Scribal interpretation of problematic passages in Old English poetry: Insights from theories of textual difficulty

ABSTRACT

This essay examines how early scribes understood and interpreted Old English poetic texts, which often contain passages that are challenging for modern readers. Focusing especially on cases where Old English poetic texts exist in multiple copies, it explores the differences between versions and what they reveal about the ease or difficulty of comprehension among early scribes and audiences. The essay analyzes examples of difficult passages from Beowulf, several Exeter Book riddles, and Cædmon’s Hymn, and how they were copied and modified over time. It considers what the different versions of these texts might suggest about the varying degrees of understanding among these scribes and readers. The essay suggests that early audiences faced difficulties not unlike those faced by modern readers, especially relating to the interpretation of structure, redundancy, and cohesion. The essay aims to enhance our empathy for original audiences and for our students as we teach and study Old English texts.

KEYWORDS:

• Old English poetry
• text difficulty
• Caedmon’s Hymn
• Exeter riddles
• cohesion

Acknowledgments

Work on this article was made possible through a sabbatical granted by the College of Arts and Letters at Idaho State University, where the contributor is a professor of English.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ However, as Ans van Kemenade (2002: 355) observes, ‘there is no consensus in the literature on the notion that there are genuine syntactic differences between Old English prose and poetry’. Bruce Mitchell adds that ‘We must not think that element order in the poetry is more chaotic than that in the prose’ (1985: §3945).

² Editors have suggested heal-, heah-, and here-reced as corrections. See the textual notes in Kiernan 2015 (ebeowulf.uky.edu/ebeo4.0/CD/o/173 v/173 v-all.htm#173v4a) and in Fulk, Bjork & Niles 2008.

³ But see, for instance, the corrections to ‘beorhtre bote’ (l.158), a potentially confusing ironic reference to Grendel’s unwillingness to pay damages; to ‘Ecgþeow’ (l. 263), suggesting unfamiliarity with the name; ‘hige’ corrected from ‘hine’ (l. 267), perhaps due to the rarer poetic word; and ‘heaðoreaf’ corrected from ‘heaðorof’ (l. 401), perhaps a result of confusion of the reference in ‘sume’ (l. 400) and ‘se hearda’ (l. 401).

⁴ See DOEC (2009: ‘Word Count’) and Möhlig-Falke (2015: 398). A review of the MLA International Bibliography reveals that the greatest number of scholarly works have been devoted to Beowulf, the Exeter Book Riddles, and the Old English Genesis, respectively; if the length of the work is taken into consideration, Cædmon’s Hymn, Wulf and Eadwacer, and Deor have been most commented on relative to their total number of words.

⁵ Text from Muir (2000: 306–307; 352); my translation. See Muir’s commentary for the placement and rationale for the two versions. Morgan & McAllister (1993) argue that the versions are separate riddles with distinct solutions.

⁶ Of modern editors, only Orchard (2021a) places a semicolon here.

⁷ See Klein 2022: §6, and Ruiz Narbonna 2019.

⁸ Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Vossianus Lat. Q. 106; s. ix^2/4.

⁹ Exeter, Exeter Cathedral Library, 3501; s. x².

¹⁰ Orchard (2021a) recently translated it ‘a threat of violence’, evidently revising the phrase.

¹¹ Elsewhere, I argue that the Exeter version is poetically more successful (Klein 1997).

¹² However, Mary Blockley (1998) argues that that might have been a conjunction.

¹³ My translation.

¹⁴ Orchard (1996: 413) suggests that the change was meant to preserve the Latin hexameter.

¹⁵ The scholarship on Bede’s translation, its sources, and the motives for the change of tone in middle of the translation includes Schwab (1972), Kiernan (1990), Orchard (1996), and O’Donnell (2004).

¹⁶ M Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 5. 16; s. viii. Also known as ‘The Moore Bede’.

¹⁷ P St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, lat. Q. v. I. 18; s. viii^med. Also known as ‘The St. Petersburg Bede’ or ‘The Leningrad Bede’.

¹⁸ T1 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner 10; s. x¹.

¹⁹ B1 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41; s. xi¹.

²⁰ Word spacing has been changed to reflect modern practices, caesuras have been added, wynn <ƿ> changed to <w> and <ı> changed to <i>, but punctuation has not been added.

²¹ Changing ōr (BT: ‘beginning, origin’) to ord (BT: ‘a point, line of battle, point of beginning’), with its association with spears, may introduce a martial coloring.

²² Ca Cambridge, University Library, Kk. 3. 18; s. xi¹.

²³ N London, British Library, Additional 43,703; a copy of C †Cotton Otho B. xi (see O’Donnell 2018: §4.12).

²⁴ O Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 279, B; s. xiⁱⁿ.

²⁵ To †Tournai, Bibliothèque de la Ville, 134; s. xii/xiii.

²⁶ H Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 43; Old English s. xi².

²⁷ I have re-edited O’Donnell’s diplomatic transcription to present this version in modern poetic form, adding line breaks and caesuras, closing spaces between compounds, and changing <ƿ> to <w> and <ı> to <i > .

²⁸ W Winchester, Cathedral I; s. xi.

²⁹ Bd Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 163, s. xi^med; Mg Oxford, Magdalen College, lat. 105, s. xii^med; Ln Oxford, Lincoln College, lat. 31, s. xii^med; Tr1 Cambridge, Trinity College, R. 5. 22, s. xiv; SanM San Marino CA, Huntington Library, HM 35300, s. xv^med.

³⁰ See O’Donnell (2018: §§7.73–7.81) for the problems associated with editing this recension.

³¹ CArms London, College of Arms, s.n.; s. xii.

³² Hr Hereford, Cathedral Library, P. 5. i, s. xi^ex/s. xiiⁱⁿ; Ld Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 243, s. xii¹.

³³ These manuscripts are Di (Dijon, Bibliothèque Municipale, 574; before 1171), Br (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, 8245–57; completed 1489), and P1 (P1 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 5237; after 1422).

³⁴ I have re-edited the word spacing in the lines.