English Historical Linguistics and Philology in Japan () || Syntactical revision in Wulfstan's...

Syntactical revision in Wulfstan's rewritings of iElfric*

Hiroshi Ogawa

The Wulfstan canon contains three pieces which are reworkings of homilies and a pastoral letter by jElfric: Homilies IX (11. 19-106) and ΧΠ (Whom 9 and 12, ed. Bethurum), reworked from Êlfric's De Septiformi Spiritu (/ESpir, ed. Napier) and De Falsis Diis (/EHom 22, ed. Pope) respectively, and the D version of Êlfric's Second Pastoral Letter (/ELet 2, ed. Fehr). The pieces are called by Bethurum (1957: 32-33 and passim) 'rewriting' in explicit contrast with mere revisions of Êlfric's material (Homilies VI and XVIII) on the one hand and on the other texts which are, like Homily IV, only loosely dependent on vElfric's material. In these rewritings Wulfstan, while following vElfric's original syntax fairly closely, still allow himself freedom to revise it and consequently gives us some clues to the most distinctive features of his own syntax.

Apart from frequent additions and omissions of material and lexical substitutions,1 there are altogether some 270 alterations which Wulfstan made to the original syntax of Êlfric's three works as he rewrote them. They encompass a wide variety of features, from inflexional variation to sentence structure, which can be roughly sorted into twenty groups.2 Space does not permit a full discussion of all. The one I take up for examination here as the largest of my groupings consists of alterations that are related in various ways and degrees to coordination/subordination. About 70 examples have been assigned to this group, and several important patterns can be distinguish among them. It is mainly these and a certain related type of alteration that are my immediate concern below.

One may first note those cases in which Wulfstan revises Elfric's subordinate clauses using a coordinate structure. This sometimes takes the form of an independent sentence, as in JELet(D) 2.61 Se feorda sinod wees Se sinoÖ fordernde...3 for ./Elfric's Se feorjja sinod wees..., se fordernde..., but, more often, a syndetic paratactic clause. Thus, in

/EHom 22.77 Da |3a hi toferdon to fyrlenum landum, and mancynn J)a weox, J>a wurdon hi bepaehte J>urh J>one ealdon deofol...

Brought to you by | St. Petersburg State UniversityAuthenticated | 134.99.128.41

Download Date | 1/11/14 7:04 AM

216 Hiroshi Ogawa

WHom 12.10 Pa syööan toferdon hy wide landes, 7 mancyn Jja sona swyöe weox; 7 öa aet nyhstan wurdon hi bepsehte Jjurh öone ealdan deofol...

/EHom 22.74..., of)öaet J>a entas worhtan £>one [wundorlican] stypel aefter Noes flode, WHom 12.7 Ac syööan {>aet gewearö J>aet Nembroö 7 öa entas worhton jjone wundorlican stypel aefter Noes flode,

/ESpir 59.1 aelc man biö eadig, haefö {)one wisdom, gif he his agen lif gelogaö mid wisdome. Whom 9.68 selc man biö gesaelig 7 eadig J)e haefö J>asne wisdom t>e of Godes agenre gyfe cymö 7 öurh {)aet his agen lif gelogaö mid wisdome,

vElfric's correlative da J?a ..., pa construction, opdcet clause and gif clause dependent on a relative J?e clause are transformed into a coordination structure with and or ac; for the addition of facet wearp pcet in the second example see §3.1. Somewhat more complicated is the alteration in

/EHom 22.118 I>as manfullan menn waeron J)a maeroston godas J)e J>a haet>enan wuröodan, and worhton him to godum; WHom 12.50 t>as manfullan men ... waeron getealde for öa maerostan godas J?a on öam dagum, 7 (>a haeöenan wuröodon hy swyöe t)urh deofles lare.

Wulfstan here first changes yElfric's categorical assertion wceron into what is unmistakably a matter of pagan belief by adding getealde 'reckoned, considered' (On this addition see further §5), but this change obviously made it impossible to retain the following relative clause qualifying the superlative mcerostan, just as it would be rather awkward to say in ModE These wicked men were reckoned (by the pagans) the greatest gods that the pagans honoured'; hence, one assumes, Wulfstan's use of and to make the original single sentence into two discrete statements.



Syntactical revision in Wulfstan's rewritings of /Elfric 217

The last-mentioned case is one of the three examples of the use of an independent sentence or coordinate clause to rewrite Elfric's relative clause,4 though the others (WHom 9.59, with extensive added material intervening before what is to become the antecedent of the relative pa in AZSpir 58.12, and /ELet(D) 2.61 [see §2]) are both comparatively simple alterations and, unlike the above-mentioned one, do not appear to be dictated by semantic considerations. This subgroup as a whole has apparent counterexamples in cases where Wulfstan uses a relative clause for another construction in itilfric. In fact, the two types of alteration, with and without the relative construction, are perhaps not contradictory but point to a certain more general tendency which dominates Wulfstan's style, as we shall see. [It may be seen that the examples given above are corroborative of Wulfstan's inclination to polysyndeton, an inclination which has often been noted in previous studies of his style.5 On the other hand, they are by no means a majority in the collection of syntactic revisions under examination. A greater number of examples in fact display a pattern which exactly reverses the alteration just discussed: Elfric's independent sentences and coordinate clauses are changed into subordinate clauses in Wulfstan. There are two distinct forms Wulfstan employs in this process. The first, with hit wearp/wces (pcet) appended before Elfric's simple sentence, making the latter into a subject clause, is implied in WHom 12.7 for JEHom 22.74 (§2) but is seen in its proper form in AlLet(D) 2.36 Hit geweard cefter ures drihtenes prowunge and cefter his up-stige, pcet se hal-gast com of heofonum to eorSan in place of the original /Ejfter pees hcelendes prowunge and his upstige to heofenum com se haliga gast of heofenum to eorpan, and, more significantly, in

/ELet 2.39 l>a gebugon to fulluhte of J)am folce J)reo Jrnsend manna on anum daege... (D) J)a gewearö hit J>aet gebugon to fulluhte {>reo fmsend manna on anum daege...

/ELet 2.45 Hwaet J>a aefter fyrste asprang faerlice ormaete ehtnys ofer J)a cristenan ... (D) Hwaet da aefter J>am hit gewearö siööan öa asprang faerlice ormaete ehtnes ofer öa cristenan wide and side...

The original inverted word-order VS is kept unchanged in both examples; the latter example has it preceded semi-paratactically by the new clause hit



218 Hiroshi Ogawa

geweard siÖdan, which in its turn is inserted after the original temporal phrase which it reinforces (da cefter ... siddari) (On the absence of conj. Pcet see §3.2). In other words, Wulfstan's new main clause seems to have been added not so much for its semantic contribution as to give a greater prominence to the sense of change and movement than in the original sentence; the addition is stylistic rather than semantic. And it is presumably in accordance with this desired effect that Wulfstan employs the verb (ge)weorJ?an in all the examples of alteration being discussed but one (ALLet(D) 2.9, with hit was pcet). Here the verb, taken in its own right, means primarily 'to come to pass, ... to happen' (Bosworth-Toller s.v. weorpan 1(2)), while at the same time it serves to give an additional nuance of change to the new sentence as compared with iElfric's original; the verb is thus used partly as 'implying movement, change of position' (Bosworth-Toller s.v. IV). As we shall see, Wulfstan's use of (ge)weorj?an with these stylistic values is not restricted to the present pattern of alteration.6

The second type of subordinate clause rewriting iElfric's independent sentence occurs when the latter is changed into an object clause dependent on the main clause which is added. The main verb then is usually understandan or witan in the imperative,7 as in:

/ELet 2.111 Begen synd on anum hade, se bisceop and se maesse-peost, (D) Understandaö, {jaet beggen sind on anum hade, se biscop and se maesse-preost,

MLet 2.161 Beo His calic geworht of ecum antimbre, (D) And witaö, J>aet beo aelc calic ge-worht of myltendum antimbre, jELet 2.185 Ne mot nan peost beon mangere of){)e gerefa. (D) And witaö eac J>aet ne mot mid rihte nan preost beon gitsiende mangere ne world-strutere on gerefscire.

By employing these arresting verbs, Wulfstan appeals the more directly than ^Elfric to his audience. Wulfstan's new main clause is here again primarily of stylistic importance, with little to add to the contents of his message; it has the character of an interjection. This semi-parenthetical nature perhaps explains at least partly why in the second and third examples quoted above Wulfstan's main clause is followed by an object clause in which he retains the original inversion, together with the subjunctive verb in the second example. One assumes that the retention of



Syntactical revision in Wulfstan 's rewritings of AZlfric 219

these features is no more lapse on Wulfstan's part10 but rather argues that he is well aware of what he is doing as a reviser; for he does not forget to abandon the inversion when he uses a verb of full meaning to introduce the object clause:

ALLet 2.5 Byö swa-J)eah sum swa onbryrd fcurh God,... (D) Ic truwige J>eah J>aet sum wurde abrird jDurh God,...

It is also interesting to note that here apiin Wulfstan has recourse to the verb (gejweorpan to effect his revision.

In fact, the retained inversion might even encourage us to speculate that /ELet(D) 2.185 above, for example, was intended as a paratactic construction, to be repunctuated: And witaf? eac pcet. Ne mot mid rihte nan prest..., a possibility which appears somewhat greater in /£Let(D) 2.45 discussed in the last section. The manuscript (CCCC 201), with what looks like a point after siddan,12 suggests that the sentence could be read as: Hwcet da cefter pam hit geweard siddan. Da asprang..., as opposed to the reading of Fehr ([1966]: 91), who puts no punctuation mark after siddan and translates what follows it as a subject clause ('Dann aber (geschah es nach diesem, daß) entstand...').13 The truth is difficult to prove for either of the two sentences, of course. But it seems at any rate important to observe that there is room for such a reading in some of the examples I have grouped as Wulfstan's subordinate clause for jElfric's independent sentence or coordinate clause,14 especially if we are to understand the nature of that group and what Wulfstan intended to achieve through it.

There is another type of example which might be mentioned here. In about half of a dozen cases from /ELet(D), Wulfstan adds the parenthetical he cwcep or the like within jElfric's simple sentence (e.g., /ELet(D) 2.27) or complex sentence (e.g., /ELet(D) 2.154), and in case the verb cwcep also functions as the main verb to introduce what is now an object clause preceded by the conj. Pcet, in a way similar to understandan and witan discussed above:

ALLet 2.82 and gif he elles do, J>olige his hades. (D) and gif he elles do, se canon cwaej), J>aet he Jjolige his hades.

As I have suggested, there is a sense in which Wulfstan's subordinate clauses for ^Elfric's independent sentences or coordinate clauses as a whole are often not far removed from paratactic structure. Even apart from the two 'semi-paratactic' sentences discussed in the last paragraph but one, the



220 Hiroshi Ogawa

pattern, in both its main types, consists of a new main clause added to the original main clause which now follows it in the form of a pcet-c\a\ise in a way that reminds us of syndetic parataxis.

What we have just seen points to the tendency for Wulfstan's sentence structure to become more complex than iElfric's, in pursuit of effects which are more stylistic than semantic. This agrees with a general characteristic of vElfric's style which Nichols (1971: 1-12; 1978: 157-180) discusses in reference to the tradition of the 'brief style' in mediaeval rhetoric. In fact, one of the features which Nichols (1978: 165ff.) mentions as characteristic of this style in ^Elfric also occurs in the three works being considered and is consistently rendered into a more complex structure by Wulfstan: yElfric's appositions and phrases are replaced by finite clauses in Wulfstan. This pattern is the more revealing because it is common, while there are no cases of revision in the reverse direction.15 Examples are:

MLet 2.46..., swa t>aet J>a haej enan on J)one haelend gelyfdon, oft an Jnisend manna, J>aer man aenne ofsloh, jjurh Jra myccla tacna, (D)..., swa Jjaet t>a haeöenan ... on Crist gelifdon. Oft ge {msend manna aetgaedere gelifde, ]>xr man aenne martir ofsloh, J)urh öa micclan tacna,

AiHom 22.150 Sum wif hatte Uenus, seo waes Ioues dohter, swa fracod on galnysse J)act hire faeder hi haefde, WHom 12.77 And sum wif hatte Uenus seo waes Ioues dohtor, j seo waes swa fill 7 swa fracod on galnysse J>aet hyre agen broöor wiö hy gehaemde,

/EHom 22.73 ... on eallum J>am fyrste aer Noes flode, WHom 12.7 ... on eallum Jjam fyrste J)e waes aer Noes flode.

Here Wulfstan shows the full variety of independent sentence, coordinate clause and subordinate clause. In the last category, the relative clause is the rule, as in the last example, with the single exception of a temporal clause in WHom 12.37 ... mistlice entas γ strece woruldmen pe mihtige wurdan on woruldafelum γ egesfulle wceran pa hwyle pe hy leofedon, γ heora agenum lustum fullice fulleodan in place of /EHom 22.101 ...mislice ents and men ... pa pe mihtige wceron on woruldlicum gepincdum, and egefulle on life, peah pe hy [leofodon] fiillice. Indeed, the



Syntactical revision in Wulfstan 's rewritings of Ailfric 221

relative clause is so dominant in the present pattern that there are few added relative clauses which do not belong in this category.16

What is common to all these revisions is that they expand a simpler • 17

construction in jElfric's originals; Wulfstan's is an 'expansive' style as against jElfric's 'brief style'. The effect Wulfstan thereby achieves may be seen at its clearest in his version of yElfric's original on Jove and Juno in De Falsis Diis:

MHom 22.108 He laefde swajjeah aenne to l[i]fe, J)eah J>e he abite his gebroöra on aer; se waes Iouis gehaten, hetol and {>rymlic. He [afligde] his faeder of [>am foresaedan iglande, and wolde hine acwellan, gif he him come to. Se Ious waes swa swiöe gal, J>aet he on hys swustor gewifode; seo waes gehaten Iuno, swiöe healic gyden. WHom 12.43 He laefde swaj>eah uneaöe aenne to life, J>eah öe he fordyde J>a broöra elles; η se waes Iouis gehaten, 7 se wear J) hetol feond. He aflymde his agene faeder eft of öam ylcan foresaedan iglande J)e Creta hatte 7 wolde hine forfaran georne gif he mihte; 7 se Iouis wearö swa swyöe gal J>aet he on his agenre swyster gewifode, seo waes genamod Iuno, 7 heo wearö swyöe healic guden after haeöenscype geteald.

jElfric has two appositive structures (Iouis..., hetol and frrymlic and Iuno, swiöe healic gyden), both of which Wulfstan expands into a coordinate clause by adding and. Very characteristically, Wulfstan's verb is here again (ge)weorpan in both examples. In view of the obvious absence in jElfric's original version of the sense of contrast between Jove and Juno's earlier and later selves, Wulfstan's revision, the use of (ge)weorpan in particular, leads us to argue either (a) that he intentionally added some sense of change or (b) that the verb has nothing of its original sense of change in these examples, as in a certain example in Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar to which the Glossary of the EETS edition assigns the sense 'to be, remain'.18 However, this latter argument assumes a very heavy burden of proof, requiring a very unusual sense for the verb1

because it is wanted for a particular reading. One should rather assume that (ge)weorfjan, as distinct from beon/wesan, probably involves a sense of change in the examples being discussed too, though to what degree can certainly be a matter for discussion. It is possible that Wulfstan used the verb in its full sense of becoming, as is implied in Swanton's translation (1975: 124) ('he was called Jove, and he became a malignant



222 Hiroshi Ogawa

enemy....sister, who was named Juno; and she became very important goddess'), or, more probably, he may have used it with some weakened nuance. In any event, it is a sense of change, of movement, which is obviously evoked by the addition of and to begin a new clause, for Wulfstan's (ge)weorj?an occurs with it in both examples.20 In other words, what vElfric has condensed into apposition Wulfstan expands into a flow of events and situations linked by and, with the verb (ge)weorjjan to sustain the sense of movement. vElfric's style is static, while Wulfstan tends to favour one which is more kinetic. The use of (ge)weorJjan, as part of that distinction, is largely stylistic, as with the examples of the verb in my second pattern (see §3.1). It is a use that explains in much the same way a third alteration in the parallel passages quoted above between yElfric's Se Iouis wees swa swide gal... (in the last sentence but one) and Wulfstan's7 se Iouis weard swa swyde gal...

The passage in Jove and Juno just discussed also contains, in Wulfstan's version, another interesting feature of this homilist's syntax, though it does not directly concern coordination/subordination. The periphrasis weard ... geteald in Wulfstan's last clause (for jElfric's simple phrase) plays no further important part in his rewriting of the three works being examined. But its related form beon + past participle is often used elsewhere to replace jElfric's simple beon, as in WHom 12.50 in place of /EHom 22.118 (§2) and

JESpir 58.20 aelc wisdom is of gode, foröam {>e god sylf is wisdom, WHom 9.67 jEIc riht wisdom is cumen of Gode, foröam J>e God sylf is se soöa wisdom.

Scholars have drawn attention to these particular examples. For example, Jost (1950: 133) sees in the first example the reviser's wish to emphasize that 'die heidnischen Götter nur Irrgötter seien, ja dass sie überhaupt nur nach der Meinung der Heiden als Götter gelten oder galten', while to Mcintosh (1949: 122) the second example is important because it illustrates the reviser's own rhythmical scheme of two-stress phrases according to which jElfric's rhythmical prose has been reshaped. They may well be right as far as they go. However, that these examples are only part of a general tendency in Wulfstan's syntax is suggested by the presence of related examples ignored by Jost and Mcintosh. Thus, rewriting the Pastoral Letter on clerical duties, Wulfstan adds the



Syntactical revision in Wulfstan 's rewritings ofAilfric 223

participles genamode, getacnod and getealde without any implication of erroneous beliefs at all:

ALLet 2.17 J)a synd leorningc-cnihtas, (D) J)a synd leorningc-cnihtas on bocum genamode,

ALLet 2.28 On {)am lendenum is, swa-swa we leornigaj) on bocum, seo fule galnys ... (D) On fam laendenum is getacnad, swaswa we leorniad on bocum, seo fule galnes ...

ALLet 2.8a t>reo tyda synt on t)isse worulde: (D) Dry timan sind getealde on J>issere worlde.

Nor are these examples mentioned by Jost (1950: 133-148) as among those alterations in the work which are most obviously made for rhythmical reasons. On the other hand, they are syntactically related to another type which occurs in the same work, where the participle is added as appositive to the subject of the clause, e.g., /ELet(D) 2.61 Se feorda sinoö wees six hund biscopa and XXX sacerda, swide widan gegaderode in place of ^Elfric's Sefeorpa sinod wees eft, pcet wees syx hund bisceopa and frrittig sacerda. There is even an example of periphrasis with the present participle in rewriting ^Elfric's simple beon:

ASLet 2.60 se haelend is soölice an Crist, on anum hade aefre wunigende. (D) ure drihten is soölice on anum hade aefre wunigende.

These various examples combine to suggest that syntactically Wulfstan tends to write in a way that is verb-oriented and concrete, as compared with jElfric, whose expression tends to centre around substantives and consequently to be condensed and abstract. jElfric's tends towards a nominal style, Wulfstan's towards a verbal style - a distinction which Hollowell (1977: 291-293) equates with that between high style and low style.

Hollowell herself distinguishes these different levels of style within Wulfstan's works, relating them to various syntactic features which are found in different degrees within them. These include, in addition to the distinction between verbal and nominal styles, another which is concerned with the 'Content Level' of clauses: in a low style, 'while the principal



224 Hiroshi Ogawa

clauses provide skeletal structure, the subordinate clauses actually carry the burden of the message' (Hollowell 1977: 291) - a feature which in fact has again been found in Wulfstan's rewritings in comparison with iElfric's originals in, e.g., the addition of hit geweard φαί) 2 (see §§3.1, 3.2). If Hollowell's distinction thus applies to Wulfstan, or at any rate to his rewritings under examination as a whole, it is perhaps this comparatively low level of style that underlies his preference for ami-coordination and 'semi-paratactic' accumulation of clauses discussed earlier (see §§2-4); for it is, one assumes, an aspect of what Hollowell (1977: 290 and 295) has called the homilist's 'additive' style, in which 'the basic movement of thought ... is forward... It is a style that keeps the mind focused ahead in anticipation of the rush of words to come.'23

I have examined Wulfstans' syntactic revisions of ^Elfric's originals, with particular reference to those concerned with coordination/ subordination. The results of the examination, focussed as it is on several patterns within this limited group of alterations, cannot of course be expected to represent all the distinctive features of Wulfstan's syntactical revisions, let alone the syntax of his works as a whole. It is also possible that some of the results may prove less decisive in the light of the evidence of other examples of various groups of alterations not treated in this essay.

Within these obvious limitations, the present examination has revealed certain characteristic tendencies of Wulfstan's revised syntax sufficiently clearly. They are seen, most importantly, in Wulfstan's preference for syndetic paratactic clauses in place of ^lfric' subordinate clauses and appositions and phrases, and for clauses accumulated in a 'semi-paratactic' way in place of ^Elfric's single clause (simple sentence). Taken together, these tendencies point to a general distinction between the styles of the two writers: Wulfstan's style is expansive as compared with vElfric's 'brief style'; Wulfstan inclines towards expressions which may be called kinetic, while jElfric's expressions are generally more static and condensed. It is, in sum, a distinction that might well reflect different levels of style, as between low (or colloquial) style and high (or literary) style.

Notes

* This is a revised version of the paper originally published under the title 'Revised Syntax in Wulfstan's Rewritings of /Elfric's Prose' in Approaches to English Linguistics: Papers in Memory of Saburo Ohye (Kyushu University Press, 1989). I owe



Syntactical revision in Wulfstan 's rewritings of t€lfric 225

special thanks to Mr Brendan Wilson of the University of Tokyo, who kindly read the earlier version and suggested many stylistic improvements.

1. These changes in Wulfstan's three pieces under examination have been discussed extensively by, e.g. Bethurum (1957: 2, 47, 98, and 306), Fehr ([1966]: LXV-LXIX), and Jost (1950: 117-148). However, these scholars are not much concerned with syntax, and little attention has been paid to the problem of Wulfstan's sentence structure which I shall examine in this essay.

2. They are: (1) inflexional variations; (2) demonstratives added; (3) demonstrative + adjective/demonstrative + adjective + noun; (4) reflexives added; (5) relative pronouns; (6) prepositional variations; (7) subjunctive/indicative; (8) modal verbs; (9) preposition/case, and repetition/omission of preposition; (10) beonlwesan + past participle, etc.; (11) impersonal/personal construction; (12) direct object and indirect object; (13) (demonstrative) pronoun/noun; (14) negation; (15) word order; (16) subject (+verb) repeated; (17) and, fja, peah, etc.; (18) conjunctional variations; (19) participial construction; and (20) coordination/subordination. I discuss these in Ogawa (1990: 85-107).

3. Citations are made from the editions mentioned in §1. References are to sentence number of the Pastoral Letter following Fehr's edition but are otherwise to page and/or line.

4. Here, as elsewhere in this study, clauses are classified as independent or subordinate according to the editorial punctuations of the respective texts. For the ambiguous demonstrative/relatives see Mitchell (1985: §§2444-2449).

5. See, e.g., Mohrbutter (1885: 84), Kinard (1897: 20), and Fowler (1966: 14). 6. Similar emphasis on the sense of change might well be also responsible for the alteration

of JEHom 22.86 and wurf>odan hy [georne] into WHom 12.22 γ agunnan hy weordian georne.

7. This use of the imperative verb has also been noted by Fehr ([1966]: LXVI) and Jost (1932: 274-278) as one of Wulfstan's favourite formulas.

8. See Jost (1932: 276). 9. For Wulfstan's customary use of parenthesis, see Fowler (1966: 5-6) and Ogawa (1989:

§3.3.2.2). 10. The possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded in other cases, of course; see AiSpir

56.11 Isaias se witega awrat on his witegunge be dam halgan gaste and be his seofonfealdum gifum, which Wulfstan changes into WHom 9.19 Be dam seofanfealdan Godes gyfan Isaias se witega awrat on his witegunge be dam halgan gaste γ be his .vii. fealdum gifum, with some tautology and different inflexional endings for dat. pi. of giefu. But the VS word-order itself is not uncommon in subordinate clauses in OE; see Mitchell (1985: §3934).

11. The verb (ge)weorf>an also plays a part in two other sentences in Wulfstan's rewritings as a whole: WHom 12.37 for &Hom 22.101 (§4), and /ELet(D) 2.186 ne to druncan-



226 Hiroshi Ogawa

georn wurdan for ^Elfric's ne druncen-georn beort, as well as in the passage on Jove and Juno to be discussed in §4.

12. This observation is based on an examination of the manuscript in microfilm. According to Ure (1957: 111-112), the scribe of the manuscript uses only points as punctuation marks.

13. The parenthesized portion corresponds to Wulfstan's addition. 14. For a similar possibility, see LS 7 (Euphr) 97 Pa [MS Ο lamp if] purh godes mild-

heortnysse gemette he an para muneca, translated by Skeat as 'Then (it happened), by God's mercy, (that) he met one of the monks'.

15. We have one of Wulfstan's nearest approaches to apposition in And habban us on handa ure leoht-fatu, pcet synd halige weorc for /ELet 2.29 And habban us on handum halige weorc. But even here Wulfstan uses a parenthetical or explanatory formula pcet synd; his aim is anything but 'brief style'.

16. The exceptions are WHom 9.68 for AZSpir 59.1 (§2), and /ELet(D) 2.12 ... clcennesse slif bisnode and tcehte, pa clcennesse pa he lufad on his clcenum penum for jElfric's ... clcennysse tcehte. pa clcennysse he lufad on his clcenum penum.

17. Another notable case of Wulfstan's expansion is seen in WHom 9.72 deofol scewd pcertogeanes unwisdom γ swicdom γ geded swa purh pcet pcet unscelig man wisdomes ne gymed ne wislice his lif ne fadad as compared with ALSpir 59.3 se deofol forgifd pcertogeanes dysig, pcet he wisdomes ne gyme ne wislice ne libbe, and in a series of similar parallel sentences which follow each. Where jElfric has a single verb followed by a noun or ^ / -c lause as object, Wulfstan prefers to insert a second verb, mostly a causative verb (gedon, macian, Iceran), before the pcet- clause.

18. Fowler (1972: Glossary s.v. (ge)weordan). The example referred to occurs in section 15: And we Icerad pcet preosta gehwilc fulluhtes tidige sona swa man his girne, and ceghwar on his scriftscire beode pcet celc cild sy gefullod binnon xxxvii nihtum and pcet cenig man to lange unbiscopod ne wurde.

19. Of course, dictionaries do not recognize the sense 'to be' or the like for the verb except for its use as a passive auxiliary. Bosworth-Toller has a special entry 'weor^an act to be at something' (Supplement s.v. weorpan 111(a)) just for ALLS 32.4 pa wurdon hi cet sprcece oddest dunstan rehte be sancte eadmunde. As the initial pa suggests, however, it could well be an example of what is defined in the dictionary as 'to get into a state of action, to come to be doing something, to fall to an action, to take to' (s.v. III(b)2).

20. The same is true in the example from the Canons of Edgar mentioned above; see n. 18. 21. However, Mcintosh is challenged by Hollo well, who says that in Homily IX 'Wulfstan

does not achieve two-stress rhythm at all' (1982: 7). See also Funke (1962: 311-318). 22. Hollowell's skeletal structures (1977: 290) in fact include this clause type, as found in

WHom 2.28. 23. Hollowell herself attributes this aspect as found in Homilies V and XX to a high style.

But it is generally agreed that features such as coordination by and and addition of



Syntactical revision in Wulfstan 's rewritings of /Elfric 227

details belong to common speech and colloquial rather than literary style. See, e.g., Brewer (1986: 234-236).

References

Bethurum, Dorothy (ed.) 1957 The Homilies of Wulfstan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Boitani, Piero - Jill Mann (eds.) 1986 The Cambridge Chaucer companion. Cambridge: University Press.

Bosworth, Joseph - T. Northcote Toller (eds.) 1898 An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. (Supplement,

by Toller, 1921. Enlarged addenda and corrigenda, by Alistair Campbell, 1972.)

Brewer, Derek 1986 "Chaucer's poetic style", in: Piero Boitani - Jill Mann (eds.), 227-242.

Fehr, Bernhard (ed.) [1966] Die Hirtenbriefe Mlfrics. (Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa, IX. Band.)

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Fowler, Roger

1966 "Stylistic features of the Sermo Lupf', JEGP 65: 1-18. 1972 Wulfstan's Canons of Edgar. (EETS 266.) London: Oxford University Press.

Funke, Otto 1962 "Some remarks on Wulfstan's prose rhythm", English Studies 43: 311 -318.

Hollowell, Ida Masters 1977 "Linguistic factors underlying style levels in four homilies of Wulfstan",

Neophilologus 61: 287-296. 1982 "On the two-stress theory of Wulfstan's rhythm", Philological Quarterly 61:

1-11. Jost, Karl

1932 "Einige Wulfstantexte und ihre Quelle", Anglia 56: 265-315. 1950 Wulfstandstudien. (Swiss Studies in English 23.) Bern: Francke.

Kinard, James P. 1897 Α study of Wulfstan's homilies: Their style and sources. [Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.] Mcintosh, Angus

1949 'Wulfstan's prose', Proceedings of the British Academy 34: 109-142. Mitchell, Bruce

1985 Old English Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.



228 Hiroshi Ogawa

Mohrbutter, Alfred 1885 Darstellung der Syntax in den vier echten Predigten des angelsächsischen

Erzbischofs Wulfstan. Münster diss., Lübeck. Napier, Arthur (ed.)

1967 Wulfstan. Sammlung der ihm zugeschriebenen Homilien nebst Unter-suchungen über ihre Echtheit. (2nd edition with Bibliographical Supplement by Κ. Ostheeren.) Dublin: Weidmann.

Nichols, Ann Eljenholm 1971 "jElfric and the brief style", JEGP 70: 1 -12. 1978 "Methodical abbreviation: Α study in Aelfirc's Friday homilies for Lent", in:

Paul E. Szarmach - Bernard F. Hupp6 (eds.), 157-180. Ogawa, Hiroshi

1989 Old English modal verbs. A syntactical study. (Anglistica 26.) Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger.

1990 "Syntactic alterations in Wulfstan's rewritings of iElfric", The Proceedings of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo 38, 3: 85-107.

Pope, John C. (ed.) 1967-1968 Homilies of /Elfric. 2 vols. (EETS OS 259 and 260.) London: Oxford

University Press. Szarmach, Paul E. - Bernard F. Huppi (eds.)

1978 The Old English homily and its backgrounds. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Swanton, Michael (tr.) 1975 Anglo-Saxon prose. London: Dent.

Ure, James M. (ed.) 1957 The Benedictine office. Edinburgh: University Press.



English Historical Linguistics and Philology in Japan () || Syntactical revision in Wulfstan's...

Documents

Transcript of English Historical Linguistics and Philology in Japan () || Syntactical revision in Wulfstan's...