas. bet synd zrendracan; Syd0an he geceas twa 7 hund syfontig.

178 apostolas bet synd zrenddracan: Syddan he geceas twa 7 hund seofantig.

C apostolas. bet synd zrendracan. Siddan he geceas twa 7 hund seofontig 198 apostolas. bet synd zrendracan. Syppan he geceas twa 7 hund seofontig.

343 apostolos. bet beod zrendracan. syddan he ceas twa 7 hund seofentig A apostles. bat bid erndracene. 7 siddan twa 7 sefentige. 55 R_ pa sint genemnede discipuli. bet sint leorninccnihtas; ba U__ 6a sind genemnede discipuli: pet sind leorningcnihtas; Da V_ pba synd genemnede discipuli. bet synd leorningcnihtas; da 162 ba synd gemenelice discipuli. bet synd leorningcnihtas; 7 Da 342 ba synt genemnode discipuli; pet synt leorningcnihtas; pa 178 ba synd genemnede discipuli. bet synd leorningcnihtas: ba C pba synd genemnede discipuli. pet synd leornigcnihtas. ba 198 ba sint genemnede discipuli pet synd leornigcnihtas. Da

194 Appendix 343 ba beod inemnede discipuli bet beod leorningcnihtes. ba A_ ba beod genamned. discipuli. leornincnihtes. ba 56 R_ worhte he fela wundra. bet men mihton gelyfan bet he wes godes U_ worhte he fela wundra bet men mihton gelyfan bet he wes godes V_worhte he fela wundra. bet men mihton gelyfan. bet he wes godes 162 sypban' worhte he fela wundra bet men mihton gelyfan. pet he wes 342 worhte he feala wundra bet men mihton gelyfan. bet he wes godes 178 worhte he fela wundra bet menn mihton gelyfan bet he wes godes C worhte he fela wundra bet men mihton gelyfan bet he wes godes 198 worhte he fela wundra pet menn mihton gelyfan bet he wes godes 343 wrohte he fele wundre bet men mihten ilyfen bet he wes godes A wercte he fele wundra. bat men mihten gelefen. bat he was godes 57 R_ bearn; he awende weter to wine 7 eode ofer sxe. mid drium fotum. U__bearn; He awende weter to wine. 7 eode ofer se mid drium fotum. V_bearn; He awende weter to wine. 7 eode ofer se mid drium fotum

162 godes bearn; he awende weter to wine 7 eode ofer se mid drigum

fotum. 342 bearn; he awende weter to wine. 7 eode ofer sz2 mid drygum fotum; 178 bearn. He awende weter to wine. 7 eode ofer sz drigum fotum. C bearn. He awende weter to wine. 7 eode ofer se mid drium fotum. 198 bearn. He wende weter to wine. 7 eode ofer sz mid drium fotum. 343 sune. He wende water to wine. 7 he eode ofer se mid dryum fotum. A bearn. He awende water to uine. 7 eode ofer se mid dreie fotum. 58 R 7 he gestilde windas. mid his hese. 7 he forgeaf blindum mannum

U_ 7 he gestilde windas mid his hese. 7 he forgeaf blindum mannum

V_ 7he gestilde windas mid hys hese. 7 he forgeaf blindum mannum 162 7 he gestilde windas mid his hese. 7 he forgeaf blindum mannum 342 7 he gestilde windas mid his hese. 7 he forgeaf blindum mannum 178 7 he gestilde windas mid his hese 7 he forgeaf blindum mannum C 7 he gestilde windas mid his hese. 7 he forgeaf blindum mannum 198 7 he gestilde windas mid his hese. 7 he forgeaf blindwm mannum 343 7 he stilde windzs mid his hese. 7 he geaf blinduy monum A 7 he gestilde windes mid his hesne. 7 he forgiaf blinde manne 59 R_ gesihde. 7 healtum 7 lamum rihtne gang. 7 hreoflium smeOnysse. U _ gesihde. 7 healtum 7 lamum rihtne gang. 7 hreoflium smednysse. V_ gesihde. 7 healtum 7 lamum rihtne gang. 7 hreoflium smeOnysse. 162 gesihbe. 7 healtum 7 lamum rihtne gang. 7 hreofligum smeOnysse. 342 gesihde. 7 healtum 7 lamum rihtne gang. 7 hreoflium smeOnysse. 178 gesyhbe. 7 healtum 7 laman rihtne gang. 7 hreoflium smednysse. C gesyhde. 7 healtum 7 lamum rihtne gang. 7 hreoflium smednysse. 198 gesihpe. 7 healtum. 7 lamum. rihtne gang. 7 hreoflum smepnysse. 343 sihde. 7 healtum 7 lomum rihtne geong 7 reoflige smeadenysse A gesechde. 7 halten 7 lamen richte gang. 7 hreoflin smidnesse. 60 R’ 7 helu heora lichaman. dumbum he forgeaf getincnysse 7 deafum U7 helu heora lichaman; Dumbum he forgeaf getingnysse. 7 deafum V7 helu heora lichaman. dumbum he forgeaf getingnysse. 7 deafum 1 sybban added in the scribe’s hand above the line.

Appendix 195 162 7 helo heora lichaman. dumbum he forgeaf getingnysse. 7 deafum 342 7 helo heora lichaman; dumbum he forgeaf getincnysse. 7 deafum 178 7 helu heora lichoman. Dumbum he forgeaf getingnysse 7 deafun C 7helu heora lichaman. Dumbum he forgeaf! getingnysse 7 deafun 198 7 helu heora lichaman. Dumbum he forgeaf getingnysse. 7 deafum 343 7 hele heore licame. dumbe he geaf spece. 7 deafe A 7 hele hare lichame. dumben he forgeaf. getocnisse. 7 deafum 61 R heorcnunge; deofulseocum 7 wodum he sealde gewyt 7 ba deofla U_heorcnunge; Deofolseocum. 7 wodum he sealde gewitt. 7 ba deoflu V__siheorcnunge. deofolseocum 7 wodum he sealde gewit. 7 da . .ofla 162 heorcnunge: Deofolseocum 7 wodum he sealde gewitt. 7 ba deoflu 342 hyrcnunge; Deofolseocum. 7 wodum. he sealde gewit. 7 ba deoflu 178 heorcnunge. Deofolseocum 7 wodum he sealde gewitt. 7 ba deoflu C heorcnunge. Deofolseocum. 7 wodum he sealde gewit. 7 ba deoflu 198 hercnunge. Deofolsecum 7 wode he sealde gewitt. 7 ba deofle 343 hercnunge. deofelsece 7 wodum he sealde wit. 7 6a deofle A hercnunge. Deofelseocun 7 wodan h geaf gewitt. 7 ba deoflen 62 R_ todrefde 7 zlce untrumnesse he gehelde. Deade men he arerde U__todrefde. 7 elce untrumnysse he gehelde. deade men he arerde

V_todrefde 7 zlce untrumnysse he gehzlde. dea. . men he arzrde 162 todrefde. 7 zlce untrumnysse he gehelde. Deade men he arerde 342 todrefde. 7 elce untrumnysse. he gehzelde; Deade men he arerde 178 todrefde 7 zlce untrumnysse he gehelde. deade he arerde C todrefde. 7 z2lce untrumnysse he gehzelde. deade men he arerde 198 todrefde. 7 elce untrumnysse he gehelede. dede menn he arerde 343 todrefde. 7 elc untrymnysse he helde. deade men he arerde A todrefde. 7 elc untruwmnisse heo gehelde. Deade men he arerde 63 R- of heora byrgenum to life. 7 larde pet folc be he to com mid U__ of heora byrgenum to life; 7 larde bet folc pe he to com mid V_ of heora byrgenum to life; And le. . pet folc be he to com mid 162 of heora byrgenum to life. 7 lerde bet folc be he to com mid 342 of heora byrgenum to life: 7 lerde bet folc be he to com mid 178 of heora byrgenum to life. 7 lerde bet folc bet he to com mid C of heora byrgenum to life. And lerde bet folc pe he to com mid 198 of heora byrgenum to life. 7 lerde bet folc be he to com mid 343 of heore burgene to lyfe. 7 larde bet folc pe he to com mid A of hare berieles to life. 7 lerde bat folc be he to com mid 64. R myclum wisdome. 7 cwe6d bet nan man ne mezig beon gehealden U_ micclum wisdome. 7 cwed bet nan man ne meg beon gehealden V_micclum wisdome. 7 cwe6d bet nan man ne meg beon gehealden. 162 micclum wisdome. 7 cwe6 bet nan man ne meg beon gehealden. 342 micclum wisdome. 7 cwed bet nan mann ne meg beon gehealden 178 micclum wisdome 7 cwe6 bet nan man ne meg beon gehealden C micclum wisdome. 7 cwe6d pet nan man ne meg beon gehealden 198 micclum wisdome. 7 cweb. bet nan mann ne meg beon gehelden 343 mycele wisdome. 7 cwzd bet nan mon ne meg beon thealden A mucelene wisdome. 7 cwed pat na man ne mai bien gehalden ‘he forgeaf added in the scribe’s hand above the line.

196 Appendix 65 R_ buton he ryhtlice gelyfe on god. 7 he beo gefullod. 7 his U | buton he rihtlice on god gelyfe. 7 he beo gefullod. 7 his V__buton he rihtlic. . . god gelyfe. 7 he beo gefullod. 7 hys 162 buton he rihtlice gelyfe on god. 7 he beo gefullod. 7 his 342 buton he rihtlice gelyfe on god. 7 he beo gefullod. 7 his 178 butan he rihtlice on god gelyfe 7 he beo gefullod. 7 his C_ buton he rihtlice on god gelyfe. 7 he beo gefullod 7 his 198 buton he rihtlice on god gelyfe. 7 heo beo gefullod. 7 his 343 buton he rihtlice ilyfe on god. 7 beo ifullot. 7 his A buton he richlice gelife on god. 7 bat he beo gefulled. 7 his 66 R_ geleafan mid godum weorcum geglenge; he onscunode elec unriht. U_ geleafan mid godum weorcum geglenge; He onscunode elc unriht. V_geleafan . . . godum weorcum geglencge; he onscu.. . 162 geleafan mid godum weorcum geglenge; he onscunode elc unriht. 342 geleafa mid godum weorcum geglenge; he onscunode elc unriht. 178 geleafan mid godum weorcum gelenge. He onscunode elc unriht C_ geleafan mid godum weorcum geglenge. He onscunode elc unmht. 198 geleafan mid godum weorcum geglengde. He onscunode elec unriht. 343 ileafen mid gode weorce biga. He scynode elec unriht. A geleafen mid goden wrcon geglenge. heo onscunede elc unricht 67R_ 7 ealle leasunga 7 tehte rihtwisnysse 7 sodfezstnysse;

U7 ealle leasunga. 7 tehte rihtwisnysse 7 sodfestnysse; V7 ealle leasunga. 7 tahte rihtwisnys. . .nysse. 162 7 ealle leasunga. 7 tahte rihtwisnysse 7 sodfestnysse; 342 7 ealle leasunga. 7 tehte rihtwisnysse. 7 sodfestnysse; 178 7 ealle leasunga. 7 tehte rihtwisnysse 7 sodfestnysse: C 7 ealle leasunga. 7 tahte rihtwisnysse 7 sodfzstnysse. 198 7 ealla leasunga. 7 tahte rihtwisnesse 7 sopfzstnysse.

| 343 7 alle leasunge. 7 tehte rihtwisnessze 7 sodfestnysse. A 7 alle leasunge. 7 tochte richwisnesse. 7 sodfestnesse.

| Biblio graphy Adams, Eleanor N. Old English Scholarship in England from 1566 to 1800. Yale Studies in English 55. New Haven, 1917. Adelung, John Christopher. ‘‘A Concise History of the English Language,

Its Changes, and Gradual Improvement.’”’ In A. F. M. Willich, Elements of the Critical Philosophy ... , pp. v-lxxxvii. London, 1798. Andrew, S.O. ‘‘Relative and Demonstrative Pronouns in Old English.’’ Language 12 (1936), 283-93. ———. Syntax and Style in Old English. Cambridge, Eng., 1940. Barnouw, Adriaan Jacob. Textkritische Untersuchungen nach dem Gebrauch des bestimmten Artikels und des schwachen Adjektivs in der altenglischen

Poesie. Leiden, 1902. [Cited as Barnouw] ,

Bazell, Charles E. ‘‘Notes on Old English Metre and Morphology.’ In Wortbildung, Syntax, und Morphologie: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag

von Hans Marchand, ed. Herbert E. Brekle and Leonhard Lipka, pp. 17-19. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 36. The Hague, 1968. Becker, Alfred. Franks Casket: Zu den Bildern und Inschriften des Runenkastchens von Auzon. Regensburg, 1973. [Cited as Becker] Bennett, W. H. The Gothic Commentary on the Gospel of John: skeireins aiwaggeljons bairh iohannen. Modern Language Association of America Monograph Series 21. New York, 1960. Bergsten, Nils. A Study on Compound Substantives in English. Diss. Uppsala, 1911. Uppsala, 1911.

Binz, Gustav. Review of Textkritische Untersuchungen nach dem Gebrauch

des bestimmten Artikels, by Adriaan Jacob Barnouw. Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie 36 (1904), 269-74.

— —. Review of Chronologische Studien zur angelsachsischen Literatur, by Carl Richter. Anglia Beiblatt 22 (1911), 78-80.

Birch, Walter de Gray, ed. Cartularium Saxonicum. 3 vols., plus Index Saxonicus. London, 1885-1899. Reprint New York, 1964. [Cited as Birch] Blake, Norman F. ‘‘The Dating of Old English Poetry.” In An English Miscellany Presented to W. S. Mackie, ed. Brian S. Lee, pp. 14-27. London, 1977.

Bliss, Alan J. The Metre of Beowulf. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1967. [Cited as Bliss] Blumbach, Wolfgang. Studien zur Spirantisierung und Entspirantisierung alt-

englischer Konsonanten, 1: Labiale und Tektale, mit Zusatzband von Anmerkungen. Diss. Gottingen, 1974. Gottingen, 1974. Bosworth, Joseph. The Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar, with Copious Notes. London, 1823. —, and T. Northcote Toller. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. London, 1898. Supplement by T. Northcote Toller. London, 1921. Enlarged Addenda and Corrigenda by A. Campbell. London, 1972. [Cited as BosworthToller] 197

198 Bibliography Brandl, Alois. ‘‘Zum ags. Gedichte ‘Traumgesicht vom Kreuze Christi.’ ”’ Sitzungsberichte der koniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Classe. Berlin, 1905. Pp. 716-23. Brink, Bernhard ten. Beowulf: Untersuchungen. Quellen und Forschungen 62. Strassburg, 1888. Bromwich, John. ‘‘Who Was the Translator of the Prose Portion of the Paris

Psalter.’ In The Early Cultures of North-West Europe (Chadwick Festschrift), ed. C. Fox and B. Dickins, pp. 290-303. Cambridge, Eng., 1950.

Brown, William H., Jr. A Syntax of King Alfred’s Pastoral Care. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 101. The Hague, 1970.

Brugmann, Karl, and Berthold Delbruck. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 5 vols. Strassburg, 1886— 1900.

Brunner, Karl. Altenglische Grammatik, nach der angelsachsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers neubearbeitet. 3rd ed. Tubingen, 1965. [Cited as Sievers-Brunner]

Cameron, Angus. ‘‘A List of Old English Texts.’’ In A Plan for the Dictionary of Old English, ed. Roberta Frank and Angus Cameron, pp. 25-306. Toronto, 1973. [Cited as Cameron] Campbell, Alistair, ed. The Battle of Brunanburh. London, 1938. ———. Old English Grammar. Oxford, 1959. [Cited as Campbell] Carlson, Ingvar, ed. The Pastoral Care, edited from B.M. MS. Cotton Otho B.ii, Part 1. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in English 34. Stockholm, 1975.

Chadwick, H. M. Studies in Old English. Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society 4, 2. Cambridge, Eng., 1899.

—. The Heroic Age. Cambridge, Eng., 1912. Chambers, R. W. Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a Discussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn. With a supplement by C. L. Wrenn. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Eng., 1959. Clemoes, P. A. M. ‘‘The Chronology of A42lfric’s Works.’’ In The AngloSaxons: Studies in Some Aspects of Their History and Culture Presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Peter Clemoes, pp. 212—47. London, 1959. Cohn, Martin. Die Rolle der Metra des Boethius im Streit um die Datierung der Denkmaler der angelsachsischen Poesie. Diss. Breslau, 1922. Breslau, 1922.

——. ‘‘Ist die Wortstellung ein brauchbares Kriterium fuir die Chronologie angelsachsischer Denkmaler?’’ Englische Studien 57 (1923), 321-29. Conybeare, John Josias. Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. Ed. W. D. Conybeare. London, 1826. Cook, Albert S., ed. Judith: An Old English Epic Fragment. Boston, 1888. ——. The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 17 (1912), 213-361. Reprint New Haven, 1912.

Bibliography 199 Dahl, Ivar. Substantival Inflection in Early Old English: Vocalic Stems. Lund Studies in English 7. Lund, 1938.

Delbriick, B. ‘‘Das schwache Adjektivum und der Artikel im Germanischen.”’ Indogermanische Forschungen 26 (1909), 187-99. Dickins, Bruce. ‘‘A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions.’’ Leeds Studies in English and Kindred Languages 1 (1932), 15-19. Dietrich, [Franz]. ‘‘Hycgan and Hopian.”’ Zeitschrift fur deutsches Alterthum 9 (1853), 214-22. Dietz, Klaus. **Zur Vokalquantitat ae. Worter des Typus w(e)alh-w(e)alas.”’ Anglia 88 (1970), 1-25. Dobbie, Elliott Van Kirk. The Manuscripts of Cedmon’s Hymn and Bede's Death Song. With a Critical Text of the Epistola Cuthberti de obitu Bede. New York, 1937. Einenkel, Eugen. ‘‘Die englische Verbalnegation.’’ Anglia 35 (1911), 187248, 401-24.

Eliason, Norman, and Peter Clemoes, eds. 4/fric’s First Series of Catholic Homilies. Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 13. Copenhagen, 1966.

Flasdieck, Hermann M. ‘‘Das Kasseler Bruchsttick der Cura Pastoralis.”’ Anglia 62 (1938), 193-233.

Foster, T. Gregory. Judith: Studies in Metre, Language and Style, with a View to Determining the Date of the Oldenglish Fragment and the Home of [ts Author. Quellen und Forschungen 71. Strassburg, 1892. [Cited as Foster]

Frings, Theodor. ‘‘Christ and Satan.’ Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie 45 (1913), 216-36.

Funke, Otto. ‘‘Some Remarks on Late OE Word-Order with Special Reference to AElfric and the Maldon Poem [about 991].’’ English Studies 37 (1956), 99-104.

——. ‘‘Altenglische Wortgeographie (Eine bibliographische Uberschau).”’ In Anglistische Studien (Wild Festschrift), ed. Karl Brunner, Herbert Koziol, and Siegfried Korninger, pp. 39-51. Wiener Beitrage zur englischen Philologie 66. Vienna, 1958.

Girvan, Ritchie. Beowulf and the Seventh Century: Language and Content. London, 1935. [Cited as Girvan] Gneuss, Helmut. Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter. Tubingen, 1968.

——. ‘‘The Origin of Standard Old English and A4thelwold’s School at Winchester.’’ Anglo-Saxon England 1, ed. Peter Clemoes, pp. 63-83. London, 1972.

Goosens, L. ‘‘A Chronology for the Falling Together of IOE hr and r.’”’ English Studies 50 (1969), 74-79.

Gordon, E. V.,ed. The Battle of Maldon. London, 1937. Reprint with minor corrections, New York, 1966; with supplement by D. G. Scragg, Manchester, 1976.

200 - Bibliography Gretsch, Mechthild. Die Regula Sancti Benedicti in England und ihre altenglische Ubersetzung. Munich, 1973.

Grinda, Klaus R. ‘‘Arbeit’? und ‘‘Muhe’’: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutungsgeschichte altenglischer Worter. Munich, 1975.

Grossmann, Heinrich. Das angelsdchsische Relativ. Diss. Berlin, 1906. Weimar, 1906.

Groth, Ernst Johannes. Composition und Alter der altenglischen (angelsdchsischen) Exodus. Diss. Gottingen, 1883. Gottingen, 1883. Hall, John R. Clark. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Cambridge, Eng.., 1894. 4th ed. with a supplement by Herbert D. Meritt. Cambridge, Eng.., 1970. [Cited as Clark Hall-Meritt] Hart, C. R. The Early Charters of Eastern England. Leicester, 1966. Harting, P. N. U. ‘‘The Text of the Old English Translation of Gregory’s ‘Dialogues.’ ’? Neophilologus 22 (1937), 281-302.

Hecht, Hans, ed. Bischof Werferths von Worcester Ubersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen. Leipzig, 1900; Hamburg, 1907. Reprinted Darmstadt, 1965. Hessels, J. H. An Eighth-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary. Cambridge, Eng., 1890.

Heusler, Andreas. Die altgermanische Dichtung. 2nd ed. Darmstadt, 1957. Hickes, George. Institutiones Grammaticae Anglo-Saxonicae et MoesoGothicae. Oxford, 1689. ——. Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus, Grammatico-criticus

et Archeologicus. Oxford, 1705. ———. Grammatica Anglo-Saxonica ex Hickesiano Thesauro Excerpta. Excerpted by Edward Thwaites. Oxford, 1711. Hofmann, Dietrich. Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen der Wikingerzeit. Bibliotheca Arnamagnzana 14. Copenhagen, 1955. ————. ‘‘Untersuchungen zu den altenglischen Gedichten Genesis und Exodus.’’ Anglia 75 (1957), 1-34.

Horgan, Dorothy M. ‘‘The Relationship between the O.E. MSS. of King Alfred’s Translation of Gregory’s Pastoral Care.’’ Anglia 91 (1973), 153-69.

——. ‘Some Lexical and Syntactic Variants in Two of the Later MSS. of King Alfred’s Translation of Gregory’s Pastoral Care.’ To be published in Anglo-Saxon England 9 (1980).

Hubener, Gustav. ‘‘Zur Erklarung der Wortstellung im Ags.’ Anglia 39

(1915), 277-302.

— —. ‘Das Problem des Flexionsschwundes im Angelsachsischen.’’ Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 45 (1921), 85— 102.

Hullweck, Adolf. Ueber den Gebrauch des Artikels in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen. Diss. Berlin, 1887. Dessau, 1887. Humphreys, K. W., and Alan S. C. Ross. ‘‘Further Manuscripts of Bede’s ‘Historia Ecclesiastica,’ of the ‘Epistola Cuthberti de Obitu Bede,’ and

Bibliography 201 Further Anglo-Saxon Texts of ‘Cedmon’s Hymn’ and ‘Bede’s Death Song.’ ’’? Notes and Queries 220 (1975), 50-55.

Imelmann, Rudolf. Forschungen zur altenglischen Poesie. Berlin, 1920. Irving, Edward B., Jr. ‘‘On the Dating of the Old English Poems Genesis and Exodus.”’ Anglia 77 (1959), 1-11.

Jacobs, Nicholas. ‘‘Anglo-Danish Relations, Poetic Archaism, and the Date of Beowulf: A Reconsideration of the Evidence.’ Poetica (Tokyo) 8 (1977), 23-43.

Jellinek, M. H. ‘‘Zum schwachen Adjektiv.’’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 34 (1909), 581-84. Jespersen, Otto. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Completed and edited by Niels Haislund. London, 1949. [Cited as Jespersen]

Kaluza, Max. A Short History of English Versification. Trans. A. C. Dunstan. London, 1911. Kemble, John M. Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici. 6 vols. London, 1839-— 1848.

Ker, N. R., ed. The Pastoral Care. Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 6. Copenhagen, 1956.

——. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford, 1957. [Cited as Ker] Kim, Suksan. ‘‘A Collation of the OE MS. Hatton 20 of King Alfred’s Pastoral Care.’’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 74 (1973), 425-42. Kirschner, Josef. Die Bezeichnungen fur Kranz und Krone im Altenglischen. Munich, 1975. Klaeber, Friedrich, ed. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburgh. 3rd ed. with the first and second supplements. Boston, 1950. [Cited as Klaeber] Kluge, F. ‘*Zur Geschichte des Reimes im Altgermanischen.’’ Beitrdage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 9 (1884), 422-50. Knispel, Eva. Der altenglische Instrumental bei Verben und Adjektiven und sein Ersatz im Verlaufe der englischen Sprachgeschichte. Diss. Breslau,

1932. Breslau, 1932. Kock, Ernst Albin. The English Relative Pronouns: A Critical Essay. Diss. Lund, 1897. Lund, 1897. Kokeritz, Helge. Shakespeare’s Pronunciation. New Haven, 1953. Korhammer, Michael. Die monastischen Cantica im Mittelalter und ihre altenglischen Interlinearversionen. Munich, 1976. Krackow, Otto. Die Nominalcomposita als Kunstmittel im altenglischen Epos. Berlin, 1903. Krapp, George Phillip, and Elliott Van Kirk Dobbie, eds. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. 6 vols. New York, 1931-1953. Krohn, Rudolf. Der Gebrauch des schwachen Adjektivs in den wichtigsten Prosaschriften der Zeit Alfreds des Grossen. Diss. Breslau, 1914. Breslau, 1914.

Langenfelt, Gosta. ‘‘Some Widsith Names and the Background of Widsith.”’ VI. Internationaler Kongress fiir Namenforschung, ed. Gerhard Rohlfs and Karl Puchner, 3:496-510. Munich, 1961.

202 Bibliography Larson, Laurence Marcellus. The King’s Household in England before the Norman Conquest. Diss. Wisconsin 1902. Reprinted from Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, History Series 1 (1904), 55-211. Lehmann, Winfrid P. ‘‘Post-Consonantal / m nr and Metrical Practice in Beowulf.’’ In Nordica et Anglica: Studies in Honor of Stefan Einarsson, ed. Allan H. Orrick, pp. 148-67. Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 22. The Hague, 1968.

Lichtenheld, A. ‘‘Das schwache Adjektiv im Ags.”’ Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Alterthum 16 (1873), 325-93. [Cited as Lichtenheld] Lindemann, J. W. Richard. ‘‘Old English Preverbal ge-: A Reexamination of Some Current Doctrines.’’ Journal of English and Germanic Philology 64

(1965), 65-83. |

——. Old English Preverbal Ge-: Its Meaning. Charlottesville, 1970. Lindsay, W. M. The Corpus Glossary. With an Anglo-Saxon Index by Helen McM. Buckhurst. Cambridge, Eng., 1921. Loyn, H.R. ‘‘Gesiths and Thegns in Anglo-Saxon England from the Seventh to the Tenth Century.”’ English Historical Review 70 (1955), 529-49. Luick, Karl. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. 1:1, 1914~—1921. I:2, 1929-1940. With an index by Friedrich Wild and Herbert Koziol. Reprint Stuttgart and Oxford, 1964. [Cited as Luick] McKinnell, John. ‘‘Onthe Date of The Battle of Maldon.’’ Medium A:vum 44 (1975), 121-36.

Malone, Kemp, ed. Widsith. London, 1936. ———. ‘‘Plurilinear Units in Old English Poetry.’ Review of English Studies 19 (1943), 201-4.

———. *‘The Old English Period (to 1100).’’ In The Literary History of England, ed. A. C. Baugh, pp. 1-105. 2nd ed. New York, 1967.

Marckwardt, Albert H., and James L. Rosier. Old English: Language and Literature. New York, 1972. [Cited as Marckwardt and Rosier] Menner, Robert J. ‘‘The Vocabulary of the Old English Poems on Judgement

Day.’ Publications of the Modern Language Association 62 (1947), 583-97.

——. ‘‘The Anglian Vocabulary of the Blickling Homilies.’ In Philologica: The Malone Anniversary Studies, ed. Thomas A. Kirby and Henry Bosley Woolf, pp. 56-64. Baltimore, 1949. ——. ‘‘The Date and Dialect of Genesis A 852-2936 (Part III).’’ Anglia 70 (1952), 285-94.

Meroney, Howard. ‘‘The Early History of down as an Adverb.”’ Journal of English and Germanic Philology 44 (1945), 378-86. Mitchell, Bruce. ‘*Pronouns in Old English Poetry: Some Syntactical Notes.”’ Review of English Studies, n.s. 15 (1964), 129-41. —. A Guide to Old English. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1968. [Cited as Mitchell] Morris, Richard, ed. Old English Homilies and Homiletic Treatises ... of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. First series, part II. Early English Text Society 34. London, 1868.

Bibliography 203 Morsbach, Lorenz. ‘*Zur Datierung des Beowulfepos.’’ Nachrichten der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologischhistorische Klasse. Gottingen, 1906. Pp. 251-77. [Cited as Morsbach] Mirkens, Gerhard. ‘‘Untersuchung tiber das altenglische Exoduslted.’’ Bonner Beitrdge zur Anglistik 2 (1899), 62-117.

Mustanoja, Tauno F. A Middle English Syntax. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 23. Helsinki, 1960.

Napier, A. S. ‘‘Fragments of an A4lfric Manuscript.’’ Modern Language Notes 8 (1893), 398—400.

——. Old English Glosses, Chiefly Unpublished. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Mediaeval and Modern Series 11. Oxford, 1900. [Cited as Napier]

——. ‘Contributions to Old English Literature, 2: The Franks Casket.’’ In An English Miscellany, Presented to Dr. Furnivall, pp. 362-81. Oxford,

| 1901.

Norman, Frederick, ed. Waldere. London, 1933; 2nd ed., 1949. ——. ‘‘Problems in the Dating of Deor and Its Allusions.’’ Franciplegius: Medievaland Linguistic Studies in Honor of Francis Peabody Magoun, Jr.,

ed. Jess B. Bessinger, Jr., and Robert P. Creed, pp. 205-13. New York, 1965.

Okasha, Elisabeth. Hand-List of Anglo-Saxon Non-Runic_ Inscriptions. Cambridge, Eng., 1971. Oliphant, R. T. The Harley Latin-Old English Glossary. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 20. The Hague, 1966.

Ostherren, Klaus. Studien zum Begriff der ‘‘Freude’’ und seinen Ausdrucksmitteln in altenglischen Texten (Poesie, Alfred, Aelfric). Diss. Berlin, 1964. Heidelberg, 1964.

Page, R. I. ‘‘Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions.’’ Anglia 77 (1959), 385—406.

——. ‘‘The Bewcastle Cross.’ Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 4 (1960), 36-57.

——. An Introduction to English Runes. London, 1973. Pedersen, Holger. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century. Trans. John Webster Spargo. Cambridge, Mass., 1931. Reprinted as The Discovery of Language, Bloomington, 1959. Petheram, John. An Historical Sketch of the Progress and Present State of Anglo-Saxon Literature in England. London, 1840. Pheifer, J. D. Old English Glosses in the Epinal-Erfurt Glossary. Oxford, 1974. [Cited as Pheifer] Pilch, Herbert. Altenglische Grammatik: Dialektologie, Phonologie, MorPhologie, Syntax. Commentationes Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae I, 1. Munich, 1970. [Cited as Pilch] Pogatscher, Alois. ‘‘Angelsachsen und Romanen.”’ Englische Studien 19 (1894), 329-52.

—. ‘‘Unausgedrucktes Subjekt im Altenglischen.’’? Anglia 23 (1901), 261-301.

204 Bibliography Poole, Reginald Stuart. A Catalogue of English Coins in the British Museum.

Anglo-Saxon Series I. Ed. Charles Francis Keary. London, 1887. | Pope, John Collins. The Rhythm of Beowulf: An Interpretation of the Normal and Hypermetric Verse-Forms in Old English Poetry. New Haven, 1942; rev. ed., 1966.

——. Seven Old English Poems, Edited with Commentary and Glossary. New York, 1966.

——-, ed. Homilies of Alfric: A Supplementary Collection. 2 vols. Early English Text Society 259, 260. London, 1967-1968. Quinn, J.J. The Minor Latin—Old English Glossaries in Ms Cotton Cleopatra A.IIT. Diss. Stanford, 1956. Quirk, Randolph. ‘‘On the Problem of Morphological Suture in Old English.’’ Modern Language Review 45 (1950), 1-5.

———, and C. L. Wrenn. An Old English Grammar. 2nd ed. New York, 1958. [Cited as Quirk and Wrenn]

Rask, Erasmus. A Grammar of the Anglo-Saxon Tongue, with a Praxis. A new edition, enlarged and improved by the author. Trans. B. Thorpe. Copenhagen, 1830. Ricci, Aldo. ‘“‘The Anglo-Saxon Eleventh-Century Crisis.’’ Review of English Studies 5 (1929), 1-11. ———. ‘“‘The Chronology of Anglo-Saxon Peotry.’’ Review of English Studies 5 (1929), 257-66. Richter, Carl. Chronologische Studien zur angelsdchsischen Literatur auf Grund sprachlich-metrischer Kriterien. Studien zur englischen Philologie 33. Halle, 1910. [Cited as Richter]

Roberts, Jane. ‘‘A Metrical Examination of the Poems Guthlac A and Guthlac B.”’ Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 71 C (1971), 91-137.

Rohling, Martin. Das Prdfix ‘‘ofer-’’ in der altenglischen Verbal- und Nominal-Komposition mit Bericksichtigung der ubrigen germanischen Dialekte. Heidelberg, 1914. Ross, Alan S. C. ‘‘The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of the ‘Ruthwell Cross.’ ’? Modern Language Review 28 (1933), 145—SS.

———. ‘‘Four Examples of Norse Influence in the Old English Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels.’’ Transactions of the Philological Society, 1940 (London, 1942), 39-52. Rynell, Alarik. ‘‘Parataxis and Hypotaxis as a Criterion of Syntax and Style, Especially in Old English Poetry.’’ Lunds Universitets Arsskrift 48, no. 3 (1952), 1-59. Sarrazin, G[regor]. ““Beowulf and Kynewulf.’’ Anglia 9 (1886), 515-50.

— —. ‘‘Der Schauplatz des ersten Beowulfliedes und die Heimat des Dichters.’’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 11 (1886), 159-83.

——. Review of Kynewulf, der Bischof und Dichter, by Moritz Trautmann.

Literaturblatt fiir germanische und romanische Philologie 20 (1899), 10-14.

Bibliography 205 ——. ‘Zur Chronologie und Verfasserfrage angelsachsischer Dichtungen.”’ Englische Studien 38 (1907), 145-95.

—. Von Kddmon bis Kynewulf: Eine litterarhistorische Studie. Berlin, 1913. [Cited as Sarrazin]

Sawyer, P.H. Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography. London, 1968.

Schabram, Hans. Superbia: Studien zum altenglischen Wortschatz, Teil I: Die dialektale und zeitliche Verbreitung des Wortguts. Munich, 1965. ——. ‘‘Das altenglische superbia-Wortgut: Eine Nachlese.’”’ In Festschrift Prof. Dr. Herbert Koziol zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. Gero Bauer, Franz K. Stanzel, and Franz Zaic, pp. 272-79. Wiener Beitrage zur engllschen Philologie 75. Vienna, 1973.

Scherer, Gunther. Zur Geographie und Chronologie des angelsachsischen Wortschatzes, im Anschluss an Bischof Werferths Ubersetzung der ‘“‘Dialoge’’ Gregors. Diss. Berlin, 1928. Weimar, 1928. Schlemilch, Willy. Beitrage zur Sprache und Orthographie spdataltenglischer Sprachdenkmdler der Ubergangszeit (1000-1150). Diss. Gottingen, 1913. Gottingen, 1913.

Schneider, Karl. ‘‘Six OE Runic Inscriptions Reconsidered. 1. The Scanomodu-Coin.’’ In Nordica et Anglica: Studies in Honor of Stefan Einarsson, ed. Allan H. Orrick, pp. 37-40. Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 22. The Hague, 1968. Schtiicking, Levin Ludwig. Review of Textkritische Untersuchungen nach dem Gebrauch des bestimmten Artikels, by Adriaan Jacob Barnouw. Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen 167 (1905), 730—40.

——. ‘‘Wann entstand der Beowulf? Glossen, zweifel und fragen.’’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 42 (1917), 347410. [Cited as Schiicking] ———. ‘‘Die Beowulfdatierung: Eine Replik.’’ Beitradge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 47 (1923), 293-311. Searle, William George. Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum: A List of AngloSaxon Proper Names from the Time of Beda to that of King John. Cambridge, Eng., 1897.

Seiffert, Friedrich. Die Behandlung der Worter mit auslautenden urspriinglich silbischen Liquiden oder Nasalen und mit Kontraktionsvokalen in der Genesis A und im Beowulf. Diss. Halle-Wittenberg, 1913. Halle, 1913.

Shelton, Maurice. Wotton’s Short View of George Hickes’ GrammaticoCritical and Archeological Treasure of the Ancient Northern Languages. London, 1735.

Sievers, Eduard. ‘‘Zur Rhythmik des germanischen Alliterationsverses.”’ Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 10 (1885), 209-314, 451-545. Reprint New York, 1909.

——. “Zu Cynewulf.”’ Anglia 13 (1891), 1-25. ——. Altgermanische Metrik. Halle, 1893.

206 Bibliography ——. ‘‘Ziele und Wege der Schallanalyse.”’ In Stand und Aufgaben der Sprachwissenschaften: Festschrift fiir Wilhelm Streitberg, pp. 65-111, and as Sonderdruck. Heidelberg, 1924. Sisam, Kenneth. ‘““MSS. Bodley 340 and 342: AElfric’s Catholic Homilies.”’ Review of English Studies 7 (1931), 8 (1932), 9 (1933). Reprint in Studies, pp. 148-98. ———. ‘‘Cynewulf and His Poetry.’ Proceedings of the British Academy 18 (1933). Reprint in Studies, pp. 1-28.

——. ‘The Authority of Old English Poetical Manuscripts.’’ Review of English Studies 22 (1946). Reprint in Studies, pp. 29-44. ——. Studies in the History of Old English Literature. Oxford, 1953. Sorg, Walther. Zur Syntax und Stilistik des Pronominalgebrauches in der alteren angelsachsischen Dichtung. Diss. Breslau, 1912. Breslau, 1912. Sprockel, C. The Language of the Parker Chronicle, 1: Phonology and Accidence. The Hague, 1965. Stanley, E. G., ed. The Owl and the Nightingale. London, 1960.

——. ‘Verbal Stress in Old English Verse.’’ Anglia 93 (1975), 307-34.

—. “The Vocabulary of Old English.’’ Unpublished paper read at a meeting of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 19 February 1976.

Storch, Theodor. Angelsachsische Nominalcomposita. Strassburg, 1886.

Storms, G. ‘“‘The Weakening of O.E. Stressed i to e and the Date of Cynewulf.”’ English Studies 37 (1956), 104-10.

Stryker, W. G. The Latin-—Old English Glossary in Ms Cotton Cleopatra A.Ill. Diss. Stanford, 1952. Sweet, Henry, ed. King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care. Early English Text Society 45, 50. London, 1871-1872. Thorpe, Benjamin, ed. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 1: The Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Alfric. London, 1844.

Timmer, Benno Johan. ‘‘Wyrd in Anglo-Saxon Prose and Poetry.”’ Neophilologus 26 (1941), 24-33, 213-28.

——,ed. Judith. London, 1952. Touster, Eva. ‘‘Phonological Aspects of the Meter of Beowulf.’’ In Essays in Honor of Walter Clyde Curry, pp. 27-38. Nashville, 1954. Trautmann, Moritz. ‘‘Zur kenntnis des altgermanischen verses, vornehmlich des altenglischen.’’ Anglia Beiblatt 5 (1895), 87-96.

——. Kynewulf, der Bischof und Dichter: Untersuchungen tber seine Werke und sein Leben. Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik 1. Bonn, 1898. [Cited as Trautmann] Tupper, Frederick, Jr. ‘‘The Philological Legend of Cynewulf.’’ Publications of the Modern Language Association 26 (1911), 235-79. [Cited as Tupper]

von Schaubert, Else. Heyne-Schickings Beowulf. 17th ed. Paderborn, 1958-1961.

Warner, Rubie D.-N., ed. Early English Homilies from the Twelfth Century MS. Vesp. D.xiv. Early English Text Society 152. London, 1917.

Bibliography 207 Whitelock, Dorothy. ‘‘Wulfstan and the So-Called Laws of Edward and Guthrum.’’ English Historical Review 56 (1941), 1-21. ———. ‘‘Anglo-Saxon Poetry and the Historian.’’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series (1949), 75-94. ———. The Audience of Beowulf. Oxford, 1951. Woolf, Virginia. ‘‘Craftsmanship.’’ From the B.B.C. series Words Fail Me, broadcast 20 April 1937. Published in The Death of the Moth and Other Essays, pp. 198-207. New York, 1942.

Wrenn, C. L. ‘‘The Value of Spelling as Evidence.’’ Transactions of the Philological Society (1943), pp. 14-39.

——,ed. Beowulf with the Finnesburg Fragment. London, 1953. Wright, Thomas, ed. Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies. 2nd ed. by R. P. Wulker. 2 vols. London, 1884. Wulker, Richard. Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsachsischen Literatur. Leipzig, 1885.

BLANK PAGE

| Index Aelfric, 3, 5, 28, 117, 133, 135, 137-38, 37, 51, 58-59, 67-68, 76, 78, 81-82,

148-49, 152, 164-65; Catholic 150

Homilies, 122-23, 127, 131, 134, Christ and Satan, 9, 78, 82, 93-94, 116,

138-39, 154, 171-77 134-35

Alfred, 3-5, 65, 117-18, 133, 135-36, Chrodegang, Rule for Canons, 148 138-39, 149, 151-52, 154, 163, 169, Cleopatra Glossary, 21 171-74, 176-77; see also Pastoral Coronation of Edgar, 51, 62

Care Corpus Glossary, 21-22, 24, 32-33, 42

Andreas, 36, 38, 51, 60, 64, 67, 75, 78-80, Cynewulf, 6, 13, 16, 27, 46, 49, 96-97,

93, 110-11, 124-25, 129, 158-60 103—105, 114, 124, 135-36, 139-40, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1, 4, 34, 46, 150, 159, 165 65-66 n. 3, 93-94, 99, 101, 106, Daniel, 37, 50, 53, 64, 67-68, 78, 82-83, 110-11, 118, 125, 128, 133, 135-37, 93, 107, 121, 133-35, 151, 161

139, 144, 177 Death of Edgar, 1, 75, 78, 83, 95, 129

Azarias, 121, 135 Deor, 10, 150, 162-64 Battle of Brunanburh, 1, 38, 78, 89, 93-95, Dialogues of Gregory the Great, trans. 101, 161, 165 Werferth, 1, 118, 151, 153-54 Battle of Finnsburh, 78, 89, 161 Dream of the Rood, 52, 63, 78, 89, 116

Battle of Maldon, 1, 9, 34-35, 38, 52, 63, Durham Ritual, 143, 153 65-66 n. 3, 67, 69, 75, 78, 86, 92-95, Elene, 27-28, 36, 39, 51, 61, 75-76, 78, 83, 97-98, 100-102, 110-11, 114, 118-19, 93-95, 103, 135, 139, 150 121, 124-25, 129-30, 133, 138-39, Epinal Glossary, 21-22, 24, 32-33, 42-43

143-46, 158-59, 161, 167, 169 Erfurt Glossary, 21-22, 24, 32-33, 42-43 Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the En- — Exhortation to Christian Living, 52, 62, 78,

glish People, 2, 10, 19, 24-25, 29, 41, 89 43, 103, 118, 145, 154 Exodus, 6, 28, 36-37, 48, 51, 59, 78, 83-84, Bede’s Death Song, 1, 25, 65-66 n. 3, 95, 92-93, 113-15, 125, 129-31, 133-35,

97, 154 139, 143, 150, 158-62

Benedictine Rule, 133, 151 Fates of the Apostles, 52, 62, 78, 89, 103, Beowulf, 7, 10, 12-16, 25, 27, 36-37, 139 44-50, 56-57, 64, 67-68, 71-76, 78, Fortunes of Men, 78, 89 80-81, 92-96, 98-101, 107-108, Franks Casket, 21-24, 31-32, 105-106 110-17, 124—25, 129-30, 133, 135-40, Genesis (poem), 3-4, 93, 110-12, 114, 142-43, 147, 150-51, 157-58, 160-61, 124-25, 133-37, 149, 151; Genesis A,

168 9, 14, 17, 26-27, 37, 46-50, 53-55,

Bewcastle Cross, 18 64-65, 67-69, 71, 75-76, 78, 84-86,

Blickling Homilies, 151, 153 116, 126, 129, 140, 143, 146-47,

Cedmon’s Hymn, 1-4, 25, 34-35, 37, 158-62; Genesis B, 9, 52, 62-63, 78,

41-42, 65-66 n. 3, 95, 97, 132-33, 86, 101

154, 165 Gifts of Men, 34, 37, 50, 52, 78, 89

Capture of the Five Boroughs, 78, 89,95 — Gloria I, 50, 52

Charms, 10 Guthlac (poem), 64, 129, 150; Guthlac A, Charters, 25, 31, 33, 41, 103-104 9, 34-38, 47-48, 51, 59, 67, 69, 76, 78,

209 !

Christ, 9, 36, 64, 67, 92-93, 107; Christ I, 86, 92, 119, 131, 135; Guthlac B, 9, 39, 38, 51, 62, 76, 78, 81; Christ IT, 51, 60, 51, 61, 67, 69, 79, 89-90 78, 89, 103, 135, 139, 150; Christ II, Guthlac (prose), 153

210 | Index Heptateuch, Old English, 44-45 Pastoral Care, 107, 118, 122-23, 127, 131, Husband’s Message, 50, 53, 79, 90, 149, 133-34, 138, 154, 171-74, 176-77

162 Phoenix, 46, 52, 63, 79, 91

Judgement Day IT, 101 Precepts, 34, 36, 37, 50, 53 Judith, 6, 27, 52, 63, 79, 90, 92-96, 98, 101, Proverb from Winfrid’s Time, 97

114, 117, 124-26, 129, 136, 141, Riddles, 34, 38, 50, 55-56, 64, 67, 69, 78,

149-50, 153, 159, 161-62 88, 115, 143, 150, 157-58

Juliana, 34-37, 46, 51, 61, 79, 90, 93, 103, Riming Poem, 52, 63, 79, 91, 96

139-40 Ruin, 79, 91-92

Lambeth Psalter, 148 Rune Poem, 146

Laws, AEthelberht, 1, 4 Rushworth Gospels, 2, 4, 143, 153

Laws, A#thelred, 144 Ruthwell Cross, 105-106 Laws, Alfred, 118 Seafarer, 52, 63, 78, 88-89, 117, 149-50 Leiden Riddle, 25, 65-66 n. 3, 69, 95, Solidus, gold, in imitation of an issue of

97~98 Honorius (‘‘scanomodu’’ coin), 20-

Liber Vitae, 19, 103-104, 163 21, 24

Lindisfarne Gospels, 2, 4, 143, 153 Solomon and Saturn, 46, 52, 63, 79, 91, 94,

Maxims I, 131 | 121, 134, 155

Maxims IT, 78, 86 Soul and Body, 51, 62, 78, 89, 121, 127, Menologium, 28, 52, 63, 78, 86-87, 101 134-35 Meters of Boethius, 28, 51, 59-60, 71, 79, Vainglory, 79, 91 90-91, 101, 119-20, 126, 137, 140, 147, Vercelli Homilies, 152

149-50, 153 Vespasian Hymns, 18-19

Metrical preface to Gregory’s Dialogues, 1 Vespasian Psalter, 65, 145 Metrical preface to the Pastoral Care, 1 Waldere, 50, 53, 79, 91

Northumbrian Glosses, 31, 33 Wanderer, 100, 149-50 Order of the World, 75, 78-79 Whale, 39, 52, 63, 79, 91 Orosius, 107, 118, 136, 145, 151 Widsith, 39, 52, 63, 79, 91, 98, 146, 149

Panther, 75, 78-79 Wife’s Lament, 50, 53, 150 Paris Psalter, 5, 15, 36, 38, 51, 61-62, 78, | Wills, 5

87-88, 107, 147, 167 Wulfstan, 3, 133, 135, 153, 163

Partridge, 79, 91