Chapter IV (2)

The distribution of heroic names in English historical documents is as follows. The Liber Vitae contains 35 (37), of which nine (eleven) are peculiar to that work[82]. Of those which occur in other documents 29[83] belong to persons born apparently before 700, six to such persons only, 14 or 15[84] to persons born between 700 and 800, two to such persons only, and 22[85] to persons born after 800, four to such persons only. It must be remembered that, apart from the Liber Vitae, the materials for the ninth and tenth centuries are much more abundant than those for earlier times.

In the Liber Vitae itself it is possible within certain limits to distinguish between persons of early and later date. Investigations in the lists of kings, queens and abbots have shown that they are arranged chronologically, and it is only reasonable therefore to expect that the same is true of the much longer lists of clerics and monks. A brief examination of the names will make it clear that such is actually the case. Some modernisms of language, such as _-ferth_ for _-frith_, or of orthography, such as _-ht-_ for _-ct-_, are practically confined to the last parts of the lists, which may be by later hands[86]. But even within the parts certainly written by the first scribe archaic forms such as _-iu-_ for _-io-_ are more frequent at the beginning of the lists than later; so also occasional _-b-_ for _-f-_. Above all we may note the uncompounded names in _-i_, a type common in early Anglo-Saxon, but practically extinct after the eighth century. Fol. 24, the first in the clerics' list, contains eleven such names, while fol. 30 contains none; fol. 34, the first in the monks' list, has eight, while fol. 38 has only one.

Now we shall probably be well within the mark if we assume that one fifth of the names in each list[87] belong to persons born in the seventh century. On this basis we find that of the 35 (37) heroic names which occur in the Liber Vitae nine (ten) are limited to persons of the seventh century[88], and twelve (thirteen) to persons of the eighth[89]. The total number of names in each century (cf. p. 43) may be obtained by comparing the evidence of the Liber Vitae with that of the other documents[90].

The fact that so many heroic names occur in the Liber Vitae has led several writers to conclude that the true home of English heroic poetry was in the north. But no such inference is really justified by the evidence. The number of personal names recorded for the south of England during the sixth and seventh centuries is very small; yet it is only here that we meet with persons called Eormenric, Hoc and Hagena--names which belong to quite different cycles of story. Moreover out of the 37 heroic names preserved in the Liber Vitae no less than 28 occur in place-names in various parts of England. The frequence therefore of heroic names in the Liber Vitae is to be attributed in part to the great abundance of the material and in part to its comparatively early date.

Including the evidence of the Liber Vitae there are fifteen heroic names which seem to be borne only by persons of the eighth century or later times. Eight of these however occur also in place names[91]. Of the remaining seven[92] all except one or possibly two[93] make their appearance during the eighth century. On the other hand it has already been mentioned that not less than nineteen heroic names[94] occur only in local nomenclature.

We have still to mention a few heroic names which are not found in the extant remains of Anglo-Saxon poetry. Theodhere (Diether) is known only from the sixth century, Hild, Herding, Iuring, Omoling only from the seventh, Hildegyth and Blaedla from the seventh and eighth, Wulfheard from all periods, Ecga only from the eighth century, Ecgheard from the eighth and ninth, Sigesteb only from the ninth. Hild, Wulfheard and Ecga are found also in place-names. In some of these cases, e.g. in that of Hildegyth, the non-occurrence of the name in the poems is clearly due to mere accident; but it would scarcely be safe to assume that all these characters were celebrated in Anglo-Saxon poetry.

FOOTNOTES:

[82] 37 (eleven), if we admit the emendation of the corrupt forms _Vychga_ and _Vurmeri_ to _Wydiga_ (Widia, Wudga) and _Vyrmheri_ (Wyrmhere). See the Addenda.

[83] Ecglaf, Eadgils, Eomaer, *Eormenric, Frod(a), Hereric, *Hoc, *Hrothmund, Ingeld, Offa, Oslaf, Sigemund, *Aehha, Sigeferth, Aetla, *Hagena, Theodric, Waldhere, Becca, Witta, Wada, Oswine, Sigehere, *Sceafthere, Alewih, Aelfwine, Eadwine, Wulfhere, Frithuric; perhaps also Herebald. The asterisk denotes names limited to persons of the sixth and seventh centuries.

[84] Eadgils, Eanmund, Heardred, Hygelac, Ingeld, Offa, Wermund, Weohstan, Wiglaf, Wada, *Scilling, Oswine, Sigehere, *Gislhere (perhaps Eomaer).

[85] *Aelfhere, Ecglaf, Eanmund, Heremod, Offa, Sigemund, Wermund, Weohstan, Wiglaf, Wulfgar, Garwulf, *Ordlaf, Sigeferth, Waldhere, Becca, Wada, *Hun, *Hringwald, Aelfwine, Eadwine, Wulfhere, Frithuric (possibly also Deor).

[86] Only the earlier lists, those printed in Sweet's _Oldest English Texts_, p. 154 ff., are taken into account.

[87] Lines 159-192 and 332-362 in Sweet's text.

[88] †Beowulf, †Billing, †Folcwald, Frod, Heremod, Hereric, Oslaf, †Widsith, Alewih (†Widia?). Names marked with a dagger are confined to the Liber Vitae.

[89] Eadgils, †Hildeburg, †Hrothwulf, Wiglaf, Wulfgar, Garwulf, Aetla, Witta, †Heathuric, Sigeferth, Wulfhere, Frithuric (†Wyrmhere?). The following names are found both in the early and late parts of the lists: Eanmund, †Hama, Heardred, Hygelac, Ingeld, Offa, Sigemund, Wermund, Theodric, Wada, Aelfwine, Eadwine, †Aegelmund; perhaps also Herebald, if the abbot of this name is to be identified with the one mentioned by Bede (_H. E._ V 6).

[90] For the details see the preceding notes.

[91] Hildeburg, Hrothwulf, Wiglaf, Wulfgar, Ordlaf, Hun, Hringwald, Gislhere.

[92] Aelfhere, Weohstan, Garwulf, Scilling, Heathuric, Wyrmhere (?), Dior.

[93] Aelfhere and Dior. The latter (in the form _Diar_) occurs only once (Birch, _Cart. Sax._ 497) and may be a mistake for Diara (_ib._ 507). The name Diora need not be of heroic origin; it may be an abbreviation from such names as Diorwald, Diornoth.

[94] Breca, Finn, Fitela, Hengest, Hnaef, Hrethel, Scyld, Weland, Guthhere, Geat, Gifeca, Heoden, Helm, Wald, Beaduca, Frithla, Secca, Gifeca--to which we may add Waelse in Walsingaham. Widia is also to be added, if it is not allowed for the Liber Vitae. For the list of place-names (not the personal names) I am dependent upon Binz, _Beitr._ XX 141-223.

NOTE II. ON THE DATING OF CERTAIN SOUND-CHANGES IN ANGLO-SAXON.

In my _Studies in Old English_[95], published in 1899, I endeavoured to formulate a scheme for dating approximately the chief sound-changes which took place in English during the first few centuries after the invasion of Britain. In the course of these investigations I was led to the following conclusions (pp. 117, 253 ff.): i. that 'palatal umlaut' in Northumbrian and the dialect of the Vespasian Psalter took place before 650; ii. that the change from _ǣ_ to _ē_ (in all dialects except West Saxon) was in operation about 650-680; iii. that the loss of intersonantal _h_ (in all dialects) belongs to the same period or a little later; iv. that contraction through loss of intervocalic _h_ may be dated roughly between 680-710; v. that the loss of final _-u_ after long syllables and in words of the form ⏑⏑⏑ took place in all dialects at a time approximately contemporaneous with the operation of palatal umlaut in Northumbrian (i.e. before 650).

Prof. Morsbach in his paper _Zur Datierung des Beowulfepos_[96] has dealt with several of the same problems and come to conclusions which differ widely from those at which I arrived. The chief differences are as follows: i. that after a long syllable which bore the chief accent _-u_ was not lost before the end of the seventh century, though after a long 'nebentonig' syllable the loss was somewhat earlier (p. 261 f.); ii. that intervocalic _h_ was lost in Kentish by about 680, but in Mercian and Northumbrian the same change cannot be shown to have taken place before about 700 (p. 264); iii. that postconsonantal _h_ (before vowels) was retained in Kentish in 679; its loss, at least in Mercian and Northumbrian, may be dated about 700, but after the loss of _-u_ (p. 265). In summarising the results of his discussion (p. 273) he gives "about 700" for the loss of postconsonantal _h_ and "shortly before 700" for the loss of _-u_. Incidentally he follows Bülbring (_Elementarbuch_, §§ 146, 528) in dating the origin of _ē_ (from 'West Germ.' _ā_) before the breaking, and in placing the loss of _h_ before _l_ (in _neolaecan_) anterior to the operation of 'palatal umlaut' (monophthongisation).

The importance of this discussion for our present purpose[97] lies in the dates proposed for the loss of _-u_ and of postconsonantal _h_. Prof. Morsbach concludes that Beowulf cannot have been composed before 700, since it contains a number of half-verses which would have been metrically impossible before the operation of these changes, e.g. _ofer fealone flod(u)_, _to widan feor(h)e_. I have already expressed scepticism as to whether such inferences are really justifiable. This applies more particularly to the verses affected by the question of postconsonantal _h_, which are quite few in number. The date which Prof. Morsbach himself (p. 274) proposes for the composition of Beowulf is 700-730. He finds no difficulty in reconciling this with the statistics (given above, p. 45) for the use of the article. This seems to me rather strange; yet the opinion of a scholar who stands in such deservedly high estimation cannot lightly be disregarded.

Now let us examine the evidence on which these conclusions are based. First it will be convenient to take the loss of _h_. Prof. Morsbach holds that in Kentish intervocalic _h_ was lost before postconsonantal _h_. The evidence is derived from a single charter issued by King Hlothhere in 679 (Birch, _Cart. Sax._ 45), which contains the place-name _Vuestan ae_ beside the personal name _Velhisci_ (Latin Gen.). But surely conclusions of this kind are admissible only when a number of examples can be adduced. On the same principle we might argue from the name _Irminredi_ (in the same charter) that the change _ǣ_ > _ē_ had taken place and also from the name _Aedilmaeri_ (again in the same charter) that it had not. And what should we do with the earliest East Saxon charter (Birch, 81), in which the grantor is called both _Oedelraedus_ and _Ho(di)lredus_? Again, it is clear that Bede wrote his own name _Baeda_; but will anyone venture to hold that this represents the current pronunciation of his name in 731--or indeed for some half a century earlier? In personal names we must clearly allow for traditional orthography. The form _Irminredi_ may no doubt be used as evidence for the change _ǣ_ > _ē_, and similarly the form _Vuestan ae_ may be used as evidence for the loss of _h_. But forms, especially personal names, like _Velhisci_ and _Aedilmaeri_, which must long have been in use, may very well show an antiquated orthography--one which correctly represented the pronunciation of thirty or forty years previously. A single instance of such a kind is totally insufficient ground for supposing that the Kentish dialect treated postconsonantal and intervocalic _h_ differently.

Next we must consider the date given for the loss of _h_ in Mercian and Northumbrian (p. 263 f.). I find some difficulty here in following Prof. Morsbach's line of argument. In Northumbrian there is, admittedly, no evidence at all for the preservation of _h_, while cases of its omission are numerous in Bede's History (written in 731), in addition to one or two instances in probably earlier authorities. For Mercian[98] we are dependent on the Epinal, Erfurt and Corpus glossaries, the archetype of which is placed before 700 by Prof. Morsbach. In my _Studies_, p. 232, I came to the conclusion that in this archetype the cases of retention and omission of _h_ were probably about equal in number. Prof. Morsbach replies that there is no necessity for such a conclusion, since all the extant glossaries themselves date from times when _h_ was already lost. He himself decides[99] against the loss of _h_ in the archetype for two reasons: (1) because postconsonantal and intervocalic _h_ are treated alike in the glossaries and the former was still retained in Kentish when the archetype was written[100]; (2) because the assumption of such an early date for the loss of _h_ would be incompatible with his own date for the loss of _-u_. The first of these arguments, it will be seen, rests upon the dating of the loss of postconsonantal _h_ in Kentish, on which enough has been said above. The second depends upon a hypothesis which we shall have to consider presently.

My reason for concluding that the loss of _h_ occurred in the archetype was that in at least eight entries (probably several more) all three glossaries agree in showing forms without _h_. It is to be remembered that in these glossaries we are dealing not with independent documents but with copies made, more or less mechanically, from one original. This remark applies of course much more to Epinal and Erfurt than to Corpus; for in the latter the materials have been rearranged, as well as augmented from other sources, while incidentally the forms have been modernised to a considerable extent. In Epinal such modernisation is not unknown, but it is restricted within very narrow limits, as may be seen from the use of _b_ and _f_[101]. Further, it is to be remarked that we have no ground for assuming the language of the archetype itself to have been consistent. The occurrence of numerous Dative forms and of expressions containing more than one word (e.g. _per anticipationem_--_þorch obst_) shows that the materials were derived largely from glosses in books, just as in the Leiden glossary[102]. Many of these glosses may have been written a generation or more earlier than the compilation of the archetype glossary. Whoever bears these facts in mind and at the same time compares the evidence for forms with and without _h_ with that for _f_ and _b_ will, I think, be forced to the conclusion that the forms with _h_ do not represent the pronunciation of the compiler of the archetype, but that they were taken over by him from earlier sources.

Now we may take the evidence for the proposed date of the loss of _-u_. After enumerating (p. 253 ff.) a list of cases which have been suggested by various scholars Prof. Morsbach comes to the conclusion that the only certain example of a form in which _-u_ is retained[103] is the word _flodu_ in the inscription on the Franks casket. As the whole theory largely depends on the value attached to this form we must consider it carefully. In my _Studies_, p. 156, I suggested that it should be regarded as an archaism and at the same time pointed out that _-u_ is lost in another word (_unneg_) in the same inscription. Prof. Morsbach rejects this explanation of _unneg_, which he connects, rightly, I think now, with O. Sax. _nah_. But this form can come perfectly well from *_nāh(w)u_ (earlier *_nēhwō_), if not from *_nāhwa_ (cf. Goth. _nehwa_, _nehw_). That Ang.-Sax. _neah_, _neh_ has lost an _u_-sound is, I contend, shown not only by the Gothic forms, but also by _neolaecan_ and _neowest_ (cf. Lind, _genehwaþ_, etc.). Prof. Morsbach rejects my explanation of these forms also and adopts that of Prof. Bülbring, as stated above. But the latter is untenable; for if _ē_ (from _ā_) had come into existence before the operation of breaking, we should never find forms with _ae_, which as a matter of fact are fairly common in the earliest texts of all dialects. In particular we may note that the three extant coins of the Mercian king Aethelred (675-704) all have _-ræd_. Hence the change _ǣ_ > _ē_ can hardly have taken place much before 650.

Apart from _unneg_[104], there are three forms on the recently discovered right side of the casket which may show loss of _-u_. Prof. Napier (_An English Miscellany_, p. 375 f.) is inclined to regard the forms _sær_ and _dœn_ (?), if not also _hos_, as Nom. sg. fem. But the interpretation of this part of the inscription is still uncertain in many details.

I confess that since the discovery of the new side I am less inclined to regard the form _flodu_ as an archaism than as a mere blunder. Even in the more intelligible parts of the inscription we find a number of forms which present serious difficulty: _Romwalus_, _Reumwalus_[105], _gasric_, _Giuþeasu_. The last of these still seems to me to present the best illustration of _flodu_. If the one is due to the loss of some letters--e.g. _su_ for _su(mæ)_--the same may be the case with the other[106]. At all events an inscription which presents so many difficulties cannot be regarded as a safe authority on which to base a scheme for the chronology of sound-changes.

The only other instance of _-u_ on which Prof. Morsbach lays any weight is the form _aetgaru_ in the Erfurt glossary. He speaks of it as 'nicht unwahrscheinlich' (p. 257), though 'fraglich' (p. 264). Many scholars cite it as an example of_-u_ without reserve. Now in order to form a just estimate of the value of any form which occurs in the glossaries it is obviously necessary to take it in connection with the forms which the other texts show in the same entry. The entry in question (_framea_--_aetgaru_) occurs in the Epinal and Corpus glossaries, as well as in that of Erfurt, though the two former have _aetgaeru_ (_ætgaeru_) for _aetgaru_. There can be no doubt that the relationship between the three glossaries is as follows:

x (Arch. I)
|
|--------------------|
| |
y (Arch. II) |
| |
|--------------| |
| | |
Epinal Erfurt Corpus

though we do not know exactly how many intermediate stages lie between the extant texts and the original archetype. It will be seen that the question at issue is whether the Erfurt glossary or the other two have kept the original form--for if the archetype had contained both forms we may assume that some trace of the double entry would have been preserved (as in other cases). Now the Erfurt glossary is the latest of the three, it is the work of a foreign scribe and it is very carelessly copied. Moreover, no letter or combination of letters has suffered more than _ae_. Most usually this combination has been reduced to _e_; but the loss of _e_ is not infrequent, e.g. _smal_, _hrad_, _nacthegelae_. In view of these facts it is unintelligible to me how anyone can uphold the evidence of the Erfurt glossary against the other two. But in this case it is used to prove the existence of an archaic form for which none of the glossaries elsewhere present a parallel. Lastly, we may remark that though it is frequently assumed that the word _gar_ was an _u_-stem (*_gaizu-_) no evidence worth consideration has ever been adduced to prove it[107]. On all grounds therefore we are brought to the conclusion that the evidence for the preservation of _-u_ in _aetgaru_ is not merely open to question but entirely worthless.

We must now notice certain early documents in which _-u_ is clearly lost. Prof. Morsbach mentions the form _felt_ in the earliest East Saxon charter (Birch, 81), which dates from 692-3. Here then _-u_ was lost before the date in question[108]. But we can get back further than this, for the place mentioned is called _Vuidmundes felt_. Some considerable time must have elapsed after the loss of _-u_ before a noun, even a proper name, could change its inflection and adopt the endings of _a_-stems.

Next let us take the Northumbrian evidence. The form _-gar_ on the Bewcastle column can prove nothing. In the same inscription however we may find an example in _Cyniburug_; for in view of _hnutu_ etc. it is probable that consonantal stems used what was originally the Accus. sg. form also for the Nom. sg. (as in Old Norse). I cannot see any probability in the suggestion that this monument may date from some considerable time after 670[109], if it has been rightly interpreted.

More important is the fact that no example of _-u_ after a long syllable is preserved in Bede's Ecclesiastical History. It is to be observed that Bede seems to have scrupulously followed the orthographical peculiarities of the documents which he used. Thus in Papal letters dating from the first half of the seventh century we find such forms as _Adilbercto_, _Audubaldi_ which are not used elsewhere in the work[110]. Now in the record of the proceedings at the Council of Hertford in 673, which is quoted in IV 5, we find the forms _Herutford_, _Vilfrid_, _Vynfrid_, _Hrofaescaestir_; and in the similar record for the Council of Hatfield in 680, quoted in IV 17, we find the form _Haethfelth_. If_-u_ had not been lost by this time the forms used must have been _-fordu_ or _-fordus_, _Vilfridu(s)_, etc., and it is most unlikely, in view of Bede's practice elsewhere, that he would have altered them. As a matter of fact the latter of these documents contains two forms--_Hymbronensium_ (or _Humbr-_) and _Estranglorum_--which are not used elsewhere by Bede. Again, the same author almost always writes the name of the Northumbrian king Ecgfrith (r. 671-685) as _Ecgfrid_ (in the Nom.). That this represents the contemporary orthography is shown by a coin of that king which bears the legend _Ecgfrid rex_.

But further, there is a whole series of names, much used in Northumbria, which have as their second element _-haeþ_ from earlier _-haþu_ (e.g. _Eadhaed_). At the time when _-u_ was lost here the change _a_ > _æ_ was clearly still operative. Will anyone suggest that this was the case after the middle of the seventh century? Again, it can hardly be doubted that the form _Osuiu_, if not also _Osuald_, represents the pronunciation[111] current in the time of that king. In Bede's History, III 29, we have extracts from a Papal letter addressed to _Osuiu_ (v. l. _Osuio_) _regi Saxonum_. The form _os-_ can scarcely have become current in compounds before _-u_ was lost in the Nom., Accus. sg.

It is surely unnecessary to enter into further details. We have seen that practically the whole evidence for the proposed chronology consists of two forms, _Velhisci_ and _flodu_, one of which is incapable of proving what it is meant to prove, while the other is of exceedingly doubtful value; and on the other hand that this chronology has opposed to it a large number of forms in the glossaries, in charters and in early Northumbrian authorities of various kinds. Now let us consider the various sound-changes in relation to one another.

It is admitted, and necessarily so, that the loss of _-u_ took place before the loss of _h_. For the sake of convenience we may apply the terms 'Period I' to times anterior to the loss of _-u_ and 'Period II' to the interval between the two changes. From neither of these periods have we any texts surviving, unless we are to reckon the inscription on the Franks casket to Period I. Our earliest charters, and apparently also the lost archetype of the glossaries, were composed at a later time ('Period III') when _h_ was no longer pronounced, though doubtless often written. But before the date of the earliest extant glossary (Epinal) a further change or changes had taken place which brought about the confusion of original _ƀ_ and _f_. It is clear from a comparison of the glossaries that this confusion was later than the loss of _h_ and also that it was almost, if not entirely, unknown to the archetype. So also in Northumbrian. In Bede's History we have no instance of _h_ preserved in an English word, whereas examples of its omission are numerous. On the other hand it is clear that Bede usually retained the distinction between _b_ (i.e. _ƀ_) and _f_, although the latter has already largely encroached on the former in the Moore MS.[112] We may therefore constitute two subdivisions of the period subsequent to the loss of _h_, namely 'Period III' prior to the confusion of _ƀ_ and _f_ and 'Period IV' subsequent to this confusion. Now we can see clearly where to date the Franks casket, for it shows confusion of _ƀ_ and _f_ in _wylif_--according to Prof. Morsbach also in _sefu_. It belongs therefore not to Period I but to Period IV.

Any attempt to fix an absolute chronology is of course rendered difficult by the absence of very early texts. We may probably assume that Period IV begins more or less about 700. The Kentish charter of 679 falls in Period III. Now when _-u_ was lost, _h_ (whether intervocalic or postconsonantal) must have been a spirant--a fact which Prof. Morsbach seems to have entirely ignored. It is quite incredible that only a few years should elapse between that stage and the total loss of intervocalic _h_ seen in the charter. The corresponding period in Germany lasted centuries, and I cannot conceive how the transition can have been accomplished anywhere in less than half a century. I conclude therefore that the dates which I gave in my Studies were approximately correct. If there was an error it was in putting some of the changes slightly too late. I have little hesitation now in expressing my opinion that the loss of _-u_ took place not later than the second or third decade of the seventh century.

FOOTNOTES:

[95] _Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society_, Vol. IV,