The Dream of the Rood [4th, with additions and corrections ed.]

Citation preview

The most complete text of Dream o f the Rood is found in a manuscript of Old English poetry dating from the second half of the tenth century and housed in the Cathedral library at Vercelli in North Italy. References to the poem also exist, with fragments of the text, on the large carved cross at Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, and on the silverwork covering the famous Brussels Cross. The editors of this edition dis­ cuss and analyse the language used in these sources, and provide the most accurate text possible, with notes, full bibliography and glossary.

m e t h u e n

’

s

o l d

E

n g l i s h

l i b r a r y

General Editors

A . H. Sm ith, D .L it. F. Norm an, M .A . ★

TH E DREAM OF THE R O O D

Methuen’s Old English Library

Poetry THE

DREAM

OF

THE

ROOD

Edited by Bruce Dickins and Alan S. C. Ross THE

BATTLE

OF

MALDON

Edited by E. V. Gordon JUDITH

Edited by B. J. Timmer DEOR

Edited by Kemp Malone JULIANA

Edited by Rosemary Woolf c y n e w u l f

’

s

e l e n e

Edited by P. O. E. Gradon THE

SEAFARER

Edited by I. L. Gordon

Prose THE

PARKER

CHRONICLE:

832-9OO

Edited by A. H. Smith AELFR Ic’s COLLOQUY

Edited by G. N. Garmonsway SERMO

LUPI

AD

ANGLOS

Edited by Dorothy Whitelock

Studies THE

LOST

LITERATURE

OF

MEDIEVAL

ENGLAND

By R. M. Wilson AN

OLD

ENGLISH

GRAMMAR

By Randolph Quirk and C. L. Wren

THE DREAM OF THE ROOD Edited by BRUCE DICKINS,

m .a

.

m .a

.

and A L A N S. C. R O S S ,

LONDON

METHUEN

EDUCATIONAL

II NEW F E T T E R L A N E • E C 4

LTD

First published November 29th 1934 Reprinted three times Fourth edition, September 9th 1954 Reprinted twice Reprinted, with further additions and corrections, 1963 Reprinted 1964, 1963 and 1967

4-7 CATALOGUE PRINTED BY

AND

NO.

BOUND

22/7714/55 IN

GREAT

BUTLER

AND

TANNER

FROME

AND

LONDON

BRITAIN LTD

PREFACE OR the Vercelli Text of the Dream of the Rood we have used Professor Max Förster’s facsimile, II Codice Vercellese. Our text of the inscriptions on the Ruthwell Cross is essentially that given by Baldwin Brown in The Arts in Early England, vol. v (to this work we refer the reader who wishes to ascertain the exact amount of each letter that is visible on the stone), cor­ rected by several independent examinations of the Cross at Ruthwell. For the inscriptions on the Brussels Cross we have used the photographs in Professor H. Logeman's L ’Inscription anglo-saxonne du reliquaire de la vraie croix au trésor de l'église des SS. Michel-et-Gudule à Bruxelles, a copy of which he has kindly placed at our disposal. For many of the parallels to the phraseology we are in­ debted to Dr. J. P. Oakden. We should like to express our thanks to all those who have helped us and whose names are expressly mentioned in the book. Since our work has been in type Dr. Hans Bütow has been courteous enough to let us see the typescript of his forthcoming Studien zum ae. ' Traumgesicht vom Kreuz ’, from which we have derived several very useful references. We are glad to note that his views on the date of the Ruthwell Cross are very similar to our own. His work will contain full bibliographical references ; our bibliography is strictly selective. In this edition a few more corrections have been made and additions to the bibliography inserted, some of which we owe to Dr. R. I. Page.

F

B ruce D ickins A lan S. C. R oss

Jan. 1934-Aug. 1965 v ii

CONTENTS PAGE

P reface • L

ist

of

A

*

«

*

>

«

.

bbreviations

.

.

.

vi i

.

xi

.

Introduction : Sources

I.

T

T

of

he

R

........................................................

ext

i

C ross :

uth w ell

D escrip tio n o f th e Cross . . . . D a te o f th e Cross . . . . . L a n g u a g e .....................................................................

T

B

II.

T

he

III.

T

he

B

russels

C ross

IV .

T

he

L

it e r a r y

R

he

D

ream

V

ercelli

of

R

the

T

e

x

t

..................................................... 1 3

.

.

e l a t io n s h ip s

ood

i

6 8

.

.

of

th e

. P oem

13

.

17

:

V e rcelli T e x t

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

20

R u th w e ll T e x t

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

25

B ru ssels T e x t

.

.

.

.

ib l io g r a p h y

.

.

26

.........................................................

36

G lossary :

F

I.

V e rc e lli .

.

.

.

.

.

.

II.

R u th w e ll

.

.

.

.

.

.

ig u r e s

.

41

.

51

:

T h e ru n es on th e R u th w e ll Cross .

.

T h e * fu p o rc ' used on th e R u th w e ll Cross

IX

.

frontispiece .

5

LIST Archiv

.

BC BT Bouterwek Brugmann Bülbring Cook . D ietrich. E ETS . ESt . Grein1 . Grein* . IF . Kemble1 Kemble1 Kluge . Lindisf . LSE . Luick . MLN MLR MPli PBB

. . . .

PMLA

.

RC Ricci Ritual Ru2

. .

OF

ABBREVIATIONS

.

Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Litteraturen . Brussels Cross . J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary . K . W. Bouterwek, Cädmons des Angelsachsen biblische Dichtungen . K. Brugmann, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen . K. D. Bülbring, Altenglisches Elementarbuch . A. S. Cook, The Dream of the Rood . F . Dietrich, Disputatio de Cruce Ruthwellensi . Early English Text Society . Englische Studien . C. W. Grein, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Poesie (ist edition) . C. W. Grein, Germania x. 416-29 . Indogermanische Forschungen . J. M. Kemble, Archaeologia xxviii. 360 ff . J.M . Kemble, The Poetry of the Codex Vercellensis . F. Kluge, Angelsächsisches Lesebuch . Lindisfame Gospels . Leeds Studies in English and Kindred Languages . K . Lu ick, Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache . Modern Language Notes . Modern Language Review . Modern Philology . Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur . Publications of the Modern Language Association of America . Ruthwell Cross . A. Ricci, Cynewulf : Il Sogno della Croce ; Cristo . Durham Ritual . Rushworth1 XI

TH E DREAM O F T H E ROOD Siever8-Cook . Sweet V

£. Sievers, Angelsächsische Grammatik (3rd ed.), trans. A. S. Cook H. Sweet, An Anglo-Saxon Reader . Vercelli Text

xii

THE DREAM OF THE ROOD INTRODUCTION S ources

of the

T ext

OR the text of the Dream of the Rood there are three pieces of evidence : the inscription on the Ruthwell Cross, the text in the Vercelli Book, and the in­ scription on the Brussels Cross. It is clear that the in­ scriptions are related to portions of the poem found in the Vercelli Book, but as will be shown later there are striking differences between the three texts.

F

I.

T he R uthw ell C ross

D escription of the C ross : Our earliest evidence for the text of the Dream of the Rood is provided by the large carved and inscribed cross (about 18 feet high) now pre­ served in the church of R uthw ell1 [rivl], Dumfriesshire. While the monument at Bewcastle, Cumberland, has occupied the same spot since it was first set up, the Ruthwell Cross has been moved several times. It has suffered more by human malice than by the tooth of time— which suggests that it had been under cover 8 for a considerable 1 Early forms give no support to the oft-expressed view that OE rod was the first element of the name. • The Ruthwell Cross, like the Cross of which the foundations have been discovered at Reculver in Kent (see p. 7), stood in the church. Originally, it may be, the cross was set up in place of a church f ad commodam diurne precationis sedulitatem ' after the fashion described in the Vita Willibaldi (ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS. XV. i. 88). Later, when the church was built, it may have stood at the junction of nave and chancel. I

THE DREAM OF THE ROOD period before it attracted the iconoclastic zeal of the Covenanters. As a result of an Act of Assembly of the Scottish Church dated 1642 (in which ‘ idolatrous monu­ ments in Ruthwell ’ are mentioned) it was thrown down and broken into several pieces. It remained, however, under cover till some time in the eighteenth century ; but it had been turned out into the kirkyard and was rapidly deteriorating, when in 1802 the parish minister, Dr. Dun­ can, set it up in the grounds of the Manse. In 1823 he added the transom, incidentally fixing the top piece of the cross-head the wrong way round and thereby dis­ locating the scheme of the decoration, and it remained out of doors till 1887 when a new apse was built out from the north side of the church to contain it. As it stands the top piece of the cross-head on the north face bears an eagle clinging to foliage. Originally, St. John (with a disproportionately large eagle which is apparently dictating his Gospel) faced this way. In the margins of the panel there are remains of an inscription in Latin characters, reading : IN ................................UM

i.e. probably In principio erat uerbum (J i, 1). The original transom, now lost, had, we may conjecture, St. Luke with his ox, the Agnus Dei and St. Mark with his lion. On the lower arm of the cross-head are two figures, which have been identified as St. Matthew and his Angel (his attribute) ; no inscription is legible. Below the cross-head are the following panels : 1. John the Baptist, bearded, long-haired and nimbed, bearing the Agnus Dei (cf. the similar figure in the upper­ most panel of the west face of Bewcastle). In the margins of the panel there are the remains of an inscription in Latin characters, reading : ......./1 DORAMVS....... 2. Christ in glory with feet resting on two beasts (cf. the central panel of the west face of Bewcastle, where however the nimbus is not cruciferous), in the margins 2

THE RUTHWELL CROSS of the panel there is an inscription in Latin characters, oddly arranged ; it reads : IhS X PS IV D E X AEQVITATIS BESTIAE ET DRACONESC 0 3 N O V E R V N T IN D E S E R T O S A L V A [r]O R E M M V N D I-

3. The hermit saints Paulus and Antonius breaking a loaf of bread. In the margins of the panel there is an inscription in Latin characters, reading : + S C S P A V L V S E T -A .............................. F R E 3 ER[EiV]T PANEM IN D E S E R T O 1

4. The Flight into Egypt, above which there is an inscription in Latin characters, reading : MARIAET

10

........

i.e. probably ‘ Mary and Joseph ’. 5. Remains of a figure subject, perhaps of the Nativity. The top-piece of the cross-head on the south face bears St. John and his eagle (but originally the eagle clinging to foliage faced this way), with an inscription in Runic characters (reading ' m/æfauœþo ’ a) in the margin of the panel. On the lower arm of the cross-head is represented an archer drawing his bow. There are traces of an in­ scription in the margins of this panel, but nothing can now be made out. Below the cross-head are the following panels : I. The Visitation. In the dexter and upper margins there is an inscription in Runic characters (reading ‘ . 1 Baldwin Brown (Arts. p. 134) completes: A(ntonius eremitae). This is clearly an allusion to the well-known story of the hermits St. Paul and St. Anthony ; St. Paul lived for a long time in the desert and was fed by a raven who brought him half a loaf a day ; a short time before his death St. Anthony came to visit him and the raven miraculously appeared with a whole loaf (see G. Herzfeld, An Old English Martyrology, pp. 16-17 ; Acta Sanctorum Jan. 10th). 1 This is quite unintelligible. G. Stephens (Old Northern Runic Monuments, i, 419-20) read Cadmon on the cross (quite unjustifiably) and interpreted the whole as ' Cadmon me fawed (made) \ taking * fauoej?o ' as 3rd.sg.pret.ind. of fègan. This formed one of the chief arguments in support of the theory that the Dream of the Rood was written by Caedmon.

3

THE DREAM OF THE ROOD m ---- m . . i . . . r ' ) and another, also in Runic characters (reading ‘ dominnae... ’), in the sinister margin. 2. Christ with Mary Magdalene at His feet, with a marginal inscription in Latin characters, reading : A [ T T V L I T A L A B A ] STRVM V N gV E N T I & STANS RETRO SECVS PEDES EIVS LACRIMIS COEPIT R I 3 AR E PEDES EIVS- & CAPILLIS CAPITIS SVI T E R 3 EBA Í 1

3. Christ healing the blind man, with a marginal in­ scription in Latin characters, reading : -f ET P R A E TE R IE N S • V ID I(T ].................. A NATIBITATE ET S A ...................... [/1]B IN FIRM ITATE »

4. The Annunciation, with a marginal inscription in Latin characters, reading : .................. IN 3 RESSVS AN 3 E L [F S ].................TECVMB E [ N E D I C T A ] ........ »

5. The Crucifixion— a bearded figure of Christ, nude except for a loin-cloth. On each of the narrower faces of the cross, east and west, are two panels of foliage scroll with birds and beasts pecking or nibbling at the fruit (whereas on the Bewcastle Cross a single panel of similar decoration fills the whole of the broad East face of the shaft). In the margins of the upper panels there are traces of inscriptions, only one of which (reading ‘ dægisgæf ’ 4 in Runic characters) can be deciphered. But the inscriptions which immediately concern us are carved on the margins above and on either 1 Vulgate (textus receptus) L 7, 38. * Probably : E t praeteriens uidit hominem caecum a natiuitate ; et sanauit eum ab infirmitate. The first half is from the Vulgate (textus receptus) J 9, i ; but the second is not in any version. It seems possible that in this inscription the engraver is using his own words. * Baldwin Brown \op. cit., p. 140) completes : E t ingressus angelus ad eam dixit : Haue gratia plena. Dominus tecum ; benedicta tu in mulieribus ; Vulgate (textus receptus) L 1, 28. 4 There is nothing that can logically be considered as evidence to support the suggestion of J. L. N. O ’Loughlin (Times Literary Supple­ ment 1931, p. 648) who, reverting to the unjustifiable reading ‘ idægisgæf ’ of earlier editors (such as G. Stephens, op. cit., I, 405)

4

THE RUTHWELL CROSS side of the lower panel of foliage on the east and west faces of the cross. They contain passages from the Dream of the Rood in the Northumbrian dialect. The following runes are used (the values of characters not found on the cross are omitted) ; they are of the Northumbrian type, with separate characters (not used with absolute consistency) for the front and back values of OE j and c (see p. 8) :

The ' fuJ»orc ' used on the Ruthwell Cross. reconstructs the text as ' [wasp]idæ gisgæf[/] ’ (cf. peop eal %eseeaft, 1. 55) and even uses the ‘ unsyncopated i ' as evidence for the early date of the inscription. If such a suggestion were entertained it

2

5

THE DREAM OF THE ROOD T he D ate of the C ross : The date of this cross and of the monument at Bewcastle, either of which would have been a remarkable achievement in any period, has been hotly disputed. The earliest date proposed is c. 670, the latest some time in the twelfth century. This latter view, warmly urged in a series of papers by A. S. Cook, seems to us to be out of the question. It cannot be shown that the use of the Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet for monumental purposes survived long after the fall of the Northumbrian kingdom to the Danes. The latest example is the inscrip­ tion preserved in Urswick Church, Furness,1 which, debased as the carving is, can scarcely be later than the early part of the tenth century. Twelfth-century runic inscriptions from the North-West make use of the alphabet introduced by the Scandinavian invaders,2 and the Bridekirk Font (Cumberland) and the Pennington Tympanum 8 have no affinities, either in epigraphy or art, to the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses. We have literary evidence that monuments no less remarkable were being set up at the end of the seventh would surely be better to use the actual reading of the inscription ' dægisgæf ’ and reconstruct ' [wœp]dæ gisgæf[/] ’ ; in view of the syncope of u in ‘ [hia]l[du\m ’ (1. 63)— there would not be room on the stone for a form hiafudum— wœpdæ would seem a more probable form than wcêpidæ. But the word dægisgæf may well be a personal name. For the first element cf. Goth Aayiodeoç (M. Schönfeld, Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völkernamen, s.n. Dagistheus) ; OHG Tagarhilt (E. Förstemann, Altdeutsches Namen­ buch, I, 397) ; Lind, nom.acc.sg. dæge ' day ’ (with analogical æ instead of e— as also in * dægisgæf ’) and, with different ablautgrade, OE dôgor, dœg, Icel dcegr, etc. For the second element cf. Hroed-gifu, -geofu ; Os-geofu in the Liber Vitae (H. Sweet, The Oldest English Texts, p. 155, 11. 42, 43, 45) ; also Thiatgif, Thietgeba (Förstemann, op. cit. i, 1430) ; further, as a first element Gef-, Gifin OE (W. G. Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum s.n.) and Gab-, Gib-, Geb- in continental Germanic (Förstemann, op. cit. I, 562, 630). 1 See W. G. Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses of the PreNorman Age, p. 53. 1 See M. D. Forbes and B. Dickins, Burlington Magazine, April 1914. PP- 24-9. * See A. Fell, A Furness Manor, pp. 208 ff.

6

THE RUTHWELL CROSS and the beginning of the eighth centuries. William of Malmesbury tells u s 1 that there were in his day (c. 1125) in the cemetery of Glastonbury two stone pyramids (sc. obelisks), one 28 feet high and of five stages, the other 26 feet high and of four stages ; the latter bore the names of Centwine (King of Wessex 676-688), of Haedde (Bishop of Wessex 677-705) and of two abbots of Glastonbury who can be assigned to the late seventh and early eighth centuries. Of these monuments no trace remains ; but from Reculver in Kent come recently discovered fragments of a cross with figure sculpture indubitably of the seventh century.* The striking fragments of the Easby (N. Riding) Cross (recently acquired by the Victoria and Albert Museum, and described by M. Longhurst in Archaeologia lxxxi, 43-7) are also of importance in this connexion. The fine cross from Hexham, now in Durham Cathedral Library, is almost certainly that which, according to Symeon of Durham,1*3 stood at the head of the grave of Bishop Acca (ob. 740).45 A discussion of the art and epigraphy of the Ruthwell Cross would be out of place here ; it is sufficient to say that the most recent authorities 6 agree in assigning the cross to c. 670-750. On linguistic grounds (see p. 13) the date c. 670 appears to us to be unduly early, since the language is very slightly less archaic than that of the earliest monuments of English, which probably go back to the late seventh century. Taking into consideration 1 Gesta Regum Anglorum (Rolls Series) I, 25. •See C. Peers, Archaeologia lxxvii (1927), 250-6. • Historia Regum (Rolls Series) II, 33. 4 Described and illustrated in F. J. Haverfield and W. Greenwell, Catalogue of the Sculptured and Inscribed Stones in the Cathedral Library, Durham, pp. 53-9. 5 G. Baldwin Brown (The Arts in Early England, V, passim), J. Brondsted (Early English Ornament, passim), W. G. Collingwood (Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, passim), A. W. Clapham (English Romanesque Architecture before the Conquest, pp. 55 ff.), O. E. Saunders (A History of English Art in the Middle Ages, pp. 12-16), T. D. Kendrick, AS. Art to A.D. 900, pp. 126 ff. F. Saxl (Journal of the Warburg Inst., vi, 1-19) dates it c. 675-700.

7

THE DREAM OF THE ROOD. both the linguistic and the non-linguistic evidence, it m ay be said that the first half of the eighth cen tu ry1— the Golden Age of Northumbria— is the most probable date for the Ruthwell Cross. L a n g u ag e : (i) Sound and Symbol. The runes have been transliterated according to the system suggested by B. Dickins (LSE i. 15 fl.).3 There is not sufficient evidence for assuming that the engraver was using forms that seemed archaic to him. As far as we can tell the inscription gives a true picture of the language current at the time.3 The following points require comment : ' c ' represents [c] * in * ic * g ’ represents [j] in * giwundad '. * 5 ' (rare) represents [ç] 6 in * alm ejttig '. 4k ' (as usual) represents the back [k] in ‘ kwomu '. ' lc ’ (rare) represents [k] before a front vowel in * tyn iqc \ ‘ g ’ represents [y] in ‘ god '. The double runes in ' æpþilæ ', ' gistoddu» ‘ alm ejttig * dominnae ’, do not indicate a double consonant in pro­ nunciation. In view of the fact that in late Northumbrian final U and nn are in general strictly preserved, it is prob­ able that the single runes in ‘ al ‘ men ' (twice) do represent a double consonant. The writing of single runes for double, 1 Cf. also pp. 12-13. * Forms in runic characters are quoted between inverted commas. For inscriptions in Latin characters small capitals are used. In either case letters joined together are indicated thus: ‘ m/e N/G, letters which are seriously damaged are printed in italic, lost letters which can reasonably be inferred in [italic]. A missing letter for which there is quite certainly a space on the stone is indicated by o ; when there is a break but it is impossible to decide from the stone how many letters are missing, dots are placed in the text. * See A. S. C. Ross, MLR xxviii, 154. * The phonetic alphabet of the Association Phonétique Inter­ nationale is used throughout. * In Urswick ' torogtredae ' it represents the sound [x] ; see B. Dickins, LSE i, 16.

8

THE RUTHWELL CROSS or vice versa, is a common habit of runic orthograpny (MLR xxviii, 151). (2) Phonology. Only the following points require any comment : Stressed Vowels : PrGerm a has been (1) fronted to æ and then retracted to a before an /-group in ‘ al V galgu ‘ walde ' (an Anglian characteristic) ; (2) it has been fronted to æ, broken to &o before an h- or r- group and then appears as e (Luick § 194. 2) in ‘ alm ejttig ’, ‘ geredæ ’ (a non-West Saxon characteristic) ; (3) it has been fronted to se, retracted to a before an /-group and then mutated to æ (Luick §§ 149, 188. 1) in ‘ Aaelda ’ (a characteristic of some Anglian dia­ lects) ; (4) it has been rounded to q before a nasal, mutated to æ and then raised to e (Luick § 186) in ‘ men ' ; the e in * men ’ shows that the inscription is a little later than the earliest OE texts, for these very largely preserve the æ, although sporadic forms with e are found (MLR xxviii, 146) . PrGerm e has been broken to la in ‘ fêarran ’ ; it has undergone back-mutation in ‘ hêafunæs ' ; forms with la for normal lo are found in Lindisf and Ritual (Luick § 133 n. I ; § 228 n. 2) ; the back-mutation in ‘ hêafunæs * shows that the inscription is a little later than the earliest texts, for in these it does not occur (MLR xxviii,

147) -

PrGerm £ ]> WGerm à which has been fronted to i in ‘ stre/um ’, ' þer ’ (a non-West Saxon characteristic). PrGerm 0 appears when mutated as ä in ‘ limwœrignæ ', * giirœ[/î]d ’ (from the early ninth century an Anglian characteristic). PrGerm au^>£o which has been mutated to e in ' [6]istemi[