The "Beowulf" Manuscript Author(s): Kenneth Sisam Source: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Jul.

, 1916), pp. 335-337 Published by: Modern Humanities Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3713531 . Accessed: 09/10/2013 17:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.85 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:39:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES.
THE 'BEOWULF'MANUSCRIPT. A few years ago, when turning over the Beowulf MS., I was surprised to observe that certain facts had escaped notice or attention. And they are worth while setting out, if only as an indication of the dangers that beset a historical study in which insufficient attention is paid to manuscript indications, often the clearest indications of time and place. The MS. volume Vitellius A. xv consists of two separate codices, fortuitously brought together by the binder in the sixteenth century. The first, ff. 4a-93b in the present numbering, comes, like the Bede MS. Otho B. XI, from the priory of St Mary's, Southwick, Hants., as appears from the entry on f. 5b: Hic liber est ecclesie beate marie de Suwika, etc.l It is written in two main hands, the first extending to the end of Augustine's Soliloquies (f. 59b), the second from the beginning of the Gospel of Nicodemus to the end of the codex, which is imperfect. Both hands may be assigned roughly to the middle of the twelfth century2. The second codex, ff. 94-209 in the present numbering3, is imperfect at beginning and end. It also is written in two hands: the first, extending from f. 94a to f. 175b, is the first hand of Beowzuf; the second, extending thence to the end of the codex, is the second hand of Beowulf. Taken together they are usually dated circa 1000, and with good reason. From this certain results follow. First, we can no longer say, with the most recent editor of Beowulf, 'as to the history of the [Beowulf] MS. we have no information, till we find it in the collection formed by
1 Cockayne's suggested emendation to Euerwika (Shrine, p. 294), followed by W. H. Hulme Die Sprache der ae. Bearbeitung der Soliloquien Augustins, p. 1, is unjustifiable. 2 Hargrove in his edition of Augustine's Soliloquies, with a fine disregard of the facsimile he reproduces, states that his text is in the same hand as Beowulf. 3 The numbering of blank dividing leaves advances the former foliation of the second codex by 3.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.85 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:39:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

336

Miscellaneous Notes

Sir Robert Cotton'.' In the natural place, at the top of the first page of the codex (f. 94a), is written the name 'Lawrence Nowell' with date 1563; and the credit of preserving Beowulf must be given-in part at least-to that indefatigable pioneer in Anglo-Saxon studies2. Unfortunately, the inscription does not help much more. As far as I know, very few ancient manuscripts, and none of certain provenance, can be traced to Nowell, and so we cannot tell what libraries he drew upon. He was, of course, Dean of Lichfield at the time, and it may be that he obtained the MS. there or in that neighbourhood. But, failing definite evidence, this must remain a rather remote possibility3. Again, the intolerable confusion in the dating of the prose pieces which precede Beowulf in the second codex (if. 94a-98 a Christophorus fragment, 98b-106b Wonders of the East, 107a-131b Letter of Alexander) comes to an end. The hand of these pieces, which is the first hand of Beowulf, is referred to various dates in the eleventh and even the twelfth century4. We thus have on the one side complete agreement that the date of the hand in Beowulf is 'circa 1000,' or 'late tenth century,' and on the other the widest discrepancy in the dating of the identical script5 when it appears in the prose tracts-a phenomenon, to say the least, disquieting. Literary history must also be brought into line. The appearance of Oriental themes in English literature has been placed at the very end of the Old English period. Wtiilkerthinks these tracts were not translated before the middle of the eleventh century6. Brandl speaks of their appearance as 'die fortschrittlichste Erscheinung in der ganzen spatangelsachsischen Prosa7.' Stopford Brooke refers to them as 'the last books, save the Worcester Annals, which were written in the
1 Chambers, Introd. p. ix. 2 He probably did not realise the value of his find. Indeed, although Junius, who from had copied Augustine's Soliloquies and Judith and collated the Gospel of Nicodemnus this volume, must have known of the existence of Beowutlf,there is no evidence that it excited any attention till Wanley set to work upon the manuscript in 1700. 3 It might be supposed that, in delicate hands, the pictures from f. 98b onwards would yield some clue as to provenance. But they are not English in conception, and their nature and style hardly encourage the hope. 4 M. Firster in Archiv, cxvII, 367 accepts the later date. Mr S. I. Rypins, who at my suggestion has undertaken an edition of the prose pieces in the second codex, with a study of the problems they raise, points out to me that Professor Sedgefield in his Beowulf, p. xiv, footnote, remarks that 'the first scribe also wrote the MS. immediately preceding the Beowulf MS. in the codex,' apparently without noticing tlle significance of the fact. There can be no real doubt of this identity. The script is very distinctive; and, to mention only one point of detail, the avoidance of the low or long form of s is remarkable in a hand which still preserves a good deal of insular character. 6 Grundriss, p. 505. 7 Paul's Grundriss, ii, p. 1132.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.85 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:39:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

M2iscellaneous Notes

337

literary language of Wessex'.' But here we have them in a hand which is undoubtedly to be dated circa 1000; in a manuscript which is certainly not an autograph, and which seems to represent originals carrying back well into the tenth century. It would appear, then, that the introduction of these Oriental themes belongs to the great period of Continental influence which began with the tenth century, and not to the later period of Norman influence. One point remains. In the critical examination of early English texts, the task of distinguishing forms introduced by copyists is usually baffling, and we cannot afford to overlook any source of information. So far, only Judith, which is in the second hand2, has been used to throw light on the language of the scribes of Beowulf But here, in the first hand, are prose texts of four times the bulk of Judith, free to some extent from the circumstances which make poetical texts so confusing in forms, and probably themselves due to more than one author. The detailed comparison of one with another, and of all with Beowulf, cannot fail to throw light on the characteristics of the first scribe, and on the explanation of the more obscure dialect forms in Beowidf. I need mention only one example. Genitive plurals in -o, which are very rare in careful West Saxon texts, occur in the part of Beowulf written by the first hand, e.g. 1. 70 yldo, 1. 475 hynYo. Surely it is no coincidence that Sievers (Beitr. Ix, 230), and Klaeber (Modern Language NVotes xvI, 17) quote no less than five examples from the Letter of Alexander which precedes in the same hand.
KENNETH SISAM.
OXFORD.

'THE SEAFARER,' 11. 97-102.

In the MS., 11.97-102 of The Seafarer read:

golde stregan peah pe graef wille bropor his geborenum byrgan be deadumn b hi ne mid wille mapmum mislicum ne mseg l,'ere sawle pe bip synna ful for Godes egsan gold to geoce he her leofaS. ponne he hit er hyde5 ]enden 1 English Literature fromn the Beginning to the Norman Conquest,p. 293. Dr Chambers, Beowulf, Introd. p. xix, seems uncertain of the identity, but it is not doubtful. The hand is well marked, and has one feature not easily paralleled at this time: the occasional _ with the bar so swung downwards on the left as to form a loop similar to that of the Continental g; see for instance Beowulf, 1. 2141 bagyt, 1. 2197 gecynde in Zupitza's facsimile. This occurs in girtoan on the first page of Judith. Of course it must not be assumed that the scribe went straight on from Beowulf to the Judith fragment as we have it.
2

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.85 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:39:53 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions