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 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 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 from 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 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 ” (Freeborn 1998, 88). Orm even admits to filling out the ’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 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. Most scholars agree that the Ormulum was created over decades, ending around 1180 (Cannon 2004, 82). Orm continued to edit and correct as he wrote, perhaps in response to reader confusion. One example of an exhaustive correction was the replacement of the digraph with . According to Cannon, “The two forms were not understood to be variants until line 13864, and, as in similar cases, e alone is used in place of eo in the writing of the rest of the text, but earlier lines are also corrected (with the offending o’s in the digraph scraped out)” (Cannon 2004, 105). Orm does not give a reason for the alteration; we are left to assume that the spelling no longer accurately represented pronunciation, especially for Norman French speakers who would have been unfamiliar with the digraph. He met a similar difficulty with the variant forms of “the word ‘she’ (ʒho and ho) when he reached line 452; he only ever used one of these forms subsequently (ʒho), but also went back through the text he had already written, adding a ʒ to every earlier instance of ho” (Cannon 2004, 104). His attempts to systematize and correct spelling for his reader’s benefit turned out to be an endless task; the pronunciation of the vernacular language, which he would have taken for granted as a native English speaker and reader, needed to be explicitly addressed for the benefit of his Anglo- Norman speaking brethren. Orm’s obsession with the clarity and reduced variability in his orthographic system led him to adopt into the Roman alphabet graphemes that would have been familiar to him from Old English manuscript sources, namely <ʒ>, <æ>, <ð>, <þ>, and < >. Anderson and Britton point to Orm’s use of insular <ʒ> in contrast with caroline miniscule to reflect the [dʒ]:[g] ƿ distinction that Old English orthography could not make (Anderson and Britton 1999, 305). Orm’s knowledge allowed him to mix alphabetic heritages as well as scribal traditions. Anderson and Britton describe Orm as “a spelling reformer who in due consideration of transparency of the system as perceived by the reader, took pains to depart as little as possible from the familiar” (Anderson and Britton 1999, 299). It is a mistake, however, to think of Orm’s efforts to standardize his writing as his end goal. Orm’s unique orthography is the by-product of his need to clearly and concisely interpret the gospels from Latin into English for the benefit of reader and listeners. In addition to those unique orthographic choices, Orm also made a concentrated effort to use native English lexemes that would have been familiar to his listeners. Bennett describes his lexicon as “wholly native, reflecting the blend of English and Scandinavian that had come about in the Danelaw area in the three centuries before Orm wrote” (Bennett 1986, 33). When Orm does feel the need to use French and Latin loan words, he consciously acknowledges the borrowing through his orthography; he incorporates graphemes that he does not use in native English lexemes. The three main written languages at this point in history—the Church’s Latin, the royal court’s Norman French, and the Middle English of the common people—share the Roman alphabet. Orm’s judicious use of graphemes rarely used in Middle English serve to highlight his awareness of borrowed words. For example, “Orm’s rare is used “only in loans from French and Latin” (Anderson and Britton 1999, 304). Other infrequently used graphemes are the sequence and found only in the few French words that Orm chooses to include (Anderson and Britton 1999, 305). In fact, shows up only once at line 8102 Spellenn: Orm’s Act of Faith ROBYN DIETRICH 5

as a means of pluralizing the French loan word beʒʒannz (Anderson and Britton 1999, 309). Orm uses orthography to emphasize the “foreignness” of French loan words, delineating orthographic space between English vernacular and borrowed words. Modern interpretations of Orm are often disproportionately influenced by our limited definition of the verb spell; 1,2 scholars make much of Orm's orthography, ignoring the fact that spellenn3 held a different meaning for Orm. The Middle English definition of the verb spellenn had a much broader meaning than it holds for us today, although the sense to read letter by letter did not yet seem to be attested in the language (Cannon 2004, 86). For Orm, spelling meant to talk or speak, to tell a story, and to preach (ibid). While Orm was writing his homilies out, he would have been conscious of the fact that he was, in fact, preaching. The strict hierarchical structures of medieval society—mirrored within religious communities—strongly suggest that Orm’s efforts were deemed a valuable contribution to the extended faith community. Even Bennett, for all his usual vitriol, offers this backhanded compliment: “The appearance of the manuscript may be rebarbative, but the work itself testifies to a conscientious consideration for the spiritual and doctrinal needs of the laity” (Bennett 1986, 33). Orm did more than that; he united an English-speaking congregation with an Anglo-Norman French-speaking homilist through the contemplation of their shared faith.

Conclusion

Orm is a man who thought intensely about language and linguistic interactions. He considered how words and names could change depending on the language. He even took the time to educate his læwedd audience on such issues through his homilies, informing them that Salemann and Salomon are the same man in different languages (Holt 1878, Homilies 1.66‒68) and that Jesus is IESOΥS in Greek (Holt 1878, Homilies 1.4305). As a result of this deep contemplation, Orm recognized that misunderstanding could spring up between an Anglo-Norman clergy and a native English-speaking laity. Orm, therefore, took great care with his spelling, both the modern sense of writing words systematically and correctly, and his spellenn, in the Middle English sense of preaching. Orm used his considerable knowledge to craft a text uniquely suited to answer two very different sets of needs. While modern scholars habitually focus on Orm’s orthography, taking a contemptuous view of the content of his writing, these dismissive attitudes ignore how much of Orm’s education and expertise have gone into the writing of the Ormulum. Orm deliberately pulled from various literary traditions to systematize his writing in order to craft a vernacular translation of the gospels for a largely illiterate—though by no means ignorant—lay community. Also absent from many scholarly criticisms of Orm’s work is the idea that he tailored his work ideally to suit the needs of his readers as well as his listeners in a predominantly oral society, creating a culturally significant work, if only locally. Spelling, for Orm, was an act of faith that benefited everyone in his spiritual community, clergy and laity together.

1 Oxford English Dictionary, “spell (v.2),” accessed December 27, 2020, www.oed.com/view/Entry/186220. 2 Oxford English Dictionary, “spele (v.2),” accessed December 27, 2020, www.oed.com/view/Entry/186208. 3 Middle English Dictionary, ”spellen (v.2),” accessed December 27, 2020, https://quod.lib.umich.edu. Spellenn: Orm’s Act of Faith ROBYN DIETRICH 6

References

Anderson, John, and Derek Britton. 1999. “The Orthography and Phonology of the Ormulum.” English Language and Linguistics, 3 (2): 299‒334.

Bennett, J. A. W. 1986. Middle English Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cannon, Christopher. 2004. The Grounds of English Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.

Curran, S. Terrie. 2002. English from Caedmon to Chaucer: The Literary Development of English. Illinois: Waveland Press.

Freeborn, Dennis. 1998. From Old English to Standard English, 2nd ed. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Holt, Robert, ed. 1878. The Ormulum with the Notes and Glossary of Dr. R. M. White, 1798-1865. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

McMullen, A. Joseph. 2014. “Forr þeʒʒre sawle need: The Ormulum, Vernacular Theology and a Tradition of Translation in Early England.” English Studies, 95 (3): 256–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2014.897074

Smith, Jeremy. 1996. A Historical Study of English: Function, Form, and Change. New York: Routledge.

Witalisz, Wladyslaw. 2001. ”Orality and Literacy in Middle English Religious Literature on the Example of Medieval Lives of Christ.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies, 36: 275‒88.

Worley, Meg. 2003. “Using the Ormulum to Redefine Vernacularity.” In The Vulgar Tongue: Medieval and Postmedieval Vernacularity, edited by Fiona Somerset and Nicholas Watson, 19‒30. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.