Spellenn: Orm's Act of Faith
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Spellenn: Orm’s Act of Faith ROBYN DIETRICH University of Saskatchewan [email protected] Þiss boc iss nemmnedd Orrmulum (Holt 1878, Preface 1.1) THE ORMULUM (BODLEY MS JUNIUS I) IS A FASCINATING TEXT CREATED BY AN AUGUSTINIAN CANON and dated from the early Middle English period (1100‒1250). The author’s lexical, phonological, and orthographic choices, in addition to his idiosyncratic spelling system—all intended to guide the reader’s pronunciation of vernacular Middle English—have led the text to be viewed by historical linguists as a source of valuable phonological information. In fact, much of modern scholarship focuses so exclusively on the Ormulum’s linguistic significance that any cultural or literary value is largely ignored. Orm’s unique orthography—while certainly worthy of study—is merely the by-product of his need to concisely translate the gospels from Latin to English while also ensuring his theological interpretations were unimpeachable. In his Ormulum, Orm, whose first language is English, successfully balances the simultaneous needs of his two audiences: his native Norman French-speaking Augustinian brothers reading his homilies, and a non-literate English-speaking audience listening to them. When judged according to the needs of Orm’s religious and secular communities, his Ormulum can be appreciated for the uniquely crafted document that it is. Swa summ icc hafe shæwedd ʒuw (Holt 1878, Preface 1.30) Modern expectations of universal literacy have negatively impacted our ability to engage meaningfully with Orm’s text. Rather than question why Orm wrote in the manner he did, many modern scholars gleefully compete to see who can denigrate the text with the most cutting eloquence. The Ormulum has been accused, among other sins, of being ugly (Bennett 1986, 30), of having “slight” literary value (Smith 1996, 97), and of being “monotonous” (Freeborn 1998, 88). These dismissive modern attitudes ignore how much of Orm’s education and expertise have gone into the writing of the Ormulum. Orm’s comprehensive knowledge is used deliberately to blend Latinate and English literary traditions while systematizing his writing in order to craft an easily recited vernacular interpretation of the gospels for his audiences. In terms of historical evidence, little is known about Orm beyond his name and position within his religious order. Even his location cannot be known with certainty. Several theories have been put forward: S. Terrie Curran calls Orm “one very clever Northumbrian monk” Dietrich, Robyn. 2020. “Spellenn: Orm’s Act of Faith.” The English Languages, History, Diaspora, Culture 6: 1‒6. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/elhdc/ © Robyn Dietrich, CC BY. Spellenn: Orm’s Act of Faith ROBYN DIETRICH 2 (Curran 2002, 169), while J.A.W. Bennett posits that Orm lived and wrote at Elsham Priory in north Lincolnshire (Bennett 1986, 30). Meg Worley, on the other hand, concurs with Malcolm Parkes’s hypothesis that Orm’s likely location was Bourne Abbey in south Lincolnshire (Worley 2003, 23). Worley further makes the compelling argument that Orm’s idiosyncratic writing system was intended to benefit Anglo-Norman clergymen preaching to a native English- speaking congregation (ibid). Worley cites Bourne Abbey’s links to northern France to support the fact that Orm almost certainly lived in a French-speaking religious community (ibid). Orm’s native “Englishness” would have set him apart as singularly equipped to bridge the language barrier between his religious community and local English speakers. As noted earlier, many modern readers are especially critical of the Ormulum’s literary merits. Jeremy Smith, as previously mentioned, states that the “literary interest of this exceedingly long work (20,000 lines survive, perhaps one-eighth of the planned collection) is slight” (Smith 1996, 97). Modern readers, accustomed to reading large swathes of text silently to themselves, find Orm’s repetitious lines grating and dull, whereas medieval readers (and listeners) approached written texts as an extension of their strongly oral culture. As Wladyslaw Witalisz observes, “alliteration and patterned rhetoric feature prominently among generally accepted signs of orality” (Witalisz 2001, 275). Medieval readers and listeners alike expected repetition to figure prominently, even in written texts. And so, while there is no question that Orm does rely heavily on repetition and expansion to structure his homilies, this antecedent is a characteristic common to many medieval texts. Repetition allowed the listening congregation to anticipate and to remember each sermon’s message. Additionally, Orm structured his homilies to fill a calendar year; he wrote with the expectation that his writing would be read piece-meal, one homily per day. His sermons were never meant to be read continuously through as a modern novel might be. As well as making his sermons easier to remember, Orm’s repetition, restrained vocabulary, and unvaried metrical rhythm make his homilies easy to recite. Dennis Freeborn complains, “His lines are, however, monotonous to read, since they are absolutely regular in metre” (Freeborn 1998, 88). Orm even admits to filling out the gospel’s words with his own in order to keep the strong stress rhythm of his verses. Indeed, he seems to have some anxiety about this necessity; he mentions it twice in the Dedication: Icc hafe sett her o þiss boc / Amang Goddspelless wordess / All þurrh me sellfenn, maniʒ word / Þe ríme swa to fillenn (Holt 1878, Dedication 1.41‒44) and all forrþi / Shollde icc wel offte need / Amang Goddspelless wordess don / Min word, min ferrs to fillen (Holt 1878, Dedication 1.61‒65). This perfectly constructed metre illustrates how thoughtfully Orm composed his homilies according to their dual purpose of linguistic and religious instruction. His rhythmic pattern, besides creating a soothing, contemplative mood for listeners, aids in easy delivery. Orm’s choice of a fifteen-syllable metre, both predictable and precise, is no accident. It is a “naturalized version of Latin syllabic metre” (Bennett 1986, 31), perhaps an implicit acknowledgement of a shared Latin religious training with his Augustinian brothers. Orm’s choice of poetic metre served as a bridge between the more fluid syllabic patterns of Latin and French and the heavy stress-timed rhythm of English. His unvarying stress pattern helps the reader—even one unfamiliar with English—to know exactly where stresses should fall. Spellenn: Orm’s Act of Faith ROBYN DIETRICH 3 Orm uses repetition of phrases as well as sounds to further emphasize concepts of great importance to his ministry. One phrase Orm repeats variants of is the line Swa summ icc hafe shæwedd (Holt 1878, Preface 1.30). He does this to purposefully to set himself up as an authority. He is not only giving religious instruction to an English-speaking congregation but also linguistic instruction to his Anglo-Norman Augustinian brothers simultaneously. His homilies, then, take on a deeper significance; he is doubly the authority, teaching not only the local laity on the meaning of the gospels, but also educating native Norman French speakers on how to minister to the spiritual needs of that community in the local English dialect. Incidentally, he is also bolstering the authoritative position of the orator as they repeat his words, alls icc hafe shæwedd ʒuw (Holt 1878, Preface 1.51). Orm’s exemplars, his own textual authorities, would have included highly formalized Latin texts, such as the Vulgate Bible (Bennett 1986, 31). He would have been familiar with the concept of consistency and standardization in Latin scribal traditions during a time of comparative lawlessness within English manuscript culture. His own impetus to create a systematic English text is all the more compelling. As A. Joseph McMullen observes, “theological writings in the vernacular were often positioned in a linguistically and intellectually subordinate relationship to Latin or another dominant literary language” (McMullen 2014, 257). In privileging English in a written text, Orm makes a choice both pragmatic—the English-speaking laity must understand Christ’s message in order to accept it and live it—and modestly radical. Orm writes with the expectation that the clergy conform to the linguistic needs of an English-speaking congregation. The text he provides his Augustinian brothers with is standardized for clarity of meaning and ease of delivery but focuses on the spiritual needs of Ennglissh follc. I þohht, i word, i dede (Holt 1878, Homilies 1.1491) According to Orm’s beliefs, the very act of interpreting the gospels is a worthwhile religious practice, regardless of its completion or success. He has contemplated Jesus’ message in the gospels (þohht), he has interpreted with great care (word), and finally he has written/spoken Jesus’ teachings (dede). While many scholars view Orm’s working draft as a failure or a fool’s errand in attempting to standardize a language in flux, Orm’s work had definite religious and cultural significance for himself and within his overlapping communities of religious brothers and English-speaking lay folk. Orm’s need to unite two groups linguistically divided led him to create a spelling system including a variety of innovations to assist readers with their pronunciation. One of the most frequently commented upon is the use of double consonants to show the shortness of the preceding vowel. He replaces words such as Englisc with Ennglissh (Freeborn 1998, 88) and understanden with unnderrstandenn. The doubled consonants act as a diacritic, giving readers a visual cue that the preceding vowel is shortened. Where consonants are not doubled, the vowel is pronounced long. Orm also uses more punctuation on average than contemporaneous texts, Spellenn: Orm’s Act of Faith ROBYN DIETRICH 4 in order to assist in oral delivery (Worley 2003, 21‒22). The Ormulum, then, is not only a text, but also a working script, rewritten and reworked according to the needs of his readers.