Homiletic Fragment I, lines 40–42: A New Reading and Interpretation

Abstract

The manuscript reading of line 40 of the Vercelli Book’s Homiletic Fragment I, which lacks alliteration by the standards of classical Old English verse, has not yet been convincingly explained. The possibility of an intended alliteration of vowel with antevocalic h (eallunga : hyht) should be considered only in default of a plausible conjecture that would preserve the distinction between these sounds evident elsewhere in the poem. Such a conjecture is offered by the supposition that the adverb holunga ‘in vain’, attested exclusively in texts of probable Anglian origin or colouring, was not recognised by a southern copyist, who replaced it with eallunga. Southern copies of Anglian texts provide evidence of scribal unfamiliarity with holunga elsewhere, and, in one case, of just this substitution. The sense of lines 40–42 of Homiletic Fragment I is also ameliorated by this conjecture, since it permits an understanding of hyht ‘hope, joy’ consonant with its use elsewhere in Old English. 1. THE QUESTION OF ALLITERATION IN LINE 40 The conclusion of Homiletic Fragment I, an Old English poem about the deceitfulness of men preserved in acephalous condition in the Vercelli Book, is preceded by a passage of twelve lines describing the fickleness of the world, where enmity abounds, but charity is rare (31–42). This passage ends with a sentence that plainly states the moral deduced by the poet from his preceding observations, as the introductory Forþan (‘therefore’) shows: Forþan eallunga hyht geceoseð, woruld wynsume, se ðe wis ne bið, snottor, searocræftig sawle rædes. (40–42) [Therefore he entirely chooses joy, the pleasant world, who is not wise, prudent and ingeniously discerning of what is good for the soul.] DOI 10.1515/ang-2012-0043 1 Homiletic Fragment I was edited by George Philip Krapp in The Vercelli Book, The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 2 (New York: Columbia UP, 1932) 59–60. For a recent and detailed study of the poem, see Jonathan T. Randle, “The ‘Homiletics’ of the Vercelli Book Poems: The Case of Homiletic Fragment I”, New Readings in the Vercelli Book, ed. Samantha Zacher & Andy Orchard (Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2009) 185–224. 2 This is a provisional translation of the passage; see the end of this article for a text and translation revised according to the conclusions reached here. The absence of alliteration in line 40 is conspicuous, yet no convincing explanation of it has been offered. Holthausen twice proposed to restore alliteration by the emendation of hyht to a word beginning with a vowel, suggesting first are (‘honour, benefit, possessions’), and then est (‘favour, grace’). Whether adequate sense is procured for lines 40–42 by either of these conjectures is dubious; but it is at least arguable that neither is worse than the manuscript reading with hyht. It is more to the point that neither word is likely to have been corrupted into hyht (although est is somewhat less improbable graphically than are): there is nothing to recommend either reading in particular beyond its restoration of alliteration. Line 40 has been examined more recently by Jonathan T. Randle, who mentions as a possible explanation for the lack of alliteration the loss of the adverb a (‘always’) after eallunga (‘entirely’), a copying error that would have been easy to make. Yet since this reading would require the b-verse to be a hyht geceoseð, a “heavy” or “three-stress” verse (with three elements capable of primary stress) of an unknown kind, Randle preferred not to eliminate one metrical irregularity by introducing another, and suggested that the lack of alliteration was original, admitted by a poet willing sometimes to deviate from the alliterative standards of classical Old English verse. The author of Homiletic Fragment I seems, it is true, to have admitted the alliteration of smeðe and spræce in line 12, against the usual practice, by which sp alliterates only with sp. Yet while this deviation from the norm of classical alliterative verse may invite suspicion of the poet’s general adherence to its norms, it does not necessarily follow that an apparent 3 Ferdinand Holthausen, “Zur Textkritik altenglischer Dichtungen”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 16 (1892): 549–52, at 551; “Zu altenglischen Dichtungen”, Anglia Beiblatt 31 (1920): 25–32, at 28. The definitions provided here for the conjectured words are included among the potentially more relevant senses in the Dictionary of Old English: A to G online, ed. Angus Cameron, Ashley Crandell Amos, Antonette diPaolo Healey et al. (Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, 2007) s.vv. ār1 (see especially senses A, B.4, B.5, and C) and ēst (sense 1). Krapp (1932, 129), noting Holthausen’s second conjecture, said nothing further than “But see l. 43, note”, where, however, he justly defended the editorial addition of bot in Uton to þam beteran, nu we [bot] cunnon (“The line might be allowed to stand without alliteration, see l. 40, except that nu we cunnon seems bald and incomplete in meaning”), a judgment that leaves the manuscript reading of line 43 of no evidential value as far as the apparent lack of alliteration in line 40 is concerned. 4 Randle 2009, 213. On “heavy” verses, see A.J. Bliss, The Metre of Beowulf (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958) 69–75; and B.R. Hutcheson (who uses the term “threestress” verses), Old English Poetic Metre (Cambridge: Brewer, 1995) 164–68, 257–69. Reading a hyht gecysð would provide an acceptable verse (cf. Bliss, 74– 5; Hutcheson, 257, on type 3e1), but the supposition of an original syncopated verbal form is unlikely; unsyncopated cymeð (23b), weaxeð (32a), drefeð (33a), and getryweð (34b) are necessary to the metre. ROBERT GETZ 208