Is the Taunton Fragment his þ folc another instance of the Possessive + Demonstrative + Noun construction?

ABSTRACT

The present article considers whether the sequence of words his ꝥ folc in the Taunton Fragment homily for the eighth Sunday after Pentecost is an instance of the exceptionally rare Possessive+Demonstrative+Noun construction. This possibility is underpinned by the manuscript’s late date and numerous copying errors. It is, however, weakened by the fact that <h> is unstable in the Taunton Fragment and that the possessive is not required by either context or co-text. In the absence of the possessive in the Latin witnesses to the Homiliary of Angers as well as other Old English renditions of Mark 8.3, the analysis of <his> as the possessive and his ꝥ folc as the Possessive+Demonstrative construction seems unlikely. Alternatively, <his> may be an orthographic variant of the verb is. This possibility is bolstered by the instability of <h> and multiple incomplete corrections in the Taunton Fragment. An addition of the auxiliary in the homily for the eighth Sunday after Pentecost is paralleled by the similar change in the homily for the fifth Sunday after Pentecost. This alteration aligns the Taunton Fragment rendition of Mark 8.3 with Ælfric’s. In light of this internal and external evidence, <his> is more likely to represent the verb is.

KEYWORDS:

• Old English language
• syntax
• scribal copying habits

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ Mitchell (1985) includes examples in which the noun slot is filled by the adjective used as a noun (e.g. þinne ðone nehstan ‘thy neighbour’ [Bede, Book 4, Miller 1891/1959: 370, line 7]) into the same pattern (§106), but Allen (2013) and the present article treat these two constructions as distinct patterns.

² CCCC 41 (B) is quoted from the digital image available at: https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/qd527zm3425. The translation is adapted from Miller (1891/1959: 423).

³ The anonymous homily ‘In Letania maiore’ is quoted from Bazire & Cross (1982: 133, lines 91–92).

⁴ The Bodley 180 version of Boethius is quoted from the digital image of the manuscript available at https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/6491ad4a-c453-4f25-9d94-745ba50b69f8/.

⁵ Daniel is quoted from Krapp (1931).

⁶ The Old English Gospels are quoted from Liuzza (1994).

⁷ While there is no consensus on the date of the Taunton Fragment, most scholars (Gretsch 2004; Gullick cited in Gretsch 2004; and Stokes 2014) agree that it was produced no earlier than mid-eleventh century.

⁸ Conti (2009: 27–28) suggests that se in the Taunton Fragment is a copying error for semper ‘always’ found in the rest of the Latin witnesses to the Homiliary of Angers and the Old English translation æfre. The third person singular future indicative miserebitur (also in A, G, O, and V) is likewise a copying error. Gretsch (2004: 159 note 29) and Conti (2009: 27) observe that the Old English rendition wes miltsiende implies that miserebatur (imperfect) would have been more appropriate. The rest of the Latin manuscripts (B, C, T, M) use the present miseretur. For the most updated list of the witnesses to the Homiliary of Angers and their sigla, see Conti, Pelle & Rudolf (2020).

⁹ The Taunton Fragment is quoted from Gretsch (2004). This edition’s numbering is followed throughout. The punctus elevatus is represented by the colon; the editorial hyphens are replaced with the vertical bars indicating the end of the manuscript line. The translation is adapted from Gretsch (2004).

¹⁰ Mitchell (1985: §106) is only aware of one, (1c). Allen (2013), whose search is based on the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE), identifies two – (1b) and (1c). (1a), to the best of my knowledge, has never been discussed in this context. A further investigation of the Old English corpus that has not been digitized yet might uncover more tokens of this construction.

¹¹ Neither the corresponding passage in De consolatione Philasophiae (3.met.6) nor the Old English prosimetrical version (Meter 17) in London, British Library, Cotton Otho A. vi (lines 11b–13 in Godden & Irvine 2009: 453) contains the phrase under discussion.

¹² Cotton Otho A. vi also reads his þære hean ceastre (123r), which indicates that this construction occurred in their anterior copy. Cf. þare hean ceastre (Bodley 180, 80v) and þære hean ceastre (Cotton Otho A. vi, 111r) in Boethius, Chapter 39. The digital image of Cotton Otho A. vi is available at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Otho_A_VI.

¹³ Whereas Pope (1967) states that this scribe ‘adhere[s] to very orthodox Late West Saxon spellings’ (77), Scragg (2012) finds that this scribe adds an inorganic <h> word-initially in the word leahtor ‘sin’ in Ælfric’s Annunciation homily. Scragg (2012: 218), however, supposes that the inorganic <h> was in the copytext of both Hatton 114 and CCCC 178. The Hatton 114 scribe spells the genitive plural of leahtor <hleahtra> also in Bazire & Cross Homily 10 (Bazire & Cross 1982: 134, line 115).

¹⁴ The Paris Psalter is quoted from Krapp (1932). The corresponding verse in the Douay-Rheims version reads: Even there also shall thy hand lead me: and thy right hand shall hold me (Psalm 138.10).

¹⁵ Mitchell (1985: §§106–107) and Allen (2013) emphasize that the adjective, unlike the possessive or demonstrative, is an essential element of the Possessive + Demonstrative + Adjective + Noun pattern.

¹⁶ For a detailed discussion, see Yerkes (1982). The changes introduced in Hatton 76 seem to confirm Allen’s (2013) suggestion that the Possessive + Demonstrative + Adjective + Noun construction was ‘probably somewhat old-fashioned’ (Allen 2013: 120) by the second half of the eleventh century.

¹⁷ Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner 10 is quoted from Miller (1891/1959); Oxford, Corpus Christi College 279B is quoted from the digital image available at https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/6c79a7b4-a7f7-4988-a41d-dbfba14ec6cb/; Cambridge, University Library, Kk 3.18 is quoted from the digital image available at https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-KK-00003-00018/1

¹⁸ The presence of the adjective in Latin (castello suo inlustri; Book 5, Chapter 11) indicates that it has been omitted in B rather than added in T, O, and Ca.

¹⁹ Unfortunately, apart from the presentation of Cædmon’s Hymn (page 322) and the metrical colophon (pages 483–484), the performance of the second scribe has not merited much scholarly attention. Waite (2014) and Wallis (2018), in contrast to Grant (1989), indicate that the two scribes display distinct orthographic and lexical preferences.

²⁰ Waite (2014: 5) remarks that it is possible that ‘some of the features in MS B that distinguish it from the other manuscripts were introduced in an anterior copy, but are further advanced by the two B-scribes’.

²¹ It is possible that the translator’s/composer’s/scribe’s personal preferences play a role in the choice of the construction. In the Old English Gospels, the Possessive + Demonstrative + Adjective + Noun construction occurs only in Matthew (min se gecorena sunu [3.17], eower se heofenlica fæder [6.14], min se heofonlica fæder [18.35]). Whereas the later manuscripts faithfully copy this construction, the parallel verses in Mark and Luke exhibit the Possessive + Adjective + Noun construction: min se gecorena sunu (Matthew 3.17): min gelufoda sunu (Mark 1.11): min gecorena sunu (Luke 3.22); eower se heofenlica fæder (Matthew 6.14): eower heofenlica fæder (Mark 11.25).

²² The second B’s scribe stint is not free from repetition (e.g. pages 194 and 226), erasures (e.g. pages 201 and 209), as well as inline and superscript corrections (e.g. pages 198 and 202 respectively).

²³ In the last sentence, the words enclosed in square brackets are missing in the Taunton Fragment; de longe uenerunt are supplied from Angers, Bibliothèque municipale, 236 (A), 74v published by Conti (2009).

²⁴ The Latin manuscripts that include this homily are: A (74v–75r), B (32v–33r), C (107v–108r), G (49r–v), M (31ra–v), O (xxiv^r–v), T (67r–68r), and V (107v–108v); see Conti (2009: 15).

²⁵ Ælfric’s second series of Catholic Homilies are quoted from Godden (1979). His numbering is followed throughout.

²⁶ B (32v) also replaces erat with uenit. However, the substantial differences between the Taunton Fragment Old English and B rule out the possibility that B served as its Vorlage.

²⁷ An inclusion of the verb of motion (faran ‘to go’ in the Taunton Fragment; gecyrran ‘to return’ in ÆCH II.25) where neither the Latin nor the Old English Gospels have one might indicate that the Taunton Fragment translator/scribe and Ælfric draw on the common tradition.:

²⁸ Cf. Sume hi comon feorran, which occurs in the exposition of Mark 8.3 later in the same homily (Godden 1979: 231, line 46).

²⁹ For a discussion of the emendations undertaken by the Taunton Fragment scribe in (8), see Afros (2016: 218).:

³⁰ The differences between the Taunton Fragment and its exemplar might reflect the use of different Latin versions.

³¹ For the Taunton Fragment as work in progress, see Afros (2019).