'^~^^M\ or Vi CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ENGLISH COLLECTION THE GIFT OF JAMES MORGAN HART PROFESSOR OF ENGUSH /^.2»5'q4-«^ ^rate Reprint of a Contribution^ AN ENGLISH MISCELLANY PRESENTED TO DR. FURNIVALL IN HONOUR, OF HIS SEVENTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS M D CCCCI E.V. Cornell University Library The original of tliis bool< is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031425634 NcxfciLg'_nj ]\^nTUuy^ ( \-i>vih,jQQ/'.^ 1P^ ^3>-\^i(o XXXIX. CONTRIBUTIONS TO OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE. I. AN OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON THE OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAYS In an interesting article on ' The chief Sources of some Anglo-Saxon Homilies' in the Otia Merseiana, i. 129 (Liverpool, 1899), Professor R. Priebsch has treated of the origin of five Old English Homilies which have for their subject a letter purporting to have been sent from heaven ^ in order to inculcate the strict observance of Sunday. It enforces the abstention from all kinds of work, and enume- rates the severe afflictions and punishments to come in case of disobedience. Four of the five OE. Homilies were printed by myself in my Wulfstan (Berlin, 1883): viz. Nos. xlv. (=A), xliii. (=C), xliv. (= D), Ivii. (=E); whilst a fifth (=B) is edited by Priebsch for the first time from MS. 140 in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He has also published from a fourteenth-century Vienna Codex (MS. 1355) a Latin homily which evidently represents the Latin version from which A was ultimately derived. ' This homily was already in type when Prof. Ker suggested that I should add my notes on the Franks Casket (cp. p. 362). Hence this double article. " Priebsch has in preparation a monograph dealing with the whole history of this letter of Christ in the Middle Ages. A a 2 \ 356 CONTRIBUTIONS TO Priebsch shows that these homilies should be divided into three groups according to the varying forms of their Latin authority. In the first group, to which A and B ^ as well as the Vienna Latin version belong, the letter is represented as falling from heaven to a gate of Jerusalem called Effrem, where it is found by a priest Achorius (Ichor), and after passing through various hands, finally comes to St. Peter's altar at Rome. In the second group, to which C and D belong ^, Christ's letter has been brought into connexion with a certain deacon Nial, who comes to life again after having been dead for some time, and announces that fire is to fall upon the earth in consequence of men's disbelief in the heavenly letter. This version concludes with the statement that Florentius was Pope, and Petrus Bishop of Rome, when the letter was found upon St. Peter's altar. In the third group Peter, Bishop of Antioch, is the recipient of the letter from heaven. Of this group Priebsch has only one OE. representative, viz. E, but there is a second version belonging to it (F) which, as it has ijot yet been published, I give below in full. It is contained in the eleventh-century MS. i6a (Corpus Christi College, Cam- bridge), pp. 44-52. In printing I have disregarded the manuscript punctuation, as well as the use of capitals ; the contractions are indicated by italics ; in other respects I have followed the MS. A comparison of F with E ( Wulfstan, pp. 291-399) at once reveals a great similarity between them. Although they differ entirely in their wording, their contents are to a large extent identical, and they are evidently indepen- dently derived from one and the same Latin original. The agreement between the two extends down to Wulfstan, ^ An OE. homily in MS. Otho B. lo, which is now destroyed, appears to have been closely allied to B. (cp. Priebsch, p. lag). ' C and D are merely two recensions of one and the same OE. homily. Az.&ss46 OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 357 p. 398 '^, where the mention of hell has led the scribe of E into an enumeration of the different kinds of sinners destined to go thither, how the devil tempts men to sin, &c. — nothing further being said about the heavenly letter — and we may fairly assume that, in this respect, E represents the original less faithfully than F, which concludes with a solemn attestation of the genuineness of the letter by Bishop Peter of Antioch. It is noteworthy that in both the OE. representatives of this group (and therefore in their Latin original) it is an angel who is the actual writer and bearer of the letter, whilst in the other non-English versions no mention whatever is made of an angeP (cp. Priebsch, p. 147). Be fjam driht^»lican sunnandaeg folces lar. Men Sa leofestan, her ongintS tSset aerendgewrit ures Drihtnes. middangeardes Haelendes, be })ain forebode ealra yfela 7 be pam. embegange ealra goda. P awrat Drihtnes engel into his sylfes iingrum and hit sealde Petre jjam bisceope on tSaere Antiochiscan cirican bebeodende 7 halsigende (p. 45) Jjurh naman jjses lifigendan Godes f he gewidmaersode Jjas Drihtnes word eallum cynegum 7 bisceopuOT 7 eac swilce eallum cristenum folce. Kllic is })onne se fruma Tpies aerendgewrites : ' Ic, aerendraca 7 boda Drihtnes Haelendes Cristes, betaece 7 bebeode )3am bis- ceopum 7 ]j3im cyneguw 7 eallum gejjungenum mannuw f hi lufien rihtwisnysse on eallum jjingum 7 })eowien Drihtne on eallum ege, 7 ^ ge gehealdan sunnandaeg fram eallum woruldlicum weorcum, fortSantSe God geworhte manega wundra on tJam sunnandaege. P is Jjonne aerest, f he on J)am sunnandaege geworhte heofonas 7 eortSan mid eallum heofonlicum endebyrdnyssum 7 f ungehiwed- lice andweorc. On sunnandaeg he '' geworhte ealle ))a Sing Jje witudlice syndon gesewene 7 wuniaS. On Sam daege he gesceop ' Cp. Cockayne, Leechdoms, &c. iii. 288, where a charm is brought by an angel from heaven, and laid on St. Peter's altar at Rome. " After he about eight letters erased. 3.58 CONTRIBUTIONS TO ealra manna sawla; 7 on Sam daege Crist wses acenned J>isne middaneard to alysenne ; 7 on tSam daege he todaelde Jja readan see on twelf ' daelas ; 7 on tSam dsege aras ure Drihten of deatSe ; 7 on tSone dseg he asende Haligne Gast ofer his serendracan ; 7 on (Sone daeg he let rinan wundorlice andlyfene of heofonum ofer f Israhela folc, 7 hi on tJam fedde feowertig wintra. 7 on tSam daege he gecyrde wseter (p. 46) to wine on Ghana, Jjaere Galileiscan byrig; 7 on Saw daege God gebletsode '■' .v. berene hlafas 7 .ii. fixas, 7 of ]>am he afedde .v. ]3usend manna, 7 Jiasr to lafe waeron .xii. cypan fuUe on J>am gebrytsnum. 7 on sunnandaeg tosleap ludea gesamnung 7 ' acenned wearS seo geleaffulle gesawznung '. 7 on Jjam daege biS J)es middanerd geendad ; 7 on tSam daege God demtS menniscum cynne. 7 Ipa. Se her rihtlice lybbatS, hi gewitatS on f ece lif ; 7 Jja tSe her on woh UbbatS, hi gewitaS on J ece fyr, and hi beotJ cwylmede on ecum bryne mid Tpaxa deofle 7 his gesiSum. f>i Iponne eow bebeodetS Driht«« God f ge Jjone sunnandaeg healdan fram ealluw? woruldlicum weorcum : •f is Jionne fram unclaennysse 7 fraw forligre 7 fram druncennysse 7 fram manslihte 7 fram leasunge 7 fram reaflace 7 fram stale 7 fram unrihthaemede 7 fram geflite 7 fram andan 7 fram eallum mane. 7 fias Jjing sindon eallum tidum forbodene. 7 he^ldon ge Jjone sunnandaeg wiS selce ceapunga. On Sam daege sy f eower aereste weorc f ge eow geemtigen on gebedum, 7 $ ge gehyren on cirican halige bodunga fram eowruw lareowum, 7 secaS halige stowe 7 geneosiaS untruwzra manna 7 deade bebyrgeatS. 7 on tSan daege ge sceolon Jjearfan fedan 7 nacode scrydan 7 jjurstiguw* drincas (p. 47) syllan 7 haeftned- lingas alysan 7 ael]jeodige wilsumlice 6nfon 7 wreccan helpan 7 waedlan 7 wudewan frofor gearwian 7 gesibsumian fia ungesehtan cristenan. tas aeSelan weorc sint to healdenne on eallum tidum beforan Gode, fieahhwaeSere swifiost on sunnandaeg, forSanSe sunnandaeg is se forma 7 se ytemysta daeg ealra daga. ' Gif ge Jjonne elles dotS butan Jjas forespraecenan }>ing, Jsonne swinge ic eow Jjam heardostan swinglan, ■f is ^ ic asette on eorSan ^ Over /iff^ another hand has added xii. ' The^c of gebl- added above the Hne. ' 7 acenned . . . gesamnung added in another hand above the line. - furstigum altered from -Hge, OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 359 mine feower wyrrestan domas, hunger 7 haeftned 7 gefeoht 7 cwelm, 7 ic eow gesylle to aeljjeodigra handa, 7 ic eow fordo 7 besence eow, swa ic dyde Sodoman 7 Gomorran, 7 ic dyde Dathan 7 Abiron, Tpa, yfelan "pe witSsocon minuw naman 7 forsawon mine sacerdas ; 7 ic eow gelaede to hergienne on J)a tSeode Jse ge heora gereord ne cunnon, 7 hi gegripatS ongean eow scyldas 7 flana; 7 ]3aere f>eode stefen angryslice fram norSdsele ofer eow swegS, 7 heora hlisa eow gebregtS aerSantSe he to eow cume, 7 geswencetS mid sare 7 gegripetS eow swa f eacnigende wif, forjjitSe ge ne healdatS fione halgan sunnandseg, 7 fortJantSe ge onscuniatS me 7 ge nellaS mine word gehyran.' And be ])ysum ylcan^ndgyte Driht«« cwaeS, ' Se (5e of Gode bitS, he Godes word gehyrtS \' {"a yfelan Jjwyran men hyt (p. 48) gehyratS, ac hi hyt healdan nellaS, fortSiJ^e hi Jjses deofies syndon, gif hi yfeles geswican nellatS 7 Jsam gelyfan ]>e we eow herbeforan aer saedon. Driht«« sylf cwaetS, ' Wite ^ ge gewislice 7 on gemyndum habbatS ■f ic fram frymSe bebead Jjone sunnandseg to healdenne ; 7 swa hwa swa senig woruldlic weorc on sunnandseg wyrccS, otStSe hrsegel waescetS olSSe aenigne crseft ' wyrictJ, otStSe he his fex efsige otStSe hlafas bace otStSe senig unalyfed Jiing jsurhtihjj, ic hine fornime 7 his gewyrhtan 7 his gefylstan of minum rice ; y Tpa. 'Se Jjis dotS, hi minre bletsunge ne onfotS ne nsefre ne gemetatS. Ac for Jjsere bletsunge Jse hi forhogodon on Jjam sunnandsege buton yldinge wirignysse hi gemetatS. 7 ic asende on heora hiwrsedene unari- medlice untrumnysse 7 cwealmas, segtSer ge ofer hi ge ofer heora beam 7 ofer heora hired 7 ofer heora nytenu, forSitSe hi min word oferhogodon. La forhwi ne geman seo Jjweore Jjeod 7 seo wiSer- wearde, ]>e nu wunatS on t5aere ytemestan tide Jjises middaneardes, hu ic het Romana cyningas faran to Hierusalem Jisere ceastre, seo me wses ofer ealle otSre ceastre ]>eo * gecorenesste, 7 ic hi het ut alsedan on l^one halgan easterdseg of Saere ceastre .xi. sitSu/K hundred Jjusenda on haeftned ; 7 hi hundred |3usenda (p. 49) J^aerinne ofslogon, forSi mine leofan Hierusalemceasterware me forhogodon 7 mine lareowas, 7 hi ne heoldon Jjone drihtlican sunnandseg swa ic him be- bead. Gif ge Jjonne on fiam halgan sunnandsege on senigum gefiite ' John viii. 47. ^ MS. witu, after which a letter has been erased. » The / of criefi added over the line. ' So MS. 360 CONTRIBUTIONS TO standatJ otStSe on seniguwz fullicum weorcum otStSe on unnyttum, ic Jjonne onsende yfela gehwilc, 7 hi todrifene weorJsatS 7 geteoriaS mid arleasra sawlum, fortSiJje hi min gebod forhogodon. SotSlice, gif ge Jiis ne healdatS Jjone halgan sunnandaeg bam eallum weorcum, aegtSer ge Jseowe ge frige, fram Jjsere nigotSan tide Jjses sseternes- dseges oS tSone morgen on monandseg, ic eow amansumige fraw minum fseder, 7 ge dael nabbatS mid me ne mid minuw? englum. Ac gyf ge Jiis forhicgaS 7 sacerduwz ne gehyraS 7 eowram yldrum 7 wisum lareowum, J>e eow swuteliatS Tpisne weg 7^ eow secgatS eowre sawle j^earfe, hwset ge for Codes lufon don scylon, 7 ge Ipxt forhogiatS^ Jjonne onsend ic ofer eowerne eard ysta 7 ligrsescas 7 wilde fyr on eowrum ceastrum 7 on eowrum tunuw 7 mistida hreognysse 7 ungemetlice hsetan 7 unwsestmbsernysse secera 7 treowa 7 wingearda 7 ealra eortSan blosmena' And gif ge getreow- lice 7 rihtlice jsa frumsceattas eowre teojiunga of ealluwz eowrum geswincum, otStSe on landes teolunge, otSSe on amignm crsefte, on aelmihtiges Codes naman to tSam (p. 50) cyrican ne bringatS ]>e eow mid rihte to gebyretS, ])onne amme ic eow fram })a nigon dselas 7 ic Jsaertoeacan gedo f on eowrum hilsum weortSaS acennede blinde beam 7 deafe 7 anhende, hreoflan 7 laman, 7 eow J>onne gewyrS swa micel hunger $ se welega ne maeg Jiam waedlan gehelpan.' Men tSa leofestan, ge habbatS genoh gehyred be tSam sunnandsege, fort5an'5e se tSe of Code is, he Codes word gehlyst 7 Tpa, wel ge- hylt. For ures Drihtnes, Hselendes Cristes lufon ic .myngie eow 7 eac halsige ■p ge georne fiis eall understandan ' )>e ic eow gesaed hsebbe, fortSan ]3ises middaneardes ende* is swiSe neah, 7 eower geara gerim ys gescyrt. Donne is eow micel neadjjearf f ge gebeton pa. ping pe eow fram Code forbodene wseron 7 on tSaere ealdan cytSnysse Jsurh heahfsederas 7 witegan 7 on tSsere niwan Jiurh Codes sunu asnne 7 jjurh Jja apw/olas 7 )5a witigan 7 pUTh pz wundni fie Cod dseghwamlice on middaneard setyweS, aegjjer ge on eortSan ge on heofonum ge on steorran ge on sse ge on ealluw gesceaftuw. CemunatS ge weligan f ge eowre wiste rihtlice gehealden, 7 on- ^ 7 eoui . . . /orhogiaS added in another hand above the line. " MS. eorSana blosman. ° -ndan] a altered from «. * ende in a different hand above the line, below it about six letters have been erased. OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 361 draedatS eow f f awriten is jjurh Tpone witegan. 'Wa eow Jje wyrcatS daeg to nihte 7 niht to dsege, 7 wendatS swete on biter 7 biter on swete. Wa eow ]>e fram morgen otS aefen 7 fraw aefen otS morgen mid missenlicra gliwa oferfiligatS ' (p. 51)7 druncennysse neosiatS on eowrum gebeorscipum oS wambe fylnysse.' Nyte ge f ofermodignys biS Jjses god \>e ^ hyre filigtS, 7 gytsung is Jsaes god Jje hyre JseowatS. Se tSe ]3eowatS gyfernysse 7 oferdruncennysse, hi him beotS for hlaford getealde ; 7 selc man bitS swa fela leahtra Jieow swa he underjjeod bitS. Geornostlice " se * tSe swilcum leah- trum filigtJ, hi Jjone sotSan God forlaetaS. K ic eow jjonne halsige f ge ealle )5as uncysta forlaeton, serjjan se deatS eowre sawle on helle cwicsusle teo. Gif Jjonne hwilc bisceop otStSe hwilc gelsered man, seft^rJsanSe he" j>is serendgewrit him on handa hseftS 7 hit naele jsam folce underjjeodan ne him * rsedan, buton twyon anraed- lice he JiolatS Godes domes ; forSantSe swa hwilc sacerd swa ne gebodatJ jjam folce heora synna, huru Jjinga on domesdsege heora .blod bits fram him asoht, 7 he scildig j3on«^ stent be heora synnum on Godes andweardnysse. Gif he him Jjonne bodatS heora synna, 7 heora mane ' ne bytS gej)3ef mid him, he unscildig byS of heora ynnum. Men tSa leofestan, Jjis gewrit nses set fruman awriten ne amearcod J)urh nanes eorSlices mannas handa, ac Godes engel hit awrat mid his agenum fingrum, swa ic eow ser herbeforan saede, 7 hit Petre sealde, })am bisceope, 7 he (p. 52)hit swutele mid atSsware geaetJde" 7 geswor, J)us cwseSende : ' Ic Petrus and bisceop on jsaere Anti- ochiscan cyricean gesetSe' 7 swferige ]3urh Jjone lifigendan Godes ' The text seem? corrupt. Read tnid missenlicra gliaia begange ofetfylle 7 druncennysse neosiaS, &c. ? Cp. Wul/stan, 297 "*. ' After ^c a Se erased. ' Geomost- Late Kentish for WS. Earn-. * Read either seSe . . . filigtS, heforlxt, orpaie. . . filigaS, hi . . . forlsetatS. ° he over the line. ° After him about two letters (kc?) erased. ' Read manes ? Gepsef {gepafd) beon ' to be a consenting party to, to acknowledge,' otherwise takes a genitive : cp. Wulfing, Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen, Bonn, 1894, p. 10; Modem Language Notes, xi. 116; xii. 127. ' Of the OE. vah gemian 'to swear' the dictionaries only record the past participle, gextSed mann 'a sworn witness,' from Edgar's laws (Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, i. 274 "). On the corresponding ME. epen, cp. Zupitza, Anglia, i. 469-70; and to the instances given by Zupitza add Wars of Alexander, 1. 340. 363 CONTRIBUTIONS TO sunu, jjaes tSe gesceop heofonas 7 eortSan 7 ealle gesceafta, 7 ]3urh J>a halgan firynnysse 7 annysse, 7 })urh ))a eadigan feewznan sea Marian 7 Jjurh ealra engla endebyrdnysse 7 Jsurh ealra haligr- lichoman, f Jsas word Tpe on Jjis serendge write awritene syndon on frumaw' nseron of nanes mannes handa gehiwode, ac hi wurdon onsende of Codes ]3rymsetle 7 mid engles fingrum awritene.' Gyf ge ■■= )jonne )>ysum gelyfan willaS J3e ]3is gewrit us segtS 7 bodaS, })onne sylj? us God ece lif mid his englum in worulda woruld, a buton ende, a on ecnysse. Amen. a. THE FRANKS CASKET. The first we are able to ascertain with certainty concern- ing the history of the well-known Franks Casket ^ is that it was (presumably in the first half of the present century) in the possession of a family in Auzon (Brioude, Haute-Loire, France), by the members of which it was used as a work- box, and that subsequently, the silver fittings which held it together having been removed, the whole fell to pieces. The top and three of the sides then came into the possession of a Professor Mathieu, of Clermont Ferrand, in Auvergne, who in vain offered a reward for the missing end, which had quite disappeared. The fragments then fell into the hands of a Paris dealer in antiquities, who sold them in 1857 to the late Sir Augustus Wollaston Franks, and they were afterwards presented by him to the British Museum. An account of the history of the casket, so far as Franks could ascertain it, together with facsimiles and interpretations of the runes and pictures, was given in 1867 by G. Stephens in his Old Northern Runic Monuments'^, i. 470 sqq. ^ M?>.fruma. ' ge in another hand, above the line. ^ The literature referring to the casket will be found enumerated in Walker's Grundriss sur Geschichte der angelsdchs. Litteratur, p. 356. • Referred to in the following pages as Run. Mon. OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 363 About 1870 the attention of the late K. Hofmann of Munich was called to the casket by one of the workers on the Monumenta Germ, hist., W. Arndt, who discovered a plaster cast of it in the sacristy of one of the churches at Clermont, and copied the runes as well as he could. His copy he sent to Hofmann, who was led thereby to make inquiries, and learnt that the casket was in the British Museum, and that facsimiles of it had been published by Stephens. By the help of these latter he published his interpretations of the runes in the Sitzungsberichte der kgl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1871, p. 665. This cast is no doubt identical with one which, as I learn through the kindness of Professor Paul Meyer, is now owned by a daughter of Professor Mathieu, and which was therefore in all probability taken from the frag- ments when in the possession of the latter, and not from the casket whilst still intact. In this view I am confirmed by Mr. W. H. J. Weale, who some years ago made inquiries about the casket at Auzon and Brioude, and who was also told that it had originally belonged to St. Julian's at Brioude. Hofmann states, without giving any authority for it, that the casket had once been in the possession of the church at Clermont in the Auvergne, and had subsequently been sold to a dealer (said to be English) in antiquities 1. This information, presumably obtained by Arndt from some one connected with the church at Clermont, is certainly erroneous. Mr. Weale has also kindly informed me that the fourth side was subsequently discovered in a drawer at Auzon, and was purchased by M. Carrand, of Lyons, who be- ' Cp. 1. c. 663 : ' In einer Sakristet der Stadt Clermont (?) in der Auvergne befand sich vor Jahren ein geschnitztes Kastchen, welches mit anderen Alterthtimern an einen (angeblich) englischen Antiquitatenhandler verkauft, vorher aber noch in Gyps abgegossen wurde.' 364 CONTRIBUTIONS TO queathed his collection to the Museo Nazionale at Florence, where it now is. Although I believe that the authorities of the British Museum were not ignorant of the whereabouts of the fragment, it was generally supposed to be lost, until in the Academy, August a, 1890, p. 90, it was stated that Dr. Soderberg of Lund had discovered the missing side in a museum in Florence and that it contained ' a representa* tion of a scene from the Sigurd myth, explained by Runic inscriptions ^Z A photograph of the Florence portion has been pasted in position on the casket in the British Museum. Some time ago Professor W. P. Ker and I determined to have photographs taken of all the sides in the British Museum, and Ker was also able to obtain a photograph of the fourth side from Florence. Of this side we had there- fore two photographs, the one taken direct in Florence, the other being a photograph ^ of the photograph pasted on to the casket in the British Museum. As no reproduction of the Florence fragment has as yet been published ^, and as ^ The Florence fragment consists not only of the right side, but also of the corner-piece joining this side to the front and completing the inscrip- tion (enberig) on the right end of the front. ^ As this last-mentioned shows the corner-piece joining the left side to the back, which corner-piece is in the British Museum and therefore does not appear on the Florence photograph, both photographs have been reproduced here. ^ A reproduction of all the sides of the casket, including the Florence one, has since been published by Dr. E. Wadstein, Upsala, 1900, under the title of ' The Clermont Runic Casket,' but, as my article w^as written before Wadstein's pamphlet appeared, as his facsimiles are on a considerably reduced scale, and as I do not agree with his interpretation of the runes on the fourth side, it seemed advisable to go on with the projected publication of our photographs. I think I should add a few words on the history of Wadstein's booklet. We sent copies of our Florence photograph of the hitherto missing side to a few scholars, amongst others to a friend who had been until then unaware c^ the existence of the Florence fragment. Our friend happened to show it to. Wadstein, who was also quite ignorant that the fourth side had been found, and owes his knowledge of it to our photograph. He then borrowed it, had it reproduced, and published it. The key to the arbitrary rune-signs used for the vowels on this side was also furnished him by our friend. I wish to state my belief that Dr. Wadstein was not aware that we intended to pub- lish our facsimile, though we were not unnaturally surprised at his doing so OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 365 the modern means of photography can produce more accurate facsimiles of the original than Stephens was able to give in his Runic Monuments, a work not everywhere accessible, Professor Ker suggested that I should, in addition to my rendering of the runes on the Florence fragment, reproduce the photographs of all the sides in the Furnivall volume. I may add that the collotypes here given represent the exact size of the casket, with the exception of those of the left side. In the case of the London photograph this side is slightly reduced, in that of the Florence photograph, slightly enlarged. As is indicated by tKe inscription on the front side, the material of which the casket is made is the bone of some kind of whale ^. I. The Top. Of this only a portion has been preserved, and there may have been an inscription running along the top and bottom. without first communicating with us. As my article was already written before I read Wadstein's pamphlet, I am only able to give my comments on it in the notes. ' Being anxious, if possible, to ascertain exactly what the material is, I wrote to Professor E. Ray Lankester, who very kindly went to the Museum and examined the casket for me. He came to the conclusion that it is the bone of some species of whale, but took a small fragment of the casket bone with him for microscopical examination, the result of which I give in his own words : — ' A microscopical examination of the bone of the casket proves it to be the bone of a whale. So far as microscopic structure goes it might be that of a dugong or a whale. But the plates of bone are too large to have been cut from any bone of the dugong. There are certain highly refractive concentric and radial stripes in the dense matter of the bone of the casket as shown by the microscopic sections under high power, which are characteristic of whale and dugong but are not seen in walrus or any other mammal's bone, so far as I can ascertain. The sections of the casket bone have been compared for me by Dr. Ridewood and Prof. Charles Stewart, F.R.S., with the large collection of microscopic sections of bone which are preserved in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. I therefore consider it certain that the bone of the casket is the bone of a whale, but cannot say of what species or what size.' 366 CONTRIBUTIONS TO The only runes on the existing fragment are those yielding the name segili. Bugge {Run. Mon. i. p. Ixx) follows up his explanation of the Weland picture on the front of the casket ^ with the suggestion that the bowman on the top piece is Egil, Weland's brother, and thinks that ' the carving tells a story about him of which we know nothing. We see that he defends himself with arrows. Behind him appears to sit a woman in a house ; possibly this may be Egil's spouse Olrun.' Stephens {Run. Mon. ii. 903) accepted this explanation, and also held that it referred to some lost chapter of the Egil Saga. Hofmann, however, who independently identified the archer with Egil, believed the carving to refer to a story preserved in the piSrek Saga : how Weland was escaping from King Ni^had (to use the English forms) by the aid of the wings he had fashioned from the feathers of the birds shot by Egil. The latter is forced by the king to shoot at his retreating brother. The horizontal figure above the central disk is, according to Hofmann, the flying Weland. Egil however is not shooting at him, as in the Saga, but at the figures to the left of the disk, and the arrows on this side are from his bow. He suggests that Egil only made a feint of shooting at his brother, and then turned and attacked Ni'Shad and his men ^. I do not feel able to accept this explanation. A flying ' Cp. below, p. 368. ' Wadstein believes that the picture refers to an incident told in the ballad of Wyllyam of Cloudesle, who has been identified by Jakob Grimm, Child, and others, writh Egil. Wyllyam, who had been ' outlawed for venison,' was visiting his wife, when the justice and sheriff, informed of his visit, attacked him, and, after a fierce resistance, he was finally taken. This attack, Wadstein thinks, is represented by the picture. But outlawry stories of this kind were common ; they easily and naturally originated in post-Conquest times as a result of the severity of the forest laws, so that there is no justification whatever in assuming this particular incident in the late ballad to have any old Germanic background or to have formed an integral part of the old Egil Saga. I. THE TOP OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 367 Weland would surely have been represented with wings instead of with a superfluous shield. I take it that this figure (as also the figure underneath the disk) is carved in a horizontal position merely because there was otherwise no room for him. IL The Front. The inscription runs : Left : hronses ban Top : flsc. flodu. ahof on ferg Right : enberig ' Bottom (reversed runes reading from right to left) : war]) ga:sric grorn pser he on greut giswom Of the various renderings proposed ", that of Sweet ^ seems to be the most generally accepted, though it is not free from difficulties. He translates : ' The fish-flood lifted the whale's bones on to the mainland ; the ocean became turbid where he swam aground on the shingle.' Hofmann separates the hronxs ban from the rest and takes it to refer to the material from which the casket is made. In this I think he is right ; it is metrically superfluous. Fiscjlodu he rightly regards as two words, the latter being ' The right end-piece, separated from the rest on the photograph by a dark line, is supposed by Wadstein to be a recent restoration, a theoretical reconstruction, and he speaks of it as a 'modern substitute.' As a matter of fact it is the corner-piece of the Florence fragment (cp. p. 364, note i), and Wadstein's supposed ' modern substitute ' in the British Museum is a photograph of the Florence piece pasted in its proper place. * Cp. Grein-Walker, i. 282. Wadstein translates : ' This is whale's bone. The flow heaved up the fish on the cliff-bank; he became sad, being wounded by spears, when he swam (impetuously) on the shingle.' The gdsrtc he takes to be for gar-sic, ' spear-wounded,' but this is unlikely. A form sjc for sec, WS. seoc, is not sufBciently supported by the two isolated instances of « = co before g from the Vespasian Psalter, to which he refers ; whilst forms from the late Rushworth Gospels prove little for the Anglian dialect of some centuries earlier. ' Cp. Englische Studien, ii. 315. 368 CONTRIBUTIONS TO the subject. His rendering is, ' Walfischbein. Den Fisch erhob die Fluth,' &c. His ' Berghiigel ' seems a better translation oi fergenberig^ than Sweet's ' mainland ' ; it evidently refers to a steep shore. For the second line I can suggest nothing better than Sweet's explanation. The carving in the centre is divided into two compart- ments, which have no connexion with each other. That on the right represents, as Stephens rightly recognized, the adoration of the Magi, over whose heads the word msegi is cut. The picture on the left was first correctly explained by Bugge [Run. Mon. i. p. Ixix). It shows us a scene from the Weland legend ^ which is preserved in the piiSrek Saga. To the left is Weland the smith, who is holding in a pair of tongs the head of one of NiiShad's sons over an anvil, underneath which lies the headless body of the boy. Weland, as we know, killed the king's two sons, and made drinking cups of their skulls. In front of Weland is Beadu- hild, King NiShad's daughter, who, according to the Saga, went with her attendant to Weland to have her ring mended. The figure catching birds on the right is Weland's brother Egil, who, the Saga tells us, shot birds and brought them to Weland to make wings from their feathers and escape. ^ The word fergenberig, or rather the second part of it, seems strange to Wulker (cp. 1. c, p. 282, note 2). The first element is of course the correct Anglian representative of Gothic fairguni { — *fergunja), which would be WS. *feorgen ; the recorded WS. firgen {fy-') with umlaut, is from a form writh the -inja suffix. The berig is the Northumbrian form corresponding to WS. beorg, with e for eo before rg, and the svarabhakti -«'. The svarabhakti vowel is characteristic of Old Northumbrian, cp. wylif (left side), Cufbereht (Lancaster Cross), Cyniburug (Bewcastle Cross), the frequent berict and walach names in Beda, and the aluch names in the Liber Vitae (cp. Sweet, Oldest Engl. Texts, pp. 489 and 530), as well as the Eotbereht on the coins of Eadberht of Northumbria, a. d. 737-758 (cp. Brit. Mus. Cat. of Engl. Coins, Anglo-Sax. Series, i. p. 140), Cudbereht, moneyer of Redwulf king of Northumbria, a. d. 844 (1. c, p. 184), Osbereht, king of Northumbria, A. D. 849-867 (1. c, p. 187), &c. Cp. also Biilbring, Beiblatt zur Anglia, ix. 70. " Hofmann independently suggested the Weland Saga. III. THE LEFT SIDE OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 369 III. Left Side. The inscription runs : Left : dplgs unneg Top : romwalus and reumwalus twoBgen Right : gibrojjser Bottom (runes inverted) : afoBddse hise wylif in romaeceestri ; The rendering of this presents no difficulties : ' Far from their native land Romulus and Remus, two brothers ; a she- wolf nourished them in Rome-city.' The picture illustrates this. The use of the £;- rune for A in unneg and also in fegtaf) (Back) should be noted. Stephens, followed by Sweet in his Oldest English Texts, p. 1 27, reads gibropxra fceddx ; Hofmann, p. 667, separates gibropxr afceddx. The latter is; no doubt, correct. A form gibropxra scarcely admits of explanation. Sweet's suggestion (1. c, p. 642) that it stands for gibropru seems untenable : on the one hand because the representation of the final -ru by -ra, common enough in later West Saxon, cannot be assumed for early eighth-century Northumbrian, and secondly because a svarabhakti vowel, as the X must be, if this explanation is correct, would not be X after a preceding 0, but (cp. the instances, p. 368, note I, which show that the character of the svarabhakti vowel was regulated by that of the preceding vowel). A gibropxr, on the other hand, would equate exactly with the OS. plur. gibroSer, the ending of which, as in OHG. (plur.) muoter, tohter, represents an Indog. -ter-^. That ' In this explanation it is immaterial whether we regard the -fer; -ter in the nom. plur. (as in OS. gibrotSer, OHG. muoter, &c.) to represent the Indog. nom. plur. -ieres (as in (ppdrepes, pr]Tcpfs, iraripfs), which is the view taken by Streitberg, Urgermanische Grammatik, p. 251, and by Kluge, Paul's Grundnss, and ed., i. p. 460, § 231, or whether we accept Brugraann's limita- tion in view of OHG. ubir, ON. yfir = Skr. upari, that Indog. unaccented -er is represented by -er in Germanic only, if no palatal vowel follows. In the latter case the Germanic -er in the nom. plur. must have been taken over from the accusative sing, -term (cf. iraTepa), B b 370 CONTRIBUTIONS TO Indog. -er- would appear in early Northumbrian as -xr, is shown by the xftxr = *apteros (Falstone inscription). The ordinary OE. nom. plur. bropor corresponds to Indog. *bhrdtores (cp. (pparopes) : a West Germanic unaccented -ar- (= Indog. -or-, -os-) appears in OE. as -or: cp. lombor, saior, Sec. (from Indog. -os-) ^. IV. The Back. The inscription (partly in runes, partly in Roman charac- ters) runs : — Left : her fegtaj) Top : titus end giujjeasu hie fugiant hierusalim Right : afltatores Bottom : dom (on the left) gisl (on the right). Giupeasu is an impossible form ; if a nom. pi., we should expect giupeas ^, ' the Jews.' The most plausible explana- tion is furnished by Mr. H. Bradley's very ingenious sugges- tion that we should read giupea sumx, ' some of the Jews, a portion of their army.' The giupeasu stands at the end of j j a division in the inscription, and the carver, proceeding to the next, might easily forget the mx. Fugiant is miscut for -unt ; afitatores is habitatores. \ \ \ The inscription may be rendered : ' Here fight Titus and ■ Wadstein also regards gibrojiger as the correct form, supporting it by a reference to Brugmann, ii. § 320. What he means is not clear. Brugmann there gives the ending Indog. -tres as the regular ending from which the Germanic nom. plur. is derived (as in ON. (Runic) dohtriR, ON. br^Sr); but this would have yielded a form with the umlaut ce in the root syllable, j I I I ' On the / of giupea, which occurs also in OS. Judeo, O. Fris. Joiha/ cp. Kluge, Zeitschrift fiir roman. Phitol., xx. 325. Wadstein regards the -asu as a 'remarkable nom. plur. ending' (it certainly would be!), and suggests that it may be the original of the later -as plural. Does he imagine that a form corresponding to the Sanskrit -dsas could by any possibility give a seventh or eighth century English -as«? I fear his suggestion will not meet with acceptance. IV. THE BACK OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 371 some of the Jews. Here the inhabitants flee from Jeru- salem.' As to the meaning of the dom gisl, D. H. Haigh, The Conquest of Britain, p. 43, thought they might perhaps form ' a rebus of the name of the maker of this casket, dom- gisl' To Stephens {Run. Mon. i. 473) they ' rather appear to refer to the scenes represented, the strong measures taken by Titus to secure the obedience of the conquered city and of the people of Judaea generally.' In Run. Mon. iii. 203 he gave another less probable explanation of dom ^- The Right Side (now in Florence). A glance at the facsimile shows that in addition to the ordinary runes the carver has made use of certain arbitrary signs (h A^ X ? ^ J-f), and, furthermore, that there is an almost entire absence of vowel-runes, the only exceptions being the a in the ligature /a (left), and the e rune* (bottom). The natural conclusion to be drawn from this was that the arbitrary signs represent the missing vowels, and it was not difficult to assign to them their respective values (h = a, A =x, X = ^, ? = 2, J-f-= 0) 5. ' Wadstein accepts the first suggestion and regards the dom compartment as representing Fronto holding the court in which the fate of the captured Jews was decided (Josephus, De bello jud., lib. vi. cap. ix). The right- hanfljg-ts/ compartment he thinks shows the captives taken by Titus, and he believes t\isA gisl is used either collectively or as a neuter plur., and means ' captives.' His reasoning, in the absence of any such collective or neuter use of gisl elsewhere in OE., has not convinced me that there is any reason for departing from the usual rendering ' hostage.' " The last three signs are new ones. The first (h) is the ordinary c- rune (as used on the Ruthwell Cross, c&c), the second (A) is another form of the c-rune (identical with that used on the other sides of the casket, e. g. in csesiri, gasric). They cannot however denote c here, but are arbitrarily used for some other sound. ' The sign ? varies somewhat in form, but I believe that tlje various forms have all the same value. * Cp. p. 380. ' Mr. H. Bradley and Mr. W. A. Craigie arrived quite independently at the same interpretation of the arbitrary runes. B b a V. THE RIGHT SIDE, SHOWING THE END-PIECE (Taken in London) 372 CONTRIBUTIONS TO Looking at rd^^ns^rg (bottom) it was evident that the word-division must come between the n and the s, since (with certain well-known exceptions due to syncope, &c.) an s is not found after an «, the latter having been lost in that position in prehistoric English. Taking the letters s^rg, the word sorg is most obvious, and looking a few runes ahead we see the synonymous torn. Turning now to the top line and interpreting -H" as o, we get on kKrmbXrgh, in the b\rg of which we recognize the North, berg, WS. beorg, and a dative ending being required after the on, we may interpret A as a?, yielding on hxrmbergx, which, except that the carver cut hxrm instead of harm or hearm, gives a perfectly intelligible reading. Applying the newly gained values to the bottom and left, we get sorgae hnd sefa tornse, where it is evident that h stands for a (' with sorrow and grief of heart '). For the only remaining vowel sign occurring more than once, viz. ?, one naturally first tries the value i, and this applied to the right-hand line yields the word drigip, 'endures' {=*driugip, with Anglian smoothing of z« to I before^ ; WS. drlegd), and what more appropriate than ' suffering' in connexion with ' sorrow-hill ' ? In the whole of the inscription there are only two vowel- runes, the P in the ligature {fa), and the M in d^n. In the transliteration given above I have provisionally assigned to the first its ordinary value a. When however we bear in mind that we already have h for a, it becomes probable that the P is meant for some other vowel, and this is confirmed by the consideration that in the oblique cases of the weak declension we expect the ending -u^, not -a. Hence I believe that we must read sefu (gen. sing.). We may similarly conclude that /^ was intended to denote some other vowel not already represented {oz, y, ea, eo) ^. ' Cp. foldu (ace. sing.) Csedmon's Hymn; galgu (ace. sing.) Ruthwell Cross ; eortSu (ace. sing.) Leiden Riddle. " Wadstein has overlooked this and reads rfr\« as den. He also reads swi for swx (right side), wrongly taking the A to be |, the ordinary «-rune. VI. THE RIGHT SIDE (Taken in Florence) OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 373 These considerations led me to the following reading of the runes, and the word her naturally pointed to the beginning : Top : her hos sitse]) on hsermbergee agl[ ] ^ Right : drigijj swse ^ Bottom (runes inverted) : hiri ertaegLsgrafsserdMn' sorga3 a Left : nd sefu tornae Arranging this in three lines and altering sitcep * and Acsrm- to siiip, harm- ^, we get : Her hos eitip on harmbergee agl[ ] drigij) swse hiri ertaegisgraf sserdMn sorgse and sefu tornsB. The meaning of the beginning and the end is pretty clear : ' Here sits ... on the sorrow-hill . . . with sorrow and anguish of heart.' The main difficulties are presented by the middle portion. In this part we at once recognize drigip, ' endures/ and the word egisgraf, ' terror-grove,' is, at first sight, equally obvious : it suits the ' sorrow-hill,' the ' After / is a vertical stroke, and after that, traces of a slanting one high up. One has the impression that the carver has purposely cut something out. If the vertical stroke is not a mere mistake, it must be part of one of the arbitrary vowel-runes, and then can only be [-, or tA- The sloping stroke, of which we see a trace, Mr. H. Bradley suggests may be part of a squeezed-up ^-rune, yielding aglag for aglac (cp. p. 375, note i), but whether we read the preceding rune as R or /v^, 1 do not think there is room for it. ^ Only the upper part of the A is still preserved, but still sufficient to make the reading quite certain. Wadstein wrongly takes it to be | (the ordinary !-rune : cp. p. 37a, note 2) and reads siviji, but there is no room for a./, nor any trace of another letter. " I have purposely not separated the words here. * Cp. p. 370, note I. Wadstein evidently regards si'tse/ as a correct early Anglian form for the 3rd person sing., and he cites Sievers, Angelsachs. Gramm., § 358, Anm. 2 ; but Sievers is there only speaking of the late tenth- century interlinear glosses with their well-known utter confusion of gram- matical forms. It is impossible to ascribe any such confusion to an early Northumbrian text which accurately distinguishes between i and se in the unaccented syllables. Sitip is, of course, the only possible form. 5 The carver or copyist (cp. p. 374, note 2) was evidently thoroughly acquainted with the ordinary runes, for he uses them throughout accurately ; but in the case of the arbitrary vowel-runes, which were new to him, he has made several mistakes : sitse} for sitij), hserm- for harm-, and presumably hiri for hirs, sser for sar. 374 CONTRIBUTIONS TO ' suffers,' and the ' sorrow and anguish of heart.' But for all that, I believe that egisgraf is untenable. The first and last of the three lines above printed form metrically correct alliterative lines,representing Sievers' types C + C and A+C respectively, and the presumption is that the middle portion should yield an equally perfect line. Since agl\^ ] evidently does not belong to one of the classes of words without sentence stress (conjunctions, prepositions, &c.), nor, on account of the following drigip, can it be a verb, it must be a substantive, adjective, or adverb, presumably the first. In any case it must bear the alliteration. Now as the second half-line can only have one alliterating syllable, and that must be the first of the two arses, and as a sub- stantive egisgraf, beginning as it does with a vowel, would necessarily alliterate, it would follow that the arses in the second half-line must fall on the eg- (or egis-) and on the -graf, and that swx hiri erta, whatever it means, must be unaccented and constitutes an auftakt of five syllables. But such a half-line as xxxxx^x-i is metrically impossible, whether we regard the v^x as a reduced arsis -I- thesis, or as a resolved arsis. Moreover, erta is neither conjunction nor preposition, but looks like a substantive, and in that case would also alliterate. I propose therefore to give up the egisgraf, tempting as it is, and to read swse hiri ertae gisgraf which I regard as equivalent to swx kirx ^ ertx ^ ' Wadstein regards hiri as the possessive ' her ' ; he believes it to be an old locative and equates it vyith Frisian hiri. But as we learn from van Helten's Altostfriesische Grammaiik (his authority for this form), hiri only occurs in the two so-called Rustring MSS. (13-14 cent.), the regular form being hire. A reference to van Helten, § 60, shows that a Germanic final -ai is regularly represented in Frisian by -e, but that in the two Rflstring MSS. — and there only — it occasionally appears as i. May we not therefore assume with van Helten (cp. § 242, where he refers back to § 60) that the Riistring hiri is not a locative at all, but a dative, identical with the ordinary Frisian hire, and that it goes back to a form ending in -ai, just as the OE. hirse, later hire, does ? ^ I presume that the carver either cut direct from a parchment copy with the verses written in Roman characters, or from a copy, written in runes, made from such an original. . That assumption will serve to explain one or two errors. Since in our earliest English MSS. we find ae written much OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 375 giscrap, 'as "Erte" had imposed upon her (assigned to her).' We thus get a perfectly metrical half-line of type B, and can compare it with Beowulf, 1. 2574, swa him wyrd ne gescraf. There still remains ag\ ], which must, for metrical reasons, represent a word of at least two syllables. If a substan- tive, as it most probably is, it may either be the object of drigip or its subject. In the latter case it must be a feminine proper name because of the following hiri. On the former assumption I should suggest that it may be for aglae ^, the accusative of a strong fem. *xgl related to egle, adj., eglian, 'to ail,' and to the Gothic weak fem. agio, 'tribulation, anguish.' With regard to sxrdfAn, the M must obviously represent one of the vowels for which the carver had no other symbol (cp. p. 373), i- e. oe, y, ea, eo. If we read sxr dcen and regard it as equivalent to sdr ^ dcen *, it might mean ' ren- dered miserable.' Ertx^ I take to be a female proper name. The three more frequently than the ligature jb (in the Epinal Glosses it is regularly written so, cp. Dieter, Ueber Sprache, &c. der dltesten engl. Denkm. 1885, p. 17), one can easily understand how a copyist, when turning the Roman letters into runes, might mechanically render the ae of his original by h J' instead of by A. And if Stevenson's suggestion is correct (cp. note 5), he might misread ercae as ertae. ^ The reason why the carver cut gisgraf with g instead of c was that he was already using the two forms of the c-rune (h. A) as vowels («, se), and was therefore precluded from employing either of them here. That being so, the ^-rune was the most obvious substitute. ' The root vowel must in that case be miscut for se. Or the agl\_ ] might conceivably represent an seglu, the accusative of a weak fem. corresponding to Gothic agio. Wadstein suggests dgldc, ' misery, torment,' which occurs elsewhere in connexion with dreogan (cp. Grein, s. v. agldc), and which would suit excellently as regards meaning, but there is certainly no room for the c (cp. p. 373, note i). ' Cp. as for a in hserm-, and p. 373, note 5. * For the construction cp. Grein, s. v. don : J>u me dydest ea^medne, do me cwicne, &c. It is true that I have found no instance of the passive con- struction. Moreover one would expect gidom, " My friend Mr. W. H. Stevenson suggests the Erce (Erce, Erce, Erce, EorSan modor) of the charm, in which case we should have to assume that the carver, or the copyist who turned the Roman letters into runes, misread 37<5 CONTRIBUTIONS TO lines would then run : ' Here " hos ^ " sits on the sorrow-hill, endures tribulation as Ertse (Ercae ?) had imposed upon her, rendered wretched by sorrow and anguish of heart.' This interpretation of the runes at any rate yields three perfectly correct metrical lines, and also a connected sense. Although I incline to this rendering, I willingly allow that there are difficulties which must not be lost sight of. On the one hand, it might be urged that, if correct, the inscription would only refer to a small portion of the picture, the rest being ignored^. Again, who or what is hos ? A proper name ^ ? It can scarcely be hos, ' a troop ^' The her, with which the lines begin, points to the con- clusion that the inscription refers to the picture*, and it seems difficult to dissociate the hos sitting on the ' sorrow-hill ' from the figure with an animal's head sitting on a mound. In that case it would seem simplest to adopt Mr. Bradley's suggestion that hos stands for hors, the ^-rune having been accidentally omitted. Now apart from the fact that hors would scarcely be used of a woman, the sitting figure on the mound is undoubtedly in a man's dress ^ and it is therefore difficult to see how the hiri, ' upon her,' in 1. 2, can refer to it. In that case, the only the Roman cas t (cp. p. 374, note 2), no uncommon mistake. But who was Ercet Wadstein connects erta with the ME. verb eiien, 'to provoke,' &c., and renders it by ' incitation ' (cp. p. 378, note a) ; but this verb does not appear until the fourteenth century, and is, no doubt, a Scandinavian loan-word from ON. erta. ' Can hos be the name of some legendary heroine ? ' It is not, in my opinion, necessary for the inscription to refer to more than a part of the picture. If the front, e. g., had been provided with runes referring to the carving, it is quite possible that they would only have referred to a part, say to Weland and Beaduhild, without mentioning either Egil catching birds or the Magi. ' An interpretation hoss itip, ' eats the vine-shoot (vine-leaf) ' (cp. Napier, O. E. Glosses, i. 564, pampinos = bosses'), in spite of the fact that the sitting figure seems to be biting at the leaves of the branch he is holding in his hand (cp. p. 378), I also think is untenable. * For Wadstein's explanation of the picture cp. p. 378, note a. ' Compare the dress of Weland with those of Beaduhild and her at- tendant on the front of the casket. OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 377 possibility seems to be to separate the first line from the rest and to put a full stop after karmbergx. Taking that view, can agl[^ ] be a woman's name? 'Agl[ ] suffers ^ as Ertae had imposed upon her, rendered wretched by- sorrow,' &c. If she is represented by the little cooped-up figure in the central portion of the picture, we may perhaps imagine that some story of banishment to a cave in a wood is alluded to, as in the Wife's Complaint, 11. 37-28 : Heht mec mon wunian on wuda bearwe under actreo in ))am eorBscraefe. There is still a further possibility, though it seems to me far less likely. Should all three lines be separated and regarded as respectively explaining the three scenes ^ repre- sented by the carving? In that case the last line would refer to the three figures standing on the right, and we should need a verb. The only part of the line which can contain a verb is the sxrdtAn, in which the d, n would point to a weak preterite, and we should have to read sxrdun^^ the preterite plural of a weak verb saran, which would pre- sumably mean 'to make sore or sad.' It could scarcely mean ' to be sore or sad.' Then the line would be rendered by : ' [They, the three figures ?] saddened [whom ?] with sorrow and anguish of heart.' But why the sudden transi- tion from the present sitip, drigip, to the preterite sxrdun, and from the singular to the plural ? Moreover, we expect a subject to this plural verb to be expressed. Can it be that these three lines have been selected from three different passages from some longer poem dealing with the tale here depicted, and that, though without their context they are not complete, they were sufficiently intelligible to an ' Or perhaps rather ' passes her life.' As an intransitive verb dreogan is only recorded in the sense of ' to be employed, busy,' not ' to be suffering,' but this may be merely an accident. ^ Cp. p. 376, note a. ' I merely put this forward as a possibility to be taken into account. I do not myself believe in it. We should then be forced to read sefa, not sefu (cp. p. 373). 378 CONTRIBUTIONS TO Anglian of the seventh or eighth century, . conversant as he would be with the story, to serve as headings for the three situations represented on the picture ? With regard to the words on the carving itself, in which the ordinary vowel-runes are used, we read risci bita above, and wudu below. The last would seem to indicate that the scene of the story illustrated by this part of the picture is laid in a wood. Is it too bold a suggestion to make that the risci bita is a compound meaning ' rush-biter ^, feeder on rushes or coarse swampy grass,' and that it refers to the animal below ? Does not the iigure sitting on the ' sorrow- hill ' seem to be nibbling at the leaves of the (very unrush- like) branch he is holding in his hand ? I hope that these suggestions may have thrown some light on the mysterious inscription on the Florence fragment, or at any rate may in some measure advance us nearer to its complete elucidation. A thoroughly satisfactory solution of all the problems connected with it is scarcely to be hoped for until we know to what the carving refers, who the actors, and what the scenes were thereon depicted ^. ' The form risd would correspond to the later WS. risce, rixe, which is recorded (e. g. jElfric's Homilies, ed. Thorpe, ii. 402'), besides rise (Corpus, Epinal Gil., ^Ifric's Grammar, ed. Zupitza, 311", &c.). The dictionaries take it to be a fem. o«-stem, but that is, I believe, merely based on the genitive plural earixena in Cockayne's Leechdoms, iii. 122*. This proves nothing, for it is taken from a twelfth-century MS. in which the OE. declensions are already confused. Risce may therefore quite well be a/a- stem. Wadstein believes that risd stands by metathesis for ricsi, and that it is an abstract formed by the suffix m from a substantive *rics, ' darkness,' which represents the s form of an os, es, s stem, of which the Gothic riqis represents the es form, and ON. r^kkr the os form (this s form should, by the way, be *recs, not *rics). But as such abstract formations were made in Germanic with few exceptions from adjectives — I know of no OE. instances derived from substantives — as moreover the !«-abstracts have in OE. all taken the ending u (0), as there is absolutely no evidence elsewhere of the existence of an OE. cognate to riqis, and as there is no corroborating form like hocor besides hux, husc (if Sievers is right, § 289, Anm. 3, in taking this as the s form of an os, es stem), I cannot accept Wadstein's suggestion. ' Wadstein suggests, as Ssderberg had already done (cp. p. 364), that the carving on this side represents scenes from the Sigurd (Sigfrid) Saga. OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 379 There still remain the questions of dialect and age. It is obvious at a glance that the runes were carved by an Anglian, not by a West-Saxon. We have the distinctively Anglian smoothing of diphthongic sounds before h,g, rg, mfergen (cp. p. 368, note 1), berig, unneg,fegtap, bergx, drigip (cf. p. 37a), and the absence of diphthongization after an initial palatal in cxstri. Stephens assigned a Northumbrian origin to the casket, and this is confirmed by the loss of the inflexional n in sefu ^, by the insertion of a svarabhakti vowel in berig. Although I remain entirely i^pconvinced by the reasons he puts forward, and believe that the true explanation of the picture has still to be found, I give a brief account of his views. The mound to the left is the tumulus where Sigfrid lies buried, the figure in man's clothing seated thereon is Sigfrid's horse, Grane, whilst the man standing in front of it is Hggne, the murderer of Sigfrid. The centre of the picture again shows us the horse standing with his head bent down over a tumulus in the interior of which the dead Sigfrid can be seen. The figure to the right of the tumulus is Sigfrid's wife, Outrun, also mourning over the dead hero. It is night, and the scene is laid in a wood, indicated in the carving by the words risci, ' darkness ' (cp. p. 378, note i), and wudu respectively. Of the three figures to the right, the middle one is Brynhild, who is egging on Gunnar and Hggne to the slaughter of Sigfrid. Wadstein divides the inscription into three parts, each referring to one of the divisions of the picture, and his rendering of it is as follows : (i) ' Here the horse (Wadstein adopts Mr. Bradley's suggestion) sits on the sorrow-hill, suffers strong {smip) torment.' This refers to the sitting Grane. (2) Hin erta, ' her incitation.' This refers to the group of three figures on the right. (3) Egisgraf, sserden sorgse and sefa-tomx, 'The grave of awe, the grievous cave of sorrows and afflictions of mind.' On swiji cp. p. 373, note 2. Egisgraf might mean ' terror-grove,' but not ' grave of awe,' which would be -gnef. On sserden cp. p. 375 ; moreover OE. dm means the ' lair of a wild beast ' ; in the sense of ' a cave ' it does not occur until the four- teenth century. Sorgse and tomse Wadstein regards as genitive plural, but does not explain how an OE. genitive plural can possibly end in -se ; they are of course dative singular. The genitive plural ending, Indog. -6m (with circumflexed accent), is represented by -a in the earliest Northumbrian as well as in West Saxon ; cp. uundra, xlda in Caedmon's Hymn. Finally, I may point out that Wadstein has taken no account of metrical considera- tions. ' It might be urged that the loss of the inflexional n would not exclude the North Mercian area, as a similar loss of n (side by side with n preserved) is frequent in the later North Mercian glosses to St. Matthew (cp. Brown, Language of the Rushworth Glosses to the Gospel of St. Matthew, ii. pp. 21, 43, 46, 79, 85), whilst it does not occur in the more Southern Vespasian Psalter (cp. Zeuner, Die Sprache des kentischen Psalters, p. 77) ; but this partial loss of n in the North Mercian Rushworth Glosses would seem not to be Mercian, but to be due to the influence of the Northumbrian 380 CONTRIBUTIONS TO wylif {c^. p. 368, note i), and by the x in cxstri, which in the Mercian Vespasian Psalter would be cest- ^. We may, I think, safely assert that the home of the casket was the coast of Northumbria. Can the whale have been stranded at the foot of the cliffs on the summit of which stood the abbey of Streoneshalh ? With regard to the age of the carvings, the preservation of the u in flodu points to a date not later than the end of the seventh century ^, whilst the accurately marked distinction between i and x in the unaccented syllables — there is not a single instance of the later ^— shows that it cannot be much later than 740, by which date ^'s began to creep in (cp. Sievers, Anglia, xiii. 13). The eu in greut cannot well be later than early eighth century ; in the Epinal Glosses, which Chadwick, ' Studies hi Old English ' ( Cambr. Philol. Trans., 1899, p. 248), dates about 730 at the latest, there are only three instances of eu as compared with about six times as many of the later eo, io. The use of/ instead of b in wylif, sefu, might be urged against the seventh century, but does not militate against the first half of the eighth : cp. the hefxnrices besides heben in Caedmon's Hymn, A. D. 737, and Sievers, Anglia, xiii. 15-16. The same maybe said of the loss of n in sefu: c^.foldu (= WS. foldan) in Caed- mon's Hymn, and galgu on the Ruthwell Cross. The dialect, as Mr. Henry Bradley has shown in an interesting and convincing article in the Academy, Feb. 17, 1883, p. 116, that the place-names afford undoubted evidence that the present southern boundary of Yorkshire con- stitutes the boundary line for the loss of « : north of this line the « was regularly dropped, south of it it was invariably preserved: OE. set hea» leage, for instance, appears in North Derbyshire, a few miles south of this line, as Handley (in Domesday, Henlei), about a mile to the north of it as Heely, &c., &c. This loss of n may therefore be taken as incontrovertible proof of Northumbrian origin. ' This in itself would not preclude North Mercian origin, as the Rush- worth Matthew generally has ». ^ I attach great weight to the preservation of « in flodu. This form cannot have been copied from an older original, as the inscription on this side was evidently composed for the occasion, viz. the stranding of the whale. This shows that it cannot be much later than 700. OLD ENGLISH LITERATURE 381 sifu, ' seven,' which occurs twice in an early eighth-century Northumbrian gloss (cp. Napier, O. E. Glosses, 54, i, and Academy, August 24, 1889, p. 119), exhibits both / and loss of n. The most likely date therefore which can be arrived at from linguistic considerations is the beginning of the eighth century. A. S. Napier. Oxford, February, 1900. Cornell University Ubrary -'W9640 Contributions to Old English literature 3 1924 031 425 634 olin,anx