Academic journal article Medium Aevum

The Old English Poem 'Judgement Day II': A Critical Edition with Editions of 'De Die Indicii' and the Hatton II3 Homily 'Be Domes Dage'

Academic journal article Medium Aevum

The Old English Poem 'Judgement Day II': A Critical Edition with Editions of 'De Die Indicii' and the Hatton II3 Homily 'Be Domes Dage'

Article excerpt

The Old English Poem Judgement Day II': A Critical Edition with Editions of 'De die iudicii' and the Hatton iq Homily `Be domes dage', ed. Graham D. Caie, AngloSaxon Texts 2 (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, zooo). xvi + iGt pp. ISBN 0-- 8599 1-570-0. 40.00.

There are problems with this book. The editions are said to be based on a `fresh examination of all three manuscripts' (p. xiii), but there are bad mistakes in the texts. In the prose homily, a text of only three pages, there are incomprehensible misreadings of Hatton 113, such as 'dolma' (Graham Caie's line 105) for 'dwolma', `emrymma' (line 115) for `emtrymma0', 'hern' (line 156) for 'her', 'hopu' (line 22 1) for 'hopa', and 'leahtes' (line 256) for 'leohtes', together with a smattering of less offensive misreadings, and textual notes which refer to the prose text in Hatton as if it were the poem in Corpus 201. A comparison of the text of the Latin poem as edited here with Fraipont's edition in CCSL (together with the textual variants from all the manuscripts that are listed there) reveals misreadings here such as 'assidius' (line 42) for 'assiduis', 'undisque' (line 60) for 'undique', and 'agitabus' (line 89) for 'agitabis'. There are also citations from the Latin in the introduction and commentary with readings that are not from Caie's text but from Fraipont's. Amongst the more notable errors of other sorts are the following. Hatton I 13 is said to measure '2.55 x 1.58 cm. (written space 2.00 x 0.95 cm.)' (p. 22) and Corpus zo to have 'a written area of 2.5 x 1.4 cm.' (p. 3)! Gloria I and Gloria II are confused, the second manuscript of the first poem being given the title of the second, a quite separate text which here has no title (pp. 18-19). The Lord's Prayer II is misleadingly said to be 'organic' to the Benedictine office `as appears to be the case in J[unius 12 iJ' (p. i9), despite the fact that it does not occur in that manuscript. MS F of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is mistaken for the Parker Chronicle (p 73). There is a quotation from the vernacular version of the introduction to nocturns in the office just before the omission of this introduction from the OE text is wrongly noted (pp. 20-1). The repetition in the poem of `the connective adverb la "then" (127, 29, 135, 143, 152 and 159)' apparently conveys 'a sense of speed' (p. 76) - remarkably so, given that this word does not occur in a single one of these lines. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.