Paul G. Remley

Daniel, the Three Youths fragment and the transmission of Old English verse

The theories of oral-formulaic composition advanced by Albert B. Lord, his mentor and collaborator Milman Parry, and their later twentieth-century followers have been adduced frequently in studies of Old English verse, elements of whose language must go back ultimately to an oral tradition. After decades of research, however, scholars have yet to find conclusive answers to some basic questions: did literate Anglo-Saxons continue to practise techniques of extemporaneous versification? If so, did they continue to develop the mnemonic skills attributed to oral poets? It is clear that the monuments of Old English verse reveal many examples of formulaic language (for example, se mæra maga Healfdenes, se mæra mago Healfdenes and se mæra maga Ecgðeowes); but should we regard this language as a reliable witness to oral-formulaic versification or, perhaps, as a hybrid, ‘literary-formulaic’ idiom? Finally, if we accept the synchronic (or achronic) models of the formulaic ‘word-hoard’ that inform many Old English studies, is it pointless even to speculate about poetic influence, direction of borrowing and similar concerns? If so, how should we regard, say, two parallel uses of the unusual phrase enge anpaðas, occurring verbatim in Beowulf and the poetic Exodus but nowhere else among the surviving monuments? Must we view these parallels as isolated outcroppings in the trackless expanse of the Old English poetic corpus? Largely as a result of the scarcity of verse preserved in multiple copies, such questions have remained debatable into the present century.

The Latin textual basis of Genesis A

Received scholarly opinion regards Genesis A as an Old English versification of the Latin text of Genesis in Jeromes Vulgate revision of the bible. This view has prevailed in modern editions of the poem, which normally print a critical text of the Vulgate Genesis in their apparatus. The textual basis of Genesis A is perhaps ‘vulgate’ in character in so far as the poem renders Genesis readings that were commonly known in Anglo-Saxon England, but the identification of this base text with that of the Hieronymian Vulgate remains an untested hypothesis. Ten years ago A. N. Doane printed a list of readings in the Old English text which show affinity with the ancient versions of Genesis that emerged before the completion of Jeromes translation, readings associted with the Vetus Latina or Old Latin bible. Doane did not, however, challenge the long-standing belief that Genesis A follows a single, lost exemplar that contained in all essentials the text established by Jerome. The present study attempts to survey, without any preconceptions, all the details in the poem that might derive from Latin sources; its intention is to make a first step towards the recovery of the Latin textual basis of Genesis A.

Bibliography for 2010

This bibliography is meant to include all signifi cant books, articles and reviews published in any branch of Anglo-Saxon studies during 2010, as well as entries omitted from previous bibliographies. It excludes reprints unless they contain new material. The year of publication of a book or article is 2010 unless otherwise stated. The arrangement and the pages on which the sections begin are as follows:

Bibliography for 2006

This bibliography is meant to include all significant books, articles and reviews published in any branch of Anglo-Saxon studies during 2006, as well as entries omitted from previous bibliographies. It excludes reprints unless they contain new material. The year of publication of a book or article is 2006 unless otherwise stated. The arrangement and the pages on which the sections begin are as follows:

Bibliography for 2001

This bibliography is meant to include all books, articles and significant reviews published in any branch of Anglo-Saxon studies during 2001. It excludes reprints unless they contain new material. It will be continued annually. The year of publication of a book or article is 2001 unless otherwise stated. The arrangement and the pages on which the sections begin are as follows: 1.    page 278 2.    284 Lexicon and glosses, 284; Syntax, phonology and other aspects, 288 3.    295 General, 295; Poetry, 297 (General, 297; ‘Beowulf ’, 299; Other poems, 300); Prose, 303 4. -,       306 5. ,    314 6.  320 7.  331 8.  332 9.  334 General, 334; Towns and other major settlements, 337; Rural settlements, agriculture and the countryside, 340; Pagan cemeteries and Sutton Hoo, 344; Churches, monastic sites and Christian cemeteries, 346; Ships and seafaring, 348; Miscellaneous artifacts, 348; Bone, stone and wood, 349; Metal-work, 351; Pottery and glass, 353; Textiles and leather, 355; Inscriptions, 355 10.  356

Bibliography for 2002

This bibliography is meant to include all books, articles and significant reviews published in any branch of Anglo-Saxon studies during 2002. It excludes reprints unless they contain new material. It will be continued annually. The year of publication of a book or article is 2002 unless otherwise stated. The arrangement and the pages on which the sections begin are as follows: 1.    page 310 2.    314 Lexicon and glosses, 314; Syntax, phonology and other aspects, 321 3.    330 General, 330; Poetry, 333 (General, 333; ‘Beowulf ’, 334; Other poems, 337); Prose, 340 4. -,       346 5. ,    358 6.  362 7.  369 8.  370 9.  373 General, 373; Towns and other major settlements, 378; Rural settlements, agriculture and the countryside, 382; Pagan cemeteries and Sutton Hoo, 385; Churches, monastic sites and Christian cemeteries, 388; Ships and seafaring, 391; Miscellaneous artifacts, 391; Bone, stone and wood, 391; Metal-work, 392; Pottery and glass, 394; Textiles and leather, 396; Inscriptions, 396 10.  398