- Email: [email protected]
Studies in the middle english dialect material of Worcestershire records
REVIEWS
PTFS-RENDtJ%
What, for example, does the phraw ‘French influence’ applied to a West Midland manuscript the author claims without particularisi French scribal mannerisms’ 3 sibilities of arnb*_* ;I portantly, did he care! Do a conventions whir?I qecr-, wk-) necessari regional niceties ? scribes were educated men like Capgrave sq&y. A wider BCcoix&ntiousl,y towards a consistent or quaintti;nce ~1ith Middle I3 feet any study of the to ponder such problems spelling and phonology of a Middle English manulseript. In limiting his discussion to problems affect between the scribe’s spelling and his speech, admits that its value remains hypothetical. It may doubt is responsible for the excessive dependence on earlier writers. If he had been less distracted by his terminology and the arbitra patterns which they impose, he might have analysed the spelli on lines which the scribe himself might have recognized, viz. permissive variations without phonological significance, individual and local and dialectal conventions and characteristics, inherited spellings, significant scribal errors, and the effects of fashion. Though MS. Cotton Nero A.x is not an ideal area for such investigation, its analysis might have laid the foundations of future investigations into the real problem posed by ME manuscripts, which is not primarily how the scribes spoke but how they Icarneci to spsll. University of Edinbawgh
M.C.SEYMOUR
BERTIL SUMDBY, S&dies ir% the Middle English Dialact Material of Worcestershire Records, Norwegian Studies in
English no. 10, Norwegian Universities Press and Mumanipp., 48 Nor-w. Kr. ties Press, New York, 1963, VIII +The importance of the Middle English dialects of Worcestershire for textual and linguistic studies needs no emphasis, and this
436
REVIBWS
-
COMPTES-RENDUS
experienced analysis of the evidence of the records at six major depositories is most welcome. There can be little doubt of the comprehensive scope of the& studies, wen if the search for material could have been marginally extended to other relevant documents, for example those listed by J. N. Dalton, The Ma~s~~ifits of St. George’s Ch, -per?, Wbdsov Castle, and T. A. M. Bishop, Scri;ptores Reges, and these and similar reference works added to the bibliography. Similar in its general purpose to the dialectal studies of Dorset .r;ncimedieval Sussex already published by other Swedish scholars, the book has as its substance a detailed examination of the development of OE vowels in later medieval Worcestershire. The presentation and discussion of this material, seen always against the evidence of other relevant areas, are admirably lucid and clearly supported by summary tables, for example pp. 105-l 26 v-iere the development of OE g in its various environments (the most valuable criterion of the West Midland dialect) is examined. The careful use of the evidence of OE forms is particularly sound in the distinguishing between the northern and southern dialects of the county (3s exemplified in their vowel systems). And here in the general discussion of vowel systems (pp. 193-201), lies the major interest of the book. Dr. Sundby posits a fourway structuring of OE stressed vowels, which is a simplified and practical system provided that one accepts the existence of 3 short diphthong in OE; though some might think that the evidence for this is extremely limited, even in pre-Alfredian documents, and see no inherent reason for a symmetrical structure. From this base he cautiously explores the history of the sound system of his dialect, from early Mercian to West Midland c. 1250. This admittedly guarded demonsPration.,appears to hold good for evidence outside the author’s documents, such 3s that supplied for example by the OE Bede (if, 3s appears likely, it was written in Mercia szcb regno Aethelflaed) and the Vernon ms. of Piers Plowman), and Sundby’s theories should be widely recognized 3s tenable, at least. They cannot of course be final since the value of OE spellings is (within our present knowledge of these matters) limited and ambiguous, whether one begins (3s Sundby does) or ends with the OE vowel systems. But in a hotly disputed f&i Sundby offers a brief and lucid statement
REVIEWS - COMPTES-RENDUS
37
of the problems and their possibltt solut,ions which confront t .~t’ investigator. The examination of various non-vocalic ldialect features is equ”Ely illuminating, and the limitations and half-glimpses in his n-uinuscript evidence are honestly reflected. There is much ltertl to interest those in allied fields, such as his findi :I s ab0ut the suffix -ester and inflectional -US. And it is perhaps urqrat&i to wish \bt~t a list of ME literary manuscripts known to h3v~ hen wt*ittc%ttin Worcestershire might ha\ = been ad& ,I t:; ..: .,,plemcni 0~1 printout editions of a few major texts cited in the In their primary phonological and studies cultivate the ground first stabed out by th * Pl;m Nmw Society nearly forty years ago and subsequently dug ovear btp successive editors of Worcestershire tcxtsj ar&d yield a crop worthy of those pioneers. University 01 Edinburgh
31. c.
hiYMoC:K
EICHI KOBAYAS~-II,The Verb Forms of the South Eq$ish Legendary, Janua Linguarum, %rie~ Practica X1’. ,%iouQr)fi & Co., The Hague, 1954. 88 pp. Price: 17 guiltlt~r~. This analytic study of the verbs of ttae SEL (in the prmtd tat of MS Harley 2277), in substance a :&+stlrtatic,n 5utrmit tt31 ;It Michigan in 1961, appears promptly and aittraet ively in the ~~c~~~PIx~~ format of the Series Practica. The essential virtue of SUCKa %ttldy is a thorough classification of the studied forms along: hi&~ric.cll principles, and here Dr. Kobayashi’s work is faultless. l-fib ~)rnments on the forms themselves, blessedly free from 11eiJhJ a restless searching for novelty, are also sound and cleariy c*~prc~s~~*d, and where he breaks new ground under the direction of his ti~&+l Kurath (e.g. on diphthongs pp. 44, 51) his meaning is sharp ;LIHI intelligible. In some ways, perhaps, this admirable love of c~~tit r~it* leads him slightly astray. The exceptional t%rms wrantk, stank, wd awatede, though they upset all the theories and occur in ;i cornpar;! tively carelessly written manuscript, are probably not scribal c*frot’h (rare in such environments); they are more likely inherited form*+, despite the logic of the case against them (pp. 28, 62). And se21‘saw’
PTFS-RENDtJ%
What, for example, does the phraw ‘French influence’ applied to a West Midland manuscript the author claims without particularisi French scribal mannerisms’ 3 sibilities of arnb*_* ;I portantly, did he care! Do a conventions whir?I qecr-, wk-) necessari regional niceties ? scribes were educated men like Capgrave sq&y. A wider BCcoix&ntiousl,y towards a consistent or quaintti;nce ~1ith Middle I3 feet any study of the to ponder such problems spelling and phonology of a Middle English manulseript. In limiting his discussion to problems affect between the scribe’s spelling and his speech, admits that its value remains hypothetical. It may doubt is responsible for the excessive dependence on earlier writers. If he had been less distracted by his terminology and the arbitra patterns which they impose, he might have analysed the spelli on lines which the scribe himself might have recognized, viz. permissive variations without phonological significance, individual and local and dialectal conventions and characteristics, inherited spellings, significant scribal errors, and the effects of fashion. Though MS. Cotton Nero A.x is not an ideal area for such investigation, its analysis might have laid the foundations of future investigations into the real problem posed by ME manuscripts, which is not primarily how the scribes spoke but how they Icarneci to spsll. University of Edinbawgh
M.C.SEYMOUR
BERTIL SUMDBY, S&dies ir% the Middle English Dialact Material of Worcestershire Records, Norwegian Studies in
English no. 10, Norwegian Universities Press and Mumanipp., 48 Nor-w. Kr. ties Press, New York, 1963, VIII +The importance of the Middle English dialects of Worcestershire for textual and linguistic studies needs no emphasis, and this
436
REVIBWS
-
COMPTES-RENDUS
experienced analysis of the evidence of the records at six major depositories is most welcome. There can be little doubt of the comprehensive scope of the& studies, wen if the search for material could have been marginally extended to other relevant documents, for example those listed by J. N. Dalton, The Ma~s~~ifits of St. George’s Ch, -per?, Wbdsov Castle, and T. A. M. Bishop, Scri;ptores Reges, and these and similar reference works added to the bibliography. Similar in its general purpose to the dialectal studies of Dorset .r;ncimedieval Sussex already published by other Swedish scholars, the book has as its substance a detailed examination of the development of OE vowels in later medieval Worcestershire. The presentation and discussion of this material, seen always against the evidence of other relevant areas, are admirably lucid and clearly supported by summary tables, for example pp. 105-l 26 v-iere the development of OE g in its various environments (the most valuable criterion of the West Midland dialect) is examined. The careful use of the evidence of OE forms is particularly sound in the distinguishing between the northern and southern dialects of the county (3s exemplified in their vowel systems). And here in the general discussion of vowel systems (pp. 193-201), lies the major interest of the book. Dr. Sundby posits a fourway structuring of OE stressed vowels, which is a simplified and practical system provided that one accepts the existence of 3 short diphthong in OE; though some might think that the evidence for this is extremely limited, even in pre-Alfredian documents, and see no inherent reason for a symmetrical structure. From this base he cautiously explores the history of the sound system of his dialect, from early Mercian to West Midland c. 1250. This admittedly guarded demonsPration.,appears to hold good for evidence outside the author’s documents, such 3s that supplied for example by the OE Bede (if, 3s appears likely, it was written in Mercia szcb regno Aethelflaed) and the Vernon ms. of Piers Plowman), and Sundby’s theories should be widely recognized 3s tenable, at least. They cannot of course be final since the value of OE spellings is (within our present knowledge of these matters) limited and ambiguous, whether one begins (3s Sundby does) or ends with the OE vowel systems. But in a hotly disputed f&i Sundby offers a brief and lucid statement
REVIEWS - COMPTES-RENDUS
37
of the problems and their possibltt solut,ions which confront t .~t’ investigator. The examination of various non-vocalic ldialect features is equ”Ely illuminating, and the limitations and half-glimpses in his n-uinuscript evidence are honestly reflected. There is much ltertl to interest those in allied fields, such as his findi :I s ab0ut the suffix -ester and inflectional -US. And it is perhaps urqrat&i to wish \bt~t a list of ME literary manuscripts known to h3v~ hen wt*ittc%ttin Worcestershire might ha\ = been ad& ,I t:; ..: .,,plemcni 0~1 printout editions of a few major texts cited in the In their primary phonological and studies cultivate the ground first stabed out by th * Pl;m Nmw Society nearly forty years ago and subsequently dug ovear btp successive editors of Worcestershire tcxtsj ar&d yield a crop worthy of those pioneers. University 01 Edinburgh
31. c.
hiYMoC:K
EICHI KOBAYAS~-II,The Verb Forms of the South Eq$ish Legendary, Janua Linguarum, %rie~ Practica X1’. ,%iouQr)fi & Co., The Hague, 1954. 88 pp. Price: 17 guiltlt~r~. This analytic study of the verbs of ttae SEL (in the prmtd tat of MS Harley 2277), in substance a :&+stlrtatic,n 5utrmit tt31 ;It Michigan in 1961, appears promptly and aittraet ively in the ~~c~~~PIx~~ format of the Series Practica. The essential virtue of SUCKa %ttldy is a thorough classification of the studied forms along: hi&~ric.cll principles, and here Dr. Kobayashi’s work is faultless. l-fib ~)rnments on the forms themselves, blessedly free from 11eiJhJ a restless searching for novelty, are also sound and cleariy c*~prc~s~~*d, and where he breaks new ground under the direction of his ti~&+l Kurath (e.g. on diphthongs pp. 44, 51) his meaning is sharp ;LIHI intelligible. In some ways, perhaps, this admirable love of c~~tit r~it* leads him slightly astray. The exceptional t%rms wrantk, stank, wd awatede, though they upset all the theories and occur in ;i cornpar;! tively carelessly written manuscript, are probably not scribal c*frot’h (rare in such environments); they are more likely inherited form*+, despite the logic of the case against them (pp. 28, 62). And se21‘saw’