Chapter II: The Alliterative Verse in Old English (1)

§ =14. General remarks.= It is highly probable that alliteration was the earliest kind of poetic form employed by the English people. There is no trace in the extant monuments of the language of any more primitive or simpler system. A predilection for alliteration existed even in prose, as in the names of heroes and families like Scyld and Sceaf, Hengist and Horsa, Finn and Folcwald, pairs that alliterate in the same way as the family names of other Teutonic nations: the names of the three sons of Mannus, Ingo, Isto, Irmino, conform to this type.[15] The earliest monuments of Old English poetry, as the fragmentary hymn of Cædmon in the More MS. (Cambridge) and the inscription on the Ruthwell Cross, are composed in the long alliterative line. The great body of Old English verse is in this metre, the only exceptions being the 'Rhyming Poem' (in the _Exeter Book_),[16] and a few other late pieces, in which alliteration and rhyme are combined. This Old English poetry, therefore, together with the Old Norse and Old Saxon remains (the _Heliand_ with 5,985 lines, and the recently discovered fragment of the Old Saxon _Genesis_, edited by Zangemeister and Braune, 1894, with 335 lines), affords ample and trustworthy material for determining the laws of the alliterative verse as used by the Teutonic nations. In comparison with these the remains of Old High German alliterative verse are both scanty and lax in structure.

§ =15. Theories on the metrical form of the alliterative line.= Notwithstanding their comparative scantiness, the Old High German fragments (_Hildebrandslied_, _Wessobrunner Gebet_, _Muspilli_ and two magical formulae, with a total of some 110 lines) formed the basis of the earliest theories of the laws of the accentuation and general character of the original alliterative line. They were assumed to have preserved the features of the primitive metre, and conclusions were drawn from them as to the typical form of the verse. When examined closely, the Old High German remains (and this is true also of the longer monuments in Old Saxon) are found to differ widely from Old Norse and Old English verse in one respect. While the general and dominating features of the line remain the same, the Old High German and Old Saxon lines are much longer than the Old Norse or Old English lines. In Old Norse or Old English the half line frequently contains no more than four syllables, in marked contrast to Old High German and Old Saxon, where the half line or section is considerably longer.

The first attempt at a theory of the metrical structure of the alliterative line was made by Lachmann. He based his theory on the form of verse created by Otfrid, in imitation of Latin models, which consists of a long line of eight accents, separated by leonine rhyme into two sections each of four accents alternately strong and weak.[17] The laws of the rhyming and strophic verse of Otfrid were applied by Lachmann to the purely alliterative verses of the Old High German _Hildebrandslied_, and this system of scanning was further applied by his followers to the alliterative verse of Old English, the true nature of which was long misunderstood on the Continent. In England itself a sounder view of the native alliterative verse was propounded by Bishop Percy as early as 1765, in his _Essay on the Metre of Pierce Plowman_ published along with his well-known _Reliques of Ancient English Poetry_, not to speak of the earlier writings of G. Gascoigne (1575) and James VI (1585). But the number and authority of some of Lachmann's followers are such that some detailed account of their theories must be given.[18]

§ =16. The four-beat theory= of the alliterative verse, based on the assumption that each of the two sections must have had four accented syllables to bring out a regular rhythm, was applied by Lachmann himself only to the Old High German _Hildebrandslied_,[19] while on the other hand he recognized a freer variety with two chief accents only in each section, for the Old Norse, Old Saxon, and Old English. The four-beat theory was further applied to the Old High German _Muspilli_ by Bartsch,[20] and to the rest of the smaller relics of Old High German verse by Müllenhoff.[21] The next step was to bring the Old Saxon _Heliand_ and the Old English _Beowulf_ under this system of scansion; and this was taken by M. Heyne in 1866 and 1867. But the metre of _Beowulf_ does not differ from that of the other alliterative poems in Old English, and these in their turn were claimed for the four-beat theory by Schubert,[22] but with this important modification, made before by Bartsch, that side by side with the usual four-beat sections there were also to be found sections of three beats only. One obvious difficulty in applying the theory of four strongly marked beats to the Old English half-lines or hemistichs is this, that in Old English these hemistichs consist in very many cases of not more than four syllables altogether, each one of which would on this theory have an accent to itself. To meet these cases E. Jessen[23] started the theory that in certain cases pauses had to be substituted for 'beats not realized'. A further modification of the four-beat doctrine was introduced by Amelung,[24] who maintained that in the metre of the _Heliand_ each hemistich had two primary or chief accents and two secondary or subordinate accents. In order to bring the verse under this scansion he assumes that certain syllables admitted of being lengthened. He further regarded the _Heliand_ verse as a metre regulated by strict time, and not as a measure intended for free recitation and depending only on the number of accented syllables.

A few other more recent attempts at solving the problem must be mentioned before we pass on to explain and discuss Sievers's system in the next paragraph. The views of Prof. Möller of Copenhagen[25] have found an adherent in Lawrence, from whose book[26] we may quote the following summary of Möller's theory. According to Prof. Möller the hemistich consists theoretically of two measures (_Takte_), each of four _morae_ ×́ × ×̀ × (a _mora_, ×, being the time required for one short syllable), and therefore the whole verse of four measures, thus:

×́ × ×̀ × | ×́ × ×̀ × || ×́ × ×̀ × | ×́ × ×̀ × ||.

Where, in a verse, the _morae_ are not filled by actual syllables, their time must be occupied by rests (represented by r*) in reciting, by holding on the note in singing.[27] A long syllable, ——, is equivalent to two _morae_. Thus v. 208 of _Beowulf_

_súnd-wùdu. sṓhtè. sécg. wī́sàde_.

would be symbolically represented as follows:

–́ ×̀ × | –́ ×̀ r || –́ rr | –́ ×̀ ×.

According to this system the pause at _secg_ will be twice as long as that at _sōhte_, whilst at _wudu_ there will be no real pause and the point will merely indicate the end of the measure.

Others reverted to the view of Bartsch and Schubert that there could be hemistichs with only three accents alongside of the hemistichs with the normal number of four. Among these may be mentioned H. Hirt,[28] whose view is that three beats to a hemistich is the normal number, four being less usual, the long line having thus mostly six beats, against the eight of Lachmann's theory; K. Fuhr,[29] who holds that every hemistich, whether it stands first or second in the verse, has four beats if the last syllable is unaccented (_klingend_; in that case the final unaccented syllable receives a secondary rhythmical accent, for example, _fḗond máncýnnès_) and has three beats if it is accented (_stumpf_, for example, _fýrst fórð gewā́t_, or _múrnénde mṓd_, &c.); and B. ten Brink,[30] who calls the hemistichs with four beats full or 'complete' (e.g. _hȳ́ràn scóldè_, but admits hemistichs with three beats only, calling them 'incomplete' from the want of a secondary accent (e.g. _twélf wíntra tī́d, hā́m gesṓhte_, &c.). The four-beat theory was reverted to by M. Kaluza, who endeavours to reconcile it with the results of Sievers and others.[31] A somewhat similar view is taken by R. Kögel.[32] Trautmann[33] takes Amelung's view that certain words and syllables must be lengthened in order to get the four accented syllables necessary for each hemistich. Thus, according to Trautmann's scansion,

_sprécað fǽgeré befóran_

would run ×́ × | ×́ × | ×́ × | ⏑́ × and

_ónd þú him méte sýlest_

would also have the formula ×́ × | ×́ × | ×́ × | ⏑́ ×,

_ond_ being protracted to two units. Another instance of this lengthening would, on this theory, occur in the final syllable of the word _radores_ in the hemistich _únder rádorès rýne_, while in a section like _gūð-rinc monig_, or _of fold-grǽfe_, the words _rinc_ and _of_ would be extended to two, and _gūð_ and _fold_ would each be extended to four units, in order to fit in with the scansion ×́ × | ×́ × | ×́ × | ⏑́ ×. Most of the partisans of the four-beat theory for the hemistich agree in making two of these beats primary, and two secondary; Trautmann, however, does not seem to recognize any such difference in the force of the four accents. All the supporters of the four-beat theory have this in common, that the rhythm of the verse is assumed to be based on time (_taktierend_), but in other respects differ widely from each other; Hirt, for example, in his last discussion of the subject,[34] claiming that his own view is fundamentally different from that of Kaluza, which again he looks on as at variance with those of Möller and Heusler.

§ =17. The two-beat theory=, on the other hand, is that each of the two hemistichs of the alliterative line need have only two accented syllables. In England this view was taken by two sixteenth-century writers on verse, George Gascoigne[35] who quotes the line,

_No wight in this world, that wealth can attain_,

giving as the accentual scheme ` ´ ` ` ´ ` ´ ` ` ´; and by King James VI, whose example is--

_Fetching fude for to feid it fast furth of the Farie._[36]

In 1765, Percy, in his _Essay on Pierce Plowman's Visions_, pointed out 'that the author of this poem will not be found to have invented any new mode of versification, as some have supposed, but only to have retained that of the old Saxon and Gothick poets, which was probably never wholly laid aside, but occasionally used at different intervals'. After quoting[37] two Old Norse, he gives two Old English verses:--

_Sceop þa and scyrede scyppend ure_ (Gen. 65),
_ham and heahsetl heofena rices_ (ib. 33);

he continues: 'Now if we examine the versification of Pierce Plowman's Visions' (from which he quotes the beginning--

_In a somer season | when softe was the sonne
I schop me into a schroud | a scheep as I were, &c._)

'we shall find it constructed exactly by these rules', which are, in his own words, 'that every distich [i.e. complete long line] should contain at least three words beginning with the same letter or sound; two of these correspondent sounds might be placed either in the first or second line of the distich, and one in the other, but all three were not regularly to be crowded into one line.' He then goes on to quote further specimens of alliterative verse from _Pierce the Ploughman's Crede_, _The Sege of Jerusalem_, _The Chevalere Assigne_, _Death and Liffe_ and _Scottish Fielde_, which latter ends with a rhyming couplet:

_And his ancestors of old time | have yearded theire longe
Before William conquerour | this cuntry did inhabitt.
Jesus bring them to blisse | that brought us forth of bale,
That hath hearkened me heare | or heard my tale._

Taken as a whole his dissertation on the history of alliterative verse is remarkably correct, and his final remarks are noteworthy:

Thus we have traced the alliterative measure so low as the
sixteenth century. It is remarkable that all such poets as used this
kind of metre, retained along with it many peculiar Saxon idioms,
particularly such as were appropriated to poetry: _this deserves the
attention of those who are desirous to recover the laws of the ancient
Saxon poesy, usually given up as inexplicable:_ I am of opinion that
they will find what they seek in the metre of Pierce Plowman. About
the beginning of the sixteenth century this kind of versification
began to change its form; the author of _Scottish Field_, we
see, concludes his poem with a couplet of rhymes; this was an
innovation[38] that did but prepare the way for the general admission
of that more modish ornament. When rhyme began to be superadded,
all the niceties of alliteration were at first retained with it: the
song of Little John Nobody exhibits this union very closely.... To
proceed; the old uncouth verse of the ancient writers would no longer
go down without the more fashionable ornament of rhyme, and therefore
rhyme was superadded. This correspondence of final sounds engrossing
the whole attention of the poet and fully satisfying the reader, the
internal imbellishment of alliteration was no longer studied, and thus
was this kind of metre at length swallowed up and lost in our common
burlesque alexandrine, now never used but in songs and pieces of low
humour, as in the following ballad; and that well-known doggrel:

'A cobler there was and he lived in a stall'.

Now it is clear that this verse is of exactly the same structure as the verses quoted by Gascoigne:

_No wight in this world that wealth can attayne,
Ùnléss hè bèléue, thàt áll ìs bùt vaýne_,

where the scheme of accents is Gascoigne's own, showing that he read them as verses of four accents in all, two in each hemistich. They show the same rhythmical structure as the 'tumbling' or alliterative line given by James VI[39] (1585):

_Fetching fude for to feid it fast furth of the Farie_,

and described by him as having 'twa [feit, i.e. syllables] short, and ane lang throuch all the lyne', in other words with four accented syllables in the verse.

Percy detected very acutely that the Middle English alliterative line stood in close connexion with the Old English alliterative line, and suggested as highly probable that the metre of _Pierce Plowman_ would give a key to the rhythm of that older form of verse, which would have to be read with two accented syllables in the hemistich, and therefore four in the whole line.

Had this essay of Percy's been known to Lachmann's followers, many of the forced attempts at reconciling the Old English verse with a scheme that involved a fixed number of syllables in the line would not have been made. Lachmann himself, it must be remembered, admitted the two-beat scansion for Old Norse, Old Saxon, and Old English. Meanwhile other investigators were at work on independent lines. In 1844 A. Schmeller, the editor of the _Heliand_, formulated the law that, in the Teutonic languages, it is the force with which the different syllables are uttered that regulates the rhythm of the verse, and not the number or length of the syllables (which are of minor importance), and established the fact that this alliterative verse was not meant to be sung but to be recited.[40] He does not enter into the details of the rhythm of the verse, except by pointing out the two-beat cadence of each section. Somewhat later, W. Wackernagel[41] declared himself in favour of the two-beat theory for all Teutonic alliterative verse. In every hemistich of the verse there are according to Wackernagel two syllables with a grammatical or logical emphasis, and consequently a strong accent, the number of less strongly accented syllables not being fixed. The two-beat theory was again ably supported by F. Vetter[42] and by K. Hildebrand, who approached the subject by a study of the Old Norse alliterative verse,[43] and by M. Rieger in his instructive essay on Old Saxon and Old English versification.[44] In this essay Rieger pointed out the rules prevailing in the poetry of those two closely related Teutonic nations, dealt with the distribution and quality of the alliteration, the relation of the alliteration to the noun, adjective, and verb, and to the order of words, with the caesura and the close of the verse, and, finally, with the question of the accented syllables and the limits of the use of unaccented syllables.[45] Other scholars, as Horn, Ries, and Sievers, contributed further elucidations of the details of this metre on the basis of Rieger's researches.[46]

Next to Rieger's short essay the most important contribution made to the accurate and scientific study of alliterative verse was that made by Sievers in his article on the rhythm of the Germanic alliterative verse.[47] In this he shows, to use his own words, 'that a statistical classification of groups of words with their natural accentuation in both sections of the alliterative line makes it clear that this metre, in spite of its variety, is not so irregular as to the unaccented syllables at the beginning or in the middle of the verse as has been commonly thought, but that it has a range of a limited number of definite forms which may be all reduced to five primary types.' These five types or chief variations in the relative position of the accented and unaccented syllables are, as Sievers points out, of such a nature and so arbitrarily combined in the verse, that they cannot possibly be regarded as symmetrical feet of a line evenly measured and counted by the number of syllables. 'The fundamental principle, therefore, of the structure of the alliterative line, as we find it in historical times, is that of a free change of rhythm which can only be understood if the verse was meant to be recited, not to be sung.'[48] Soon after the publication of Sievers's essay on the rhythm of the Germanic verse, the first part of which contained a complete classification of all the forms of the line occurring in _Beowulf_, other scholars applied his method and confirmed his results by examining in detail the other important Old English texts; Luick dealt with _Judith_,[49] Frucht with the poems of Cynewulf,[50] and Cremer with _Andreas_, &c.[51] Sievers himself, after contributing to the pages of Paul's _Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_ a concise account of his theories and results, expounded them in greater detail in his work on Old Germanic Metre[52] in which he emphasizes the fact that his five-type theory cannot properly be called a theory at all, but is simply an expression of the rules of the alliterative verse obtained by a statistical method of observation. In spite of the criticisms of his opponents, Möller, Heusler, Hirt, Fuhr, and others, he maintained his former views. In principle these views are in conformity with the manner of reading or scanning the alliterative verse explained by English writers on the subject from the sixteenth century downwards, though their terminology naturally is not the same as Sievers's. We may, therefore, accept them on the whole as sound.

It would be out of place here to enter into the question of prehistoric forms of Teutonic poetry. It will be enough to say that in Sievers's opinion a primitive form of this poetry was composed in strophes or stanzas, intended to be sung and not merely to be recited; that at a very early period this sung strophic poetry gave way to a recited stichic form suitable to epic narrations; and that his five-type forms are the result of this development. As all the attempts to show that certain Old English poems were originally composed in strophic form[53] have proved failures, we may confidently assent to Sievers's conclusion that the alliterative lines (as a rule) followed one upon another in unbroken succession, and that in historic times they were not composed in even and symmetrical measures (_taktierend_), and were not meant to be sung to fixed tunes.

The impossibility of assuming such symmetrical measures for the Old English poetry is evident from the mere fact that the end of the line does not as a rule coincide with the end of the sentence, as would certainly be the case had the lines been arranged in staves or stanzas meant for singing. The structure of the alliterative line obeys only the requirements of free recitation and is built up of two hemistichs which have a rhythmical likeness to one another resulting from the presence in each of two accented syllables, but which need not have, and as a matter of fact very rarely have, complete identity of rhythm, because the number and situation of the unaccented syllables may vary greatly in the two sections.

§ =18. Accentuation of Old English.= As the versification of Old English is based on the natural accentuation of the language, it will be necessary to state the laws of this accentuation before giving an account of the five types to which the structure of the hemistich has been reduced.

In simple polysyllables the chief or primary accent, in this work marked by an acute (´), is as a rule on the root-syllable, and the inflexional and other elements of the word have a less marked accent varying from a secondary accent, here marked by a grave (`), to the weakest grade of accent, which is generally left unmarked: thus _wúldor_, _héofon_, _wī́tig_, _wúnode_, _ǽðelingas_, &c.

In the alliterative line, as a general rule, only syllables with the chief accent carry either the alliterating sounds or the four rhythmical accents of the verse. All other syllables, even those with secondary accent, count ordinarily as the 'theses' (_Senkungen_) of the verse[54]:

_síndon þā =b=éarwas =b=lḗdum gehóngene
=w=lítigum =w=ǽstmum: þǣr nō wániað ṓ
=h=ā́lge under =h=éofonum =h=óltes frǽtwe_.
Phoenix 71-73.

In compound words (certain combinations with unaccented prefixes excepted) the first element of the compound (which modifies or determines the meaning of the second element) has the primary accent, the second element having only a secondary accent, e.g. _wúldor-cỳning_, _hḗah-sètl_, _sṓð-fæ̀st_.[55] If therefore the compound has, as is mostly the case, only one alliterative sound, that alliteration must necessarily fall on the first part of the compound:

_=w=ī́tig =w=úldorcyning =w=órlde and héofona._ Dan. 427.

Sometimes it happens that in hemistichs of no great length the second part of the compound carries one of the two rhythmical accents of the hemistich, e.g.

_on =h=ḗah-sétle =h=éofones wáldend._ Cri. 555.

and in a particular form of alliteration[56] it may even contain one of the alliterating sounds, as in the verse:

_hwæt! we =G=ā́r=d=éna in =g=ēar=d=águm._ Beow. 1.

The less strongly accented derivational and inflexional suffixes, though they are not allowed to alliterate, may occasionally have the rhythmical accent, on condition that they immediately follow upon a long accented syllable, e.g.

_mid =W=ýlfíngum, þā hine =W=ára cýn._ Beow. 461.

_ne méahte ic æt =h=ílde mid =H=rúntínge._ ib. 1659.

The rhythmical value of syllables with a secondary accent will be considered more fully later on.

These general rules for the accent of compound words formed of noun + noun or adjective + noun require modification for the cases where a prefix (adverb or preposition) stands in close juxtaposition with a verb or noun. The preposition standing before and depending on a noun coalesces so closely with it that the two words express a single notion, the noun having the chief accent, e.g. _onwég_, _āwég_ (away), _ætsómne_ (together), _ofdū́ne_ (down), _toníhte_ (to-night), _onmíddum_ (amid); examples in verse are:

_gebād =w=íntra =w=órn ǣr he on=w=ég hwúrfe._ Beow. 264.

_=s=ī́d æt=s=ómne þā ge=s=úndrod wǽs._ Gen. 162.

But while the prepositional prefix thus does not carry the alliteration owing to its want of accent, some of the adverbs used in composition are accented, others are unaccented, and others again may be treated either way. When the adverbial prefix originally stood by itself side by side with the verb, and may in certain cases still be disjoined from it, it has then the primary accent, because it is felt as a modifying element of the compound. When, however, the prefix and the verb have become so intimately united as to express one single notion, the verb takes the accent and the prefix is treated as proclitic, and there is a third class of these compounds which are used indifferently with accent on the prefix or on the verb.

Some of the commonest prefixes used in alliteration are[57]: _and_, _æfter_, _eft_, _ed_, _fore_, _forð_, _from_, _hider_, _in_, _hin_, _mid_, _mis_, _niðer_, _ongēan_, _or_, _up_, _ūt_, _efne_, as in compounds like _ándswarian_, _íngong_, _ǽfterweard_, &c.:

_on =á=ndswáre and on =é=lne stróng._ Gū. 264.

_=ǽ=ðelīc =í=ngong =é=al wæs gebúnden._ Cri. 308.

_and =ḗ=ac þāra =ý=fela =ó=rsorh wúnað._ Met. vii. 43.

_=ú=plang gestṓd wið =Í=srahḗlum._ Ex. 303.

Prefixes which do not take the alliteration are: _ā_, _ge_, _for_, _geond_, _oð_, e.g.

_ā=h=ōn and ā=h=ébban on =h=ḗahne bḗam._ Jul. 228.

_hǽfde þā ge=f=óhten =f=óremǣrne blǣ́d._ Jud. 122.

_=b=rónde for=b=ǽrnan ne on =b=ǣ́l hládan._ Beow. 2126.

The following fluctuate: _æt_, _an_, _bī_ (_big_), _bi_ (_be_), _of_, _ofer_, _on_, _tō_, _under_, _þurh_, _wið_, _wiðer_, _ymb_. These are generally accented and alliterate, if compounded with substantives or adjectives, but are not accented and do not alliterate if compounded with verbs or other particles,[58] e.g. _óferhēah_, _óferhȳd_, but _ofercúman_, _oferbī́dan_. The following lines will illustrate this:

(_a_) prefixes which alliterate:

_þāra þe þurh =ó=ferhȳ́d =ú=p āstī́geð._ Dan. 495.

_=á=tol is þīn =ó=nsēon hábbað we =é=alle swā́._ Satan 61.

_=ý=mbe-síttendra =ǣ́=nig þā́ra._ Beow. 2734.

(_b_) prefixes which do not alliterate:

_oððæt he þā =b=ýsgu ofer=b=íden hæfde._ Gū. 518.

_ne wíllað ēow on=d=rǣ́dan =d=ḗade fḗðan._ Exod. 266.

_=s=ýmbel ymb=s=ǣ́ton =s=ǣ́grunde nḗah._ Beow. 564.[59]

When prepositions precede other prepositions or adverbs in composition, the accent rests on that part of the whole compound which is felt to be the most important. Such compounds fall into three classes: (i) if a preposition or adverb is preceded by the prepositions _be_, _on_, _tō_, _þurh_, _wið_, these latter are not accented, since they only slightly modify the sense of the following adverb. Compounds of this kind are: _beǣ́ftan_, _befóran_, _begéondan_, _behíndan_, _beínnan_, _benéoðan_, _búfan_, _bútan_, _onúfan_, _onúppan_, _tōfóran_, _wiðínnan_, wiðū́tan, _undernéoðan_.[60] Only the second part of the compound is allowed to alliterate in these words:

_he =f=ḗāra súm be=f=óran géngde._ Beow. 1412.

_ne þe be=h=índan lǣ́t þonne þu =h=éonan cýrre._ Cri. 155.

Most of these words do not seem to occur in the poetry.

(ii) In compounds of _þǣr_ + preposition the preposition is accented and takes the alliteration:

_swā́ he þǣr=í=nne =á=ndlangne dǽg._ Beow. 2115.

_þe þǣr=ó=n síndon =ḗ=ce drýhten._ Hy. iv. 3.

(iii) _weard_, as in _æfterweard_, _foreweard_, _hindanweard_, _niðerweard_, _ufeweard_, &c., is not accented:

_=h=wít =h=índanweard and se =h=áls grḗne._ Ph. 298.

_=n=íodoweard and úfeweard and þæt =n=ebb líxeð._ ib. 299.

_=f=ḗðe-géstum =f=lét ínnanweard._ Beow. 1977.

§ =19. The secondary accent.= The secondary or subordinate accent is of as great importance as the chief or primary accent in determining the rhythmical character of the alliterative line. It is found in the following classes of words:

(i) In all compounds of noun + noun, or adjective + noun, or adjective + adjective, the second element of the compound has the subordinate accent, e.g. _hēah-sètl, gū́ð-rinc, hríng-nèt, sṓð-fæ̀st_. Syllables with this secondary accent are necessary in certain cases as links between the arsis and thesis, as in forms like _þégn Hrṓðgà̄res_ (–́ | –́ ×̀ ×) or _fýrst fórð gewà̄t_ (–́ | –́ × ̀).

(ii) In proper names like _Hrṓðg[`=a]r_, _Bḗowùlf_, _Hýgel[`=a]c_, this secondary accent may sometimes count as one of the four chief metrical accents of the line, as in

_=b=éornas on =b=láncum þǣr wæs =B=éowúlfes._ Beow. 857.

contrasted with

_=é=orl Béowùlfes =é=alde lā́fe._ Beow. 797.

(iii) When the second element has ceased to be felt as a distinct part of the compound, and is little more than a suffix, it loses the secondary accent altogether; as _hlā́ford_, _ǣ́ghwylc_, _ínwit_, and the large class of words compounded with -_līc_ and _sum_.

_þæt he =H=éardrḗde =h=lā́ford wǣ́́re._ Beow. 2375.
wǣ́re.
_=l=úfsum and =l=ī́ðe =l=ḗofum monnum._ Cri. 914.

(iv) In words of three syllables, the second syllable when long and following a long root-syllable with the chief accent, has, especially in the early stage of Old English, a well-marked secondary accent: thus, _ǣ́rèsta_, _ṓðèrra_, _sémnìnga_, _éhtènde_; the third syllable in words of the form _ǽðelìnga_ gets the same secondary accent. This secondary accent can count as one of the four rhythmic accents of the line, e.g.

_þā =ǣ́=réstan =ǣ́=lda cýnnes._ Gū. 948.

_=s=ígefolca =s=wḗg oð þæt =s=émnínga._ Beow. 644.

Words of this class, not compounded, are comparatively rare, but compounds with secondary accent are frequent.

These second syllables with a marked secondary accent in the best examples of Old English verse mostly form by themselves a member of the verse, i.e. are not treated as simple theses as in certain compositions of later date, e.g.

_dȳ́gelra gescéafta._ Creat. 18.

_ā́genne brðor._ Metr. ix. 28.

(v) After a long root-syllable of a trisyllabic word a short second syllable (whether its vowel was originally short or long) may bear one of the chief accents of the line, e.g. _bōcère_, _bíscòpe_:

_þǣr bíscéopas and bṓcéras._ An. 607.

or may stand in the thesis and be unaccented, as

_gódes bísceope þā spræc gū́ðcýning._ Gen. 2123.

This shows that in common speech these syllables had only a slight secondary accent.

(vi) Final syllables (whether long or short) are as a rule not accented even though a long root-syllable precede them.

§ =20. Division and metrical value of syllables.= Some other points must be noticed with reference to the division and metrical value of the syllables of some classes of words.

The formative element _i_ in the present stem of the second class of weak verbs always counts as a syllable when it follows a long root-syllable, thus _fund-i-an_, _fund-i-ende_ not _fund-yan_, &c. In verbs with a short root-syllable it is metrically indifferent whether this _i_ is treated as forming a syllable by itself or coalescing as a consonant with the following vowel, so that we may divide either _ner-i-an_, or _ner-yan_; in verbs of the first and third class the consonantal pronunciation was according to Sievers probably the usual one, hence _neryan_ (_nerian_), _lifyan_ (_lifᵹan_)_, but for verbs of the second class the syllable remained vocalic, thus _þolian_.[61]

In foreign names like _Assyria_, _Eusebius_, the _i_ is generally treated as a vowel, but in longer words possibly as a consonant, as _Macedonya_ (_Macedonia_). As to the epenthetic vowels developed from a _w_, the question whether we are to pronounce _gearowe_ or _gearwe_, _bealowes_ or _bealwes_ cannot be decided by metre. Syllabic _l, m, n_ _([l̥, m̥, n̥)_ following a short root-vowel lose their syllabic character, thus _sĕtl_, _hræ̆gl_, _swĕfn_ are monosyllables, but _er_ coming from original _r_ as in _wæter_, _leger_ may be either consonantal or vocalic. After a long root-syllable vocalic pronunciation is the rule, but occasionally words of this kind, as _túngl_, _bṓsm_, _tā́cn_, are used as monosyllables, and the _l_, _m_, and _n_ are consonants. Hiatus is allowed; but in many cases elision of an unaccented syllable takes place, though no fixed rule can be laid down owing to the fluctuating number of unaccented syllables permissible in the hemistich or whole line. In some cases the metre requires us to expunge vowels which have crept into the texts by the carelessness of copyists, e.g. we must write _ḗðles_ instead of _ḗðeles_, _éngles_ instead of _éngeles_, _dḗofles_ instead of _dḗofeles_, and in other cases we must restore the older and fuller forms such as _ṓðerra_ for _ṓðrā_, _eṓwere_ for _ḗowre_.[62] The resolution of long syllables with the chief accent in the arsis, and of long syllables with the secondary accent in the thesis, affects very greatly the number of syllables in the line. Instead of the one long syllable which as a rule bears one of the four chief accents of the verse, we not unfrequently meet with a short accented syllable plus an unaccented syllable either long or short ( ⏑́ ×́). This is what is termed the resolution of an accented syllable. A word accordingly like _fároðe_ with one short accented syllable and two unaccented syllables has the same rhythmical value as _fṓron_ with one long accented and one unaccented syllable, or a combination like _se þe wæs_ is rhythmically equivalent to _sécg wæs_.

§ =21.= We now come to =the structure of the whole alliterative line=. The regular alliterative line or verse is made up of two hemistichs or sections. These two sections are separated from each other by a pause or break, but united by means of alliteration so that they form a rhythmical unity. Each hemistich must have two syllables which predominate over the rest in virtue of their logical and syntactical importance and have on this account a stronger stress. These stressed syllables, four in number for the whole line, count as the rhythmical accents of the verse. The force given to these accented syllables is more marked when they carry at the same time the alliteration, which happens at least once in each hemistich, frequently twice in the first and once in the second hemistich, and in a number of instances twice in both hemistichs. The effect of the emphasis given to these four words or syllables by the syntax, etymology, rhythm, and sometimes alliteration, is that the other words and syllables may for metrical purposes be looked upon as in comparison unaccented, even though they may have a main or secondary word-accent.

In certain cases, in consequence of the particular structure of the hemistich, there is found a rhythmical secondary accent, generally coinciding with an etymological secondary accent, or with a monosyllable, or with the root-syllable of a disyllabic word. Sievers looks on these syllables as having in the rhythm of the verse the nature of a minor arsis (_Nebenhebung_); they rather belong to the class of syllables standing in thesis but with a slight degree of accent (_tieftonige Senkung_).

The two sections of the alliterative line rarely exhibit a strict symmetry as to the number of the unaccented syllables and their position with regard to the accented syllables. In the great majority of cases their similarity consists merely in their having each two accented syllables, their divergence in other respects being very considerable. It is to be noted that certain combinations of accented and unaccented syllables occur with more frequency in one hemistich than in the other, or are even limited to one of the two hemistichs only.

Besides the ordinary or normal alliterative line with four accents, there exists in Old English and in other West-Germanic poetry a variety of the alliterative line called the _lengthened line_ (_Schwellvers_ or _Streckvers_). In this line each hemistich has three accented syllables, the unaccented syllables standing in the same relation to the accented ones as they do in the normal two-beat hemistich.

§ =22. The structure of the hemistich in the normal alliterative line.= The normal hemistich consists of four, seldom of five members[63] (_Glieder_), two of which are strongly accented (arses), the others unaccented or less strongly accented (theses). Each arsis is formed, as a rule, of a long accented syllable (-), but the second part of a compound, and (less frequently) the second syllable with a secondary accent of a trisyllabic or disyllabic word, is allowed to stand as an arsis. By resolution a long accented syllable may be replaced by two short syllables, the first of which is accented. This is denoted by the symbol ⏑́ ×. The less strongly accented members of the hemistich fall into two classes according as they are unaccented or have the secondary accent. This division depends ultimately on the logical or etymological importance of the syllables. Unaccented syllables (marked in Sievers's notation by ×) whether long or short by etymology, are mostly inflexional endings, formative elements, or proclitic and enclitic words.

Secondarily accented verse-members, mostly monosyllabic and long (denoted by ×̀, and occasionally, when short, by ⏑̀), are root-syllables in the second part of compounds, long second syllables of trisyllabic words whose root-syllable is long, and other syllables where in ordinary speech the presence of a secondary accent is unmistakable. The rhythmical value of these syllables with secondary accent is not always the same. When they stand in a foot or measure of two members and are preceded by an accented syllable they count as simply unaccented, and the foot is practically identical with the normal type represented by the notation –́ × (as in the hemistich _wī́sra wórda_), but these half-accented syllables may be called _heavy_ theses, and the feet which contain them may be denoted by the formula –́ ×̀, as in _wī́sfæ̀st wórdum_ (–́ ×̀ | –́ ×). A hemistich like the last is called by Sievers strengthened (_gesteigert_), or if it has two heavy unaccented syllables in both feet, doubly strengthened, as in the section _gū́ðrìnc góldwlànc_ (–́ ×̀ | –́ ×̀). In these examples the occurrence of a heavy unaccented syllable is permissible but not necessary; but in feet or measures of three members they are obligatory, being required as an intermediate degree between the arsis and thesis, or strongly accented and unaccented member, as in _þégn Hrṓðgā́res_ (–́| –́ × ×̀), or _fýrst fórð gewà̄t_ (–́ | –́ × ×̀), or _hḗalǣ̀rna mǣ́st_ (–́× ×̀ | –́). In these cases Sievers gives the verse-member with this secondary accent the character of a subordinate arsis, or beat (_Nebenhebung_). But it is better, in view of the strongly marked two-beat swing of the hemistich, to look on such members with a secondary accent as having only the rhythmical value of unaccented syllables, and to call them _theses_ with a slight accent. The two-beat rhythm of the hemistich is its main characteristic, for though the two beats are not always of exactly equal force[64] they are always prominently distinguished from the unaccented members of the hemistich, the rhythm of which would be marred by the introduction of an additional beat however slightly marked.

Cases in which the two chief beats of the hemistich are not of exactly the same force occur when two accented syllables, either both with chief accent or one with chief and the other with secondary accent, stand in immediate juxtaposition, not separated by an unaccented syllable. The second of these two accented syllables may be a short syllable with chief accent, instead of a long syllable as is the rule. But in either case, whether long or short, this second beat following at once on the first beat is usually uttered with somewhat less force than the first, as can be seen from examples like _gebū́n hǽfdon_, Beow. 117; _tō hā́m fáran_, 121; _mid ǣ́rdǽge_, 126. The second beat rarely predominates over the first. The cause of this variation in the force of the two beats is to be sought in the laws of the syntactical accent.

In other respects verse-members with a secondary accent obey the same laws as those with a primary accent. They usually consist of one long syllable, but if a member which has the arsis immediately precedes, a short syllable with a secondary accent may be substituted. Resolution of such verse members is rare, which shows that they are more closely related to the thesis than to the arsis of the hemistich. One unaccented syllable is sufficient to form the thesis (×), but the thesis may also have two or more unaccented syllables (× ×, × × × ..), their number increasing in proportion to their shortness and the ease with which they can be pronounced, provided always that no secondary accent intervenes. All of these unaccented syllables are reckoned together as one thesis, as against the accented syllable or arsis. The single components of such a longer thesis may exhibit a certain gradation of force when compared with one another, but this degree of force must never equal the force with which the arsis is pronounced, though we sometimes find that, owing to the varying character of the syntactical or sentence accent, a monosyllable which in one case stands in the thesis, may in another connexion bear the secondary or even the primary accent.

§ =23.= The number of the unaccented syllables of the thesis was formerly believed to depend entirely on the choice of the individual poet.[65] Sievers first put this matter in its right light by the statistics of the metre.[66] He showed that the hemistich of the Old English alliterative line is similar to the Old Norse four-syllable verse, and is as a rule of a trochaic rhythm (–́ × –́ ×). The proof of this is that in _Beowulf_, for instance, there are 592 hemistichs of the type –́ × | –́ × (as _hȳ́ran scólde_, 10), and that in the same text there are 238 of the type –́ × × | –́ × (as _gṓde gewýrcean_, 20; _hḗold þenden lī́fde_, 57), making 830 hemistichs with trochaic or dactylic rhythm, as against eleven hemistichs of similar structure but with an unaccented syllable at the beginning, × | –́ × (×) | –́ ×, and even four or five of these eleven are of doubtful correctness. From these figures it seems almost beyond doubt that in the type –́ × (×) | –́ × the licence of letting the hemistich begin with an unaccented syllable before the first accented syllable was, generally speaking, avoided. On the other hand, when the first accented syllable is short with only one unaccented syllable as thesis (⏑́ ×), we find this initial unaccented syllable to be the rule, as _genúmen hǽfdon_ Beow. 3167 (× | ⏑́ × | –́ ×), of which form there are 130 examples, while, as Rieger noticed, ⏑́ × | –́ × is rare, as in _cýning mǣ́nan_ Beow. 3173. It is perhaps still more remarkable that while the form –́ × × | –́ × occurs some 238 times, a verse of the form × | ⏑́ × × | –́ × is never found at all. The numerical proportion of the form –́ × | –́ × (592 cases) to –́ × × | –́ × (238 cases) is roughly 5 to 2, and that of × | ⏑́ × | –́ × (130 cases) to × | ⏑́ × × | –́ × (no cases) is 130 to nothing. The quantity of the second arsis is, as bearing on the prefixing of unaccented syllables to the hemistich, much less important than the quantity of the first arsis. Hemistichs of the type –́ × | ⏑́ × occur 34 times, and in 29 cases the last unaccented syllable is a full word, either a monosyllable or a part of a compound. The same type, with an initial unaccented syllable × | –́ × | ⏑́ × also occurs 34 times, but then the last syllable is quite unaccented. The proportion of the form –́ × | –́ × to the form × | –́ × | –́ × is 592 to 11, and that of the form –́ × | ⏑́ × to × –́ × | ⏑́ × is 34 to 34, a noticeable difference.

Further, it was formerly supposed that the number of unaccented syllables following the accented syllable was indifferent. This is not the case. The form –́ × × |–́ × is found 238 times, and the form –́ × | –́ × × only 22 times. Many of the examples of the latter form are doubtful, but even counting all these the proportion of the two forms is 11 to 1.

If the two accented syllables are not separated by an unaccented syllable, that is to say, if the two beats are in immediate juxtaposition, then either two unaccented syllables must stand after the second arsis, thus –́ | –́ × × (a form that occurs 120 times in _Beowulf_), or an unaccented syllable must precede the first arsis and one unaccented syllable must follow the second arsis, thus × –́ | –́ × (127 times in _Beowulf_), or with the second arsis short × –́ | ⏑́ × (257 times); the form –́ | –́ × does not occur.

From these statistics it results that hemistichs of the form –́ × |–́ × are met with about 17 times to one occurrence of the form –́ × | ⏑́ ×, and that on the other hand, the form × –́ | ⏑́ × is about twice as frequent as × –́ | –́ ×.

§ =24. The order of the verse-members in the hemistich.= Every hemistich consists of two feet or measures, each containing an accented syllable. Usually these two feet or measures together contain four verse members, seldom five. In the hemistich of four members, which first falls to be considered, the measures may consist of two members each (2+2), or one may contain one member and the other three (1+3 or 3+1). A measure of one member has a single accented syllable only (–́); a measure of two members has an accented and an unaccented syllable, which may stand either in the order –́ × or × –́; a measure of three members has one accented and two unaccented syllables, one of which has a secondary accent, and the order may be either –́ × ×̀ or –́ × ×̀. Measures of two members may be grouped in three different ways so as to form a hemistich: i. –́ × | –́ × (descending rhythm); ii. × –́ | × –́ (ascending); iii. × –́ | –́ × (ascending-descending)[67]; i. and ii. are symmetrical, iii. is unsymmetrical, but as the number of members in the feet of these three types (2+2 members) is the same, we may call them, as Sievers does, types with equal feet (_gleichfüssige Typen_), while the others (1+3 members or 3+1 members) may be called types with unequal feet, or measures.

The normal hemistich, then, which consists of four verse-members, will fall, according to the relative position of these measures or feet, into the following five chief types:

=a.= Types with equal feet (2+2 members)

1. A. –́ × | –́ × double descending.

2. B. × –́ | × –́ double ascending.

3. C. × –́ | –́ × ascending-descending.

=b=. Types with unequal feet

4. D. {–́ | –́ ×̀ ×}
{–́ | –́ × ×̀} (1+3 members).

5. E. {–́ ×̀ × | –́}
{–́ × ×̀ | –́} (3+1 members).

Theoretically type E might be looked on as a type with equal feet, if divided thus, –́ × | × –́, but by far the greatest number of instances of this type show at the beginning of the hemistich one trisyllabic word which forbids such a division of feet, as _wéorðm[`y]ndum þā́h_, Beow. 8.[68] Types like × × –́ - and ×̀ × –́ –́, which we might expect to find, do not occur in Old English poetry. In addition to these ordinary four-membered hemistichs there are others lengthened by the addition of one syllable, which may be unaccented, or have the secondary accent. These extended forms (_erweiterte Formen_)[69] may be composed either of 2+3 members or of 3+2 members. These extended hemistichs must be carefully distinguished from the hemistichs which have one or more unaccented syllables _before_ the first accented syllable, in types A, D, and E; such a prefix of one or more syllables is called an _anacrusis_ (Auftakt).[70]

The simple five types of the hemistich admit of variation: i. by extension (as above); ii. by resolution (⏑́ × for –́) and shortening of the long accented syllable (⏑́); iii. by strengthening of thesis by means of a secondary accent (_Steigerung_); iv. by increase in the number of unaccented syllables forming the thesis; also (less frequently) v. by variation in the position of the alliteration, and vi. by the admission of anacruses; the varieties produced by the last-mentioned means are not sub-types but parallel forms to those without anacruses.

In describing and analysing the different combinations which arise out of these means of variation, and especially the peculiar forms of the sub-types, the arrangement and nomenclature of Sievers will be followed.[71]

Analysis of the verse types.

I. _Hemistichs of four members_.

§ =25. Type A= has three sub-types, A1, A2, A3.

=The sub-type A1= (–́ × | –́ ×) is the normal form with alliteration of the first arsis in each hemistich, or with alliteration of both arses in the first hemistich and one in the second, and with syllables in the thesis which are unaccented according to the usual practice of the language; examples are, _þḗodnes þêgnas_ An. 3, _hȳ́ran scólde_ Beow. 106, _gómban gýldan_ Beow. 11. This is the commonest of all the types; it occurs in Beowulf, according to Sievers, 471 times in the first and 575 times in the second hemistich, and with the like frequency in the other poems.

The simplest modification of this type arises from the resolution of one or two long accented syllables. Examples of resolution of the first arsis are very numerous, _cýninga wúldor_ El. 5, _scéaðena þrḗatum_ Beow. 4, _séofon niht swúncon_ Beow. 517,[72] _níðer gewī́teð_ Beow. 1361. Examples of the resolution of the second arsis are less numerous, as _wúldor cýninge_ El. 291, _éllen frémedon_ Beow. 3, _Scýldes éaferan_ Beow. 19, _óft gefrémede_ Beow. 165; resolution of both in the same hemistich is rare, but is found, as _gúmena géogoðe_ An. 1617, _mǽgenes Déniga_ Beow. 155, _gúmum ætgǽdere_ Beow. 1321.

The chief type is further modified by making the thesis after the first arsis disyllabic (rarely trisyllabic); the formula is then –́ × × | - ×. This modification is frequent, as _ríhta gehwýlces_ El. 910, _gṓde gewýrcean_ Beow. 20, _swéordum āswébban_ An. 72, _súnnan ond mṓnan_ Beow. 94, _fṓlce tō frṓfre_ Beow. 14, _wḗox under wólcnum_ Beow. 8.

Resolution of the arsis may be combined with this disyllabic thesis, as (in the first arsis) _wérum on þām wónge_ An. 22, _éotenas ond ýlfe_ Beow. 112, or (in the second arsis) _hā́lig of héofenum_ An. 89, _hélpe gefrémede_ Beow. 551, or (in both) _dúguðe ond géoguðe_ Beow. 160, _hǽleð under héofenum_ Beow. 52.

The first thesis rarely exceeds two syllables; a thesis of three syllables is occasionally found, as _sǽgde se þe cū́ðe_ Beow. 90, _hwī́lum hie gehḗton_ Beow. 175, and this can be combined with resolution of the first arsis, as _swéotulra ond gesȳ́nra_ An. 565, _bítere ond gebólgne_ Beow. 1431; or with resolution of the second arsis, as _ū́tan ymbe ǽðelne_ An. 873, _wī́ge under wǽtere_ Beow. 1657; or with resolution of both, as _réceda under róderum_ Beow. 310. Examples of thesis of four syllables are (in the first thesis) _séalde þām þe hē wólde_ Beow. 3056, _sécge ic þē tō sṓðe_ Beow. 591. A thesis with five syllables is still less common, as _lǣ́ddon hine þā of lýfte_ Gū. 398, _stṓpon þā tō þǣre stṓwe_ El. 716.

The cases in which the second thesis has two syllables are rare and to some extent doubtful, as _wúndor scḗawian_ Beow. 841 and 3033.[73]

The anacrusis before the type –́ × (×) | –́ × is also of rare occurrence: examples are _swā sǣ́ bebū́geð_ Beow. 1224, or, with resolution of the first arsis, _swā wǽter bebū́geð_ Beow. 93. Most of the instances occur in the first hemistich; in this position the anacrusis may be polysyllabic (extending sometimes to four syllables), sometimes with resolution of the arsis, or with polysyllabic thesis. Examples: _forcṓm æt cámpe_ An. 1327, _gewāt æt wī́ge_ Beow. 2630; with resolution, _ābóden in búrgum_ An. 78; _genéred wið nī́ðe_ Beow. 828; disyllabic anacrusis _ic wæs éndesǣ́ta_ Beow. 241; with resolution, _þǣr wæs hǽleða hléahtor_ Beow. 612; trisyllabic anacrusis, _oððe him Óngenþḗowes_ Beow. 2475; four-syllable anacrusis, _þæt we him þā gū́ðgeatwa_ Beow. 2637; monosyllabic anacrusis with disyllabic thesis, as _in mǣ́gðe gehwǣ́re_ Beow. 25, _āblénded in búrgum_ An. 78; disyllabic anacrusis with disyllabic thesis, _ge æt hā́m ge on hérge_ Beow. 1249; trisyllabic anacrusis with disyllabic thesis, _þū scealt þā fṓre gefḗran_ An. 216; monosyllabic anacrusis with trisyllabic thesis, _gemúnde þā sē gṓda_ Beow. 759; monosyllabic anacrusis with resolution of first arsis and trisyllabic thesis, _ne mágon hie ond ne mṓton_ An. 1217; with resolution of second arsis, _gewā́t him þā tō wároðe_ Beow. 234; disyllabic anacrusis, _ne geféah he þǣre fǣ́hðe_ Beow. 109; combined with thesis of four syllables, _ofslṓh þā æt þǣre sǽcce_ Beow. 1666.

=The sub-type A2= is type A with strengthened thesis (i.e. a thesis with secondary accent) and with alliteration on the first arsis only. This sub-type has several varieties:

(i) A2a, with the _first_ thesis strengthened (–́ ×̀ | –́ ×); frequent in the second hemistich. The second arsis may be either long or short (–́ ×̀ | –́ ×, or –́ ×̀ | ⏑́ ×). We denote –́ ×̀ | –́ × by A2_a l_ and –́ ×̀ | ⏑́ × by A2_a sh_, or, for brevity, A2 _l_, A2 _sh_. Examples of A2_l_ are, _gódspèl ǣ́rest_ An. 12, _wī́sfæ̀st wórdum_ Beow. 626, _hríngnèt bǣ́ron_ Beow. 1890; with resolution of the first arsis, _médusèld bū́an_ Beow. 3066; with resolution of the second arsis, _gā́rsècg hlýnede_ An. 238, _hórdbùrh hǽleða_ Beow. 467; with resolution of both, _fréoðobùrh fǽgere_ Beow. 522; with resolution of the strengthened thesis, _súndwùdu sṓhte_ Beow. 208; resolution of the first arsis and thesis, _mǽgenwùdu múndum_ Beow. 236; resolution of the first thesis and the second arsis, _gū́ðsèaro gúmena_ Beow. 328.