The Exeter book 0231087675

543 25 154MB

English Pages [498] Year 1936

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

The Exeter book

Citation preview

?R IS-02,

,A 7


















Copyright 1936 Columbia University Press ISBN 0-231-08767-5 Printed in the United States of America 109876

PREFACE In presenting this volume as the joint production of Professor Krapp and myself, it seems proper to explain which parts of the book were written by him, and which by me. At the time of his death in April, 1934, Professor Krapp had prepared the text and notes for CHRIST, GUTHLAC,AZARIAS,the WANDERER,the GIFTS OF MEN, PRECEPTS,the FORTUNESOF MEN, the ORDER OFTHEWORLD,MAXIMSI, the RIMINGPOEM,and the PANTHER, and had written a first draft of the discussions of CHRIST, GUTHLAC,and AZARIASon pp. xxvff. of the Introduction. These sections of the book, except for a final revision for form, remain substantially as Professor Krapp left them, though I have not hesitated to make some additions and alterations in the light of new and relevant material which has come to my notice. The remainder of the book is my own work. In form, this volume follows as closely as possible the preceding volumes of the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. The text has been based on the admirably clear facsimile edition of the Exeter Book published in 1933, with the introductory chapters by Max Forster, R. W. Chambers, and Robin Flower; in the few cases in which recourse to other authorities has been necessary, definite acknowledgement of obligation has been made. The reading wena'O,in CHRIST26, appears for the first time in the present text. No attempt has been made to restore the damaged parts of the text of the Exeter Book. The extent of the missing matter has been indicated in the usual way, by points within brackets, each point representing a letter, or space for a letter, in the manuscript. The Bibliography, though fuller than in the preceding volumes, is to some extent selective. In particular, no attempt has been made to include items of more general literary interest, as, for instance, on the historical and ethnological problems connected with WIDSITHand DEOR, or the comparative study of the riddles, or themes so widespread in medieval literature as



the Descent into Hell, the Judgment Day, or the dialogue of the Soul and the Body. It is an agreeable task to express my gratitude to Professor R. W. Chambers, of University College, London, who supplied the ultra-violet print from which the text of fol, 8a has been made; to Professor Max Forster, of Yale University, who kindly offered to read the description of the Exeter Book, and made a number of very helpful suggestions; and to two of my teachers in Columbia University, Professor Harry Morgan Ayres, to whose generous counsel and discriminating criticism, especially in connection with the Introduction, I am heavily indebted, and Professor Ernest Hunter Wright, whose kindly encouragement has helped me in all stages of my work. Above all, I wish to express to the Council for Research in the Humanities of Columbia University my appreciation of its continued generous support of this series. E.V.K.D. January, 1936







Christ . Guthlac. Azarias. The Phoenix Juliana. The Wanderer The Gifts of Men Precepts The Seafarer Vainglory Widsith The Fortunes of Men Maxims I The Order of the World The Riming Poem The Panther. The Whale . The Partridge Soul and Body II . Deor Wulf and Eadwacer Riddles 1-59 The Wife's Lament The Judgment Day I Resignation . The Descent into Hell . Alms-Giving. Pharaoh The Lord's Prayer I

3 49 88 94

113 134 137 140

143 147 149 154 156 163

166 169 171

174 174 178 179 180

210 212

215 219

223 223 223



Homiletic Fragment II Riddle 30b . Riddle 60 The Husband's Message The Ruin Riddles 61-95 NOTES

224 224 225 225 227 229



THE MANUSCRIPT The Exeter Book, the largest and probably the best known of the four great miscellanies of Anglo-Saxon poetry, receives its name from the fact that it is preserved in the library of Exeter Cathedral, having been given to the cathedral by Leofric, the first bishop of Exeter, who died in 1072. In the list of Leofric's donations to Exeter Cathedral' is a manuscript described as ·i·mycel englisc boc be gehwilcum jJingum on leo'Owisan geworht. That this volume was the Exeter Book, or Codex Exoniensis, or Liber Exoniensis, as it has been variously called, is hardly a matter of doubt, though the ground of proof is limited to the fact that no other book is known to have been among Leofric's donations to which the description in the list would apply. A number of the other manuscripts which were given to the cathedral by Leofric contain inscriptions recording the fact of the gift;2 there is no such inscription in the Exeter Book, unless it was written on the leaf which has been lost before fo1. 8,3 nor is there any internal evidence except the donation list itself, to connect the manuscript with Leofric. But the natural inference that the Exeter Book which we have today is the mycel englisc boc given by Leofric to Exeter Cathedral, has never been challenged. 1 This list is extant in two Anglo-Saxon copies of the second half of the eleventh century, in MS. Auct. D.2.16 of the Bodleian Library, fol. la-2b, and in the Exeter Book itself, fol. 1a-2b. A Middle English version, in a fifteenth-century hand, is preserved at Exeter Cathedral as Charter no. 2570. The list is edited by Max Forster in The Exeter Book of OlelEnglish Poetry, pp. 18-32. , Forster, in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 11, note 3, lists nine extant manuscripts with the Leofric inscription. . a See p. xi, below.



The Exeter Book appears to have been written some seventy or eighty years before Leofric became the first bishop of Exeter; of its history during these years we have no knowledge, nor do we know what circumstances occasioned its inclusion in the library of Exeter Cathedral. It is in fact surprising to find a book of this character listed among the service books and other edifying works in Latin and English with which Leofric enriched his cathedral library. Its inclusion may well have been due not to any interest on the part of Leofric in English poetry, but to the fact that the content of the volume was in large part religious and that the first text in it was CHRIST. Of the other extant manuscripts which are known to have been given by Leofric to the cathedral at Exeter, the best known are MS. 41 of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, which contains the only complete text of the Anglo-Saxon version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the Anglo-Saxon gospel manuscript, MS. Ii.ii.ll of the University Library, Cambridge, and the so-called Leofric Missal, MS. Bodl. 579 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. In its present state, the Exeter Book contains 131parchment leaves. The first leaf, on which there is no text, was not numbered in the foliation as it now stands, which therefore runs only from 1 to 130. Folios 8 to 130, in the present numbering, comprise the Exeter Book proper, the original poetry book which Leofric gave to the library of Exeter Cathedral in the eleventh century. At some time in its history, but before it was studied by John Joscelyn in the sixteenth century,' this original manuscript was enlarged by the addition of eight folios at the beginning. The first of these eight folios, the unnumbered leaf, contains only the inscription Liber Decani et Capituli Exoniensis, in a modern hand, and the number 3501. The other seven folios of this added portion of the manuscript, folios 1 to 7 in the present numbering, contain legal documents and records of various kinds in Latin and English, in eleventh and twelfthcentury hands. Forster's suggestion- that these preliminary folios of the Exeter Book once belonged to a gospel manuscript, and most probably to MS. Ii.ii.ll of the Cambridge University 1 2

See The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 91. The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, pp. 13-14.



Library, has since been established as a fact by the discovery! that a strip of parchment missing at the top of fo1. 5 of the Exeter Book is still preserved as fo1. 202 of the Cambridge manuscript. The text of CHRIST,the first of the poems of the Exeter Book, begins in an incomplete condition on fo1. 8a, a folio having been lost at the beginning of the manuscript before the eight preliminary leaves were added. There is also an older foliation, which differs in many respects from the present numbering, and which on most of the leaves has been clipped away by a binder. At the present time the later foliation is always used. Since the eight folios added at the beginning have no organic relationship with the rest of the manuscript, it is unnecessary to discuss them further. A complete list of their contents is given by Forster in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, pp. 44-54. The size of the folios of the Exeter Book is on the average 31.5 by 22 centimeters, that is, approximately 12.5 inches by 8.6 inches. The space covered by the writing on the folios is approximately 24 by 16 centimeters, that is, 9.4 inches by 6.3 inches. The folios of the manuscript were assembled in seventeen gatherings, containing in their present form from five to eight folioseach. These gatherings are not provided with signatures, either letters or numbers, such as are found in the Vercelli Book. For convenience of reference, the gatherings may be indicated by Roman numerals, as follows: [I] [II] [III] [IV] [V] [VI] [VII] [VIII] [IX]

fo1. 8-14 fo1. 15-21 fo1. 22-29 fo1. 30-37 fo1.38-44 fo1.45-52 fo1. 53-60 fo1. 61-68 fo1. 69-74

[X] [XI] [XII] [XIII] [XIV] [XV]


fo1. 75-82 fo1. 83-90 fo1. 91-97 fo1. 98-105 fo1. 106-111 fo1. 112-118 fo1. 119-125 fo1. 126-130

Eight of the seventeen gatherings, [III], [IV], [VI], [VII], [VIII], [X], [XI], and [XIII], still have eight folios each. 1 By Mr. Gustav Malmberg, of Uppsala, in 1934. [lowe this information to the kindness of Professor Forster and of Mr. Malmborg.-E. V. K. D.]



Of these eight complete gatherings, all are made up of the usual four folded sheets except [VI], which is composed of three full sheets and two half-sheets folded in (folios 47 and 51). The other nine gatherings must be supposed either to have lost one or more folios each, or never to have had the full number of eight folios. Gaps in the text indicate the loss of one or more folios at the followingplaces: before folio 8 between folios between folios between folios between folios between folios between folios

37 and 38 69 and 70 73 and 74 97 and 98 105 and 106 111 and 112

Forster's complete tabulation of the gatherings of the manuscript indicates that gatherings [I], [V], [IX], [XII], and [XIV], to which these lost folios belonged, were once complete gatherings of four sheets, that is eight folios, each. The four remaining gatherings, [II] [XV], [XVI], and [XVII], on the other hand, appear never to have had more than their present number of folios,that is, seven, seven, seven, and five respectively. The number of lines for which the folios of the manuscript were ruled varies from twenty-one to twenty-three. One or more of the ruled lines were usually left vacant between poems or sections of poems, thus reducing the number of lines of text actually written on the page. In some cases the last word, or part of the last word on a page, has been written at the lower right-hand corner below the last ruled line, thus increasing by one the number of lines written on the page. The number of lines provided for by ruling on the several foliosis as follows: 8-14 15-44 45-52 53-82 83-93 94-130

23 lines 22 lines 23 lines 22 lines 21 lines 22 lines

A comparison with the tabulation already given of the gatherings in the manuscript indicates that, with one exception, the number



of rulings on each folio is constant for each of the gatherings. The single exception is gathering [XII], the first three folios of which were ruled for twenty-one lines each, the last four folios for twenty-two lines each. From the comparatively close correspondence between the gatherings and the ruling of the folios, and the frequent variation between the gatherings in this respect, we may infer that, as in the Vercelli Book, the manuscript was not ruled all at once, but one or more gatherings at a time, as the work progressed. The contents of the folios of the manuscript in terms of the line numbering of this edition are given in Table I, at the end of this Introduction. The poetical portions of the Exeter Book, that is, all exclusive of the later· folios 1 to 7, are written in a single hand, which is large and attractive and, considering the length of the manuscript, remarkably uniform throughout. Flower,' the most recent scholar to comment on the handwriting of the Exeter Book, believes that there is "such variety in the quality of the script that we must suppose several scribes to have been employed on the writing," but he offers no evidence in support of this opinion. Schipper" and Wtilker3 both believed the Exeter Book to be the work of one scribe, and there is no reason for dissenting from this conclusion. The variations which we find in the writing of the Exeter Book are by no means too great to be explained as the result of variations in the quality of the parchment and the use of different pens; they are certainly not as great as the variations in the writing of the Vercelli Book, which is generally regarded as the work of a single hand. The date of the handwriting of the Exeter Book is evidently to be placed in the second half of the tenth century. Schipper and Wtilker assigned the manuscript to the beginning of the eleventh century, but an earlier date seems justified. Keller' believed The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 83. Germania XIX, 327. 3 Grundriss llur Geschichte der angelsttchsischen Litteratur, p. 223. 4 Angelsiichsische Palaeographie, p. 40; see also Hoops' Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde I, 102, where Keller places the writing of the Exeter Book during the reign of Edgar, i.e, 959-975. 1




the Exeter Book to be of about the same date as the Vercelli Book, that is, about 960-980, or perhaps a little earlier than the Vercelli Book. Flower,' noting the similarity between the handwriting of the Exeter Book and that of Lambeth Palace MS. 149, which contains Latin texts of Bede and Augustine, and the provenance of which can at least be inferred, would place the writing of both manuscripts "in one monastery or in closely associated monasteries in the West Country early in the period 970-990."2 That they could not have been written at Exeter is evident on chronological grounds, since the episcopal establishment at Exeter dates from only 1050; they may however have been written at Crediton, the former seat of the bishopric. There are no illustrations in the Exeter Book, nor any other form of ornamentation, except that in the margins of six of the folios! we find figures which have been incised in the parchment with some pointed instrument, but without the use of color or ink. According to Forster,' these incised figures are of a later date than the manuscript, and therefore cannot be the workof the original scribe. The manuscript, though well preserved on the whole, has suffered severe damge in several places. The fact that fo1. 8a, the first page preserved of the original manuscript, has been scored over with knife strokes suggests that at one time in its history the book was used as a cutting board. Near the outer margin of this folio, where two very deep strokes come together, a triangular piece has been torn out of the parchment, apparently containing the final n of eadga[n], CHRIST 20. A vessel 1 The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 90. a Ker, Medium .£vum II, 230, points out that MS. Bodl. 319, in the Bodleian Library, which contains Isidore's De miraculis Christi, is also

written in a hand similar to that of the Exeter Book. He suggests that this MS. is the "Liber Isidori de miraculis Christi" listed among the donations of Leofric to Exeter Cathedral. Forster, in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 29, note 107, had suggested the identification ofthis "LiberIsidori de miraculis Christi" with MS. Bodl. 394, which came from Exeter. I Fol. 64b (a rosette), fol. 78a (an angel's head, with wings), fol. 80a (a lJ, twice), fol. 87b (a woman's figure), fol. 95b (a P, twice, and a veiled hand, twice), fol. 123a (a man on horseback, upside down). 4 The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 60.



containing liquid, perhaps a beer mug, has made a circular stain near the center of fol. 8a. The liquid has been spilled over a large portion of this page, and has gone through the next two foliosalso, causing a brown stain on these folios and making the text in some places very difficult to read. This severe damage which fol. 8a has suffered indicates that the lost folio at the beginning of the manuscript was detached from the rest of the book at a very early date, and that from that time on, the book was without a binding at least until after folios 1 to 7 were added at the beginning. At the top of fol, 53 a strip 2.8 inches wide has been cut away, containing the concluding lines of GUTHLAC on one side, and on the other side the matter missing from the text of AZARIAS after preanyd, l. 28. For a discussion of this missing strip and the extent of the lost portions of GUTHLACand AZARIAS, see the sections devoted to these poems, on pp. xxxff. of this Introduction. But by far the greatest damage to the manuscript has been done on the last fourteen folios, where a long diagonal burn has destroyed much of the text. The first traces of the burn are to be found on fol, 117a, in the form of two small holes, one on the inner margin just below the middle of the page, the other on the outer margin about one-third of the way down from the top. Nothing is lost from the text on fol. 117 and Iol, 118a, but on fol, 118b the final-on of seulon, RESIGNATION 57, is lost, and from that point to the end of the manuscript the losses become increasingly larger. On fol, 126 and the following folios the hole extends from edge to edge of the leaf, and on fol, 130, the last leaf of the manuscript, it is nearly three inches across at its widest part. The extent of the losses in terms of verse lines can readily be traced in the text. Two reproductions of the Exeter Book have been made. The first of these, a pen and ink transcript which imitates the letter forms of the Exeter Book very successfully, was made at the British Museum by Robert Chambers in 1831 and 1832, and collated with the manuscript in the latter year by Sir Frederick Madden. This transcript has since been preserved at the British Museum as Additional MS. 9067. The second



reproduction of the Exeter Book is the complete photographic facsimile published in 1933 by the Dean and Chapter of Exeter Cathedral, with introductory chapters on the history and present state of the manuscript by R. W. Chambers, Max Forster, and Robin Flower. II

SECTIONAL DIVISIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT The poems of the Exeter Book are not provided with titles in the manuscript. The beginning of each poem, and of each section within a poem, is indicated by a large initial capital, and in most cases by the writing in smaller capitals of part or all of the remainder of the first line of the poem or section. The initial capitals are usually three or four lines tall; some of them are larger, and extend through as many as six lines of text. Although not as ornate as the large capitals of the Junius Manuscript, they are as a rule more ornate than those of the Vercelli Book. The capitalization of the remainder of the first line of a poem varies throughout the manuscript. Usually only the rest of the first word of a poem is written in capitals, sometimes only part of the first word. Six of the longer poems, GUTHLAC, PHOENIX,JULIANA,GIFTSOF MEN, WIDSITH,and SOULANDBODYII, show a more extensive use of capitals, the whole, or in several cases all but a few letters, of the first line being capitalized. The lost beginning of CHRISTwas undoubtedly capitalized in the same way. The end of a poem is indicated by spacing, usually only one line, but sometimes two, and by one of the punctuation devices described in a later section of this Introduction.' In the latter part of the manuscript the spacing between poems is frequently lacking, perhaps because of a desire to save space. The riddles in the manuscript have, as a general rule, initial capitalization and end punctuation similar to that of the shorter poems, but there is no spacing between the riddles. At three places in the manuscript, a break in the subject matter indicates 1

See p. xxiii, below.



that a text which, on the evidence of capitalization and punctuation, we should take to be a single riddle, is in reality two riddles, the end punctuation and capitalization between the two having been omitted. The pairs of riddles which are written together in this way are Riddles 2 and 3, 42 and 43, and 47 and 48. The longer poems of the manuscript, and a few of the shorter poems as well, are divided into sections similar to those which we find in the other Anglo-Saxon poetical manuscripts. The poems which are divided into sections in this way are CHRlST,GUTHLAC, AzARIAS,the PHOENIX, JULIANA,MAXIMS I, DEOR, the JUDGMENTDAY I, and the HUSBAND'SMESSAGE. The sections in the poems of the Exeter Book are not numbered, as in BEOWULF, JUDITH,ELENE, and the Junius Manuscript, but, like the poems themselves, are indicated only by capitalization, spacing, and punctuation. At the beginning of a section, except of course in the first section of a poem, usually only the first word or part of the first word is capitalized; but at three places in the manuscript which are usually taken to be the beginnings of sections and not of poems, we have the fuller capitalization which has been mentioned above, that is, a full line, or nearly full line, of capitals in addition to the initial large capital. These three places are CHRIST,11.440 and 867, and GUTHLAC,1. 879. Here we also have double spacing, instead of the single spacing which we usually find between sections, and a more extensive use of punctuation than is usual at sectional divisions. The three more important divisions thus indicated may be taken, therefore, as representing, in the intent of the scribe, major divisions similar to those at the beginning of GUTHLAC,PHOENIX, and the other poems which have capitalization of the entire first line in the manuscript. The bearing which the capitalization, punctuation, and spacing of these major sectional divisions has upon the much debated question of the unity of CHRIST and GUTHLAC,will be discussed in a later section of this Introduction, devoted to the poems of the manuscript.' None of the sections of the Exeter Book begins or ends in the middle of a verse line or of a sentence, and, for the most part, the sectional divisions of the manuscript correspond closely to natural 1

See pp. xxvff., below.



divisions of thought. A record of the sectional divisions in the poems of the Exeter Book will be found in Table II, at the end of this Introduction. III SMALL CAPITALS


Nearly eight hundred small capitals occur in the Exeter Book. Of these small capitals somewhat more than half are initial I, most frequently in the word in, but also in ie, is, iu, and other words. The small capitals in these words which begin with i are more frequent in the Exeter Book than in the Vercelli Book, but seem to have been used for the same purpose as in the Vercelli Book, that is, not as a "capital" at all, but rather to give the i an easily recognizable form, and to prevent the confusion of in with m, and the like.' Concerning the small capitals other than I, practically no generalizations can be made. Most of them occur after a point in the manuscript, at the beginning of a half-line. In the two sum-passages a structural intention can be discovered in the use of the small capitals, in CHRIST,ll. 664-681, in which sum and its inflectional forms are without exception written with a small capital, and in the FORTUNESOF MEN, in which sum and its forms are usually, but not invariably, written with a small capital. But except for these two passages, no intention of indicating syntactical units, such as we frequently find in the Vercelli Book, can be traced in the Exeter Book, and there seems to be no reasoned variation in the size of the small capitals in the Exeter Book. Proper names as such are not capitalized in the Exeter Book. In JULIANA, the name Iuliana and its inflected form Iulianan, wherever they occur, are written with small capitals, but the other proper names in the poem are not capitalized, and the capitals in Iuliana and Iulianan are probably to be taken simply as instances of capitalized initial I rather than as the intentional capitalization of a proper name. Similarly in the DESCENTINTO HELL, the name Iohannes has a small capital I at 11.23 and 50 1

See Records II, The Vercelli Book, p. xxii.



(but not at I. 135), and Iordane is written with a small capital I at I. 135 (but not at I. 131). The numerous other proper names in the DESCENT INTOHELLhave no capitalization. In GUTHLAC, the name guaiac is written twice (11.239,434) with rather large g's, which are probably to be taken as small capitals, and the first a in adam, GUTH.826, seems to have been intended as a small capital. But except for the instances noted, there is no capitalization of proper names in the manuscript. The words sanctus, sancta occur with a small capital three times, twice in CHRIST,11.50 and 88 (both times in the abbreviated form Sea, and once in the PANTHER,I. 69 (in the abbreviated form Sis), The maria which follows Sea, CHR.88, is not capitalized. The small capitals of the Exeter Book vary considerably in size, and are not as easily distinguishable from ordinary small letters as those of the Vercelli Book. In most cases the small capitals are identical in form with small letters, differing from them only in size, and it is then frequently very difficult to tell whether a letter was intended as a small capital or not. This is particularly true of initial OJ the form D does not occur as a small capital in the Exeter Book. A list of the small capitals in the poems of the Exeter Book is given in Table III at the end of this Introduction.

IV ABBREVIATIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT Abbreviations are very sparingly used throughout the Exeter Book, and those which we find are of the most usual types: (1) the tilde or macron, usually over a vowel, but sometimes over a consonant, to indicate the omission of a letter or letters following, (2) 'j3for bet, (3) 7 for ond, and a few of the customary abbreviations in Latin words, such as sis for sanctus. These abbreviations have all been resolved without comment in the text, except in a few cases of unusual interest. The tilde occurs most frequently in the abbreviation of the dative plural ending -um, but the usage of the Exeter Book, like that of other Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, is by no means consistent with respect to this abbreviation, and the unabbrevi-



ated form of the ending -um is more frequent throughout the manuscript than the abbreviated form. Other abbreviations in which the tilde is used for an omitted mare: pa for pam, hi for him, both of which are frequent; also syle for symle, as in CHR. 108, nype for nympe, JUDGMENTDAY 38, fry'Je, for frym~e, CHR. 223,pry for brym, as in CHR.l063, and similarly prymes, JUL. 280, pryme, GUTH. 169, and compounds such as mege« prymes, PH. 665, pry sittende, JUL. 726; also ha for ham, MAXIMSI, 105, gehwa for gehwam, ORDER OF THE WORLD6, sa for sum, as in GUTH. 517, drea for dream, as in GUTH.495, tryman for trymman, MAXIMS I, 46, and tryma~, Az. 84, man fr~ men dum, PH. 6, fro for from, both as a preposition, PH. 524, and as an adjective, GIFTS 77, cwo for cwom, CHR. 1160, bicwo for bicwom, CHR. 1105, bino for binom, RID. 26, 2, and in RID. 90, 3 the Latin misar~ for misarem. The tilde is used three times to abbreviate ge: g pone for gepone, GUTH. 368, g scop for geseop, PH. 84, and monig for monige, MAXIMSI, 167. The word bonne is usually abbreviated by means of the tilde, as pon or 'Jon; for instance, in CHRISTthe unabbreviated form, ponne or ~onne, is found only thirteen times out of the eighty-two occurrences of the word. The less usual abbreviation with two n's occurs five times in the manuscript, ~onn, CHR. 791, and ponn, GUTH. 1126, SOULANDBODY II, 63, RESIGNATION56, RUIN 42. The abbreviations 'j} for PiEt and 'j}te for bette are used throughout the manuscript, but are not as frequent as the unabbreviated forms. The abbreviation op'j} for OPPiEtdoes not occur. The word ond, and, both as a conjunction and as the first element of a compound, is regularly represented by the insular abbreviation 7. Examples of the use of this abbreviation as the first element of a compound are 7cwis, GUTH. 1026, niet, CHR. 666, 1380, nit, PRECEPTSSO, 7lean, CHR. 831, 7siEe, CHR. 655, 7saean, CHR. 1593, GUTH. 210, etc., 7sware, CHR. 184, GUTH. 1224, JUL. 105, etc., 7swarode, GUTH. 590, 7weard, CHR. 1052,1084, etc., 7wis, JUL. 244, and 7wra'J, PANTHER17. The form 7dettan, an error for ondettan or andettan, occurs in JUL. 456, and 7weore, an error for hondweore or handweore, at RID. 5, 8. The word ond, and as a conjunction is written out only seven times in the manuscript, always as and, CHR. 927, 1011,



1225, GUTH. 745, Az. 117, WIDS. ll3b, and RIMING POEM 58. As the first element of a compound it is written out seven times, ondsware, GUTH. 293, RID. 55, 15, ondgiete, GUTH. 766, ondlongne, GUTH. 1277, ondwyrdan, SOULANDBODYII, 82, ondgiet, RESIGNATION22, and ondfengan, RID. 61, 7. Since the word when written out invariably appears as ond, the abbreviation has been regularly resolved as ond in the text of the present edition. At Az. 100, in the Latin context lux 7 tenebra, it has been resolved as et. In the Latin text of RIDDLE90, the continental ligature & appears twice (11.2, 4) in somewhat different forms, and has been resolved as et; the unabbreviated form et occurs in 1. 3 of the same riddle. Finally, there are a few Latin abbreviations, sis for sanetus, PANTHER69, sea for saneta, CHR. 50, 88, and! nex for pernex, RID. 40, 66. V PUNCTUATION



Except for the curious collocations of punctuation marks which occur at the ends of poems and of sections of poems, the only mark of punctuation which we find in the Exeter Book is the point. Throughout the greater part of the manuscript, the point is sporadic in its occurrence, and could hardly have been intended to serve as a metrical punctuation such as we find in the Junius Manuscript. But at one place in the Exeter Book, in the second part of CHRIST,the use of the point is very frequent and regular, resembling very closely the metrical pointing of the Junius Manuscript. In section [V] of CHRIST (the first section of the poem which is sufficiently legible throughout to be used for statistical comparisons) there are only three points (after geseeafta, 1. 402b, herenis, 1. 415b, and weoroda, 1. 428b), and in 11.440-479 of section [VI] only five points (after geeeas, 1. 446b, o~ywden, 1. 454b, dydon, 1. 455b, rimes, 1. 467b, heredon, 1. 470b). But beginning with onsien, 1. 480b, and continuing to the end of section [VI], there is a point after every half-line, except after 11. 484a, 491a, 516a (unless the dot at the end of the upstroke of a in semninga, 1. 491a, and infruma, 1. 516a, may be taken as also



fulfilling the function of a point). In section [VII] the same frequency of points continues, a point at the end of every halfline, with only occasional omissions, as far as the foot of foJ. 15b (1. 556); but fol. 16a has only five points, and throughout the rest of the poem the pointing is only casual. We also find very frequent pointing in the catalogues in WIDSITH; for instance, in the thirty-four half-lines of WIDS. 18-34, there are twentyseven points, all of which occur at the ends of half-lines. Similarly, in the twenty-six half-lines of WIDS. 75-87, there are twenty-four points, nineteen of which occur at the ends of half-lines, the other five in the middle of the long half-lines 76a, 80a, 81a, 83a, and 87 a. In the FORTUNESOF MEN the pointing is very regular, and more clearly structural than in any other poem. The word sum (with its forms sume and stemum), which occurs twenty-five times in the poem, usually with a small capital S, is preceded in each case by a point, the punctuation setting off in this way one sum passage from another. Similarly, in CHR. 664-681, each sum in the manuscript is preceded by a point. But, for the most part, the pointing of the manucript cannot be said to be either metrical or structural. With a comparatively few exceptions, the points in the manuscript all occur at the ends of half-lines. But occasionally we find a point within a half-line, as in hselo . gebodade, CHR. 202b,

ne pxr hleona'5 . 00 • PH. 25b, swa us gefreogum . gleawe, PH. 29b, sceal . to operre, JUL. USa, para wxs . wala, WIDS. 14a. Sometimes a point occurring within a half-line serves to mark a natural pause within the half-line, as in ne to [orhi . ne tofxgen . WAND. 68a, or hwxr cwom mearg . hwxr cwom mago . id. 92a, or in the WIDSITH passage, 11. 75-87, mentioned above. Occasionally we find a point dividing the two parts of a compound word, as in faro'5 . lacende, WHALE 20. A favorite device of this scribe is to set off by points the word e, "law," not only as a separate word, as in bo be her cristes . x . GUTH. 23b, be his. x . healden, id. 55b, ba be dryhtnes . x . JUL. 13b, but also as an element of a compound, as in x . [estra, GUTH. 526b, x . fremmendra, JUL. M8a.l 1 The pointing of monosyllables in this way is most probably to be connected with the placing of points before and after numerals; see Forster in The Exeter Book of Ola English Poetry, p. 62.



Still a further use of the point in the Exeter Book is to set off from their context the runes which occur in the texts-in the Cynewulfian runic signatures in CHRISTand JULIANA,at 1. 23 of the RUIN,and in the riddles. Forster points out- that the scribe of the Exeter Book distinguished in the pointing between runes which are to be taken singly, as standing either for words or for their own letter values (as in the Cynewulfian signatures), and a series of runes which are to be read as a group (as in RIDDLES19 and 75). In the first case the runes are set off singly by points; in the second case the rune groups are set off by points, with no pointing between the runes of a group. With the single exception of RIDDLE64, 5, where the rune '1" should evidently be followedby a point, Forster's generalization seems to hold true for all the runes in the manuscript; and in the text of this edition, therefore, the manuscript pointing of the runes, as well as of the groups of Roman letters in RIDDLE36, will be observed. In studying the punctuation of the Exeter Book from the manuscript itself or from the facsimile edition, care must be taken not to confuse the points which are intended as marks of punctuation with the points which the scribe of the Exeter Book regularly places at the end of the upstroke in the letters t and a. The ends of poems, or of sections of poems, are usually indicated in the Exeter Book, as in other Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, by : 7 or : r-«, or by combinations of these groups. In general, an attempt is made to distinguish the more important divisions of the manuscript by a more extensive use of these symbols. For instance, whereas the sections of CHRISTordinarily close with a simple: 7, the three principal divisions of the poem are marked off more elaborately, with :,....,Am:7 after section [V], :"': 7: 7: 7 after section [X], and i-c : 7 at the end of the poem. In GUTHLAC, section [IX], the last section of the first part of the poem, closes with: 7:""", as we should expect, but the other sections also frequently have: 7:""" or :,....,:7 instead of the simple : 7· Throughout the manuscript usage varies considerably, but as a general rule we find: 7 at the ends of sections, or of shorter poems, such as the FORTUNES OF MEN or the PAR1 The

Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 62, note 21.



TRIDGE,or of riddles, the more elaborate groups being usually reserved for the longer poems. ACCENTMARKS IN THE MANUSCRIPT There are nearly six hundred acute accent marks in the Exeter Book. More than five-sixths of these accent marks occur over etymologically long vowels. But there are also a number of instances in which an accent mark occurs over an etymologically short vowel, as, for instance, cynn, CHR. 386, cyn, id. 961, syn iorece, id. 794, wyn, MAXIMSI, 106,from, CHR. 658, wonn, id. 1427, under, id. 1620, of onn, GUTH. 85, JUL. 377, upp, GUTH. 97, up, JUL. 62, 644, VAINGLORY53, RID. 55, 5, earfe'Oa, JUL. 626, ac (the conjunction), JUDGMENTDAY I, 20. In some instances an accent mark on a short vowel can be interpreted as indicating a stressed syllable, as in the numerous compounds with un-, for instance, unmcete, CHR. 953, unsofte, CHR. 1356, uncy'O'Ou, GUTH. 855, unr£m, JUL. 43, or in the preposition on in a stressed position, CHR. 1244, PH. 97, PANTHER 10, etc. But on, both as a preposition and as the first element of a verb, sometimes bears an accent in the unstressed position, as in GUTH. 104, 148, JUL. 253, and on hrered, GUTH.37, tmbore«, id. 944, onuend, JUL. 144, etc., and here we may perhaps assume an intent to indicate syllabic division, as in the frequent occurrence of the accent mark on the verbal prefix a-, for instance, aworpen, CHR. 98, dletan; id. 167, a hofun, id. 502, etc. In a few cases the placing of the accent mark seems inexplicable: sunnan, CHR. 114, ana, id. 1420, mana, JUL. 30, hlimman, SEAF. 18 (where the scribe may have taken the word to be a compound of hlyn and man), and uncndenlocc, RID. 25, 11 (if the mark over e in this word was intended for an accent,-which is at least doubtful). It is interesting that in two places the worn man, "evil," was spelled mon, but provided with an accent mark, PRECEPTS82, MAXIMS I, 195. The word miJn "man," is also written twice with an accent mark, GUTH. 989, MAXIMS I, 111. In a few places an etymologically long vowel is doubled, and an accent mark written above: good, Az. 88, RID. 80,10,00, PH, 25, uir, FORTUNES 70, da, RIMING POEM 87, RID. 34, 6, ttid, PARTRIDGE5, foot, RID. 81, 3.



The frequency of the accent marks varies from poem to poem. In the four long poems the percentage of accent marks in terms of verse lines is remarkably constant; in CHRIST there are 146 accents, or .087 accents per line, in GUTHLAC111 accents, or .081 accents per line, in the PHOENIX57 accents, or .084 accents per line, and in JULIANA 78 accents, or .107 accents per line. But in the shorter poems, as we might expect, the variation in the frequency of the accent marks is much greater. In the 191 lines of AZARIAS,for example, there are only six accents, and in the WANDERERonly one accent, whereas the SEAFARERhas seven accents, and the RIMINGPOEM, in which the percentage of accents is higher than in any other poem of the manuscript, has twenty-four accents in only 87 lines. A list of the accent marks of the Exeter Book is given in Table IV, at the end of this Introduction. In this list the word division of the manuscript is followed, and the end of a line in the manuscript is indicated by a vertical bar.

VI THE POEMS IN THE MANUSCRIPT 1. CHRIST The long debated and still debatable question of the unity of CHRIST, the first poem in the Exeter Book, may best be approached by a consideration of the manuscript evidence. The first important break in the text of the Exeter Book occurs on fol. 14a, at CHRIST439 in the line numbering of the present edition, where we find all the usual marks of a major division of the manuscript, that is, more extensive end punctuation than is usual between sections, double spacing instead of single, and capitalization of the entire first line of the following section.' On fol. 20b, at CHRIST866, we again have the usual punctuation and spacing of a major division, and capitalization of all but a few letters of the first line of the following section. A third major division comes at the foot of fol, 32a, at the end of CHRIST,according to the division into poems adopted in this 1

See p. xvii, above.



edition. These major divisions of the manuscript clearly indicate three distinct structural units, which, so far as the evidence of the manuscript goes, may be interpreted either as separate poems or as parts of a single poem. The first of these structural units, CHRIST1-439, comprising four minor sectional divisions of the manuscript, contains twelve short passages written in a lyric or hymnic tone, all (except of course the first, the beginning of which is lost) beginning with the exclamation Eala. These twelve passages are hased chiefly,' according to Cook, on a series of antiphons, the seven Greater Antiphons of Advent (the "seven O's"), four other antiphons associated in liturgical use with the Greater Antiphons, and two antiphons for Lauds on Trinity Sunday, in the Sarum Use (these two antiphons being combined as one in the poemr.' Since the beginning of CHRISTis lost, it is impossible to tell with certainty how much matter is missing of this first major division. The surviving text from 1. 1 through 1. 17 is based on the antiphon 0 Rex gentium, and according to Cook the missing parts belonging to this portion of the poet's paraphrase "can scarcely have exceeded a dozen lines at most." These dozen lines added to the seventeen remaining in the manuscript would give a paragraph of twenty-nine lines based on the antiphon 0 Rex gentium. But besides these dozen lines, more was undoubtedly contained on the missing folio, most probably one or two more Eala passages similar in length and subject matter to the Eala passages which follow. We have thus in 11.1-439 a homogeneity of structure and style which reinforces the indication given by the manuscript record that these lines are to be taken as a structural unit in the intent of the scribe and, probably, of the author, and CHRIST1-439 may accordingly be numbered I as constituting a major division of the text. 1 No specific source is known for the dialogue in ll. 164-213. Cook, Journal of Germanic Philology IV, 421ff., would connect these lines with similar dialogues in the homiletic writings of certain of the Church Fathers. 2 See Cook, The Christ of Cynewulf, pp. 71ff. A detailed study of these antiphons in their relation to CHRISTI is given by E. Burgert, The Dependence of Part I of Cynewulf's Christ upon the Antiphonary (Washington, D. C., 1921).



The second structural unit of the manuscript, CHRIST 440866, comprises five minor sectional divisions, and is a narrative of the Ascension of Christ. The principal source of this unit is the concluding part of the Ascension sermon of Pope Gregory the Great.' The third structural unit of the manuscript, CHRIST867-1664, comprises seven minor sectional divisions. It is a description of the Last Judgment, and the appearance of Christ to judge mankind. For this division of the manuscript much less definite origins can be assigned than for the two preceding divisions. According to Cook.' one of the chief sources is an alphabetic hymn quoted by Bede in his De arte metrica. There are other sources for the various parts of this text, too many to enumerate. Considerations of internal structure thus reinforce the evidence of the manuscript that each of these two divisions of the manuscript was intended as a distinct and separate unit of composition, similar to the unit which we have already distinguished as CHRISTI, and we may designate them accordingly as CHRISTII and CHRIST III. These three divisions of the manuscript which make up the text of CHRIST derive a certain degree of. unity from the continuity of their subject matter. But, as we have seen, this continuity is not that of a connected narrative or exposition, but rather a general similarity of theme and treatment. That the similarity of these three parts is great enough to justify the conviction that we have in them elements of a work conceived as a unity is a point on which there may well be difference of opinion, though the probabilities are that at least the person who combined these parts into the manuscript form intended them to be so regarded. Those editors and commentators who have ventured to supply descriptive titles for the three parts of CHRISThave agreed in those titles with reasonable closeness, but as regards the unity or diversity of origin of the three parts, they have been far from unanimous. Dietrich.! for example, gave to the first part, 11.1-439, the title, lllom. in Evang. II, 29, §§9-11, printed by Migne, Patrol. lat. LXXVI, 1218f. Cook, pp, 116ff., also cites an Ascension hymn ascribed to Bede. 2 Modern Language Notes IV, 341ff., and see his edition, pp. 171ff. 2 Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum IX, 193ff.



"I. die ankunft Christi auf erden." He followed this by "II. seine himmelfahrt," beginning with 1.440 and extending through 1. 778, and this in turn by "III. seine Wiederkunft zum gericht," which includes CHRIST779-1664 and also the passage beginning Se bi'5 gefeana [egrast, which in the present text is numbered GUTHLAC1-29.1 It will be seen that Dietrich ignored the major division in the manuscript after 1. 866, and assumed a major division after 1. 778, thus attaching the passage containing the runic signature to the beginning of CHRISTIII instead of to the end of CHRIST II, as the evidence of the manuscript suggests. He also ignored the major division in the manuscript after CHRIST1664, thus treating the passage beginning Se bi'5 gefeana [egrast as the end of CHRISTand not as the beginning of a new poem. He regarded the three parts as constituting a single poem, the theme of which is "das dreifache kommen Christi." Grein also added the Se bi'5 gefeana [egrast passage to the end of CHRIST, dividing his whole text into twenty-two sections, without indication of major divisions and with no descriptive titles. Gollancz, in his separate edition of CHRIST (1892), divides the poem into three parts, I. The Nativity, 11. 1-439, II. The Ascension, 11.440-866, and III. The Day of Judgment, 11.867-1664, and so also in his Exeter Book (1895). He takes the Se bi'5 gefeana fiEgrast passage as a "prelude" to GUTHLAC, and the three parts of CHRISTas parts of a single poem. Trautmann" makes the following divisions: I. Christi Geburt, 11.1439, II. Himmelfahrt, 11.440-866, III. Jiingste Gericht, 11.8671664, regarding these as three separate poems, of which Cynewulf wrote only the second, containing the runic signature. Blackburn- also sees here three separate poems, for which he does not supply titles, but describes the first as lyric, the second as homiletic, and the third as descriptive. Assmann, in the Bibliothek, follows Dietrich both in the main divisions of the text and in the titles given to them. Cook divides as follows: I. 1 A discussion of the relationship of these lines to CHRIST and GUTHLAC will be given in the part of this Introduction devoted to the latter poem; see p. xxx, below. ! Anglia XVIII, 382fI. I Anglia XIX, 89fI.



The Advent, II. 1-439, II. The Ascension, II. 440-866, III. The Doomsday, II. 867-1664, thus following the division indicated in the manuscript. He takes the three parts as constituting a single poem, the whole of which he assumes was written by Cynewulf. The passage beginning Se bi't5gefeana fsegrast he does not attach to his third part of CHRIST,but prints it as a sort of appendix, without committing himself on the question of its proper place. Brandl! sees three separate poems in the three divisions of the manuscript, and accepts II, II. 440-866, as by Cynewulf on the evidence of the runic signature, but thinks I is by an earlier, III by a later writer. Moorer thinks I and II possess an organic unity, and that III is a continuation of the "description of the Last Judgment which forms the latter portion of Part II, but that the unity of II and III is mechanical rather than organic." A compromise decision is that expressed by Gerould.t that "it is certainly unwise at present to feel sure that the poem is a unit; but until more convincing proofs to the contrary are presented than have been hitherto, it is not improper to regard the three parts of the poem as composed by Cynewulf." Since the evidence from internal organization, from the relationship of the text to its several sources, and from the study of the language in which the three parts are written provides no decisive answer either to the question of intended unity of design or to the problem of single or diverse authorship of the three parts, a final answer to these questions must be held in abeyance. It may be pointed out, however, that apart from its possible bearing on the question of unity of authorship, the question whether we have here three separate poems on somewhat related topics or three parts of a single poem approached from several angles, is a distinction with very little difference. The foregoing discussionis not to be taken as an attempt to dispose of the problem of the unity of CHRIST,but rather as an explanation of the conditions in view of which the text as here presented has been arranged. Archiv eX! (1903), 447ff. Journal of English and Germanic Philology XIV (1915), 5500. I Englische Studien XLI (1909), HI. 1




The text of fo1. 32b, the first page following the conclusion of CHRIST, begins with the words Se biD gefeana [egrast, all in capitals except the ce (which is inserted within the capital F preceding) and the st of the last word. The formal appearance of this part of the manuscript is therefore similar to that of the three major divisions which make up the text of CHRIST. No other major division of the manuscript is indicated until fo1.44b, at GUTHLAC818 in the line numbering of this edition. The text from Se biD gefeana [egrast to GUTHLAC818 seems therefore, on the evidence of the manuscript, to have been intended as a single unit of composition. But the evidence of the subject matter raises a very difficult problem. The first twenty-nine lines, beginning with Se biD gefeana [egrast, give an account of the joys of the newly arrived soul in Heaven. These lines might be added to the end of CHRIST without too great violence to logical continuity, though they would form something of an anticlimax for that poem; they are certainly only very remotely connected with the narrative of the life of Guthlac which begins with Monge sindon, GUTHLAC30. In subject matter, therefore, they do not clearly attach themselves either to CHRIST or to GU'l'HLAC,and it is not impossible that, as Cosijn suggested,' they formed originally an independent poem or fragment. In this uncertainty we turn again to what seems to have been the intent of the compiler of the Exeter Book, and there can be little doubt that he intended this passage, GUTHLAC1-29, to be part of the major division of the manuscript which begins at this point and continues with the life of Guthlac. He may thus have thriftily used a fragment for which he wanted to find a place, and the modern editor, unless he is sure he has found the proper place for these lines, may as well leave them there. At 1. 30, with no indication of a break in the manuscript, GUTHLAC takes a fresh start with a discussion of the varied conditions of the good life on earth. This is still a little remote from the main subject, but is drawing nearer. The passage extends through 1. 80, where another step forward is taken in the discussion of 1

Beitrag» XXIII, 114.



those who commit themselves to a life on westennum, and finally in 1. 93 we arrive at a specific reference to Guthlac. The poem continues then as an orderly narrative to 1. 818, where the major break occurs. With 1. 819 the poem again takes a fresh start, but somewhat remotely, as at the beginning, with a passage on the Creation, the expulsion of Adam and Eve, and the life of man on earth, arriving thus by steps again at Guthlac in 1. 878 and continuing thereafter with the story of the saint's temptations and of his final illness and death. The poem consists thus of two definite parts, GUTHLACI and II or GUTHLACA and B, and this division into parts is supported both by the evidence of the manuscript and by the internal evidence of the manner of treatment of the material. The conclusion of GUTHLACwas lost when the top of fol. 53, containing probably four lines of text on each side, was cut away. On fol. 53a, with what is now the first line of the damaged leaf, begins the text of AZARIAS. Whether the four manuscript lines (approximately six verse lines) lost at the top of fol. 53a are all that has been lost from the end of GUTHLAC, or whether more has been lost, it is impossible to tell with certainty from the evidence of the manuscript. Fol. 53 is the first leaf of a new gathering, and it has been suggested' that a whole gathering has been lost between folios 52 and 53, containing the end of GUTHLAC,the beginning of AZARIAS(which seems unduly abrupt as it stands in the manuscript), and perhaps another poem between GUTHLACand AZARIAS. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that there was no spacing before the extant part of the text of AZARIAS,the lower tips of two letters being clearly visible at the top of fol. 53a, above the words Him ba Azarias, the first words preserved in the text of the poem. In this part of the manuscript the beginning of a new poem would normally be marked by one or two lines of spacing. Also, only the first letter of the first line of AZARIASis capitalized, instead of the entire line, as is customary at the beginning of a poem in this part of the manuscript. It is therefore quite 1 Most recently by Forster in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p.58.



possible, on the evidence afforded by the manuscript, that one or more sections of text have been lost at the beginning of AZARIAs. If so, then no limit is indicated for the lost matter at the end of GUTHLAC,and a page or more may well have been lost from that poem, enough, for example, for a runic signature. The bearing of these possibilities upon the structural problems in AZARIASwill be discussed in the section of this Introduction devoted to that poem. A Latin life of Guthlac, by Felix, probably a monk of Croyland, written in the early eighth century, and a West Saxon prose life of the eleventh century, ultimately derived from the Latin life, are extant, and are available in Gonser's Das angelsachsische Prose-Leben des hi. Guthlac (Heidelberg, 1909). In their relation to the Latin life by Felix, GUTHLACI and GUTHLAC II differ widely, and it may reasonably be inferred that they are not the work of a single poet. Forstmann' believes that GUTHLACI is independent of the Latin life, though the poet and Felix made use of similar literary materials. This is also the opinion of Brandl.' Liebermann.' however, thinks that GUTHLACI is based on the Latin life, and that wherever the poet of GUTHLACI does not agree with Felix, he is too vague to be following a specific source. Similarly, Gerould! believes that GUTHLAC I is dependent upon the Latin life "for its substance, though by no means for its form," that it is the result of a free treatment of the Latin life by an Anglo-Saxon poet, probably a contemporary or follower of Cynewulf. It is generally agreed that GUTHLAC II is based on the Latin life by Felix, and that there is no connection between the Anglo-Saxon poems and the Anglo-Saxon prose life, except as they may both ultimately derive from the Latin life by Felix. On the evidence of the poet's use of his source, as compared with Cynewulf's treatment of his sources in the signed poems, Gerould thinks it very probable that Cynewulf wrote GUTHLAC II, and is inclined to favor Wiilker's Bonner Beitrltge XII, 17. Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2d ed.), II, 1, 1039. • N eues Archi» fur ltltere deutsche Geschichtskunde XVIII, 246-247. 6 Modern Language Notes XXXII, 77ft. 1 I



conjecture' that the lost ending of the poem contained a Cynewulfian runic signature. 3. AZARIAS The text of AZARIASbegins near the top of fo1. 53a, where a strip about two and a half inches wide has been cut from the top of the folio, entailing the loss of four manuscript lines, or about six verse lines, from the text of the poem at 1. 28, on fo1. 53b. As has been pointed out in the part of this Introduction devoted to GUTHLAC,the manuscript evidence strongly suggests that one or more sections have been lost from the beginning of AZARIAS,and CRAIGIE2 is inclined to think that the 191 lines of text contained in AZARIASare "no more than two sections of a long poem on the theme of Daniel, which may have told the whole story on much the same lines as that in the Junius MS." There is of course no other evidence that a second Daniel poem ever existed in Anglo-Saxon; nor does the internal evidence of the text of AZARIASalone justify us in assuming that AZARIAS is a fragment of such a second Daniel poem. As it stands in the Exeter Book, AZARIASmight well be a complete poem, consisting of the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children set in a narrative framework. And the Prayer and the Song may well have been the only original cause and purpose of the poem, which would then have been lyric rather than epic in intention. But the evidence of the manuscript, suggesting as it does the loss of matter at the beginning of AZARIAS,forces us to entertain the possibility that there was a second long Daniel poem in Anglo-Saxon, of which the text of AZARIAS,as it is preserved in the Exeter Book, is the only remaining portion. Nothing has been lost from the manuscript at the end of AZARIAS, and there is no reason for believing that this longer Daniel poem, if it ever existed, went further in the story of Daniel than the present close of AZARIAS. The beginning of AZARIAS, as it stands in the Exeter Book, is sufficiently abrupt to arouse suspicion, but the ending is carried out to a highly satisfying climax. The similarity of AZARIASto the corresponding passages in 1 2

Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsachsischen Litteratur, p. 183. Philologica II (1923), 11.



DANIELhas been noted in an earlier volume of this edition,' and the question arises whether AZARIAS,as we have it in the Exeter Book, was drawn upon to supply parts in that more extended narrative. The correspondence between DANIEL and AZARIAS is closer for the earlier part of AZARIAS,containing the Prayer of Azariah, than it is for the part containing the Song of the Three Children. From this fact Gollanczs conjectured that the poet of DANIEL intentionally omitted the Prayer of Azariah from his poem, and that some other person supplied the omission from a copy of AZARIAS. So also Craigie! thinks that "the author of the DANIELfor some reason omitted from his poem the Song [Prayer] of Azarias, although he included that of the Three Children. This omission was noticed by the compiler of the Junius MS., as also the fact that a version of the Song could be found elsewhere," that is, in AZARIAS,and he concludes that the scribe of DANIEL merely copied into his text a passage from the text of AZARIASin the Exeter Book, and copied it so mechanically that he produced an awkward dislocation of the narrative in DANIEL.' But a comparison of the Prayer of Azariah in AZARIASwith the corresponding passage in DANIEL will show so many dissimilarities of word forms and of word order, so many variations in phrasing, that we can hardly assume that the text of DANIEL at this place was mechanically copied from AZARIASin the ordinary sense in which AngloSaxon scribes copied from their sources. We must assume two separate versions with a considerable amount of variation, both for the Prayer of Azariah and for the Song of the Three Children. 4. THE PHOENIX The PHOENIXbegins near the foot of fo1. 55b in the manuscript, with the usual indications of a major sectional division, that is, capitalization of all of the first half-line of the poem except the letters -nen. The poem ends on fol, 65b. The first 380 lines of the PHOENIXare a free paraphrase of the Latin poem De ave Ruords I, The Junius Manuscript, pp. xxxii-xxxiii. The C;edmon Manuscript, pp. Ixxxvi-Ixxxvii. I Philologica II, 11. 'See Ruords I, The Junius Manuscript, p. xxxii.

1 I



Phoenice, ascribed to Lactantius. The remainder of the poem, ll. 381-677, is devoted to a homiletic amplification of the earlier part of the poem, for which no specific source is known. The Egyptian legend of the Phoenix, which in Lactantius we find treated with few distinctly Christian features, becomes thus in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon poet an allegorical representation of the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection. There are no problems of transposition or interpolation to be considered in connection with the PHOENIX,but the identification of the exact source of ll. 381-677, if a single source ever existed, is still an unsettled problem. Gaebler in 18801 pointed out two passages from Christian Latin literature which may have influenced the Anglo-Saxon poet in this part of his work, one from the Hexaemeron of St. Ambrose.t and one from a commentary on Job formerly attributed to Bede, but certainly not by him.! The passage in Ambrose may well have influenced the Anglo-Saxon poet in his extension of the traditional treatment of the Phoenix as a symbol of the resurrection of the body to make the bird a symbol of the life of the righteous man and his preparation for eternal life, in 11.381-588 of the poem. In 11.589ff. the symbolism is varied, and the Phoenix with its attendant birds becomes the allegorical representation of Christ surrounded by the spirits of the blessed. It is of course quite possible that this variation in the symbolism of the Phoenix is due to the use by the poet of two different homilies, or commentaries, one of which was perhaps derived directly or indirectly from the passage in Ambrose. No more specific identification of the source or sources of the second part of the PHOENIXhas been suggested.' The authorship of the PHOENIX is also a matter of dispute. Anglia III, 516fl. Hexaemeron V, 23, §§79, SO, printed by Migne, Patrol. lat. XIV, 252f. lIn Job II, 12, printed in Bede, Opera quotquot reperiri potuerum omnia (Cologne, 1612), IV, col. 556. This commentary is ascribed by Bede himself to Philip the Presbyter (d. 456), see Cook, The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and Physiologus, pp. 121£. The passage in question is an explanation of Job xxix.1B. •A detailed study of the originality of the Phoenix poet in his use of his sources is given by O. F. Emerson, "Originality in Old English Poetry," Review of English Studies II (1926), 18-31. 1




The many verbal and stylistic resemblances between the poem and the signed works of Cynewulf have been used as a basis for the ascription of the PHOENIXto Cynewulf,' but the absence of a runic signature puts a heavy burden of proof upon those who argue for Cynewulf's authorship. Cook, the most recent scholar to consider the literary problems connected with the PHOENIX,2 thinks that Cynewulf was very probably the author, but if not, that the author of the poem "must have been a monk or ecclesiastic, apparently under the influence of the Cynewulfian poetry, and likely to .have lived either within the period of Cynewulf's poetic activity (about 750-800), or soon after"-a very reasonable conclusion from the facts at hand. 5. JULIANA Immediately following the PHOENIX in the manuscript is JULIANA, which begins near the foot of fo1. 6Sb, with a major sectional division similar to that at the beginning of the PHOENIX, and continues to the end of fo1. 76a. There are two large gaps in the text of JULIANA,at 11.288 and 558, caused by the loss of folios from the manuscript; but there are no problems of structure or authorship to be considered. Cynewulf's authorship of the poem has been universally accepted on the evidence of the runic signature in 11.703-709. The source of the poem is also known with some degree of certainty. Cynewulf must have worked from a Latin text identical with, or similar to, the life of St. Juliana published under the title "Acta auctore anonymo ex xi veteribus MSS." in the Bollandist Acta sanctorum under the date of February 16.3 GlOde, in his study of the source of JULIANA,4concluded from the discrepancies between the poem and the Bollandist Latin text that Cynewulf worked not from this particular Latin version, but from a somewhat different one, perhaps extant but unpublished. Garnett, on the 1 Especially by Gaebler, Anglia III, 502-516. Strong disagreement with Gaebler's conclusions was expressed by Fulton, Modern Language Noles XI (1896), 146ff. 2 A. S. Cook, The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and Physiologus, pp. xxvixxviii. a Aeta sanctorum, Februarius, tom. 2, pp. 875-879. • Anglia XI, 146-158.



other hand, after a careful comparison of the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin texts, decided that all the differences between the two texts could be explained as the product of poetic imagination.' Either of these views is defensible, and the difference between them is perhaps of slight significance. In the absence of any closer Latin version, the text in the Acta sanctorum may be accepted, for all practical purposes, as Cynewulf's original. 6. THEWANDERER ANDTHESEAFARER Although the two poems entitled the WANDERER (fo1. 76b78a) and the SEAFARER (fo1. 81b-83a) are found at different places in the manuscript, they present similar problems of structure and literary history, and may profitably be considered together. In each of these poems a relatively specific treatment of the subject matter-in the one case the desolation of a man who is lordless, in the other case the joys and hardships of a seafaring life-is followed by an epilogue in more general terms, Christian and homiletic in spirit. This apparent lack of structural homogeneity has led to the suspicion of composite origin for these two poems, and to a number of attempts at critical dissection of the texts. The higher criticism of the SEAFARER has been largely concerned with the question of a dialogue structure in that poem. The frequent occurrence of the wordforpon, at 11.33,39,58,64, and 72, apparently in an adversative sense, led Rieger to the belief that the SEAFARER was a dialogue between an old sailor and a young man about to go to sea; and in 1869 Rieger published a text of the poem arranged as a dialogue.' To the old sailor he assigned 11. 1-33a, 39-47, 53-57, and 72-124, to the young man 11.33b-38, 48-52, and 58-71. Kluge" accepted the dialogue theory, but applied it somewhat differently, recognizing only two speeches, 11.1-33a by the old sailor, and ll. 33b-64a4 by the young man, and thus closing the dialogue at 1. 64. Wulker! Publications of the Modem Language Association XIV, 279-298. M. Rieger, "Seefahrer als Dialog hergestellt," Zeitschrijt fiir deutsche Philologie I, 334-339. 3 Englische Studien VI, 322ff. , Or I. 66a? Kluge is quite ambiguous at this point. 6 Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelslJchsischen Litteratur, pp. 21Of. 1 2



also placed the end of the dialogue at 1. 64, but preferred Rieger's division of the speeches. But Lawrence in 1902 quite definitely disposed of the dialogue theory by pointing out that the word [orbo« need not be taken in an adversative sense, but may serve merely as a loose connective.' It is impossible to consider here in detail the numerous structural analyses which have been made of the WANDERER and the SEAFARER.2 Typical of these analyses are Rieger's division of the WANDERERinto an epic framework, 11.1-7, 111115, and a lyric nucleus, 11.8-110, and Sieper's theory that the more general treatment of the elegiac theme in 11. 58-110 of that poem is a later addition to the original text, 11.8-57; or, in the SEAFARER,not only the separation from the remainder of the poem of 11.103-124, which really seem not to belong there, but further analysis into an original SEAFARER,ending at I. 64a (Kluge) or at 1. 58 (Sieper), and a homiletic part (II. 64bff. or 11.59ff.) attached to the poem at some later date. A more ambitious analysis of the WANDERERand the SEAFARER was published in 1902 by Boer,' who advanced the hypothesis that the two poems together contain the remains of three older poems, one of them a dialogue, which were rearranged, with the addition of new material, to form the two texts which are preserved in the Exeter Book. Craigie! would attribute the apparent logical breaks which he finds in the two poems, after 1. 57 of the WANDERERand 1. 64a of the SEAFARER, to the use by the compiler of the Exeter Book of a defective original with misplaced leaves. Lawrence's objections to Boer's theory! apply also, in general, to the other structural analyses which have been made of the two poems, and the 1 Journal of Germanic Philology IV (1903), 463ff. See also the note on the text of Seafarer 27, on p. 296, below. The word [arbon in Wanderer 37 seems to have a similar force. I See, for example, Rieger, Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie I (1869), 322ff.; Kluge, Englische Studien VI (1883), 322ff., VIII (1885), 472ff.; Sieper, Die altenglische Elegie (1915), pp. 183ff., 196ff.; Imelmann, Forschungen zur altenglischen Poesie (1920), pp. 39ff., 118ff. 3 Zeiischrift fur deuiscke Philologie XXXV, Iff. f Philologica II (1923), 14ff. 6 See J ournal of Germanic Philology IV, 460ff.



conclusion expressed by Lawrence, that "there seems to be no reason to assume that the WANDERERand the SEAFARERare not preserved in essentially their original form, with the exception of the homiletic addition [this is, 11.103-124] to the latter poem," has met with very general acceptance. The fact that an Anglo-Saxon poem does not fulfill modern expectations with regard to structural unity and coherence, is no argument for the diversity of origin of its several parts. And in the WANDERER and the SEAFARER,in spite of the minor inconsistencies and the abrupt transitions which we find, structural dissection must be accepted with caution as a formula for the establishment of the text. There has been considerable doubt where the first speech in the WANDERERcloses, and Grein, Sweet, Kluge, Wiilker and Sieper do not set any quotation mark to indicate the close of this speech in their texts. Kershaw puts the close of the speech after 1. 29a. The change of person at this point makes it reasonably probable that the speech ends here, and the quotation mark has accordingly been set at this place in the text. 7. THE GIFTS OF MEN, VAINGLORY,THE FORTUNESOF MEN, THE ORDER OF THE WORLD, AND THE JUDGMENTDAY I It is convenient to notice at this point five of the shorter poems of the Exeter Book which, although they appear at widely different places in the manuscript, form a highly homogeneous collection of didactic or homiletic verse. These poems are called, in the present edition, the GIFTS OF MEN (fo1. 78a80a) , VAINGLORY(fol. 83a-84b), the FORTUNESOF MEN (fo1. 87a-88b), the ORDER OF THE WORLD (fol, 92b-94a), and the JUDGMENTDAY I (fol. l1Sb-117b). The titles assigned by Grein to the first three of these poems, "Bi monna creeftum," "Bi manna mode," and "Bi manna wyrdum," emphasize their essential similarity, and have been generally followed, in varying forms, by later editors. Unfortunately the titles "Der Menschen Gemiit" (Wiilker) and "The Spirit of Men" (Chambers),' as applied to the second of the poems, fail to reproduce the specific 1 The

Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 40.



reference of Grein's title "Bi manna mode" to the pride and vainglory of men, and for this poem therefore a title such as "A Warning against Pride," used by Mackie, or VAINGLORY, adopted for this edition, seems more adequate. The last two of the poems, called "Wunder der Schopfung" and "Bi domes dsege" by Grein, clearly belong to the same literary type as the other three poems, and are accordingly classed with them for the purposes of this Introduction. The first of these five poems, the GIFTS OF MEN, besides the introductory lines on the generosity of the Lord, 11. 1-29, and the similar passage at the end, 11.110-113, consists of a succession of clauses beginning with sum (or sumum, where the syntax so requires), in which the various endowments of the human race are enumerated. This main portion of the GIFTS OF MEN bears a strong resemblance to the series of sum clauses in CHRIST 659-685, which the poet of the GIFTS OF MEN may have known, and which may indeed have inspired him to a more elaborate treatment of the theme, in less specifically Christian terms. Of possible biblical or patristic sources, the most obvious is St. Paul's discussion of gifts in 1 Corinthians xii.4-11 (or the summary of it by Gregory the Great in his twenty-ninth homily on the Gospels.)! which can however hardly have been an immediate source either for CHRIST 659ff. or for the GIFTS OF MEN. In VAINGLORY,the autobiographical introduction, 11. 1-8, seems to bear no organic relationship to the rest of the poem. In mood, this poem is more homiletic than either the GIFTS OF MEN or the FORTUNESOF MEN, and accordingly we find the use of the first person, foreign to either of the other two poems, in 11.1, 5, and (in the plural) 83, and the direct address to the reader in 11.44,77. No single source for this poem is apparent, the resemblances in theme with such a biblical passage as Isaiah xxviii. 1-4 being too general to be seriously considered as an indication of source. The next poem, the FORTUNESOF MEN, is similar in structure to the GIFTS OF MEN, with the introductory and closing passages (11. 1-9, 93-98) of more general content. The main portion of the poem, 11. 10-92, divides readily into two quite distinct parts, an enumeration of the misfortunes which befall 1

Migne, Patrol. lat. LXXVI, 1218.



various members of the human race, 11.10-63, and a list of the various types of good fortune which may befall them, 11.64-92. In style and subject matter the second part bears a strong resemblance to the GIFTSOFMEN,and some of the special talents which are enumerated in that poem are repeated here. Brandl' points out that the word miltsum, 1. 98, seems to refer only to the second part of the poem, and not at all to the misfortunes treated in the earlier part, which may very well be; but we are hardly justified in following him to the conclusion that the second part of the poem is "eine spatere Fortsetzung und Umdeutung eines heidnischen Fragments." The two parts of the poem complement each other admirably, and 11.93fi. go well with both. The autobiographical introduction in the ORDEROF THE WORLD,11.1-37, like the shorter one in VAINGLORY, has no immediate connection with the rest of the poem, but serves merely to indicate a fictitious situation or occasion for the material which follows. The remaining portions of the poem, the description of the Creation, 11.38-89, and of the pleasures of the blessed in Heaven, 11.90--97, with the moral reflections at the end, 11.98-102, do not hang together very well. But in view of the fact that the entire poem is very loosely organized, and was evidently written with only slight regard for structure, the doubts expressed by Wtilker2 and Brandl" as to the genuineness of the closing lines lose their force. The diction of the ORDEROFTHEWORLDis reminiscent of Cynewulf, and it is of course quite possible that the author was familiar with Cynewulf's works. The poem entitled the JUDGMENT DAYI is so called in this edition to distinguish it from the other poem on the same subject in MS. 201 of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, which will be edited in Volume VI of this edition under the title of JUDGMENT DAYII. Other references to the LastJudgmentare scattered through Anglo-Saxon poetry;' the most elaborate Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Phllologie (2d ed.), II, 1, 1037. Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsiichsischen Litteratur, p. 235. 3 Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2d ed.), II, 1, 1047. 1


4 For the general history of this theme in Anglo-Saxon poetry, see W. Deering, The Anglosaxon Poets on the Judgment Day (Halle, 1890).



treatment, besides the two poems which are expressly devoted to this theme, is the third part of the CHRIST, 11. 867-1664.1 The tone of the JUDGMENTDAY I is however homiletic rather than narrative, and the poem has none of the regular epic movement which we find in CHRIST III. The homiletic form is reinforced by the use of the first person in 1. 46b, and the direct address to the reader, Oncue]», in 1. 114. Unlike most of the other shorter poems of the Exeter Book, the JUDGMENT DAY I is divided into two sections, which seem however to have no structural significance. Of the date and authorship of these five poems, practically nothing positive can be said. Meter and language point to a fairly early date, the end of the eighth century, or, at the latest, the beginning of the ninth century. In some places, as has been pointed out above, a possible influence of Cynewulfian verse may be detected, and it is probably best, with Wiilker, to label these poems as of the school of Cynewulf, though they differ widely, particularly in the use of sources, or rather in the lack of definite sources, from the work of that poet. 8. PRECEPTS The poem which in this edition is called PRECEPTS(fo1. 80a81a), is a collection of ten injunctions on morals and manners, represented as being spoken by a father to his son. The number of these precepts, ten, was perhaps determined by the example of the Mosaic decalogue, though in only one case, 11. 9-14, do we find a correspondence in subject matter with a commandment of the decalogue. The book of Proverbs also suggests itself as a possible source for the idea of this poem, and it may well be, as Ten Brink, thought.t that the words fremdre meowlan, 1. 39, are a reminiscence of Proverbs v.20 and vi.24. Christian influence is however not always evident; 11. 23-26 and 29-31, for instance, show no trace of Christian doctrine, and 11.54-58 are phrased in definitely gnomic terms. But 1 I

See p. xxvii, above. Geschichte der englischen Litteralur (2d ed., 1899), p. 77.



it is a mistake to classify this poem! with MAXIMSI as the product of pre-Christian moral teaching influenced by Christian doctrine. There can be little doubt that the concept of the poem as a whole is essentially Christian, and that it is the work of a Christian poet, probably a cleric, who had definite pedagogical purposes in view. Meter and language indicate an early date for this poem, say the eighth or early ninth century. 9. WIDSITH As it stands in the manuscript, WIDSITH (fol. 84b-87a) is the story of one Widsith ("the far-travelled one"), a type of the wandering singers who appear to have been so frequent in Old Germanic civilization. After a brief preface (11. 1-9), in which he is introduced to the reader, Widsith takes up the story himself (11. 10-134), telling of his travels, and of the princes and peoples he has known. The poem closes (11.135-143) with some general reflections, spoken by the poet, on the profession of the minstrel. It is apparent after even a rapid reading that WXDSITHis very uneven both in contents and style. The narrative of the minstrel's own adventures (11.1-9, SO-56, 65-67, 70-74, 88-134) is broken up by several passages in catalogue form: first, the catalogue of kings (the "weold" catalogue), 11.18-34, and second, several catalogues of geographical names (the "ie wres mid" catalogues), 11.57-65a, 68-69, 75-87. These several catalogues do not form an integral part of the minstrel's story; rather they seem to have been inserted at random, without very close attention to their appropriateness or to the smoothness of the transitions. The apparently composite character of WIDSITH has led to a number of attempts" to analyze the structure of the poem, and to mark off the original "Widsith-Iays" from the work of later interpolators and redactors, and many ingenious arguments have been presented in support of one or another theory of the structure of WIDSITH. Brandl so classifies it, Paul's Grundriss (2d ed.), II, 1,962. Notably by K. Miillenhoff, Zeitschriftfiir deutsches Altertum Xl (1859), 275ff.; H. Moller, Das altenglische Volksepos (1883), pp. Iff.: B. ten Brink, in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (Ist ed.), II, 538ff.; T. Siebs, Die Neueren Sprachen, 1910, Ergii.nzungsband, pp. 296ff. 1 2



Concerning all these efforts, it may be said that the results obtained are often very plausible, but are not ofsuch a nature as to be serviceable in the construction of the text. It is generally agreed that the original poem grew under the hands of successive revisers and interpolators, but a conservative attitude must be maintained as to the possibility of determining in detail the course of its evolution. The WIDSITHwhich we have is a conglomerate, and in the course of time, from the original composition of the poem to the final redaction, as a result of the insertion of new matter, and the rewriting or discarding of older matter, the stratification has become obscured. This is not to say that no definite statements about the composition of WIDSITHare possible. The catalogue of Germanic kings in ll. 18-34 smacks of great antiquity,' and probably antedates the narrative core of the poem. The extravagant miscellany in ll. 75-87, on the other hand, seems to belong to a rather late period." The probabilities are that WIDSITHin its original form was a story, told in the first person, of a minstrel's travels among certain kings and peoples of the Germanic world. Of our present text, ll. 10-13, SO-56, 65-67, 70-74, 88-111 may be survivals of the older poem. The several catalogues, which bulk so large in our present text, were not a part of this original WIDSITH. The modifications which were later made in the poem were occasioned by a decline of interest in Widsith's own career, and a desire to increase the value of the poem as a compendium of geography and history. The catalogues were added, and the Widsith story itself diminished in bulk by the omission or revision of much of the material it contained, its chief feature, 1 With these lines, characterized by Ten Brink as "uralte Versus memoriales," compare the brief catalogue of kings in the Hervarar saga (Heusler and Ranisch, Eddica minora, p. 105), or the West Saxon genealogy in Chronicle A under the year 855 (Plummer, Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel I, 66), part of which is written in correct alliterative verse. This type of poetry dates from the time before records were written, when mnemonic verses of the sort were necessary for the preservation of history. 2 Brandl, in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2d ed.), II, 1, 966, points out that most of the names in 11.75-87 appear to have been gleaned from the geographical material in Alfred's Orosius.



the journey of Widsith to the Gothic court in the retinue of the Lombard princess Ealhhild, being briefly summarized in 11.1-9. It is at once obvious that the original poem did not describe actual experiences. To consider only the three kings whom Widsith especially mentions as his benefactors, Eormanric (= Ermanarich, the king of the Goths) died about 375, Guthhere (the Gunther of the Nibelungenlied) was killed in battle with the Huns a few years after 435, and lElfwine (= Alboin, king of the Lombards) was murdered in 572 or 573. Ealhhild, the sister of lElfwine, is represented in the poem as having journeyed to the Gothic court to become the bride of Eormanric. The confusion of history and chronology which we find in WIDSITH is typical of such an undefined and continually shifting body of material as we know Old Germanic heroic legend to have been. The question of the date of WIDSITH is not easily settled. The original poem is generally assumed to have been written on the Continent, but not earlier than about 575, as the mention of Alboin indicates. The phrase eastan oj Ongle, "from the east, from Angel," 1. 8a, shows that the prologue must have been written in England. Further than these few indications, very little direct evidence for the date of the poem is available. The prominence given to Offa, and the traces of Mercian dialect which are found throughout the poem, suggest that WIDSITH received its final form at the Mercian court in the eighth century, when the greatness of the Mercian kingdom was at its height. For a discussion of the historical and ethnological features of the poem, see R. W. Chambers, Widsith (Cambridge, 1912), and R. Much, Zeitschrijt jur deutsches Altertum LXII (1925), 113-150. 10. MAXIMS I The collection of gnomic or aphorismic verses on fo1. 88b-92b of the Exeter Book is called in this edition MAXIMS I, to distinguish it from the similar collection in MS. Cotton Tiberius B.i, which will be edited in a future volume of this series under the title of MAXIMS II. Both of these collections of maxims



are heterogeneous in matter and structure, MAXIMS I being decidedly more so than MAXIMS II. The text in the Exeter Book begins a little below the center of fo1. 88b, with a large capital F, and smaller capitals for the remainder of the word Frige. At 1.71 a second sectional division of the manuscript is indicated, with similar capitalization of the whole of the word Forst. A third sectional division begins at 1. 138,with capitalization of the whole of the word Reed. There is no spacing between the sections, or at the beginning or end of the text. So far as the indications in the manuscript go, therefore, it is impossible to tell with any certainty whether the three sectional divisions indicated in the manuscript were intended by the scribe to be taken as three parts of a single poem, or as three separate poems. In the case of so miscellaneous a collection as MAXIMS I such a distinction is perhaps of slight significance, except in so far as it may serve to shed light upon the problem of the unity of origin of the three sections. And an analysis of the contents of the poem fails to show any dependable supplementary evidence for the unity or diversity of origin of the several parts.' The use of direct address in 11.1-3, which appears at first sight to give an element of unity to the whole composition, is not continued beyond 1. 3, and from that point on, there is an almost complete lack of ordered arrangement. In view of the marked degree of assimilation of Christian and preChristian thought which we find to be a characteristic of AngloSaxon literature, the classification of various parts of the text as "heathen" or "Christian'" is of slight value to the literary historian. The verses of more irregular form, such as 11.54-55, 177-180, 187-191, may perhaps go back to an older oral tradition, as contrasted with verses of such high regularity as 11. 72ft, at the beginning of section [II] of the text; but here again we are on uncertain ground. The entire text gives the impression of a mass of unrelated materials gathered from a number of sources, and assembled by the compiler more or less mechani1 The contents of MAXIMS I are analyzed in detail by Williams, Gnomic Poetry in Anglo-Saxon, pp. 86-97. I As by Brandl, in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2d ed.), II, 1,960-961.



cally, with no attempt at selection or logical arrangement. The evidence of the subject matter therefore provides slight guidance in the solution of the problem of unity of origin, and, as we have seen above, the evidence of the sectional divisions of the manuscript is quite ambiguous. The arrangement of the text in this edition as a single poem in three parts follows the practice of previous editors, but it would perhaps be quite as reasonable to distinguish three separate poems. To the question when, or under what circumstances, all of this miscellaneous gnomic material was gathered together, there can be no definite answer. Miss Williams's suggestion' that the collector was King Alfred offers interesting possibilities, but rests upon nothing more than conjecture. In the absence of any definitely Anglian peculiarities in the language, we may, however, accept her more general statement that the text as we have it was "put together in the eighth or ninth century by a West-Saxon writer," though just why the early tenth century, up to the date of the manuscript, would not be an equally plausible date, is not apparent. 11. THE RIMING POEM The RIMINGPOEM (fo1. 94a-95b) is unique among the extant Anglo-Saxon poetic monuments in having, in addition to the alliteration, a complete scheme of rime by half-lines. Rime as a conscious metrical device is of course not a regular feature of Old Germanic poetry, and in the isolated instances of its occurrence is usually to be taken as an incidental embellishment of the verse. In all periods of Anglo-Saxon poetry we find the sporadic use of rime in addition to the alliteration (as in BEOWULF1014, VAINGLORY33, ANDREAS1587, MALDON282), and there is a long rimed passage in ELENE (11.1236-1250); in the late Anglo-Saxon poetry of more regularly alliterative form there are a few instances (as in MALDON271) in which rime is apparently used as a substitute for alliteration, and in the later Chronicle poems (as for example, those under the years 959, 975E, 1

Gnomic Poetry in Anglo-Saxon, pp. 99ff.



1036, 1086), the gradual substitution of rime for alliteration, under French influence, can be clearly traced.' In the RIMINGPOEM,the most usual rime scheme consists simply in the riming of the two halves of a verse line with each other, but sometimes, and especially at the beginning of the poem, we find four successive half-lines riming with each other, and occasionally a single rime is carried through three or four verse lines, as in II. 13-16, all eight half-lines of which rime in -ad, The poem thus presents a rime scheme of a high degree of regularity; but in the text as it stands in the manuscript, the original rimes seem in a number of places to have been lost (as in ll. 18, 45, 79), or to have been distorted by a change in the spelling (as in 11. 2, 30). Many of these imperfect rimes may be regularized by the substitution of an Anglian linguistic form for the West Saxon form in the manuscript, from which fact it may reasonably be inferred that, like the bulk of AngloSaxon poetry, the RIMINGPOEMwas originally written in the Anglian dialect, and only later translated into West Saxon. The search for sources of the riming technique in this poem has led scholars to the Old Norse skaldic meters, and the Hoju'51ausn of Egil Skalagrimsson.t which shows many similarities in metrical form, has been widely cited as a possible model. Egil visited England twice during the reign of King Athelstan, and wrote the HOju'51ausn in York in the year 936. At first sight, therefore, the inference that the RIMINGPOEM was written at some time in the tenth century, in the North of England, under the influence of the HOju'51ausn or some other Old Norse poem of similar form, is very plausible. But we have no evidence that any Anglo-Saxon verse of so regular a metrical form was written at this time in the North of England. The meter and language of the RIMINGPOEMboth suggest an earlier date. The subject matter and general mode of treatment remind us of the WANDERER, the SEAFARER, and the other elegiac poems of the earlier period, and except for the possibility 1 On the history of rime in Anglo-Saxon verse, see Kluge, Beitriige IX, 422-450, and Sievers, Altgermanische Metrik (Halle, 1893), pp. 146-149. 2 Edited in F. J6nsson, Egils saga Skallagrfmssonar (Halle, 1894), pp. 296-302.



of Norse influence, there would be no reason for assigning the poem to so late a time as the tenth century. It is perhaps mere likely that the Hofu'Olausn was modeled after Anglo-Saxon rimed verse, of which there may have been many other examples, and that Anglo-Saxon rimed verse was itself written on the model of Latin rimed hymns.' Also, the possibility that the RIMINGPOEM, like the rimed passage in ELENE, represents an experimental departure from the normal form without rime, independently of any specific foreign influence, must be kept in mind. In any case, the eighth century seems to be the most probable date for the poem. The many difficulties which arise in the interpretation of the RIMING POEM are due not to any lack of logical sequence in the subject matter, which is clear and straighforward throughout, but to obscurities in the phrasing and in the choice of words. The poet, working in a strange and unaccustomed verse form, seems to have been willing frequently to sacrifice sense to the perfection of his rime scheme. Modern editors have, for the most part, inclined to excessive emendation of the text, not only to improve the meaning, but also to regularize the rime in places where it seems to have been distorted. But in accordance with the editorial policy of this series, the text has here been handled conservatively, emendations being introduced only where the manuscript reading is quite unintelligible. 12. THE PANTHER, THE WHALE, AND THE PARTRIDGE Two problems arise in connection with the three poems on fo1. 95b-98a of the manuscript, which in this edition, in conformity with the practice of previous editors, are named the PANTHER,the WHALE, and the PARTRIDGE:(1) Do these three poems (the last only a fragment) represent the whole of the Anglo-Saxon Physiologus, or are they only part of a more extensive Physiologus cycle? (2) What is the bird described in the third poem? 1 See Brandl, in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2d ed.), II, 1, 1080£.,and G. Neckel, Beitriige zur Eddaforschung (Dortmund, 1908), pp. 367ff.



Ebert, the first scholar to attack these problems in detail, after a comparison with Latin texts of the Physiologus, especially the ninth century text in Bern MS. 233, concluded that the three Anglo-Saxon poems were only a fragment of a much larger group.' Sokoll.t basing his study upon Ebert's conclusions, believed that the Anglo-Saxon poems were the result of an incomplete reworking of the Latin original, the extant text being about one-seventh of the whole work. Sokoll also concluded that a gathering, not a single leaf, has been lost after fol. 97, and that the lines numbered PARTRIDGE3-16 describe not the partridge, but the charadrius," another of the birds of the continental Physiologus cycle. This assumption of a longer Anglo-Saxon Physiologus, only part of which has been preserved, was accepted by Brandl.' But Miss Rose j.Peeblesshasrightly doubted the conclusiveness of the arguments from the Latin texts, and the evidence of the manuscript strongly favors the assumption that, except for the loss of a portion of the PARTRIDGE,the entire Anglo-Saxon Physiologus cycle is preserved to us in the Exeter Book. The first line of the PANTHER,Monge sindon geond middangeard, is unmistakably an opening formula, similar to the one at GUTHLAC30, which may originally have been the beginning of that poem. Also, the PARTRIDGEcloses with the word Finit which, inasmuch as it occurs nowhere else in the Exeter Book, may reasonably be supposed to derive from the scribe's original copy. We cannot then assume with probability that anything has been lost before the PANTHER, or after the PARTRIDGE. With regard to the gap in the text of the latter poem, Sokoll's assumption of the loss of a gathering Anglia VI, 241tI. "Zum angelsachsischen Physiologus," in XXVII. Jahresbericht der Statts-Oberrealschulein Marburg (1897); this book has not been accessible, but its contents are summarized by Sarrazin, Englische Studien XXVII, 135f., and by Mann, Anglia, Beiblatt XI, 332tI. a See Lauchert, Geschichte des Physiologus (Strassburg, 1889), pp. 7-8. A good summary of the arguments for and against the charadrius is given by Cook, The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and Physiologus, pp. lxxxviilxxxviii. 6 Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2d ed.), II, 1, 1047. I Modern Philology VIII (1911), 571tI. 1 I



at this point finds no support in the manuscript. The evidence of the gatherings' shows that a single leaf has been lost from gathering [XII] after fo1. 97, and it is highly probable that this single leaf is all that has been lost from the text of the PARTRIDGE. Assuming the loss of a single leaf (that is, two pages), we have approximately eighty lines as the original length of the PARTRIDGE,as compared with seventy-four lines for the PANTHERand eighty-nine lines for the WHALE-a reasonably close correspondence in length between the three poems. The evidence of the manuscript, then, in so far as it applies, favors the conclusion that, except for the gap of two pages in the text of the PARTRIDGE,we possess the whole of the Anglo-Saxon Physiologus. Such a Physiologus would be reasonably complete in itself, dealing as it does with the three kinds of animals -of the land, the water, and the air. The identification of the partridge as the bird described in the last of these three poems is based, not on the internal evidence of the text itself, but on the evidence of the Latin Physiologus. There is nothing in the poem which points unmistakably to the partridge as the subject, and the adjective wundorlicne, 1. 2, seems hardly suitable to so well known a bird. But until a more appropriate bird is discovered (and the poem seems too incomplete to offer any definite clues), an editor can hardly do otherwise than perpetuate the traditional title of the poem. Dietrich' and Sokoll ascribed the PANTHER, the WHALE, and the PARTRIDGEto Cynewulf, on the ground of similarity of diction between these poems and Cynewulf's signed poems, and more recently Trautmann" and Cook' have considered Cynewulf's authorship very probable; but in the absence of a runic signature we are not justified in saying more than that the three poems seem to belong to the same school of poetic art which produced the PHOENIX, and are of approximately the same date. See pp. xi-xii, above. Commentatio de Kynewulfi poetae aetas, pp. 10-11. I KynewlIlf der Bischof und Dichter, pp. 42, 122. C The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and Physiologus, p. lxii, 1




The poem which immediately follows the PARTRIDGE,on fo1. is here called SOULANDBODYII to distinguish it from the other text of the same poem preserved in the Vercelli Book, which has been printed in an earlier volume of this series under the title of SOULANDBODYI.' The Exeter Book version is shorter than the version in the Vercelli Book, omitting the fragmentary address of the blessed soul to the body, 11.127-166 of the Vercelli Book text. And in the earlier part of the poem, the address of the condemned soul to the body, which is preserved in both manuscripts, there are numerous differences in detail. Lines 23-25, 59-60, 93, and 111 of SOULANDBODYI are omitted in SOULANDBODYII, while, on the other hand, n. 94 and 101 of SOUL AND BODYII have no counterpart in SOUL AND BODY I. Lines 12-14, 77-79, and 115-117 of SOUL AND BODY II are arranged quite differently from the corresponding passages, 11.12-14, 82-85, and 120-122 of SOUL ANDBODY I. The two texts also differ widely in the choice of words; we find, for instance, bewitige, 1. 2,jorweornast, 1. 18, gebohtes, 1. 19, geah]e, 1. 69, andfrumsceafte, 1. 74, in SOUL AND BODY II, where the corresponding places in SOUL AND BODY1(11.2, 18, 19, 74, 79) have gebence.foncisnad, gemundest, ehta, and frym'Oe respectively. The first 126 lines of SOUL AND BODY I correspond to only 121 lines in SOULANDBODY II, and the two texts have therefore been numbered separately in this edition; but for convenience of reference, the line numbering of the corresponding parts of SOULANDBODYI has been indicated in the right-hand margin of the text of SOUL AND BODYII. The theme of the Soul and the Body is frequently treated in medieval literature, and a number of other texts dealing with this subject are preserved in Anglo-Saxon and Middle English, but no immediate source, Latin or Anglo-Saxon, is known for our poem.

98a-l00a of the manuscript,


See Records II, The Vercelli Book, pp. 54-59




The next poem, DEOR (fol. 100a-100b), is noteworthy as being one of the two Anglo-Saxon poems with stanzaic structure and a refrain, the other poem in this form being WULF AND EADWACER,which immediately follows it in the manuscript. In DEOR, the strophic form indicated by the sixfold repetition of the refrain jJ;es ofereode, bisses swa meg (II. 7, 13, 17, 20, 27, 42) is reinforced by the arrangement of the poem in the manuscript in six sectional divisions corresponding to the strophes indicated by the refrain, with a large capital at the beginning of each sectional division. In WULF AND EADWACERthere is no such division into sections. The poem is cast in the form of a monologue spoken by the minstrel Deor, formerly the scop of the Heodenings, who has been supplanted by one Heorrenda.' As a salve to his own sorrows, Deor enumerates a series of misfortunes famous in Old Germanic heroic tradition: (1) the capture and multilation of WeIand, corresponding to the story told in the Volundarkvioa in the Poetic Edda, (2) the rape of Beadohild, who is the Botivildr of the same poem, (3) a completely obscure reference to one Mretlhild and (herlover?) Geat," (4) the exile of Theodoric the Ostrogoth," and (5) the tyranny of Ermanarich. Though lyric and elegiac in form and mood, DE ORbelongs properly with WIDSITH, as a poem in autobiographical form, dealing with Old Germanic heroic material. And there seems to be no doubt that here, as in WIDSITH, the autobiographical element is purely fictitious, serving only as a pretext for the enumeration of the heroic stories. 4 The only problem of structure presented by DEOR relates 1 Heoden and Heorrenda are to be equated with the He~inn and Hjarrandi (Hetele and Horant in the Middle High German Kudrun) of the Hilde legend; see the Prose Edda, Skdldskaparmdl, c. 50. 2 For suggested identifications of the heroic story which is the subject of this strophe, see Stefanovic, Anglia XXXIII, 397f£., XXXVI, 383ff., XXXVII, 533fI.; Lawrence, Modern Philology IX, 23ff.; and F. Tupper, Modern Philology IX, 265ff., Anglia XXXVII, 118ff. a Malone would identify this ~eodric with Theodoric the Frank. 'On this point, see especially Lawrence, Modern Philology IX, 4Off.



to ll. 28-34, which have been quite generally condemned as an interpolation.' But these more general observations on adversity and resignation to the divine will, though they involve a rather startling interruption of the legendary background of the rest of the poem, are not entirely out of place here, and may well have been regarded as appropriate to the elegiac mood. The condemnation of these lines, either on artistic grounds, or because they introduce a Christian conception foreign to the rest of the poem, raises the same difficulties as the structural dissection of the WANDERERand the SEAFARER,and totally ignores the fact that such inconsistencies in style and matter seem not to have been apparent to the Anglo-Saxon mind. With respect to the date and place of origin of DEOR, we are no better off than with WIDSITH. The few linguistic forms in the poem which seem to be Anglian are for the most part inconclusive, and, in the absence of other Anglo-Saxon poems of similar form, the stanzaic structure provides no evidence for date or locality. In the light of our present knowledge, it is hardly possible to say more than that the poem was probably written in the Anglian dialect at some time in the eighth century. The most complete edition of DEOR is that by Kemp Malone (London, 1933), which contains a full discussion of the literary and historical background of the poem. 15. WULF ANDEADWACER The poem which in this edition is called WULF ANDEADWACER is found on fo1. lOOb-101a of the manuscript, immediately preceding the first group of riddles. The initial capitalization of WULF AND EADWACER,and the end punctuation and spacing after it, are less than we find in the poems immediately preceding it in the manuscript, and are in fact no more extensive than the capitalization, end punctuation and spacing which set off the several riddles of the Exeter Book from each other. It is therefore not surprising that the earliest students of this 1 See the categorical statement by Brandl in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2d ed.), II, 1, 975, that these lines "gehoren zu den sichersten Interpolationen, die man in ags. Poesie aufdecken kann."



text took it to be the first of the riddles. Thorpe! printed the poem as a riddle, but suggested no solution. Leo, fifteen years later, by handling the recorded text with considerable violence, succeeded in working out a charade containing the name "CyneWUlf."2 This interpretation of the poem, together with Dietrich's solutions of RIDDLES 90 and 95,3 formed the basis for the ascription, which persisted for many years, of all the riddles to Cynewulf. Trautmann in 1884 accepted the charade theory, but solved as "riddle."! But in 1888 Henry Bradley pointed out! that the poem is in all probability not a riddle at all, but a "fragment of a dramatic soliloquy," in which a woman laments her separation from her lover. Bradley's interpretation of the poem has since been followed by the great majority of scholars, who have, however, been inclined to regard it not as a fragment of a longer poem, but as complete in itself. The title WULF AND EADWACERis the one most generally used at the present day." In more recent years, two attempts have been made to interpret this poem as a riddle. Tupper in his edition of the riddles regarded it as "unquestionably a lyrical monologue,"? following Bradley, but in an article published shortly afterwards," he saw in this lyrical monologue a charade and a runic signature, both of which he solved as "Cynewulf." Patzig, employing more sober critical methods, treated the text as a riddle pure and simple, solving as "millstone."? Neither of these proposals can be regarded as satisfactory, and it is no more likely that any future attempt to explain the poem as a riddle Codex Exoniensls, p. 380. Qta de se ipso Cynevulfus ... tradiderit (Halle, 1857). 3 See the notes on these riddles, pp. 378, 381, below. 'Anglia VI, Anzeiger, pp. 158ff. 3 Academy XXXIII, 197f. e So' Sedgefield, Anglo-Saxon Verse Book, p. 39, and Mackie, The Exeter Book, Part II, p. 86. Chambers, in The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 41, calls it simply "Eadwacer." 7 The Riddles of the Exeter Book, p. liv, 8 "The Cynewulfian Runes of the First Riddle," Modern Language Notes XXV (1910), 235ff. •Archi» CXLV (1923), 204ff. 1 Z



will be successful. If, on the other hand, Bradley's explanation of the poem as a dramatic monologue be accepted, then the occurrence of the refrain Ungelic(e) is us suggests a comparison with DEOR,the preceding poem in the manuscript, while the rather cryptic treatment of the subject, apparently a heroic story from the Continent, reminds us of the WIFE'S LAMENT and the HUSBAND'S MESSAGE. It seems worth while at this point to quote Bradley's account of the characters in the poem: "The speaker, it should be premised, is shown by the grammar to be a woman. Apparently she is a captive in a foreign land. Wulf is her lover and an outlaw, and Eadwacer (I suspect, though it is not certain) is her tyrant husband." This seems to represent accurately the situation described in the poem, though some (Gollancz,' for example) have preferred to believe that the woman's husband is not Eadwacer, but Wulf. Of the heroic story which is the basis of the poem, three identifications have been proposed: (1) the story of Sigmund and Signy in the Volsungasaga,2 (2) the Wolfdietrich B story, known in Middle High German literature,! and (3) the Odoaker legend, very elaborately developed by Imelmann.! Of these proposals, the identification with the Odoaker legend rests mainly upon the occurrence in the poem of the name Eadwacer. Its credibility is much lessened by the fact that Imelmann has attempted to connect with the Odoaker legend not only the present text, but also the WIFE'SLAMENT, the HUSBAND'S MESSAGE,the WANDERER, and the SEAFARER, and to assume the existence of an extensive Odoaker cycle in Anglo-Saxon literature, for which no evidence is known except Imelmann's hypothesis. Of the other two proposed identifications, Wolfdietrich B shows notable resemblances to the situation described in our poem, but we have no evidence that a Atheneum, 1902, II, 551£. See W. H. Schofield, "Signy's Lament," Publications of the Modern Language Association of America XVII (1902), 262-295. 3 Suggested by Schticking, Kleines angelsiichsisches Dichterbuch, pp. 16f. For a brief summary of Wolfdietrich B, see O. L. ]iriczek, Northern Hero Legends, trans. by M. B. Smith (London, 1902), p. 102. 'Die altenglischeOdoaker-Dichtung (Berlin, 1907); Forschungen zur altenglischen Poesie, pp. 73ff. 1




story of this type was known in Anglo-Saxon England. Sigmund is mentioned in BEOWULF,but the Sigmund story is much less similar than Wolfdietrich B to the situation in the poem. It is of course quite possible that the poem deals with a story which was well known to contemporary readers, but which has not come down to us.' 16. THE WIFE'S LAMENTAND THE HUSBAND'SMESSAGE The occurrence in a single manuscript of two poems, in one of which a woman, separated from her husband (or lover?), laments her misfortune, while the other is in the form of a message of reassurance from a man, apparently in exile, to his wife (or sweetheart?), offers ample occasion for speculation upon the possible relationship of the two poems to each other. The poems in question, the WIFE'S LAMENT(fo1. 115a-115b) and the HUSBAND'SMESSAGE (fo1. 123a-123b), are both written in rather obscure language, and in neither is the situation defined very precisely, but it is certainly possible, with some exercise of the imagination, to read a single and unified story out of the two poems. The opinion that the WIFE'S LAMENT and the HUSBAND'SMESSAGEare related to each other, and reflect two phases of a single story from Old Germanic heroic legend, has been most forcibly argued by Trautmann," who however made no attempt to identify the story concerned, and by Imelmann, who included the two poems in his hypothetical Anglo-Saxon Odoaker cycle." But to this view it has been objected that if the poems are related in this way, their occurrence at two different places in the manuscript, with seven folios of completely unrelated matter between them, needs to be explained; that in style and tone the two poems are quite different; and finally, that there are irreconcilable contradictions between the two situations indicated. The WIFE'S LAMENT itself is full of apparent inconsistencies, which can however for the most part be resolved by a careful and unprejudiced reading of the text. 1 The theory that WULF AND EADWACER is a translation from Old Norse was advanced by W. W. Lawrence, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America XVII (1902), 250ff. S Anglia XVI (1894), 222ff. a See p. lvi, above.



On the evidence of 11.11-14 and 24---25a, with the wordft:eh'5u, 1.26, it seems reasonably clear that the woman is lamenting not only her separation from her husband, but his openly expressed hostility toward her, perhaps caused by a false accusation of infidelity. Lines 19-20 point to the same conclusion.' The estranged husband here described can hardly be the man who in the HUSBAND'S MESSAGEis so outspoken in his eagerness to see his loved one again. This discrepancy alone makes it very difficult to accept the view that the two poems here discussed represent two separate parts or phases of a single continuous narrative. Assuming that the WIFE'S LAMENTand the HUSBAND'S MESSAGEhave no organic relationship to each other, there remain a few problems of subject matter and structure to be considered for each of the two poems. The situation in the WIFE'S LAMENT,comprehensible enough in its basic features, is complicated by 11.42ff., which at first seem to introduce a third person into the narrative. Attempts have been made to identify the man, 1.42, with the person responsible for the estrangement of the husband and wife, 11.42ff. being then a curse uttered against this third person.! Schticking in 1907even proposed to reject 11.1-2 as an addition to the text by a later redactor (the original poem then beginning with the exclamation Hwt:etl in 1. 3), and to assume that the poem is not the lament of a woman at all-in which case the man of 1. 42 is readily identified as the speaker of the poem. 3 But, as Lawrence has pointed out.s ll, 42ff. have all the earmarks of traditional gnomic wisdom, and 11.47bff. seem to have been intended as an application of the general truths just stated to the specific situation in 1 Ll. 19-20 are perhaps most plausibly taken, with Miss Rickert, Modern Philology II, 366, note 4, not as an amplification of gemecne, but as a contrast to it; the evilly minded husband has turned out to be not the gemecne monnan she had thought him. I Brandl, in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen Phllologie (2d ed.), II, 1,977; Sieper, Die altenglische Elegie, p. 223. 3 Zeitschrift fur deutscbes Altertum XLVIII, 436fI. In his Dichterbuck (1919), Schiicking returns to more orthodox views. 4 Modern Philology V (1908), 387ff.



the poem. With these lines explained, the only really obscure point in the WIFE'S LAMENTis disposed of. The difficulties which scholars have encountered in their analyses of this poem are in large part due to their own tendency to complicate matters unnecessarily, by reading into the text situations which do not belong there.' The HUSBAND'SMESSAGEoffers fewer difficulties of interpretation, and the message to be conveyed by the rune-stave, except for a few unusual turns of phrase, and the interpretation of the runes in II. 49f.,2 is clear and to the point. There is, however, an important problem of structure in the HUSBAND'S MESSAGE,in the determination of the place in the manuscript at which the poem begins. The passage on foI. 122b beginning Ie Wi£S be sonde, which in this edition is called RIDDLE 60, immediately follows in the manuscript the second text of RIDDLE 30. Following this text, on foI. 123a-123b, are the three passages beginning Nu ie onsundran be and HV.!i£t bee bonne biddan het and Ongin mere secan respectively, each with initial capitalization and complete resemblance in form to the Ie Wi£S be sonde passage. The editors have usually taken these three passages as composing the HUSBAND'SMESSAGE, which thus begins with Nu ie onsundran be and contains three sectional divisions. Blackburn in 19003 proposed to take the Ie Wi£S be sonde passage as also a part of the HUSBAND'SMESSAGE,which would then begin in the manuscript immediately after the second version of RIDDLE30. But in view of the lack of definite stylistic features in so many of the riddles of the Exeter Book, the decision whether the Ie Wi£S be sonde passage is to be taken as a riddle, and therefore as a separate poem, or as a part of the HUSBAND'SMESSAGE, must depend upon the subjective judgment of an editor. The editors, except Blackburn and Sedgefield," have preferred to take the Ie Wi£S be sonde passage 1 Kershaw, Anglo-Saxon and Norse Poems, p. 31, makes the very reasonable suggestion that "it is perhaps an ambitious attempt to portray excited feelings which causes the difficulty of the poem." I See the note on these lines, pp. 363f., below. I Journal of Germanic Philology 111,1-13. f Anglo-Saxon Verse Book (1922), pp. 36ff.



as a riddle, beginning the HUSBAND'SMESSAGE with Nu ic onsundran be, and this practice has been followed in the present edition. 17. RESIGNATION The poem which appears on fol. 117b-119b of the manuscript is called in the present edition RESIGNATION. WiiIker printed this poem as the fourth of his "Gebete," but later editors and commentators have, for the most part, preferred a more specific title, "Gebet des Vertriebenen" (Brandl), "Klage eines Vertriebenen" (Sieper, Schiicking), "The Exile's Prayer" (Mackie). The poem however deals not with an actual exile from worldly prosperity, but with spiritual dejection, and the mention of the sea journey in 11. 98b-lOla is evidently to be taken symbolically, with Schucking.' Chambers.t following WiiIker, called the poem simply "A Prayer." None of the titles which have been given to the poem seems quite adequate, and in this edition, therefore, the title RESIGNATIONhas been preferred, as characterizing more specifically the contents of the poem, particularly the note on which it closes. In this poem we find a subjectivity and a preoccupation with abstract ideas which is quite foreign to the older lyrics, such as the WANDERERand the SEAFARER. Biblical influence, particularly of the penitential Psalms, is evident throughout, and indicates a rather late date of composition. In metrical form and in diction, also, RESIGNATIONbelongs with the poetic art of the late ninth or tenth century, as for example, with the metrical version of the Psalms, rather than with the older poetry. Sieper has pointed out" that at 1. 88b there is a decided change in the poet's treatment of his theme, the most obvious indications of which are the use of the third person in 11. 89b-96a, and the touch of gnomic wisdom in the last two lines of the poem. This more impersonal manner, as contrasted with the completely subjective style of 11. 1-88a, does not of course 1 Kleines



p. 22; see also Klaeber, Archi»

CLXVII,36. I The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry, p. 42. a Die altenglische Elegie, pp. 256f.

INTRODUCTION justify us in assuming a diversity of origin for the two parts of the poem, but it does suggest the use by the poet of different types of poetic material, not very skillfully combined. 18. THE DESCENT INTO HELL The DESCENT INTO HELL (£01. 119~121b) divides naturally into two parts, the first of which (11. 1-23a) deals with the visit of the two Marys to the sepulcher, and the resurrection of Christ, the second (11. 23~137) with the descent of Christ into Hell and his reception there by John the Baptist and the patriarchs of the Old Testament. The title usually given to this poem in English editions, "the Harrowing of Hell," is less suitable than the present title, the DESCENTINTOHELL (or "Christi Hollenfahrt" in the German editions), inasmuch as the poem closes with the speech of welcome by Adam, and does not continue to the actual departure of the patriarchs from Hell. This apparent incompleteness of the poem has caused many of the commentators to call it a fragment, but there is nothing in the text as it stands in the manuscript which would warrant our considering it other than as a complete poem, though it is perhaps somewhat unusual in idea and structure. The first part of the poem, the visit of the two women to the sepulcher, presents some difficulties of interpretation in detail,' but the general features of the biblical story are well preserved. Of the several narratives of this event given in the gospels (Matthew xxviii. 1-10; Mark xvi. 1-8; Luke xxiv. 1-10; John xx. 1-9), the text of Matthew, as the only one which specifically mentions two women, is most readily to be identified as the source of this part of the poem. But, except in this one respect, the narratives in the four gospels do not vary greatly, and, as Cramer pointed out,2 the handling of the biblical story in the poem is too general to permit of a definite assignment of source. With respect to the source or sources of the second part of the poem, we are on equally uncertain ground. The theme of the harrowing of Hell, which is well known in Anglo-Saxon 1 I

See the notes on 11.6-8, on p, 356, below. Anglia XIX, 137£.



literature, as in medieval literature in general, goes back ultimately to the second part of the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the Acta Pilati), of which an Anglo-Saxon version, probably of the tenth century, is preserved.' But any attempt to identify the Gospel of Nicodemus as the source of 11. 23b-137 of our poem, meets with difficulties, and here, as in the first part of the poem, it is apparent that no specific literary source need be sought. The poet was evidently depending not upon written materials, but upon a memory well stocked with Christian tradition. The general continuity of the subject matter, from the disappointment of the women at the sepulcher to the story of the resurrection, and from the resurrection to the descent into Hell, is clear enough, but the transitions are clumsy and abrupt; it might in fact be said that there are no transitions at all. The poet's interest is not in an orderly and sequential narrative, but in a lyrical development of those aspects of his theme which lend themselves most readily to the lyric form. In this respect the poem bears a striking likeness to CHRIST I. The four apostrophes, to Gabriel, to Mary, to Jerusalem, and to the river Jordan, in 11. 76-106, may be compared with the series of apostrophes which make up the first part of CHRIST,and it is interesting to note that the use of hu in 11. 76, 84, 100, and 104 is paralleled by the similar use of hu in CHRIST130, 216, and 278. The older commentators on this poem made the natural assumption that the speaker of 11. 59-137 is John the Baptist, who has just spoken in 11. 26-32, and is mentioned in 1. SO, only a few lines before the beginning of this speech. But the phrase git Iohannis in 1. 135 indicates clearly that John is not the speaker here, and that burgwarena ord, 1. 56, must refer to Adam. According to Holthausen.t ll. 70ff. go back to Genesis i. 28, and 1. 132, usually taken to refer to the baptism of Christ by John, is from the apocryphal book of Adam, where Adam is said to have stood in penance forty days in the waters of the jordan.! I Edited by W. H. Hulme, Publications of tM Modern Language Association of America XIII (1898), 471-515. The original text is most conveniently consulted, in an English translation, in M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), pp. 94--146. t Anglia, Beiblatt XIX, 50fI. t See the Latin Vila Adae ee Evae, vi. 1 (R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha (Ina Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament II, 135).



With respect to authorship, it can be said that while the poem evidently belongs to the Cynewulfian tradition, and shows many verbal and stylistic reminiscences of Cynewulf, the lyric form and the independence of written sources indicate quite clearly that Cynewulf was not the author. If a date is to be assigned, one fairly close to Cynewulf's own time is most plausible, say the end of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth century. 19. THE SHORTERRELIGIOUS POEMS Immediately following the DESCENTINTOHELL in the manuscript are four short poems on religious subjects. The first of these, ALMS-GIVING(fo1. 121b-122a), nine lines in length, treats of the benefits of philanthropy for the salvation of one's soul. In spite of its brevity, the poem seems to be complete in itself, though, since the style is definitely homiletic, it is not out of the question that, as suggested by Wulker;' it is a fragment of a longer verse homily. Following this is PHARAOH (fo1. 122a), an eight-line poem telling the number of men in Pharaoh's army. The opening formula, Saga me hWCEt, indicates that this poem is to be classed with the Anglo-Saxon dialogues of the question and answer type, such as SOLOMONAND SATURN,in verse and prose.t and the prose Adrianus and Ritheus. That PHARAOHis an independent poem, seems therefore less probable than that it is a fragment of a longer poem in dialogue form. Following PHARAOHin the manuscript is the LORD'SPRAYERI (fo1. 122a), a versified text of the Lord's Prayer, eleven lines in length, which follows the Latin original very closely, with no additions to the sense. Of the three poetical versions of the Lord's Prayer which have been preserved in Anglo-Saxon (the others, in MS. 201 of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and in MS. Junius 121, in the Bodleian Library, will be edited in Volume VI of this edition as the LORD's PRAYERII and the LORD's PRAYERIII, respectively), the text in the Exeter Book is by far the shortest, and is in fact as brief as it could very well be, with 1

Gruntlriss zur Geschichte tler angelsachsischen Litteralur, pp. 23Sf.

The poetical portions of VI of this edition. I


will be edited in Volume



due observance of the alliterative form. On the evidence of style and meter, the LORD's PRAYER I is probably also the earliest of the three versions, though the large number of expanded lines which it contains makes it difficult to use metrical criteria with confidence. The next poem, HOMILETICFRAGMENTII (fol. 122a-122b), is a consolation, evidently addressed to a specific person who is in trouble, citing faith in God as the solution for spiritual weakness. There is nothing in the manuscript to indicate that this poem is a fragment, and it might be regarded as complete in itself, but the incomplete development of the theme of the Nativity in the closing lines makes it quite likely that matter has been lost at the end, and it has been generally assumed that the poem is incomplete at the beginning also. The late homiletic style, especially in the enumeration in 11.8-10, sets this poem definitely apart from the other short poems which precede it in the manuscript, and it is therefore to be assigned to the tenth century, probably not long before the date of the manuscript, rather than to an earlier period. 20. THE RUIN The RUIN (fol, 123b-124b), the oldest example of formal description in English literature, represents a ruined and deserted city, with large stone buildings (stanhoju, 1. 38; enta geweorc, 1. 2), therefore a Roman city, the former splendor of which is contrasted with its dilapidation in Anglo-Saxon times. The mention of baths in II. 40 and 46, and of hot springs in 11. 42-43, led Leo! and Earle" independently to the opinion that the city described in the poem is Bath, the Aquae Sulis of the Romans, which according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was captured by the West Saxons after the battle of Deorham in 577. But in a charter' of 676 land was granted by King Osric of the 1 Carmen anglosaxonicum itt codice Exoniensi servatum quod vulgo inscribitur Ruime (Halle, 1865), p. 5. I Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club II (1870-73), 259ff.; Academy XXVI (i884), 29. 3 Birch, Cartularium saxonicum I, 69. This charter, the genuineness of which is open to suspicion, is preserved in a Bath chartulary of the twelfth century, MS. 111, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, page 59.



Hwicci for a nunnery near Bath, at which time the site of the city can hardly have been deserted; and there is in fact no evidence to show that Bath (or Acemannesceaster, as it is called in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 973A) was ever completely in ruins and desolate. No other identification of the ruined city described in the poem has been proposed,' and perhaps none need be sought. The poet may well have had no particular city in mind as the subject of this poem, but may have introduced the mention of hot baths from his own knowledge of Bath, or from hearsay, to give more concreteness to his picture. The tone of the RUIN is predominantly elegiac, showing in this respect marked affinities with the WANDERER,11. 73-110; but the internal rimes in 11. Sb, Ib, 11b, 31b, 39b, together with the unusual concreteness of the vocabulary, and the use of a number of words elsewhere unrecorded in Anglo-Saxon, set this poem quite apart from the other lyric-elegiac texts in the Exeter Book. 21. THE RIDDLES There are three groups of verse riddles in the Exeter Book. The first group, comprising RIDDLES 1-59, begins near the top of fol, lOla, and continues to fol, 115a, being immediately followed by the WIFE'S LAMENT. On fol, 122b-123a are a second text of RIDDLE30, differing in some respects from the first, and the text of RIDDLE 60. The third group, comprising RIDDLES 61-95, begins on fol, 124b, immediately following the HUSBAND'S MESSAGEand the RUIN, and continues to the end of the manuscript. In spite of the lack of continuity of the riddles in the manuscript, the earlier editors were inclined to regard all the riddles as the work of a single author, and, on the evidence of fancied solutions of WULF ANDEADWACER(then considered to be the first riddle)! and of RIDDLES90 and 95, to ascribe the whole collection to Cynewulf.! Modern scholarship, on the other 1 A summary of the archeological evidence in favor of Bath as the subject of the poem is given by Sieper, Die aJtenglische Elegie, pp. 228f£. I See pp. liv-lv, above. 3 Following especially Leo, Qu;e de se ipso Cynevulfus ... tradiderit (Halle, 1857), and Dietrich, Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum XI, 44811.,XII, 23211. An excellent summary of the history of scholarship on the subject is given by Tupper, The Riddles of the Exeter Book, pp. lill-lxxix.



hand, has tended not only to reject the possibility of Cynewulf's authorship of the riddles, but to doubt the unity of the riddle collection as a whole. The stylistic similarities which have been pointed out between the several riddles are not such as would justify us in accepting them as valid evidence for the unity of the collection, and there is an obvious lack of evenness between the riddles which argues strongly for the opposite point of view. Most scholars of the present day would probably agree with the conclusions arrived at by Trautmann,' that not only are the Exeter Book riddles not a single and homogeneous collection, but that they must be considered to be the work of a number of authors; that a few of the riddles may be the work of Cynewulf, but not necessarily so. Tupper, while rejecting Cynewulf's authorship, gives a somewhat qualified verdict in favor of the unity of the riddle collection: "Their place as literary compositions (not as folk-riddles) in one collection, and their homogeneous artistry, which finds abundant vindication in a hundred common traits, argue strongly for a single author, though a small group of problems brings convincing evidence against complete unity.i" The question may, therefore, hardly be said to be definitely settled; but the burden of proof seems to be upon those who would demonstrate unity of authorship. A second copy of RIDDLE35, in the Northumbrian dialect, contained in a manuscript of the University Library at Leiden, will be edited in Volume VI of this edition. With respect to the sources of the Exeter Book riddles, a general statement is hardly possible. Many of the riddles show strong resemblances, both in subject matter and in style of treatment, to the Latin riddles of the Middle Ages, especially to the hundred Latin riddles, of uncertain date, associated with the name of Symphosius, and to the three collections of Latin riddles ascribed to Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne (640?-709), to Tatwine, archbishop of Canterbury (d. 734), and to one Eusebius, who has been generally identified with Hwretberht, abbot of Wearmouth (c. 68O-c. 747), a friend of Bede. But in most cases it is impossible to tell whether similarity between an Exeter 1 I

Anglia XXXVIII (1914), 369tI.; Die altenglischen Riitsel (1915), p. 63. The Riddks of the Exeter Book, p. lxxix.



Book riddle and a Latin riddle rests upon conscious imitation of the Latin riddle, or upon the use of the same traditional material. Obvious cases of dependence upon the Latin riddles have been pointed out in the notes to RIDDLES16, 35,40,47,60, 65, and 85. Other resemblances, which are less certainly due to direct influence of the Latin riddles, are also noted wherever they occur.' The uncertainty surrounding the unity and authorship of the Exeter Book riddles, and our complete lack of information as to the circumstances under which they were collected in their present form, make it impossible to assign even an approximate date of composition. On linguistic grounds, Sievers- assigned the riddles to the first half of the eighth century, but the arguments he advanced are conclusive for only a few of the riddles, and afford no evidence for the date of the collection as a whole. It is of course very likely that a large number of the riddles date from the early eighth century," when Englishmen were most active in the composition of Latin riddles, but a more definite statement than this is hardly possible in the light of our present knowledge. The solutions which have been proposed for the several riddles are discussed in the notes on the text, at the end of the book. 1 The Latin riddles are cited from the following editions: Symphosius, from R. T. Ohl, The Enigmas of Symphosius (Philadelphia, 1928); Aldhelm, from J. H. Pitman, The Riddles of Aldhelm (New Haven, 1925); Tatwine and Eusebius, from A. Ebert, in the Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der k. siichsischen Gesellschaft der W issenschaften zu Leipzig, philol.-hist. Klasse XXIX (1877), 20-56. 2 Anglia XIII, 15ff. a The Leiden text of RIDDI.E 35 is in the Northumbrian dialect of the eighth century; see A. H. Smith, Three N orthumbrian Poems (London, 1933), pp. 36-37.



Folio 8a 8b 9a 9b lOa lOb lla lIb 12a 12b

Line 1 cyninge 36 him 69 -pearfe 103 mid 139 -wrah 171 hosp 208 -eardode 242 -cyn 2760fer 315 godes



13b 14a

388 singati 425 his


457 peoden

15a 15b

490 on 5210nd

16a 16b

556 ealles 590 pendan



17b 18a 18b 19a 19b 20a

655 pe 686 Dus 719 -buend 753 gelyfa5 786-mod 823 eerestan


Line 36 he 69 Nearo102 dreame 139 on171 me 208 ge242 from276cwen 315 him 354 pry~gesteald 388 brymmum 425 purh 456 Bethania 490 stapolfrestre 520 seleste 556 freetwum 590 cwic 622 gewinne 654 gecnawan 685 for5 719 eor5753 georne 786 ead823 ret 857 geliden

Folio 20b 21a 21b 22a 22b


857 hrefdon 887 to 920cuma~ 952 fylla~ 984 weallende 23a 1018 hwit 23b 1053 -holen 24a 1088 beo~

24b 25a 25b 26a

1126 blinde 1163 sawlum 1196 helepa 12290nd

26b 1267 proht 27a 1301-drede 27b 1334wuldre 28a 1369 egsan 28b 1402 gode 29a 1434 gebo-


Line 887 cynn 920 tirenum 951 storme 983 leg 1017 gecynd 1053 for1088 Sceadu 1126 pyrnenne 1162 blissad 1196 hroper 1229 reotati 1266 o~clife5 1301 bealo1334 gehwylc 1369 gerefnan 1402 efenmicle 1434 hleor 1469 forlete


29b 30a 30b 31a

1469pu 1500 in 1531 del 1566 tearum

31b 1601 to 32a 1637 alyfed

1499 mine 1531 deope 1565 bearn 1601 waldend

1637 pe 1664 dryhten




Folio 32b 33a

Line 1 Se 29 in

33b 34a

63 sceal 94 had

34b 35a

130monnts 167 -lices

35b 36a

198maran 233 gena

36b 37a 37b 38a 38b

264monige 298wic 3340nhylde 369 rer 399 refter

39a 39b

432 ana 466 deeda 499 in

40a 40b



531 Micel 567 sotsfrestra 603 wideferh 636 nrefre

42b 43a

673 Ne 706 si~~an


1 Rim

41a 41b

Line 29 clene 63 gehwylcum 94 haligne 130 bimurnats 167 gielp198 moncynne 233 ~a 264 Cleopedon 298 ba 334 hleor: 368ge~onc 399ahe 432 earletsum 466eowre 499 gegrets 531 gemeted 567 hy 603 wille

Folio 43b

Line to 738 gefegon


771 gife

44b 45a 45b

804 in 833 no 869 pone

46a 46b 47a

47b 48a

901 bidrorene 934 -prungen 969 -dselden (MS. dreled) 1003 inne 1038 beots

48b 1072 ac 49a 1108 eIne 49b 1140 strong 50a 1172 ~a

636 ealdre

50b 1209hyge 51a 1244 -fsest Sib 1278 re~ela

672 bletsunga 706dom 738 geoce

52a 1310 leoma 52b 1343 to

Line 771 gsestcunde 804forberats 833 he 868 drync 901 dreamum 934b ge969 ge1003 epelbodan 1038 dogor 1072 leahtor 1107 unsofte 1140 stalgongum 1172 word 1209 heortan 1244 sigor1278 se 1310 heofonlic 1343 latsspel 1379 drusendne


53b 54a

29 hrefdes 59 toswengde

28 preanyd 590nd 92 sceal


92 purh

55a 55b

131 sitse 167 eorl

130 widferende 166meahte




Folio 55b 56a 56b 57a 57b 58a

58b 59a 59b 60a 60b

Line 5 -agendra 39 leaf 73 under 107 bibapat> 1410ppret

175 cyning 209 tid 245wynsume 279 Eall 314 ne


Line 5 fole38 brosniat> 73 halge 106hine 140 geblissad 175 tirmeahtig 209 sumeres 245 wiste 279 epellond 314 hinderweard 349 secet7

Folio 61a

350 Swa

61b 62a


420 mengu


453 elmessan


488 snude

488 sendef (MS.

522 eled

62b 63a



Line 385 sindreamum


63b 64a 64b 65a

522 bonne

555 lame

555 bitolden

588 byrig

589 Donne

623 sy

623 bryrnsit-

656 hleo-





656 haligra


65b 66a 66b 67a 67b 68a

8 brad

69b 70a 70b

43 under 77 on 111 pone 149leasingum 187 nacode 223 wideferh 255 eer 289 ealra 323 gehwres

76b 77a

10ft 33 nalres

68b 69a

8 rice 42 feohgestreon 7610fian 111lacum 149 ic 187 nitswrrece 223 waldets 255 sigortifre 288 genom 323 yfla 356 gecnawe


356 pret

71b 72a 72b 73a 73b

391 in 426 sotsfrestum 458 to 491 godes 525 -cwom


559 georne


594 dryhtne

75a 75b 76a

627 )la 660 refter 696 pret

390 bideled 426 wit> 458 pu 491 butan 525 bi558 gelomp 594 dryhtna 627 ormeetu 659 Pearle 695 micel 731 Amen

THE WANDERER 33 freorig 65 woruldrice

77b 78a

65 Wita 98 wundrum

98 weal




78a 78b 79a

Line 8 eenig 40 stunati



Line 8 bi5 40 bord 73 hrredtrefle

79b 80a

Line 74 Sum 108 milde


Line 108 monna



28 jJis

28 gemunde 64 bonne

81b 82a

1 Mreg 34 streamas

34hean 68 gehwylce




94 geheald


82b 83a

69 rer 103 Micel



83a 83b

6 beam

6agen 40 symbelwlonc


40 searwum



71 abylgnesse


84b 85a 85b

14 »ara 46 retsomne

13 wile 46 sibbe 73 gedales

86a 86b

74 beorhtra 102 giefe


131 on

102 cwen 131 onfond


87a 87b

17 !ifes

17 leas 50 rer


50 his


82 snere

82 snellice


88b 89a 89b


lOne 38 gebunden 62 sceal

10 adl 38 prage 62 eorod

90b 91a 91b

90 forman 114morjJor 145 fere5

92a 92b

175wreran 204 jJres

(MS. worod) 89 gegretan

114fedan 145 mon 175 eaforan 204 a



Folio 92b 93a

Line 30 bibod



Folio 93b

30 agen 63 cneoris-

Line 64lifgendra 95 him



Line 95 nis


94a 94b 95a

21 -giefu 55 Dreamas

21 hyht54 tinneti 85 wuldre


85 generede



96a 96b

31 monpweere

32lufsum 64 ]>ret

64 sell end


96b 97a

23 geliste

23 reste 58 fara~


59 unware




2 wun-

3 freger


98a 98b 99a

16~am 48 ancenda

16 to 48 se 80 refre

99b l00a

BOon 111 beo~

111 geaflas



22 wide


14 bine


2,15 wrugon 3,37 wsegfatu 3, 72 swipfeorm


22 fole



14 seldcymas


101b 102a

3,1 Hwilum 3,37 wide

102b 3,72 Saga 103a 6,7 on 103b 9, 11 ~y l04a 12, 13 hwet l04b 15,1 Hals 105a 16, 4 -winnes

6,7 9, 11 12,13 14, 19 16,4 20,2


swesra Saga hatte geminum


INTRODUCTION to Line Folio 105b 20, 2 leof 106a 21, 1 Neb 106b 22, 20 ellenrofe 107a 25, 6 eeorles 107 b 26, 28 helepum 108a 29, 3 Iyftfret 108b 31, 13 heo l09a 33, 5 Wres l09b 35, 14 -frest UOa 39, 5 reghwylene UOb 40,6 mee

Line 20, 35 eompes 22, 200)1erne 25, 6 eyrtenu 26,27 mere 29,2lredan 31, 13 eer 33,4 seearpe 35, 14 wis39,5 sundor 4O,6He 40,41 wom

Line Line to Folio 4O,73worll1a 40,41 wra'l5dum serafu ll1b 40, 73 nemnab 40,108 he 43,9 hla112a 41, 1 edniwu forde 47,6wihte 112b 43,9 hyre'15 51,2 swear113a 47,6)1y te 54,9 stunda 113b 51,2 wreran 57,2 sind 114a 54,9 gehwam 59, 16 cwse114b 57,2 blaee den 115a 59, 17 hringes

THE WIFE'S LAMENT 290llongad





30 sindon

THE JUDGMENTDAY 37 heremse116b gen 70 ful (MS. 117a fol) 99 lame 117b

6 megeneyninga 37 heardlie



8 eal 40 gearone

118b 119a 119b

40 ned 70 hwsepre 101 fleot

69roid 100 srewe

THE DESCENT INTO HELL 119b 120a 120b

15 -niht 47 helepa

15 easter47 eae 78 gewitte

121a 121b

780nd 109 )1ret


2 repehyg-


2 -dig


3 bind


4 mid

RIDDLE 60 122b

8 si'15


8 refre

108 Crist







Line 21 drefde


Line to 22sijJjJan


2 burston 31 wong

31 Hryre

128a 84, 2 strong-

84,35 mode




2 burgstede

124a 124b


124b 125a 62,40feste 125b 66,2 -wyrm 126a 126b 127a 127b

70,4 jJe 73,20nd 75, lIc 81, 1 Ie

62,4 on 66,2 hond70,4 gesceapo 73,2 hruse 74,5 cwicu 80, 11 hatte 84,2 ryne

ne 128b 84, 35 snottor 129a 86, 6 earmas 129b 88, 24 eardian l30a 91, 8 nebbe 130b 93, 23 agleeca

86,5 twa 88, 24 sceata 91,8 bregde 93,23 ic 95, 13 gehwylcum



SECTIONAL DIVISIONS IN THE POEMS CHRIST [I] Chr. [II) Chr. [III] Chr. [IV) Chr. [V] Chr. [VI) Chr, [VII) Chr. [VIII) Chr. [IX] Chr.

1-7()1 71-163 164-274 275-377 378-439 440-516 517-599 600-685 686-778

[X) [XI] [XII) [XIII) [XIV] [XV] [XVI) [XVII)

Chr. Chr. Chr. Chr. Chr. Chr. Chr. Chr.

779-866 867-971 972-1080 1081-1198 1199-1326 1327-1427 1428-1529 1530--1664

GUTHLAC [I) Guth. 1-92 [II) Guth. 93-169

[III] Guth. 170--261 [IV) Guth. 262-368'

1 Incomplete at the beginning through the loss of one or more folios before foJ. 8. 2 This section is incomplete at the end, and Section [V) is incomplete at the beginning through the loss of a folio between foJ. 37 and foJ. 38; see Introduction, p. xii,


INTRODUCTION [V] Guth. [VI] Guth. [VII] Guth. [VIII] Guth. [IX] Guth. [X] Guth.

[XI] Guth. [XII] Guth. [XIII] Guth. [XIV] Guth. [XV] Guth. [XVI) Guth.

369-403 404-529 530-617 618-721 722-818 819-893

894-975 976--1059 1060-1133 1134-1223 1224-1304 1305-13791


[II) Az. 73-191

[II Az. 1-72 PHOENIX

[I) Ph. [II) Ph. [III) Ph. [IV) Ph.

[V) Ph. [VI) Ph. [VII) Ph. [VIII) Ph.

1-84 85-181 182-264 265-349

3SQ-423 424-517 518-588 589-677


[V) Ju1. 454-558 [VI] Ju1. 559-6061 [VII] Ju1. 607-731

[I] Ju1. 1-104 [II) Ju1. 105-224 [III) Ju1. 225-344 [IV] Ju1. 345-453 MAXIMS

I [III] Maxims I 138-204

[I] Maxims I 1-70 [II) Maxims 171-137 DEOR

[IV] Deor 18-20 [V) Deor 21-27 [VI] Deor 28-42

[11 Deor 1-7 [II) Deor 8-13 [III) Deor 14-17


[I) Judgment Day 1-80

[II] Judgment Day 81-119


[I) Husband's Message 1-12 [II] Husband's Message 13-25

[III] Husband's Message 25-53

Incomplete at the end through the loss of the upper part of fo1. 53. This section is incomplete at the beginning through the loss of a folio between fo1.73 and fo1.74. I




2Iu 50 Eala 50 Saneta 52 In 56Ae 74 Areee 78Ne 79 In 82a In 82b In 88 Saneta 102 In 112 Swa 119 Nu 130 Eala 138Iu 139 In 167 Ie 197 Soti 201 In 214 Eala 282 Swylce 306 Wlat 326 Nu 370 Ara 456 Da 468 H~fde 481 Farati 491 Da 512 Nu 527 Da 533 Gewitan 534 In 547 D~t 560 In

CHRIST 561 Nu 850 Nu 562 In 9270nd 577 In 937 Mona 580 In 941 Wile 586Hw~t 994 Seopeti 621 Ie 1002 Ae 627 Hwset 1007 Donne 638 In 1011 Ond 642 Noldan 1033 In 654 Ne 1039 Donne 657 In 1047 Ne 659 Da 1053 Ne 664 Sumum 1115 Eall 668 Sum 1118 Magun 670 Sum 1134 In 671 Sum 1163 Hwset 672 Sum 1204 Swa 673 Sumum 1221 Donne 676 Sum 12250nd 678 Sum 1232 Donne 679 Sum 1237 An 680 Sum 12420per 683 Nyle 1262 Donne 724 In 1280 Magun 732 In 1284 Donne 735 In 1292 Ne 748 In 1301 W~re 764 In 1315 Inge787 In poneas 788 In 1316 Ne 791 Donne 1344 Onfoti 793 Ie 1359 Donne 815 Ie 1362 Onginneti 830 In 1381a Ie 838 Deer 1389 Da

4 Donne 6Nu 7 Ie 18 D~t

GUTHLAC 19 In 30 Monge 250fer35 M~g winnati 40 Swa 26 Hwider 40 Iu

1396 Nu 1414 Da 1439 Ie 1451 Da 1452 Ie 1456 Ie 1457 Meaht 1460 Ie 1465 In 1467 In 1474 Ne 1476 Ae 1495a Ie 1495b In 1504 In 1518 Cwiti 1524 Ne 1532 In 1541 Ne 1542 In 1559 Donne 1568 Donne 1575 Ne 1576 Ae 1605 D~t 1609 Der 1614 In 1619 In 1623 Donne 1628 D~r 1631 In 1639 D~t 1652 D~r 1660 Nis

43 Ealdati 53 Is 80 Dseghwam

INTRODUCTION 95 In 99 Si~~an 991nlyhte 104 Done 107 In 108 Hwret 109 In 111 In 114 Tid 117 Nalres 118 In 119 Oper 127 Oper 133 Swa 137 In 147 O~~ret 150 Nales 154 In 170 In 179 Him 200 Swa 205 Wreron 208 Si~~an 212 Donne 215 In 220 Ne 223 In 226 Ne 237 Hwonne 239 Gu31ac 242 An 246 Ne 248 In 250 Ie 266 Oft 268 In 269 No 271 Du 280 We 284 We 290 We 296 Wi3 301 In 306Ae 312 Nis 314 Ie

315 He 319 Ne 323 Swa 328 He 336 Oft 339 No 344 In 348 Symle 348 In 350 Neosan 356 Donne 365 Ne 366Hu 376 Nrefre 380 Deah 382 In 390Da 394 In 399 Ne 412 Hy 421 No 434 Gu31ac 435 In 440 Duhte 446 Hwsepre 451 Him 456 Da 460 In 464 In 466 Ne 467 We 476 Sregde 483 Ne 488 Setton 490 In 494 Ie 499 In 502 In 508 In 510 Oft 513 Swa 538 In 549 No 551 In 557 Hwre3re 5621ngong

5690ngunnon 571 In 574 Woldun 575 In 577 Cwredon 582a In 582b In 584 In 586 In 587 We 590 Him 599 Eom 600 Ie 618 In 620 In 622 In 623 Sindon 629 In 632 In 634 In 637 In 642 In 645 In 647 In 649 In 653 In 654 Inbryrded 657 In 658 Drer 660 In 661 In 665 In 666 Da 667 In 673 Ne 677 In 690 In 694 In 698 Ne 703 Ie 708 Ie 711 He 714 Is 715 Ie

lxxvii 719 Nu 7260ngon 735 Treofugla 739 Swa 742 Smolt 746 In 752 Hwret 753 In 756 Ac 760 Swa 766Da 769 Nis 770 In 777 In 781 Swa 790 Swa 791 In 805 In 812 Donne 812 In 823 Da 826 Adam 839 In 846 Ac 871 In 876 In 879 Hu 883 Innan 913 Symle 916 Hwilum 9381nnan 946 In 954 In 965 In 9931ngong 996 Swa l0010ngan 1005 In 1008 In 1010 Ongan 1016 Is 1023 Him 1027 Ie 1028 In 1043 In

lxxviii 1052 Innan 1058 In 1065 Innan 1072 In 1075 In 1077 Ie 1085 In 1086 Ie 1091 In 1092 Ie 1094 Da 1099 In 1102 In

INTRODUCTION 1105 Swa 1108 Aras 1113 In 1150 Wres 11560ngon 1163 Him 1166 Min 1169 In 1185 In 1186 In 1191 In 1192 Du

1195 In 1197 Da 1203 Ie 1208 Oft 1216 Ie 12200ngeat 1221 In 1234 Ie 1238 Symle 1248 In 1265 Nis 1269 Da

1282 Da 1300 Ahof 1304 In 1320 Innanweard 1326 Da 1344 Cwom 1348 Ellen 1367 In 1367 Innan 1369 In 1371 In

AZARIAS 6 Is 54 Cwom 59 Tosweop 69 In 92 Donne

102 Deop 135 Oft 137 Of 153 Nu 156 In

163 Da 168 Abead 174 Nu 176 Hweorfa5

179 Da 186 Ae 190 In

THE PHOENIX 31 ponne 66 j)a 77 In 90 Se 107 In 111 Sibban 120 Sona 125 Donne 153 Donne 200 In 236 Donne 261 Se 274 Donne 301 Innan 305 Is

310 314 319 319 331 335 362 381 386 389 392 393 414 430 441

Sindon Nis Eee Is Donne Donne In Swa In In In Habbap In In In

443 Wreron 447 In 464 In 470 Swa 470 In 475 In 491 Donne 502 In 552 Ie 553 In 556 In 567 In 568b In 572 In

582 In 586 In 593 In 599 In 607 In 622 Sib 633 In 658 In 660 In 661 In 666 In 667 Hafa5 669 In 672 In

JULIANA 2 In 18 Sum 21 In 26Da 28 Iulianan 32Da 46 In

58Da 83 In 93 Du 94 In 96Iuliana 106Iuliana 117 Hyre

119 Ie 130 Him 131 Iuliana 132 Ie 140 Da 147 Him 148 Iuliana

167 Iuliana 175 Him 189 Ahlog 234 In 243 In 260 Hyre 267 Da

INTRODUCTION 287 Da 311 In 316 Iuliana 319 Hyre 321 Hwret 352 Ie 357 Ie 391 In 398 Ie 404 In 405 In

413 In 413 Ie 416 In 417 In 417 Da 436 In 465 Ie 472 Ie 474 In 494 Ie

528 In 530 In 530 Da 531 Iulianan 535 Inbryrded 539 Ie 540 Iuliana 547 Ie 549 In

lxxix 551 Is 555 In 577 Da 583 In 628 Iulianan 635 Da 683 In 691 Innan 711 In 727 In

THE WANDERER 6 Swa 8 Oft 12 In 12Indryhten

15 Ne 22Iu 27In 39 Donne 44 In

45 Donne 58 Forpon 65 In 66a Ne 730ngietan

84 In 88 Se 97 Stondeb 111 Swa


15 In


13 In 21 Driddan

35 In 47In

48A 62 In

76 Teopan

THE SEAFARER 11 Innan 30 In

47 Ae 83Iu


117 Uton

VAINGLORY 14 In 17 Inne 17 In

24 In 37Inwitflan

37 No 50 Swa

57Ie 70 Swylce

57Iu 67 Donne

81 In 83 In

WmSITH 75 Ie 86 Ie

109 Donan 135 Swa

THE FORTUNESOFMEN 10 Sumum 15a Sumne 16a Sumne 18 Sum 21 Sum

27 Sum 38 Noper 43 Sum 48 Sumum 51 Sum

58 Sum 67a Sumum 67b Sumum 69 Sumum

74 Ful 77 Sum 80 Sum 85 Sum



7 Meotud 22 Reed 41 In

51 In 66b In 67Inwyrean

67In 81 Cyning 97 In

112 Ne 122a In


8 Is 11 Iu 19 In

21 Ne 23 Ie

13 In

33 Mod

74 In 90 In


43 Nu

THE PANTHER 19 Dret 38 Drer

59 In 66 Sijljlan

55 Swa 59 pone

69 Swa 69 Sanetus

THE WHALE 8Is 16 In 19 Donne

27 Donne 30 In

53 Donne 55Innojle

58 In 71 In

THE PARTRIDGE 12 Uton SOULANDBODYII 9 Seeal 15 Cleopati 22 Hweet

54Ne 84 In

30 In 49 Ne

86 Donne 111 Gifer

RIDDLES1-59 1,8 Ie 3,59 Ie 5,9 In 5,9 Ie 6,6 Ie 8,6 In 9,3 In 9,3 Innan 12,10 In 15,6 In 16,2 Ie 16, 4a Ie 17,2Innan 17,9 Is 17,9 Innats

20,17 20,22 23,2 23,3 23,4 23,7 23,10 27,6 27,6 27,9 27,15 27,16 28,7 28,7 29,7

Ie Nymbe Ie Ie Ie Ie Ne In Nu Sona Ie De In Innan Da

31,3 32,11 35,2 37,6 37,7 39,7 40,16 40,23 40,28 40,38 40,42 40,44 40,46 40,48 40,50

Ie In Innape Innats In Ne Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie

40,58 40,60 40,62 40,64 40,66 40,72 40,82 40,84 40,88 40,92 40,92 40,94 40,101 40,105 41,6

Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Ie Mara Ie Ie Ae Mara Ne


INTRODUCTION 42,5 43,1 43,2 46,7

Ie Ie In Insittendra 47,4 In

55,7 55,13 56,1 56,10 58,9 58,10

48,1 Ie 49,8 Ie 52, 1 In 53,6 In 54,2 In 55,1 In

Ie In Inne Ie Isemes Ite15

58,14 In 59,1 In 59,7 In 59,9 In 59, 17 In


5 Ie

7 Ie

13 In



5 Ie 20 Ie 40 In

41 Nu 44 In 76 In

23Iohannis 40 In 50 Iohannis 56 Ahead 71 In

76 Eala 80 In 84 Eala 86 In 97In

911s 96 Ie

105 Wudu 110 Is

THE DESCENTINTOHELL 99 In 100 In 103 In 104 In 107 Nu

128 In 131 In 135 In 135 Iordane


18 In RIDDLE60

13Ingejxlne THE RUIN 19 In

32Iu RIDDLES61-94

62, 1 Ingonges 67,13 Ie 71,2Iu 72,9 Ie 83,6 Ie 83,12 Ae

84,33 85,3 85, 6a 85, 6a 85, 6b 88,9

Swa Ie Ie In Ie Ae

88,15 88,18 88,19 88,21 88,29 93,11

Nu Is Ie Ae Innan In

93,14 Ie 93,28 Nu 95, 1 Indryhten 95,8 Ie



x IV




4sfe 1416s jol.9al Chr. 98 Aworpen 99Md IOU jol.9b Chr. 114 sunnan 115 rer jol.lOa c». 140 re 167 Alletan 170 sAr cwida jol.llal Chr.219nu jol. IZbI Chr. 352 nAn jol.13a c». 386 cYnn jol.l3b c». 404 frta jol.14a Chr.444Md jol. 14b Chr. 464 An cenned 475 fr6a jol. 15a Chr. 502 A hofun 513 Agend 516 epel st611 jol. 16a( There There I There ( There , There I There I I

are are are are are are


Ch,. 567 A nes 568 Ahl6d


c». 2 re

no no no no no no

accents accents accents accents accents accents


58H 586nu jol.l6b Chr.590rn6t 5961ff 604 ret jol. 17a Chr. 627 us 628l60rnurn 631 us 632 tld 633 AwrleC 644rnisllc 645 frela jol. 17b Chr. 658 fr6rn 671 re 677 sre fol, ts« c». 692 A hefen 702 A stag 703 h6r 704 re fyllen dra



bAd jol.19a' Chr. 759 Aras 784 hl6 dun 78616 jol.19b Chr.790d6rn 794 sYn wrsece


on fo1. 8b. on fo1. lOb. on folios 11b and 12a. on fo1. 15b. on fo1. 18b. on fo1. 20b.

852 sre Jol. Zlal 892 A flerde jol. Zlb c». 935 scan jol. ZZa Chr. 953 un mete 958 fyr 961 cyn 969 An Jol. ZZb Chr. 986 sre fiscas 988 rnA 995 g61d fretwe jol. Z3a c». 1024 A risan 1030 Arisan 1034gehl6d 1035 bU 10361fc jol. Z3b c». 1062 fyr h6a 1064 r6d 1082 syn fA 1084r6d jol. Z4a Chr. 1093 Ahongen 1097n6 1101 r6d jol. Z4b





c». 1144 sre 1156 Ii I stodan jol. Z5a

c». 1163 sre 1164grond 1170 f6a 1185 f6r jol. Z5b c». 1210 man weorca jol. Z6a c». 1230 gret 1232 d6m 1233 rer 12446n 1252 Ii weaxetl gef6a jol. Z6b c». 1269 fyr 1279 man womma 1286 g6d dredum 1289 slir jol. Z7a c». 1319 Ii tlolian jol. Z7b Chr. 1356 un softe 1368d6m

1460 slir 1466 sc6d jol. Z9b Chr. 1469)1u Ilf 1474nu 1476 Iff




[ol, Z8a


c». 1370 Myrred




1384 wid londa jol. Z8b 1406ligie fan 1407 un r6t 1411 slir 1416mlin cwealm 1420 lid 1427 w6nn 1429lic slir jol. Z9a 1436 man Iremmendra 1457 her 6ac 1459 un efen




With y altered from

min 1480 sele gesc6t 1481 hUs 1487 lihen ge 1488iu 1492 wea 1493liteah jol. so« 1520 fir jol.30b 1538 fli 1549 lin 1551 wisd6m 1552 nu 1560 flih 1562 un wyrtle jol.3Ia 1570 tid 1571 tid 1572 Ieee d6m 1578 Ii gan 1600mlin jol.3Ib 1603 hUs 1611 mlin sworan 1614 £Ii 1616 flih 1618 d6m deege 1619 fyr1 1620 under 1627 htis 1632 fli jol.3Za 1652 Ilf 1656 d6m eadigra 1661 swar





jol.3Zb Guth. 4 Ud 10 Um 1H 18nu 23 jol.33a Guth. 37 6n hrered 39 Ii risene 40Iu 41 wite d6m 42 Ii nemdon 45 tid 49nu 55 58w6rd jol.33b Guth. 65 nu 7lg6d 78 rom mode 84t6 85 of 6nn 88 lin buendra jol.34a Guth. 94 had 96mlin 97 upp 1046n 106m6d 107 g6d 116litela 120g6d 126llf jol.34b Guth. 135 d6m 1486n 149 ham lirrerde jol.35a Guth. 195 m6d cearu jol.35b Guth. 217 bad jol.36a Guth. 246 feal6g 253 t6








lxxxiv fol.37a1 Gutk. 301 ateots 3161:9t fol.37b Gutk.344a fol.38a Gutk. 371 lichoma 380 ban bl6d fol.38b Gutk. 399 a hof 403 ma fol.39a Gutk. 459 a hwyrfde fol.39b Gutk. 472 martyr had 492 n6 fol.4Oa Gutk.506n6 526 re' frestra 529wis d6m fol.40b Gutk. 541 sar 550 bad 553 n:9d wrrece 562 hUs fol.41a Gutk. 580 g6d fol.41b Gutk. 623 wrer logan 634 f:9r 636w6p fol.4Za Gutk. 650 man sceapan 654 ham 667 pier


668 ad fol.4Zb Gutk. 676 breI blresan 677 ham 684ar 693 scan 701 a settap 706d6m fol.43b' Gutk. 746 st6d 764 us fol.44a Gutk. 772 d6m a IMf 7736n 6ndan 802 hUs fol.4Sa· Gutk. 833 n6 839a 8556n un cytstsu fol.45b Gutk. 870 gesc6d 871 ham 891 rim fol.46a Gutk. 905 w6p ahofun 924 lewisc m6d fol.46b Gutk. 937 re bodan 944 6nboren 945 fus 952 bad 968 tu fol.47a


Gutk. 989 m6n 6n fol.47b Gutk. 1030 sawel hUs fol.48b ' Gutk. 1073 sar 1095 run wita 1104ah6f fol.49a Gulk. 1111 6n segde fol.49b Gulk. 1146 ar 1154w16 fol.S0a Gutk. 1190 a fol. SOb Gulk. 1217 ares 1224 ~adga 1240 anseld fol.S1a Gulk. 1255 a 1262 a 1276 swa fol.5Za' 1329 f6r 1343 lace fol.SZb Gulk. 1345 mats 1352 aswzman 1375 min fol.S3b7 As. 46 pu fol.54a As. 88 good fol.54b As. 109 g6d fol.SSa


There are no accents on fol. 36b. Gollancz and Assmann record an accent over e, but none is visible in the facsimile. I There are no accents on fol. 43a. •There are no accents on fol. 44b. I There are no accents on fol. 48a. I There are no accents on fol. SIb. 7 There are no accents on fol. 53a. 1




re I sprynge

165 re

fol.55b Az. 175 ge rad fol.56a Ph. 6 man fre


men dum 2560 32Ma

Ph. 385 ~ 401 gebead

103 sre

fol.57b Ph. 121 Ma fol.58a Ph. 155 ~ fiyh~ 157 n6 166 syr wara

fol.58b Ph. 180~ 192 6n f6n

fol.59a Ph. 222 ~d leg fol.59b Ph. 253 sred 259 n6 270 ban 274 ~ fysed

fol.60a Ph. 283 ban 287 6a Ion I de 312 6n licost p6an

fol.61a1 Ph. 365 ~d 372Md 382 sar wrrece




~stag 696n

Ph. 447 hea



449n~n 453 p~n

fol.62b Ph. 457 man

70 mreg lufan


fol.67a Jul. 81 ~re


100 pu



Ph. 524d6m 525 forht afrered 533 l!f 536~ I gnum 545 ~ I bywde 554 hr~ werig

fol.64a Ph. 567 ~wece~ 570fr6d

fol.64b Ph. 596~ 599Mm 607 gefea 623 sy

fol.65a Ph. 625 tmmsete 633 ~ merede 639Md 652 tu

fol.65b Ph. 657 m6d 663 ~r 668 hiSr 669 g6d deedum 675 frean Jul. 4~ hof

fol.66a Jul.9wfd 13 re 30m~ n~

are no accents on fo1. 6Ob. There are no accents on fo1. 63a.

1 There


408~ geald

358. fol.56b Ph. 72 n6 6 fol.57a Ph. 97 6n

fol.66b Jul. 43 unrlm

Jul. 137 man fremmende 140 ellen w6d 144 6nwend

fol.68a Jul. 166 mfn 168 bired 169 gen

fol.68b Jul. 209 m6d un forht 221 mfn 222 m6d

fol.69a Jul. 226 m6d 228ah6n 2536n 6feste

fol.69b Jul. 288 d6m



fol.70a Jul. 297 re 309 ~h6n 314 ge rim 317 gen 321 f6re 323Mm

fol.70b Jul. 326 m6d 6ncyrren



514 nan fol.73b Jul. 530 ham 537 sar 546 man fr6a 547 sar sIege 553 fr6d fol.74a Jul. 564f9r 567 st6d 580 ad 587 arasad 589 st6d

592llc 82m6n fol.8lb st6d Seaf. 6 bigeat fol.74b 14 sa: Jul. 597 w~dde 608m6d 18hlim man sa: 615 ag61 616 unla:d 33nu fol.8Za 6266arM5a Seaf. 42 sa: fo I re fol.75a 58nu Jul. 640 a cwtets 644 up fol.83a' Vaing. 2 ar 648 a:' I fremfol.84al mende Vaing. 51 aWrleC fol.75b 53 up Jul. 678 ~r6a ahllenets fol.76b1 Wand. 9 nan 64d6m fol.78a2 fol.85a' Wids. 33 hun Gifts 7 onf6n fol.86b7 fol.79a3 Gifts 70 ge wealden Wids. 110 a 126a nihst m6d fol.87a fol.79b Wids. 140 d6m Gifts 85 m6d 101 m6d arleran 143 d6m fol.80a Fortunes 13 har Gifts 111 d6m 113m6d fol.88a' Fortunes 70 tlir Precepts 4 d6 fol.80b fol.89a9 Precepts 35 man Max. I, 20a 45g6d fol.89b Max. I, 41 sar 51 g6d 46 atemed I ne 53 fr6d fol.8la fol.90a Precepts 70 d6n Max. I, 80d6m

There There 3 There 4 There I There •There 7 There •There I There

on fol, 700. on folios 77a and 77b. on fol, 78b. on Iol, 82b. on fol, 83b. on fol, Mb. on folios 85b and 800 on fol, 87b. on fo1. 88b.






334 sin 3536r 354fWn fol.7la 368 rim 377 of 6nn fol.7lb 411 a: 412 m6d 420g60 421 wa:r leas 423 n9d bysig fol.7Za 439 man weorcum 450 un selig fol.7Zb 459 man weorca 466d6m 469unrim fol.73a 505 man weorca




are are are are are are are are are

no accents no accents no accents no accents no accents no accents no accents no accents no accents



fol.90b Max. I, 103 a 105 hi? 106wyn 111 m6n 113 acwele

fol.9la Max.I,120ag6d fol.9Zal Max. I, 191 geara arred 195 m6n

20H fol.9Zb Order of the World 6d6m 9wis d6m


41lif2 52 sar

fol.95a Riming Poem 61 wrel gar

a~ 746n f6nn 6nc6nn 77 ban


fol.99b Soul 82 bU


84 rer 89 d6m 107 hra

fol.9Sb Riming Poem 87 aa Panther 106n

15 anstapan

gad 16 rad ge bad

fol.94b Riming Poem 24n~ of 611 26wrer 29swegl rad 33M6d


19 deor 28gfen

fol.96a Panther 37 dun

I drege

fol.1OOa Soul 121 m6d snot I


fol.94a Riming Poem 15 had

58 un I willan 74 sre

78 nan 83

12 dun I serafum

61 J1er 89 a hefed


fol.98b Soul 34 bad fol.99a Soul 55 nan

64 wraJ1

1H fol.93b1 Order of the World 71 gl6m

fol.98a P onrid ge 5 tfid


fum 62 aras

fol.96b Panther 71 g6d Whale 14 un londe fol.97a Whale 29 gar secges 48 sre lipende 50gfen

fol.97b Whale 64 tld 66fah

67 on gean!

34 tlr

70 un rred

35 blred



Deor 9sar fol.1OOb Deor39 nu Wulfllac 3 us fol. lOla Wulf15 m6d Rid. 2, 4 fam 2, 10 sre grundas

fol.10lh Rid. 3, 1 fr~a 3,24Ma

fol.10Zbl Rid. 4, 11 mfn fol.103a Rid. 6,7 6n fol.103b Rid. 11, 8 w6n

wa 101.l0Shl Rid. 20, 4 wfr

are no accents on fo1. 91b. There are no accents on fo1. 93a. 2 Assmann records an accent over i, hut none is visible in the facsimile 'There is a stroke over 0 (listed as an accent hy Assmann) which may or may not be an accent. I There are no accents on fo1. 102a. 'There are no accents on folios l04a to 10Sa. I There I



20, 14gerfun 20, 296n

fol.106a Rid. 21. 66n mfn 21,12 an 22,7 h6a

fol.l06b Rid. 23, 13 man drinc 24,3 g6s

fol.115b Wife's Lament 30 up hea fol.116a Judgment Day 20ac fol.116b Judgment Day46a 52 tir

fol.107a Rid. 25, 11 wunden

57 pr6a 60 alretats

locc? 26, 24 ar stafum




Resign. 15 arrere

Rid. 34, 6aa


35, 9 a wrefan

fol.109b Rid. 36, 9 f6r fol.110b2 Rid. 40, 11 min fol.111bl Rid. 40, 105 swfn fol.112a Rid. 42, 13 ryne menn fol.113b4 Rid. 53, 12 frer fol.114a Rid. 54, 9 hie 6

fol.118b Resign. 40 rred 63 hrel

fol.119a Resign. 85 a fol.119b Resign. 115 a fol.120bl Descent into Hell 63 fah 70 a dreag

7H fol.122a7 Hom. Frag. II 2 d6m

55,5 up

fol.114b Rid. 58, 15 rad fol.115a Wife's Lament 4n6


fol.122b Hom. Frag. II 6 waciap


11 d6m 20 leohtes

nu 1 There

There I There 4 There 1 There I There 7 There 8 There , There 10 There 2

are are are are are are are are are are

no no no no no no no no no no

accents accents accents accents accents accents accents accents accents accents

on on on on on on on on on on

folios 107b to 108b. fo1. 110a. fo1. l11a. folios 112b and 113a. folios 117 a and 117b. fo1. 120a. folios 121a and 121b. fo1. 123a. fo1. 124a. fo1. 125a.

Rid. 60, 1 sre wealle fol.123b' Husband's Message 44 gad fol.124b' Ruin 36 eorcan stan fol.12Sblo Rid. 70, 2 w6h fol.126a Rid. 72, 5 mln 72,15 sc6d

fol.126b Rid. 74, 1 feax har fol.127a Rid. 80, 10 good fol.127b Rid. 81,3 £6ot 83,4fah 83,9 arrere 83,13 d6m

fol.128a Rid. 84, 10 6r 84, 15 aweorp ... 84,31 a loden

fol.128b Rid. 84, 54 onhlfd fol.129a Rid. 87,4 gum rlnc fol.129b Rid. 91, 6 mines fol.130a Rid. 93, 1 Frea 93,8 fr6d 93, 13 sc6c

fol.130b Rid. 93, 28 f60nd


1831, 1832

1874 1879

19031912 1912







WANLEY,HUMPHREY. Antique literature Septentrionalis Liber Alter. Seu Humphredi Wanleii Librorum Vett. Septentrionalium, qui in Angliee Bibliothecis extant, nee non multorum Vett. Codd. Septentrionalium alibi extantium Catalogus Historico-Criticus, cum totius Thesauri linguarum Septentrionalium sex Indicibus. Oxford, 1705. Description of the Exeter Book, pp. 279-281. BRITISHMUSEUM. Additional MS. 9067. A transcript of the Exeter Book, made by Robert Chambers in 1831 at the British Museum, and collated with the MS. by Sir Frederick Madden, 1831-1832. SCHIPPER,J. Zum Codex Exoniensis. Germania XIX, 327338. Description and collation of the MS. WULCKER,RICHARDP. Aus englischen Bibliotheken. II. Exeter. Anglia II, 374--387. Diplomatic texts of the Husband's Message and Ruin, with notes on the MS. NEW PALEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY. Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts, etc. First Series, Vol. I, plate 9. Facsimile of the Exeter Book, fol. 19b, and a brief description of the MS. CHAMBERS, R. W. The British Museum Transcript of the Exeter Book. Anglia XXXV, 393-400. Discusses the history and value of the B. M. transcript. TUPPER,FREDERICK, JR. The British Museum Transcript of the Exeter Book. Anglia XXXVI, 285-288. Collation with the transcript for Descent into Hell, Husband's Message, and Ruin. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Vergleichung des Gu~lac-Textes mit der Hs. Anglia XL, 365-366. Collation of Assmann's text with the MS. THE EXETERBOOKOF OLD ENGLISHPOETRY. With introductory chapters by R. W. Chambers, Max Forster, and Robin Flower. London, 1933. A complete photographic facsimile of the MS. ANONYMOUS.[Review of The Exeter Book of Old English



Poetry.] London Times, Literary Supplement, no. 1629, p. 272 (April 20, 1933). 1933 KER, NEIL R. [Review of The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry.] Medium .£vum II, 224-231. Gives a number of new readings. 1934 SISAM,K. [Review of The Exeter Book of Old English Poetry.] Review of English Studies X, 338-342. II.


1842 THORPE, BENJAMIN. Codex Exoniensis. A Collection of Anglo-Saxon Poetry, from a Manuscript in the Library of the Dean and Chapter of Exeter, with an English Translation, Notes, and Indexes. London,1842. Contains all the Exeter Book poems, with translations, except Riddles 67, 78, 82, 89, 92, 94. 1857, GREIN, CHRISTIANW. M. Bibliothek der angelsachsischen 1858 Poesie. 2 Vols., Gottingen, 1857-1858. Omits the same texts as Thorpe. 1881- WULKER, RICHARD P. Bibliothek der angelsachsischen 1898 Poesie. 1. Band, Kassel, 1881; 2. Band, Leipzig, 1894; 3. Band (edited by Bruno Assmann), Leipzig, 1898. 1895 GOLLANCZ,ISRAEL. The Exeter Book, an Anthology of Anglo-Saxon Poetry Presented to Exeter Cathedral by Leofric, First Bishop of Exeter (1050-1071), and Still in the Possession of the Dean and Chapter, Edited from the Manuscript, with a Translation, Notes, Introduction, etc. Part 1. Poems I-VIII. London, 1895. Texts and translations. Continued by W. S. Mackie; see next item. 1934 MACKIE,W. S. The Exeter Book. Part II: Poems IXXXXII. London, 1934. Texts and translations. Continuation of the preceding item. III.


1826 CONYBEARE, JOHN J. Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. London,1826. Christ 517-530, 532-544a, 600-611a, 619b627, 638-640a, 659b-685; Phoenix 1-27; Widsith; Maxims I, 72-84a; Riming Poem; Soul and Body II, 1-26; Deor; Wife's Lament; Ruin; Riddle 3, 11.68-74, and Riddles 32, 46, 66, 90; all with English or Latin translations. 1833 KEMBLE,JOHNM. The Anglo-Saxon Poems of Beowulf, the Traveller's Song and the Battle of Finnesburh. London, 1833. Widsith.



1835 MULLER,LUDV.CRR. Collectanea Anglo-Saxonica, maximam partem nunc primum edita et vocabulario illustrata. Havnie, 1835. Christ 1-29; Riddles 5, 26. 1838 LEO, HEINRICH. Altsachsische und angelsachsische Sprachproben. Halle, 1838. Widsith, with a German translation. 1840 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Phenix-Fuglen, et Angelsachsisk Kvad, forstegang udgivet med Inledning, Fordanskning og Efterklang. Kjobenhavn, 1840. Text of the Phoenix, with a Danish translation. 1840 KEMBLE,JOHNM. See under V. 1846 THORPE,BENJAMIN. Analecta Anglo-Saxonica. 2d ed., London, 1846. Riming Poem 1-7a, 14-21a, 27-41a. 1847 EBELING,FRIEDRICHW. AngelssechsischesLesebuch. Leipzig, 1847. Widsith. 1847 SCHALDEMOSE, F. Beo-Wulf og Scopes Widsi~, to angelsaxiske Digte, med Oversettelse og oplysende Anmserkninger. Kj9lbenhavn, 1847 (2d ed., 1851). Widsith, with a Danish translation. 1849 KLIPSTEIN,LOUIS F. Analecta Anglo-Saxonica. Vol. II. New York, 1849. Christ 164-274, 378-415, 440-1198; Guthlac 30-92; Phoenix; Wanderer; Gifts of Men; Precepts; Widsith; Fortunes of Men; Whale; Deor; Wife's Lament; Husband's Message 13-35, 40-53; Ruin; Riddles 13, 28, 46,57,61, 74. 1850 ETTMULLER, LUDWIG. Engla and Seaxna Scepas and Beceras. Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1850. Christ 600-1080; Phoenix; Juliana; Wanderer; Precepts; Seafarer; Vainglory 13-73; Widsith; Fortunes of Men; Maxims I, 60-190; Riming Poem; Whale; Soul and Body II; Deor; Wife's Lament; Alms-Giving; Husband's Message 13-53; Ruin; Riddles 2, 3, 4,5,7,8,10,12,14,15,19,22,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,35, 37,46,60,66,80,86. 1855 THORPE,BENJAMIN. The Anglo-Saxon Poems of Beowulf, the Scop or Gleeman's Tale, and the Fight at Finnesburg. Oxford, 1855 (2d ed., 1875). Widsith, with an English translation. 1857 LEO, HEINRICH. See under V. 1861 RIEGER,MAX. Alt- und angelsachsisches Lesebuch. Giessen, 1861. Christ 164-213, 586--685, 779-866; Wanderer; Widsith; Maxims I, 71-137; Deor; Riddles 2, 5,14,26,29, 35,47.



1865 LEO, HEINRICH. Carmen anglosaxonicum in codice Exoniensi servatum quod vulgo inscribitur Ruinae. Halle, 1865. Text of the Ruin, with German translation. 1869. RIEGER,M. See under V. 1870 MARCH, FRANCIS A. Introduction to Anglo-Saxon. An Anglo-Saxon Reader, with Philological Notes, a Brief Grammar, and a Vocabulary. New York, 1870. Wanderer 76115; Widsith 135-143; Maxims I, 71-137; Riming Poem 61-87; Deor. 1872 EARLE,JOHN. See under V. 1876 SWEET, HENRY. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. Oxford, 1876 (4th ed.,1884, 7th ed.,1894, 9th ed., revised by C. T. Onions, 1922). Phoenix 1-84; Wanderer; Seafarer 1-108 (7th-9th ed.), Riddles 7 (4th-9th ed.), 9, 14, 26, 29, 47, 57. 1880 KORNER,KARL. Einleitung in das Studium des Angelsachsischen. 2. Teil. Heilbronn, 1880. Christ 164-213, 659690; Phoenix 1-84; Riddle 14; all with German translations. 1882 WtiLCKER,RICHARD P. Kleinere angelsachsische Dichtungen. Abdruck der handschriftlichen Uberlieferung, mit den Lesarten der Handschriften und einem Worterbuche. Halle, 1882. Wanderer; Precepts; Seafarer; Widsith; Maxims I; Deor; Wife's Lament; Husband's Message; Ruin. 1883 MOLLER,HERMANN. See under V. 1884. EARLE,J. The Ruined City. Academy XXVI, 29. Ruin, with English translation. 1888 KLUGE,FRIEDRICH. Angelsachsisches Lesebuch. Halle, 1888 (2d ed., 1897; 3d ed., 1902; 4th ed., 1915). Wanderer; Seafarer; Widsith; Riming Poem (2d-3d ed.): Deor; Wulf and Eadwacer (1st-3d ed.): Wife's Lament; Husband's Message; Ruin (2d-3d ed.): Riddles 14 and 35 (1st-3d ed.). 1891 BRIGHT,JAMESW. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. New York, 1891 (4th ed., 1917). Wanderer; Phoenix. 1892 GOLLANCZ, ISRAEL. Cynewulf's Christ. An Eighth Century English Epic. London, 1892. With translation. Discussion of the rune passages, pp. 173-184. 1893 MACLEAN,G. E. An Old and Middle English Reader. New York, 1893. Riddle 15. 1894 TRAUTMANN, MORITZ. Zur Botschaft des Gemahls. Anglia XVI, 207-225. Diplomatic and critical texts of Husband's Message, with discussion of problems relating to the poem. 1896 SMITH,C. ALPHONSO.An Old English Grammar and Exercise Book. Boston, 1896. Wanderer.



1897 CRAMER,JULIUS. Quelle, Verfasser und Text des altenglischen Gedichtes Christi Hollenfahrt, AngUa XIX, 137174. Diplomatic and critical texts of Descent into Hell. 1900 BLACKBURN, F. A. The Husband's Message and the Accompanying Riddles of the Exeter Book. Journal of Germanic Philology III, 1-13. Text of Riddles 30b and 60, and Husband's Message, with translations. 1900 COOK,ALBERTS. The Christ of Cynewulf. A Poem in Three Parts, the Advent, the Ascension, and the Last Judgment. Boston, 1900. 1904 STRUNK,WILLIAM. Juliana. Boston and London, 1904. 1907 SCHMIDT,WILHELM. Die altenglischen Dichtungen Daniel und Azarias. Bearbeiteter Text mit metrischen, sprachlichen und textkritischen Bemerkungen, sowie einem Wdrterbuche, Bonner Beitrage sur Anglistik XXIII, 1-84. Text of t\zarias. 1908 HOLTHAUSEN,FERDINAND.Beowulf nebst den kleineren Denkm1ilern der Heldensage mit Einleitung, Glossar und Anmerkungen. 2 vols. 2d ed., Heidelberg, 1908 (6th ed., 1929). Deor and Widsith (not in 1st ed.). 1908 SCHLOTTEROSE, OTTO. Die altenglische Dichtung Phoenix herausgegeben und erlautert. (Bonner Beitrage sur AngUstik, Heft XXV.) Bonn, 1908. With a German translation. 1909 STEFANovIt,SVET. See under V. 1909 WILLIAMS,O. T: Short Extracts from Old English Poetry. Bangor, 1909. Christ 558-599, 1428-1468, 1530-1548, 1559-1577, 1591-1602a; Guthlac 201b-261, 819-871a, 999b1047a, 1139b-1196, 1278b-1343; Azarias 73-133; Juliana 460b-505a, 563b-606; Gifts of Men 44-96; Fortunes of Men 1-61; Panther 1-54; Whale 1-31a, 49b-62a; Judgment Day I, 1-400, 52b-59. 1910 SEDGEFIELD,W. J. Beowulf, Edited with Introduction, Bibliography, Notes, Glossary, and Appendices. Manchester, 1910 (2d ed., 1913). Widsith, Deor. 1910 TUPPER,FREDERICK,JR. The Riddles of the Exeter Book. Boston, 1910. 1912 CHAMBERS, R. W. Widsith, a Study in Old English Heroic Legend. Cambridge, 1912. With text of the poem, and translation. 1912 WYATT,A. J. Old English Riddles. Boston and London, 1912.



1913 HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Das altenglische Reimlied. In Festschrift fUr Lorenz Morsbach (Halle, 1913), pp. 190-200. Critical text, with German translation. Addenda on p. 722. 1913 KLAEBER,Fr. The Later Genesis and Other Old English and Old Saxon Texts Relating to the Fall of Man. Heidelberg, 1913. Christ 1379-1418a; Guthlac 819-871a, 9769900; Phoenix 393-423, 437b-442; Juliana 494b-505a. 1914 WILLIAMS,BLANCHEC. Gnomic Poetry in Anglo-Saxon. New York, 1914. Text of Maxims 1. 1915 DICKINS,BRUCE. Runic and Heroic Poems of the Old Teutonic Peoples. Cambridge, 1915. Deor, with prose translation. 1915 ZUPITZA,]., and J. SCHIPPER. Alt- und mittelenglisches Ubungsbuch, 11th ed., Wien and Leipzig, 1915. This first appeared as J. Zupitza, Altenglisches Ubungsbuch, Wien, 1874. Christ 164-213; Phoenix 1-27, 78-89, 182264, 320-380, 583-677; Juliana 569-731; Riddle 15. 1915 SIEPER,ERNST. Die altenglische Elegie. Strassburg, 1915. Wanderer, Seafarer, Riming Poem, Door, Wulf and Eadwacer, Wife's Lament, Resignation, Husband's Message, Ruin, with German translations. 1915 TRAUTMANN, MORITZ. Die altenglischen Ratsel (die Ratsel des Exeterbuchs) herausgegeben, erlautert und mit Werterverzeichnis versehen. Heidelberg, 1915. 1919 COOK,ALBERTS. The Old English Elene, Phoenix, and Physiologus. New Haven, 1919. Phoenix, Panther, Whale, Partridge. 1919 SCHtTcKlNG,LEVIN L. Kleines angelsachsisches Dichterbuch. Texte und Textproben, mit kurzer Einleitung und ausftihrlichem Wdrterbuch. Cothen, 1919. Wanderer; Seafarer; Riming Poem; Deor; Wulf and Eadwacer; Wife's Lament; Resignation 78b-118; Husband's Message; Ruin. 1919 WYATT,ALFREDJ. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. Cambridge, 1919. Guthlac 1305-1378a; Phoenix 1-59; Juliana 695b731; Wanderer; Maxims I, 50-99, 118b-131; Deor; Husband's Message 8b-29, 43b-53; Riddles 9, 10, 16, 21, 27; Riddle 40, ll. 42-85; Riddles 47,57,60. 1920 IMELMANN, RUDOLF. See under V. 1921 COOK,ALBERTS. The Old English Physiologus. Text and Prose Translation. Verse Translation by James Hall Pitman. New Haven, 1919. Panther, Whale, Partridge, with translations.



KERSHAW,N. Anglo-Saxon and Norse Poems. Cambridge, 1922. Wanderer; Seafarer; Wife's Lament; Husband's Message; Ruin. 1922 KLAEBER,FR. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, Edited with Introduction, Bibliography, Notes, Glossary, and Appendices. Boston, 1922 (with supplement, 1928). Widsith (with excisions); Deor. 1922 MACKIE,W. S. The Old English Rhymed Poem. Journal of English and Germanic Philology XXI, 507-519. Text of Riming Poem, with translation. 1922 SEDGEFIELD, W. J. An Anglo-Saxon Verse Book. Manchester, 1922. Christ 214-274, 779-814; Wanderer; Gifts of Men; Precepts; Seafarer; Vainglory 1-50a; Widsith; Fortunes of Men; Riming Poem 1-42; Deor; Wulf and Eadwacer; Wife's Lament; Husband's Message; Riddles I, 3,


12, 15, 22, 32, 35, 39, 55, 60.

CRAIGIE, W. A. Specimens of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. I. Biblical and Classical Themes. Edinburgh, 1923. Guthlac 819-859; Pharaoh. 1926 CRAIGIE,W. A. Specimens of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. II. Early Christian Lore and Legend. Edinburgh, 1926. Christ 460b-557; Guthlac 93-183, 215-261, 393b-445, 530-


591,623-636,663-702, 722-759, 894-945a, 999b-l059, 1269b1378a; Juliana 1-:-116,158-188,225-257, 563b-606, 635-695a. 1926 1927 1929



WYATT,A. J. The Threshold of Anglo-Saxon. New York, 1926. Seafarer 1-22; Riddle 7. TURK, MILTONH. An Anglo-Saxon Reader. New York, 1927. Wanderer. KRAPP,GEORGEP., and ARTHURG. KENNEDY. An AngloSaxon Reader. New York, 1929. Christ 214-274, 9411006; Wanderer; Whale; Deor; Riddles 5, 7, 47. FLOM,GEORGET. Introductory Old English Grammar and Reader. Boston, 1930. Wanderer; Seafarer 39-57; Widsith 1-56; Riddles 7, 29. CRAIGIE,W. A. Specimens of Anglo-Saxon Poetry. III. Germanic Legend and Anglo-Saxon History and Life. Edinburgh, 1931. Christ 789b-810a; Juliana 695b-712a; Wanderer; Gifts of Men; Precepts; Seafarer; Vainglory; Widsith; Fortunes of Men; Maxims I; Riming Poem; Deor; Wulf and Eadwacer; Wife's Lament; Husband's Message; Ruin.

xcvi 1931


1933 1933

BIBLIOGRAPHY HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Das altenglische Reimlied. Englische Studien LXV, 181-189. Critical text, with German translation. THOMPSON, BERTHA. The Old English Poem of St. Guthlac. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis in the University Library, Leeds, England. 1931. MALONE,KEMP. Deor. London, 1933. SMITH,A. H. Three Northumbrian Poems, Credmon's Hymn, Bede's Death Song and The Leiden Riddle. London, 1933. Text of Riddle 35.

IV. 1826 1838 1840 1840 1842 1844

1847 1854

1855 1857 18571859

1865 1865 1872


CONYBEARE, JOHNJ. See under III. LEO, HEINRICH. See under III. GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. See under III. KEMBLE,JOHNM. See under V. THORPE,BENJAMIN. See under II. STEPHENS,GEORGE. The King of Birds; or, the Lay of the Phoenix: an Anglo-Saxon Song of the Tenth or Eleventh Century. Now First Translated into the Metre and Alliteration of the Original. Archaeologia XXX, 256-322. Translation of Phoenix, on the basis of Grundtvig's text; with textual notes, and a partial glossary for the AngloSaxon text. SCHALDEMOSE, F. See under III. GREIN, C W. M. Der Vogel Phenix, ein angelsachsisches Gedicht, stabreimend ubersetst. Rinteln, 1854. German translation of Phoenix, quite different from the version in his Dichtungen der Angelsachsen. THORPE,BENJAMIN. See under III. LEO, HEINRICH. See under V. GREIN,C. W. M. Dichtungen der Angelsachsen stabreimend ubersetzt. 2 vols. Gottingen, 1857-1859. Vol. I contains German translations of Christ, Phoenix, Panther, Whale, Descent into Hell. Vol. II contains German translations of Guthlac, Juliana, Wanderer, Seafarer, Vainglory, Fortunes of Men, Soul and Body II, Wife's Lament, Judgment Day, Husband's Message, Riddles. GREIN,C. W. M. See under V. LEO, HEINRICH. See under III. EARLE,JOHN. See under V.



1880 KORNER,KARL. See under III. 1884. EARLE,J. See under III. 1889 GUMMERE,FRANCISB. Widsi15. Modern Language Notes IV, 418-423. Translation of Widsith, in imitation of Anglo-Saxon verse. 1890 BROWN,ANNAR. The Happy Land. Cynewulf's Phoenix. Poet-lore II, 523-525. Verse translation of Phoenix 1-84. 1890 MERRY,G. R. The Seafarer. Translation from Old English. Academy XXXVII, 99. A very free verse translation of Seafarer 58-102. 1890 SIMS, W. R. The Wanderer. Modern Language Notes V, 402-404. Verse translation. 1892 GOLLANCZ, ISRAEL. See under III. 1892 SIMS,W. R. The Happy Land: from the Phoenix. Modern Language Notes VII, 11-13. Verse translation of Phoenix 1-84. 1895 GOLLANCZ, ISRAEL. See under II. 1898 STEINECK,H. Altenglische Dichtungen in wortgetreuer Ubersetzung. Leipzig, 1898. German translation of Widsith. 1900 BLACKBURN, F. A. See under III. 1900 WHITMAN,CHARLESH. The Christ of Cynewulf, a Poem in Three Parts, the Advent, the Ascension, and the Last Judgment. Boston, 1900. Prose translation of Christ. 1902 COOK,ALBERTS., and C. B. TINKER. Select Translations from Old English Poetry. Boston, 1902 (2d ed., 1926). Christ 104-129, 164-213, 659-685, 797-814, 850-866, 867955,972-1026, 1081-1133a, 1169-1176a, 1634-1664; Phoenix; Wanderer 1-110; Seafarer; Widsith; Maxims I, 71-77, 81-99; Deor; Wife's Lament; Husband's Message; Ruin; Riddles 1, 2,7,14,23,26,27,60,80. 1902 HALL, JOHN LESSLIE. Judith, Phoenix and Other AngloSaxon Poems. New York, 1902. Alliterative translation of Phoenix. 1905 MURCH, HERBERTS. Translation of Cynewulf's Juliana. Journal of English and Germanic Philology V, 303-319. Prose translation. 1906 KENNEDY,CHARLESW. The Legend of St. Juliana, Translated from the Latin of the Acta Sanctorum and the AngloSaxon of Cynewulf. Princeton, 1906. 1908 SCHLOTTEROSE, OTTO. See under III.



1909 COOK, ALBERT S. Cynewulf, Christ 930-940. Modern Language Notes XXIV, 167. Verse translation. 1909 GUMMERE, FRANCISB. The Oldest English Epic. New York, 1909. Translations of Widsith and Deor, in imitation of Anglo-Saxon verse. 1910 KENNEDY,CHARLESW. The Poems of Cynewulf Translated into English Prose. London and New York, 1910. Christ, Guthlac, Phoenix, Juliana. 1912 CHAMBERS, R. W. See under III. 1913 HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.See under III. 1915 DICKINS,BRUCE. See under III. 1915 OLIVERO,FEDERICO. Traduzioni dalla poesia anglo-sassone, con introduzione e note. Bari, 1915. Italian translations of Christ 867-920, 930-940, 956-1006, 1081-1102; Phoenix 85-152, 182-219a, 240b-264, 291-319; Wanderer; Seafarer; Widsith; Wife's Lament; Ruin. 1915 SIEPER,ERNST. See under III. 1918 FAUST,COSETTE,and STITHTHOMPSON.Old English Poems, Translated into the Original Meter. Chicago, 1918. Christ 1-17, 50-70, 164-213, 779-831; Phoenix; Wanderer; Seafarer 1-64a; Widsith; Fortunes of Men; Maxims I, 71106; Deor; Wife's Lament; Husband's Message; Ruin; Riddles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15,23,26,45,47,60. 1921 COOK,ALBERTS. See under III. 1921 SPAETH, J. DUNCAN. Old English Poetry. Translations into Alliterative Verse, with Introductions and Notes. Princeton,1921. Christ 348-377, 850-909, 972-1006; Guthlac 894-923a, 932b-940a, 954b-975, 999b-l038a, 1047b1054a, 1060-1117, 1141b-1250, 1269b-1379; Phoenix 1-264, 570-677; Wanderer 1-63, 73-110; Seafarer 1-66; Widsith 1-9,88-111,127-143; Fortunes of Men 1-50,64-98; Maxims I, 54-56, 93-106, 146-151, 165-175a, 184-186; Husband's Message 1-47; Riddles 5, 7, 10, 16,21,27,47, 57. 1922 KERSHAW,N. See under III. 1922 MACKIE,W. S. See under III. 1926 POUND, EZRA. The Seafarer, from the Anglo-Saxon. In Persona (New York, 1926), pp. 64-66. 1927 GORDON,ROBERT K. Anglo-Saxon Poetry. London and Toronto, 1926. Christ, Guthlac, Phoenix, Juliana, Wanderer, Gifts of Men, Seafarer, Widsith, Fortunes of Men, Maxims I, Panther, Whale, Soul and Body II, Deor, Wulf


BIBLIOGRAPHY and Eadwacer, Wife's Lament, Riddles 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11,14,


Message, Ruin,

15, 16, 17,20,21,22,23, 24,26,27,28,29,32,33,34,35,37,38,40,43,47,48,50, 51,52,53,56,60,66,77,80,81,85,86,91. 1931 HOLTHAUSEN,FERDINAND. See under III. 1934 BONE, GAVIN. The Seafarer. Medium "£vum III, 1-6. A very free translation, intended mood found in the poem. 1934 MACKIE, W. S. See under II.


to bring out the variety



1840 KEMBLE, JOHN M. On Anglo-Saxon Runes. Archaeologia XXVIII, 327-372. Text of Christ 795-808a; Juliana 697712a; Riddles 19, 75, 76, with translations. Cynevulfs Christ. Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum IX, 193-214. Discussion of structure and authorship. 1857 LEO, HEINRICH. Qure de se ipso Cynevulfus (sive Cenevulfus sive Coenevulfus) poeta Anglosaxonicus tradiderit. Halle, 1857. Text of Christ 795-813a; Juliana 695b-712a; Wulf and Eadwacer, with German translations. 1858 MULLENHOFF, KARL. Zur Kritik des angelsachsischen Volksepos. Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum XI, 272-294. Discussion of Deor, Widsith. 1859 DIETRICH, F. Die Rathsel des Exeterbuchs. Wurdigung, Losung und Herstellung. Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum


XI, 448-490. 1860 DIETRICH, F. Kynewulfi poetre retas, senigmatum fragmento . e codice Lugdunensi edito illustrata. Marburg, 1860. 1861 MULLER, EDUARD. Die Ratsel des Exeterbuches. (Programm der herzoglichen Hauptschule

zu Cothen.)


1861. 1861 MULLER, EDUARD. Zwei angelsachsische Gedichte. Archiv XXIX, 205-220. 1865 DIETRICH, F. Die Rathsel des Exeterbuchs. Verfasser. Weitere Losungen,

Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum


232-252. 1865 GREIN, C. W. M. Kleine Mittheilungen. Germania X, 305310. Latin translation of Riming Poem; notes on Riddles. 1865 GREIN, C. W. M. Zur Textkritik der angelsachsischen Dichter. Germania X, 416-429.



1869 RIEGER,M. Vber Cynevulf. Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie 1,215-226,313-334. Discussion of the rune passages, pp.219-226. 1869 RmGER, M. Seefahrer als Dialog hergestellt. Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie I, 334-339. Text of Seafarer, arranged as a dialogue. 1871 EARLE,JOHN. An Ancient Saxon Poem of a City in Ruins Supposed To Be Bath. In Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club, II (1870--73),pp. 259270. With text and literal translation. 1878 WULCKER, RICHARDP. Uber den Dichter Cynewulf. Anglia 1,483-507. 1879 CHARITIUS, FRANZ. Uber die angelsachsischen Gedichte vom hI. Guthlac. Anglia II, 265-308. 1880 GAEBLER,HERMANN. Ueber die Autorschaft des angelsachsischen Gedichtes vom Phoenix. Anglia III, 488-526. Also separately, HaIle, 1880. 1881 COSIIN,P. J. Anglosaxonica. Tijdschrift floor Nederlandsche Taal- en Letterkunde I, 143-150. Textual notes. 1883 EBERT, A. Der angeIsachsische Physiologus. Anglia VI, 241-247. 1883 JANSEN, GOTTFRIED.Beitrage zur Synonymik und Poetik der allgemein als acht anerkannten Dichtungen Cynewulfs. Munster, 1883. 1883 KLUGE, FRIEDRICH. Zu altenglischen Dichtungen. 1. Der Seefahrer. Englische Studien VI, 322-327. 1883 LEFEVRE,P. Das altenglische Gedicht vom heiligen Guthlac. Anglia VI, 181-240. Discusses unity and authorship of the poem. 1883 MOLLER,HERMANN. Das aItengIische Volksepos in der urspriinglichen strophischen Form. KieI, 1883. A reconstruction of the supposed original strophic form of Widsith. 1883 TRAUTMANN, MORITZ. Cynewulf und die Ratsel, Anglia VI, Anzeiger, pp. 158-169. 1884 HOLTBUER,FR. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Genitives in Andreas, Gu~lac, Phonix, dem heiligen Kreuz und der HOIlenfahrt. Anglia VIII, 1-40. Also separately, Halle, 1884. 1884 PREHN,AUGUST. Komposition und Quellen der Ratsel des Exeterbuches. Korting's Neuphilologische Studien, No.3, pp. 143-285. 1884 TRAUTMANN, MORITZ. Zum 89. Ratsel, Anglia VII, An-


1885 1885


1885 1886 1886


1886 1887

1887 1887





zeiger, pp. 210-211. Solution of Riddle 95, and textual note. KIRKLAND,JAMES H. A Study of the Anglo-Saxon Poem, the Harrowing of Hell. Halle, 1885. KLUGE, FRIEDRICH. Zu altenglischen Dichtungen. 2. Nochmals der Seefahrer. 3. Zum Phenix, Englische St'!ldien VIII, 472-479. Parallels for Seafarer, Phoenix. ROSSGER,R. Uber den syntaktischen Gebrauch des Genitivs in Cynewulfs Crist, Elene und Juliana. Anglia VIII, 338370. Also separately, Halle, 1885. SIEVERS, EDUARD. Zur Rhythmik des germanischen Alliterationsverses. II. Beitriige X, 451-545. Textual notes. CONRADI, BRUNO. Darstellung der Syntax in Cynewulf's Gedicht Juliana. Halle, 1886. HONNCHER, E. Zur Dialogeinteilung im Seefahrer (A) und zur zweiten homiletischen Partie (B) dieses Gedichtes. Anglia IX, 435-446. Discusses the dialogue division and the unity of the poem. KmKLAND, J. H. A Passage in the Anglo-Saxon Poem The Ruin Critically Discussed. American Journal of Philology VII, 367-369. Note on Ruin 30. SIEVERS,EDUARD. Zum angelsachslschen Reimlied. Beitrage XI, 345-354. Textual notes. FRUCHT, PHILIPP. Metrisches und Sprachliches zu Cynewulfs Elene, Juliana und Crist auf Grund der von Sievers Beitr. X 209-314. 451-545 und von Luick Beitr. XI 470492 veroffentlichten Aufsatze. Greifswald, 1887. SIEVERS, EDUARD. ZUJ; Rhythmik des germanischen Alliterationsverses. III. Beitrage XII, 454-482. Textual notes. STROBL,JOSEPH. Zur Spruchdichtung bei den Angelsachsen. Zeilschrift fur deutsches Altertum XXXI, 54-64. Discussion of Maxims I. BRADLEY,HENRY. [Review of Morley, English Writers, Vol. II.] Academy XXXIII, 197-198. The first identification of Wulf and Eadwacer as a "fragment of a dramatic soliloquy," rather than a riddle. CREMER, MATTHIAS. Metrische und sprachliche Untersuchung der altenglischen Gedichte Andreas, Gu'6lac, Phoenix (Elene, Juliana, Crist). Ein Beitrag zur Cynewulffrage, Bonn, 1888. A few textual notes. HICKETIER, F. Funf Ratsel des Exeterbuches. Anglia X,


1888 1888


1889 1889

BIBLIOGRAPHY 564-600. Also separately, Halle, 1888. Discusses Wulf and Eadwacer, and Riddles 19, 64, 90, and 95. LEIDING,HERMANN. Die Sprache der Cynewulfschen Dichtungen Crist, Juliana und Elene. Marburg, 1888. NUCK, R. Zu Trautmanns Deutung des ersten und neunundachtzigsten Ratsels. Anglia X, 390-394. Discusses Trautmann's solution of Riddle 95 in Anglia VI, Anzeiger, pp. 158fL, and Anglia VII, Anzeiger, pp. 210£. PROLLIUS,MAX. Ueber den syntactischen Gebrauch des Conjunctivs in lien Cynewulfschen Dichtungen Elene, Juliana und Crist. Marburg, 1888. COOK,ALBERTS. Cynewulf's Principal Source for the Third Part of Christ. Modern Language Notes IV, 341-352. FURKERT,MAX. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Verbums in dem angelsachsischen Gedichte vom heiligen Guthlac. Ein Beitrag zur angelsachsischen Grammatik. Leipzig, 1889.


GLODE,O. Cynewulfs Juliana und ihre Quelle. Anglia XI,


HICKETIER,F. Klage der Frau, Botschaft des Gemahls und Ruine. Anglia XI, 363-368. Suggests that the three poems may be riddles. HOFER, OSCAR. nber die Entstehung des angelsachsischen Gedichtes Daniel. Anglia XII, 158-204. "IV. Das Verhaltniss des Azarias zum Daniel," pp. 184-191. HOLTHAUSEN,FERDINAND. [Review of Kluge, Angelsachsisches Lesebuch.] Literaturblatt X, 445-449. Textual notes. BAUER, HERMANN. Ueber die Sprache und Mundart der altenglischen Dichtungen Andreas, Gutllac, Phenix, hl. Kreuz und Hollenfahrt Christi. Marburg, 1890. COSIIN, P. J. Cynewulf's Runenverzen. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeeling Letterkunde. 3. Reeks, 7. Deel, pp. 54-64. Interpretation of the rune passages. HERZFELD,GEORG. Die Rathsel des Exeterbuches und ihr Verfasser. Berlin, 1890. Textual notes, pp. 68-70. ROSE,ALFRED. Darstellung der Syntax in Cynewulfs Crist. Halle, 1890. BULBRING,KARLD. [Review of Herzfeld, Die Rathsel des Exeterbuches.] Literaturblatt XII, 155-158. Textual notes.






1890 1890 1891



1891 1892 1892 1892


1893 1893

1893 1894

1894 1894 1894


1894 1895


HERTEL, BRUNO. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Verbums in dem angelsachsischen Gedichte Crist. Ein Beitrag zur angelsachsischen Grammatik. Leipzig-Reudnitz, 1891. HOLTHAUSEN,FERDINAND. Zu alt- und mittelengl. Dichtungen. Anglia XIII, 357-362. Textual notes on Wanderer 31, Riddle 3, 3. SIEVERS,EDUARD. Zu Cynewulf. Anglia XIII, 1-25. With a discussion of the rune passages. COOK, ALBERT S. Recent Opinion concerning the Riddles of the Exeter Book. Modern Language Notes VII, 20-21. MATHER, FRANK J. The Cynewulf Question from a Metrical Point of View. Modern Language Notes VII, 193-213. PLANER, JOHANNES. Untersuchungen tiber den syntaktischen Gebrauch des Verbums in dem angelsachsischen Gedicht vom Phoenix. Leipzig, 1892. BRADLEY,HENRY. [Letter to the editor.] Anglia XV, 390. Note on Wulf and Eadwacer 16; he approves Holthausen's note, Anglia XV, 188. BRADLEY, HENRY. Two Corruptions in Old English MSS. Academy XLIII, 83. Note on Fortunes of Men 93. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND. Zu alt- und mittelenglischen Denkmalern. Anglia XV, 187-203. Textual notes on Wulf and Eadwacer. MULLER, HUGo. Uber die angelsachs ischen Versus gnomici. Jena, 1893. BRADSHAW, MARGARET R. The Versification of the Old English Poem Phoenix. American Journal of Philology XV, 454-468. COOK, ALBERT S. The Old English Whale. Modern Language Notes IX, 129-135. Sources and analogues. FERRELL, C. C. Old Germanic Life in the Anglo-Saxon Wanderer and Seafarer. Modern Language Notes IX, 402-407. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND. [Review of Grein-Wtilker, Vol. II, Part II.] Anglia, Beiblatt V, 193-198, 225-234. Textual notes. HOLTHAUSEN,FERDINAND. Beitrage zur Erklarung und Textkritik altenglischer Dichter. Indogermanische Forschungen IV, 379-388. TRAUTMANN, MORITZ. Die Auflosungen der altenglischen Ratsel, Anglia, Beiblatt V, 46-51. BLACKBURN,F. A. Note on the Phoenix, Verse 151. Modern Language Notes X, 259-260.

civ 1895 1895 1895 1896

1896 1896 1896

1896 1897 1897 1897 1897


1898 1898 1898



BIBLIOGRAPHY BRIGHT, JAMES W. Notes on Feder Larcwidas. Modern Language Notes X, 136-137. Textual notes on Precepts. COSIJN, P. J. Anglosaxonica. II. Beitrage XX, 98-116. Textual notes on Azarias. TRAUTMANN,MORITZ. Zu den altenglischen Ratseln. Anglia XVII, 396-400. Solution of Riddles 52, 57,90. COOK, ALBERT S. Bemerkungen zu Cynewulfs Crist. In Philologische Studien (Festgabe fUr Eduard Sievers), 1896, pp. 21-29. The sources of Christ I. COSIJN, P. J. Anglosaxonica. III. Bei/rage XXI, 8-26. Textual note on Phoenix 134 fl. FULTON, EDWARD. On the Authorship of the Anglo-Saxon Poem Phoenix. Modern Language Notes XI, 146-169. TRAUTMANN,MORITZ. Der sogenannte Crist. Anglia XVIII, 382-388. Disputes the unity of Christ; distinguishes three poems. WALZ, JOHN A. Notes on the Anglo-Saxon Riddles. Harvard Studies and Notes V, 261-268. BLACKBURN,F. A. Is the Christ of Cynewulf a Single Poem? Anglia XIX, 89-98. Argues against the unity of the poem. COOK, ALBERT S. Christ 77. Journal of Germanic Philology I, 247-248. Textual note. COOK,ALBERT S. Notes on the Old English Christ (320,952). Journal of Germanic Philology I, 334-337. SOKOLL,E. Zum angelsachsischen Physiologus. In XXVII. Jahresbericht der Statts-Oberrealschule in Marburg [Styria], 1897. BRIGHT, JAMES W. Cynewulf's Christ 495 and 528. Modern Language Notes XIII, 27. Source of the idea of the hrof on the Mount of Olives. BRIGHT, JAMES W. The Wanderer 78-84. Modern Language Notes XIII, 351-353. Interpretation and punctuation. COSIJN, P. J. Anglosaxonica. IV. Beitrage XXIII, 109-130. Textual notes. TRAUTMANN, MORITZ. Kynewulf der Bischof und Dichter. (Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik, Heft I.) Bonn, 1898. Discussion of the rune passages, pp. 43-70. BACKHAUS, OSKAR. Uber die Quelle der mittelenglischen Legende von der heiligen Juliana und ihr Verhaltnis zu Cynewulfs Juliana. Halle, 1899. COOK,ALBERT S. Phoenix 56. Modern Language Notes XIV, 450--451. Textual note.



1899 GARNETT, JAMESM. The Latin and the Anglo-Saxon Juliana. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America XIV,279-298. Discussion of the sources of Juliana. 1899 HART,J. M. Allotria. Modern Language Notes XIV, 316317. Note on Phoenix 56. 1899 HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.[Review of Grein-Wiilker, Vol. III, Part 1.] Anglia, Beiblatt IX, 353-358. 1899 SIMONS,RICHARD. Cynewulfs Wortschatz. (Bonner Beit· rage zur Anglistik, Heft III.) Bonn, 1899. 1899 TRAUTMANN, MORITZ. Zu Cynewulfs Runenstellen. Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik II, 118-120. Addenda to the discussion of the rune passages in his Kynewulf der Bischof und Dichter. 1900 COOK,ALBERTS. Christ 485-6. Modern Language Notes XV, 506-507. Note on source of Christ 485b-486a. 1900 HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.[Review of Cook, The Christ of Cynewulf.] Literaturblatt XXI, 369-373. Textual notes. 1900 MADERT,AUGUST. Die Sprache der altenglischen Ratsel des Exeterbuches und die Cynewulffrage. Marburg, 1900. 1900 MANN,MAXF. Zur Bibliographie des Physiologus. Anglia, Beiblatt X, 274-287. Bibliography for Phoenix, Panther, Whale, Partridge, pp. 281-283. Addenda in Anglia, Beiblatt XII, 13-23, and (by A. L. jellinek) in Anglia, Beiblatt XIII, 236-239. 1901 BOURAUEL, JOHANNES.Zur Quellen- und Verfasserfrage von Andreas Crist und Fata. Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik XI, 65-132. 1901 HOLTHAUSEN,FERDINAND.Zu alt- und mittelenglischen Dichtungen. XV. Anglia XXIV, 264-267. Textual notes on the Riddles. 1901 JACOBSEN, RUDOLF. Darstellung der syntaktischen Erscheinungen im angelsachsischen Gedichte vom Wanderer. Rostock, 1901. 1902 BOER,R. C. Wanderer und Seefahrer. Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie XXXV, 1-28. Discussion of structure; assumes three original poems. 1902 COOK,ALBERTS. A Remote Analogue to the Miracle Play. Journal of Germanic Philology IV, 421-451. Discussion of Christ 164ff.; cites similar dialogues in the homiletic writings of the Greek Fathers. 1902 FORSTMANN,H. Untersuchungen zur Guthlac-Legende.



1902 1902

1902 1902

1902 1903 1903 1903 1903


1904 1904 1904 1904 1905 1905

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bonner Beitrtig« zur Anglistik XII, 1-40. Relation of Guthlac to its source. HART, J. M. Allotria II. Modern Language Notes XVII, 461-463. Textual note on ord, Christ 768, Juliana 471, Riddle 60, 13. KLAEBER, Fr. [Review of Cook, The Christ of Cynewulf.] Journal of Germanic Philology IV, 101-112. Textual notes. LAWRENCE,W. W. The First Riddle of Cynewulf. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America XVII, 247-261. LAWRENCE, W. W. The Wanderer and the Seafarer. Journal of Germanic Philology IV, 460-480. STIEGER, FRIEDRICH. Untersuchungen tiber die Syntax in dem angelsachsischen Gedicht vom jungsten Gericht. Rostock, 1902. STRUNK, W., Jr. Notes on Cynewulf. Modern Language Notes XVII, 371-373. Textual notes on Christ 485,592. BRANDL, A. [Review of Cook, The Christ of Cynewulf.] Archiv CXI, 447-449. Discusses unity and authorship. ERLEMANN,EDMUND. Zu den altenglischen Ratseln. Archiv CXI, 49-63. Discussion of Riddles 1, 2, 3, 90. MAHN, ERICH. Darstellung der Syntax in dem sogenannten angelsachsischen Physiologus. Neubrandenburg, 1903. STRUNK, W., JR. Notes on the Shorter Old English Poems. Modern Language Notes XVIII, 72-73. Textual notes on Wanderer 77, Gifts of Men 93, Seafarer 69, Fortunes of Men 7-8, Order of the World 85. TUPPER, FREDERICK, JR. Originals and Analogues of the Exeter Book Riddles. Modern Language Notes XVIII, 97-106. AHRENS, JOACHIM. Darstellung der Syntax im angelsachsischen Gedicht Phenix, Rostock, 1904. HOLTHAUSEN,FERDINAND. Zum Schluss des altengl. Phenix, Archiv CXII, 132-133. Textual note on Phoenix 668. KLAEBER, FR. Gu?5lac 1252 ff. Anglia, Beiblatt XV, 345347. KLAEBER, FR. Emendations in Old English Poems. Modern Philology II, 141-146. ERLEMANN,FRITZ. Zum 90. angelsachsischen Ratsel, Archiv CXV, 391-392. Solution of Riddle 90. GRUTERS, OTTO. Uber einige Beziehungen zwischen alt-


1905 1905 1905




1905 1906


1906 1906 1906

1906 1906 1906


sachsischer und altenglischer Dichtung. Bonner Beitrage XVII, 1-50. Relation between Christ III and the Old Saxon Heliand and Genesis. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND. Zur altenglischen Literatur. Anglia, Beiblatt XVI, 227-231. Solution of Riddle 10. KLAEBER, FR. Cynewulf's Juliana, 1. 293 f. Anglia, Beiblatt XVI, 227. Textual note. LIEBERMANN, F. Das angelsachsische Ratsel 56: "Galgen" als Waffenstander. Archiv CXIV, 163-164. Solution of Riddle 55. PINGEL, LUDWIG. Untersuchungen tiber die syntaktischen Erscheinungen in dem angelsachsischen Gedicht von den Wundern der Schopfung, Ein Beitrag zu einer angelsachsischen Syntax. Rostock, 1905. SCHWARZ,FRANZ. Cynewulfs Anteil am Christ. Eine metrische Untersuchung. Konigsberg, 1905. Textual notes, pp. 91-105. TRAUTMANN,MORITZ. Die Auflosung des IHen (9ten) Ratsels. Bonner Beitrtige zur Anglistik XVII, 142. Solution of Riddle 10. TRAUTMANN,MORITZ. Alte und neue Antworten auf altenglische Ratsel. Bonner Beitriige zur Anglistik XIX, 167-215. ADAMS, ARTHUR. Christ (?) 1665-1693. Modern Language Notes XXI, 240. Parallels in phraseology between the disputed passage Guthlac 1-29 and the rest of Guthlac. BROWN, CARLETONF. The Autobiographical Element in the Cynewulfian Rune Passages. Englische Studien XXXVIII, 196-233 .. COOK, ALBERT S. Cynewulf, Christ 1320. Modern Language Notes XXI, 8. Source of the idea of synrust. KLAEBER, FR. Zu Deors Klage 15f. Anglia, Beiblatt XVII, 283-284. KLAEBER, FR. Wanderer 44; Ratsel XII 3f. Anglia, Beiblatt XVII, 300-301. Textual notes on Wanderer 44, Riddle 11, 3-5. LAWRENCE,W. W. Structure and Interpretation of Widsith. Modern Philology IV, 329-374. RIEGER, M. Zum Kampf in Finnsburg. Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum XLVIII, 9-12. Textual note on Deor 1. SARRAZIN, GREGOR. Zur Chronologie und Verfasserfrage angelsachsischer Dichtungen. Englische Studien XXXVIII, 145-195. "Kynewulf," pp. 145-158.



1906 SCHUCKING,L. L. Das angelsachsische Gedicht von der Klage der Frau. Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum XLVIII, 436-449. Textual and interpretative notes. 1906 TUPPER, FREDERICK,JR. Solutions of the Exeter Book Riddles. Modern Language Notes XXI, 97-105. 1907 BENHAM,ALLEN R. Christ 117 and 125b-127a. Journal of English and Germanic Philology VII, 110. Compares passages in the Ambrosian hymns. 1907 BINZ, GUSTAV. Untersuchungen zum altenglischen sogenannten Crist. In Festschrift zur 49ten Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmanner (Basel, 1907), pp. 181-197. Discusses unity and authorship. 1907 HEMINGWAY, SAMUELB. Cynewulf's Christ, 11. 173b-176a. Modern Language Notes XXII, 62-63. Note on the arrangement of the dialogue. 1907 HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Zur altenglischen Literatur. IV. Anglia, Beiblatt XVIII, 201-208. Textual notes. 1907 HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Zur Textkritik altenglischer Dichtungen. Englische Studien XXXVII, 198-211. 1907 HOLTHAUSEN,FERDINAND.[Review of Strunk, Juliana.] Literaturblatt XXVIII, 10-13. Textual notes. 1907 lMELMANN,RUDOLF. Die altenglische Odoaker-Dichtung. Berlin, 1907. Thinks that Wulf and Eadwacer, Wife's Lament, and Husband's Message deal with the Odoaker legend. 1907 BRADLEY,HENRY. [Review of Imelmann, Die altenglische Odoaker-Dichtung.] Modern Language Review II, 365368. Textual notes. 1907 KLAEBER,FR. Phoenix, 386. Journal of English and Germanic Philology VI, 198. Textual note. 1907 SHEARIN,HUBERTG. The Pheenix and the Guthlac. Modern Language Notes XXII, 263. Parallel passages. 1907 SONKE,EMMA. Zu dem 25. Ratsel des Exeterbuches. Englische Studien XXXVII, 313-318. Solution of Riddle 24. 1907 TRAUTMANN,MORITZ. Berichtigungen, Erklarungen und Vermutungen zu Cynewulfs Werken. Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik XXIII, 85-146. Textual notes on Christ II, Juliana; notes on the rune passages, pp. 137-139, 143-146. 1908 HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Zur altenglischen Literatur. V. Anglia, Beiblatt XIX, 49-53; VII. Anglia, Beiblatt XIX, 248-249. Textual notes. 1908 IMELMANN, RUDOLF. Wanderer und Seefahrer im Rahmen



1908 1908


1909 1909

1909 1909 1909 1910


1910 1910



der altenglischen Odoaker-Dichtung. Berlin, 1908. Adds Wanderer and Seafarer to the "Odoaker poems" already considered by him. JANSEN,KARL. Die Cynewulf-Forschung von ihren Anfangen bis zur Gegenwart. (Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik, Heft XXIV.) Bonn, 1908. Addenda to 1909 in Schmitz, Anglia, Beiblatt XXII (1911), 337-341. LAWRENCE, W. W. The Banished Wife's Lament. Modern Philology V, 387-405. VONDERWARTH,JOHANNJ. Metrisch-sprachliches und Textkritisches zu Cynewulfs Werken. Halle, 1908. Textual notes. EHRISMANN,G. Religionsgeschichtliche Beitrage zum germanischen Friihchristentum. II. Das Gedicht vom Seefahrer. Beitriige XXXV, 213-218. Discusses the "Gedankenkreisen" of the poem. GEROULD,GORDONH. Studies in the Christ. Englische Studien XLI, 1-19. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Zur altenglischen Literatur. VIII. Anglia, Beiblatt XX, 313-314. Textual notes on the Riming Poem. MAY,ALFREDA. A Source for Christ, 11.348-377. Modern Language Notes XXIV, 158-159. SCHLUTTER, OTTOB. Ae.Iewesa "inopia." Englische Studien XLI,328-331. Textual note on Maxims I, 38. STEFANOVIC, SVET. Das angelsachsische Gedicht Die Klage der Frau. Anglia XXXII, 399-433. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Zur altenglischen Literatur. IX. Anglia, Beiblatt XXI, 12-14; X. Anglia, Beiblatt XXI, 154-156; XI. Anglia, Beiblatt XXI, 174-176. Textual notes. HOLTHAUSEN, FERDINAND.Beitrage zur Textkritik altenglischer Dichtungen. Die Neueren Sprachen, 1910, Erganzungsband, pp. 127-128. KOPAS,WILHELM. Die Grundzuge der Satzverknupfung in Cynewulfs Schriften. Breslau, 1910. RICHTER, CARL. Chronologische Studien zur angelsachsischen Literatur auf Grund sprachlich-metrischer Kriterien. Halle, 1910. SCHLUTTER, OTTOB. Zu Anglia-Beiblatt XXI, nr. 5; s. 155-6. Anglia, Beiblatt XXI, 317-319. Textual note on Maxims 1,38.

ex 1910


1910 1910 1910 1910

1910 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1912

1912 1912 1912


BIBLIOGRAPHY SeHLUTTER, OTTO B. Afog "peruersus" im 24ten Ratsel, die Balliste bezeiehnend. Englische Studien XLI, 453-454. Notes on Riddles 21, 15; 23, 1. SCHMITZ, THEODOR. Die Seehstakter in der altenglischen Diehtung. Anglia XXXIII, 1-76, 172-218. With textual notes. SIEBS, THEODOR. Widsie hweorfan on honcred, pcnne halege menn gode lifgendum lofsong do?>, secan pa hamas pe pu me rer scrife, (70) ond ba arleasan eardungstowe, ond pe sculon moldwyrmas monige ceowan, seonowum beslitan swearte wihte, gifre ond gnedge. Ne sindon pine geahpe wiht, pa bu her on moldan monnum eawdest. (75) Forpon pe wrere selle swipe micle bonne pe weran ealle eorpan spede, (butan pu hy gedeelde dryhtne sylfum), prer pu wurde ret frumsceafte fugel oppe fisc on se, o?>?>e eorpan neat retes tiolode, (80) feldgongende feoh butan snyttro,

44 mel Originally mec, with e almost entirely erased 45 ned] ne 48 ancenda] a?eenda 54 pel Originally pee, but e erased 57 pel Originally pee, but e erased 67 pel Originally pee, but e erased










ge on westenne wildra deora (82) pret grimmeste, prer swa god wolde, (85) ge peah bu wrere wyrmeynna pret wyrreste, (84, 83a) bonne pu refre on moldan mon gewurde, (86) opbe refre fulwihte onfon seeolde. ponne pu for une bu ondwyrdan seealt on pam miclan drege, bonne eallum monnum beof wunde onwrigene, pa be in worulde rer (90) firenfulle menn fyrn geworhton, C50nnewile dryhten sylf dreda gehyran, (92) ret ealra monna gehwam mupes reorde (94) wunde wiperlean. Ae hwret wilt bu prer (95) on domdrege dryhtne seegan? ponne ne biC5nrenig to pres lytel lif on lime geweaxen, pret pu ne seyle for reghwylc aura onsundran ryht agieldan, C50nnerepe biC5 dryhten ret dome. Ae hwret do wit une, (00) bonne he une hafaC5geedbyrded opre sipe? Seulon wit bonne retsomne sippan bruean (101) swylcra yrmpa, swa pu une rer serife." Firenap pus pret flseschord, seeal bonne feran on weg, seean helle grund, nales heofondreamas, dredum gedrefed. LigeC5dust prer hit wres, (105) ne mreg him ondsware renige seegan, (106) ne prer edringe renge gehatan greste geomrum, geoee oppe frofre. (107) Bip pret heafod tohliden, honda tohleopode, geaflas toginene, goman toslitene, seonwe beof asogene, sweora bicowen; (110) rib reafiaf repe wyrmas, (112) drincaf hlopum hra, heolfres purstge, BiC5seo tunge totogen on tyn healfe (113) hungrum to hropor. Forpon heo ne mreg horscliee wordum wrixlan wiC5pone wergan grest. (115) Gifer hatte se wyrm, pam pa geaflas beoC5 nredle seearpran. Se genepeti to rerest ealra on pam eorC5serrefej he pa tungan totyhC5 ond ba topas burhsmyhti, (119)



115 ond to retwelan oprum gerymeb, ond pa eagan burhiteti ufon on pret heafod wyrmum to wiste, ponne bib peet werge lie acolad pret he longe rer werede mid wredum. Bi~ bonne wyrmes giefl, 120 ret on eorpan. ]Jret mreg reghwyleum men to gemyndum modsnotterra.

DEOR Welund him be wurman wrreces cunnade, anhydig eorl earfopa dreag, hrefde him to gesipbe sorge ond longap, wintercealde wreece: wean oft onfond, 5 sippan hine Nitihad on nede legde, swoncre seonobende on syllan monn. ]Jres ofere ode , pisses swa mreg! Beadohilde ne wres hyre bropra deal' on sefan swa sar swa hyre sylfre ping, 10 pret heo gearolice ongieten hrefde pret heo eacen wes; refre ne meahte priste gepencan, hu ymb pret sceolde. ]Jres ofere ode, pisses swa mreg! We pret Mre~hilde monge gefrugnon 15 wurdon grundlease Geates frige, pret hi seo sorglufu slrep ealle binom. ]Jres ofere ode , pisses swa mreg! Deodric ahte pritig wintra Mreringa burg; pret wres monegum cup. 20 ]Jres ofere ode , pisses swa mreg! We geascodan Eormanrices wylfenne gepoht; ahte wide fole 116 eagan] eaxan

(121) (120) (122)



]>ret wres grim cyning. sorgum gebunden, 25 wean on wenan, wyscte geneahhe pret pres cynerices ofere urn en were, ]>resofere ode, pisses swa meeg I

Set secg monig

Sitet5 sorgcearig, seelum bideled, on sefan sweorceb, sylfum pincet5 30 pret sy endeleas earfoba drel. Mreg ponne gepencan, pret geond pas woruld witig dryhten wendep geneahhe, eorle monegum are gesceawat5, wislicne bled, sumum weana deel, 35 ]>ret ic bi me sylfum secgan wille, pret ic hwile was Heodeninga scop, dryhtne dyre. Me wres Deor noma. Ahte ic fela wintra folgat5 tilne, holdne hlaford, oppret Heorrenda nu, 40 leot5crreftig monn londryht gepah, pret me eorla hleo eer gesealde. ]>resofere ode, pisses swa mreg!

WULF AND EADWACER Leodum is minum swylce him mon lac gife; willat5 hy hine apecgan, gif he on preat cymeti, Ungelic is us. Wulf is on iege, ic on operre. 5 Fsest is pret eglond, fenne biworpen. Sindon wrelreowe weras prer on ige; willat5 hy hine apecgan, gif he on preat cymet5. Ungelice is us. Wulfes ic mines widlastum wenum dogode; 10 ponne hit wes renig weder ond ic reotugu set, ponne mec se beaducafa bogum bilegde, 30 earfo~al earfoda





wres me wyn to pon, wres me hwrepre eae lainum serum onfeng, and he would place mines, 1. 1461a, at the end of 1. 1460, see Anglia Beib1. IX, 355. Cook places the half-line division of 1. 1460 after jJu, and also puts mines at the end of 1. 1460. Gollancz also divides the line after jJu, but puts mines in 1. 1461a. The order in the text seems natural,



or one may read in the second half-line pzt pu geszlig moste, to regularize the alliteration. 1464 mostes] Cook changes to moste, as in ll. 1402, 1426, 1460. So also Williams. 1470 lufan] Holthausen, Anglia Beibl. XVIII, 204, would supply deere after this word, to secure a more regular alliteration. 1482 firenlustas] Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 114, would readfirenlusta, dependent on synne as object of purh. But firenlustas and synne may be appositive objects. 1487 honda) Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, reads hen'tJa for the MS. honda. 1490 pe ... on] "On which."

1501-1600 1504-1506) "And deprived them of everything, in hardness of heart, the naked of covering, the foodless of sustenance." 1508 drynces] Appositive to useta«, and gedreahte appositive to werge, uonhale. 1537 synne ne aspringab] Gollancz translates, "nor from their sin escape," and so apparently Cook, who in his glossary translates aspringan as "escape from." But Klaeber, JEGPh. IV, 110, says synne is not dative, but nominative plural. 1539 synwracu] The first element is probably sin-, "everlasting;" see I. 1542. 1542 sinnehte) For slnnihte, and so altered by Thorpe and Grein, here and in I. 1631. 1546 egsan) Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, would read eglan, an adjective. Cook takes egsan as a genitive singular noun, dependent on [orste, 1548 scendeb] Grein suggested see'tJ'tJe'tJ,and 50 Cook in his text. 1562 fyres] Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 114, would read fyrena, and Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, proposes feres =- fiires. 1565 feores] Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, would read ferh'tJes. firena) For this word Thorpe, note, read fira, "children of men." Gollancz translates, "sons of men," but does not emend his text. 1566 tearum] Thorpe suggested tearas, and so Cook in his text; see I. 172. But Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, defends the MS. tearum, citing a similar construction in Old Norse. See also Beow. 2312, gledum spiwan. 1579 leoht] Grein and Cook alter leokt to lie, Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, to leopu, 1580 somodfrest] Thorpe suggested -feste, and so Cook in his text. Cook also emends seon = sien to the latter form. 1582 weer] So Grein, Germania X, 420, followed by Gollancz, Assmann, and Cook. 1583) Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, assumes the loss of a full line after uoruld, Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 114, remarks that as leoht = woruld, so here woruld = leoht, hence seinan in I. 1584. 1592 weorbeb] Cook, Williams read weorpa'tJ. 1595 lrete~] Thorpe, Gollancz read lzta'tJ with the MS., but Gollancz translates as a singular. 1599 pas] Kock, JJJ., p. 12, would readpzs, construing it with gimanj see I. 1568b. The construction continues then with hwzt, I. 1601. 1600 fremmab] Supplied by Grein and Cook. The other edd. supply nothing, but place hwzt, I. 1601, at the end of I. 1600, a reading which is improbable syntactically and metrically. As Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 114, points out, hwzt goes in I. 1601 and introduces a dependent indirect question, while man, "evil," requires a verb of which it would be the object.



1601-1664 1602 lif) Schubert, De Anglosaxonum arte metrica, p, 56, would read lig, and so Holthausen, Anglia Beib1. IX, 355. 1606 synna to wrace) Thorpe suggested usace for the MS. ioracu, and Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 114, would read synna to urace. Cook in his text follows Cosijn. See 11.1601, 1622. Gollancz retains synna uracu, but translates, "as a penalty for their sins." 1614 in forwyrd) Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, would read to forwyrde. 1625 here) Cook alters to herges, and Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, suggests gryres, syntactically parallel to [yres. But here may be object of biluce'O, 1. 1623, as translated by Gollancz, "shall lock up hell, that greatest of the homes of torment, full of fire, and the host of fiends therein." 1631 sinnehte) See 1. 1542, note. 1633 forhogdun) Suggested by Grein, and so later edd. 1648 weorud) Cook reads ueoruda, rejected by Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, on metrical grounds. 1652 endedeabe] Schubert, De Anglosaxonum arte metrica, p, 49, and Sievers, Beitr. XII, 477, would omit ende- to shorten the line metrically, and so Cook in his text. Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 114, would read either ende or dea'Oealone. He suggests also endediEge for endedea'Oe, but rejects it as metrically irregular. 1656 domeadigra) Grein and Cook read as two words, with dom appositive in syntax to hiElu, rest, deg, etc. Cook, p. 224, suggests domeadgum, parallel to ryhtfremmendum, 1. 1655, but Holthausen, Literaturblatt XXI, 372, rejects this reading as unmetrica1. For dom Holthausen would read dream, as an independent noun. But the reading of the MS. is as plausible as any of these suggestions.

NOTES ON GUTHLAC 1-100 Guthlac) For a discussion of the literary problems connected with this poem, see Introd., p, xxx. 9 tidfara) This compound is not elsewhere recorded, but see merefara, "seafarer," Beow. 502, and nydfara, "one compelled to journey," Ex. 208. Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 115, suggests ti'Oa faran, or preferably ti'Oa fare, with fare as the genitive of the noun after ti'Oa. For ti'Oe, ti'Oa with beon or weor'Oan in the sense "to have granted the request for something," see Bos.-Tol., p. 989. But it is not difficult to find in the compound tidfara an appropriate meaning for this passage. Gollancz translates, "thou art now a traveller unto that holy home." 11 edergong) Bradley, MLRev. XI, 212, proposes eargung for the MS. edergong, translating, "failing of heart for afflictions." But edergong, as defined by Bos.To1., p, 239, "a home-seeking, desiderium domus," gives a good meaning here. Translate, "There regret never comes, a home-seeking on account of afflictions." Grein-Kohler, p. 163, glosses the word under eodorgang, edorgang, and compares D.N. husgangr, "mendicatio." 17 ealra) The edd. place this word at the end of 1. 16b, but Sievers, Beitr. X, 479, as in the



text. 20 lenge hu sell The earlier edd. read hu sel as one word, husel, and Grein took lenge as an adjective = gelenge, "ready, attainable." The proper word-division, lenge hu sel, "the longer the better," was proposed by Cosijn, Tijdschrift I, 150, and so Gollancz. See 1. 138, lenge hu geomor, 26 hwider) The edd. take kwider as an interrogative, placing a question mark after cuman, 1.29. But hwide, is better taken as a relative, "to which." 30 Monge sindon) For a similar opening formula, see Panther If. 31 hadas] See 1. 60. Perhaps the reference is definitely to religious orders. 48 he) Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 115, notes that he = heo, the antecedent being worulde. 51 he] In anticipation of Dryhte«, 1. 54. 55 healden) The form healda'tJ would be more usual here, but healde« by attraction to ea,dienf Or see stonde, Rid. 70, 5. 57 woruldryhte) Grein suggested wo,uld-d,yhte. 63 se] Thorpe suggested hi gekwyleum sceolon, the plural forms to agree with him, 1. 62, and Sume, 1. 60. Klipstein placed a semicolon after kyhst, 1. 63a, and read bo gekwyleum sceolon in 1. 63b. But the antecedent of se may be eor'tJwela. 67 e15el)So Grein and later edd., for the MS. ele'tJ. Thorpe suggested h:rle'tJ, and so Klipstein. 69 ham) Klipstein, kames, 71 bimutad) Thorpe suggested bimi'tJen for the MS. bimuta'tJ, and Klipstein read bemi'tJne in his text. 92 alege15]Thorpe suggested aleoge'tJ, which would produce a rime with ad,eoge'tJ. But alege'tJ is from aleegan, and Gollancz translates, "who ne'er withholdeth their pay."

101-200 110 frecnessa fela) "Many vicious courses," Gollancz. See 11. 128-132. 123 dreamas] Thorpe suggested dreames. But dreamas is object of gesitta'tJ. 136 sip pam) "After that." The MS. has sip pam, and perhaps this is the ordinary adverb sippan, with m miswritten for n, as often in this MS. Grein reads si'tJ'tJan, but in Germania X, 423, si'tJ pam. Assmann reads sip pam, Thorpe and Gollancz sippam. 156 hine] Supplied by Grein and later edd., except Craigie. Thorpe suggested the addition of hine after be, 1. 155a. 169 began] Variant of bemuan, "serve," Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116. Kock, JJJ., p. 40, translates pegan efter ponce, "to reap thanks," citing Gen. 282, 'tJwwian ;efter hyldo, and Gen. 2284, d,eogan efte« duge'tJum. For ;efter ponce Thorpe had suggested efbonce, "jealously." 178] The older edd. placed w;epnum at the end of 1. 177b, followed by wong bletsade in 1. 178a. For 1. 178b, Grein supplied jc he ualdendes beacen; Cremer, Metrische und sprachliche Untersuchung, p. 50, sy'tJ'tJan he wuldres beam; Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116, waldendes taen. There is no break in the MS., but something seems to have been lost here. The arrangement in the text follows Holthausen, Anglia Beib1. IX, 355, and Trautmann, Anglia Beib1. V, 174. To complete 1. 178a, Holthausen reads w;epnum [Gu'tJlac), Trautmann w;epnum [ond wordum), in both cases with a comma at the end of 1. 178a. 181-184) Kock, JJJ., p. 40, takes 11.181b-182a as parenthetic. He also reads gu'tJlaees, "of warfare," instead of Gu'tJlace. He translates,



"there the champion overcame a deal of dangers-valorous were many among God's sufferers-we of this warfare ascribe a glorious portion to the Lord, for it was He that gave him victory." In order to retain both Gu'tJlace and dryhtne as datives, Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116, supplies eac before dryhtne, "nachst gott." Holthausen, Anglia Beibl. IX, 356, rejects Cosijn's reading in 1. 183b as metrically incorrect. Kock's suggestion of a genitive instead of Gu'tJlace seems the best way out of the difficulty, though it seems unnecessary to read gu'tJlaces, a common noun, as a pun on the hero's name. Gollancz translates "wherefore we ascribe Guthlac's dearworth lot unto the Lord," yet reads Gu'tJlace in his text. 187 refeste] Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116, reads ;ef;estne.

201-300 213 rynepragum] Kock, JJJ., p. 41, translates ll. 212-213, "when from wanderings and races they, weary, came to rest." 217 bissece] "The approach," genitive object of bad. Klaeber, Modem Philology II, 143, suggests bisete, "awaited a better keeper's taking possession of it." 233 hy] Grein read hym. 235 deapa gedal] Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116, would read dea'tJgedal, citing 1. 963. 268 gelimpe] A noun, "prosperity," Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116. 272 ~e eart] Thorpe suggested eart 'tJu for the MS. eart 'l5e, and Gollancz translates, "thou art God's starveling," though he retains 'tJe in his text. Perhaps 'tJe might be retained as a reflexive, but it seems more probable that a relative has simply been misplaced. Or read 'tJean for 'tJe, as in 1. 273? 288 tergati] Thorpe suggested tera'tJ, but see tyrgan, Grein-Kehler, p, 692. 299 abanne] So Grein and Gollancz. Assmann reads abonne. 300 widor seece]Thorpe suggested wi'tJersace, see E1. 569. Grein read wi'tJors;ece, but in Germania X, 423, he reverted to the MS. reading, and so Sievers, Beitr. X, 453, and Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116, who cites fear, Beow. 1340. Gollancz makes a compound uiidorsece, but translates, "make your warfare even more extended."

301-400 308 earda] "Many dwelling places"-presumably other than the one he has chosen. Grein suggested earfe'tJa, and Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116, approves, or as an alternative, Cosijn would read earm'tJa, citing 1. 447. 316 longepas] See 1. 330. 317 sealdun] For selden, as Grein suggested. Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116, says the word here means "never." 342 eereste] For eriste. Gollancz translates ereste elne, "his power of rising." 351 weredon] For wearedon, waredon, Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 116. 365 lete] Grein suggested lete. 368] A folio is missing from the MS. at this point, between folios 37 and 38; see Introd., p, xii, 370 wundre] Thorpe suggested wuldre. 372 gedrelan] To be construed with wi'tJ, 1. 371, "part from,"



Cosijn, Beitr, XXIII, 116. The body cannot separate from pas laman gesceaft because it is a part of it. For dea'6, Thorpe suggested dea'6e. 377 forsrecen] For [orsecen, see bisece = bisece, 1. 217. 384] For meodumre Thorpe, note, read meodumra; Grein emended mara to mare. The other edd. do not attempt to reconcile the inconsistency in gender. For hit men, Thorpe suggested hine man, retaining the MS. buge. Reading duge with Grein, Gollancz, and Assmann, hit is the subject and men is dative singular. 387 mare] Grein suggested ma ne for mare. 388b] "Than a sufficiency for himself alone," Gollancz. 391 wo15oper] All edd. read wo'6 for the MS. so'6. Thorpe read oberne at the end of 1.391b, but Grein and later edd. place ne as a negative at the beginning of 1. 392. So also Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 117. Sievers, Beitr. X, 517, objected to this arrangement on metrical grounds. To complete 1. 391b metrically, Gollancz adds ber after ope«. Gollancz translates, "a second cry, no feeble one, resounded." 397 jlrer se] Thorpe notes a suggestion by Kemble, para be. 398 beara] For para. 400ft.] Grein, Assmann treat 1. 400b as a question, but place se, as an article, at the beginning of 1.401a, and supply he at the end of 1.400b, thus: Hwylc WiESmara ponne he? II se an oretta, etc. Gol1ancz ends 1. 400b with ponne, with no punctuation following, and places se in 1. 401a, emending gecy'6e'6, 1. 402a, to gecy'6ed (Kemble's suggestion, see Thorpe, p. 504). So also Holthausen, Anglia Beib1. IX, 356, except ma for mara, 1.400b, for metrical reasons. But an article is not necessary at the beginning of 1. 401a, and se an oretta gives a half-line which is metrically somewhat unusual. The word se is best taken as a pronoun, at the end of 1.400b.

401-500 402 jlret] Kemble suggested piES for bet, see Thorpe, p. 504. 411 ond jlret fri?i] Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 117, would read ac PiEt fer'6, and would inclose 11.409b-410 within parentheses. 417 brucan] A preterite plural, according to Grein, Germania X, 424. 421 No jlrer] For the MS. no per, Grein suggested no'6er = now'6er, nahwiE'6er. 458 myrcelse] The tonsure, "by which (pe = jJy) the hand of man has changed thee from the beauty of thy appearance," i.e, has shorn him of the glory of his locks. See Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 117. The thought is continued in 11.460ff. Gollancz omits bee, 1. 458b, and translates unintelligibly, "because of the sign, which warded the hand of man from off thy noble face." 475 ealdfeonda] Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 117, would addfela after ealdfeonda. 481 be] Grein suggested he for be, 488 Setton] Thorpe suggested sedon. 490 refteryld] Thorpe translated, "The young generations may not at the first bear fruit." Grein, Dicht. II, 80, translated, "sie konnen nach des Alters Weise in ihrer ersten Blute sich nicht gebahren." Gollancz translates, "they may not show maturity in their first bloom." Grein's translation follows his text, which has ;efter yld as two words (or he suggests ylde), but in Germania X, 424, Grein reads iEfteryld.



501-600 S04 geoguSe gea~] "Youth's levity," Gollancz. 510 gestalum] See stalgongum, 1. 1140. 511] The MS. reads me bonne sende't5 se [end of the MS. line] us ic semon meg, Thorpe suggested usic, or us is, and se monwzg = lifweg, and he translated, "but me sendeth he who's to us man's way." Grein supplied mund before sende't5, and for the second half-line read se us is se monweg, but in Germania X, 424, he changed mund to sige, and in 1. 511b read se usic stnio« meg, translating, Dieht. II, 80, "der uns segnen kann." Assmann reads me jJonne sende't5se usic se mon wzg, with the second se = swa, and with wzg for the MS. meg, So also Gollancz, who translates, "then He sendeth me, He who for our sakes moved as man." Holthausen, Anglia Beib1. IX, 356, reads se usic stmc« meg, with seman meaning "reconcile, bring to peace." Similar is the suggestion made by Kock, JJJ., p. 42, who would read se usic sem on useg, "who over us brought peace," with sem as a noun, = gesem. Kock remarks that his reading does not involve anyalteration of the MS.; but the MS. has mzg, not weg, Holthausen's reading seems the best way out of the difficulty. For the spelling semon = seman, see teton, ll. 520, 948, bregdon, 1. 676, ledon, 1. 721, ongyldon, 1. 861. These infinitives in -on, which seem to be a characteristic of Guthlac, are retained in the text. 533 ~one foregengan] "Him as an advance-guard," Gollancz. 541] Thorpe supposed no loss here, and placed uiel at the beginning of 1. 542, translating, "He the pain despis'd of the soul ever, while in the Protector, who held him in his care, that doubted not faith in his breast," which is hardly intelligible. Grein supplied on frea« fultum Ifor't5 getreowde after 1. 541. Gollancz and Assmann suppose the loss of a line here, but supply nothing. 599 ombiehthera] "Obedient servant," amplified in I. 6OOa.

601-700 614 deate] Grein suggested dead«. Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 117, proposed on before dea't5e,or as an alternative dea't5, accusative. But dea't5e may be construed as an instrumental. 617 habban] Cosijn, Beitr, XXIII, 118, would read hebban. 620 lufian] Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 118, reads lofian, as a synonym of ueorbion, 1. 619. 624 bisencte] Suggested by Grein, and so Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 118, who cites 1. 666 and Christ 1168. The MS. biscencte would involve a rather violent metaphor, "with flame for drink," Thorpe; "with flame proffered for drink," Gollancz. 650 mine my~ran] "My murderers," Gollancz. Grein, Germania X, 424, suggested minne ("vile"?), as in 1. 909. Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 118, plausibly suggests mirce for mine, and also for minne, 1. 909. 671 weernysse] Thorpe proposed werinesse or uerignesse; Cosijn, Beitr. XXIII, 118, would read wzrgnysse. Kock, Anglia XLVII, 267, retaining wzrnysse, "curse," construes it as an accusative parallel to brynewylm, 1.672, rather than as a dependent genitive. 676 bregdon] For bregdan; see 1. 511, note. 692 Ofennrecga] Subject of



sprol [weres1, Anglia Beibl. IX, 358; (2) wynn [on] staj>ol[e],Eng. Stud. XXXVII, 211; (3) [wera] wynnstaj>ol, Anglia Beibl. XXX, 54. Trautmann reads [wlitigra] wynnstaj>ol, the wlitige being the birds. The choice between these proposals is difficult, but the presence of wifes in 1. 3b favors weres in



1. 3a; Holthausen's wynnslapol [weres), or perhaps better [weres) wynnstapol, gives a satisfactory meaning, "a man's foundation of joy"-the whole of 1. 3 perhaps referring to a situation like that in Husband's Message, but with the message sent from the woman to the man. 92,4 gold) For gold, the reference of which is not evident, Holthausen, AngUa Beibl. IX, 358, proposed gOd, or, Anglia Beibl. XXX, 54, golf, "fussboden." But golf is recorded only in Old Norse, and does not give a particularly appropriate meaning here. Trautmann, AngUa XLIII, 254, views gOd with favor, but defends gold in the sense of "treasure," referring to a tree. 92,5b) Mackie restores kringe beg[yrded). 92,7) The number of letters actually written in the MS. in the last line of this riddle cannot of course be ascertained. The count indicated in the text is to the end of the MS. line. Riddle 93) Dietrich's solution, "ink-container made from a stag's hom," ZfdA. XI, 486f., is accepted by all edd. and commentators except Wyatt and Mackie, who prefer a less specific answer: Wyatt, "hom (antler, inkhorn)," and Mackie, "antler, hom." But 11.24bfi. clearly describe the use of the antler as a container for ink. Trautmann cites Eusebius' riddle 30, "de Atramentorio" (Ebert, p.' 48), as an analogue. See note on Riddle 88. 93,40) The ascender preserved after kykt in the MS. makes Holthausen's restoration beak and kykt[lie), Eng. Stud. LI, 188, very probable. 93,50) The MS. indications favor Schipper's [seea)rpne, Germania XIX, 338. 93,6) The word [k)wilum, as in 1. 5b, is obviously to be restored here, and so the edd. 93,7b) Holthausen, Anglia XXXVIII, 81, restores [tlada]s wad, as a variant of deo[pe slreama)s in 1.8b (see the next note). 93,8b) The lower edges of three or four letters are visible before s, and although not enough of these letters has been preserved to make certain identification possible, Schipper's restoration deo[pe streama)s, Germania XIX, 338, is very likely. 93, 12 strong on steepe] For metrical reasons, Holthausen, Anglia XXXV, 166, proposed strong on stzpe[gange), citing Riming Poem 22, or, as an alternative, Anglia Beibl. XXX, 54, [full strong on stzpe. 93,13 hara scoc) Grein, Spr. II, 14, suggested kar ascoc, but the word division in the MS. favors hara scoc, and so the edd. 93,14 on) The MS. of, though retained by the earlier edd., and by Assmann and Wyatt, is inexplicable, and Tupper, Trautmann, Mackie read on. 93,15 gleawstol] Grein and most later edd. read gleowstol, "seat of joy," which is evidently the proper meaning here. 93,23] Trautmann emends to ae ic aglze a I eall apolige, but the partitive genitive construction in the MS. seems quite unexceptionable, "but I suffer all misfortunes," etc. 93,240) The letters 'jJ and e are quite legible in the MS., with an indistinct letter between them. In the facsimile this letter looks very much like m, and pzl [m)e bard biton is probably the correct reading here, although it is difficult to make sense out of it. Trautmann emends bard to brord, nom. plur., "Spitzen," but brord is more probably masculine. Tupper reads pzt[l]e bard biton, following Schipper, Germania XIX, 338, and translates, p. 237, "all (ealle, 1.23b) who bit the shield," that is, cutting or wounding weapons. This at least gives a satisfactory sense, and 'jJte may have been the MS. reading, although the evidence of the facsimile does not




favor it. 93,25b] Schipper's restoration, w[om]b[e], Germania XIX, 338; gives the required sense. 93,28-29] Tupper is undoubtedly right in explaining these two lines as a reference to a quill pen, the wulfes gehlejJa being the raven. Tupper notes the association of a bird of prey and a wolf in Beow. 3026f., El. HOff., Brunanburh 6Off.,etc. 93,320] The ascender in the MS. indicates d[~l] as a partial restoration of I. 32a. 93,340] Holthausen, Anglia XXXV, 174, restores [w]eorc, and suggests [andw]eorc, [ellenw]eorc, [orlegw]eorc, [yrrew]eorc as possible readings. 93,35] Here, as in other riddles, it is impossible to tell how many letters were actually written in the last MS. line. The end of the MS. line, so far as it is preserved, is empty of writing; the count of letters indicated in the text is to the end of the damaged place in the MS., and represents the possible maximum. Riddle 94] This riddle was omitted by Thorpe and Grein, and therefore not commented on by Dietrich. The fragments which remain are hardly enough to permit an unqualified solution, but Tupper and Trautmann suggest, with great probability, that this is another "Creation" riddle, like Riddles 40 and 66. 94,1] Mackie, MLRev. XXVIII, 77, would restore SmejJr[e ic eom jJonne] as the beginning of I. la. 94,4b] Holthausen, Anglia XXXVIII, 82, would restore [heardre jJonne] style. 94,6] The evidence of the MS. indicates that at least seven spaces following the w were occupied by writing, and the possible maximum of letters after w is twelve, as indicated in the text. Of the letters directly following the w, considerable parts are preserved in the MS., but so fragmentarily that restoration of the end of the riddle is very difficult. Trautmann, Anglia XLII, 139, restores w[ullf~s], "wool fiber," and although such a compound is not elsewhere recorded in Anglo-Saxon, it fits the MS. indications admirably. The word w[ullftys], which is recorded elsewhere, see Boa-Tol., p. 1281, seems equally good. Riddle 95] Dietrich, ZfdA. XI, 487f., solved as "wandering singer," Trautmann, Anglia VI, Anz., p, 168, as "riddle." Tupper finds parallels between this riddle and Riddle 29, and solves as "moon." Trautmann in his edition withdraws his earlier solution "riddle," and solves as "der Geist" j similarly Holthausen, Anglia Beibl. XXXVI, 220, "der Gedanke." All these solutions, except perhaps "riddle," can be defended, but none seems especially appropriate. The text of the riddle is evidently corrupt, and the apparent ambiguity of the solution may be due in large part to the inadequacy of the MS. record. 95,3 fere] Suggested by Thorpe, and so Tupper, Wyatt, Trautmann, as demanded by the sense. 95,4] Brooke, History of Early English Literature I, 10, note, proposedfremdum for fremdes, I. 4a, and so Tupper, Wyatt. Tupper, p. 239, explains the passage as follows: "And to me, (who was) formerly remote from friends, remains booty" (the hujJe of Rid. 29, 2). Trautmann, Anglia VI, Anz., p. 168, read fremdes [gefea]I ~r, Anglia VII, Anz., p. 210,fremdes [J~a-m]1 er, but Bonner Beitr. XIX, 206, and in his edition, fremdes f~. Trautmann's last reading involves taking freondum as for freogendum, dat, sing., "loving": "und mir, dem Liebenden, droht "Oberfall eines Fremdlings (des Todes)," with his solution, "der Geist," in view. This reading at least gives sense. But it



is more probable that the corruption of the text here is too deep to be remedied by a simple emendation. Perhaps a line or so has fallen out of the text. 95,6 god) Whether this word is to be taken as giJd, "good," or as giJd, "God," is doubtful, and the choice seems to depend on the solution of the riddle. Grein, note, Dietrich, ZfdA. XI, 488, Trautmann, Anglia VI, Anz., p. 166ff., and Wyatt prefer god, and accordingly emend beorhtne to the neuter form beorhte. Tupper, Trautmann assume glJd and do not emend beorhtne. Trautmann, Bonner Beitr. XIX, 207, proposed beorhtan gong, "glanzende fahrt' j Bright (in Tupper) beorhte (or beorhtan) gold.