THE ANGLO-SAXON POETIC RECORDS

A COLLECTIVE EDITION

II

THE VERCELLI BOOK

//2.y

THE

VERCELLI BOOK

EDITED BY

GEORGE PHILIP KRAPP

PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

¦ ULlOTHBiK RUKSUNIS^gftSITitrnbsp;UTRÊCHT

ROUTLEDGE amp; KEGAN PAUL LTD Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lanenbsp;London, E.G.4

PREFACE

In accordance with the plan of this collective edition of Anglo-Saxon poetry, as announced in the Preface to the firstnbsp;volume, containing the texts of the Junius Manuscript, thenbsp;poetical parts of the Vercelli Book are here grouped togethernbsp;in a second volume. Although the original compilers of thenbsp;Vercelli Book, as of the other extant Anglo-Saxon miscellanies,nbsp;apparently had no very strict principles of similarity in mindnbsp;in determining what shodld be included in their collection,nbsp;nevertheless the Vercelli Book, like the Junius Manuscript,nbsp;exhibits a certain degree of uniformity. For the poems of thenbsp;Junius Manuscript are examples of versified Biblical narrative,nbsp;whereas the poems of the Vercelli Book are legendary and homiletic in character. The two longest poems of the Vercelli Booknbsp;are Andreas and Elene, saints’ lives of less authenticity thannbsp;the Scripture itself, and like the prose homilies and the othernbsp;poetical pieces in the Vercelli Book, probably designed fornbsp;occasional use to supplement and lighten the formal offices ofnbsp;the service. The grouping of these poems in a volume of theirnbsp;own, therefore, reflects something more than a mere accidentnbsp;of preservation within the limits of a single manuscript.

Two excellent photographic reproductions of the poems of the Vercelli Book are available, that of Wiilker, in a volume published in 1894, which contains reproductions only of the poeticalnbsp;parts of the manuscript, and that of Foerster, published in 1913nbsp;and containing both the prose and poetical texts of the manuscript. The present edition has been based upon these reproductions, and as the manuscript is in the main in an excellentnbsp;state of preservation, the construction of the text has presentednbsp;comparatively few difficulties. On those rare occasions whennbsp;it was necessary to support the reading of the reproductionsnbsp;by other authority, especially in those passages in which stainsnbsp;or blots have obscured the readings of the manuscript, definitenbsp;acknowledgement of this obligation has been made. *

PREFACE

In accordance with the general principles of this collective edition, the text of the poems of the Vercelli Book has beennbsp;conservatively treated. Emendations for metrical reasons havenbsp;been introduced very sparingly, and then not to make the textnbsp;correspond to any particular set of metrical convictions, butnbsp;only when metrical considerations seem to support other evidence that some accidental disturbance has taken place in thenbsp;transmission of the text. The same remarks apply to orthography. Accidents in writing befall every scribe, and obviousnbsp;accidents have been corrected. But it is scarcely necessary fornbsp;a modern editor to be a greater purist in spelling than annbsp;eleventh century professional scribe, especially one so conscientious and capable as the scribe of the Vercelli Book appears tonbsp;have been. It is to be regretted that the present state of Anglo-Saxon scholarship does not permit more positive convictionsnbsp;with respect to the authorship and date of composition of thenbsp;Anglo-Saxon poetical monuments, with respect also to thenbsp;methods of composition and construction employed by Anglo-Saxon poets, or to the metrical principles according to whichnbsp;they wrote, or to the mixture of linguistic forms, dialectal ornbsp;otherwise, which appear in the recorded texts. If a scepticalnbsp;attitude towards all these questions still seems necessary afternbsp;so many years of study, the hope nevertheless remains thatnbsp;further examination, and from new angles, will bring morenbsp;certain results.

In the Introduction to this volume will be found a full list of the accent marks in the poetical parts of the Vercelli Book.nbsp;No such complete statement was made of the accents of thenbsp;Junius Manuscript in the first volume of this collective edition,nbsp;and when the materials for that volume were being assembled,nbsp;the editor doubted whether the usefulness of such a list wouldnbsp;compensate for the amount of space required by it. Thesenbsp;doubts have now been resolved, partly on further reflection,nbsp;partly in deference to the opinions of others. It has thereforenbsp;seemed advisable to add to the list of accented words in thenbsp;Vercelli Book, a full list of the accented words in the Juniusnbsp;Manuscript as providing at least materials for study. It isnbsp;obvious, however, that the whole question of the accents in

PREFACE

Anglo-Saxon manuscripts cannot be disposed of on the basis of poetical texts only, and that for a complete account of thenbsp;matter, prose texts must also be drawn into consideration.

The editor wishes to take this opportunity to acknowledge gratefully the aid of Mr. Elliott Van Kirk Bobbie in assemblingnbsp;and seeing through the press the materials of this volume, asnbsp;also of the volume previously published, containing the poemsnbsp;of the Junius Manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

THE MANUSCRIPT

The Vercelli Book, also known as the Vercelli Codex or Codex Vercellensis, is preserved in the chapter library of the cathedralnbsp;at Vercelli in northern Italy. The library at Vercelli containsnbsp;another famous manuscript, a text of the gospels perhapsnbsp;written by Eusebius, which is also referred to at times by thenbsp;name Codex Vercellensis.^ The Anglo-Saxon manuscript isnbsp;designated in the collections of the library as Cod. CXVII. Itnbsp;is a parchment manuscript of one hundred and thirty-sixnbsp;folios, of uniform size and character. Like the Junius Manuscript, the Vercelli Book was apparently conceived and executednbsp;as a single volume into which a variety of matters, prose as wellnbsp;as verse, and in this latter respect, differing from the Juniusnbsp;Manuscript, was to be placed.

The size of the folios in the Vercelli Book is on the average 31 by 20 centimeters, that is, approximately 12.2 inches by 7.8nbsp;inches. The space covered by writing on the folios is approxi-niately 24 by 15 centimeters, that is 9.4 inches by 5.8 inches.nbsp;The pages of the manuscript were prepared for a varying number of lines to be written on the several pages, but never fornbsp;less than twenty-three or more than thirty-three. Sometimes anbsp;blank space for one or more lines takes the place of writingnbsp;where sectional divisions occur, thus reducing the number ofnbsp;lines actually written but not the number of lines provided fornbsp;writing. The grouping of the folios according to the number ofnbsp;lines arranged for on them is as follows:

2o-l la nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;24 linesnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;19a-246nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;24nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;lines

116 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;25nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;2Sa-326nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;29nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“

12a. 126 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;24nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;33a-476nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;24nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“

13a-186 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;25nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;48a-556nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;25nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“

* See Foerster, II Codice Vercellese, p. 7.

I

llli-1206 31 lines 121a-134J 32 “

135a nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;31nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“

1355 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;28nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;“nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;(incomplete)

The last written page of the manuscript, fol. 1356, contains only twenty-eight lines, which means that the text the scribenbsp;was copying came to an end before the bottom of the page wasnbsp;reached. A number of other folios are only partly filled withnbsp;writing, for example fol. 16a, 24b, 29a, 54a, 71a, 101a and 1205.nbsp;On fol. 245 there are only fourteen lines of writing. But thesenbsp;blank spaces all occur on pages on which the work the scribenbsp;was copying came to an end before the bottom of the page wasnbsp;reached. There are no illustrations in the manuscript, exceptnbsp;for one small animal figure at the foot of fol. 495, and no indication that any of the blank spaces were left for illustrations tonbsp;be supplied after the text was copied.

One may infer from this list that the manuscript was not prepared for writing all at one time, but at various times as thenbsp;work of transcribing proceeded, and to a certain extent withnbsp;the gatherings of the manuscript as the units of work. Thusnbsp;the third gathering of the manuscript, fol. 19-24, is writtennbsp;throughout with twenty-four lines on a page, the fourth gathering, fol. 25-32, with twenty-nine lines on a page, the fifth andnbsp;sixth, fol. 33-47, again with twenty-four lines, the seventh, fol.nbsp;48-55, with twenty-five lines, the greater part of the eighth tonbsp;the fourteenth gatherings, fol. 56-104, with twenty-four lines,nbsp;and the rest of the gatherings with lines varying from thirty-one to thirty-three. It will be seen therefore that from thenbsp;fifteenth gathering to the end, the manuscript is written somewhat more closely than in the earlier parts. With respect tonbsp;fol. 1115, which has only thirty-one lines, although the rest ofnbsp;the gathering to which it belongs has thirty-three or thirty-twonbsp;lines, it should be noted that the bottom margin on this pagenbsp;is rather large and that the last line on this page is written morenbsp;amply than the rest of the page, with long tails to the letters.nbsp;From this we may infer that this page was intended to have onenbsp;or two lines more than actually appear in the writing, thusnbsp;bringing it into harmony with the other folios of its gathering.

INTRODUCTION

On fol. 56a-56b there are written only twenty-three lines, the smallest number on any pages of the manuscript, but the reasonnbsp;for this was that there is a hole in the parchment at the bottomnbsp;of the page which would have made it difficult to get in anothernbsp;line without crowding. This folio therefore really goes withnbsp;the rest of its gathering and several that follow, all of the foliosnbsp;in gatherings eight to fourteen, fol. 56-104, having been plannednbsp;for twenty-four lines. The last two pages of the manuscript,nbsp;fol. 136a-1365, are blank.

The contents of the several folios in terms of the line numberings of this edition of the poetical parts of the manuscript are given in Table I at the end of this Introduction.

The manuscript as a whole is well preserved and the writing IS clear and legible, except that certain places in it have sufferednbsp;from the application of some discoloring material, possibly annbsp;ncid, which has made it difficult, and in some instances impossible to read the writing in these passages. Thus fol. la-16nbsp;has been rendered quite illegible, except for traces of a largenbsp;capital H on fol. la, and so also part of fol. 54a. The blottingnbsp;out of some of these passages appears to have been accidental,nbsp;but in other instances, as on fol. 756, the blotting out was donenbsp;line by line in a way which shows that it was intentional. Nonbsp;obvious reason appears, however, why the manuscript shouldnbsp;have been treated in this way. The pages on which evidencesnbsp;of blotting are present in the manuscript, according to Foerster’snbsp;reproductions, are as follows: fol. la, 16, 2a, 25a, 26a, 366, 376,nbsp;d8a, 386, 426, 54a, 546, 556, 57a, 65a, 756, 77a, 84a, 856, 86a, 866,nbsp;1066, 119a, 121a, 134a, 135a, 1356. Several of these are smallernbsp;blots which may have been the result of scribal mishaps withnbsp;ink, but most of them were caused by a stain of some kind,nbsp;intentionally or unintentionally applied.

The folios of the manuscript were assembled in gatherings which contain a number of folios varying from two to nine.nbsp;The last folio of the manuscript, fol. 136, was attached as anbsp;single folio to the last gathering of the manuscript. Thenbsp;gatherings of the manuscript were numbered from I to XIX, andnbsp;lettered from A to T. The numbers and letters were added,nbsp;according to Foerster, p. 9, by another scribe at a later date

INTRODUCTION

than that at which the texts in the manuscript were transcribed, a number at the top of the first page of each gathering, and anbsp;letter at the bottom of the last page of each gathering. Somenbsp;of these have been cut off, or are illegible in the facsimile, butnbsp;those which remain are given in the first and third columns ofnbsp;the following list of the gatherings.

The folios as they now stand in the manuscript are numbered consecutively from 1 to 135 in Arabic numerals on the uppernbsp;right-hand corner of the recto of each folio by a modern hand,nbsp;but no original folio numbering for the separate folios is presentnbsp;in the manuscript.

It was the opinion of Wiilker that at least two and possibly three different hands appear in the Anglo-Saxon writing innbsp;the manuscript.'^ But there can be little doubt that the manuscript as a whole was the work of one scribal hand. Napier sawnbsp;only one handwriting in the manuscript,^ and this is also the

* Codex Vercellensis, p. vii, Grundriss der Geschichte der angelsachsischen Litteratur, p. 239.

^ Zeitschrift fur deutsches AUertum XXXIII, 67.

INTRODUCTION

opinion of Foerster,i who infers from the writing that the scribe Was a man of mature years with a firmly established style ofnbsp;Writing. Foerster considers it possible, however, that a few ofnbsp;the corrections in the manuscript may come from a differentnbsp;hand than that of the scribe, though the greater number of them,nbsp;iiot large in any case, were unquestionably made by the scribe.nbsp;Foerster also doubts that the signatures on the gatherings, bothnbsp;the numerals at the beginnings and the letters at the ends, werenbsp;the work of the scribe who wrote the body of the manuscript.nbsp;On these questions, however, the evidence is not conclusive,nbsp;^¦nd it is quite possible that both the body of the manuscript asnbsp;It stands and the minor additions, except for the Arabic folionbsp;numberings and a few other additions to be noted, was the worknbsp;of a single scribe. The exceptions that must be considerednbsp;consist of several short sentences in Latin which have nothingnbsp;to do with the main content of the manuscript, written on blanknbsp;spaces in the manuscript, and a few other minor additions. Fornbsp;the sake of completeness of record, all of these casual additions,nbsp;tgt;oth of words and designs, are given in the following list ofnbsp;folios on which they occur:

246, bottom: Adiutor mens esto domine ne derelinquas deus salutaris meus.

496, bottom: A drawing of a dog, running and barking.

656, right margin, five lines from bottom: A small capital A, similar to an A in the adjoining text; possibly a specimennbsp;or trial by the scribe.

fl2a, lower left comer: A trial sketch for the head of a large zoömorphic capital M on the same page.nbsp;fl9a, upper left corner: xb (probably xb, with upper part ofnbsp;5 cut off).^

f21a, top, near right margin: xb. f23a, top, near left margin: xb (tip of 6 cut off).nbsp;f23a, bottom, right side: Two small and crudely drawn figures,nbsp;apparently intended to be human profiles.

126a, upper left corner: xb (probably xb, with upper part of 6 cut off).

’ II Codice Vercellese, p. IS.

* See Records I, The Junius Manuscript, p. xvii.

INTRODUCTION

Last (unnumbered) page in MS., reverse side at bottom: The words Cum peruenisse, in small capitals, upside down.

The date of the handwriting of the manuscript has been given variously. Grimm thought the writing belonged to the end ofnbsp;the ninth or beginning of the tenth century,' but it is nownbsp;generally agreed that this date is too early. Wiilker gave thenbsp;date as the beginning of the eleventh century,^ Holthausen asnbsp;the second half of the tenth century.® Keller is more precisenbsp;and endeavors to establish the date of the writing as betweennbsp;960 and 980,' or still more definitely, between 970 and 980.®nbsp;Foerster hesitates to express himself quite so precisely and givesnbsp;the date as the second half or towards the end of the tenthnbsp;century.®

II

ORIGIN OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The presence of this manuscript in so unexpected a place as Vercelli in northern Italy has naturally been the occasion ofnbsp;much surmise. There can be no question that the manuscriptnbsp;was written and produced in England. Its presence in Italynbsp;is therefore no evidence of an interest in the copying and preserving of Anglo-Saxon records in Italian libraries. On thenbsp;contrary the manuscript probably owes its existence to thenbsp;collecting zeal of some one of those patrons of letters in Englandnbsp;in the tenth century whose efforts account for the Junius Manuscript, the Exeter Book, and other West-Saxon transcriptions,nbsp;these being perhaps only occasional survivals from an originallynbsp;much larger representation of the body of Anglo-Saxonnbsp;literature.

No direct evidence is available to explain the presence of the Vercelli Manuscript in Italy, and the indirect evidence is farnbsp;from conclusive. The view that the manuscript was brought

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Andreas und Elene, p. xlv.

* nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Codex Vercellensis, p. viii.

® Cynewulfs Elene, p. ix.

' Keller, Angelsdchsische Palaeographie, p. 40.

^ Reallexicon der germanischen Altertumskunde (1911), Vol. I, p. 102.

^ II Codice Vercellese, p. 14.

INTRODUCTION

to Italy by Cardinal Guala, papal legate in England in the time of King John and of Henry III, has much to recommend it,^ butnbsp;Foerster has pointed out some reasonable objections to thisnbsp;explanation.^ Foerster is inclined to think that the manuscriptnbsp;Was brought to Italy in the eleventh or twelfth century, whennbsp;the reading of an Anglo-Saxon manuscript was still possible tonbsp;one interested in such studies, or if not at this early date, thennbsp;m the sixteenth century as a more or less accidental result of thenbsp;humanistic interest in the collecting of books and manuscriptsnbsp;at that time. But it seems scarcely credible that interest innbsp;the content of the manuscript should have led anyone to transport so bulky an object all the hard way from England tonbsp;Italy in the eleventh or twelfth century. If it cannot be assumed that the manuscript owes its presence in Italy, directlynbsp;or indirectly, to Cardinal Guala and his interest in Englishnbsp;affairs, the most plausible supposition is that it reached itsnbsp;present resting place at a comparatively late date and as anbsp;chance addition to the collections of the library at Vercelli. Itnbsp;IS possible that the wanderings of the manuscript after it leftnbsp;England and before it reached Vercelli were extensive, but ifnbsp;so, the course of its travels cannot now be followed.

Ill

THE CONTENTS OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The first folio of the manuscript apparently once contained the beginning of the first homily, but now only the remains of anbsp;large capital H are visible at the top left-hand corner of fob \a.nbsp;The initial word of this homily may have been Her, as of thenbsp;homily beginning on fob 25a, of the one beginning on fob 6Sa,nbsp;and of several others in the manuscript. Foerster notes thatnbsp;the first two pages of the manuscript (i.e., fob \a-\h) arenbsp;hlegible, and that therefore the beginning of the first text innbsp;the manuscript is lacking. In the following list of contents,nbsp;the titles of the poems as supplied by modern commentators and

^ See Cook, Cardinal Guala and the Vercelli Book (1888), Krapp, Andreas °-nd the Fates of the Apostles (1906), pp. x-xiv.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;I

“ II Codice Vercellese, pp. 27-40.

INTRODUCTION

a brief description of the subject of each homily are given, and, except for the first, the opening sentence of the homily. A goodnbsp;many, though not all of the homilies have titles in the manuscript, but none of the poetical texts is provided with a specialnbsp;heading of any kind. The titles of the poems as they are usednbsp;in this edition are supplied by the editor,nbsp;fob \a-9a. A Homily on the Passion.

fob 9h-\2a. A Homily on the Last Judgment: Men Sa leofest-an, l^aes myclan domdseges wore bib swibe egeslic 7 andrys-lic eallum gesceaftum.

fob 12é-16a. A Homily on Christian Virtues: Brobor J^a leofestan, ic cybe jjaet jjreo )jing synt aerest on foreweardumnbsp;aeghwylcum men nydbehefe to habbanne.nbsp;fob 16J-24amp;. A Homily on Penance in prospect of the Lastnbsp;Judgment, with a dialogue of the Soul and the Body: Mennbsp;jja leofestan, ic eow bidde 7 eabmodlice laere, p ge wepennbsp;7 forhtien on Jpysse medmiclan tide for eowrum synnum.nbsp;fob 25a-29a. A Homily on the Birth of Christ, entitled, “Tonbsp;middan wintra. Ostende nobis domine”: Her segb jjisnbsp;halige godspel be Jaere hean medomnesse jjisse halgan tidenbsp;pe nu onweard is 7 us laereb Jjaette we j?as halgan tiid gede-felice 7 claenlice weorbien godes naman to lofe 7 to wuldre,nbsp;7 ussum sawlum to ecre haelo 7 to frofre.nbsp;fob 296-520. Andreas.nbsp;fob 526-54a. The Fates or the Apostles.nbsp;fob 546-56». A Homily entitled, “Incipit narrare miracula quenbsp;facta fuerant ante aduentum saluatoris, domini nostrinbsp;lesu Cristi”: Her sagab ymb bas maeran gewyrd pe tonbsp;jjyssum daege gewearb, j^aette aelmihtig dryhten sylfa j^asnbsp;world gesohte 7 Jurh unwemme faemnan on J?as worldnbsp;acenned waes.

fob 566-59». Homily H.i Against extravagance and gluttony: Butan tweon lar is haligdomes dael 7 ealles swibost.

1 Apparently only six homilies are numbered, beginning after the first two poems. No trace of a number I appears on fob 546, but a II isnbsp;written at the bottom of fob 56o, and evidently belongs to the followingnbsp;homily.

INTRODUCTION

59a-61(i. Homily III. On the Last Judgment and the torments of hell; Men (Sa leofestan, mana‘5 us 7 myndga'S onnbsp;Jjyssum bocum scs gregorius se halega writere se Sis gewritnbsp;sette 7 wrat.

fol. 6 la-65 a. Homily IHI. On Death, its terrors and suddenness: Men Sa leofestan, manaS us 7 mynga)? Jeos halige boc baet we sien gemyndige ymb ure sawle Jjearfe.

fol. 65a-71a. Homily V. On the Transitoriness of the World and its joys: Her sagaS on jjyssum halegum bocum benbsp;selmihtiges dryhtnes godspelle, jie he him sylfum Jjurh hisnbsp;Sa halegan mihte geworhte mannum to bysene 7 to lare.

fol. 715-735. Homily VI entitled, “Spel to forman gangdsege”: Men Sa leofestan, Jjis syndon halige dagas 7 halwendlice 7nbsp;ussum sawlum laecedomlice.

fol. 735-755. Homily entitled, “Spel to Sam oSrum gangdaege”: Girsandaeg we waeron manode, men jja leofestan, )?issa haliganbsp;daga bigangnes.

fol. 755-765. Homily entitled, “Spel to Jriddan gangdaege”: Dis is se jjridda daeg, men jra leofestan, jjysse halgan tidenbsp;)je us on swiSe wel gelimpeS pset we ealle eaSmodlice sculonnbsp;dryhtne jjeowian 7 wel forS gelaestan p we nu aer on })yssumnbsp;dagum laerde waeron.

fol. 765-805. Homily entitled, “Larspel to swylcere tide swa man wile”: Men Sa leofestan, jjis synt halige dagas 7 gast-lice 7 ussum sawlum laecedomlice.

805-855. Homily entitled, “Alia omelia de die iudicii”: Men, saegS us on Jjyssum bocum hu se halga thomas godesnbsp;apsl acsode ume dryhten hwaenne antecristes cyme waere.nbsp;855-905. Homily entitled, “Omelia epyffania domini”:nbsp;Men, sceolon we nu hwylcumhwegu’ wordum secgan benbsp;Saere arweorSnesse j)ysse halgan tide 7 J^ysses halgannbsp;dasges.

fol. 905-945. Homily entitled, “De purificatione sancta Maria”: Men, saegeS us 7 myngajj bis halige godspel be bysse arwyr-San tide be we nu to daege gode aelmihtigum to lofe 7 tonbsp;are wyrSiab.

^ With m erased following bwylcumhvegu.

INTRODUCTION

fol. 946-lOla. Homily entitled, “De sancto Martino con-fessore”: Men, magon we nu hwylcumhwego wordum asecgan be jjaere arwyrSnesse jrysse halgan tide,nbsp;fol. 1016-1036. Soul and Body I.'nbsp;fol. 104a-1046. Homiletic Fragment I.^nbsp;fol. 1046-106a. Dream of the Rood.nbsp;fol. 1066-1096. Homily: “Men 6a leofestan, us gedafena)?nbsp;aerest past we gemunen 7 gereccen be gode aelmihtigum penbsp;geworhte heofonas 7 eorSan 7 ealle gesceafta.nbsp;fol. 1096-112a. Homily on the deadly sins: “Men 6a leofestan,nbsp;)5is syndon halige dagas 7 halwendlice 7 urum sawlumnbsp;laecedomlice.

fol. 112a-1166. Homily: “Men 6a leofestan, us ys mycel })earf Jjaet we god lufien of eallre heortan 7 of eallre sawlenbsp;7 of eallum maegene.

fol. 1166-1206. Homily on the Christian virtues: “Her saeg6 hu scs isodorus spraec be 6aere sawle gedale 7 be paes licho-man.

fol. 121a-1336. Elene.

fol. 1336-1356. Prose life of St. Guthlac: Waes J^aer in Jjam sprecenan iglande sum mycel hlaew of eor)?an geworht.

IV

LARGE CAPITALS IN THE MANUSCRIPT

In general, a large capital is used at the beginning of each of the homilies in the manuscript, and at the beginning of the firstnbsp;and all succeeding sections in the poems. A list of the sectionalnbsp;divisions in the poems in terms of the line numberings of thisnbsp;edition is given in Table II at the end of this Introduction.

In two places, at the beginning of Section [XH] of Andreas, fol. 46a, and at the beginning of the Fates of the Apostles,nbsp;fol. 526, a space was left for a large capital, which was not fillednbsp;in, though apparently a wrong capital was first written in thenbsp;passage in Andreas, see 1. 1253 and footnote, which was laternbsp;erased and nothing supplied to take its place.

^ Both of these poems are fragments. One or more pages are missing between folios 103 and 104, so that the end of one poem and the begiimingnbsp;of the other have been lost.

INTRODUCTION

Counting the nearly effaced H at the top of fol. la, there are in all fifty-five of these large capitals. Nearly all of them are ofnbsp;the plain, unomamented type. On fol. 49a, however, at thenbsp;beginning of Section [XIV] of Andreas, there is a large zoömor-phic H, in a good style very similar to the large capitals of thenbsp;early pages of the Junius Manuscript. It should be noted thatnbsp;on the verso of the folio, i.e., fol. 496, occurs the animal drawingnbsp;previously mentioned. On fol. 1066 and on fol. 112a are largenbsp;capital M’s of a curious and somewhat awkward type—annbsp;animal head with an arm or branch projecting out of the topnbsp;of the head to each side. Although these are quite similar,nbsp;the second is obviously the more crudely drawn of the two, andnbsp;IS perhaps a copy of the first, made by a less experienced artist.nbsp;These M’s were apparently drawn before the rest of the textnbsp;was written in, the text being made to fit the convolutions ofnbsp;the capitals. After a large capital, the rest of the word in whichnbsp;the capital occurs is usually written in small capitals, of thenbsp;same general style as the large one, but about half the size.nbsp;Sometimes the entire first line is capitalized, as on fol. 96, 1096,nbsp;ll2a. On fol. 1096, two large M’s and a smaller E have beennbsp;erased before the M which actually begins the homily. Fromnbsp;these descriptions it will be seen that very little attention wasnbsp;paid to the decoration of the manuscript. An ornamental, rednbsp;colored ink was used three times in the manuscript, in capitalsnbsp;a-nd titles at the beginning of homilies, on fol. 716, fol. 736 andnbsp;tol. 756.¹ These tinted openings are not reproduced in colornbsp;in Wülker’s or Forster’s reproductions of the manuscript, butnbsp;the one on fol. 756 is reproduced in color in Mr. Cooper’s Reportnbsp;on Rymer’s Foedera, at the end of Appendix B, Plate I.

SMALL CAPITALS IN THE MANUSCRIPT

In the use of small capitals Andreas differs in some respects from Elene. In Elene personal names are very frequently

1

Forster, Der Vercelli-Codex, in Stiidien zur englischen Philologie, Vol. L (1913), p. 24.

xxii nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;INTRODUCTION

capitalized, e.g. Constantinus, 11. 8, 79, 103, etc.; Elene, 11. 219, 266, 332, etc., but elene, 11. 1051, 1198; ludas, 11. 609, 627, 655,nbsp;but iudas, 11. 418, 586; Cyriacus, 11. 1058, 1068, 1097, butnbsp;ciriacus, 1. 1129, cyriacus, 1. 1211. In Andreas and in thenbsp;Fates of the Apostles personal names as such are not capitalized. In Andreas, only four proper names are capitalized,nbsp;two with initial I, ludea, 1. 560, losephes, 1. 691, Moyse, 1. 1513,nbsp;and Platan, 1. 1651. In the Fates of the Apostles, capitalnbsp;I appears in lohanne, 1. 23, lacob, 1. 35, Indeum, 1. 43, capital Pnbsp;in Petrus, 1.14, Philippus, 1. 37, the only other capitalized namenbsp;being Simon, 1. 77.

Throughout the manuscript, in is very frequently capitalized, as in An. 41, 52, 78, etc., El. 6, 9, 127, etc. Very frequently icnbsp;is written with a capital I, as in An. 72, 81, 97, 99, 110, El. 288,nbsp;345, 353, 419, 574, etc. These capital 7’s were undoubtedlynbsp;written in these words, as occasionally in proper names, innbsp;order to give the letter a readily distinguishable form, for thenbsp;same reason, therefore, that the dot over i was supplied at anbsp;later time, and that the acute accent appears over i even innbsp;Anglo-Saxon manuscripts.

In both Andreas and Elene a small capital frequently marks the beginning of a sentence, but more frequently thenbsp;sentence-beginning is unmarked by a capital. In Elene, fornbsp;example, a small capital begins a sentence in Wxs, 1. 11, For on,nbsp;1. 21, For, 1. 35, Woldon, 1. 40, pa, 1. 69, etc., in Andreas innbsp;pam, 1. 14, Oft, 1.17, pa, 1. 40, etc. In Andreas a small capitalnbsp;within a sentence most frequently marks the beginning of annbsp;important syntactical division of the sentence, as in An. 281:nbsp;Ne magon psex gewunian • wid ferende ne J^aer eljjeodige eardesnbsp;brucab • Ah in J^aere ceastre cwealm j^rowiaS etc. Or in An.nbsp;327: (he is. . .) an ece god • eallra gesceafta • Swa he eallenbsp;befehb anes creefte • etc., or An. 403: Jjafigan ne woldon • Daetnbsp;hie forleton etc. Or in An. 558: Saga J^ances gleaw )7egn gifnbsp;Su cunne • Hu Saet gewurde • etc. Only rarely does the text ofnbsp;Andreas depart from the rule of capitalizing only the beginnings of important syntactical units. An interesting case wherenbsp;a word is apparently capitalized for emphasis is An. 569: ahnbsp;he paia. wundra ¦ A dóm agende • etc., where a, although it

INTRODUCTION

belongs metrically to the preceding half-line, is capitalized (and preceded by a point) because it is a very important wordnbsp;^¦nd its full force might be missed by the reader.

In Elene the use of small capitals is less carefully regulated. Sometimes capitals are used at the beginning of short phrases,nbsp;as in El. 109: (Heht Jja. . .) j^aet halige treo him beforan feriannbsp;on feonda ge mang • Reran beacen godes etc. Or in El. 124: pa.nbsp;Wees buf hafen • Segn for sweotolum etc. Or in El. 88: swanbsp;him se ar ahead • Faele fribo webba. Or in El. 992: naes panbsp;friegendra under gold homan gad in burgü, Feorran geferede.nbsp;This use of the capitals in Elene is so frequent as to be characteristic of the poem. It is also frequent in the Dream or thenbsp;T.OOD, as in 1. 23: hwilum hit waes mid wsetanbe stemed ¦ be-syled mid swates gange • Hwilum mid since gegyrwed ¦ etc.nbsp;In general Soul and Body I and Homiletic Fragment I restrict the small capitals to the beginning of the sentence, butnbsp;Ponne, Soul and Body 86, is capitalized, being the resumptionnbsp;of the main clause after the enumeration of the various lessernbsp;ovils. A survey of the small capitals as they are listed for thenbsp;poetical parts of the Vercelli Book at the end of this Introduction will show how frequently the capitals occur in small connective words, like ac, swa, da, nu, hu, how largely they werenbsp;therefore structural and syntactical in the intent of the scribe.

Throughout the poetical parts of the manuscript, and especially in Andreas, there is a gradation in size of the small capitals, but whether this is a reasoned effort to indicate degreesnbsp;nf capitalization, is open to question. It is especially hard tonbsp;separate the small capitals of larger size from the smaller ones,nbsp;because of the varying styles which are employed. Therenbsp;seems, for instance, to be only one small capital F, and one N.nbsp;On the other hand, we have D and S as capitals, which vary innbsp;size, one sometimes being the larger, sometimes the other. Frequently, however, attempts to distinguish these capitals innbsp;function can be recognized, as in Soul and Body I, 1-37, wherenbsp;Sceal, 1. 9, and Cleopad, 1. 15, have the larger small capitals,nbsp;but Ilwset, 1. 22, and Bardode, 1. 33, have the smaller ones. Onnbsp;Ihe other hand hwxt, 1. 17, is not capitalized at all, perhaps because it is obvious from the context that the quotation begins

INTRODUCTION

there. In An. 254-295 is found the same situation. The E of Hie, 1. 254, is not as tall a letter as the H of Hwanon, 1. 258,nbsp;but it is heavier and fatter, and from the way it is finished o5nbsp;it is obvious that it is a more important capital than the other.nbsp;Then hwanon, 1. 256, is not capitalized, but Hwanon, 1. 258,nbsp;has the small capital of smaller size just mentioned.

It is only in cases like these that any deliberate distinction between small capitals of larger and smaller size can be traced.nbsp;In Elene the small capitals are much more consistent in sizenbsp;and shape, with no apparent gradation. The same is true ofnbsp;the Dream oe the Rood, and it is probably more than a coincidence that these two poems come close together near the endnbsp;of the book, where the 31- or 32-line page, beginning with thenbsp;fifteenth gathering of the manuscript, is standard.

As a part of the record of the poetical portions of the manuscript, the small capitals in these texts are given in a list in Table III at the end of this Introduction.

In the prose texts the use of small capitals varies quite as much as in the poems. Latin quotations, which are plentifulnbsp;toward the beginning of the manuscript, but less so towardnbsp;the end, generally begin with a capital letter, e.g. Ego, Numquid,nbsp;fob 2h, Reus, fob 35, Ergo, fob 5a, Qui, fob 27b, Nolite, fob 28a,nbsp;etc., but not beati, fob 26b. Personal names vary. In the firstnbsp;homily we have iokannes, petrus, fob 2b, crist, fob 3a, pilatus,nbsp;fob 4a, and this is uniformly the custom in this homily. In thenbsp;third homily we have iohannes, fob 125, 135, esaiam, fob 135,nbsp;esaias, fob 14a, but whenever a personal name begins a sentencenbsp;it is capitalized, e.g., Agustinus, fob 145, Moyses, Crist, Paulus,nbsp;fob 15a. In general, non-capitalization of personal names is thenbsp;rule in the homilies.

The small capitals in the homilies are also of various sizes, as in this passage on fob 64a:

Ac [very small capital A] utan jjydan us to )jam uplican rice ¦ forban pser is j^aet wuldor past naenig man ne mseg mid his word-urn asecgan • Da [small capital 3] wynsumnesse jjses heofonnbsp;cundan lifes ¦ Daer [small capital 3] bi3 lif butan dea)?e • 7 godnbsp;butan ende • 7 yld butan sare • 7 dseg butan nihte ¦ And [muchnbsp;larger capital A] pair bi3 gefea butan unrotnesse • 7 rice butannbsp;awendednesse • 7 ne jjearf man etc.

INTRODUCTION

Here there is obviously an attempt to distinguish the capitals according to syntax, but no simple generalizations can be madenbsp;for the manuscript as a whole, or indeed for the separate homilies.nbsp;Thus on fob 17a the manuscript reads;

Her ne maeg nan yfel ece beon • Forjjan ^eos woruld nis ece • Her is lytelu unrotnes • Ac Ipsei is singalo nearones • her syndonnbsp;lytle wynlustas ac j^aer syndon ])a. ecan tin trego J)on for worhton •nbsp;her biS unglaedlic hleahter • Ac [a very small capital A] Jjser is senbsp;etc.

In this passage the first two sentences, with their contrasts, are capitalized, whereas the rest are not. This suggests thatnbsp;It was considered sufhcient to indicate the structure at thenbsp;beginning, to prepare the reader for what is to come, any furthernbsp;capitalization being thus unnecessary. In the prose, as in thenbsp;poems, the beginnings of sentences and of important clauses arenbsp;frequently but not always capitalized.

The best generalization that can be made is that capitaliza-fion in the manuscript, in the verse as well as in the prose, is purely pragmatic in origin and intention, that it was intendednbsp;'^ore as a rhythmical guide to the reader, to tell him when tonbsp;pause, when to lift his voice, when to emphasize a word, thannbsp;a systematic logical or syntactical accompaniment of thenbsp;text.

VI

ABBREVIATIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT

The common abbreviations in the poetical portions of the rnanuscript, which have all been resolved in the text withoutnbsp;comment, except in cases of special interest, are (1) a line, ornbsp;Qracron, somewhat resembling the tilde, over a vowel, sometimesnbsp;°ver a consonant, to indicate the omission of one or more lettersnbsp;following; (2) f for pxt; (3) 7 for and, atid.

The tilde or macron occurs most commonly in dative plural endings, but not consistently. Thus on fob 29b, the manuscriptnbsp;reads/yrw dagü, An. 1, but tunglum, An. 2. On fob 30a occursnbsp;hetü, An. 85, and werigü, An. 86, but wroht smidum, An.nbsp;^6. The manuscript shows similar irregularity throughout.'

INTRODUCTION

The tilde is also frequently used in the particle pon for ponne, pd for pam, and in hi for hwt,frd iorfram, ghwd for gehwam, andnbsp;less frequently in nouns, adjectives or verbs, as in hear locannbsp;for hearmlocan, An. 95, grdra for gramra, id. 217, grd hydiges fornbsp;gramhydiges, id. 1694, yrpa for yrmpa, id. 970, frU hearn fornbsp;frumbearn, id. 1294,/rëwe ior fremme, id. 1354, wxlgri for wxl-grim, id. 1415. Several times in Andreas, the tilde occurs overnbsp;g, as in ghwd for gehwam, An. 121, and bletsung for bletsunge, id.nbsp;223. The manuscript reading gwyrhtum, An. 1180, may be annbsp;error for gewyrhtum or for gwyrhtum.

In the other poetical texts of the manuscript, besides the common -Ü for -um, -n for -ne, and other frequently occurringnbsp;abbreviations, the following abbreviations may be noted:nbsp;fry'Se iorfrymde, Soul and Body I, 79, dodxge for domdxge, id.nbsp;96; dred for dream, Homiletic Fragment I, 2; gebring for ge-bringe. Dream of the Rood 139; hd lor ham, El. 143, fra fornbsp;pram, id. 190, 701, pry for prym, id. 483, 815, pryma for prymma,nbsp;id. 483, 519, pryme for prymme, id. 329, 754, prymes for prymmes,nbsp;id. 348, frtme for fremme, id. 524, wöma for womma, id. 1310,nbsp;clömum for clommum, id. 696, geldp for gelamp, id. 962, andnbsp;several exceptional abbreviations, g for geseh, id. 841, which thenbsp;scribe seems to have written first merely as g and then to havenbsp;supplemented this by writing seh above the line, middan g fornbsp;middangeard, id. 16, 774, and jswef for andsweredon. A noteworthy use of the runic symbol p, the symbol regularly used bynbsp;the scribe for w, occurs twice in the manuscript, on fob 128ènbsp;and fob 1316, in El. 788, 1089. The symbol is written with anbsp;dot before and after, and it stands for the word wyn, accordingnbsp;to Cook, or waldend, according to Wiilker. This use of a runicnbsp;symbol to stand for a word is similar to that in the signaturesnbsp;of the name of Cynewulf on fob 54a and fob 133a of the manuscript, but the use is restricted to these four places in thenbsp;manuscript.

The abbreviation p for pxt occurs approximately four times as many times as the unabbreviated pxf in Andreas, but onlynbsp;four times altogether in Elene, three times in Soul and Bodynbsp;I, and not at all in the text of the other poems. The abbreviation opp occurs once in An. 1574, but not elsewhere in the poems.nbsp;The spelling 'öxt, with initial 3, is not abbreviated in the poems.

INTRODUCTION

In only seven instances in Andreas does ond occur written out, 11. 945, 1001, 1203, 1307, 1395, 1400, 1719; to these shouldnbsp;perhaps be added on, 1. 1039, apparently an error for ond.nbsp;Elsewhere in Andreas the customary abbreviation 7 occurs.nbsp;In Elene, ond occurs written out four times, 11. 930, 976, 983,nbsp;1209; elsewhere the abbreviation is used. In each of the fournbsp;instances where ond is written out, the 0 is a small capital innbsp;Elene, whereas it never is in Andreas. In the other fournbsp;poems, only the abbreviation occurs.

Where ond- occurs in compound words, the usage of the scribe Varies. In Andreas the verb ondswarian and its forms occurnbsp;with 7 five times, with ond- five times; ondswerian occurs oncenbsp;unabbreviated. The noun ondsware occurs three times writtennbsp;out, and andsware occurs twice written out. The form jswarenbsp;occurs seven times. The form jwist occurs in An. 1540, thenbsp;only instance of the word; jlangne occurs in An. 1274, but ond-langne, 1. 818, and ondlange, 1. 1254. The form jsware occursnbsp;once in Soul and Body I, 106. In Elene, andsware occursnbsp;lu 11. 567, 1002, but -jsware nine times. The verb form -jswernbsp;Occurs once, 1. 396, and also -jwlitan, 1. 298, jweardlice, 1. 1140,nbsp;7'S*c, 1. 472, -jwyrde, 11. 545, 619, jwearde, 1. 630, none of thesenbsp;Words occurring unabbreviated. Since the spelling ond is thenbsp;more frequent in this manuscript when the word is writtennbsp;out, the abbreviation has been regularly so resolved in the textsnbsp;of the present volume.

In the prose parts of the manuscript, abbreviations are somewhat more fully used than in the poetical parts, but in the same Ways, except that no runic symbols stand for words in the prosenbsp;Parts. A few of the more notable abbreviations of the prose arenbsp;us follows: c for cwxd, fob 125, 13a, 136, etc., cw for cwsed, fobnbsp;1206, m pa I for men pa leofestan, fob 9a, 1176, and alsonbsp;^en pa I, fob 236, 246, men 3 i, fob 80a, and occasionally merely

fob 19a, 196, etc.; dryhne for dryhtne, fob 9a, and also drift for 'i^ihten, fob 9a; herig for herigode, fob 19a; aplas for apostolas,nbsp;fob 716; scs for sanctus, fob 716, etc.; 33 for Dauid, fob 14a, etc.;nbsp;loh for lohannem, fob 856. Latin passages in the prose textnbsp;oontain many abbreviations of the customary and easilynbsp;recognizable types, e.g., ds for deus, dno for domino, scdm fornbsp;^^cundum, Ur for uester, etc.

INTRODUCTION

VII

PUNCTUATION AND ACCENT MARKS

The metrical punctuation in the poems of the Vercelli Book is very irregular, and contrasts sharply with the careful systemnbsp;of metrical points in the Junius Manuscript. A large part ofnbsp;the pointing in the Vercelli Book seems to be syntactical, rathernbsp;than metrical in purpose. Usage varies from poem to poem,nbsp;and therefore the six poems must be taken up separately. Thenbsp;metrical points in the later poems of the manuscript are muchnbsp;less frequent than in Andreas.

An examination of the points in An. 1-276 shows that the pointing is metrical, but by no means as consistently so, as innbsp;the Junius Manuscript. In An. 1-100 there are 89 points,nbsp;and this ratio, 89 to 200 half-lines, does not change materiallynbsp;in the rest of the poem.

A good example of the pointing is to be found in An. 25-39: swelc wses })eaw hira- J)aet hie aeghwylcne ellSeodigra- dydannbsp;him to mose mete Jjearfendü- )?ara pe J^aet ealand utan sohte-Swylc waes J^aes folces freobo leas tacen unlaedra eafoS- pxtnbsp;hie eagena gesihS- hetted heoro grimme- heafod gimme-Ageton gealgmode gara ordum- sySSan him geblondan biterenbsp;to somne • dryas Jjurh dwolcraeft ¦ drync unheorne • se on wendenbsp;gewit wera inge)7anc heortan hreSre- hyge waes on cyrred-pstt hie ne murndan aefter man dreame- haele)? heoro graedige-ac hie hig 7 gaers- for mete leaste- mebe gedrehte-The pointing here seems to be partly syntactical, partly metrical,nbsp;though mainly syntactical. If the metrical intention had beennbsp;uppermost in the mind of the scribe, one would at least expectnbsp;points after mose and tacen in this passage. But that thenbsp;metrical intention of the points was not entirely absent isnbsp;evidenced by the fact that once in a while the scribe breaks outnbsp;into a flurry of them, e.g., 11. 190-201:

Hu maeg ic dryhten min ofer deop ge lad- fore gefremman on feorne weg- swa hraedlice- heofona scyppend- wuldres wal-dend- swa Su worde becwist- Dset maeg engel )3in- eaSgenbsp;feran- of heofenum con him holma begang- sealte saestreamas-7 swan rade- waroS faruSa gewinn- 7 waeter brogan- wegasofer

INTRODUCTION

wid land- nesynt me winas cuc5e- eorlas ellj^eodige- ne paer ®niges wat haeletSa gehygdo- ne me here straeta ofer cald waeternbsp;sindon-

^ case might also be made for syntactical pointing here, but what syntactical value the points have may be explained as duenbsp;to the peculiar structure of Anglo-Saxon verse.

In An. 1-276 there are only three points which do not come the end of a half-line. They are after lungre, 1. 77, him, 1.nbsp;189, and scealtu, 1. 220. Similar pointing occurs elsewhere, asnbsp;in 1. 601, where section [VI] begins; Da gen weges- weard-Word hord onleac- The pointing in these passages seems to benbsp;without rime or reason, unless it may have been intended tonbsp;indicate some kind of rhetorical emphasis in reading. It isnbsp;possible that in 1. 77 the scribe regarded the line as ending withnbsp;lungre, and scyle as belonging to the next line.

The only generalization which seems possible for Andreas is that the pointing, as a whole, is highly unsystematic andnbsp;’regularly conditioned neither by meter, syntax, nor sentence-rhythm, though any of these may have been the reason fornbsp;individual points. The person—scribe or author—who inserted these points probably had a reason for each one, or mostnbsp;*^1 them, but present knowledge of the technique of Anglo-Saxon poetry is not much furthered by his use of them.

In the Fates of the Apostles, the points are on the same system, or lack of system, as in Andreas, ranging from infrequent pointing in 11. 6J-22 to regular pointing in 11. 58-65a,nbsp;Except that no point follows gesohte, 1. 62a. But this wordnbsp;eomes at the end of a line and perhaps no point was felt to benbsp;Accessary there.

In Soul and Body I it is possible to make some generaliza-linns. One notices first the recurring point-pattern in such phrases as the following:

^Sre ])u )?e wiste wlanc- 7 wines saed- 1. 39. strange gestryned- 7 gestaSolod ]?urh me- 1. 45.

®ien to ge maeccan- ne meder ne faeder- ne naïnigum gesybban 11. 53-54.

secan )?a harnas ])e Su me her serife - 7 Jja arleasan eardungstowe-

11. 70-71.

INTRODUCTION

ponne Su sefre on moldan man gewurde- oöSe asfre fulwihte onfon sceolde- 11. 86-87.

It will be observed that these coordinate constructions are very consistent in the pointing, which may be rhythmical or syntactical. On the other hand, in 11.57-60, the manuscript reads:nbsp;Ne mseg pe nu heonon adon hyrsta py readan- ne gold ne seolfornbsp;ne Jjinra goda nan ne pinre bryde beag- ne pin gold wela- ne nannbsp;para goda pe Su iu ah test-

One would expect more pointing here than the manuscript gives. In general, the points, which are rather infrequent innbsp;this poem, less than 60 in 166 lines, seem to have been insertednbsp;for syntactical or rhythmical, rather than for metrical, purposes.

In Homilectic Fragment I the points are also infrequent, about 12 in 47 lines, and of these the following may be notednbsp;especially:

manig- 7 mislic- in manna drea- 1. 2. in wita for wyrd- weoruda dryhten- 1. 10.nbsp;sare mid- ponne se sael cymeS- 1. 23.

Concerning these and the remaining points, no generalization is possible.

In the Dream oe the Rood, the metrical points vary strangely. On fob 1045 (11.1-21), where there are 24 lines on anbsp;page, the points are rare, and seem to mark syntactical pausesnbsp;within sentences, or else sentence-closes, as in: faegere aet foldannbsp;sceatum- swylcepaer fife wseron etc.) ne waes Saer hum fracodesnbsp;gealga - Ac hine paer etc. On the next three pages (fob 1 OSa-106a) the number of lines on a page jumps to 32, and coincidentlynbsp;with this change the pointing also changes. From wendati,nbsp;1. 22, the first word on fob 105a, to bestemed, 1. 22, there is nonbsp;pointing; but there is a point after bestemed, and then a pointnbsp;after each half-line, except after liegende, 1. 24, to the end of bnbsp;25. This is obviously metrical pointing, but it stops as suddenlynbsp;as it began. In 11. 32-51a, the pointing becomes more abundant, but it appears to be syntactical, marking off the shortnbsp;sentences in this part of the poem. After 1. 52 the points againnbsp;become very infrequent, with apparently no consistency innbsp;their use.

INTRODUCTION

In Elene the first thing one observes is that of the 14 points ^hich occur in El. 1-100, all but three are followed by smallnbsp;^npitals, as follows: after hereteman, 1. 10, Hred gotan, 1. 20,nbsp;Seador, 1. 26, burg wigendra, 1. 34, breahtme, 1. 39, sceawedon,nbsp;58, gesxgon, 1. 68, woma, 1. 71, toglad, 1. 78, 3e, 1. 81, ahead,nbsp;87. This indicates unmistakeably their syntactical char-In general, the points mark the ends of sentences ornbsp;Parts of sentences. The three exceptions are after/orow, 1. 21,nbsp;)^here the n has apparently been added later, and the pointnbsp;inserted to separate the words; after cyning, 1. 32, where thenbsp;Innction of the point is not at all obvious; and after gearu, 1. 85,nbsp;ii'here separation of words written closely together is perhapsnbsp;^gain the intention. This syntactical function of the pointsnbsp;i^nntinues throughout the poem, and in most, nearly all, casesnbsp;^ small capital follows. Frequently the point is shaped like a

i^ornma.

quot;The other marks of punctuation used in the poetical parts the manuscript are ly and which regularly mark the endsnbsp;sections, and frequently occur within sections, at times notnbsp;^iffering in function from a plain point, as after drynces, Soulnbsp;body 1,41 j wolde, id. 83, treow, Dream of the Rood 17, fornam,nbsp;1-131, panon, id. 143. Sometimes a semicolon (: or y) occurs,nbsp;nt very rarely, as after wxre, Soul and Body 21, cure, id. 155.

. The only certain thing about all this punctuation is its extreme Jii^gularity and frequent aimlessness. It seems quite probable,nbsp;•iwever, that much of this inconsistency is due to the heedless-Hess of scribes in transmitting what may have been originallynbsp;^ iftore systematic style of punctuation, or perhaps to the edi-^I'yial policy of the scribe of the Vercelli manuscript. Hisnbsp;Punciple seems to have been not to punctuate the poetical textsnbsp;®i®trically, though occasionally he may have introduced metri

'¦I’Py which contained a greater abundance of metrical pointings, dot over the letter y which appears frequently in the Ver-Book, but not in the Junius Manuscript, is scarcely to benbsp;f^garded as a form of punctuation, but as a part of the letternbsp;jtself. The purpose of this dot seems to have been to give thenbsp;a distinctive mark of recognition. Several different

INTRODUCTION

styles of y appear in the manuscript, especially one in which the two upper arms and the lower stroke of the letter are straightnbsp;lines, and a second in which both of the upper arms and alsonbsp;the lower stroke are markedly curved. The first may be callednbsp;the straight and the second the curly y. The curly y was frequent, according to Keller, Angelsdchsische Palaeographic, pp.nbsp;40-42, in the first half of the tenth century. The straight ynbsp;was in origin an earlier style of writing, and it is above thenbsp;straight y that the dot usually occurs in the Vercelli Book. Butnbsp;all straight y’s are not uniformly provided with a dot, and on thenbsp;other hand, occasionally the later curly y has a dot. After itsnbsp;early use the dot above the straight y was discontinued for anbsp;time in the practice of Anglo-Saxon scribes, according to Keller,nbsp;but with the scribal reform at the beginning of the tenth century,nbsp;the dot came in again, and by the eleventh century, the undotted y had practically disappeared. So far as the Vercellinbsp;Book is concerned, the writing of y is notable mainly for itsnbsp;unsystematic and eclectic character.

Accents in the Poems

Scattered throughout the manuscript, both in prose and verse texts, occur numerous acute accent marks placed above letters.nbsp;These accents occur regularly only above vowel symbols, although edniwinga, An. 783, has the mark over the g, probablynbsp;through inadvertence, instead of over the second i of the word.nbsp;The marks are of varying degrees of heaviness, depending onnbsp;the strength of the strokes of the pen with which they werenbsp;made, but there is no indication that the scribe intended anVnbsp;difference of kind in the accent marks. The purpose or purposesnbsp;for which these accent marks were made is not always clear,nbsp;nor is it altogether certain whether they were made by the scribenbsp;as he wrote or were inserted afterward, though there seems nonbsp;good reason for assuming anything other than that they werenbsp;made by the scribe as he wrote.

In Andreas, Fates of the Apostles and Elene accent marks occur with about the same degree of frequency, the percentages of accents in proportion to the lines being respectivelynbsp;.182, .172 and .164. In the shorter poems the accent marks are

INTRODUCTION

^ good deal less frequent, .06 per cent in Soul and Body I, .085 in Homiletic Fragment I, and .038 in the Dream oe thenbsp;Rood.

That these accent marks were not consistently used to indicate Vowel length is obvious from an examination of the list of themnbsp;given at the end of this Introduction. It is indeed questionablenbsp;Vfhether they were intended to indicate vowel length at all.nbsp;Naturally vowel length frequently coincides with metricalnbsp;stress and in such instances the accent may as well have beennbsp;intended to indicate stress as vowel length. In any case poetsnbsp;nnd scribes of the Anglo-Saxon period could scarcely have hadnbsp;etymological length of vowels in mind in the placing of thesenbsp;Accent marks, and if they were intended to indicate anythingnbsp;'vith respect to the character of the vowel sounds, it was morenbsp;probably some shade of quality than a degree of quantity. Notnbsp;infrequently accents appear over vowels historically short,nbsp;especially gód, as in An. 758, 760, 925, 999, 1030, etc. to distinguish the word for “god” from god, “good.” This use occursnbsp;enly in the text of Andreas. Other examples of accents overnbsp;short vowels are wég. An. 223, hyge, id. 578, gewit, id. 645,nbsp;^'^gin, id. 741, gehygd, id. 772, heonan, id. 791, inwit, id. 946,nbsp;gewiyiyi, id. 958, hlindura, id. 993, hrine, id. 1000, lóf, id. 1006,nbsp;^ó/e, id. 1008, hinca, id. 1171, cirm, id. 1237, wine, id. 1464,nbsp;El. 712. Accent marks over short vowels are less frequent in Elene than in Andreas. The frequency of accentsnbsp;ever the letter i, long and short, suggests that the accent herenbsp;ii'ns merely a distinguishing part of the letter, like the later conventional dot. The letter most frequently provided with annbsp;Accent is a. In some instances the accent seems to be merely anbsp;syllabic indication, as in those many compounds in which thenbsp;prefix a- is given an accent, or in writings like ban hüs. An. 1240,nbsp;rade, id. 1262, or compounds with or-, un-, as in órlege, An.nbsp;^146, ünhwilen, id. 1154, ormxte, id. 1166, ünfyrn, id. 1371.nbsp;Stress accent seems to be indicated in the writing of propernbsp;as in merme donia. An. 42, israhelum, id. 165, hdbrdhdme,nbsp;779, isddc, id. 793, achdgia, Ap. 16, ir tdcus, id. 68, and cer-tainiy hwkt. An. 676. Accent on an inflectional ending, as innbsp;^^fdón, An. 785, or fdrd, id. 1023, 1060, may also have beennbsp;¦rhetorical, though accents of this kind occur very infrequently.

INTRODUCTION

Sometimes, though rarely, a vowel letter is doubled, presumably as a variant of the accent mark, and sometimes both double spelling and accent occur, as in 6or, An. 649, tamp;an, id-m9,fdd, id. 1593,/aa, id. 1599.

Although the accent marks in the poetical texts are certainly not applied in accord with any single system, they are by nonbsp;means haphazard and accidental or ornamental additions tonbsp;the text. As a part of the record of the manuscript, accentednbsp;words in the poetical texts of the Vercelli Book are listed innbsp;Table IV at the end of this Introduction. For the purpose ofnbsp;comparative study, the accent marks in the Junius Manuscriptnbsp;are also given in this table. A bar separating the parts of anbsp;word has been inserted in certain words in these lists, as in d |nbsp;hwurfon, Page 1, Gen. 25, the purpose of the bar being to indicate that the part of the word before the bar stands at the endnbsp;of the line in the manuscript, the scribe’s intent in these accentsnbsp;apparently being to call attention to the syllabic division of thenbsp;word. Syllabic division as it appears in the manuscript in allnbsp;other words is also indicated, since there seems to be no doubtnbsp;that the scribes frequently used the accent merely to mark thenbsp;syllabic character of a word. A bibliography of studies of thenbsp;accents in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts will be found in Kennedy?nbsp;A Bibliography of Writings on the English Language from thtnbsp;Beginning of Printing to the End of 1922, p. 134.

Punctuation and Accent-Marks in the Prose Texts

The point occurs in the prose texts as in the poems, although obviously its use here is syntactical only. The following passage, taken from the first homily, fob 2b, is representative:nbsp;Hwaet ic openlice 7 undearnunga middan geard Iserde- 7 syml®nbsp;pssT eower gesomnung wses In eowrum templü fiyder ealle iudaSnbsp;comon- Jjonne ic his ealle leerde - ne ic owiht dearnunga spraeC'nbsp;nemin lar owiht diogol wees •

The tendency is to separate the various syntactical or rhythmi' cal units of a sentence, but not to carry out this separationnbsp;rigorously or completely.

In the fifth homily, and in those which immediately follofl^ Andreas and the Fates oe the Apostles, the punctuation is

INTRODUCTION

begins with a large capital, except the Fates of the Apostles, in which space for the capital was left but the letter itself wasnbsp;never supplied, and Homiletic Fragment I, the beginning ofnbsp;which is lacking through a loss of one or more folios in thenbsp;manuscript. After the initial large capital, the remainingnbsp;letters of the first word of each poem is written in smaller largenbsp;capitals, except in the Dream of the Rood, where only thenbsp;first two letters of the first word are capitalized. The beginnings of the poems indeed are not more definitely marked thannbsp;the sections in the poems. This informal treatment of thenbsp;openings of the poems contrasts sharply with the treatment ofnbsp;the openings of the homilies. Many of the homilies not onlynbsp;have titles, but the openings are also more elaborately capitalized, a number of times through the whole of the first line of anbsp;homily, and most of the few attempts at decorative capitalsnbsp;also appear at the beginning of homilies. From this one maynbsp;perhaps infer that the homilies were more highly esteemed fornbsp;the purpose for which the volume was made than the poems.

The first poem in the manuscript, on fol.29amp;-52è,is Andreas, a narrative account of the life of St. Andrew derived ultimatelynbsp;from the Greek Ilpafets ’AvSpeov Kal MarOeia els rrjv ttóXh'nbsp;TÜv avdfxgt;}iro4gt;a,yo}v, edited by Bonnet, Acta Apostolorumnbsp;Apocrypha, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 65-116 (1898). The poem wasnbsp;made from a Latin version of the Greek text not now extant,nbsp;so far as is known,ina complete form.^ An Anglo-Saxon prosenbsp;life of St. Andrew is preserved in two manuscripts, the manuscript of the Blickling Homilies and MS. 198, Corpus Christinbsp;College, Cambridge, accessible in Bright’s Anglo-Saxon Reader,nbsp;pp. 113-128. This prose version is ultimately of the samenbsp;origin as Andreas, but the two are independently derived fromnbsp;their source.

The narrative in Andreas follows the source very closely and no serious question of omission or interpolation occurs innbsp;the consideration of the poem. But because Andreas isnbsp;followed in the manuscript by the Fates of the Apostles,nbsp;and because this latter is such a short poem and nevertheless

^ See Krapp, Andreas, pp. xxi fi.

INTRODUCTION

contains one of the four well-known runic signatures of Cynewulf, an attempt has been made to attach it to Andreas as a Purt and conclusion of that poem. Nothing in the manuscriptnbsp;justifies such a disposition of the Fates or the Apostles. Thenbsp;poem begins with a large capital, or rather space for one, thenbsp;Capital never having been supplied, and it is separated fromnbsp;what precedes by the usual spacing. It is true that the methodnbsp;Used by the scribe in separating the different sections of a poemnbsp;is exactly the same as that used in separating quite differentnbsp;Poems. But since this is so, the arrangement of the poem in thenbsp;Uianuscript provides no argument either one way or the othernbsp;Concerning the theory of the Fates of the Apostles as annbsp;integral part of Andreas. Internal evidence, however, speaksnbsp;^ore decisively. Andreas has its single source, as has alreadynbsp;been pointed out, and there is no evidence that the author ofnbsp;¦Andreas endeavored to manipulate or to enlarge the structurenbsp;uf the narrative as his source gave it. The Fates of thenbsp;Apostles has a different but quite as definite a source, althoughnbsp;^be exact text which the Anglo-Saxon poet used has not beennbsp;discovered. But it must have been some Latin list of thenbsp;Apostles, their missions and passions, of a type commonlynbsp;Current at the time the Anglo-Saxon poem was written, andnbsp;possibly of Irish origin.^ The general agreement in subjectnbsp;flutter of Andreas as the story of the life of an apostle and ofnbsp;the Fates of the Apostles as a brief martyrology of thenbsp;Apostles is an evidence of the selective choice of the person whonbsp;brought together the materials of the Vercelli Book, but not ofnbsp;^uy constructive intent on the part of the author of Andreas.

It should be noted, however, that the passage on fob 54a, 'Comprising Ap. 96-122 and containing the runes which combinenbsp;lo form the name Cynwulf, stands on this folio by itself, andnbsp;A has been argued from this that the Fates of the Apostlesnbsp;really ends with 1. 955, and that the runic passage, 11. 96-122,nbsp;happens to have been misplaced, its proper position being atnbsp;'•he end of Andreas, as an epilogue to that poem. But againnbsp;'rothing in the manuscript record justifies such an assumption,

’ See Krapp, Andreas, pp. xxix-xxxii,'^Hamilton, Modern Language Notes 385-95 (1920).

INTRODUCTION

except the very slight evidence that the runic passage does begin on a new page. But there is no mark of punctuation atnbsp;the conclusion of the preceding page, and the first word of thenbsp;runic passage on fob 54a does not begin with a large capital ornbsp;any other indication that it is a new poem or even a sectionalnbsp;division of a larger poem. The text on the page preceding fobnbsp;54a fills the page completely, the number of lines on the pagenbsp;being twenty-five, and the scribe was consequently compellednbsp;to begin on a new page with the words that follow. If it werenbsp;certain that Andreas was written by Cynewulf, one might benbsp;inclined to stretch the point a little and to assume that the runicnbsp;passage at least formed the conclusion of Andreas. Or ofnbsp;course it may be argued, as it was by Sievers,* that the passagenbsp;on fob 54a belongs neither to the Fates oe the Apostles nornbsp;to Andreas, but to some unknown poem. But it is very farnbsp;from certain that Andreas was the work of Cynewulf, and onenbsp;hesitates to attach any part of the Fates of the Apostles tonbsp;that poem. On the strength of the runic signature, the Fatesnbsp;OF the Apostles has been generally assigned to Cynewulf.nbsp;It may seem strange that Cynewulf should have taken thenbsp;trouble to add his name to so slight a poem as the Fates of thenbsp;Apostles, but on the other hand, it is not improbable thatnbsp;Cynewulf attached a higher value to the poem than the modemnbsp;reader is inclined to do.^

The third poem in the manuscript, on fob 1016-1035, follows a homily which ends on fob 101a, on a page containing onlynbsp;seventeen lines of writing, the rest of the page being left blank.nbsp;The poem begins at the top of fob 1016 with the usual capitalsnbsp;that mark the beginnings of new texts. In content the poemnbsp;is an address of the soul to the body after death. Anothernbsp;version of the poem which loosely parallels the text in the Ver-celli Book is contained in the Exeter Book. To distinguish thenbsp;two versions, the one in the Vercelli Book is called Soul andnbsp;Body I, and the version in the Exeter Book is called Soul andnbsp;Body II. The poem ends abruptly in the middle of a sentence

^Anglia XIII, 21-25.

^ For discussions of these questions of structure, see the titles in the Bibliography.

INTRODUCTION

the foot of fol. 1030. The concluding parts of the poem were undoubtedly contained on the one or more folios now missingnbsp;from the manuscript between fol. 103-104. But probably notnbsp;Uiuch of this poem has been lost, for the text that follows innbsp;the manuscript as it now exists is Homiletic Fragment I,nbsp;^hich occupies only fol. 104a and five lines at the top of fol.nbsp;1046, in all forty-seven lines of text. A good share of the miss-uig page or pages was not improbably occupied by the beginningnbsp;this poem.

The poem following Soul and Body I is designated as Homiletic Fragment I to distinguish it from another similarnbsp;fragment contained in the Exeter Book and designated Homi-1-etic Fragment II. The beginning of this poem is missing fornbsp;the same reason that the conclusion of Soul and Body I isnbsp;Uiissing, but short as the surviving fragment is, probably notnbsp;^uch has been lost. For the fragment is a loose amplificationnbsp;uf Psalm XXVIII, and the beginning of the fragment corresponds to the third verse of the Psalm, which as a whole containsnbsp;uuly nine verses. So far as this evidence goes, it seems tonbsp;ludicate therefore that not more than one or two folios may havenbsp;^uen lost between fol. 103-104.

After Homiletic Fragment I comes the Dream of the Rood the manuscript, extending from the sixth line on fol. 1046nbsp;lu the bottom of fol. 106a. The poem begins in the usual waynbsp;'''ith capitals and with spacing separating it from the text thatnbsp;precedes, and it ends with no indication of incompleteness ornbsp;loss on fol. 106a. The text is rather closely written on fol.nbsp;105a-106a, these pages each containing thirty-two lines; but thisnbsp;uan scarcely be taken as evidence that the scribe wanted tonbsp;crowd the text of the Dream of the Rood within a certainnbsp;space, for the pages that follow fol. 106a contain a homily andnbsp;frrese also are written with thirty-two lines on a page.

The earlier editors assigned the Dream of the Rood to Cynewulf, but no direct evidence and very little indirect evi-'lunce is available to justify such an ascription. Certain similarities of phrasing, sometimes helpful in determining the text.nbsp;Connect the runic inscription on the Ruthwell Cross with thisnbsp;Puem, and also the very brief inscription on the Brussels Cross,

INTRODUCTION

the plausible assumption being that these inscriptions were extracted from the text of the poem. It is not improbable thatnbsp;the Dream of the Rood was written by Cynewulf, but the lacknbsp;of evidence, except that of a general and circumstantial character, forbids any positive statement.

The sixth and last poem in the manuscript is Elene, contained on fob 121a-133amp;. It begins at the top of fob 121a, following a prose text which ends on fob 120è at the middle ofnbsp;the page, the rest of the page being left blank. The narrativenbsp;proper of Elene ends on the twenty-first line of fob 1326 withnbsp;the word _fimt and the usual punctuation indicating the close ofnbsp;a section, and it is followed on the same page by the opening ofnbsp;the passage containing the runic signature of Cynewulf. Thisnbsp;passage extends through the sixth line on fob 1336 and is numbered XV, as a section of Elene. It is followed in turn on thenbsp;seventh line of fob 1336 by a part of the prose life of St. Guthlac,nbsp;without section numbering. The poem is undoubtedly complete, but the prose life of St. Guthlac, although it begins as anbsp;new division, opens in the middle of a narrative with allusionsnbsp;to preceding matter not contained in this text. By virtue ofnbsp;the runic symbols on fob 133a, in the passage following the endnbsp;of the narrative of Elene, this is one of the few Anglo-Saxonnbsp;poems the authorship of which is unquestioned, for all agreenbsp;that the poem was written by Cynewulf. This runic passage,nbsp;it should be noted, is an appendage or epilogue to Elene. Thenbsp;text of Elene ends with the twenty-first line of fob 1326 of thenbsp;manuscript and it ends with the word JlniL This is the conclusion of a section numbered fourteen, and following it comes thenbsp;number fifteen and the opening of the runic passage in the usualnbsp;way as a new section. The runic passage therefore fills thenbsp;remainder of fob 1326, that is, ten lines, the whole of fob 133a,nbsp;and six lines of fob 1336, where it ends with Amen. Nothingnbsp;in the content of this runic passage connects it inescapably withnbsp;Elene, and indeed it is so different in general style that itnbsp;would seem to have been composed as an entirely independentnbsp;effort. The connection of the runic passage with the rest of thenbsp;poem is therefore not structural but casual, though this factnbsp;scarcely justifies any doubts of it as a genuine addition to Elene.

INTRODUCTION

The actual text which Cynewulf had before him as his source the composition of Elene has not been discovered. It isnbsp;^hnost certain, however, that Cynewulf followed his sourcenbsp;closely and there are no questions of interpolation or structuralnbsp;misplacement to be considered. In its relation to its source,nbsp;Elene therefore resembles Andreas. The source of the poemnbsp;'''as a Latin legend of the invention of the Cross, differing fromnbsp;iiat similar to that given in the Acta Sanctorum.* Other verynbsp;similar forms of the Cross legend are to be found in a Latinnbsp;Cyriaci from Codex Paris. 2769, and in the Greek Abyosnbsp;evpeaeus toD Tipiov Kai fcooxotoO ffrcLvpov, from Codexnbsp;Graecus Monacensis 271.^ In the Heilagra manna sogurnbsp;there is a Norse version of the Cross legend which innbsp;many places shows a striking resemblance to Elene? An evennbsp;closer similarity with Elene is shown by the Irish version innbsp;the Leabhar Breac* and by an Anglo-Saxon prose homily entitled pasre halgan rode gemetnes in MS. Auct. F. 4. 32 in thenbsp;Eodleian Library.® It is quite probable® that the Irish versionnbsp;^ad the two Anglo-Saxon versions were from a common Latinnbsp;source, made in Ireland, perhaps from a still earlier Greek text.

CONTENTS OF THE FOLIOS OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The contents of the folios of the Vercelli manuscript containing poetical t®xts are given in terms of the line numbers of this edition in the followingnbsp;table.

'Acta Sanctorum, Mali I, 445-448. See Glöde, Anglia IX, 271-318.

' These two texts are printed in Holder, Inventio Sanctas Crucis, pp. 1-13, 30-39

Heilagra manna sSgur, ed. Unger, Christiania, 1877, Vol. I, pp. 303-See Golther, LiteraturUatt VIII, 261-263, and Brenner, Englische ^(vdien XHI, 48CM82.

^ ' Schirmer, Die Kreuzeslegenden im Leabhar Breac, St. Gallen, 1886, pp. ~10, with a German translation, pp. 31-44.

® Morris, Legends of the Holy Rood (E. E. T. S., O. S. 46), pp. 3-17.

See Brown, Englische Studiën XL. 1-29.

INTRODUCTION

1 Here the poem ends in the middle of a sentence. One or more sheets of the MS. are missing, containing the ending of this poem and the beginningnbsp;of the next.

INTRODUCTION

X

Table II

SECTIONAL DIVISIONS IN THE POEMS

The division of the longer poems of the manuscript is indicated by a ^^-rk of punctuation at the end of the several sections, followed by spacingnbsp;^id by a capital letter at the beginning of the succeeding section, and bynbsp;Numbering. But all of these indications are not uniformly present, andnbsp;in Elene do section numberings appear. The sectional divisions ofnbsp;® Poems in terms of the line numbers of this edition are as follows, thenbsp;’himbers bracketed being those which do not appear in the manuscript;

Andreas

1

The poem ends six lines from the top of the page, and is followed by prose life of Guthlac which concludes the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

Soul and Body I

[I] Soul and Body I 1-126 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;[II] Soul and Body I 127-166

Elene

VIIII El. 709-801 X El. 802-893nbsp;[XI] El. 894r-966nbsp;[XII] El. 967-1042nbsp;XIII El. 1043-1146nbsp;XIIII El. 1147-1235nbsp;XV El. 1236-1321

XI

Table III

SMALL CAPITALS Andreas

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

' These words were written with capitals of varying size, the first one larger, the second smaller, but both to be regarded as small capitals.

“ From this point on in the poem some small capitals may be hidden by the blot or stain in the MS.

INTRODUCTION

Ac

^6 ForSan ponne

2 In 6 In

U Ac D Syllicnbsp;Ic

HwteSre 2I Forhtnbsp;23 Hwilum

Ö In

® Constantines 9 Innbsp;Waesnbsp;Foron

27 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Fornbsp;25 For

^ Woldon

59 Bst 69 ])anbsp;22 J)uhtenbsp;29 Constan-tinusnbsp;®2 Beahnbsp;88 Faelenbsp;Wasnbsp;Constan-, tinusnbsp;J05 Hehtnbsp;09 Berannbsp;; 4 Segnnbsp;' Instaepesnbsp;2^2 Some

28 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ba

44 Da

48 Gewat '50 Com

XII

Table IV A

ACCENTS IN THE VERCELLI BOOK

* There is a distinct stroke over i, probably intended as an accent.

INTRODUCTION

' With g inserted above the line.

. Wülker, Bibliothek II, 205, records an accent over t, but it is doubtful « there is

INTRODUCTION

‘ The accent over m, but meant for o?

INTRODUCTION

ACCENTS IN THE JUNIUS MANUSCRIPT

The total number of accents in the Junius Manuscript is something over ^^fee thousand, or in terms of percentage, .622 in proportion to the numbernbsp;verse lines in the manuscript. This contrasts with only .161 percent innbsp;the poetical parts of the Vercelli Book. The accents are relatively mostnbsp;Numerous in Genesis B, the percentage being .932 for that section of Genesis,nbsp;hut only .1596 for Genesis A. After Genesis B, the most heavily accented

INTRODUCTION

text is Exodus, with .753 percent. The percentage for Daniel is .528, for Christ and Satan it is .438. In Christ and Satan, the percentage of accentsnbsp;in the portion written by the first scribe is 1.081, in that by the secondnbsp;scribe, it is .301, and .450 for the small part written by the third scribe. Thisnbsp;uneven distribution of the accents probably bears some relation to the textsnbsp;which the scribes used for copying. The letter over which accents mostnbsp;commonly appear is a, and after this letter, i, o, e and x in order, withnbsp;relatively few accents over the remaining symbols.

Gollancz suggests^ that the accent marks of the Junius Manuscript are possibly by several hands. They are certainly very different in form, butnbsp;these differences scarcely prove that they were made by different persons.nbsp;In Liber I two forms of accents may be distinguished, a long slanting accentnbsp;which is found thoughout Liber I and not at all in Liber II, and a shorternbsp;and less slanting accent, which in Liber I is found only in the first thousandnbsp;lines of Genesis but which occurs regularly throughout Liber II. Thenbsp;first occurrence of the second, or shorter and more vertical, type of accentnbsp;is on page 6 of the manuscript, in holm (Gen. 120), and the last occurrencenbsp;on page 46 of the manuscript, in éSyl (Gen. 962). Within these limitsnbsp;accents of this type are very frequent, especially on pages 18 to 23 of thenbsp;manuscript, where they far outnumber the other accents. For instance,nbsp;on page 23 of the manuscript, the accents in füs (Gen. 443), lap wende modnbsp;(t.448),gódcx (1.458), bi (1. 460), Alan (1. 461), J-Mo (1.464), gódes{\. 465),nbsp;WSe (I. 468), beam (1. 468), écnisse (1. 469), onbdt (1. 470), swdre (1. 472)nbsp;are of the long, slanting type, while all the other accents on this page arenbsp;of the shorter and more vertical type. On page 23 of the manuscript therenbsp;are a number of accents in red ink, as in dkdum (1. 451), menu (1. 451),nbsp;where not only the double accent but also the added final n is in red, ófxtesnbsp;(1. 461), and wdldend (1. 462). Only on page 23 are these red accents to benbsp;found. These accents in red are all of the shorter type.

It is sometimes impossible to be sure to which of the two types an accent belongs, and consequently no attempt has been made to distinguish the twonbsp;types in the following list. In the collotype reproduction of the Juniusnbsp;Manuscript by Gollancz, the accents do not always clearly show, and fornbsp;this reason the following list of accents has been completely based upon thenbsp;original manuscript.

^The Cxdmon Mamiscripl, p. xxiv.