In Defence of the Textual Integrity of the Old English Resignation

Open access

Abstract

Bliss & Frantzen’s (1976) paper against the previously assumed textual integrity of Resignation has been a watershed in research upon the poem. Nearly all subsequent studies and editions have followed their theory, the sole dissenting view being expressed by Klinck (1987, 1992). The present paper offers fresh evidence for the textual unity of the poem. First examined are codicological issues, whether the state of the manuscript suggests that a folio might be missing. Next analysed are the spellings of Resignation and its phonology, here the paper discusses peculiarities which both differentiate Resignation from its manuscript context and connect the two hypothetical parts of the text. Then the paper looks at the assumed cut-off point at l.69 to see if it may provide any evidence for textual discontinuity. Finally the whole Resignation, seen as a coherent poem, is placed in the history of Old English literature, with special attention being paid to the traditions of devotional texts and the Old English elegies.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Braekman Willy. 1965. Some minor Old English texts. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 202. 271-276.

  • Dobbie Elliott Van Kirk. 1942. The Anglo-Saxon minor poems. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Keefer Sarah L. 2010. Old English liturgical verse. A student edition. Peterborough Ont.: Broadview Press.

  • Klinck Anne L. 1992. The Old English elegies. A critical edition and genre study. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

  • Krapp George P. 1932. The Paris Psalter and the Meters of Boethius. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Kuypers Arthur B. 1902. The prayer book of Ædeluald the bishop commonly called ‘The Book of Cerne’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Malmberg Lars. 1979. Resignation. Durham: Durham and St. Andrews Medieval Texts.

  • Muir Bernard J. 1994. The Exeter anthology of Old English poetry. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.

  • Muir Bernard J. 2006. The Exeter anthology of Old English poetry. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. DVD.

  • Noronha Thomas L. 1971. Five Old English verse prayers: An edition. Stanford Calif.: Stanford University dissertation.

  • Sweet Henry. 1883. King Alfred’s Orosius. London: Trübner.

  • Thorpe Benjamin. 1842. Codex Exoniensis. London: Pickering.

  • Banks Ronald A. 1968. A study of the Old English versions of the Lord’s Prayer the Creeds the Gloria and some prayers found in British Museum MS. Cotton Galba A. xiv. London: University of London dissertation.

  • Bestul Thomas H. 1977. The Old English Resignation and the Benedictine Reform. Neu-philologische Mitteilungen 78. 18-23.

  • Bliss Alan J. and Allen J. Frantzen. 1976. The integrity of Resignation. The Review of English Studies 27. 385-402.

  • Bloomfield Morton. 1970. Essays and explorations: Studies in ideas language and literature. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.

  • Bosworth Joseph and Thomas N. Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Brown Michelle P. 1996. The Book of Cerne: Prayer patronage and power in ninth-century England. London: British Library; Toronto Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.

  • Cameron Angus Ashley C. Amos and Antonette diPaolo Healey. 2003. The dictionary of Old English: A to F. Toronto Ont.: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. CD.

  • Campbell Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Coveney Dorothy K. 1958. The ruling of the Exeter Book. Scriptorium 12. 51-55.

  • Förster Max. 1933. General description of the manuscript. In Raymond Wilson Chambers Max Förster and Robin Flower. The Exeter Book of Old English poetry. 55-67. London: Lund.

  • Greenfield Stanley. 1966. A Critical History of Old English Literature. London: University of London Press.

  • Gretsch Mechthild. 2008. A context for Resignation A? In Virginia Blanton and Helene Scheck (eds.). Intertexts: studies in Anglo-Saxon culture presented to Paul E. Szarmach 103-117. Tempe Az.: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.

  • Hogg Richard. 1992. A grammar of Old English vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Keefer Sarah L. 1998. Respect for the book: A reconsideration of ‘form’ ‘content’ and ‘context’ in two vernacular poems. In Sarah L. Keefer and Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe (eds.). New approaches to editing Old English poetry 21-44. Woodbridge: Boydell.

  • Ker Neil R. 1957. Catalogue of manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Klinck Anne L. 1987. Resignation: Exile’s Lament or Penitent’s Prayer?. Neophilologus 71. 423-430.

  • Malone Kemp. 1930. When did Middle English begin?. Language Monograph 7. 110-117.

  • Mitchell Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Mora María. 1995. The invention of the Old English elegy. English Studies 76. 129-139.

  • Muir Bernard J. 1989. A preliminary report on a new edition of the Exeter Book. Scriptorium 43. 273-288.

  • Pickwoad Nicholas. 2006. Report on the preparation of Exeter D&C MS 3501 for digitisation. In Bernard James Muir. The Exeter anthology of Old English poetry. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. DVD.

  • Quirk Randolph and Charles L. Wrenn. 1955. An Old English grammar. London: Methuen.

  • Raw Barbara. 1978. The art and background of Old English poetry. London: Arnold.

  • Schlauch Margaret. 1956. English medieval literature and its social foundations. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

  • Sisam Kenneth. 1945. Seafarer lines 97-102. The Review of English Studies 21. 316-317.

  • Stanley Eric G. 1955. Old English poetic diction and the interpretation of The Wanderer The Seafarer and The Penitent’s Prayer. Anglia 73. 413-466.

  • Toller Thomas N. 1921. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Whitelock Dorothy. 1950. The interpretation of The Seafarer. In Cyril Fox and Bruce Dickins (eds.). The early cultures of north-west Europe 259-272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


Cite Score 2018: 0.08

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.1
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.095

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 200 109 1
PDF Downloads 120 70 2