The Metrical Organization of Beowulf: Prototype and Isomorphism 9783110810493, 9783110151343

Table of contents :
Preface
List of tables
Abbreviations and symbols
Chapter 1 Theoretical background
1.1. Four components of metrical analysis: Metrical scheme, language material, linguistic-metrical association, and actualization
1.2. Manuscript, text, and meter
1.3. The place of meter within a context of text production/reception
1.4. Linguistic foundations of meter: Isomorphism of linguistic and metrical structure
Chapter 2 Metrical types and metrical schemes
2.1. Metrical types in grid representation: An introduction
2.2. Notes on exceptional verses: Vowel parasiting, vowel contraction, too short/too long verses, and emended verses
2.3. On reducing type D*2 to type D2: Underling versus derived positions
2.4. The status of the foot
2.5. The number of metrical positions in the normal verse
2.6. The number of lifts in the normal verse, and the derived status of type A3
2.7. The derived status of types B and C, and metrical schemes
Chapter 3 The heavy drop
3.1. Type A
3.2. Type B
3.3. Type C
3.4. Type D
3.5. Subtype D*
3.6. Type E
3.7. Implications for metrical types and schemes
3.8. The hierarchy of metrical strength for the heavy drop and its possible correlation with degrees of stress in Old English
3.9. Conclusion
Chapter 4 The normal drop
4.1. The first drop of type A1
4.2. The first drop of type B
4.3. The first drop of type C
4.4. The first drop of type D1
4.5. The first drop of type D2b
4.6. The second drop of type B
4.7. The second drop of type E
4.8. Metrical strength of the normal drop
Chapter 5 Resolution
5.1. Resolution and individual metrical positions
5.2. Resolution and interrelationship of metrical positions
5.3. Resolution and verse distinction
5.4. Resolution and morphophonological conditioning: Kaluza’s Law reconsidered
5.5. Linguistic basis of resolution
5.6. In defense of resolution as a significant metrical device
Chapter 6 Alliteration
6.1. Single versus double alliteration
6.2. Lexical basis of alliteration
6.3. Consonant alliteration
6.4. Vowel alliteration
6.5. Binder of alliteration
Chapter 7 Anacrusis
7.1. Prototypical properties of anacrusis and their explanation
7.2. In defense of the notion of anacrusis: Critique of Hoover (1985a) and Kendall (1991)
7.3. A related issue: The status of expanded type C
7.4. The mechanism of anacrusis
Chapter 8 The asymmetry between the a-verse and the b-verse, and the organization of the line
8.1. The asymmetry between the a-verse and the b-verse
8.2 The organization of the line: Unity in diversity
Chapter 9 The hypermetric verse
9.1. Prototypical properties of the hypermetric verse and line: An overview
9.2. An explanatory account
9.3. Critique of alternative analyses: Hoover (1985a) and Russom (1987)
Chapter 10 Conclusions
10.1. A system of metrical types and schemes
10.2. Linguistic-metrical association
10.3. Metrical devices
10.4. Linguistic bases of metrical rules and representations: Isomorphism of linguistic and metrical organization
10.5. The Principle of Maximal Contrast: An underlying metrical principle
Notes
References
Index of authors
Index of subjects
Index of verses cited for discussion
Index of verses classified according to metrical type

Citation preview

The Metrical Organization of Beowulf

W DE G

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 95

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Metrical Organization of Beowulf Prototype and Isomorphism by

Seiichi Suzuki

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1996

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress

Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Suzuki, Seiichi, 1956— The metrical organization of Beowulf: prototype and isomorphism / by Seiichi Suzuki. p. cm. - (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 95). Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 3-11-015134-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Beowulf - Versification. 2. English language - Old English, ca. 450-1100 - Rhythm. 3. English language Old English, ca. 450-1100 - Versification I. Title. II. Series. PR1588.S89 1996 829'3-dc20 96-34599 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek —

Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Suzuki, Seiichi: The metrical organization of Beowulf : prototype and isomorphism / by Seiichi Suzuki. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1996 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 95) ISBN 3-11-015134-0 NE: Trends in linguistics / Studies and monographs

© Copyright 1996 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

For Yasuko

Preface

The metrical organization of Beowulf: Prototype and isomorphism aims at providing a systematic account of the meter of Beowulf from a strictly synchronic perspective; taking Beowulf in isolation from the rest of the extant corpus of Old Germanic poetry, and keeping comparative and diachronic considerations to an absolute minimum, this book investigates the metrical organization of Beowulf in its pure synchrony. This methodology stems from the structuralist (in the widest possible sense) premise that each text first needs explication in its own right. Only after we come to understand a given text as an organized structural whole with all its attendant complexities and ambiguities, may we meaningfully analyze the text in its dependence on, and interplay with, progressively larger semiotic systems up to the semiotic space at large, through boundary crossing both spatially and temporally, that is, increasingly broadened contextualization on the horizontal and vertical axes; the methodological priority should be given to an inquiry into intratextuality with all its inner complexity before the problem of intertextuality of varying extension is squarely dealt with. Intensive as well as extensive research done during the previous scholarship of Old English meter extending over more than a century has produced a wealth of discoveries, observations, and generalizations of varying scope, which have been presented within a great many different analytical frameworks. Added to the accumulation of traditional scholarship is a sudden proliferation of book-length studies in the last decade, beginning with Hoover (1985a) and continuing up to Hutcheson (1995). Whatever cause the current resurgence of interest in Old English metrical studies may be ascribed to, this is a welcome situation in itself; it may be viewed as a most eloquent testimony to the fact that Old English metrics continues to be a rich research field worthy of every serious scholarly attention. The mushrooming amount of relevant literature, however, is not without its adverse effects: couched in apparently incommensurable models and theories, similar ideas and explanations might be misunderstood to be totally dissimilar; conversely, use of similar terms and formulations may conceal underlying disparities. Of far more importance, rival accounts await proper evaluation, factual and theoretical, by being placed in perspective through a firm command of relevant data, capable use of

viii Preface analytical devices, and a solid understanding of earlier research. Thus, the current state of art calls for careful assessments of the multiplicity of contesting descriptions and explanations on a sound empirical basis in a new light; they need relocation, reconfiguration, and reorganization through a fruitful synthesis within an improved analytical framework with greater explanatory power and wider empirical coverage. This book then is intended as a modest step to fulfilling such a goal, restricted as it is to the meter of Beowulf. Building on the principle of four positions per verse (see below), this work examines the paradigmatics and syntagmatics of metrical positions in their underlying configurations and surface manifestations through association with language material. Chapter 1 outlines a basic architecture of metrical system in general terms, and briefly considers the place and function of meter in verse production and reception, with special reference to a presumably oralderived mode of composition/transmission in an incipient literate society in which Beowulf would have been entertained. This leads us to conceptualize meter as a more or less open, flexible system of rules and representations that leaves areas of indeterminacy and ambivalency in its periphery, a code for determining metricality in relative, prototypical terms by means of preference rules that are conditioned by a whole spectrum of parameters. Chapters 2 through 7 explore the organization of the normal verse. Chapter 2 primarily deals with verse structure in its autonomous aspect, largely independent of linguistic realization; I consider verse internal organization in terms of constitutive metrical units, in particular with respect to the quantity and quality of metrical positions to be identified; also under consideration is derivational relationship of various metrical configurations. The central concern of the ensuing five chapters is linguistic realization of particular metrical positions in relation to a complex of paradigmatically as well as syntagmatically motivated conditions. Chapters 3 and 4 examine in detail varying ways weak metrical positions (heavy and normal drops) are linguistically realized on the surface, and explore their formal and functional motivations. Chapters 5 through 7 are concerned with strong metrical positions (lifts) as they are affected by three major metrical devices: resolution, alliteration, and anacrusis; I investigate how these three devices are systematically integrated into the organization of verse structure as exponents of increased metrical strength and how they serve this signaling function on the surface.

Preface

ix

Further, the linguistic foundations of these devices are thoroughly examined. By virtue of the extensive extra-metrical exploration into the underlying phonology and morphology, interested readers may wish to read much of these three chapters on their own as linguistic rather than metrical contributions. Chapter 8 is devoted to an elucidation of the organization of the normal line as it is composed through combination of two asymmetrically constructed verses; the dual organization of verse, at the levels of the verse and the line, is thereby brought into focus. In chapter 9, I examine the organization of the hypermetric verse and line as opposed to the normal counterpart that has been treated in the preceding chapters; I argue for partial reducibility of the hypermetric verse to the normal on structural grounds. Chapter 10 provides conclusions. It presents in final form the metrical organization of Beowulf: the metrical system of Beowulf comprises two subsystems, differing in level of abstraction, one of metrical types and one of metrical schemes, with a set of linguistically motivated derivational rules mediating between the two; the metrical rules and representations are shown to be in large measure isomorphic to linguistic structure; and finally, behind the multiplicity of metrical phenomena a ubiquitous principle of maximal contrast is found to be in operation. Portions of this book were previously published in various places: an earlier version of section 2.3 appeared as "On reducing type D* to type D in the meter of Beowulf', Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 93 (1992): 257-269; parts of section 5.4 were published as "Preference conditions for resolution in the meter of Beowulf. Kaluza's law reconsidered", Modern Philology 93 (1995-96): 281-306; the substance of sections 5.5.2.1 through 5.5.2.3 was published as "Breaking, ambisyllabicity, and the sonority hierarchy in Old English", Diachronica 11 (1994): 65-93; an earlier version of section 5.6 was printed as "In defense of resolution as a metrical principle in the meter of Beowulf', English Studies 76 (1995): 20-33; parts of section 6.3.2 were published as "On determining the sonority value of /w/ relative to /r/ and Ν in early West Germanic", Folia Linguistica Historica 10 (1989): 21-34; sections 7.1 through 7.3 appeared in slightly different form as "Anacrusis in the meter of Beowulf', Studies in Philology 92 (1995): 141-163; and portions of section 8.2 were published as "On the combination of type A verses into lines in Beowulf: A further consideration", Notes and Queries 239 (1994): 437-439. I am grateful to the editors of the above journals for permission to use these materials for the present book.

χ

Preface

Virtually every page of this book may bear witness to profound influences I have received from those scholars who have vigorously shaped the tradition of our field in their various ways: Eduard Sievers, Max Kaluza, A. J. Bliss, John Collins Pope, and in more recent times, Thomas Cable, Edwin Duncan, Yasuaki Fujiwara, R. D. Fulk, David L. Hoover, Rand Hutcheson, Calvin B. Kendall, Wolfgang Obst, Geoffrey Russom, E. G. Stanley, Jun Terasawa, to name several notable figures. Specific acknowledgments will be given in relevant places in the text. Yet at the outset Sievers and Cable deserve particular mention for their establishment of the fundamental structuring principle of Old Germanic verse: the normal verse consists of four metrical positions. Everything else— identification of metrical types, formulation of metrical rules and constraints, characterization of metrical devices—builds on that foundation. On a more general level, it should be obvious that structuralist and, also to a more modest extent, poststructuralist, semiotic thinking pervades the whole volume. It would be difficult to acknowledge this individually, however, for the mode of thinking in question, rather than providing specific methods and techniques, constitutes an overall intellectual milieu in which I have been carrying through my project. Throughout the writing of this book I have received an enormous amount of help and support from many individuals and institutions. At the initial stage of the project, I was awarded a research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, through which I carried out preliminary work at the Chair of Theoretical and Germanic Linguistics, the University of Munich, from October 1990 to March 1992; I gratefully acknowledge generous support from both the Humboldt Foundation and the University of Munich. Subsequent research was conducted at Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, the University of Texas at Austin (summer 1992), and at the Department of Linguistics, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (summer 1993). During my stay in Edinburgh from September 1994 to August 1995, supported by a research fellowship from the Canon Foundation in Europe as well as by a research fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, the University of Edinburgh, I was able to make a substantial revision and expansion of the work; for this invaluable opportunity, I am extremely grateful to Richard Burke, President of the Canon Foundation, and Peter Jones, Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities. Completion of this project was made possible by another fellowship provided by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (September 1995 through February 1996); as a

Preface xi

Humboldt Fellow I prepared a final version of the manuscript for publication at the Chair of English and Comparative Linguistics, the Catholic University of Eichstätt; I am thankful to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Catholic University of Eichstätt. Theo Vennemann served as my academic host during my first stay as a Humboldt Fellow in Munich; I wish to thank him for his constant encouragement and hospitality; his persistent challenge to my view on resolution in particular has led to substantial improvement. I am indebted to Angelika Lutz for her kind, advice. My special thanks go to Ewald Standop and Wolfgang Obst: Standop strongly encouraged me to do a systematic assessment of conflicting accounts of the meter of Beowulf; Obst stimulated my thinking on resolution and heavy verses through fruitful discussions. Thomas Cable has shown much interest in my work, and kindly read portions of the manuscript, notably sections on Kaluza's Law; I am deeply indebted to him for his penetrating criticisms and helpful suggestions, which led to much improvement in argumentation and presentation, as well as saved me from many errors of fact and judgment. I also thank Mary Blockley for her perceptive remarks on my treatment of resolution. R. D. Fulk's careful reading of sections on Kaluza's Law has been most helpful in numerous ways: his detailed comments and criticisms, both linguistic and philological, were instrumental in elaborating my original analysis; and he kindly shared his book (Fulk 1992) with me before publication. I wish to extend my deepest appreciation to his generous support. Winfred P. Lehmann read a version of the whole manuscript at one stage and made useful comments; I owe him a debt of gratitude for his encouragement and solid advice that he showed me throughout the project, much as he did for my previous work on Gothic morphosyntax (Suzuki 1989a). Chris McCully generously sent me a copy of his dissertation (McCully 1988), which served as a source of insight into some of the issues raised in this book. I am thankful to him for his help. Rand Hutcheson was kind enough to share his book (Hutcheson 1995) with me well before publication, and to put his machine-readable scansion of Old English poetry at my disposal. His book helped deepen my understanding of several phenomena in important ways; and the metrical data were of enormous help in retrieving information as well as

xii Preface

checking the accuracy of my scansion, for which I am immensely indebted to him. Toshiya Tanaka was particularly generous of his time and talent in reading a draft of the entire manuscript with admirable care, and made numerous valuable comments and suggestions. For his scholarly assistance as well as friendship I remain most thankful. Alfred Bammesberger, a host during my second stay as a Humboldt Fellow in Eichstätt, took every care so that I could concentrate on my work most efficiently. For his generous support, and the comfortable working environment that he created for me, I am deeply grateful. Frederick W. Schwink read portions of the draft and made useful comments and suggestions, for which I wish to express my thanks. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Werner Winter, who kindly included my book in the series, "Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs". Finally, it is a pleasant duty to thank Yasuko Suzuki for everything she did for me throughout this project, above all for her unfailing enthusiasm and patience with which she waited the book to materialize. To Yasuko I dedicate this book. Eichstätt February 1996

Seiichi Suzuki

Contents

Preface List of tables Abbreviations and symbols Chapter 1 Theoretical background 1.1. Four components of metrical analysis: Metrical scheme, language material, linguistic-metrical association, and actualization 1.2. Manuscript, text, and meter 1.3. The place of meter within a context of text production/reception 1.4. Linguistic foundations of meter: Isomorphism of linguistic and metrical structure

vii xix xxiii 1

1 3 7 11

Chapter 2 Metrical types and metrical schemes 2.1. Metrical types in grid representation: An introduction 2.2. Notes on exceptional verses: Vowel parasiting, vowel contraction, too short/too long verses, and emended verses 2.3. On reducing type D*2 to type D2: Underling versus derived positions 2.4. The status of the foot 2.5. The number of metrical positions in the normal verse 2.6. The number of lifts in the normal verse, and the derived status of type A3 2.7. The derived status of types Β and C, and metrical schemes

13 13

47 59

Chapter 3 The heavy drop 3.1. Type A 3.1.1. Type A2 as a distinct metrical type 3.1.2. Words with prefixes in-, «η-, etc. 3.1.3. Words with heavy suffixes like -Vic, -sum, etc. 3.1.4. Proper nouns 3.1.5. Pronominal compounds {-hwä, -hwylc, etc.) 3.1.6. The s e q u e n c e - # - -

65 65 65 68 69 73 76 78

19 24 35 44

xiv

Contents

3.1.7. 3.1.8. 3.1.9.

Ambiguity between type A2b and subtype D*2a Ambiguity between types A2a and D2a Type A2a ( - - - - ) and the so-called type A2k ( - - ' " - )

3.1.10. Summary 3.2. Type Β 3.3. TypeC 3.4. Type D 3.5. Subtype D* 3.6. Type Ε 3.7. Implications for metrical types and schemes 3.8. The hierarchy of metrical strength for the heavy drop and its possible correlation with degrees of stress in Old English 3.9. Conclusion Chapter 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8.

4 The normal drop The first drop of type Al The first drop of type Β The first drop of type C The first drop of type Dl The first drop of type D2b The second drop of type Β The second drop of type Ε Metrical strength of the normal drop

Chapter 5 Resolution 5.1. Resolution and individual metrical positions 5.1.1. Resolution and the normal drop 5.1.2. Resolution and the heavy drop 5.1.3. Resolution and the second lift 5.1.4. Resolution and the first lift 5.1.5. Summary and explanation 5.2. Resolution and interrelationship of metrical positions 5.3. Resolution and verse distinction 5.4. Resolution and morphophonological conditioning: Kaluza's Law reconsidered 5.4.1. Introduction 5.4.2. Kaluza's Law reconsidered 5.4.3. Kaluza's Law and suspension of resolution: Further issues

80 81 8 1

91 92 95 95 110 113 122 136 146 149 149 158 159 160 161 162 164 165 171 171 173 174 178 181 183 200 203 205 205 207 233

Contents

5.4.3.1. Resolving ambiguity between type A2b and subtype D*2a 5.4.3.2. Suspension of resolution and poetic compound formation 5.5. Linguistic basis of resolution 5.5.1. The mora and the foot 5.5.2. Ambisyllabicity 5.5.2.1. PGmc. VVCR(R)V 5.5.2.2. Fricative voicing 5.5.2.3. /h/-deletion 5.5.2.4. Ambisyllabicity and resolution 5.5.3. Morphological integrity of the short disyllable: More on Kaluza's Law 5.6. In defense of resolution as a significant metrical device 5.6.1. Arguments against rejection of resolution: Critique of Hoover (1985a) 5.6.2. Arguments against obligatory operation of resolution: Critique of Obst (1987)

χν

233 235 239 239 247 248 250 254 256 259 262 263 272

Chapter 6 Alliteration 6.1. Single versus double alliteration 6.2. Lexical basis of alliteration 6.3. Consonant alliteration 6.3.1. Unit alliteration of /sp-/ and /st-/ 6.3.2. /wl-/and/wr-/ 6.3.2.1. Consonant clusters 6.3.2.2. West Germanic gemination 6.3.2.3. Word division in Old English manuscripts 6.3.2.4. Excursus: On the development of /hw-/, /hr-/, /hi-/, and /hn-/ in Old English and Old High German 6.4. Vowel alliteration 6.5. Binder of alliteration

277 277 282 292 292 297 298 300 303

Chapter 7 Anacrusis 7.1. Prototypical properties of anacrusis and their explanation 7.2. In defense of the notion of anacrusis: Critique of Hoover (1985a) and Kendall (1991) 7.3. A related issue: The status of expanded type C 7.4. The mechanism of anacrusis

315 315

305 307 312

323 334 337

xvi

Contents

Chapter 8 The asymmetry between the a-verse and the b-verse, and the organization of the line 8.1. The asymmetry between the a-verse and the b-verse 8.1.1. Metrical types 8.1.2. Alliteration 8.1.3. Resolution 8.1.4. Subtypes D*l/D*2a/D*2b 8.1.5. Anacrusis 8.1.6. Language material 8.1.7. An explanatory account 8.2 The organization of the line: Unity in diversity Chapter 9 The hypermetric verse 9.1. Prototypical properties of the hypermetric verse and line: An overview 9.2. An explanatory account 9.3. Critique of alternative analyses: Hoover (1985a) and Russom (1987) Chapter 10 Conclusions 10.1. A system of metrical types and schemes 10.2. Linguistic-metrical association 10.2.1. Correspondence between prosodic units and degrees of metrical strength 10.2.2. Linguistic realization of metrical positions: The Hierarchy of Metrical Strength 10.3. Metrical devices 10.4. Linguistic bases of metrical rules and representations: Isomorphism of linguistic and metrical organization 10.5. The Principle of Maximal Contrast: An underlying metrical principle

341 341 3 41 341 342 342 344 344 346 348 355 355 356 365 371 371 378 379 381 382 384 389

Notes

393

References

45 3

Index of authors

475

Index of subjects

481

Contents

xvii

Index of verses cited for discussion

489

Index of verses classified according to metrical type

497

List of tables

Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table Table Table Table Table

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Table 17. Table 18. Table 19.

Table 20.

Pairing of metrical feet Place of the caesura and alliterative patterning Distribution of true and quasi compounds in type D2a and verse distinction Distribution of true and quasi compounds in type D2a and alliterative pattern Distribution of compounds and noncompounds in type D2a and verse distinction Distribution of compounds and noncompounds in type D2a and alliterative pattern Frequency of subtypes D*l, D*2a, D*2b relative to types Dl, D2a, and D2b Distribution of compounds and noncompounds in type Ε and verse distinction Distribution of compounds and noncompounds in type Ε and alliterative pattern Distribution of types CI and C2 in relation to verse distinction Distribution of type C2 depending on language material that fills the second lift Correspondence between metrical scheme and type: 1 Correspondence between metrical scheme and type: 2 Correspondence between metrical scheme and type: 3 The system of metrical types Number of syllables in the first drop of type A and alliterative pattern Frequency of word initial and final syllables in the first drop of type A and alliterative pattern Morpholexical category of the first drop of type A and alliterative pattern for monosyllables Degrees of preference for double alliteration as shown by disyllables in the first drop of type A in relation to the place of a word boundary Morpholexical status of the first drop of type A and alliterative pattern for disyllables

37 40 98 98 99 100 104 118 118 125 125 132 133 134 135 150 150 151

152 152

χχ

List of

tables

Table 21. Frequency of word initial and final syllables in the first drop of type A and verse distinction Table 22. Morpholexical status of the first drop of type Al and verse distinction for monosyllables Table 23. Number of syllables in the first drop of type Al and verse distinction Table 24. Distributional patterning of disyllables of differing word boundary configurations in the first drop of type A Table 25. Morpholexical status of the first drop of type A and verse distinction for disyllables Table 26. Number of syllables in the first drop of type Β and alliterative pattern Table 27. Number of syllables in the first drop of type Β and verse distinction Table 28. Number of syllables in the first drop of type C and alliterative pattern Table 29. Number of syllables in the first drop of type C and verse distinction Table 30. Number of syllables in the first drop of type D2b and alliterative pattern Table 31. Number of syllables in the first drop of type D2b and verse distinction Table 32. Number of syllables in the second drop of type Β and alliterative pattern Table 33. Frequency of word initial and final syllables in the second drop of type Β and alliterative pattern Table 34. Number of syllables in the second drop of type Β and verse distinction Table 35. Number of syllables in the second drop of type Ε and alliterative pattern Table 36. Number of syllables in the second drop of type Ε and verse distinction Table 37. Distribution of resolved (- - ) and unresolved (~) heavy drops Table 38. Distribution of resolved ( - - ) and unresolved ( c ) second lifts Table 39. Position-dependent variable applicability of resolution Table 40. Frequency of resolution on the first and the second lift in metrical types and subtypes

154 154 155 155 156 159 159 160 160 161 161 162 162 163 164 164 178 179 183 196

List of tables

Table 41. Correlation between resolution and verse distinction for the first lift Table 42. Correlation between resolution and verse distinction for the second lift Table 43. Distribution of single versus double alliteration in metrical types and subtypes Table 44. Distribution of single versus double alliteration in types ΑΙ, Β, C, and D1 in which both lifts are filled by primary stressed syllables Table 45. Word division of disyllabic medial clusters in Old English manuscripts Table 46. Word division of /-sm-/, /-sn-/, and /-sw-/ in Old English manuscripts Table 47. Distribution of verses with anacrusis Table 48. Frequency of type Β and C verses with the monosyllabic first drop occupied by a verbal prefix Table 49. Distribution of types Dl, D2a, D2b, and their expanded variants Table 50. Frequency (%) with which the second lift is filled by a nonprimary stress Table 51. Percentage of use of variants of type A Table 52. Percentage of alliteration patterns a x, a a, and (x) a Table 53. Correspondences between Hoover's and Suzuki's system of scansion Table 54. The system of metrical types

xxi

203 204 278

281 304 307 316 319 344 346 352 353 365 375

Abbreviations and symbols

a acc. adj. C Co dat. F fem. gen. Gmc. Go. Η ind. L masc. ME MHG η neut. nom. 0 OE OHG OS Ρ PGmc. PIE pi. pres. pret. pron. R sg· subj. V

w

alliterating lift accusative adjective consonant coda dative foot feminine genitive Germanic Gothic heavy (or long) syllable indicative light (or short) syllable masculine Middle English Middle High German one or more unstressed syllables neuter nominative onset Old English Old High German Old Saxon phrase Proto-Germanic Proto-Indo-European plural present preterite pronoun rime singular subjunctive vowel word

xxiv

Abbreviations

WGmc. *

> < 3 σ $ μ = # () [] // I / \ χ

and symbols

West Germanic reconstructed or nonoccurring form (placed before the form in question, as in *x χ / /); expanded metrical variant (placed after the type letter, as in D*2a) becomes derives from ranks higher than syllable syllable boundary long (or heavy) syllable short (or light) syllable short or long syllable mora morpheme boundary derivational morpheme boundary word boundary foot boundaries boundaries, specified according to context; phonetic representation phonological representation metrical foot boundary or caesura lift heavy drop drop; grid mark; nonalliterating lift

Chapter 1 Theoretical background

This chapter sketches metrical theory in itself, as well as in relation to a social context in which a poet, in conformity with tradition of versecraft, produces a poem for appreciation by an audience. First, I provide an overview of a multilayered organization of metrical system in most general terms. Second, after emphasizing the primacy of an extant text as all-important testimony of a uniquely performed discourse behind, I outline a formative role of meter in text composition and transmission of a presumably oral-derived work, Beowulf, against the horizon of a primitive literary society in which the poem would have been entertained. Third, I consider the extent to which metrical generalizations defy immediate accessibility to the consciousness of participants in verse composition and reception by illustrating the depth of abstraction involved in purely metrical conceptualization; the boundedness of meter with textuality is thus brought to light. Taking into consideration the dependence of meter on inherently variable text, then, I propose that metrical categorization or scansion be characterized as a matter of gradience whereby a complex of preference conditions determine metricality in terms of prototype, rather than in absolute terms on the basis of the presence versus absence of necessary and sufficient conditions. Finally, I touch on linguistic basis of meter and ensuing isomorphism between the two structures.

1.1. Four components of metrical analysis: Metrical scheme, language material, linguistic-metrical association, and actualization The traditional scholarship represented by Jespersen (1900 [1933]), Heusler (1925), and others, on the one hand, and various form-oriented schools including Russian formalism, structuralism, and generativism (e.g., Zirmunskij 1925 [1966]; Jakobson 1960; Chatman 1965; Halle— Keyser 1971; Lötz 1972; Kiparsky 1975; Tsur 1977), on the other, have found a fruitful synthesis in current modular approaches to meter: according to recent thinking (e.g., Attridge 1982; Küper 1988; Standop 1989; see also Fowler 1968; Allen 1973: 104-105; Arnason 1991: 3-5, 39^4-4), a metrical theory consists of several components that are con-

2

Theoretical

background

cerned with different aspects of metrical phenomena and correspondingly involved in distinct levels of abstraction. For purposes of our investigation, I assume on the basis of Küper (1988: 108-134) and Standop (1989: 32-36) that a metrical theory is divided into at least four levels or components: metrical scheme, language material, linguistic-metrical association, and actualization (recitation or performance). 1 According to this overall framework, beginning with the most tangible, actualization or performance relates to the most concrete level, in which a particular metrical expression is actualized through recitation as a spatio-temporally unique historical event (= Jakobson's delivery instance). Thus, the same metrical expression may be realized in diverse manners, determined as it is by a complex of external factors (most importantly, socio-historically conditioned literary conventions that bind together the circle of performers and recipients concerned). 2 Behind a host of variable realizations on the surface, however, stands the same metrical expression in constant form (= Jakobson's verse instance, Allen's composition), which is a product of associating a particular language expression with a particular metrical structure. Corresponding to what Heusler calls sprachliche Füllung, the level of linguisticmetrical association involves the filling of a metrical form with language material; it arises as an interaction of two distinct structures, linguistic and metrical. On the one hand, language material consists of a set of language expressions (phraseologies) which have yet to be metrically coordinated so as to serve as well-formed verses. Language material is a product of underlying grammars (both poetic and nonpoetic), and as such it is hierarchically organized in a linguistically significant way. On the other hand, the metrical scheme level serves as a component in which metrical structure is formally characterized in the most abstract way possible, independent of the linguistic manifestation. A metrical scheme, which provides a metrical foundation for a verse and is defined in the metrical scheme component, constitutes a hierarchically structured underlying abstract pattern (= Heusler's Rahmen, Jakobson's verse design, Allen's form and structure). A metrical scheme consists of meter-internally motivated structural units, which are hierarchically organized into a self-contained entity, although correspondence or isomorphism with linguistic units is in evidence (Garde 1991; see section 1.4 below). Metrically significant units may include, starting from the smallest, metrical positions, lifts/drops, feet, cola, verses, lines, stanzas,

Four components

of metrical

analysis

3

and so on. Naturally, identification of specific units as metrically significant is an entirely empirical issue, depending on the particular meters one is concerned with. Given the four distinct components of metrical analysis, versification may be conceptualized as a multicomponentially integrated process such as is represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Four components of metrical analysis

Our most immediate concern is linguistic-metrical association, that is, a component in which metrical frame and language material are put together in an interactive fashion to form well-formed verse expressions. We will also be concerned with the metrical scheme level as a place in which autonomous metrical units receive formal characterization in a further irreducible way. We thereby assume that the metrical scheme and linguistic-metrical association constitute a code or system of rules and representations that people make use of to produce and appreciate verse. In other words, a system of rules and representations that we (re)construct may be taken to be a representation of conventionalized fundamental knowledge about metrical phenomena that poets and their audiences implicitly bring into play in the production and reception of verse.

1.2. Manuscript, text, and meter Beowulf as we know it survives only in a single manuscript, contained in a codex known as the Nowell Codex, which is bound together with another codex to form a volume, designated as Cotton Vitellius A.xv in the British Library. 3 The singularity of the manuscript accessible to us, in the absence of other manuscripts to be compared with, seems to make it

4

Theoretical

background

impossible to recover fully a reasonably plausible picture of the work Beowulf as it may have once existed as a historical reality: to reconstruct a critical text of Beowulf is beyond an attainable goal. The extant manuscript constitutes but a more or less probable approximation to the historical reality, because it supposedly contains a variety of noise, that is, scribal errors and interventions of various sorts. Thus, as Duggan (1988) observes, the empirical basis of our investigation appears to be very precarious, as it must inevitably rest on the single manuscript with all its attendant contingencies. In this light, any theory that has been and will be proposed as the meter of Beowulf might at first sight constitute no more than the meter of the Beowulf manuscript that happens to survive as a more or less opaque representation of the no longer recoverable historical reality. The above statement, plausible as it may seem when considered with uttermost caution, needs qualification in some important respects. First, considering the level of literacy of the society in which Beowulf was produced and transmitted, that is, an early medieval society with a nascent vernacular literacy, it seems highly implausible that even a work written down, especially one of an anonymous authorship and dealing with the common experience of cultural heritage, enjoyed a notion of fixed textuality of the sort that people of an advanced literate society take for granted; rather, as a communal property catering to public interests, the work was susceptible to variation and alteration through its common currency in society. Second, inseparably connected with the first point, Beowulf like other Old Germanic poems owes much to the oral basis of composition, although the exact mode of production and reception of the work as it is recorded in the manuscript is open to speculation; 4 the Beowulf text, despite all uncertainties about its provenance, may be safely assumed to be oral-derived, as distinct from primary oral (Foley 1990: 34-35, 38 n. 42). Third, in terms of thematics, Beowulf, an epic, is in no conceivable way akin to a religious or legal text or a chronicle that may demand rigorous word-by-word reproduction. Indeed, as Kawada (1992: 4 2 7 448) revealingly formulates, an epic should be characterized as a prototype of oral discourse to which textual fixity is most incongruous, as diametrically opposed to a chronicle, which stands at the other end of polarity. 5 Given the textual nonfixity in primitive literacy, the inherited orality, and the dominantly nonsacred thematics, with all likelihood the poem

Manuscript,

text, and meter

5

would have been freely subject to textual variation and change in the course of its (re)production and transmission (oral or literary) without losing its identity as Beowulf. Thus, each instance of performance as it was brought to being and received as a spatio-temporally unique discourse can be taken to be a legitimate manifestation or text of Beowulf on its own, and the question of being originary versus secondary would be hardly of relevance here. In other words, there were a great many versions of Beowulf as historically singular events of reproduction and reception, none of which may claim to have the privileged status of being primary as a self-present entity. The foregoing observation therefore puts into doubt the notion of an authorial text that may be conceived of as an invariant form underlying an array of concrete manuscripts which in turn are viewed as less than transparent realizations (or performances) of that ideal entity; a manuscript is no longer regarded as an imperfect representation of the lost original work that awaits to be reconstituted by way of restoring a perfect text on the basis of comparison of available manuscripts, its derivative opaque manifestations. On the contrary, a text manifested in a manuscript ('a material text' to use Shillingsburg's [1991: 41, 81] useful term) is accorded a heightened status by being regarded as an entity of primary importance (cf. O'Keeffe 1990: 4 - 5 ; Shillingsburg 1991: 41-42). In more substantive terms, despite manifold possibilities of scribal corruption, there is reason to believe that structural features including metrical properties are least likely to undergo profound alteration (cf. Fulk 1992: §§32-33, §369, passim; Hutcheson 1995: 17-21). Thus, unavoidably introduced mechanical errors and mostly nonstructural scribal intervention notwithstanding, a manuscript of a transient literate society may well constitute a minimally opaque transcription of a historically real text, a performed discourse, that lies immediately behind that manuscript. Even an extant manuscript that would have been at many copies' remove from "the original" does not lose such dignified status, insofar as the poetic tradition was actively invoked in the production of that copy (cf. Hutcheson 1995: 17). And as noted below, textual transmission at work in an incipient literate society would have depended in large measure on the orally based tradition of composition to which scribes had ready access in reproducing written texts. Thus, the copy that is far removed from "the original" counts as reliable testimony of that particular discourse directly responsible for the act of copying, which may then be characterized as a reenactment of a specific work

6

Theoretical background

from the diachronic perspective of the tradition of text transmission. Moreover, on the pragmatic side, it is extremely unlikely that a particular occurrence of poem (re)production was subject to simultaneous multiple recording so that a maximally transparent picture of the text behind might be recoverable by virtue of a multiplicity of its complementary representations. Thus, to all intents and purposes, each manuscript as a physical object, a material trace, may be justifiably taken to be an embodiment of a distinct text on its own. With conceptual priority thus attached to an individual manuscript and the text inscribed in it, it may be safe to claim that the meter of the Beowulf manuscript constitutes a meter of one instantiation of Beowulf, which, whether in oral, literary, or mixed form, materialized as a unique text as a performed discourse and gave rise to the emergence of the manuscript that we have at our disposal. In view of an early transient phase of literacy in which the society of our concern is located, it is plausible to assume that the traditional oral based mode of information processing still played a considerable role in composition and transmission. As O'Keeffe (1990) has shown in detail (see also Foley 1990: 36-37), even scribes when copying manuscripts were engaged in participatory reading, whereby they actively brought into play the tradition of oral composition to interfere in manuscript production. Further, as demonstrated by a host of studies on oral poetry (as catalogued in Foley 1985), oral composition largely consists of formulas and formulaic expressions (although the converse does not necessarily hold), for which meter serves as a primary enabling condition. 6 In the light of the decisive role that meter plays in determining basic ingredients of oral composition, further speculation on the pervasive nature of meter may suggest itself. Despite textual variation from performance to performance, a particular text of Beowulf would inevitably have had essential metrical properties in common with other texts of Beowulf, insofar as each individual text as a performance may be identified as an instance of the same work, or more precisely a member of the class of texts and performances that may be grouped together under the heading of Beowulf by virtue of shared content and expression. Were it not for the sharing of essential metrical features, which make the existence of formulas and formulaic systems possible, a particular performance would hardly be recognized as an instance of Beowulf against the background of the poetic tradition. Thus considered, most if not all of the metrical properties that we identify as constitutive of the Beowulf manuscript may by extrapolation be assumed to have been characteristic

Manuscript, text, and meter

7

of other Beowulf texts (discourses) that once may have come into being, only to disappear without leaving a trace. In this way, we may be justified in claiming that starting with the Beowulf manuscript as a physical object or substance we may reconstruct more or less central formal characteristics common to a constellation of Beowulf texts that would have been produced and perceived.

1.3. The place of meter within a context of text production/reception The question we should next address is the relationship between the overall framework of metrical analysis as outlined in section 1.1 above and the context-bound textuality of an oral-derived poem as a unique performance. How was meter embedded into a context of verse production/reception as a performed discourse? How did it function? How was it constituted? How was meter of a particular text (e.g., the Beowulf meter, conceptualized as noted earlier) related to the tradition of versecraft including the tradition of precedent texts that are subsumable under the same poem? A meter, in whatever abstract form one may conceive of it for analytical purposes, does not appear as such in isolation; it is always realized as part of a text (oral or literary). A meter thus constitutes an integral part of verse textuality. Oral-formulaic composition furthermore contributes to the inseparability of meter and text; in it meter and its verbal counterpart, phraseology, are interdependent and determine each other's identities in an interactive manner (Foley 1990: 65-68). Oral poets have a stock of formulas and formulaic expressions at their disposal, which they have acquired as an internalized knowledge through an extended period of apprenticeship by attentive listening and reproduction. In the course of acquisition of versecraft, which is tantamount to mastering of a working knowledge of traditional poetic language as a basis of competent verse-making, meter is unlikely to become an object of contemplation in itself in the consciousness of practicing poets (cf. Kendall 1991: 11); far from being taken on its own in isolation from the rest, meter constitutes an inseparably integrated part of the acquired versecraft as an organized whole. Much the same concept applies to audiences, who by accumulated experience of being exposed to verse performances come to acquire an implicit knowledge (of varying degrees of sophistication) about meter

8

Theoretical

background

as integral to verse textuality and appreciate a given performance by reference to what they expect on the basis of past experiences. Let us consider somewhat schematically the extent to which a metrical system as such is far removed from direct observability by virtue of the excessive abstraction involved in mental accessibility to it. In an ordinary event of verse performance, of immediate access to observation are concrete verse instances, which materialize and disappear one after another as time bound entities. Through increasingly accumulated exposure to performed verse discourses, however, one may come to recognize that many verse instances are recurrently used with varying degrees of similarity and variability among them. With this much experience gained, then, one may be able to appreciate the identity of individual formulas (fixed formulas). At a still more advanced level of knowledge, one may ascertain the interrelationship of a group of formulas and on that basis conceive a common abstract pattern (formulaic system), which is assumed to be responsible for not only actually encountered, but also other possible, but still not realized instances. The identification of metrical structure in its least abstract form, however, remains as yet unattainable at this stage. Much of significant metrical information is generally made accessible by abstracting away from the confines of an individual formulaic system; more often than not diverse formulaic systems share the identical metrical structure, as illustrated by the following representative examples taken from Niles (1983: 129-137). Beowulf 1-25 embody nine formulaic systems that may be subsumed under a single metrical type, Sievers' type C (x / / x; for an outline of Sievers' metrical types, see section 2.1 below; in the following representations, X = initial stressed syllable, χ = unstressed syllable, (x) = optional unstressed syllable, on the basis of Niles 1983: 123-124): (1) a. (χ) (χ) χ X-dena/-denum/-dene (la Hwaet, we Gär-Dena) b. (χ) (χ) (χ) χ X (x) -dagum/-dage/-dagas/-daga (lb in geardagum) c. (χ) χ χ aepelingas/-e/-es (3a hü δά aepelingas) d. ofer/on X-rade (10a ofer hronräde) e. (χ) χ χ X cyning (1 lb paet wses göd cyning) f. (χ) χ χ God Χ χ (13b pone God sende) g. pö/pe hie X drugon (15a pe hie aer drugon) h. x x X-frea (16b him pass Llffrea) i. (χ) χ feeder Χ χ (21b on feeder bearme)

The place of meter within a context of text production/reception

9

Naturally, the foregoing list does not claim to be exhaustive; many other formulaic systems identifiable in Beowulf manifest the metrical configuration that scans as type C. The point of the above exemplification is to show that a metrical type cuts across the multiplicity of formulaic systems, many of which are only remotely if ever relatable to one another in conceptual terms. Proper identification of a metrical type, a metrical entity further reducible at a deeper level of analysis, thus requires a great deal of exercise in abstraction. The difficulty is compounded by an idiosyncratic feature of Old English versification: the multiformity of metrical structure (metrical types and subtypes) employed in a single work of poetry. Thus, from the view point of both performers and recipients, the knowledge of meter in its pure form will defy immediate accessibility to consciousness. It is indissolubly bound with a verse text; it is inscribed within a text. Put another way, meter is parasitic on a text (discourse), rather than preexisting to it. It is by no means the case that meter as an autonomous preexistent entity imposes itself on independently existing language material to produce a verse as output, as might at first sight be implied in the analytical framework given in section 1.1 above. Rather, meter may be regarded as something that by way of analytical abstraction or abduction (consciously and explicitly in the case of metrists or unconsciously and implicitly in the case of poets and recipients) emerges out of a verse text that is being realized in our presence. On the phenomenological dimension, a metrical structure of a poem comes to being as a perceptual organization that a performer or a perceiver attempts to integrate a given verse text into (cf. Tsur 1977); it is thus a dynamic process that is being implemented as a performed verse discourse takes shape. The integrity of meter with textuality motivates the open character of meter, as it depends on the nonfixity of the texts on which it attends. Thus, on an individual level, metrical properties may be constantly susceptible to slight displacement in correlation to varied language material from performance to performance; yet this microscopic variation does not immediately effect radical restructuring that affects meter in its foundations on a collective level, largely because of the highly conservative strength of poetic tradition. That is, meter may be subjected to change, insofar as the underlying oral-formulaic poetic tradition, which is most congenial to textual variation but at the same time persistent in its overall form, is affected by alteration. Thus, when a novel linguistic feature is found to appear consistently in an array of newly produced

10

Theoretical

background

texts and as a result receives recognition as acceptable among people, this may correspondingly induce adjustment in the metrical component of a knowledge of verse composition and reception. The above consideration provides a more precise conceptualization of meter than was initially assumed as a system of rules and representations in section 1.1 above. It is far from a tightly built, fixed, static, homogeneous system consisting of categorical, exception-free rules. Rather, it should better be viewed as a variable, flexible, dynamic, heterogeneous conventionalized code of relative normativity and systematization in which preference rules operate in prototypical terms in varying degrees of consistency, and ensuing representations may at times be equivocal in structural value and admit of conflicting interpretations. In short, meter constitutes an open system in which the parts and the whole are organized through a diverse density of integration and structuration; the heterogeneity and looseness in organization then are conducive to variation both at the individual and collective levels. A gradient distinction of the core and periphery will shed light on the system's inherent potential dynamicity. In accordance with the inherently preference-based noncategorical systematicity of meter, metricality may be conceptualized in gradient terms, ranging from prototypical to deviant in varying degrees, with reference to a complex of preference conditions on metricality, rather than to a rigid set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Put another way, scansion or metrical categorization is a matter of gradience, based as it is on prototype: 7 a given metrical category is perceived as most saliently demarcated in terms of the properties of its central members; membership of less typical instances is determined on the basis of varying degrees of similarity (family resemblance) to its prototype; further, recognition of family resemblance may provide a motivation for category extension by according a (noncentral) category membership to novel cases on the basis of perceived similarity. 8 Accordingly, on the phenomenological level, metrical categories and constructs are perceived to be less than clear-cut at their boundaries, where they may merge into each other; by virtue of prototype effects, scansion applies to prototypical instantiations of a metrical category with maximal facility, while progressively deviant instances may pose increasing difficulty in metrical processing and result in conflicting scansions or indeterminacy at large.

Linguistic foundations

of meter

1 1

1.4. Linguistic foundations of meter: Isomorphism of linguistic and metrical structure One of the fundamental assumptions underlying this study has to do with the linguistic basis of meter: a system of metrical rules and representations constitutes a superstructure that is compatible with the underlying linguistic structure. In other words, metrical organization of a text of a given language is implemented without contravening formal and functional generalizations of the language in ordinary use. This does not mean, however, that metrical generalizations are fully reducible to linguistic counterparts that obtain contemporaneously. A metrical system, equipped with its own entities and combinatory rules, forms a distinct tradition along with poetic diction, together constituting as it does a stylization of ordinary language (Allen 1973: 103), a code of conventions that may be put to practice quite independently of everyday language. The relative autonomy of poetic language then leads us to reject the complete reduction of metrical structure to contemporary linguistic structure. Rather, as Kurylowicz (1976) put it, metrical rules are "transpositions of linguistic rules" (Kurylowicz 1976: 66), "consisting] in modifications, enlargements or generalizations of certain rules of the given language" (Kurylowicz 1976: 65; see also Kurylowicz 1975: 226); or as Garde (1991: 76) stated, ". . . l'isomorphisme entre ces deux types [i.e., linguistic and metrical: S. S] d'unitö existe, et ce ä tous les niveaux. Les structures metriques apparaissent comme une sorte de reflet, d'image grossissante des structures linguistiques." Thus, metrical rules and representations may be viewed as derivative of linguistic rules that are or once were valid at certain points of a language's history. Restated from a perspective of acquisition on an ontogenetic basis, "a native speaker introduced to poetry in the normal way could identify metrical rules as analogues of linguistic rules already learned" (Russom 1987: 2). As remarked in section 1.3 above, a meter is inseparably bound with a poetic text; the metrical organization of a text is integrated into the poetic organization of it as a whole. In this sense, metrics constitutes a subdiscipline of poetics (cf. Küper 1988: 8; Zirmunskij 1925 [1966: 17]). According to the general conceptualization, poetics deals with poetic functioning of language in its actual realizations and virtual potentialities. As Jakobson (1960: 356) originally formulated in an illuminating fashion, distinctively characteristic of the poetic function of language is "[t]he set toward the message as such, focus on the message

1 2 Theoretical

background

for its own sake." In this way, metrics is specifically concerned with mechanisms of versification that help bring the poetic function of a text to the foreground in terms of sound structure broadly conceived. From a semiotic perspective, poetic language constitutes a secondary modeling system (Lotman [1977: 9-10]; Shukman 1977; Küper 1988: 58-65). That is, constructed on the basis of natural language, which serves as a primary modeling semiotic system, a poetic code functions as a language of second order; it constitutes a higher level semiotic or information processing system, that is, a world model, through which man perceives and acts upon his surrounding world. Accordingly, poetic language or grammar, under which meter is subsumed as an integral part, should embody linguistic principles and generalizations of an underlying language to a significant extent. Restated in structural terms, poetic language and corresponding natural language are isomorphic in essential respects; they manifest parallel formal and functional properties. Moreover, the secondary status of poetic language as against ordinary language adds to the plausibility that meter may be profitably approached from a perspective of prototype, as linguistic structure itself shows prototype effects at every level (Lakoff 1987; Taylor 1995). The extent to which a given metrical system is isomorphic to its underlying natural language system is no doubt an empirical issue. Placed in the context of the construction of secondary modeling semiotic systems, then, the following investigation will serve as an in-depth case study of isomorphism between metrical and ordinary language systems.

Chapter 2 Metrical types and metrical schemes

This chapter examines verse internal structure at two distinct levels: metrical types and metrical schemes. Recasting Sievers' metrical types in a nonlinear mode of representation, I address issues that bear on the derivational relationship of metrical types, the internal organization and constituency of the verse, and the reduction of metrical types to the underlying system of metrical schemes.

2.1. Metrical types in grid representation: An introduction It is primarily to Sievers' credit that a great variety of Old Germanic alliterative verses attested in the corpus have been shown to be reducible to a limited set of metrical types, which are characterized on the basis of distinct configurations of varying metrical prominence. The major metrical types that Sievers isolated are summarized as follows (Sievers 1885: 220-314, 1893: 31-35; anticipating the system of metrical types and schemes explored in this and the following chapters, I slightly modify the original presentation): (1) Al: / χ I / x: e.g., 11a gomban gyldan A2a: / \ I / x: e.g., 1033a scürheard scepdan A2b: / χ I / \: e.g., 65a wiges weorömynd A2ab: / \ I / \: e.g., 1719a breosthord blödreow A3: χ χ I / χ: e.g., 22a past hine on ylde Β: χ / I χ /: e.g., 6b syÖÖan eerest weard C: χ / I / x: e.g., 1 lb peet wses göd cyning D2a: /1 / \ x: e.g., 31a leof landfruma D2b: / I / χ \: e.g., 1307a här hilderinc D*2a: / χ I / \ x: e.g., 326a rondas regnhearde D*2b: / χ I / χ \: e.g., 938a leoda landgeweorc Ε: / \ χ I /: e.g., 8b weordmyndum päh In the above representation, '/' stands for a strong metrical position, a lift (or an arsis), corresponding in large part to a primary stressed syllable. (For a useful documentation of technical terms used in Old English

14

Metrical types and metrical

schemes

metrics, see Burchfield 1974.) 'x' represents a weak metrical position, a drop (or a thesis), occupied by a weak stressed syllable or its concatenation. 'V designates a unit intermediate between the lift and the drop; it is called a heavy drop (Nebensenkung) in type A2 (with three subtypes), while called a secondary lift in types D2a, D2b, and E. A vertical bar Τ stands for a foot boundary; in Sievers' conception, the verse consists of two metrical feet. As will be discussed at length in section 2.4 below, however, the status of feet is open to question. For the time being, I simply ignore this level and concentrate on concatenations of lifts and drops. Throughout the following discussion, I will refer to a set of types by using shared part of labeling. Thus, type D2 stands for the conjunction of types D2a and D2b; it should not be confused with the configuration / / χ \ as is commonly intended, which is designated as type D2b here. Within Sievers' model, then, the verse consists of four metrical positions, two of which are metrically strong, the other two being relatively weak. The well-formed configurations of the four metrical positions are restricted to the five basic types (types ΑΙ, Β, C, D2 with two variants— D2a and D2b—, E) and the two derived types (type A2 with three variants—A2a, A2b, A2ab—and type D* with two variants—D*2a, D*2b).1 In this way, Sievers' metrical types constitute abstract patterns which underlie a diversity of metrical realizations on the surface. Drawing on recent developments in nonlinear phonology in general and grid theory in particular, 2 I reformulate Sievers' linear representation from a nonlinear hierarchical perspective as follows: (2) Basic types Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

Al X X X X XXX

Β X X X X XXX

C X X X X X XX

Level Level Level Level

D2a X X X X X X X XXX

D2b X X X X χ X X XXX

Ε X X X XX X X X XX

4 3 2 1

Metrical

types in grid representation

15

(3) Derived types Level Level Level Level

4 3 2 1

A2a χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

A2b χ χ χ χ xx χ χ χ χ

Level Level Level Level

4 3 2 1

D*2a χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

D*2b χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

A2ab χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

The remainder of this section is intended to illustrate implications of the above nonlinear representation by referring to some of the key notions and central issues that will be treated in depth in subsequent sections and chapters. As will be shown in due course, Sievers' types are obtained at the point where the underlying metrical schemes and language material are associated with each other, that is, the level of linguistic-metrical association. The underlying metrical schemes in turn are autonomous metrical configurations that may be postulated at a more abstract level before linguistic materialization. For details, see sections 2.5 and 3.7 below. On the horizontal axis, the bottom row corresponds to the linear order of metrical positions. Put another way, each grid mark χ on the lowest row (i.e., level 1) represents a metrical position. On the vertical axis, the grid level or the height of the column expresses the degree of metrical strength or prominence of the metrical position concerned; the higher a given position, the stronger and the more prominent it is. Within a single metrical configuration, the metrical positions of the highest and the second highest level constitute the first and the second lift, respectively, while the remaining two positions serve as drops. The value of metrical strength as measured by the height of grid marks placed above each metrical position on the bottom row receives interpretation on both syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions, or in intra-configurational and inter-conflgurational terms. That is, the value is of significance not only within a metrical configuration in which it appears, but also subject to determination through opposition in crossconfigurational terms. Thus, for example, in type Al, the first position, being of level 3, is of the strongest metrical strength, followed by the third position of level 2, and the second and fourth positions of level 1.

16

Metrical

types and metrical

schemes

On the paradigmatic dimension, the first position of type Al is weaker than that of types A2, D2, and E, which amounts to level 4. The grid representation functions as restrictions on the way each metrical position is filled by language material. More specifically, the height of the column determines the unit within the phonological (or prosodic) hierarchy with which a metrical position is associated. In grid theory, the grid represents a phonological hierarchy in nonlinear terms, whereby each row is related to a distinct level within the prosodic hierarchy (cf. Nespor—Vogel 1986; Hogg—McCully 1987; Hayes 1989; Goldsmith 1990). Thus, the lowest row represents a string of syllables or morae. The next row up correlates with the level of the foot, a domain in which a stress bearing unit is organized in isolation; any nonzero stress may be carried by the foot. The third row from the bottom concerns the level of the word, a domain in which a stress bearing unit is encoded as primary stressed. The top row corresponds to the level of the phrase, a domain in which a phrasal stress is specified. Given the correspondence relation thus characterized, the grid representation automatically constitutes a constraint (or, less deniandingly a preference condition, in view of linguistic-metrical isomorphism rather than identity) on the wellformed association between metrical configurations and linguistic material. Thus, in type D2, for example, the initial position is associated with a phrase stress bearing unit, the second with a word stress (primary stress), the third with a nonprimary stress, and the final with a zero stress. For details on the correspondence between metrical strength and the prosodic hierarchy, see in particular sections 2.3 and 5.5 below. In addition to the distinct levels of stress as observed above, metrical strength as specified in the underlying metrical configurations represented in (2) and (3) above is embodied by metrical devices which operate on strong metrical positions as indicators of maximal or increased metrical strength. The major devices include alliteration, resolution, and anacrusis. Within each metrical configuration, the two strongest positions constitute lifts, while the remaining two serving as drops, as noted above. The strongest position must always realize alliteration, whereas the second strongest position may optionally do so; the alliteration of two lifts in a verse is called double alliteration, as opposed to single alliteration, which is realized by a single lift in a verse. The other two positions are immune to alliteration. Alliteration works as a means of realizing prominence by repeating the onset of the syllables involved. It follows that a metrically stronger position is preferably involved in alliteration. Thus, types A2,

Metrical

types in grid representation

17

D2, and E, in which the second strongest position is of level 3, show marked preferences for double alliteration, whereby not only the strongest but also the second strongest position participate in alliteration. For details, see chapter 6 below. At the phonological level, two degrees of syllable length (or weight) are differentiated: long or heavy (-VC$, -VV$) versus short or light (-V$). 3 Accordingly, strong metrical positions are preferably associated with long syllables, which, by virtue of their inherent greater size, count as stronger than short counterparts. In other words, a single short syllable is regarded as language material too small to occupy the strong position on its own. This is the basis of resolution, a metrical practice which allows a short stressed syllable in conjunction with a following unstressed syllable to fill a strong position. By providing a disyllabic rather than a monosyllabic occupant, resolution constitutes a means of realizing increased metrical strength; and conditioned as it is by the rhyme of the syllable, its functionality may be regarded as complement to alliteration, which concerns the onset. Since resolution thus serves as an exponent of added metrical strength, it may be expected that its implementation is correlated with the strength of the positions involved. As it turns out, the strongest position in each metrical configuration almost always requires resolution; a short stressed syllable alone may not be associated with the position in question. By contrast, the weakest position, as marked by a single grid mark x, is insensitive to resolution; a single short syllable may fill a drop in its own right. Between the two extremes, resolution is implemented in varying degrees of preference. Thus, for example, a short stressed syllable alone may occasionally occupy the third position of type Al and the second position of type E. 4 For details, see chapter 5 below. Anacrusis is an optional unstressed syllable that appears immediately before the first lift at the beginning of the verse. As an extrametrical element, it does not constitute an independent metrical position; rather, added as a supplement to the following stressed syllable, it counts as part of the lift. Anacrusis thus provides larger material for the realization of the first lift; accordingly, it also fulfills the function of realizing increased metrical strength. Although optional in use, its appearance is highly regulated in such a way that it typically precedes the first lift that has maximal metrical strength (i.e., level 4). For details, see chapter 7 below. Weak metrical positions or drops fall into two categories, depending on their relative metrical strength: normal drops and heavy drops. The

18

Metrical

types and metrical

schemes

normal drop is a position which is of minimal metrical strength, as represented by a single grid mark; it is filled by an unstressed syllable or a sequence of unstressed syllables in highly regulated manners dependent on location of individual drops in a verse, as well as on morpholexical properties of unstressed syllables, as shown in chapter 4 below. The heavy counterpart, on the other hand, is provided with an additional grid mark on the second row (i.e., level 2), and accordingly it must be filled by a stressed syllable. The distinction of the two sorts of drop is shown to be empirically motivated and of vital metrical significance, as discussed in chapter 3. The metrical types represented above constitute a well-defined class of configurations, rather than a contingent product of simple listing and cataloguing. In other words, the principled systematicity underlies the attested configurations by allowing just these and disallowing other logically possible configurations. The derivation of the well-formed configurations is subject to the Verse Construction Principles, which may be tentatively stated as follows: (4) Verse Construction Principles (first version) a. The number of metrical positions per verse is four. b. The number of strong metrical positions per verse is two. c. Of the two strong positions, the one located on the left is the stronger. d. No adjacent positions may be of equal metrical strength. e. At least one of the first two positions must be strong. The above principles are responsible for constructing the basic types illustrated in (2). The empirical validity of (4a) and (4b), which determine the size of the normal verse, will be shown in sections 2.5 and 2.6 below. Moreover, (4b) is related to the fact that maximally up to two positions per verse may be involved in alliteration. (4c) is also based on the alliterative patterning whereby normally in the case of single alliteration it is the first lift that realizes alliteration (for details, see section 2.6 below). (4d) may be viewed as a consequence of the recurrently observed cross-linguistic tendency of rhythmic alternation, whereby alternating strength is imposed on the otherwise monotonous flat sequence (cf. Selkirk 1984: 52). By virtue of this principle, the configurations like / / χ χ and / χ χ / in which two normal drops stand in succession are ruled out as unmetrical; either the first or the second drop must receive extra beat (as argued in section 3.7 below, however, this characterization

Metrical

types in grid representation

19

needs considerable qualification). Through the placement of extra beat, however, the original strength pattern must not be destroyed; the two strong positions must be preserved as such as distinct f r o m the newly grid-marked position. Thus, it is necessary to assume a general convention like the Textual Prominence Preservation Condition (Selkirk 1984: 68, passim) which makes the original strength patterning intact by secondary beat addition. (4e) is intended to exclude configurations like \ χ / / and χ \ / / in which the third position serves as the first lift. In contrast to the basic metrical types, the derived types are of secondary status in that they are derived f r o m the basic counterparts through extra processes of grid addition. Specifically, type A2 (including variants A2a, A2b, A2ab) is derived from type A l by adding an extra grid mark to a (normal) drop. Type D*2 (with two variants D*2a and D*2b) may be obtained by postulating an additional grid mark immediately after the first position. What appears to be an added drop in type D*2, however, results from the particular way the first lift is realized: instead of being associated with a monosyllabic lexical word, it is occupied by the nucleus of a polysyllabic word or word group (i.e., prosodic or phonological phrase); for details, see section 2.3 below. The distinction between the basic and the derived types is thus primarily motivated by the formal complexity of derivational processes involved (for a more elaborated account, see section 3.7 below). The formal differentiation has empirical consequences: for example, as is well known, types A2 and D*2 are strongly favored in the a-verse to the point that these types are almost nonexistent in the b-verse (for details, see chapter 8 below). In this way, the formal distinction has an empirical correlate in terms of distribution.

2 . 2 . Notes on exceptional verses: V o w e l parasiting, v o w e l contraction, too short/too long verses, and e m e n d e d verses Given the system of metrical types outlined in the previous section, a limited number of verses seem to resist classification. These apparently aberrant verses may fall into three classes on the basis of factors responsible for the exceptionality at issue: (i) vowel parasiting; (ii) vowel contraction; (iii) miscellaneous. Since these phenomena bear primarily on the diachronic axis, I do not enter into details here; they are of relatively minor importance insofar as the synchrony of the Beowulf meter is concerned. Accordingly, in the following paragraphs I confine myself

20

Metrical

types and metrical

schemes

to presenting what seems to be minimally relevant to our present concern. Interested readers may wish to refer to Sievers (1885), Fulk (1992), Hutcheson (1995), and others for detailed discussion. Vowel parasiting is a phonological process whereby a vowel developed secondarily in certain contexts, notably before a sonorant. This process accordingly may give rise to irregular verses in which a newly developed vowel by virtue of its extra syllabicity defies proper scansion within the system of existing metrical types. Several examples are provided below (for an exhaustive list, see Fulk 1992: §§88, 91, 95): (5) 667b sundornytte beheold (similarly 995b) 1128a waslfägne winter (similarly 1136a) 1676a aldorbealu eorlum (similarly 1079a) Following the usual practice of editors and metrists, I assume that these extra vowels are immaterial for scansion by underdotting these inorganic vowels: e.g., sundornytte, winter. It should be noted, however, that I make minimal use of underdotting: I resort to this manipulation only when no proper scansion in terms of metrical types—as opposed to the level of their concrete linguistic realizations Hutcheson is interested in— is otherwise plausible. Thus, in disagreement with Fulk (1992: §88) and Hutcheson (1995: 48), I do not postulate underdotting for verse 1863a läc ond luftäcen, since it scans as type D*2a as it stands. By the same token, I leave verses like 546b wedera cealdost as they are, despite Hutcheson's (1995 : 49) practice to the contrary. Furthermore, the postulation of underdotting for verse 2573b forman dögore and the like needs justification, as they might be scanned as type D*1 (for details, see section 3.4 below); much the same can be said concerning verses like 611a Deer waes haslepa hie ah tor, which would be scannable as type Al with anacrusis (for discussion, see section 7.1 below). 5 The second source of apparent unmetricality is vowel contraction that took place following loss of an intervocalic consonant, notably /h/ (/h/deletion; for details, see section 5.5.2.3 below). There are thirty-five verses in Beowulf which require that the contracted vowels involved be decontracted so that the original disyllabicity may be restored for scansion. Several examples are given below (for an extensive list, see Fulk 1992: §§103, 110):

Notes on exceptional verses

21

(6) 116a heart hüses 1180a metodsceaft seon 1036b on flet teon The above verses comprise only three metrical positions as they stand. Significantly, however, they all contain monosyllabic words (heart ' h i g h ' , seon ' s e e ' , teon 'draw') that were originally disyllabic: *heahan (cf. heah nom. sg.), *sehan (cf. seah pret. 1/3 sg.), *teohan (cf. teah pret. 1/3 sg.); by assuming the original (or underlying) disyllabicity, then, these verses turn out to be properly scannable, as they consist of four metrical positions. Again, I silently follow the general practice by postulating decontraction for this small group of verses that would otherwise be unscannable; the decontracted vowels will be indicated in this book by the circumflex accent marker over the first element of a diphthong (e.g., hean).6 The overall treatment of parasitic and contracted vowels in this book thus agrees with Klaeber's for the most part. Under the third class fall a number of verses which do not fit well into the system of scansion assumed here for various reasons that may largely have to do with performance lapse and textual corruption. Based on the nature of apparent unmetricality, this class divides into two groups: (i) too short verses, that is, verses that contain less than four metrical positions; (ii) too long verses, that is, verses that contain more than four positions. Subclass (i) will be treated at length in section 2.5 below, which is devoted to the canonical number of metrical positions per verse. A great majority of verses subsumed under subclass (ii) are fully examined in section 2.3 below. The few truly deviant verses that are in no way rendered compatible with the principle of four positions per verse are designated as type F for the sake of classification. A minority of subclass (ii), which defies reduction to the canonical four position verse along the lines proposed in the following section, includes the following five verses (cf. Bliss 1967: §§86-87; Hutcheson 1995: 151, 265): (7) 1792b 2420b 2435b 2721b 2728b

Geat unigmetes wyrd ungemete ungedefeUce pegn ungemete dead ungemete

wel neah till neah

22

Metrical types and metrical

schemes

Most striking about the above problematic verses is the sharing of the word ungemete 'without measure' (or its variant unigmete) by four of them; further, the remaining verse follows suit in that it has in common the sequence of prefixes unge-', and the five verses thus grouped together on the basis of the shared unge- all appear in the b-verse (Bliss 1967: §86). Of further importance, there are no other instances in Beowulf that begin with unge-/unig-. However the clustering of these peculiarities may be characterized, it seems hardly deniable that the apparent unmetricality in question is far from a randomly occurring accident; rather, the verses at issue might be regarded as instances of some structural type whose precise identification is beyond reach on the basis of available evidence (Bliss 1967: §86; Hutcheson 1995: 265). Although seemingly aberrant in fine detail, the above verses lend themselves to a proper scansion within the existing system of metrical types. As Momma (1990) proposes following Sievers (1893: 130), verses 1792b, 2420b, 2721b, and 2728b should be scanned as type D2b (/ / χ \)—or more precisely in anticipation of the argument advanced in section 3.6 below, a neutralization of types D2b/E—, with the root syllable -mete treated as metrically unstressed by being associated with a normal drop. Analogously, I would suggest that verse 2435b be scanned as type Al (/ χ / χ), whereby the root syllable -de- is matched with a normal drop, together with the immediately preceding and following unstressed syllables -ge- and -/