PART THREEThe Old English Mary of Egypt:New Textual Evidence from BL MS Cotton Otho B. x Scholars who have written about the Old English Life of St. Mary of Egypt have presumed the fragmentary copy in Otho B. x is merely a mostly destroyed version of the copy surviving in Julius E. vii. I have discovered the Otho B. x version is, in many respects, quite different from the Julius E. vii version as documented in Skeat's edition. David Yerkes has observed that "Old English scribes routinely respelled their exemplars, occasionally substituted one word for another, but seldom recast syntax" (Yerkes 9). Nevertheless, in addition to orthographic variants the Otho B. x version includes differences in vocabulary, including totally alternate phrases, as well as differences in syntax. Although Late West Saxon is acknowledged as the "official and literary language" of the early eleventh century (Sisam 153), this does not imply a "standard English" existed, although some schools of writing, most notably the school at Winchester, may have been attempting to establish such a standard.[32] The variants between the two texts can most likely be attributed to individual dialects, to scriptorium guidelines, or simply to the personal practices and preferences of the different scribes. In the following discussion of selected variant readings I have discovered, I have organized the readings into variant groups. Although this will inevitably result in some overlap -- orthographic variants may occur within differences of inflection or in alternate phrases, for example -- my primary aim is to present the variants in a logical and objective manner. My purpose is neither to declare one version superior to the other nor to propose a composite text derived from both versions. Rather, I present this new textual evidence from Otho B. x to stimulate a re-evaluation of the Old English Life of St. Mary of Egypt by Anglo-Saxon textual scholars and to illustrate the value of examining damaged manuscripts and re-editing older editions. VARIANT GROUP 1: ORTHOGRAPHIC VARIANTS Alistair Campbell attributes the "great diversity of spelling in Old English" not to "inconsistency in the values of the symbols, but from diversity of sound" (§48). Based on his observations of perceived changes in pronunciation, he notes that by the eleventh century Old English spelling had stabilized (§329). Kemp Malone, however, illustrates that "a distinct tendency to level the vowels of final unstressed syllables," a tendency regarded by Sweet as characteristic of the transition from Old English to Middle English, could already be documented in four major manuscripts dated to the second half of the tenth century (Malone 110, 117). D. G. Scragg observes, "[h]owever poorly spelling variation charts development in eleventh-century phonology, it gives ample evidence of scribal habits, manuscript relations, scriptorium practices and the development of a formal written language" (1992, 348).[33] Vowels There are more than one hundred vowel variants between the parallel sections of the two texts. Some of these variants illustrate late Old English leveling of vowels in unaccented syllables, while others demonstrate a trend toward monophthongization of diphthongs (Campbell §329.2). Both scribes show a preference for -eo-, particularly the Otho scribe. At 29(15)v2, the Otho scribe writes latteowestran where the Julius scribe has lættewestran (Sk 508); at 25(26v)r5 Otho has ðeowes where Julius uses þeawas (Sk 14); and at 29(15)v4 Otho has andweordan where Julius has andweardan (Sk 510). On three occasions, Otho uses -eo- instead of Julius's -i- : fifteogoðe at 25(26r)v18 for fiftigðe (Sk 47), heos at 26(56)r10 for his (Sk 63), and geofæð at 30(59)r9) for gifað (Sk 617); at 27(16)r18, the Otho scribe uses geofum where the Julius scribe has gyfum (Sk 335). Exceptions to the Otho scribe's preference for -eo are him (26(56)v16 and 27(16)v23) for the Julius scribe's heom (Sk 90 and 356), hira (28(17)r2) for heora (Sk 361), and hyra (27(16)r11, 28(17)r18, and 27(16)r11) for heora (Sk 326, 372, 377). There are also three instances of the word ætywe in the Otho text (26(56)r4, 30(59)r1, and 30(59)v17) where the Julius text has æteowe (Sk 58 and 611) or æteowde (Sk 646). Campbell notes in West-Saxon texts an increasing tendency for vowels between w and r to "fall together in wur" (§320-324). The Otho scribe demonstrates a preference for -weor- (geweorðe at 25(26v)r9, weorþunge at 27(16)v15, and deorweorðan 28(17)v25), whereas the Julius scribe most frequently uses -wur- (gewurðe at Sk 17, wurðunga at Sk 350, and deorwurðan at Sk 399). In one instance, the Otho scribe has efthweorfende (30(59)r4) where the Julius scribe has efthwyrfende (Sk 613), while in another instance the Otho scribe has licwyrþe (28(17)r15-16) where the Julius scribe has licwurðe (Sk 371). The Julius scribe sometimes shows a preference for a -u ending. At Sk 502, for example, Julius has ansynu ("face"), for feminine accusative singular of ansyn, while Otho has ansyne (28(15)r23). At Sk 650, Julius has gebroþru ("the brothers"), for masculine nominative plural of gebroþor, while Otho has gebroþra (30(59)v22). Campbell notes, "IN lW-S...the pronominal accusatives þone, hwone are often affected by the change of unaccented o > a, appearing as þane, hwane" (§380). Although the Julius scribe uses only þone (Sk 331, 494, 51, 523), the Otho scribe uses both þone and þane (27(16)r18, 29(15)r13, 29(15)v3, and 29(15)v20). Consonants The Otho scribe uses the word þing ("thing") (30(59)v4, 27(16)r7) exclusively whereas the Julius scribe prefers þincg (Sk 635, 323), using þing in oblique forms only (for example, 26(56)r18:69 þyngum: þingum). There is also one instance at 29(15)v19 where Otho has lenga ("length, height") [Figure 3.1] but Julius has lencgu (Sk 522). Skeat inaccurately records the reading in Otho as lengo (Skeat 2:36).
According to Campbell, the pre-literary sound ch (as in Scottish loch) disappeared in all Germanic languages before the letters l, n, r and w, "and h is written in OE as a diacritic to indicate this" (§461). Although both scribes use the words hreowsunga (27(17)v11:389: "repentance, sorrow, penitence") and hrædlice (29(59)v6:637: "hastily, quickly, forthwith"), on at least two occasions the Otho scribe omits the h preceding r, once at 27(16)r17 in raþor ("quick") for Julius's hraðor (Sk 331), and again at 28(17)r25 in reowan ("to go by water, row, sail") for Julius's hreowan (Sk 378). Both scribes, however, consistently retain the voiceless h before l. [34] In his essay, "Initial H in Old English," Scragg states that "comparatively few words with h omitted or inserted unhistorically are to be found in early eleventh century MSS, products of the West Saxon scribal tradition. This is perhaps due to progressively greater standardisation of the orthography after c. 1000" (1970, 182). Scragg's study "is confined to the use of h initially before a vowel, or when preceded by an unstressed initial syllable as in ge-hyran" (1970, 167). The Otho B. x version of Mary of Egypt includes at least one example of an "inorganic" use of h at 27(16)r26 where the Otho scribe writes onhæled (past participle of the verb onælan: "heated, inflamed, consumed") [Figure 3.2] but the Julius scribe writes onæled (Sk 337).
Scragg notes that this spelling of the word onhæled also occurs in the Exeter Book poem "Judgement Day I," line 9 (1970, 175-76). In the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records (ASPR) edition, Krapp and Dobbie emend to onæled, documenting in a footnote, "onæled] onhæled" (Krapp 212). The emendation is displayed in angle brackets in the Old English Corpus edition, that is, "<onæled>" (A3.24, 0005-9). In his edition of the Exeter Book, Bernard J. Muir retains the manuscript reading onhæled (1:335) and writes in his commentary,
In his footnote, Skeat documents the variant with a disbelieving exclamation point (2:23). Interchange of -i with -ig By the late tenth to early eleventh centuries, the letterforms -i and -ig were pronounced identically and frequently used interchangeably (Campbell § 267). The Otho B. x version includes a higher frequency of words spelled with -i rather than -ig than the Julius E. vii version. At least six examples are found in the surviving fragments of Mary of Egypt:
Although there are twenty instances in the surviving Otho B. x text of words that contain the -ig spelling (twelve with -ige, seven with -igende, and one with -igenne), there are thirty-seven such instances in the parallel passages of Julius E. vii (twenty-six with -ige, ten with -igende, and one with -igenne): only two instances of verbs with the -iende form are found in the entire Julius E. vii version. Metathesis There are two instances of metathesis in the Otho B. x version that do not appear in the Julius E. vii version. The first, at 25(26r)v20 [Figure 3.3], is gecynssæd, past participle of the verb
gecnyssan ("to overcome, trouble") where Julius has gecnyssed (Sk 48). The only other documented instance of this form is a present participle, cynsende, in Homily XXII of the Vercelli Book. Fred Robinson notes,
As Figure 3.3 above illustrates, the word gecynssæd survives on the bottom edge of a split in the vellum and is covered by conservation onionskin. The letter following gecyn- is illegible, appearing as dark smudge. The larger than usual space between gecyn- and -sæd suggests that the scribe may have erased a letter, perhaps the second s Mitchell observes is omitted from cynsende. In his edition of Vercelli Homily XXII, Paul Szarmach emends cynsende to cnyssende. He prints "cnyssende" in the text (line 133) and states in a note, "cnyssende: cynsende A; emendation proposed by Förster 1913b" (1981, 95). In D. G. Scragg's edition, the word is printed in the text as "c[nys]sende" (line 168), with a footnote stating, "168 cnyssende (Förster 1913)] cynsende" (1992, 376). In his glossary, Scragg includes a cross-reference from cynsende to cnyssan, with a siglum indicating "a form which, in the editor's opinion is erroneous, even though it appears in the manuscript (and may be a perfectly acceptable Old English word)" (1992, 406). Under cnyssan, he marks cnyssende with a siglum indicating the word has been emended, and in his introductory notes states, "cynsende for cnyssende XXII.168 is presumably a scribe's misunderstanding of the sense" (1992, lviii). Nevertheless, the word cynsende appears in the Old English Corpus electronic version of Scragg's edition [35] and is included in Fascicle C of the Dictionary of Old English as a variant of cnyssan in HomU 7 (Fasc. C1.3, 718). The word cnyssan, or a form of it, appears three more times in Skeat's edition (lines 428, 542, and 549), but these passages do not survive in Otho B. x so comparison cannot be made. The second instance of metathesis, an orthographic rather than phonological example, is the word forhygcan ("to disdain, despise, reject") at 27(16)r11 [Figure 3.4], recorded as forhycgan in Julius (Sk 326).[36]
This form only appears twice in the OEC, once as forhygcen in Rudolph Brotanek's edition of Dedication of a Church [37] and once as forhygcanne in a gloss to the Book of John in Skeat's edition of the The Four Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions.[38] VARIANT GROUP 2: VARIANTS OF VOCABULARY I have subgrouped the variants of vocabulary into four categories: variant forms of words, different words with synonymous meanings, different words with different meanings, and variant phrases. Variant Forms of Words The Otho scribe frequently uses a variant form of a word used in Julius E. vii. For example, at 25(26v)r3, the Otho scribe uses forswugige (first person singular present tense of forswigian: "pass over in silence, suppress, keep silent, conceal"), where the Julius scribe (Sk 12-13) uses forsuwige (from forsuwian : "pass over in silence, keep silent"). Similarly, at 25(26r)v13-14 the Otho scribe has mid þurhwacelum mode (from the adjective þurhwacel) where the Julius scribe (Sk 43-44) has mid þurhwæccendlican mode (from þurhwæccendlic). Both phrases mean "with very vigilant spirit," the Otho scribe using strong declension, the Julius scribe using weak declension.[39] Another example is found at 28(17)v8 [Figure 3.5]. Mary tells Zosimus that her actions were so
repugnant she was surprised seo eorþe hire muð ne ontynde 7 me cwucuwe on helle ne besencte ("the earth did not open its mouth and plunge me alive into hell"). The word cwucuwe is a variant accusative singular form of the adjective cwic ("quick, living, alive"). The Julius scribe conveys the same sentiment, but uses swa cwyce (Sk 387), literally, "thus alive," which Skeat translates as "all alive." Although Skeat documents this variant in his notes, cwucuwe does not appear as a variant spelling in the Dictionary of Old English entry for cwic (Fasc. C1.4, 1199-1209). Different Words with Synonymous Meanings There are many cases where the Otho scribe uses a different word with the same or a similar meaning to the one found in Julius. For example, at 25(26v)r6 the Otho scribe uses sceat (coin, money of account) where the Julius scribe (Sk 15) uses talent ("talent, money of account"), a loanword from Latin. As Fred Robinson notes, "in the course of copying vernacular texts Anglo-Saxon scribes not infrequently used Latin forms to represent Old English words" (1982, 395). If the Otho exemplar included talent, it is possible the scribe, knowing the vernacular equivalent, substituted sceat while the Junius scribe, recogizing the word talent or not, simply copied from the exemplar verbatim. A search of the OEC for talent produces thirty-five matches: all but seven are instances where the word is used within a Latin context. Other examples include: gegaderode (past participle of gegaderian: "gathered, united, assembled") at 28(17)r13 for Julius's gesamnode (past participle of gesamnian: "assembled, joined, gathered together") at Sk 369, [40] and geþohtum (masculine dative plural of geþoht: "thoughts, ideas") at 25(26r)v20 for Julius's geþancum (masculine dative plural of geþanc: "thoughts, ideas") at Sk 48. At 28(17)v6-7, Otho has unrihtwislican (masculine accusative plural of the adjective unrihtwislic: "unrighteous, wrong, unjust") for Julius (Sk 386) unrihtlican (masculine accusative plural of the adjective unrihtlic: "unrighteous, wrongful, wicked").[41] At 27(16)r21-22, Otho has geondfor (preterite first person singular of the verb geondfaran: "went through, pervaded, traversed"):
Here, Julius (Sk 333-34) has geondferde (preterite first person singular of the verb geondferan: "went through, traversed"):
Bosworth-Toller defines geondfaran as "to go through, pervade" (425), while Clark Hall provides "to traverse, to pervade" (152), neither of which quite fits the context. However, the Oxford English Dictionary includes a definition for traverse, "[t]o turn away, to divert; fig. to pervert. Obs. rare," which fits quite well. Clark Hall also gives "surpass" as a definition for geondferan, but does so by citing Skeat's translation in Mary of Egypt![42] Other examples of synonymous variants include leodscipes (masculine genitive singular: "of nation, people") at 25(26v)r20-21 for Julius (Sk 25-26) þeowtscypes (masculine genitive singular: "of fellowship, people");[43] wisan (feminine accusative plural of wise: "thing") at 29(15)v22 for Julius (Sk 524) ðincg (neuter accusative plural: "thing");[44] lufode (preterite first person singular of lufian: "lived, delighted in, practiced") at 27(16)v8 for Julius (Sk 345) leofode (preterite first person singular of libban: "lived, experienced"); and mærsian (infinitive: "to celebrate, honor, exalt") at 27(16)v16 for Julius (Sk 350) wurðian (infinitive: "to esteem, honour, celebrate, exalt"). In his notes for line 350, Skeat states, "O. inserts æfter þæt before wurðian" (Skeat 2:24), but the phrase is actually æfter þam mærsian [Figure 3.6] ("after that to celebrate").
Different Words with Different Meanings In some instances, the Otho scribe uses a word that gives a phrase or sentence a different meaning than the one conveyed by the Julius scribe. For example, at 25(26v)r18-20, the Otho scribe uses hæftnysse (feminine genitive singular: "of captivity, subjection") and æfæs[tre]sta [Figures 3.7 and 3.8] (superlative of the adjective æfæst: "most upright, pious,
devout") where the Julius scribe (Sk 23-24) uses forhæfednysse (feminine genitive singular: "of restraint, continence, abstinence") and afandedesta (superlative of the past participle for afandan: "most approved, most excellent"). The context of the Otho passage is:
("and he had become the most devout in works of subjection to all the monastic rules.") The context of the Julius version is:
The Julius scribe uses hæfednysse again at Sk 31-32, stating that monks from faraway places sought out Zosimus þære onhyringe his forhæfednysse hi underðeoddon ("to subject themselves to the imitation of his self-denial"). The Otho scribe, however, uses the word geferrednysse (feminine dative singular of geferrednys: "fellowship, society"), writing at 25(26v)r28 that they sought Zosimus his geferrednysse hi underþeodan ("to subject themselves to his fellowship"). The Julius scribe's focus on Zosimus's self-restraint, rather than on his personal charisma, as seems to be the focus of the Otho scribe, prepares the reader for the monk's encounter with Mary, the epitome of lack of restraint. When Zosimus presses Mary to tell him her story, in Otho B. x she prefaces her confession (27(16)r12-14) using the word gemyndgianne (inflected infinitive of gemyndgian: "to remember, be mindful of"): Ac me scamað nu to gemyndgianne hu ic on þam fruman ærest minne fæmnanhad besmat... ("But it causes me shame to call to mind how I at the first defiled my virginity..."). On the other hand, in Julius E. vii (Sk 327-328) Mary expresses shame in the telling, not in the remembering, of her youthful misdeeds: Ac mé sceamað nu to gereccenne hu ic on þam fruman ærest minne fæmnhád besmát... ("But I am ashamed to recount now how at the outset I first polluted my virginity..."). The Julius scribe's word gereccenne (inflected infinitive of gereccan: "to relate, express, explain") is echoed by both scribes at 27(16)r17:330 where Mary states, ðis [Sk þis] is nu witodlice scortlice [Sk sceortlice] to areccanne ("this now indeed may be related").[45] However, the Otho scribe's earlier use of gemyndgianne foreshadows Mary's later remark (29(15)v22-28:524-528) that she dreads recalling her past misdeeds because she fears (ondræde) a return of the unrihtwislicra geþohta (29(15)v25-26: "unrighteous thoughts") (here Julius at Sk 526 has unwislicra geþanca: "foolish thoughts") [46] she endured during the first seventeen years of her self-exile in the desert.[47] The Otho scribe's more personal focus continues in the next lines (27(16)r18-21), where Mary states:
The Julius scribe (Sk 331) uses the word únalyfedan ("unlawful, illicit") for Otho's unfylledan [Figure 3.9] ("dissatisfied, unfullfilled, incomplete"), emphasizing the legal wrongs of Mary's
actions rather than the personal turmoil that led her to commit them. This judgmental tone is reemphasized in two additional passages. At 27(16)v1-6:340-343, Mary insists she did not prostitute herself for money, but on the contrary, lived in poverty and filth in order to seek gratification of her unafyllendlice gewilnunge ("unfulfilled desires"). The Julius scribe then writes, and þæt me wæs to yrmðe ("and that was misery to me"), but the Otho scribe writes, 7 þæt me wæs to myrcðe ("and that was pleasure to me").[48] One more example further illustrates this difference in perspective of the two versions. Following Mary's initial testimony at 29(15)v18-21 [Figure 3.10] the Otho scribe writes:
Here the Julius scribe writes (Sk 521-523):
In the Julius version the scribe uses flæsclican ("fleshly, corporal, carnal") whereas the Otho scribe uses færlican ("sudden, unexpected") [Figure 3.11]. Skeat translates ne freode as "without loving" (but literally, "loved not") and gehwyrfednysse as "inclination," implying
Zosimus questions Mary's ability to overcome her obsession, in spite of living alone in the desert for forty-seven years! Since the verb freogan can also mean "to free, liberate," and gehwyrfednysse can also mean "conversion," the Otho scribe's færlican gehyrfednysse ("sudden conversion"), read in the context of a different tranlation of freode, suggests Zosimus is genuinely interested in knowing how Mary succeeded in overcoming her previous obsession, not, as the Julius version suggests, expressing doubt concerning the truthfulness of her testimony. Two additional examples of variants in vocabulary that produce changes in the meaning of the text include:
Mary tells Zosimus that after she has lived promiscuously for seventeen years, she sees a miccle mænigeo of Affricana 7 of Egypta ("great multitude of Africans and of Egyptians") running to the sea. Learning they are about to embark on a pilgrimage from Alexandria to Jerusalem, she asks one of them (in Otho B. x), wast þu hwæðer hi willen me underfon gif ic mid him faran wille ("do you know whether they will accept me if I wish to go with them"). In the Julius version, however, Mary asks not "do you know..." (wast þu) but "do you think..." (wenst þu).
The account of the events leading to Mary's turning point -- her inability to enter the temple to witness the Exaltation of the Cross due to a supernatural force, her repentance to a statue of the Virgin Mary and subsequent forgiveness which allow her to enter the temple unhindered -- were destroyed in Otho B. x. The story resumes on folio 29(15)r as the now-reformed prostitute leaves the temple and departs for the desert. She tells Zosimus that when she arrives at the Jordan River, (29(15)r16-20):
In the Julius version, Mary uses the word gegyrnode, curiously measuring the time it has taken to arrive at her destination from the event preceding her repentance (when she "desired" to see the cross). In the Otho version, Mary uses the word earnode, acknowledging that through her repentance she not only has earned the right to see the cross but has merited the opportunity to begin a new life. Variant Phrases In addition to variants in vocabulary, the Otho B. x version includes phrases completely different than or absent from the Julius E. vii version. In some instances, the difference is simply a rearrangement of word order. In others, however, subject and verb are changed or additional words are added or subtracted, uniquely altering the content of the narrative. For example, at Sk 12-13 the narrator,[49] explaining why he is obligated to relate þas halgan gerecednesse ("these holy narratives"), states in the Julius version, se me gecydde þæt ic on gefealle... ("he hath made known to me that I may fall..."). Instead, the Otho scribe writes (25(26v)r4), þæt ic hi ne cyðe þy les þe ic gefealle... ("that I relate them not lest I fall..."). Here, the Julius scribe uses the substantive subject se ("the one," that is, "God") with gecydde, a third person singular preterite form of the verb gecyðan ("he made know, he proclaimed"). The Otho scribe's subject is ic ("I"), used with a negative adverb (ne: "not") and the first person singular present tense cyðe (from cyðan: "I relate or tell"). The Otho scribe also adds the adverbial phrase þy les þe ("lest"). Although this phrase appears fairly frequently as þe læs ðe or þy læs þe, particularly in Ælfric's homilies and in biblical works, the use of les [50] for læs in the phrase is documented in only two other texts: Liebermann's edition of the Laws of King Æthelred [51] and Cox's edition of the Distichs of Cato.[52] The phrase is repeated at 25(26v)r9-11 [Figure 3.12] where the Otho scribe writes:
The word formirðrige (present subjunctive first person singular of formyrðrian: "should destroy utterly, kill") [Figure 3.13] is used figuratively in the sense of "killing" a story.
Elsewhere, the word is found in Fowler's edition of Handbook for the Use of a Confessor [53] where it refers to the penance to be served by a woman who has killed her child in the womb (Gif wif hyre cild formyrðrige innan hire). Less dramatically, the Julius scribe writes (Sk 17-18):
Another example of multiple variants is found at 28(17)r20-22. [Figure 3.14] The Otho scribe writes:
Here the Julius scribe writes (Sk 374-375):
The Otho scribe's subject is hi ("they"), with the auxiliary verb form wurdon (preterite third person plural: "they became") supporting the masculine nominative plural past participle astyrode (from astyrian: "stirred up, excited, aroused"). The Julius scribe's subject is ic ("I") with the preterite first person singular form of the verb, astyrede ("I aroused"). In his footnote, Skeat records bysmer and ceahhtungum as two separate words, but since bysmer is a noun ("disgrace, scandal, shame"), not an adjective, it would seem the scribe meant to compound the two words into the more descriptive feminine dative plural noun bysmerceahhettungum [Figure 3.15], a compound not documented in the Dictionary of Old English. A similar compound
word occurs at 27(17)r9 in the phrase bysmorgleow minra worda ("shameful lust of my words"). The Julius version (Sk 366) has only bysmor minra worda ("shamefulness of my words"); Skeat's documentation of this variant does appear in the Dictionary of Old English [Fasc. B 1.9, 2665]. The Otho version sometimes adds or omits a phrase. For example, at 28(17)r7-8, after Zosimus has encouraged Mary to continue her narrative, the Otho scribe writes Heo þa togeycte þære ærran cyðnysse ("She then added to the preceding testimony"), but the Julius scribe writes only and þus cwæð ("and thus she said").[55] Conversely, at 29(15)r18 the Otho scribe writes that sunne hi to setle ahylde ("the sun inclined itself to set") when Mary reached the Jordan River; here the Julius scribe adds (Sk 498-499) and þære æfenrepsunge genealæhte ("and the eventide approached"). VARIANT GROUP 3: SYNTACTIC VARIANTS Nouns Both scribes provide examples of inconsistent usage of weak and strong noun declensions, a typical instability found in late West Saxon texts. Campbell notes, "W-S has always n.s. lufu, but often weak inflexions" (§619.4). His observation is illustrated by the Otho scribe's preference for weak declensions of this noun (meaning "love"): feminine accusative singular, lufan at 27(16)r11 for Julius's strong lufu at Sk 326; feminine dative singular, lufan at 27(16)r20-21 for Julius's strong lufe at Sk 332; and feminine dative singular, lufe at 25(56)v24 for Julius's strong feminine accusative singular lufu at Sk 95. Both scribes, however, use the strong declension lufu at 25(56)v1:79 for feminine nominative singular. Both texts are illustrative too of the typical West Saxon weakening of inflections. As Campbell writes,
For example, at 29(15)r24, Otho has liffæstum where Julius (Sk 503) has liffestan ("living, life-giving"), both neuter dative plural; and at 29(15)r1, Otho has for minon þingon where Julius (Sk 485) has for minum þingum (neuter dative plural: literally, "for my things" but the phrase is used to mean "for my sake"). Other variants in nouns are relatively rare. At 28(17)r16, the Otho scribe uses a plural noun in the phrase to mines lichaman lustum ("to the desires of my body") where the Julius scribe uses the singular noun luste (Sk 371). At 28(17)v22, the Otho scribe uses ceasterwaran ("citizens"), masculine accusative plural, where Julius uses ceastergewarena (Sk 397) ("of the citizens"), masculine genitive plural. Verbs In his analysis of Mary of Egypt in Julius E. vii, Hugh Magennis notes the Old English translation exhibits "a high degree of dependence on participial constructions" (1986, 333). The Otho version also includes many participial constructions, but their use varies in comparison with their use in the Julius version. In two instances, the Otho scribe uses a participial construction where the Julius scribe does not:
There are four instances, however, where the Julius scribe uses a participial construction but the Otho scribe does not:
There are two instances where one version uses a present participle in the nominative case while the other uses the dative case, with one example of each in both versions. In the first example, found at 25(26r)v29-26(56)r1, the Otho version uses the nominative form þencende while the Julius version (Sk 55) uses the dative form þencendum of the verb þencan ("thinking"):
In the second example, the Otho version uses the masculine dative plural form ofergeotendum of the verb ofergeotan ("pouring upon, suffusing, flooding") to modify the noun tearum ("tears"), while the Julius version has ofergeotende, the masculine nominative singular form, modifying Zosimus:
Other Parts of Speech The two scribes sometimes vary in their repetition of prepositions or their use of antecedent nouns and pronouns, the Julius scribe more frequently repeating words that the Otho scribe omits. For example, at 25(26v)r26-27, the Otho scribe writes:
Here the Julius scribe writes (Sk 29-32):
Questionable Readings Digital images, particularly those captured in concert with ultraviolet fluorescence, provide an optimal means of studying a damaged manuscript and frequently are preferable to working with the original document. A digital camera can capture more detail than the human eye alone can register, facilitating preservation of minute details that might easily be overlooked in the original manuscript. In addition, digital images captured at high resolution can be enlarged to many sizes greater than the original, making possible extremely close scrutiny of individual words and letters. Finally, because digital images can be stored to disk and studied wherever and whenever a researcher chooses, expensive and time-consuming trips to distant libraries can be minimized or in some circumstances, avoided altogether. Nevertheless, caution must be exercised in the use of digital images. Particularly when working with digital facsimiles of a damaged manuscript, great care must be taken to avoid the temptation to see things that are not there. A textual scholar has an obligation to present manuscript evidence accurately and responsibly: it is far more prudent to err on the side of conservative transcription than to risk documenting as fact a reading which is, in truth, merely an optical illusion. With this caveat in mind, the following readings are inconclusive, requiring further investigation to either refute or confirm their accuracy. At Sk 37, the Julius scribe writes Wel oft eac swilce þæs ðe hí rehton ("Very often also, afterward they explained").[60] The corresponding line of the Otho text (25(26r)v5) [Figure 3.16] is Wel oft eac swylce ðæs þe bi rehton ("Very often also
(they) afterward related"). The Otho scribe has written bi where Julius has hí ("they"), but the unusual amount of space between bi and rehton (preterite third person plural of reccan: "they explained, told, narrated") as well as a faint but indecipherable letterform immediately following bi suggest something has been erased here, possibly an e or an r or both. One possibility is that the scribe accidentally wrote ber rehton [Figure 3.17], intending to write berehton (from
bereccan: "they related"), then attempted to erase the extra r but in the process erased part of the e as well, so left it as bi, a variant spelling of the prefix be-. Although the word birehton is not documented in the Dictionary of Old English, the infinitive bereccan or an oblique form of this word occurs five times in the Old English Corpus.[61] At Sk 45-46, the Julius scribe writes:
The Otho reading (25(26r)v16-18) is uncertain here because the scribe has made a revision, writing be oðrum [Figure 3.18], followed by a larger than usual amount of
space between oðrum and the following on. It is possible the scribe became confused while making a correction and simply omitted the r between the o and the ð. Although it is preferable to avoid emendation whenever possible, sometimes an informed decision must be made and what appears to be a valid error should be corrected.[62] In this instance, it seems prudent to emend be oðrum to beorðrum. At Skeat 49-51, the Julius scribe writes:
However, Otho B. x 25(26r)v21-23 [Figure 3.19] has:
The word beþorhte [Figure 3.20] is an enigma; neither the Dictionary of Old English
nor the OEC provides any clues. Its form indicates it is either a preterite present verb, as is Julius's beþorfte (preterite third person singular of beþurfan: "he needed"), or a weak verb of class one like beþencan ("to consider, take thought for; trust") for which the singular preterite form is beþohte. The variation in word order, the third singular preterite verb wæs ("was") preceding on his mode ("in his mind") with no conjunction or pronoun (and he: "and he") preceding þus sprecende ("thus speaking") as in the Julius version, suggests two possible readings. In the preceding lines in both versions (25(26r)v19-21:48-49), the narrator states Zosimus wæs gecynsæd fram sumum geþohtum swa swa he wære on eallum þingum fulfremed ("was troubled by some thoughts such that he was in all things fulfilled"). If the Otho scribe meant to write beþohte, the meaning of the line might be "he did not think no example of any more learning was in his mind, thus speaking..." Thinking he wære on eallum þingum fulfremed ("he was in all things fulfilled"), he was convinced he had already learned everything he could possibly learn. On the other hand, if the scribe meant to write beþorfte, the meaning might be "he did not need no example of any more learning, was in his mind thus speaking." In other words, troubled by the thought that he has achieved perfection and has nothing left to learn, he is pondering, that is, "speaking" on his mode ("in his mind"). To provide a readable text, I have elected to emend the h to f, although neither interpretation is entirely convincing. Summary Although the version of Mary of Egypt in Otho B. x is, in most instances, the same as the version in Julius E. vii, there are approximately 550 words and more than fifty phrases in the extant Otho B. x version that vary from the text of Julius E. vii. Since about one-third of the text survives in Otho B. x, this suggests there were more than 1500 words and 150 phrases in the Otho B. x version that varied from the text of Julius E. vii. While many of the surviving variant readings have no impact on the narrative itself, particularly orthographic differences or alterative usage of þ and ð or i and y, other variants indicate the two scribes independently recorded totally different words and phrases. In some instances the variant words are synonymous, but in other instances these variant words have completely different meanings. The work of contemporary scribes, the variant versions of the two texts, including orthographic and syntactic variants, are especially demonstrative of linguistic changes in progress in the written vernacular of early eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon England. They also illustrate the influence of individual dialects, of scriptorium guidelines, and of the personal practices and preferences of individual scribes. |
