sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bewcastle Cross, List of runologists, Monasterboice, Old English phonology, Wight

RUNIC EVIDENCE OF LAMINOALVEOLAR

AFFRICATION IN

Tae-yong Pak

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 1969

Approved by Doctoral Committee

BOOfi 6HEEH SIATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY I

428620

Copyright hy

Tae-yong Pak 1969 ii

ABSTRACT

Considered 'inconsistent' by leading runologists of this century, the new Old English in the palatovelar series, namely, gar, calc, and gar-modified (various modi­ fications of the old gifu and cën) have not been subjected to rigorous linguistic analysis, and their relevance to Old English and the study of Old English poetry has remained unexplored. The present study seeks to determine the phonemic status of the new runes and elucidate their implications to alliteration.

To this end the following methods were used: 1) The 60-odd extant Old English runic texts were examined. Only four monuments (, Ruthwell, Thornhill, and Urswick) were found to use the new runes definitely. 2) In the four texts the words containing the new and old palatovelar runes were isolated and tabulated according to their environments. The pattern of distribution was significant: gifu occurred thirteen times in front environments and twice in back environments; cen, eight times front and once back; gar, nine times back; calc, five times back and once front; and gar-modified, twice front. Although cen and gifu occurred predominantly in front environments, and calc and gar in back environments, their occurrences were not complementary. 3) To interpret the data minimal or near minimal pairs with the palatovelar consonants occurring in front or back environments were examined. They disclosed the existence in Old English of two sets of stop , voiced and voiceless, each set comprising front and back phonemes.

The results showed that each of the five palatovelar runes had a phonemic role. Especially, the parallel presence in the of gar-modified and calc, representing the of the back and seemingly contradicting the phoneme principle (i.e. awareness or nonawareness of distinctiveness), could be explained by considering the binary contrast of each with regard only to the front phoneme (represented by cen), without a ternary comparison of the back allophones themselves. This indicated a radically different phonetic quality in the front phoneme and, upon /

iii

exploration of the phonetic possibilities, the front phoneme was distinctive chiefly in its position of articulation, the most probable position being laminoalveolar. Since the aspirate or release was present in the stop phoneme in all positions, a stop sound articulated at the alveolar ridge was found to resemble the New English affricate closely, if not exactly. This conclusion did not conflict with the evidence of alliteration, for it could be shown that the affricate and the stop alliterated, without the poet’s or listener's resorting to poetic tradition or •eye-rimes'. To sum up, the invention of the new palatovelar runes arose from a phonemic necessity and the laminoalveolar affricate (or near-affricate) has existed in English since at least the eighth century. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER II. ENVIRONMENTS OF NEW VELAR RUNES... 26

...... 28

2. cen...... 35

3. gar...... 43

4. calc...... 45

5. gar-modified...... 48

CHAPTER III. PHONEMICS.*...... 50

1. Phonemes represented by gifu and gar.... 76

2. Phonemes represented by cen, calc, and gar-modified...... 93

APPENDIX I. RUNIC MONUMENTS CONTAINING NEW VELAR RUNES...... 109

APPENDIX II. RUNIC TEXTS NOT CONTAINING NEW VELAR RUNES...... 124

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 164 I

V

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 1. Runic Transliteration...... 25

Table 2. Distribution of Palatovelar Runes...... 27 I

CHAPTER I

- INTRODUCTION

The Old English invention of new runes in the palatovelar 1 series has provoked the attention of scholars investigating the

development of the English affricate /?/ and /§/ from Proto- 2 Germanic /k/ and /g/.

^That is, the invention of gar $4, calc and gar-modified 5$ on the model of gifu and cSn . The clumsy designation ' gar- modified' is used throughout here, because no extant MS fufjorc or alphabet names it. Note that there are other runes, i.e. ior , eoh J* , and hae gl , which appear with various palatovelar values (see below Chapter III, 79-80), but their phonemic status is not the direct concern of the present study. 2 For the New English /2/ and /§/ see below Chapter III, pp. 104-5, and for Proto-Germanic /k/ and /g/, Chapter III, pp. 76-8 and 93. The phonotaxonomy used in the present study is based on the matrices of phonetic features in Charles F. Hockett, A Manual of Phonology: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol.XXI, No. 4 (1955), figs. 9-10 on pp. 32-3 for and fig. 11 on p. 37 for consonants. These matrices employ conventional notations according to the place and manner of articulation and may be readily correlated with the International Phonetic Alphabet. To avoid ambiguity, however, a verbal description is provided to accompany a phonetic or phonemic notation, e.g. palatal stop [kg], glide /j/. The 'binary distinctive feature system', proposed in Roman Jakobson, C. Gunnar M. Fant, and Morris Halle, Preliminaries to Speech Analysis (-Mass., 1963) and Jakobson and Halle, Fundamentals of (The Hague, 1956), is not adopted, because the gain in economy (the principal motive of the proposal, cf. Halle, "In Defense of the Number Two," Studies presented to Joshua Whatmough (The Hague, 1957), 65-72) is not apparent in the discussion of the present problem. The positions of articulation from the velum to the alveoli are therefore represented as a continuous scale with quinquenary or more oppositions (back dorsovelar, front dorsovelar, centrodomal, laminodomal, apicodomal, larainoalveolar, apicoalveolar, apicodental, etc.). This traditional method seems to have more phonetic realism and explains the phenomenon of affrication more satisfactorily than the binary representation of velars and 2

Among the early scholars Victor showed the distribution of

the new and old runes in ’palatal' and ’guttural' environments but 3 - did not interpret its significance. BUlbring considered the cen-rune

to represent the palatal sound [kxj but did not think that it signified

the laminoalveolar affricate (_£_!• Wyld, relying on the findings of

Victor's work, .contended however that cen stood for a front palatal

stop.Kluge, on the other hand, believed the palatalization of

Germanic velars to have begun in the continental period of Anglo-

Frisian 'Dialektkontinuitat' and presented the new velar runes in

the inscriptions of the Bewcastle and Ruthwell crosses as his primary evidence for 'vollzogene Palatalisierung' or laminoalveolar affrication. dentals (or alveolars) as 'optimal' opposites: compact and grave, on the one hand, and diffuse and acute, on the other, for which see Jakobson, Fant, and Halle, Preliminaries, pp. 10 and 43. For an objective appraisal of the binary method see Pavle Ivid, "Roman Jakobson and the Growth of Phonology," Linguistics: An International Review, XIII (The Hague, 1965), 35-78. Ivid notes especially (on 63): "The close relations and frequent mutual substitution between velars and dentals, alongside their consistent differentiation from labials, does not confirm an analysis which presumes definite connections between labials and velars (grave) and between labials and dentals (diffuse) but none between dentals (acute, diffuse) and velars (grave, compact)." 3 Wilhelm Viator, Die northumbrischen Runensteine (Marburg, 1895), 31-2.

Karl D. BUlbring, "Review of Die northumbrischen Runensteine by W. ViBtor," Anglia Beiblatt, IX (1898), 74-5. ^Henry C. Wyld, "Contributions to the History of the Guttural Sounds in English," Transactions of the Philological Society of (1898), 137-8. ^Friedrich Kluge, "Geschichte der englischen Sprache," Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, ed. Hermann Paul, Vol. I, 2nd ed. (Strassburg, 1901), 989-90 and 996. 3

Penzl, however, aided by a more refined awareness than his

precedessors had displayed of the discrepancies that can exist

between writing and speech, pointed out that: "Orthographic evidence

in support of either [tS] or [tj] for Old English is inconclusive . . .

because orthography never lends itself to detailed phonetic

interpretation." Avoiding ’phonetic’ speculation, he concluded on

the evidence of the Old English back runes, palatal diacritics, and

other orthographic data that there was a ’phonemic’ split of Germanic /k/ in Old English.? However, he did not study runic evidence in

sufficient detail and failed to specify the distinctive features of the g newly formed phonemes. More recently, Moulton has made an exhaustive

investigation of Germanic palatovelars but in considering the palatal

and velar allophones of /k/ and /g/, which "came to stand in contrast

^Herbert Penzl, "The Phonemic Split of Germanic k in Old English," Language, XXIII (1947), 35 and 41.

8 Penzl would thus appear to subscribe to the ’fictionalist view’ of the phoneme, for which see W. Freeman Twaddell, "On Defining the Phoneme," Language Monograph No. 16 (1935), reprinted in in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 4th ed. (Chicago, 1966), 55-80; and M. J. Andrade, "Some Questions of Fact and Policy concerning Phonemes," Language, XII (1936), 1-14. For a discussion of this view see Jakobson and Halle, Fundamentals of Speech, 13-7; Halle, "On the Bases of Phonology," The Structure of Language, ed. J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (Englewood Cliffs, 1964), 325; and L. G. Jones, "The Contextual Variants of the Russian Vowels," in Halle, The Sound Pattern of Russian (The Hague, 1959), 157. i

with one another" after umlaut and the loss of a post-consonantal

glide /j/ or of final /i/, he based his argument entirely on texts 7 / in roman script and ignored runic material. Campbell was content to

state in nonphonemic terras that the front and velar sounds were 10 sometimes distinguished in Old English runic texts.

In general the view seems to be current that there is no

consistency in the use of the new velar runes. Dickins and Ross

stated, in their joint work which is considered the standard

edition of the Ruthwell Cross inscriptions, that there are in the

Ruthwell text "separate characters (not used with absolute consistency)

for the front and back values of OE and Of c^e same opinion

was Elliott:

Both the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses employ various symbols in an attempt to distinguish between the several phonetic values of Old English £, and k, Bewcastle, however, is less consistent and includes some obvious errors; thus on the latter monument the initial sound of the kin- appears correctly

9 William G. Moulton, "The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," Language.'XXX (1954), 24-9.

Campbell, Old English Grammar (, 1959), p. 173. ll'Bruce Dickins and Alan S. C. Ross, The Dream of the Rood, 4th ed (London, 1954), 5. 12 Ralph W. V. Elliott, Runes: An Introduction (Manchester, 1959), 95. 5

The present study, therefore, investigates the distribution of the

new Old English velar runes, gar, calc, and gar-modified, to discover

whether there is consistency or not and to determine the phonemic

status of the sounds represented by the different palatovelar symbols.13

Originally, the common Germanic fuj>ark consisted of twenty-four 14 runes, preserved in whole or in part in several .

According to Elliott:

The earliest of these and the only one to show the entire sequence of twenty-four runes, is the Gothic stone from Kylver (Gotland, Sweden) of the early fifth century .... Next in completeness come two Swedish bracteates of the mid-sixth century, the one from Vadstena (Ostergtttland . . .) whose final rune, X, is not visible; the other from Grumpan (Skaraborgs lHn. . .), partly damaged so that several runes are partially or wholly illegible. Fourthly, there are extant the first twenty runes of the fu{>ark on a silver fibula, or brooch, of the latter sixth century, found at Charnay (Burgundy . . .): and lastly, nineteen runes are preserved on part of a stone pillar found at Breza (near Sarajevo) and probably belonging to the first half of the sixth century.

13 Unless otherwise specified, palatovelar runes refer in this study to the five runes, gifu, gar, cen, calc, and gar-modified. 14 Photographic facsimiles of the monuments are available in Helmut Arntz, Handbuch der Runenkunde, 2nd ed. (Halle, 1944), Pl»".< s 772, 6, and 7.9; and Elliott, Runes, Pti - “2 and 3. ^RUnes, 14. 6

The number of runes was expanded in . The first stage of expansion consisted in the addition of new runes, os p , ac £/ , yr (Vi, an^ In contrast to the first, the second stage of expansion introduced additions of consonant runes only, namely, the new velar runes calc, gar, and gar-modified, and also ior, stan K! , and eweorJ1'. This patterned difference in expansion may be expressed succinctly by calling the first stage vocalic and the second, consonantal. 16 The Old English fufjorc^ is recorded on one epigraphic

18 monument, the Thames scramasax, and in thirteen manuscripts, four of which are English and the remaining nine continental. The scramasax, considered to be of the "late eighth or ninth century", has the 28- rune furore, reflecting the vocalic stage of expansion. The manuscript evidence varies.

The consonantal rune ior or iar is often given the sound value io in the furores of MSS. In actual epigraphical usage, however, it has the same phonemic function as gifu (e.g. jilsuifr on the Third Thornhill stone, or j islheard on the Dover Stone, the first letter j. transcribing the rune in question), and does not form an exception. The other consonantal runes stan and eweordo not occur on epigraphical monuments at all. ^Afhereas the common Germanic abecedarium is called fujiark from the values of the first six runes, the English one is called fufjorc, reflecting the changed sound values of the fourth and sixth runes in the sequence. For a similar reason the Scandinavian sequence is called fupjrk, cf. Elliott, Runes, 22 and 34. 18 The Rome bronze fragment with Old English runes alphabetically arranged is "the first [and onlyj epigraphical example of such a runic ABC", according to Carl D. Buck, "An ABC inscribed in Old English runes," Modern PhilologyjtVII(1914), 44. However, it is a runic alphabet, that is, runes arranged in the order of the roman alphabet, not a furore. 7

First, British Museum, Cotton MS Doraitian A 9, London, contains ì one furore with a parallel presentation of the name and sound-value

of each rune in the abecedarian. This furore reflects the consonantal

stage and includes calc and gar. Dated within the first part of the 19 twelfth century by Wrenn, but more probably within the eleventh 20 21 century by Wright, and Derolez, this MS may be considered the

editio crucis of the English fuporc. Furthermore, Hempl showed

convincingly that George Hickes used this MS as an additional model

and reference when he transcribed the Runic Poem from Cotton Otho 22 - B 10. The names calc and gar are taken from this text and will be

used in this study as the generic appellatives for the new velar

runes, variously spelled or designated in other MSS. The manuscript 23 24 25 has been examined since Hempl by Wrenn, Wright, and Derolez.

19 C. L. Wrenn, "Late Old English Rune-Names," Medium Aevum, I (1932), 28. 20 G. E. Wright, "A Postscript to Late Old English Rune-Names,” Medium Aevum,:V(1936), 149-51. 21 R. Derolez, Runica Manuscripta; The English Tradition (Brugge, 1954), 3. 22 George Hempl, "Hickes’s Additions to the Runic Poem," Modern Philology, I (1904), 135-41. See below p. 7. 23 "Late Old English Rune-Names," 24-34. 24, "A Postscript," 149-51. 25 Runica Manuscripta, 3-16. i

8

Second, Cotton MS Otho B 10, the famous Runic Poem codex,

which was destroyed by the fire of 1731, is now known through the

descriptions of Thomas Smith and Humphrey Vanley, and the transcription 26 of George Hickes. "The manuscript used by Hickes cannot have been

older than the late tenth century, as appears from the many late

spellings: £ for e in unstressed , -un for urn,’* according 27 - to Derolez. Both gar and calc are recorded, except that Hickes*

transcription has neither value nor name for calc. A facsimile of

the transcription appears in Hempl’s article, where Hempl concludes

that the sound-values in the left hand column are taken by Hickes 28 from Cotton MS Domitian A 9, and were not contained in Otho B 10. 29 A detailed discussion of the MS is found in Derolez’s book.

Third, St. John’s College, MS 17, Oxford, dated 1110, from the passage on fol. 3, verso: "A natiuitate Christi usque ad presens 30 tempus (sunt anni) MCX," has on fol. 5, verso, one furore with

26°Smith, Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecas Cottonianas (Oxonii MDCXCVI), 70-1; Wanley, Librorum Veterum Septentrionalium Catalogus Historico-Criticus (Oxoniae MDCCV), 190ff.; and Hickes, Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archa ologicus 1 (Oxoniae MDCCV), 135. 27 Runica Manuscripts, 20. 28 "Hickes’s Additions," plate between 138-9, and 140. 29 Runica Manuscripts, 16-26. 30 Wrenn, "Late Old English Rune-Names," 31. 9

rune-names and one with values only, both containing the new velar

runes, except that the former has the name geofu for gär and kale

for calc. , ' .

Fourth, Cotton MS Galba A 2, destroyed by a fire in 1865, was 32 dated around 1100 by Derolez. The manuscript contained on fol. 5,

verso, one fuf>orc with rune-names and one with values only, according

to Wanley’s account and Hickes* transcription, a facsimile of which 33 appears in Derolez’s book. The names calc and gar appear regularly. - 34 The fuj>orc with values only also has gar and calc. Derolez may be

consulted on the complex problem of the relationship between Oxford 35 MS St. John's College 17 and Cotton MS Galba A 2.

Fifth, österreichische Nationalbibliothek, MS 795, Vienna,

better known as the Salzburg MS, contains a collection of Alcuin's 36 letters and is therefore dated 798 or shortly after. But Derolez

31 See Derolez, Runica Manuscripta, 39. 32Ibid., 34-5.

33 Wanley, Catalogus, 231; Hickes, Thesaurus, Tab. 6; and Derolez, Runica Manuscripta, 46, fig. 8. 34 See Derolez, Runica Manuscripta, 51. 35lbid., 37-52.

°R. I. Page, "The Old English Rune ear," Medium Aevum, XXX (1961), 1-2; and J. Blomfield, "Runes and the Gothic Alphabet," Saga-Book of the Viking Society for Northern'Research, XII (1941-2), 216. 10

thinks the handwriting of the runic material itself to be a century 37 younger. The English furore on fol. 20, recto, has twenty-eight

runes, with both names and values, as the facsimile in Derolez’s

! 38 book shows. The consonantal stage is not represented.

Sixth, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MS 9311-9319, Brussels, dated 39 as belonging to the ninth century by Derolez, contains an English

furore with names and values, except that calc and gar, occurring

at the end of the 30-rune list, are accompanied with values k and , 40 j», without names.

Seventh, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 878, St. Gall, considered to be 41 of the middle of the ninth century, has a 42-rune fu|>orc, with many 42 ‘unskillful repetitions’. It contains gar and calc.

Eighth, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS 306, Ghent, belonging 43 to the tenth century, contains an English furore, which however

37 Runica Manuscripta 38 , . , Ibid., 59, fig. 10 39 ° Ibid., 63-6. 40T, . . Ibid., 68, fig. 11 41 , Ibid., 82.

Ibid., 80, fig. 13 43 , . . Ibid., 83. 11 has only values, most of them erroneous, and is furthermore incomplete. Only twelve runes are recorded, and the new velar runes , 44 are not among them.

There are in addition five other continental manuscripts, ranging in date from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, each giving a fujjorc with names and values followed by a text on runic crypto­ graphy. They are obviously five versions of one original model, and 45 are described separately in detail by Derolez. The new velar runes gar and calc are not represented in any of them, although the vocalic A6 stage is fully shown.

In addition, Derolez describes 17 manuscripts containing runic 47 alphabets, ranging in date from the ninth to the twelfth centuries.

The new velar runes appear in all of them, although often imperfectly and distorted, except in Landesbibliothek, MS Theol. F 65, Kassel, which cannot be dated with any accuracy except between the sixth and 48 eighth centuries. The form for the k-letter space is a roman k and 49 does not seem to be a calc. Furthermore, Derolez discusses a group

Derolez, Runica Manuscripta, 85. 45Ibid., 89-119.

46Ibid., 120-31.

4^Ibid., 171-273. For the difference between runic furore and alphabet see above p. 6, fn. 18. 48 Runica Manuscripta, 270. 49 Ibid., 271, fig. 45. 12

of MSS, treatises on the history of the alphabet, hence called the

De inventione litterarum group, in which runic alphabets are incorporated.50 At least fifteen of them have a separate form for

k from £, naming it variously as gilch, gilc, kale, koi, etc.^ But

the rune ’’which takes the place of g is enigmatic,’’ unless it be a - 52 i simplified form of gar. As such it ( 9^ ) resembles the first >• 53 character of the legend on the agate ring of the British Museum.

Most of the De inventione MSS are late, tenth century or later, with

a few exceptions which may date from c. 800.

'There is no doubt that the vocalic stage preceded the

consonantal. The earlier manuscripts and the Thames scramasax have

only the 28-rune fuporc. On the other hand, all the manuscripts, whether early or late, which contain either a fujaorc or an alphabet,

show the new vowels if they show the new consonants, never the

latter without the former. Further, the order and arrangement of the

fuporcs in the manuscripts representing the vocalic and consonantal

stages of expansion show that:

5%erolez, Runica Manuscripta, 279-345.

51Ibid., 360-1.

52Ibid., 364.

53 D. M. Wilson, ’’A Group of Anglo-Saxon Amulet Rings,” The Anglo- Saxons, ed. Peter Clemoes (London, 1959), 167, fig. 9. See below 129, Appendix II, Item 8, Bramham Moor and Related Runic Rings. 13

There is a considerable amount of fluctuation as far as the runes beyond no. 28 are concerned. Their order varies, and this no doubt indicates that their status was not the same as that of the first twenty-eight.^4

Any exact chronology beyond this, however, seems uncertain, although

various conjectures have been made. It is clear, for instance, that

the invention of äc , with the sound value of both short and long

[a^, had to do with the Anglo-Frisian of £a] to [ae j,

’’dessen Anfänge mindestens in die Zeit der Nachbarschaft der beiden

Stämme auf dem Kontinent fallen.As the rune £ * with the value of [a] became [aa], a new symbol had to be created to express

[a] from other sources, such as restored [aj before back vowels, and long [aj from Gmc. [ai].^ According to Hempl and Grienberger, the Anglo-Saxons devised the ligature (äc) with and | , the

Germanic a and i runes, to denote the long from the Germanic [aij. The ac rune thus derived came to stand for both

long and short [a]. A similar process is claimed for the origin of the os rune , considered a ligature of and , in Germanic

54 Derolez, Runica Manuscripta, 87. ^^Karl Luick, Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache, I (Cambridge-Mass., 1964), §118. ^Campbell, Old English Grammar, § 157-63.

Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar (Philadelphia, 1939), 103. 58 See Otto von Friesen, "Runenschrift,” Reallexicon der germanischen Altertumskunde, IV, ed. Johannes Hoops (Strassburg, 1918-9), 25. 14 fuj>ark *ansuz and *naujjiz respectively. The latter became in Old

English nyd and the name continued to be applied to the nt rune. The former name, however, became *onsuz, and with the loss of the nasal before the spirant becamezos in England. This name was detached from the original *ansuz rune , which came to be called ee sc to denote its new $ value, and the new ligature came to be called os. The solidus with the image of Emperor Honorius (d. 423), dated by Friesen about 500 and considered the oldest Old English runic monument by

Elliott, has scanomodu with the new ac for a., but with the old ej?el - 59 (Germanic *ofrila) rune for o. This is adduced by Keller as proof that the ac rune was devised earlier than the os rune, which must have arisen after ¿-umlaut.^^

Before considering i-umlaut and the subsequent use of efrel and yr the ear rune may be considered. The creation of the ear rune has generally been thought a late development, the last of the four additional runes in the 28-letter fuporc. This theory is based on the absence of ear in a number of early texts where it is expected, and is supported by many scholars.Page summarizes this view:

59 Friesen, "Runenschrift," 22; and Elliott, Runes, 77. See below pp. 159-60, Item 45. ^^Wolfgang Keller, "Zur Chronologie der ae. Runen," Anglia, LXII (1938), 24-5. ^Friesen, "Runenschrift,” 25; M. Cahen and Magnus Olsen, L*inscription runique du coffret de Mortain (Paris, 1930), 35-6, 38; Arntz and Hans Zeiss, Die einheimischen Runendenkmdler des Festlandes (Leipzig, 1939), 441; and M. L. Samuels, "The Study of Old ," Transactions of the Philological Society of London (1952), 25. 15

Two early OE inscriptions evidence the use of ’a’ for the sound which is later to appear as ea: these are the legends of the skanomodu solidus (the first element identified as Germanic *skaun-) and the pada coinage, identified as that of Peada (assumed to represent Peada) of (655-7). Rather later inscriptions give the sound by means of two runes, 'aea' in the ’ae adan’ of the Mortain Gasket, ’ea’ in ’giußeasu’ of the . The latest inscriptions of all use the single rune ’ea', and this appears also in the fußorc of the so-called Salzburg-Alcuin manuscript (=Vienna, österreichische National­ bibliothek 795), the material of which, deriving from the period of Alcuin’s youth, can be placed at the middle of the eighth century. The rune ’ea’ was, then, created before that date, but after the middle of-the seventh century, as the pada legend indicates.62

. A similar view is voiced by Elliott:

Its adoption cannot have taken place before the end of the seventh century, as there exist several Mercian coins, now in the British Museum, with the inscription. . . pada, mentioned by Bede as Peada, son of Penda, who flourished A. D. 655-7. Here the sound ea is still represented by the a-rune.63

Page has challenged this argument. Some of his reasons may be

considered weak; however. For instance, he cites the rune order of

the Salzburg codex, ’a ae ea y’, which is different from the order

•a ae y ea’ in the other manuscripts and suggests the earlier

invention of £ than of ea. From this Page thinks:

It may be argued ... that the chronological order of the additional runes has been altered in the fußorcs so that ’y* could be put among the other monophthong runes.64

62 Tage, ’’The Old English Rune ear,” 65-6. Page does not support the view he has summed up here. See immediately below on this page following the quotation from Elliott. ä^Runes, 35-6.

64 "The Old English Rune ear,” 79. 16

Thus, for the exceptional order, he assumes clearly reasoned

motivation. If the furore sequence has any significance at all for

the dating of each rune, the opinion that ear was created last of

the new runes, after £, the ¿-mutation of u, may be considered more

probable, inasmuch as all the extant furores (except the one in the

Salzburg codex) have ear last. Nevertheless, any exact dating is

suspect. The dating of Cahen,.Olsen, Elliott, and others depend on

the supposed identification of Pada with Peada, which has been

' rendered at least questionable by recent investigation.

The yr rune is generally interpreted to be the ligature of — 66 * n and is | , and there is little doubt that yr represents

i-mutated £. The sixth or seventh century is given as the date of 6 7 i-umlaut in some standard grammars. However, before insisting on

any absolute chronology for the invention of the yr rune, one should

bear in mind that the sound changes, deduded from manuscript evidence,

may not apply directly to the runic tradition. As Derolez observed: •\

65page, "The Old English Rune ear," 74-5.

66 Karl Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers, 3rd ed. (Tübingen, 1965), f 94; and Hockett, "The Stressed Syllables of Old English," Language, XXXV (1959), 594, figs. 1-2. ^BUlbring, Altenglisches Elementarbuch, I (Heidelberg, 1902), f 158; Luick, Historische Grammatik, § 201; and Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik, §95. 17

One should not forget that we have very little material by which to decide at what rate spellings (and runes) followed the changes in pronunciation.6°

Further, there is nothing like a continuous series of datable runic monuments to illustrate the various sound changes in Old English, and i . any chronology based on isolated, uncertain inscriptional evidence is

subject to skepticism. The case of the Pada coin and the ear rune has been already discussed. Another example may be Keller’s attempt to date ac and os (and also ae , which retained the old symbol with a changed sound-value) in the fifth century, ear and yr in the period

650-70, gar before 670 and calc after that date. However, Keller’s argument depends on the alleged dates of the Scanamodu coin, the

Bewcastle cross and the Ruthwell cross, which he assigned, respectively, to the sixth century, 670 and a half century later than 670. These dates are all subject to reconsideration, and especially Keller’s connection of the with alcfrifru, which he considers ’gesichert’has been shown by Page as at least doubtful, if not altogether erroneous.Indeed, any attempt to date the invention of the new runes on the basis of isolated epigraphical evidence must be considered tentative.

68 , ... Runica Manuscripta, xxn. 69 "Zur Chronologie der ae. Runen," 28. 70"The Bewcastle Cross," Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, IV (1960), 36-57. See below Appendix I, Item 1, Bewcastle Cross, PP* 109-12. 18

The present study does not examine the exact chronology of

invention of the new runes. Its aim is to establish the texts in

which the new velar runes occur, and to determine the phonemic status

of the sounds represented by them by studying their distribution. For

this purpose it is sufficient to know that the new runes are ’new’,

that they are Old English developments and were not contained in the

common Germanic fu^ark. Chronological considerations incidental to

the phonemic analysis will be indicated as such toward the end of the

study in the Appendices.

Unfortunately, as Elliott points out, there is not a

'•comprehensive and adequately illustrated edition of all extant runic inscriptions” in Old English.^ The lack of such a compilation is also

72 -deplored by Derolez. Under these circumstances one who looks for

certain forms in Old English runic monuments must make a preliminary

survey of all the inscriptions in published accounts scattered here

and there. In this search, the following general bibliographies have been used: Arntz, Bibliographic der Runenkunde (Leipzig, 1937);

Wilfrid Bonser, An Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Bibliography (Oxford, 1957),

449-56; Elliott, Runes, 110-6; Hertha Marquardt, Bibliographie der

Runenlnschriften nach Fundorten, I: Die Runeninschriften der Britischen

Inseln (GUttingen, 1961); and Year’s Work in Modern Language Studies.

^^Runes, 76.

72 Runica Manuscripta, xx, fn. 5, where Derolez cites various announcements of such editions which however have not been realized. I

19

In 1840 Kemble discussed five runic inscriptions known to

scholarship at the time in an article apparently designed to be a 73 general survey. The five were Hartlepool, Dover, Bewcastle,

Bridekirk, and Ruthwell. Of these the Bridekirk font has been shown 74 to be a Scandinavian monument by subsequent scholarship. About

half a century after Kemble, Sweet published 16 inscriptions, "all taken from Prof. G. Stephens*. Runic Monuments, vol. i".^ In 1914

Forbes and Dickins counted Old English runic finds to date and after

mentioning the Honorius solidus, Chessel Down scabbard mount, Pada

and Aethilired coins, and Franks casket, added:

Of memorial stones there are in existence nearly a score (principally in the north of England) bearing inscriptions in the English Runic character.'6

Present scholarship can count twice that number of Old English runic

finds but those which are clearly legible and intelligible, and carry

any substantial amount of runes total about twenty. These are

73 John M. Kemble, "On Anglo-Saxon Runes," Archaeologia, XXVIII (1840), 327-72. 74 Elliott, Runes, 40 and 119; and M. D. Forbes and Bruce Dickins, "The Inscriptions of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Grosses and the Bridekirk Font," Burlington Magazine, XXV, no. 133 (1914), 25 and 29. ^Henry Sweet, The Oldest English Texts (London, 1885), 124.

76«»The Inscriptions of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses and the Bridekirk Font," 25. 20 enumerated by Campbell who gives a summary of the runic monuments in the bibliography appended to his grammar.22 Altogether he lists 21, including the Ruthwell cross and the Franks casket, 'the most 78 important runic inscriptions'. Elliott also selects about 20 for 79 consideration in his book. The latest edition of Encyclopæ dia

Britannica states: "In England there are extant about 50 runic 80 inscriptions upon portable objects and standing stones (stone crosses). 81 Of this number rune-stones account for about 35, according to Page.

Marquardt gives the most -up-to-date list of Old English runic inscriptions according to the find-places, comprising about 50 82 entries. This listi with a few necessary changes, is the basis of the survey in Appendices I and II below. Marquardt lists the runic objects according to the find-places and is obliged to establish such 83 entries as 'England A, B, C, etc.' In the Appendices the inscriptions are entered according to the names by which they are best known. Thus

'Franks Casket* appears instead of 'Auzon, etc.' Also five groups of coins Aejjilræ d, Beonna, Epa, Hada, and Pada are added to Marquardt's list, all by those names regardless of the find-places. Further,

22Qld English Grammar, pp. 357-8.

28Ibid., p. 357.

2^Runes, 76-109.

8°1968 ed., Vol. XIX, 756.

8^"The Bewcastle Cross," 36.

82 Bibliographie, 16 7. 83Ibid., 42-5. 21 the obvious textual connection among the three runic rings (Bramham, 84 Kingmoor and the British Museum) has suggested their joint treatment.

Thus, Appendix I lists the four monuments Bewcastle, Ruthwell,

Thornhill, and Urswick, which reveal the new velar runes. Appendix II lists, alphabetically, all the remaining inscriptions.

Although the survey is not exhaustive, it is sufficient insofar as it does not omit the texts in which scholars have previously noted the occurrence of the new velar runes. Page states:

. This group ¡^Thornhill, Great Urswick, Ruthwell, and Bewcastle] ... is important in that it evidences the new rune calc, while Bewcastle and Ruthwell also use the new symbol gar, Great Urswick and Thronhill not offering scope for its use.

To this number Elliott also adds the Falstone stone, for he reads calc 86 in becun, according to his drawing. The present survey actually shows four more than the number Page and Elliott indicate, namely, the amulet rings and possibly the Bury St. Edmunds book cover.

However, only the four mentioned by Page are considered as authentic examples where the new velar runes occur. The reasons are, first, that one cannot make any sense of the legends appearing in the amulet rings, wherefore it is impossible to determine the morphophonemic environments correctly, and, second, that in the Falstone case the left-hand side - 87 stroke of calc in becun is not visible to all observers.

84 See below Appendix II, Item 8, Bramham Moor and Related Rings, oc "Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," Anglia, LXXVII (1959), 399. S^Runes, Pl. 13, fig. 32.

87 Ibid., Pl. 13, fig. 32. 22

The reason for excluding the Bury St. Edmunds book cover is explained , . 88 below.

In this study only epigraphical inscriptions are examined, not 89 the runic matter in the manuscripts. This material has been thoroughly and systematically investigated by Derolez as 'nonalphabetical runic manuscripts’ under four heads: 1. runes used as additional letters;

2. runes substituted for their names; 3. runes used as reference marks, 90 quire marks, etc.; and 4. scribal signatures, notes, etc. in runes.

However, none of these manuscript occurrences reveals the new Old

English velar runes, and except for cynewulf (with c for cen) in the 91 late tenth century Exeter Book and Vercelli Godex, f wyl cyn in the 92 93 Vercelli Godex, or agew and cofoah in Riddle 24 in the Exeter Book, the runes occur in such morphological surroundings as would little further the present investigation and may be safely ignored.

oo Appendix II, Item 10, Bury St. Edmunds Leaden Book Cover, p. 132. 89 Except the fuporcs and alphabets surveyed above pp. 7-12. 90 Runica Manuscripta, 385-423, 91 George Philip Krapp and Elliott van Kirk Dobbie, The Exeter Book (New York, 1936), 25 and 133; and Krapp, The Vercelli Book (New York, 1932), 101. 92 Krapp, The Vercelli Book, 54. 93 Krapp and Dobbie, The Exeter Book, 193. 23

In transcribing the runic texts the method described by Dickins, 94 which has been widely adopted, has been closely imitated. A few

remarks concerning this system are, however, necessary.

First, the furore order. Dickins transliterates 31 runes,

numbered serially, omitting ger, eweord, and stan, which

do not occur in the extant runic inscriptions. Dickins does not

indicate the manuscript from which he takes the fuporc with the

particular sequential order of his furore, but the fuf>orc represented

is essentially that of the Runic Poem as transcribed by Hickes, except

for a few editorial changes made by Dickins. In the place of ger,

Hickes' rune 12, Dickins has ior (Hickes* rune 28). With the 28th place thus vacated Dickins moves the succeeding runes one place up.

However, in the place of eweorg, Hickes' rune 30, Dickins has calc,

Hickes' rune 31, which becomes Dickins’ 29th rune, stan, Hickes’

rune 32, being also eliminated, the 30th place is given to gar- modified, which occurs only in the Ruthwell cross and does not appear at all in Hickes* transcription or in any other rune list. Hickes' 33rd and last rune, gar, becomes Dickins’ 31st and last rune. For the sake

of consistency, however, Dickins should have eliminated eolhx, rune 15

in both Hickes’ and Dickins’ lists, the more so because he admits that

94 , . "A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions," Leeds Studies in English, I (1932), 15-9. For its adoption see e.g. Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, 5; Elliott, Runes, 91, fn. 1; and Page, "The Bewcastle Cross," 38, fn. 12. 24

it ”is a fossil in Old English,” and does not occur in the 95 inscriptions. In the following system of transliteration, therefore,

only 30 runes are listed with their equivalents in roman script,

omitting Dickins' 15th rune eolhx but otherwise preserving the serial

order, except for the successive promotion of each rune after the 16th

place. " .

Second, typographical convenience dictated the transliteration

of the 21st rune ing (Dickins’ 22nd rune) and 27th rune ear as ig and

ea. On the other hand, the structural derivation of the 28th rune calc

from the sixth rune cen seems to require a symbol like £, rather than

k, which Dickins adopts, especially in view of the fact that Dickins

represents gär as £ to show its formal relationship with gifu,

transliterated as £. In the present study k is assigned therefore

only to the 29th rune gar-modified of the Ruthwell Cross. Following

the example of Dickins, bind-runes are indicated by a slant in the middle, e.g. m/e. Letters which are seriously damaged or are lost but

can be reasonably inferred are enclosed in brackets. When no reasonable

conjecture is possible, the empty space is marked with a . Other

temporary symbols used are explained in the notes to the individual

texts in the Appendices.

95 ”A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions,” 17. It may be noted, however, that "in one manuscript (Hickes, Tab. II, 5) it is placed under Lat. Y in the ABC arrangement, but is twice used for x in the subscribed runic transcription of pax vobiscum pax, for which see Buck, "An ABC Inscribed in Old English Runes," 46. TABLE 1

Runic transliteration

No. Rune Name Dickins* System used • system here

1. r feoh f f 2. n ur u u 3. porn K 4. P os o o 5. R . rad r r 6. h cën c c 7. K gifu g g 8. P wyn w w 9. M hæ gl h h 10. 1 nÿd n n T 11. 1 is i i 12. Ÿ ior, iar j j ëoh 13. : w 3 14. cc peorâ p. P 15. h sigei s s 16. tir t t 17. & beorc b b 18. n eoh e e 19. man m m 20. r lagu 1 1 21. ing n n 22. £ èpel GE œ 23. H dae g d d 24. r âc a a 25. f> ae sc ae æ 26. ÿr ÿ y 27. -r ear ea êa 28. (+i calc k c 29. & gär-modified k k 30. gär g g CHAPTER II

ENVIRONMENTS OF NEW VELAR RUNES

In the four monuments, Bewcastle, Ruthwell, Thornhill, ¡arid

Urswick, in clearly visible or inferable inscriptions, the palato­ velar runes occur in six meaningful environments as follows: gifu

15 times, cen nine times, gar .nine times, calc six times, and gar- modified twice.In this chapter chiefly the morphological circumstances of these occurrences will be under discussion.

The formal, orthographic restriction of the discussion should be noted. The Old English palatovelar consonants comprised, under the structure /(k : g) : x/ based on the primary feature of occlusion, 2 some seven phones [c g k x j g h], as Moulton showed. These phones were sometimes represented by hae gl, ior, and eoh, in addition to the five runes mentioned above. The present study seeks to determine the phonemic status of the new velar runes (gar, calc, and gar-modified) arising from the modification of existing ones (gifu and cen) and the distribution of the other three (has gl, ior, and eoh) is not considered.'

^For the texts of the four monuments see below Appendix I, Items 1-4. Table 2 on the next page shows the distribution of palatovelar runes (see above p. 5, fn. 13) according to their environments. Why these environments are meaningful for phonemic considerations is explained below in Chapter III, pp. 50-75. 2 "The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," 27. The phonetic notations are those of Moulton and are adopted here for typographical convenience. The superposed dot indicates fronted position of articula­ tion, when it constitutes a distinguishing feature, e.g. [eg] vs. [k g]. On the other hand, spirants [x Q] are not distinguished by position. 3 See above p. 1, fn. 1. i

TABLE 2

Distribution of palatovelar runes

gifu (g) cên (c) gâr (g) calc (c) gar-modified (k)

l.A. Initially before front vowels Ci gidrae fid, R giwundad, R gistoddun, R Cy c cyniburug, B kynirgc, R Ce geredas , R gessus, B gebid, B gebidas s, U gebiddajj, T Cae gae ra, B l.B. Initially before back vowels and consonants Ca galgu, R -gadrae , R Co god, R Cc crist, cri, B cwomu,

2.A. Medially before front vowels -Ci bergi, T -Ce urgket, R -Cae licae s, R ricae s, B 2.B. Medially before back vowels and consonants -Ca stiga, R buga, R -Cu sorgum, R galgu, R becun, T becun, U -Cc alegdun, R riicnas , R woe.rignae , R

3.A. Finally after front vowels, directly of after another consonant iC modig, R ic, R (x5) almegttig, R kyniigc, R sig, B 3.B. Finally after back vowels aC hnag, R uC cyniburug, B

The abbreviations used are: C=palatovelar rune; c=other consonant rune; R=Ruthwell; B=Bewcastle; T=Thornhill; and U=Urswick. 28

1. gifu

The most frequent occurence is before eoh or rune (three

times) and before is or £ rune (three times), in forms of the perfective and collective prefix.The alternation of ¿and e., occurring in an

identical environment without ambiguity or contrast, may be taken to arise from free morphemic variation and shows the weakening of the unstressed syllable. This weakening however seems to have been in the direction of a high front , as ME ¿-, forms show. The raising may have been caused by the preceding , as in ME and NE yis for yes and yisterday for yesterday.&

On the Bewcastle cross, the rune gifu occurs before e in gessus for lesus. From the etymology the frontness of the vowel is undoubted, although the rune is now not legible. This text is,? according to Page,

cut in two lines in the space between the two top figure panels of the west face. This space, irregular because of the roughly rounded top of the Christ panel, is a minimum of 6 in height and c. 14.75 inches wide, no sign remaining of engraved side lines. The text is very faint, the crossstave of 1 [the first engraving, a cross +] and the arms of 3 being quite lost. ... There is no reason, however, to doubt the usual reading 4-gessus kristtus.8

^Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, p. 205.

^Brunner, "The Old English'Vowel Phonemes," English Studies, XXXIV (1953), 251. ?See below Appendix I, Item 1, Bewcastle Cross, p. 109. Q "The Bewcastle Cross," 38. 29

Another instance of gifu before e is -geredze in the Ruthwell

Cross. Three or four character spaces are missing before this group 9 of runes and G. Baldwin Brown has suggested the reading + ongeredas , which is followed by Dickins and Ross.^ As such, it is the past of ongyrwan, ongirwan ’divest, strip’.The form is the privative of 12 gearwian < PGmc. *ga-arwojan ’make ready, dress', and occurs as 13 ongered ’exuta’ in Vespasian Hymn 12, line 12. The form gerw- (with the vowel e) seems to be dominant in early Anglian texts. The Vespasian 14 Psalter has gegerwu 'indum* twice, 131, verses 16 and 18. The forms gegerwan, gegerela and their inflected forms appear with the vowel je regularly in the early glossaries. The later girwan, gyrwan forms must be considered the result of raising after the palatal and in free alternation with gerwan. In view of this Page does not seem justified in stating that "PrOE i has become e. in '-geredas -phe alternate appearance of £ for is found before £ and labials.^

9 The Arts in Early England, V (London, 1921), 207. l^The Dream of the Rood, 25.

^Joseph Bosworth and T. N. Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford, 1882-1921), 753, where parallel forms ongyrede and ongirede are cited. 12 J. A. H. Murray, H. Bradley, W. A. Craigie, and C. T. Onions, ed., The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 1933), XII, ’yare’, 18. 13 Sweet, The Oldest English Texts, 418. l^Ibid., 380. Also note on p. 233 sien gerede 'induantur' 34, verse 26.

^«•Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," 390.

^Campbell, Old English Grammar, § 318. Also see Twaddell, "The Pre­ historic Germanic Short Syllables," Language, XXIV (1948), 142. 30

Text VI of the Bewcastle cross has the space for four runes.

According to Page's description,

Text VI is a single line of runes cut on the raised fillet ... between the two lowest decorative panels of the south face. So worn is the surface that only one complete rune remains, j; [the eoh rune], which begins 11.5 inches from the left-hand edge of the panel. Immediately preceding it is the lower half of 'g', and immediately following a stem with an arm or bow at its top. 1.2 inches further to the right is a second stem, 0.85 inches from the right-hand edge. This could be the stem of 'r', though the faint resemblance to that rune is more probably due to surface weathering.

This eoh rune Page transliterates as e, following the example of Dickins.

It is clear that this ambivalent rune sometimes assumes a vocalic 19 function. Thus the gifu rune here stands before a high or mid front 20 vowel. But the imperfect condition of the inscriptions prevents any

morphological interpretation and this instance is not included in the

tabulation (Table 2 above p. 27).

The context of gae r on the Bewcastle cross is notoriously 21 difficult to determine. According to Page,

^2See below Appendix I, Item 1, Bewcastle Cross, p. 109.

18 "The Bewcastle Cross," 42. 19 # See e.g. jgslheard, often transliterated j islheard, of the Dover stone, Appendix II, Item 18, pp. 138-9. 20 "The phonetic value of this rune, long disputed, is now generally assumed to be a high lying between e and _i," Elliott, Runes, 16. 21 For variant readings see Victor, Die northumbrischen Runen- steine, 14-5. 31

This, the main inscription, is cut in nine lines in the space below the figure of Christ on the west face. It. was set between engraved side lines, still partly traceable on the stone though clearer in photographs, which give a panel width of c. 14 inches .... The inscription is in a very bad state . . . .^2

Willett transliterates it as "+pis sigbecn pun setton wae tred wopgae r

olwowolpu ae ft alcfripum an kunin eac oswiun + gebiddap [hine sauulo]",

and translates: "This slender victory sign set up Was tred, Wothgae r,

Olwowolthu in memory of Alcfrith, a king and son of . +Pray for 23 [his soul]." According to Page’s reading, the three runes ( % R. )

of gae r seem to be certain. However, while Willett sees two arms for the

following rune, thus making it £, Page sees only one and that very

faintly. As for the 27th rune, the one preceding £ (which is also clear),

what remains is again indistinct but Page says that it is £ or £ or, less

likely, ae . Page describes the 26th rune as "a very faint stem slightly 24 to the left of mid-way between 25 and 27." So perhaps Willett’s

reading wopgae r may be the best conjecture. However, if one reads £

for the 32nd rune as Page does, the word Wopgae ra results, which may be a name composed of wop ’song or speech’ (cf. heafod-wop ’’, wop- bora ’orator or poet’) and gae ra, a weak masculine name derived from gasr ’year, age’. On the suffix -£, M. Redin states:

22 ' "The Bewcastle Cross," 38. 23 Frank Willett, The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses (Manchester, 1958), 20-1. 24 Page, "The Bewcastle Cross," 39. See below p. 109. 32

As regards Germanic , the mas. [masculine] suffixes most employed are -an- (OE -a) and -ja- (OE -i), which Wrede, Ostg. p. 193, terms "primary suffixes".25

This -a is extremely productive in Old English nomenclature, for

This group, weak masc. names in -a, is greater numerically than any other type of uncompounded names in OE. This is due to the fact that several different categories have coalesced formally.26

Random examples are Aesca from aesc, Botta from bot, Burga from 27 burg, Ceolla from ceol, etc. If this etymology is accepted, Wojbgae ra

would mean ’aged orator’, and gifu in gee ra stands before Anglo- - 28 Frisian ae< WGmc. a < PGmc. ae .

The gifu rune occurs in the adjectival suffix -ig in the three words almep;ttig, modig, and wae rignas . A few paleographic points may be cleared up first, in alme.^ttig transcribes the eoh rune and, from 29 - the etymology PGmc. *mahti-z, the eoh represents what Keller calls 30 •stimmlose palatale Spirans.’ This view is also stated by Elliott:

The rune J“ occurs only once on the Ruthwell Cross, as the fifth letter in the word alme?ttig, ’almighty* (line 39, N. E. face), where it clearly stands for the spirant [9], pronounced with the following dental as in German nicht.^l

25 Mats Redin, Studies on Uncompounded Personal Names in Old English (Uppsala, 1919), xxx. 26Ibid., 43.

27Ibid., 43-6.

28°Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, 99. 29 Oxford English Dictionary, VI, ’might’, 429. 30 "Zur Chronologie der ae. Runen," 29. 3 3^Runes, 95. 33

However, it is not the only example of eoh used to express the spirant. 32 In toro^tredae of Urswick eoh represents a voiceless velar spirant.

As for the doubling of tir:

The doubling of the jt-rune in this word, as of j) in aa frfrilae , d in gistoddun, and n in dominnae does not imply that double consonants were actually pronounced; most probably the common runic rule of writing single consonants for double here operates vice versa. Bewcastle has double consonants in setton, 'they set up', as well as in .essus and gessus, 'Jesus’, and Kristtus, •Christ'.33

However, Page objects to this interpretation:

There is no reason to believe that the OE rune-masters recognized a spelling rule that long or repeated sounds should be represented by single symbols, nor is the existence of such a rule confirmed by the material of the East Germanic and Continental West Germanic inscriptions.3^

He suggests instead:

The OE rune-masters worked within a less rigid, perhaps even a quite different, orthographical tradition from the OE scribes, and so used spellings not acceptable to the latter. This would account for the quite large number of anomalous doublings detected in only a few short runic texts.33

32 Velar because it follows a and voiceless because of the following voiceless consonant _t, cf. riht, feoht. According to Campbell, Old English Grammar, § "By a prehistoric OE change, spirants were voiced between voiced sounds", but remained voiceless otherwise. 33 Elliott, Runes, 95.

34"The Use of Double Runes in Old English Inscriptions," Journal of English and Germanic Philology, LXI (1962), 907. 35 35Ibid., 906. 34

The suffix -ig represents

under a common form two OTeut. suffixes *-i?,a-, -a^a-, still distinguishable in OE. by the presence or absence respectively of mutation of the stem vowel of the sb. [substantive] to which it is added, e.g. môdi-g ’moody'.86

The change of *modaga > modig may be explained as "reduction in 37 variety of vowels in unaccented syllables," . that is, -ag > æ g

> eg > ig. The raising of £ to may have been caused by the palatal consonant represented by • gifu.^

sig in sigbecn is a syncopated form of sige from Germanic 39 *sigiz. The loss of i in unaccented syllables occurs in the formation of compound words.

The word berg, a smoothed form of beorg, belongs to the £- 41 declension. The i in on bergi is a locative ending from Germanic

-l < IE -ei, and the phrase clearly calls for a modification of

°Oxford English Dictionary, XII, ’-y’, 10. Note that ip- -i?a-, -a^a- is a phonetic symbol adopted by the OED to denote the voiced palatovelar spirant, and has nothing to do with the same symbol used in this study to represent the eoh rune. In extant runic inscriptions eoh does not occur in the suffix -ig.

37Campbell, Old English Grammar, §376. 38 °Brunner, "The Old English Vowel Phonemes," 251. There are only two occurrences of the suffix -ig in OE runic texts, modig and alme^ttig, both in the Ruthwell Cross, and in each the consonant rune used is gifu. See above fn, 36. 39 Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 872. 40 Campbell, Old English Grammar, § 348. 41 ViBtor, Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 33; and Campbell, Old English Grammar, § 512. 35

Bazell’s view: "The ending -i is in the o-stems confined to the

functions of instr. proper and temporal locative [in temporal phrases I n 42 of the type thys geri |." This £ did not cause JL-umlaut, except in

some adverbial forms (ane, hw

In alegdun the infinitive is a-lecgan from PGmc. *la5iana- 44 •lay', the causative of ^li^iana- 'lie*. The connecting vowel £

drops out before causing the umlaut of the stem vowel, as the paradigm 45 legde, -es, -e, -un shows. However, the umlauted present stem vowel 46 is analogically extended to the preterit and past participle.

2. cen 47 ic ( < PGmc. *ik) appears five times in the Ruthwell Cross.

cen appears in the two inflected forms of rice, which belongs to the 48 jo-, ja-adjectives. The regular development of the acc. sg. masc.

42 C. E.Bazell, "Case-forms in the Oldest English Texts," Modern Language Notes, LV (1940), 136. 43 Campbell, Old English Grammar, §571. 44Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, 193. On the use of jg in the reconstructed forms see above p. 34, fn. 36. 45Ibid., p. 193.

4^Ibid., p. 194. Also see Campbell, Old English Grammar, §753.

42For the etymology see The Oxford English Dictionary, V, ’I’, 2. For the Ruthwell text see below Appendix I, Item 2, p. 113. 48 Campbell, Old English Grammar, §647. 36

would have been *-ianon > -inae > -ene, and poss. sg. masc. *-iaso 49 > ~^a5 s > -ees. The absence of the connecting vowel is attributed

to analogy from o, ai declensions.This brings the cen directly before X another consonant ri in the accusative case. The ae (£ > a, > az by

Anglo-Frisian fronting) in ricae s is an early form for -es in later

manuscripts. In riicnas the use of two is runes is somewhat irregular.

However, a parallel might be found in the early Anglian manuscripts

where is occasionally indicated by doubling of vowels, as

in piic Corpus 49, laam Epinal 48, steeli Epinal 49, meeli Epinal 56, meelu Erfurt 123, 250, -wiic Charter 19, and other examples.3^ The

rune-master was probably following this manuscript practice, as Page 52 suggests. 53 lie is from PGmc. *likom ’form, body'. The gen. sg. licae s is

from *likoso ( > *likas > licae s), as in ricaes. The form does not seem

to survive in New English except in a few isolated instances, e.g.

lichgate, lykewake, and in the suffix -ly, the

49 Prokoschj A Comparative Germanic Grammar, p. 234. 38Ibid., loc. cit.

3^Sweet, The Oldest English Texts, 37-8, 433; and Thomas Wright and R. P. Wlllker, Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies (London, 1884), 3. 52 "The Use of Double Runes in Old English Inscriptions," 905. 53 The Oxford English Dictionary, VI, ’-ly', 520. ii

37

predecessors of which are -1ike, -liche. The stop form is owing to

either Norse influence or to the Old English phenomenon identified by 54 Luick, analogy from back forms.

The only remaining occurrence of cen is the final consonant in

kynitg c, which is etymologically unjustifiable,especially if one

adopts Campbell’s position:

Unlike the continental West Gmc. languages, English has never been prone to unvoice final stops. OE instances in accented syllables, both finally and at the end of accented elements in composition, are sporadic.^6

But this view flies in the face of the numerous occurrences of £ for

b. t for and k or c for g, the last especially in the combination

ng in late Old English and early Middle English, in both accented and 57 unaccented syllables. Confining the discussion to ng, the generally

accepted opinion is that there was some unvoicing regardless of accent

or position. BUlbring affirms this as a fact with respect to the final 58 occurrence of ng. Sievers shows, however, that the phenomenon was observable even medially. Choosing random samples of nc for ng in final position, such as Uuihtherinc Charter of 811, Cymensinc Charter of 822,

54 c Historische Grammatik, £350, £637, 2 and 3, and §701. 55pGmc. *kuningoz, cf. The Oxford English Dictionary, V, ’king’, 704.

56 Old English Grammar, § 450. 5?Luick, Historische Grammatik, §713; Richard Jordan, Handbuch der mittelenglischen Grammatik, 3rd ed. (Heidelberg, 1968), §193,§200, and 211; and Joseph Wright, The English Dialect Grammar (Oxford, 1905), $$ 274, 276, and 303-6. 38

and Cillincg, Seleberhtincglond Charter of 814, and those in medial 59 position, e.g. swuluncga, gesomnuncgae Charter of 805-31, Sievers

concludes with regard to the sound value:

Dass auch da wo in solchem falle ng geschrieben wird, die aussprache doch nc war, scheint daraus hervorzugehen, dass auch fUr ältest nc in dieser Stellung bisweilen ng gesetzt wird: dBing3 trinkt, 3ing3 dUnkt, 3eng3 denkt, stingd stinkt, fUr drincfl, etc.60

Jordan gives examples of devoicing both finally, ßinc, flone, bonk,

dr ink, stronk, kync, kynck, sonk sunk (for song), and medially,

sonk(ie), thinkes, offrinke, at the same time making clear that *

•Verhärtung’ took place regardless of accent.To this position

Luick also subscribes, and recognizes the ’Wandel von qg to qk1 both

in ’Tonsilbe' and 'nachtoniger Silbe'. However, he adds certain

reservations. First: "Das Gerundium auf -ing hat, wie es scheint, 62 nirgends ein k entwickelt." However, this last statement of Luick's

seems to be contradicted by the dialectal studies of Wright, who states c In parts of [Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshire] when dialect speakers try to talk 'fine' they [generally] substitute -qk for £ in all present participles and verbal nouns ending in -ing.63

59 Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 443, 457-8. Uuihtherinc is not found in charters 51 and 35, dated 811, of Sweet's edition, nor in the two charters of that date in B. Thorpe's Diplomatarium Anglicum (London, 1865), 57-62. However, this does not affect Sievers' argument as there are numerous other examples. ^Angelsächsische Grammatik, 3rd ed. (Halle, 1898), §215.

^Jordan, Handbuch der mittelenglischen Grammatik, § 193.

62Historische Grammatik, §713, 3. A *5 The English Dialect Grammar, § 274. 39

Luick’s other reservation is: "Im nordhumbrischen Gebiet scheint 64 dieses k gHnzlich zu fehlen." But Sievers cites a variety of examples of c for £ in the Northumbrian gospels.Besides place- names with the element -ing ’descendants, followers, etc.’ show at one time or other the form -nc. Taking a few examples from the North

Riding of Yorkshire, Eisicewalt, Eisincewald appear in the Domesday

Book (1086) for Easingwold ’the high land (wald) of Esa and his followers’.66 Similarly, Nonninc- is recorded (1086) Domesday Book for Nunnington,82 Stiuelinctun (1086) Doraesday Book for Stilling-

6 8 ton, and Siuerinctune, Sevenictun (1086) Domesday Book for Sinning- 69 ton. For devoicing in another environment one example from 70 Cumberland may be adduced, Unthank, derived from ON tangi or frang.

6 ^Historische Grammatik, § 713, 3.

63Angels3chsische Grammatik, 215.

66^. h. Smith, The Place-Names of the North Riding of Yorkshire (Cambridge, 1928), 24, 62lbid., 54.

68Ibid., 27.

69ibid., 76.

28W. J. Sedgefield, The Place-Names of Cumberland and Westmorland (Manchester, 1915), 117. 40

That devoicing can occur medially is generally recognized. A place-name example is Inkpen Berkshire, the first element from *ing •hill1.?! Nevertheless, the bulk of examples occurs finally, as the

72 numerous names with -ing show, catalogued and studied by Redin.

In the first pages of Redin's study alone, one finds, e.g. Bruninc,

Bryninc beside Bruning, Bryning; Golinc, Collingc beside Coling,

Culling; Dialinc for Dealing; Deorlinc, Durlinc, Derinc for Deoring;

Dunincg, Dunninc etc. beside Duning, etc.; and Godingc, Godincg,

Godinc, etc., for Goding, etc. Indeed, the £ forms outnumber the £ forms.?3

Before making any general statement about devoicing, however, it is well to consider the contrasting phenomenon, namely, the voicing of k. Ekwall said: "Names in -ling are often old compounds in -hlinc, 74 in which £ became £, as in swarllng, sydling. Cf. also eakring."

A more detailed phonemic discussion will follow in Chapter III. For the present the balanced statement of Brunner on this subject may be accepted to explain the occurrence of the voiceless symbol cen after the ing rune in kynirg c.

?^Eilert Ekwall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place- Names, 4th ed. (Oxford, 1960), 253. 72 Studies on Uncompounded Personal Names, 163-74. ?3Ibid., 165-6.

?^The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 251. 41

Diese Schreibungen mit nc, nc,3 weisen am ehesten darauf hin, dass zumindest in der Aussprache mancher Personen oder in manchen Gegenden ein Gaumenverschlusslaut nach n deutlich hörbar war, der vielleicht im Auslaut stimmlos war, obwohl man mit einer genauen Unterscheidung zwischen Tenuis und Media kaum rechnen darf.75

23Altenglische Grammatik, f 215, Anm. 1. The problem of ’overlapping* allophones assignable to different phonemes creates the so-called ’neutralization of contrast’, e.g. with regard to the binary contrast voiced/voiceless in the phonemes /k/ and /g/, for which see Zellig S. Harris, "Simultaneous Components in Phonology," Language, XX (1944), 181— 205, reprinted in Joos, Readings in Linguistics, 124-38, especially p. 125. Two methods, inclusive and exclusive, have characterized modern phonemics In solving the problem. The former considers the phoneme as a set of all its variant members or allophones (either complementary or freely variant), while the latter specifies only the common feature(s) or, in mathematical terms, the property of the set of allophones. The exclusive method was probably implicit in Leonard Bloomfield’s definition of the phoneme as *a minimum same of vocal feature’ in "A Set of Postulates for the Science of. Language," Language, II (1926), 153-64, reprinted in Joos, Readings in Linguistics, 26-31, especially 27, and also in the ’archiphoneme’ concept of the Prague school, for which see N. S. Trubetzkoy, GrundzUge der Phonologie; Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, VII (Prague, 1939), 67-73. This method is observed in the 'binary distinctive feature’ system, in which the problem is solved by nonspecification or the use of blanks (or +) in the matrix (cf. Jakobson, Fant, and Halle, Preliminaries to Speech Analysis, 43-5). Halle stresses the economy of this method in "Phonology in Generative Grammar," Word, XVIII (1962), 54-72, and exemplifies it in the description of Russian sounds, stating; "Within a morpheme the feature of voicing is not distinctive before obstruents ... The presence or absence of voicing in a sequence of obstruents is uniquely determined by the final obstruent in the sequence. If it is voiced, so are the remaining obstruents in the sequence; if it is voice­ less, the remaining obstruents are voiceless, too. In such sequences, therefore, it is unnecessary to specify the feature of voicing in all but the final obstruent", The Sound Pattern of Russian, 31. In the more traditional inclusive method of regarding the phoneme as a set of allophones (e.g. Morris Swadesh, "The Phonemic Principle," Language, X (1939), 1-10, reprinted in Joos, Readings in Linguistics, 32-7; and Harris, Structural Linguistics, Phoenix ed..(Chicago, 1960), especially p. 61) the ’neutralization of contrast’ noted in /k/ and /g/, for instance, would be solved by recognizing the overlap of allophones in different contexts. The assignment of the overlapping allophones to the phonemes would depend on the considerations of symmetry, etymology, or ’explanatory power' in general (see below p. 70, fn. 79 and p. 73, fn. 85). Thus, final [k] in [kiijk] for 'king' would still be assigned to /g/. That the two methods (exclusive and inclusive) are a matter of convention, not of intrinsic economy, is shown by Y. R. Chao; "They are two sides til

According to Page's description of the Bewcastle cross, the cen rune

appears three times in the main text on the west face, rune 10, rune 45, and rune 59.?^ Page suggests that the first cen may be a calc, for the ninth

rune, the one immediately preceding the supposed cen, consists of •

two stems, called here and S2, 1.3 inches apart, the surface between their tops worn away. From to the stem of 10 is 1.2 inches, unusually large if there were no arms or bows to the right of The surface here is much marked, most marks being due to accident or weather, but in some lights S£ seems to have an arm as of 11'.??

However, this space might well have been filled by a lower bow, namely

the one that turns a cen to a calc. Consequently, Page does not adopt - 78 Willett's reading of cen, making the word been. In the present study this

uncertain character is ignored. As for the other possible occurrences of

cen, the morphological contexts must be considered undecided, especially

after Page has rendered questionable the 'accepted' interpretationoof the

so-called mystery rune to be discussed below in connection with the - 79 examples of gar, and are .therefore ignored in the present stuhy.

of the same coin. In fact Bernard Russell long before the theory of phonemes had a theory of equivalence between the property of a class and class membership," Language and Symbolic Systems (Cambridge-Eng., 1968), 44. As a matter of fact, the cumbrousness of the binary plus/minus feature matrices would recommend, especially in lexical representations, the use of the conventional set phoneme symbol, expressed usually by a letter, e.g. /k/, at least as an abbreviation. Thus, Ivid notes: "from a purely practical viewpoint, an attempt to replace phoneme symbols in everyday linguistic practice by lists or columns of pluses, minuses and zeroes would make descriptions much clumsier," "Roman Jakobson and the Growth of Phonology," 54, fn. 40. 76 See below p. 109 for the numbered rune sequence. ??The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses, 20-1. 78 See below Texts II and IV, p. 109. The discussion of this symbol follows on pp. 110-2. 43

One of the modified velar runes, gär, occurs before velar vowels

in god, galgu, buga, sorgum, ae tgad(rse ), and gistiga. The last form

is the Northumbrian ri-less infinitive of gistigan and serves as one of g the clues in determining the dialect of the Ruthwell Cross inscriptions.

The back vowel a in -gadrae seems to have existed beside the more 81 prevalent & in -gae drag . The latter form presupposes a PGmc. *gaduri.

The sound change in this sequence has been termed 'double umlaut'

traditionally, and the ae has been explained as i-umlaut of £ through 82 the medial syllable u. This view has been challenged by Antonsen who

thinks that the two conditioning vowels cancelled each other out as far

as their influence on the frontness or backness of the conditioned

vowel was concerned and, being both high, they only raised a to a low- mid position for which he gives the notation /? /. This low-mid phoneme 83 takes part in the Anglo-Frisian fronting and became /«a/. According c to either view, -gadrae is an anomaly and occurs infrequently, e.g. in 84 togadore Andreas 1438. On the other hand, the verb gaderian and its

derivatives or cognates, including gader-tang, gader-tengan, and gaderung

80 Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, 12. See below 81 The Oxford English Dictionary, IV, 'gather', 75. ft9 ¿Campbell, Old English Grammar, J 203; Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik, § 95, Anm. 2; and Luick, Historische Grammatik, §198. 83 Elmer H. Antonsen, "Germanic Umlaut Anew," Language, XXXVII (1961), 225 84 Krapp, The Vercelli Book, 43. hli

occur almost always with £ in the stem syllable. gaderian clearly goes — — 86 back to PGmc. *gadurojan, *gadorojan, and one may assume an etymon

without an £ or £ directly following gadur-, gador- for the various -gadr- forms.3?

The occurrence of gar in hnag, the preterit of hnigan ’bow, bend 88 * down*, requires no comment. The gar rune certainly occurs in Text IV

of the Bewcastle Cross, but the presence of the so-called mystery rune - 89 before gar complicates the situation. However, in this text there is

no doubt that the symbol , interpreted as a bind-rune of fr/u because

of the transverse bars across the ur rune, represents ah ur, the bars

being chips and flaws, caused either by weathering or tampering. Page,

who refuses to read Alcfrith, Oswiung, etc., in the main text, accepts

the traditional reading of £ for the mystery rune, and determined the - - 90 word to be cyniburug. This is also the reading on which the present

study is based. ' ■ ■>

85 Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 356. 86 °The Oxford English Dictionary, IV, ’gather’, 75. On the lowering to of epenthetic u before syllabic £, m, n see Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, p. 113; and Campbell, Old English Grammar, 373. See the next footnote on epenthesis.

87'On optional epenthesis or what Campbell calls formation of ’para­ site vowels’ see his Old English Grammar, § 363. Also cf. atr Epinal 141 (Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 44) and atur Vespasian Psalter 13/3 and 139/4 (Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 201 and 389). 88 Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, 28. 89 See above p. 42, fn. 79, 90 ’’The Bewcastle Cross," 56-7. 45

Other possible occurrences of gar in the Bewcastle Cross are 91 doubtful, and are not considered in this study.

4. calc

The calc rune, formed from cen by repeating the side stroke on

the other side, is found twice in the word becun of Urswick and Thornhill. 92 The PGmc. form is *bauknom, and the -u- is formed by epenthesis, which 9 is sometimes observed in unstressed syllables before a syllabic .

Depending on the quality of the stressed syllable, the ’parasite’ vowel,

"if developed, was £ (later e. after a front vowel, u (later o) after a 94 - back vowel.” The development of je from ea in the first syllable is owing to Anglian smoothing.93

calc occurs twice as the first rune of crist and also initially in cwomu, the preterit plural of cuman, which usually appears as comon in roman script. The absence of the final -n is a typical Northumbrianism.

The preservation of w in cwomu requires explanation, because normally

91 1 See the photographic facsimile of Elliott, Runes, Pl. 18, and the six texts, Appendix I, Item 1, based on Page’s transcription below, which defy consecutive, meaningful reading at many places. 92 The Oxford English Dictionary, I, ’beacon’, 723. 93 See above p. 44, fn. 86-7. 94 < Campbell, Old English Grammar, § 363. 95Ibid., § 222, 225.

9^Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik, § 188, 2. 46

the labial element in kw < IE gw disappears before back vowels u, u, - 97 £, £. Originally, however, the Germanic preterit singular was *kwam

(perfective, with o > Gmc. £ grade) and plural *kwas mun (lengthened 98 grade from IE e). $ before nasals appears as £ always in Old English,' but short a before nasals alternates between a (always in Epinal) and

£ (interchangeably with £ in Erfurt and Corpus, predominantly in early 99< Northumbrian texts, and almost exclusively in later Anglian dialects).'

Thus irt cwom, cwomon a twofold analogy seems to have been at work: extension of plural vowel £ in comon to the singular, replacing the short a, o, and extension of w in singular preterit *cwam to plural comon, originally without w. The form is also found in the Northumbrian

Lindisfarne Gospels: cuom Matt. I, 20, cwomun, cuomun, cuom Matt. II, 1, 2, 21, etc.100

Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, p. 72} Hermann Hirt, Handbuch des Urgermanischen (Heidelberg, 1931), $ 67; and Wilhelm Streitberg, Urgermanische Grammatik, 3rd ed. (Heidelberg, 1963), §125, 4.

98 t Campbell, Old English Grammar, $ 127. 99 But a forms are more common in late West Saxon. The best way to compare these dialects is to examine any two opposite pages of Walter W. Skeat, ed., The Holy Gospels (Cambridge-Eng., 1871-87), where the Anglian Lindisfarne and Rushworth MSS appear on the right-hand (odd- numbered) pages and the West Saxon Corpus and Hatton MSS on the left- hand (even-numbered) pages. Taking at random any chapter of Matthew (because Farmon’s Mercian is represented here), Chapter III, verse 7 has, on p. 36, manega, fram (Corpus) and manege, fram (Hatton) but, on p. 37, monigas , from (Lindisfarne) and monige, from (Rushworth); and verse 12 has, on p. 36, handa (Corpus) and hande (Hatton) but, on p. 37, hond (Lindisfarne) and honda (Rushworth). Also cf. the name Farmon. ^8®skeat, The Holy Gospels, ’Matthew’, 25-35. The back rune calc occurs once more in cyniburug in the lower

inscription of the north face of the Bewcastle Cross (Text IV).

Whereas the mystery rune occurs in this inscription after r and before j>, the first rune has been unanimously read as calc, and Page affirms

the legibility of the first character. Isolating the first element of

the compound cyni-, Page says that the top of rune 2 is lost, the cross­ stave of rune 3 is faint and rune 4 "is at a deeply eroded part of the surface, but the stem is clear, and there is no sign of a cross-stave of ’n’, which has sometimes been read at this point.

Cyne- with the meaning of ’royal’ appears as the first element 102 of Old English compound nouns, both common and proper. As for the etymology,

two views are possible as to the exact etymology of the element; either that it is the simple stem of OTeut. *kunjo-, Goth, kuni, OE. cynn, kin, race,, in combination or that it represents a masculine derivative of this, of form *kuni-z, equivalent to ON. konr ’man of race, man of gentle or noble birth’, taken also by^^ some as the immediate source of OHG. chuning, OE. cyning, king.

The first view (*kunjo-) however seems to present some difficulties, because cyne- ’kingly' never reveals the of n, whereas 104 cynn ’kin’ is frequent, e.g. 701, 712, etc. This form with

101"The Bewcastle Cross," 41.

102 Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 183-5. 103 The Oxford English Dictionary, V, ’kine-’, 703. 104F. Klaeber, Beowulf, 3rd ed. (Boston, etc., 1941), 27. See Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 183, for more examples. 48

geminated n seems to be the Old English reflex of *kun jo > *kunnjo

(by West Germanic consonant lengthening before j) > *cynnu (by the syncope of j) > OE cynn as u disappears after a long syllable.^3

cyne- presupposes a PGmc. i after n, namely, *kuni-, and the second

view reconstructing cyne as *kuni-z seems more probable.

5. gar-modified

This back rune, formed by inserting a vertical stroke through

the middle of gar, occurs only in the Ruthwell Cross,and is not

listed in the manuscript fuporcs or alphabets giving rune names and/or values.I3? The rune occurs as the first character of kynirg c, which

has been discussed above, and in utg ket, the accusative of the first

person dual unc. But this form of the pronoun with -et does not occur 108 109 in the other , and is rare even in Old English.

Kemble states: "To the best of my knowledge, [it has] never been found

but in this passage.However, Cook pointed out that the form occurs

in the life of Malchus, dated in the eleventh century, "gif he forhigefl

lO^Campbell, Old English Grammar, § 353.

lO^See below Appendix I, Item 2, p. 113.

10?See above p. 1, fn. 1.

108 Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 1093. 109 The Oxford English Dictionary, XI, *unk’, 248. HOKemble, "On Anglo-Saxon Runes," 359. 49 uncet fyrenfulle" beside the clause "gif Drihten unc wille fultumian".

Although uncet does not appear again, a parallel form of second person dual incit is attested twice in Genesis A 2733 and 2881 in the Junius 112 MS dated c. 1000. But even this form is unusual and the reconstruction of these forms on a comparative basis is almost impossible. Nor is it z ' possible, as Cook says, to determine whether -it or -et is more 113 original, although Page seems to take .i a priori to be the earlier 114 form. Campbell’s suggestion seems to have an essential probability.

-et appears not to be for older -it, because there is no mutation in uncet; it Is perhaps transferred from an accented nom. *wet, beside unaccented wit.^-6

^Albert S. Cook, "The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses," Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences (New Haven, 1912), 245. 112 Krapp, The Junius Manuscript (New York, 1931); 81 and 85. 113 "The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Grosses," 246. H4"Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," 390, 395, and 402.

115 p Old English Grammar, § 703. 5o

CHAPTER III

PHONEMICS

To study the distribution of the five runes, gifu and cen,

which are of Primitive Germanic origin, and their three English

modifications, gar, calc, and gar-modified, every significant

environment has been considered that may in any way influence the

position of articulation'of the palatovelar consonant sounds. Until

further discussion, the point of articulation for these runes must be

considered undetermined in the extensive area from the velum to the

alveolar ridge. The front limit may even be dental, but the alveolar

ridge is more probable, because in the typical New English pronunciation,

as described by Jones and Kenyon,the affricate, the most fronted derivative of the sounds represented by the five runes, seems to have a laminoalveolar position, and there is no reason to assume a more

fronted point for the Old English period.

Each vowel has been considered separately, and Table 2 above

(p. 27) shows an arrangement from the high front vowel moving backward counterclockwise in the usual sagittal section with the lips on the 2 lefthand side. The fact that £ is placed next to £ requires some

^The so-called ’’7of British English, Daniel Jones, The Pronunciation of English, 4th ed. (Cambridge-Eng., 1956), 3-4 and 78; and ’General American’, John S. Kenyon, American Pronunciation, 10th ed. (Ann Arbor, 1962), vii-viii and 147. 2 Hockett, A Manual of Phonology, 24. 51 explanation. Its tongue height and tongue frontness or backness are considered identical with that of i. Its lip position, though, is rounded, contrasting with the spread vocoid i. This is the accepted view and is supported by copious evidence, but other phonetic possibilities remain and should be investigated.

The writings oi, ui, etc. are frequent in such early 3 texts as Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica in the Moore codex, dated 737, 4 and Caedmon's Genesis. They are also found in the early glossaries: buiris ’foratorium’ Corpus 11 beside byris Epinal 891 and Erfurt 907, huymblicae Erfurt 185 beside hymblicae Epinal 185 and and hymlice

Corpus 462, buyrfwnas Erfurt 760 beside byfr~|geras Epinal 760 and byrgefras~] Corpus 1547, woidiberge Corpus 1017, woedeberge Corpus 736 and woedibergae Epinal 388.3 Sievers concludes that ¿-umlauted £ or £ had a diphthongal sound,3 and this view is supported by Keller, who thinks that at least a generation before Bede's time digraphs were

Spoken as and that diphthongal pronunciation continued in

Bede’s time and even in the generation of the Moore scribe, at least in elevated speech.? The yr rune in its graphic composition also seems

3 A. H. Smith, Three Northumbrian Poems (London, 1933), 20. Keller lists many of the digraph forms in the Moore MS in his article, "Zur Chronologie der ae. Runen," 26. ^Sievers lists the digraph forms in the poem in his article ’’Caedmon und Genesis,” Britannica; Festschrift fUr Max Fbrster (Leipzig, 1929), 67-8. 3Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 35ff.

3"Cae dmon und Genesis," 67.

?"Zur Chronologie der ae. Runen," 27. 52

to lend support to this view, and Keller sees in yr the influence of

Greek iota subscript. Thus:

Beide Buchstaben aber, fa wie £, bezeichneten den Diphthong ui, genau so wie die Rune £ , die keinen entsprechenden Buchstaben in der lateinischen Schrift hatte, fUr den Diphthong oi stand. Übrigens wohl erst nach 700 nachweisbar, wo auch die monoph­ thongische Aussprache auftrat.6

"Whether the early spellings oi and ui instead of later qe and £

indicate diphthongs or are due to continental spelling devices may 9 be open to discussion," as Brunner points out, but Brunner himself

concludes:

Dies könnten ältere (wie auch kontinentale) Versuche zur Darstellung des später mit £ bezeichneten Phonems ... sein, zumal in der Runenschrift die Rune för £ (ur) durch die darunter gesetzte fUr i (is) in die för £ (yr) verwandelt wurde.

Ultimately, it is a question of greater probability, and the

Sievers-Keller theory cannot fail to convey the impression of awkwardness in assuming a series of developments from monophthong to diphthong and back to monophthong.^ The more generally accepted view seems to be that which Sweet expressed early, when he assigned to £ 12 and its digraphic variants the value of a high front rounded vowel.

g "Zur Chronologie der ae. Runen," 28. 9 "The Old English vowel phonemes," 249. ^Altenglische Grammatik, §94.

^Antonsen, "Germanic Umlaut Anew," 216.

12 Sounds from the Earliest Period, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1888), 101. 53

This is followed in the standard grammars. Luick states: "Urengl. £ 13 und u jedweder Herkunft wurden zu £ und £ umgelautet." In Anm. 1 of

the same article he says:

Im späteren Nordhumbrisehen erscheint manchmal ui, uy, wi, wy u. dgl.: suindir, suyndria, swyndria .... In allen diesen Fällen ist aber klärlich nur 11 gemeint.

Brunner, whose position concerning the digraph writings has already

been given, states with regard to the i-umlaut of u: "Das Zeichen £

druckt im Ae. einen gerundeten Vokal mit hoher Zungenlage aus, also einen dem deutschen 11 entsprechenden Laut."^3 His phonemic interpretation

is found in his article where he makes clear that before late Old

English and Middle English coalescence of /y/ with /i/ or /e/, /y/ was

a distinct phoneme with lip rounding as the contrasting feature to /i/.16 Campbell shows that £ occurs orthographically in contrast to u and i,l2 and although he does not explicitly assign a structural

18 position to it, he uses the term ’unrounding’ and also ’lowering’.

There seems to be little doubt that he takes the graph £ as a high 19 front rounded vowel in contrast to i by virtue of lip position only.

Historische Grammatik, § 183. 14 Ibid., loc. cit'. l3Altenglische Grammatik, § 31.

16»«The Old English Vowel Phonemes," 249-50.

l?0ld English Grammar, § 199.

18Ibid., §288-92 and 316-7.

19 In late West-Saxon MSS, where the graphemes £ and £ come to be used interchangeably, rounding of £ is not to be inferred as regular and 54

More recently, Hockett published a detailed phonemic analysis

.of Old English vowels, in which he states:

There can be no doubt but that the native Old English of the scribes responsible for the glossaries included a phonemic contrast between something like fy] and something like [ij. We cannot absolutely date the pre-English development of this contrast, but it was certainly in existence before the introduction of Christianity, and thus of the use of Latin.

This position concerning /y/ is completely endorsed by Antonsen in a

systematic examination of Germanic vowel phonemes, in which he assigns

to /y/ the structural position of ‘high front rounded* in all the

.- dialects of Old English, explaining its derivation from Proto-Germanic

/u/ as follows:

/u/, which contrasts with /—i/ in respect to the point of articulation and lip position, undergoes a partial by assuming the front articulation of /—i/, but retains lip rounding, producing the high front round allophone [y].

With the weakening or disappearance of the conditioning sound /—i/ 22 the allophone becomes a phoneme /y/. The consensus is, then, that

/y/ had the same frontness and height of tongue position as /i/,

contrasting with it only in lip-rounding, at least in the early period

of all the Old English dialects. Study of the texts seems to confirm

this. •*

Campbell recognizes this when he states, "y . . . was becoming unrounded by isolative change. This appears in spellings with £ for £, and inverted spellings with £ for £ where there is nothing to cause rounding," Old English Grammar, § 317. 90 "The Stressed Syllabics of Old English," 593. 21 "Germanic Umlaut Anew," 219. 22Ibid., 225-6. 55

In early Mercian texts _i occasionally occurs where £ is expected:

cistigian Epinal 621 beside cystig Corpus 671, smigilas Epinal 199

beside smygilas Erfurt 608 and smyglas Corpus 608, risil Erfurt 256 and risel Corpus 219 beside rysil Epinal 2. Even in the relatively 23 late Vespasian Psalter (first half of the ninth century), _i for £ occurs only in getrime 50/14, while the Royal Gloss (middle of the tenth century) has drihten and the Mercian part of the Rushworth

Gospels (late tenth century) has kining and drihten frequently as well as kyning and dryhten.24

In early Northumbrian texts £ is also well attested, e.g. Bede’s 25 History has cynibercti thrice in the Praefatio alone. In the other early Northumbrian fragments Caedmon’s Hymn has scylun, Dryctin (twice), 26 and moncynng s, and Bede’s Death-song has ymbhycggannae and yflaes.

In the later texts i appears for £ invariably in drihten, frequently in cining, and sporadically otherwise. Taking the first chapter of Matthew 27 in the Lindisfarne MS (c. 950), for example, verse 6 has cining, cinig,

23 From the ’very fine hand’ of the interlinear English gloss, Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 184; and also N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), xv. Unless otherwise specified in this study, Ker may be consulted in general for the dates and histories of the Old English MSS. 2A Matthew in the Rushworth MS has, for instance, hingrade 21/18 and flincafr 18/12, cf. Skeat, The Holy Gospels, ’Matthew’, pp. 169 and 147. 25 Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 132-3. 26Ibid., 149.

27 Skeat, The Holy Gospels, ’Matthew', p. 25. But cyninges appears in Chapter II, verse 1, Skeat, The Holy Gospels, p. 29. 56 verse 20 has drihtnes, 22 drihten, and 24 drihtnes, whereas otherwise

£ forms are the rule, e.g. byrig 3, cynn-recenise 18, gewyrcas, synna

21, gefyllad 22, etc. In the Durham Ritual (c. 950) LindeltJf notes:

FUr zu erwartendes £ steht £ in cinig 165, 9; driht(en) 1, 4. 7 u. 0., drihtenlices 23, 12 etc.; gestir (actionem) 187, 5 (bei B-T [Bosworth-Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, ’gestir;, p. 446 and ’gestyr’, p. 447] sonst nicht belegt). °

In early West Saxon charters such as Charter 3 (778) only £ occurs as cynewulf, cymenes (twice), hrygcgete, pytte (twice), 29 holenstypbum. In the works of Alfred's time £ alternates with £ only in such forms as cyning, genihtumnisse Orosius 182, 15 and Cura

Pastoralis 379, 13, disigan Cura Pastoralis 279, 19, unscildig 30 Cura Pastoralis 379, 14. Only in late West Saxon manuscripts such as

MS Laud Misc. 509 of the Pentateuch (late eleventh century) do £ and

£ occur in free variation. £ is still regular in Wulfstan's Sermo 31 Lupi ad Anglos (early eleventh century).

Kentish Charter 8 (770) has for instance byrnhames, and in the other early Kentish charters £ is quite frequent. Of the more than 40

Kentish or partly Kentish charters edited by Sweet none reveals e_

Uno LindeltJf, Die Sprache des Rituals von Durham (Helsingfors, 1890), p. 23, Anm. 2. £ is the rule for £-umlaut of _u, and there are many instances of £ used as ’graphische Ungenauigkeit fUr £’, e.g. brymmes 61, 16; vynst 119, 12, etc. 29 Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 427. 30 ■ The first number refers to the page and the second to the line in Sweet, King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care (London, 1871), and Sweet, King Alfred's Orosius (London, 1883). 31 Dorothy Whitelock, Sermo Lupi ad Anglos (London, 1939), 20 and 33ff. 57

for £, except for Charter 28 (855) which has the solitary instance of - 32 Heregede, beside numerous regular £ forms: 5 forms of cyning, sand- hyrst, cynelaf, dyde. The £ form of the exceptional name mentioned appears regularly as Heregyfr twice in Kentish Charter 41, lines 58 and 33 64, Apropos of this name, Heregyj? appears in the Northumbrian Liber 34 Vitae, line 23, and Heregyth in the same MS, line 30. In the late tenth century Kentish manuscripts of the Kentish Psalm, the Kentish

Hymn and Glosses to the Proverbs begin to show £ for £ in gerdels, ferht, breed, ontend, etc. It is not improbable that in Kentish £ assumed a lower high front tongue position, which might have further lowered to a mid-high position and with the unrounding of lip position 35 become a mid-front vocoid e. This is the explanation that Luick gives, and it seems to be a more precise formulation than the converse,

'unrounding and lowering', which Campbell offers, presumably assuming 36 the progression to have taken place in that order.

In all the dialects, then, ¿ for £ is rare in texts before 900 and occurs mostly before or after palatal consonants such as drihten, cistigian, cining, smigilas, etc. for phonetically predictable 37 reasons. In conformity with the prevailing view, one may assume that

32 Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 438, line 9 of Charter 28. 33Ibid., 448-9.

34Ibid., 159.

35 nistorische Grammatik, £ 183, Anm. 4. 36 Old English Grammar, § 288. However, Campbell may be merely condensing without regard to the sequential order. 37 Jordan, Handbuch der me. Grammatik, §43} and Campbell, Old English Grammar, §316. 58

before 900, in which period the Ruthwell and Bewcastle crosses (where

m 38 the runes in question occur before yr) may be dated, the OE /y/ had

a high front rounded contrastive value. This assumption is further

enhanced in probability by the fact that £ appears for i or, in the 39 words of LindelUf, as ’graphische Ungenauigkeit fUr i_'. But this

'Ungenauigkeit* is observed in the neighborhood of liquids and labials.

Taking West-Saxon texts at random, both late and early, mycel is 40 frequent, e.g. Blickling Homilies lines 82, 94, 102, 115, etc. 41 42 43 Cura Pastoralis has ryht, wyht. Orosius has ryht, aspryngd

12/29, swy3e 18/26, 24/26, etc., scyp 19/6, 7, gyf 19/13, gedrynce 20/28, wyllaS 20/27,4434 swyftosté 20/34,43 and ylcan 20/26, among others.

38 See below Appendix I, Item 2, pp. 116-8. 39 See above p. 56, fn. 28. 40 W. F. Bolton, An Old English Anthology (Evanston, 1966), 104-5. 41 Sweet, King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, 16/1; 17/1; 18/4, 5; 19/4, 5; and numerous other examples. For the numbering of citations see above p. 56, fn. 30, except that a slant separates page and line numbers. For the etymology see The Oxford English Dictionary, VIII, ’right’, 671. 42 Sweet, Pastoral Care, 18/22. See The Oxford English Dictionary, XII, ’wight’, 119. 43Sweet, King Alfred's Orosius, 1/10; 2/13; 8/17, 32; and on p. 17 seven forms of ryht. In both Orosius and Cura Pastoralis this form occurs to the exclusion of riht. 44The Oxford English Dictionary, XII, ’will',129.

43Ibid., X, ’swift’, 324. 59

In the late Northumbrian texts, Durham Ritual, and Lindisfarne and 47 Rushworth Gospels, £ for £ is invariable in symle, and sporadic 48 49 in other words, e.g, symones 'simonis', nym3e ’nisi", byrefl ( < *birip) ’pertinet’, gibyrefl,33 wynnende 'laborantes’"Since these £ spellings are all in a labial neighborhood, they represent 52 rounding of i, not inverted spelling due to unrounding of £," and this explanation confirms the high front tongue position of £ with lip rounding as the only distinctive-feature from the other high front vowel £.

Some light may be thrown on this Old English phenomenon by considering the pronunciation of Latin £, which is the sound value given to yr in all the manuscript fuporcs and alphabets that give sound values for runes. "The Romans always regarded £ as a Greek

43Lindelbf cites, in addition to brymmes and vynst (see above p. 56, fn. 28), gidyll, byrstende, sprycend, geslytte, gehlytte, etc. 47 For example, Sweet, Orosius, 18/29; and Skeat, The Holy Gospels, 'Mark', p. 35, Chapter 5/verses 4 and 5 (Lindisfarne MS) and 5/5 (Rushworth MS), 48 49 * * 52

48 Skeat, The Holy Gospels, ’Mark’, p.' 13, 1/29 (Lindisfarne).

49 Ibid., ’Mark’, p. 21, 21/26 (Lindisfarne) and 21/26 (Rushworth). 5^1bid., 'Mark', p. 33, 4/38 (Lindisfarne and Rushworth).

3^Lindisfarne Mark 6/48. But Rushworth has winnende 6/48. See Skeat, The Holy Gospels, 'Mark', 51.

52 Campbell, Old English Grammar, §c 315. 60

letter, appropriate only in loan-words." To determine the sound value of Greek £ from which Latin £ is derived "in the form which was 54 current among the cosmopolitan Greeks of their day", Sturtevant examined a body of relevant evidence: e.g. Greek transliterations of

Persian words, using especially u for vi, Hindoo loan-words and Indian coins which regularly represent Greek u with i, mutual Latin and Greek borrowings and transliterations,33 and the phonetic descriptions of

, .56 Cicero, Terentius Scaurus, Caper, and Marius Victorinus. Sturtevant concluded:

These facts show that Ionic, Attic, and Hellenistic V had shifted from normal u in the direction of £. That the change did not go so far in antiquity as it has in modern Greek is indicated by part of the evidence just cited, and also by the following .... Probably therefore V was similar to French £ and German £; such a sound frequently develops from u and easily passes into £; and such a sound satisfactorily explains most of the evidence given above.57

To the last Statement, Hockett gives supporting evidence: "The upsilon of Greek loanwords in Latin that have survived into Romance shows exactly 58 the same reflexes as Latin i." On the whole, £ used in Latin texts 53 54

53 E. H. Sturtevant, The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin (Chicago, 1920), 37. ‘ 54 Ibid., loc. cit. 33Ibid., 132-4.

36Ibid., 27, 37-8.

37Ibid., 134-5.

38"The Stressed Syllables of Old English," Language, XXXV (1959), 592. 61

written in medieval England seems to reflect this situation of the

Romance languages. As Hockett points out:

There is no evidence--except, circularly, the Old English orthographic use of £—to support the belief that Latin as pronounced.in Saxon England distinguished in pronunciation between i and

He goes on to show that in the Epinal and Corpus Glossaries alone

there are 22 occurrences of £ for expected v, and 3 of for i. In addition, the two glossaries include about a score of occurrences of correct y . . . and numberless instances of correct £•• 60

One may therefore conclude that i and £ were very close in sound value,

that not only was their tongue position the same but that the lip­

rounding present in £ must have been almost nondistinctive, often

allowing the contrast between the two sounds to disappear totally.

Next, as far as their influence on the palatovelar consonants is

concerned, the vowels fall into two groups, front and back. Palatalization

and subsequent affrication take place only before front vowels. Frontness

of the following vowel may be said, therefore, to be a necessary, although not sufficient, condition of the palatal varieties of consonantal modification, because, as will be shown below, other factors (e.g. analogy)

intervene and prevent the course of palatalization and affrication.

In a consideration of environments meaningful for affrication, this necessary condition must be taken into account. The significance of the front and back contrast is best illustrated in the behavior of the low

59 "The Stressed Syllabics of Old English," 592. 6°Ibid., 593.

I ■i

62

vowels se and a. PGmc. a became fronted to as in Old English but was

restored before back vowels, e.g. das g, das ges, das ge, dagas, daga, dagum.61 This alternation within the same paradigm explains such contrasts as yell < geal, giellan, gyllan, and -gale (nightingale, 62 nightgale)< galan, and cold < cald and chill < cele, ciele, cile.

Other examples which do not contain the same stem words (i.e. not in the same paradigm) but provide minimal or near minimal pair environ- — 63 ments are call < *kallojan and chill < *kaliz, cassuc or cassoc and cheese < cese < L. caseus, and gallows < galga and yare < gearo, gearu. 64 The so-called palatal diacritics appear before ae but not before a, ceaf vs. calan, geafel vs. gafol, etc.83 Since palatalization does not occur before u and o, e.g. cook < coc, come < cuman, it needs no explanation. Clearly, then, frontness or backness of a vowel is

8^Campbe11, Old English Grammar, § 131 and 157.

62 See The Oxford English Dictionary, XII, ’yell1, 33; and VII, ?nightgale', 145. 63 That is, NE ’hassock’. The forms cassuc and cassoc are well attested in Old English texts, cf. Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo- Saxon Dictionary, 146, but its etymology seems obscure, for which see Ferdinand Holthausen, Altenglisches etymologisches Wbrterbuch, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg, 1963), 44; and The Oxford English Dictionary, V, ’hassock', 110. However, the attested OE forms have back vowels u or o in the second syllable, which prevented the fronting of the first vowel a. 64 ' . See The Oxford English Dictionary under the New English entries. 83See M. L. Samuels, "The Study of Old English Phonology," Transactions of the Philological Society of London (1952), 35. 63

significant in determining the phonemic status of the five velar runes

under consideration, and Table 2 adopts this structural grouping (see

above p. 27). In this the vowel £, classed as front here, forms an exception, but precisely this exception enables one to judge the phonemicity of the new velar runes used before it.

Third, the articulatory assimilation of a palatovelar consonant to the neighboring vowel can be readily determined with regard to the initial and final positions. Initially, the consonant can be affected only by the following vowel, and finally, by the preceding vowel, Also, medially, the consonant would be fronted between front vowels (e.g. micil) or retracted if bounded by back vowels (e.g. docgas). But doubt arises as to the articulatory position of a medial consonant bounded by both back and front vowels, e.g. dicas on theone hand (front + back) and coce dat. sg. on the other (back ¿-front). In neither case did palatalization take place, cf. dyke and cook. Only between front vowels does palatalization occur.33 This situation is adequately reflected in

Table 2, in which the environmental correlations of consonants and vowels are systematically illustrated. If a back vowel follows the consonant, palatalization is automatically ruled out. Before front vowels only uig ket shows the conflict of surrounding vowels, £ and e.

The nonpalatal nature of this environment, poses a special problem concerning the consistency of the k-rune used, and the methodology of

Table 2 is efficient to elicit and handle the problem.

33Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik, § 206, 2. 64

Lastly, consonants are treated indiscriminately as ’consonant’ and

grouped as significant only when they follow the palatovelar consonants,

except for final position. The consonants which can combine with k and

£ in Pre-English are £, 1, n, w, and _s. When k or £ is the last member

of the cluster, namely, sk, rk, lk, nk, rg, lg, ng (none of which can

occur initially except sk), the articulatory position of k or is

determined exactly as if the consonant were by itself: e.g. birch

< birce, stork < store, such < swile, balk < bale, balcan, inch <

J *nce> thank < francian ( < *j?ankojan), bei'ry < berge, sorrow < sorg, singe < sengen, song < sang.82 The initial sk cluster became palatal

regardless of the following vowel, e.g. shoe sco, shine < scinan.

The exceptions were due to the lateness in borrowing from Latin 6 8 (school < scola) or to Scandinavian influence (sky < ski). For

medial and final sk the general statement concerning the ’consonant

+ k' cluster applies, e.g. fish < fisc, tusk < tusc. The seeming

exceptions, e.g. dialectal fisk, disk, etc. can be explained either by analogy from plural forms fiscas, etc., or by Scandinavian influence.89

82Luick, Historische Grammatik, §685, 2-3.

68 V. Royce West, Der etymologische Ursprung der neuenglisc'nen Lautgruppe [sk] (Heidelberg, 1936), 47-63; and Luick, Historische Grammatik, § 691, 1. 8^Luick, Historische Grammatik, §691, 2-3. Note that some of the [sk] forms caused metathesis, e.g. axian < ascian, dixas < discas, for which see Campbell, Old English Grammar, §440. 65

On the other hand, in clusters in which k or £ occur, but not

as terminal members, i.e. kw, kr, kl, kn, skr, ks, gr, gl, gn (all of

which can occur initially, except ks), there is no trace of palatali­

zation, regardless of the adjacent vocalic environment, except in the

cluster skr; e.g. quick, crib, climb, knee, grim, glad < glaa d, gnat < gnse t, mixen < myxen 'dung’.?3 The skr cluster, which occurs only

initially,?1 seems to have been palatalized in general as sk, e.g.

shrike < scric, shroud < scrud, but deviations occur, scream, scrub, again owing to Scandinavian influence.?2

Velarization of the consonant in the or £ + consonant' cluster

seems to have remained operative in the new 'k or £ + consonant' clusters 73 which arose in consequence of jL-syncope. The syncope is especially

frequent in the weak verbal inflection secst, seep < *soe kis, mengde < *mc£ ngide, sengde < *soe ngide, lecte, drencte, adjectival comparison strengra < *stroe ngira, nominal declension englas < *oe ngilas,

See Skeat, The Holy Gospels, 'Luke', p. 139, 13/8, where the Lindisfarne MS gives the form miexseno and the Rushworth MS, mixenne. See The Oxford English Dictionary, VI, 'mixen', 552 for the etymology. ?Siest, Der etymologische Ursprung der neuenglischen Lautgruppe Psk~|, 63. 72 Erik Bjbrkman, Scandinavian Loan-words in Middle English (Halle, 1900), I, 130ff.; and West, Der etymologische Ursprung der neuenglischen Lautgruppe [~sk], 68-9. 73 Luick, Historische Grammatik, § 304; and Campbell, Old English Grammar, §345-54. It is worth noting here that in Pre-English /k/ combined only with certain continuants, £, _1, n, w, and _s (see above p. 64), that other combinations, namely, with stops £ and £ and the spirant appeared later in Old English. 66 and various noun formations ecness < *as ci-, strencß < *strce ngißu, lengß, etc. .

In solchen Fällen unterblieb die Assibilierung ebenso, wie wenn auf den Palatal von Haus aus ein anderer Konsonant folgte . . . und die palatale Färbung verlor sich im Laufe der Entwicklung oder sie ging auf den vorhergehenden Konsonanten Uber.74

The last statement refers to the -enct- and -encß groups where the c was lost and a palatal vowel developed before n, ME dreinte, leinten, leinth, streinth, etc. 73

Table 2 above (p. 27) reflects this situation by classing the occurrence of a consonant after the palatovelar consonant £ or k with that of the back vowel, that is, ’l.B. initially before back vowels and consonants’, and *2.B. medially before back vowels and consonants’. On the other hand, the environment of the palatovelar consonant £ or k before front vowels did not need any further specifi- t cation, because the expression 'before front vowels' (for l.A. and 2.A.) literally includes the clusters lei, rci, etc. (and only those). For forms in which the palatovelar consonant occurs in final position and consequently there is no question of anything occurring after it, different labels are necessary. The description '3.A. finally after front vowels, directly or after another consonant' is to provide not only for words like modig and ic, but for words with the clusters where k or £ occur as last member (e.g. -ing in which the palatovelar g occurs

74 Luick, Historische Grammatik, $c- 689. Also similarly stated in Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik, §206, Anm. 2. 73Luick, Historische Grammatik, § 689. Other examples are cited by Wyld in support of his front-stop theory, "Contributions to the History of the Guttural Sounds in English," 137. 67

after a front vowel, i_, but also after another consonant, n). The same

sort of description would be necessary for 3.3., but since there is no

occurrence in the runic material of forms like song with £ after a back

vowel but also after another consonant (n), the expression ’finally

after back vowels’ was adequate. In short, Table 2 does not omit any

environment that may be significant for the affrication of a palatovelar consonant. The above explanation reduces the number of significant environments to two, front and back. However, they were subdivided according to the position of the palatovelar consonant: initial, medial, and final, for the sake of clearer presentation, but this positional difference has no phonemic significance.

The evidence studied above may be summarized as follows. The four runic monuments employ the later velar runes, £, and k. Of these only the Ruthwell Cross uses all three of the new runes, while the others use only one or two. The distribution of the new runes and the older c and £ is:

gifu; 13 times front and twice back.

cen: 8 times front and once back.

J gar: 9 times back.

calc: 5 times back and once front.

gar-modified: twice front.

The old gifu and cen runes occur predominantly in front environ­ ments, the two modified runes gar and calc predominantly in back environments, and the gar-modified in front environments. As for the last-mentioned rune, it has been noted that in uig ket there is a 68 conflict of environment, and that the combinatory environment should be considered back.2*8 However, the rarity of the word uncet (as well as its parallel incit) and its compound etymology (unc + wit or otherwise) suggest another interpretation. In using this rare pronoun the rune-carver must have been aware of the extra element -et, which would have seemed a separate syllable of word requiring a separate treatment. Only his syllable division seems to have assigned the unvoiced stop of the first to the initial position of the latter element, the more readily because the velar nasal [9] had developed before [k], which fact the carver expresses by using the ing-rune, and a syllable boundary or juncture is apt to intervene, i.e. [uij + ket], in the transition from [9] to [k], which accompanies the raising of the velum to close the nasal passage and the opening of the glottis for unvoicing

(from voiced [9] to unvoiced [k]). Thus the k in -ket must have appeared as the initial consonant of the separate element. This is strongly suggested by the arrangement of the inscription. The word, situated on the left border of the east side,22 is divided between two lines, -uurg - and -ket. The first u in -uurg - belongs to the preceding word bismaa rae du and the entire text is written from top to bottom in unpunctuated lines of two to four runes. It is unwise therefore to conjecture a general system of syllabication in the Ruthwell inscription.

28See above p. 63.

22See Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, frontispiece. 69

However, it does not seem unreasonable to surmise that the rune-

carver, finding himself carving a new line -ket, became more conscious

of the syllable boundary and the separateness of the two elements [uq]

and [ket], to which he gave the runic notation urg and ket, there being

the ing-rune ready at hand. The use of £ may, therefore, be considered

front, without reference to the vowel of the preceding syllable, i.e.

[u], which would normally make the medial environment of [k] back.

For this reason urg ket is assigned to ‘2.A. medially before front 78 vowels’ in Table 2.

if the aforesaid hypothesis is rejected and the environment of k in urg ket is considered ’back', the phonemic patterning of the palato­ velar runes would require a new interpretation. From the other alternative that k in urg ket has a ’back’ environment, it follows that £ can substitute not only c in front environments (cf. k vs. c_ in kyniig c and rics s, showing that k and c are distinctive and phonemic) but also c in back environments (i.e. uig ket and crist). The runes k and _c. are therefore either distinctive and phonemic or purely graphemic alternants for the same phoneme, as e.g. capital and small letters in English, word-final and nonfinal sigma in Greek. Graphemic alternation is not probable because such an orthographic practice in runic writing is not observed elsewhere, nor can one infer one in the Ruthwell text. The first possibility, that k and c (and of course c) are distinctive, is also unlikely, because it is impossible to imagine any distinctive feature. From the assumption that the environments are equally back for urg ket and crist, it follows that the distinction (if any) must lie in the manner of articulation. Since c in crist is a stop, £ must represent some sound other than a stop. However, there is no doubt as to the stop quality of k in urg ket (see below p. 93 ). Neither the first nor the second alternative explains the occurrence of gar-modified, if its environment is considered back. One may conclude with Dickins and Ross, and Elliott (see above p. 4) that there is no consistency in the use of the k-rune and by reflection of calc and cen. This may well be the case, because orthographic fumblings and alternations are not unknown to exist. However, the hypothesis suggested in this study (namely, the ’front’ environment of k in urg ket) explains the data satisfactorily as will be shown below (pp. 94-6 ). As a general scientific method any hypothesis that leads to an intelligible explanation is to be preferred to one that leads to ’inconsistencies* or ’contradictions’, especially when as in the present case the hypothesis is supported by such circumstantial evidence as the etymology and inscriptional arrangement of urg ket. 70

Had there been a thorough-going complementary distribution

among the five palatovelar runes, such as cen and gifu only in front

environments, and calc, gar, and gar-modified only in back environments,

one would be inclined to posit an allophonic distribution. An allophone

is phonetically different from other allophones of the same phoneme by 79 virtue of complementary distribution. Allophones are therefore not

felt to be different by the native speaker and generally one and the

same symbol serves to express allophones in alphabetic writing.

Therefore, when one finds a new graphic symbol used for a sound that

had previously been transcribed by another, this new symbol, attesting

to the writer's consciousness of difference, may be regarded as a possible sign of phoneraicization. With Derolez one may state: "As new 80 phonemes arose in the language, new runes were created."

This is succinctly expressed by Swadesh as the 'criterion of complementary distribution': "If it is true of two similar types of sounds that only one of them normally occurs in certain phonetic surroundings and that only the other normally occurs in certain other phonetic surroundings, the two may be sub-types of the same phoneme," "The Phonemic Principle", Readings in Linguistics, 35. A good illustrative example would be the Japanese phoneme /h/, under which most analysts (e.g. Bernard Bloch, "Studies in Colloquial Japanese," Readings in Linguistics, 343) subsume as allophones not only the first consonant of [ha], L^iJ (here [9-] is front palatal spirant, for which see Chao, Language and Symbolic Systems, 44), [he] and [ho], but also the labial spirant [f j of [fuj. This phonemic decision conforms to the linguistic consciousness of native Japanese speakers, [h] does not occur before [u]. The phonetically possible but nonfunctional [h] before [u] is there­ fore not felt distinct from the functional [f]. The /h/ sequence in the Japanese syllabary, i.e. [ha]-[9i]-[fu]-[he]-[ho], parallelling other sequences such as [na]-[ni]-[nu]-[ne]-[no] and [ma]-[mi]-[mu]-[me]-[mo_, shows that the Japanese consider the different sounds [h], [9], and [f_ 'functionally' nondistinctive and therefore alike.

80R uni. ca Manuscripta, xx. 71

There are many instances of a single symbol serving for different allophones. In Korean, for instance, one liquid symbol *2’ is used for both the apico- or laminodomal tap [r] occurring intervocalically in medial position and the lateral [l] elsewhere. Furthermore, a single symbol may even serve for different phonemes (e.g. English c in cent and can), but seldom is a different symbol employed for each allophone. The case of Old English labials and dentals is a good example. The phonemes /f/ and /£/ had voiced allophones [v] and [d] 82 medially, for which graphically distinctive symbols could have been devised.

It would have been perfectly feasible for the scribes to write intervocalic b for [v], initial and final _f for [fj; but they did not do so. There were two handy symbols for the spirant /0 /: ”J>’ and "5". It would have been easy to specialize one of these symbols for the voiceless allophone of /8 /, the other for the voiced allophone; but this, also, they did not do.

The appearance of the new symbols gar, calc, and gar-modified more probably indicates therefore a phonemic differentiation of the palatovelar sounds than an allophonic elaboration. Whether the new runes are allophonic or not can be determined by the test of 84 substitution. If ’exclusive’ or complementary distribution results,

8^S. E. Martin, "Korean Phonemics," Language,-XXVII (1951), 519-33, reprinted in Joos, Readings in Linguistics, 367. 82Moulton, "The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," 21-3.

83Hockett, "The Stressed Syllabics of Old English," 580.

q/. * Or the ’commutation’ test, cf. Anton Reichling, "Feature Analysis and Linguistic Interpretation," For Roman Jakobson, ed. M. Halle, et al. (The Hague, 1956), 418-22. In one of the earliest formulations of the 72

that is, if an environment E always takes a sound and rejects another

sound the two sounds and S£ (in the present case the sounds

represented by the different palatovelar runes) may be considered

procedure Swadesh writes: "If the native definitely hears [as a result of substitution] some other word ... one may conclude that the modification has amounted to the substitution of one phoneme for another," "The Phonemic Principle," Readings in Linguistics, 35. In the majority of cases phonemic substitution results in a semantic change, i.e. in a different word (e.g. pill-bill). It is not surprising that many linguists therefore consider substitution a ‘synonymity’ test, e.g. F. Lounsbury, "A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage," ~Language, XXXII (1956), 190. However, Noam Chomsky has demonstrated with his synonym pairs /ekinamiks/ - /iykinamiks/, /viksiin/ - /fiymeyl# faks/, etc. that ’as a general method’ appeal to meaning can lead to confusion. The term ’word' in such expressions as ’same word’, ’different word’ should be understood as a formal environment. Thus by holding the environment /-kinamiks/ constant, substitution of /e-/ for /iy-/, being functionally different in the phonological structure of New English, will be noticed as different, although the semantic content may remain the same, cf. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, 1963), 94-5 and 97. Of course one may argue that meaning is the ultimate court of justice because the difference between /e-/ and /iy-/ is known only from the existence of such semantically different pairs as bet and beat. But by this very reference to another pair, i.e. /bet/ vs. /biyt/, one is considering the general or formal structure of ’relevant* sounds in New English, not the semantic content of the individual pair at hand, i.e. /ekinamiks/ vs. /iykinamiks/. The ’environment’ where substitution is conducted is a semantically neutral (although relevant) matrix. This formal nature of the so-called ’meaningful environment’ must be born in mind in the following discussion, where the same Old English word appears in a paradigm with different sounds. For instance, c of ric may appear with the value [6] before front vowels, e.g. ric, rice, rices, or with the value [k] before back vowels and consonants, e.g. rica, rican, ricne, ricra, ricum. The alternation of [6] and [k] obviously causes no semantic change, especially in cases where ric may be pronounced either [ri55] or [rik] with [k] by analogy from back forms. Yet, if [k] and [55] can be shown to be distinctive; they must be considered different phonemes. Such minimal pairs as OE cin ’chin’ and cynn, cin ’kin’ (both with c in front environments) show that [k] and [55] are distinct in the phonemic structure of Old English. That the distinction between ’front’ and ’back’ environments is meaningful in determining the phonemic status of [55] and [k] has been shown above pp. 50-66. Similar phonemic experiments have been conducted in semantically invariant surroundings by previous investigators. For example, Hockett examines all the deg •day* forms in the Vespasian Psalter, i.e. deg, dege, deges, degas, 73

allophonic. Such exclusiveness of distribution does not, in reality,

exist between gifu and gar on the one hand and cen and calc (or gar-

modified) on the other. Twice gifu is used in a back environment, where

gar would have been expected to establish complementary distribution.

In the case of alegdun, the environment of which is back, 86 the umlauted

stem vowel e_ < ae and the fronted £ of the present system is extended

to the preterit, even though the syncope of the connecting vowel £

before the dental preterit suffix -dun had created an environment, such

that the final consonant of the preterit stem, instead of following the predictable line of development, had reverted to velar articulation. dega, degum, dgg, dggas, das gas, daegas, dega, dae ga, daega, degum, dee gum, daegum, dig, and concludes: ”£ represented a voiced spirant /j/ and a voiced allophone of the /x/ phoneme, as well as a stop /g/ and a stop /g/ in environments that do not here concern us," "The Stressed Syllabics of Old English," 586. Also Archibald A. Hill suggested a separate phonemic treatment of dark double 11, which causes 'breaking', and bright 11, using the formally (but not semantically) contrasting pair Northern sealla and WS sellan 'sell' from WGmc. *saljan (see Bosworth and Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, 862), saying: "Perhaps the diphthong was carried over to the bright varieties of £1 as well, in which case phonemic readjustment of either the vowel or the consonant must have taken place", cf. Hill, "Phonetic and Phonemic Change," Language, XII (1936), 15-22, reprinted in Joos, Readings in Linguistics, 82. 85 That is, only necessarily so but not sufficiently. For instance, /h/ and /y/ are complementary in New English, the first occurring only as syllable initial and the second as a syllable final, but they are not considered allophonic because of their phonetic dissimilarity. Gn the principle of phonetic similarity see Swadesh, "The Phonemic Principle," Readings in Linguistics, 35; Andre Martinet, Phonology as Functional Phonetics (London, 1949), 4; and Hockett, A Course in Modern Linguistics (New York, 1958), 107-8. This principle is further supplemented by the principle of symmetry, cf. Ilockett, A Course in Modern Linguistics, 109-10, in determining the phonemicity of a sound. See above p. 70, fn. 79. 86 See above Table 2, p. 27, and pp. 65-6. I

74

In the case of wa rignæ the fronted £ in wee rig, wee rigæ s, wee rigas

is extended, replacing the back £ that would have been found before ri.

In short gifu and gâr can occur in identically parallel environments,

and are therefore phonemically in contrast.

Nor can the cên vs. calc opposition be merely allophonic. Once

cên occurs in riienæ (of which the environment is back), where £ (i.e.

calc used in back environments) would be expected instead of c, because 87 the fronted c in ric, rices, rice is extended to the back environment.

Further, in cyniburug the back symbol calc is used in a front environ­ ment, clearly showing the rune-master's desire to express the difference

of sound from the other fronted sound represented by cên.

Finally, gar-modified appears twice and always in front environ­ ments. This provides a twofold opposition: cên vs. gar-modified and calc vs. gâr-modified. • The first contrast is phonemic because the two different symbols occur in front environments. The second contrast, on

the other hand, must be interpreted as allophonic for the distribution

See above p. 73, end of fn. 84, where a similar argument is pre­ sented by Hill concerning sealla. Also Moulton explains the origin of the plain [kJ vs. palatalized [k’J in Russian as follows: "In Russian^ there are numerous pairs of plain and palatalized consonant phonemes, such as /p/ £ /p’/, /t/ £ It'/, etc. However, plain [kJ and palatalized [k*J are in non-contrastive distribution: [k’J before front vowels, [kJ elsewhere. The morphophonemic analogy which puts [kJ and [k’J in contrast in Russian2 can be stated as follows . . . By morphophonemic analogy, [k’J is here introduced into the position 'before non-front vowel* and thus comes to stand in contrastive distribution with [kJ. The allophonic opposition [k - k’J is thereby split into the phonemic opposition /k/ /k’/", cf. Moulton, "Types of Phonemic Change," To Honor Roman Jakobson (The Hague, 1966), 1394-5. 88 Note that these oppositions concern only the Ruthwell text, where gar-modified occurs. 75

is complementary. Although there are only two occurrences1of gär- modified, the weight of this evidence is considerable. Of the 60-odd words legible in the Ruthwell Gross four may be distinguished as to

their front and back dorsovelarity of articulation: crist and cwomu 89 being back dorsovelar and kynitg c and utg ket front dorsovelar.

Every time the distinction is made using different symbols, showing a mutually exclusive distribution.

To sura up, where there are only two new runes gar and calc 90 (Bewcastle, Thornhill and Urswick), gifu and cen express front phonemes contrasting with gär and calc respectively. Where there are three new runes, i.e. gär, calc, and gär-modified (Ruthwell), gifu and gär contrast and so do cen and gär-modified, because there is no complementary distribution in these pairs. They can occur in front or back environments. But the distribution of calc is complementary to gär-modified. The orthographically separate existence of the distributionally nondistinctive (with regard to gär-modifled) calc

■ii ,. 91 requires a special explanation.

89 For the terminology describing places of articulation see above p • 1, f n • 2 •

Elliott seems to find some occurrences of gar-modified in the Bewcastle cross (see above p. 4), following the example of ViBtor and his predecessors (cf. ViBtor, Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 14-6). Unfortunately, Elliott omits a full discussion of the Bewcastle text in his Runes and the photographic facsimile of the main panel he gives (Runes, Pl. 17) does not encourage the reading of gär-modified anywhere. Page’s transcription, which is adopted here, show no k occurrence.

The fact that separate symbols gar-modified and calc are used for allophones seems to contradict the definition of allophone, 'non-distinc- tiveness'. An answer to this is provided below pp. 94-6. 76

1. Phonemes represented by gifu and gar

The ’stop or spirant’ controversy over the Germanic voiced 92 palatovelar has never been settled. According to Moulton,

there is no agreement whatever as to whether these sounds were stops, or spirants, or both. A minority view is that PIE /bh dh gh/ became the stops [b d g] in Germanic; that these stops then - became the spirants [S 3 g] in intervocalic position; and that these spirants merged with the [5 3 g] that had resulted from the operation of Verner’s Law. The majority view is that both /bh dh gh/ and /p t k/ (by Verner’s Law) gave the spirants [ft 3 g] at some stage in Germanic; and that these spirants later became stops in certain environments. But there is no agreement either on the environments or on whether the development to stops should be assigned to Proto-Germanic or to the individual dialects. J

Moulton goes on to give ’a fair sampling* of the handbooks and their 94 assumptions. His own conclusion concerning the Old English voiced palatovelar consonant is: ’’The evidence indicates that it was a stop in only three positions: initially before consonants and back vowels, 95 in gemination, and after /n/." Thus he agrees with the position of 96 Sievers and Brunner, but he rejects Luick’s interpretation "that both velar and palatal £, including £ < /j/ (1), were stops initially,"

92This fact presents difficulties in notation. The uncertain sound will be referred to as ’voiced palatovelar consonant’, whereas [g] represents the spirant value and [g], the stop value. In quotations and their immediate discussions, however, the cited author's notations will be observed.

93"The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," 1. 94 Ibid., 1, fn. 2. 95Ibid., 24-5.

98Altenglische Grammatik, §206, 8. 77

as unconvincing. However, Luick seeks to explain the alliteration of

these sounds in Old English poetry and provide a phonetic rationale for

Sievers' conclusion, "Das £ ist ... in allen älteren ags. Texten im 98 Anlaut und nach n stets Verschlusslaut". Any theory about the unvoiced

palatovelar consonant should explain alliteration or what Flasdieck 99 calls 'the craving for initial homophony'. Moulton completely disregards

the problem of alliteration. Flasdieck finds a satisfying link in 'the 100 common element of voiced tectal friction* among these sounds. Still,

the most successful solution seems to be Prokosch's:

For Old English, it is certain that medial and final 3 were spirants, and initial £ is generally admitted to have been a spirant at least in West Saxon in the earliest period. This is clearly evident from the fact that it alliterates with the IE palatal spirant, as in the first line of Beowulf: gar < Gmc. ^aiza- and gSar < Gmc. ja ra-, IE jero-. But later in the Old English period, initial £ before consonants and back vowels (where it had velar articulation) became a stop, as in NE grass, good.lQl

- 97Moulton, "The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," 24, fn. 58j and Luick, Historische Grammatik, § 633 and 696. 98 "Zu Cynewulf," Neusprachliche Studien: Luick Festschrift (Marburg, 1925), 69. The same view is repeated in his "Caedmon und Genesis," 71. 99 Hermann M. Flasdieck, "The Phonetic Aspect of Germanic Alliteration," Anglia, LXIX (1950), 267. 10^1bid., loc. cit. By 'tectal* he refers to the roof of the mouth or the palate and velum. See his footnote 2 on the same page.

Comparative Germanic Grammar, p. 76. 78

This later development of the velar stop as separate from the palatal

spirant seems to be reflected ’in an innovation in alliterative

technique’ in such poems of c. 1000 as Maldon and Corpus Christi 102 Domesday« In Maldon, for example, velars are paired only with velars, e.g. 1. 13 gar gufre, god, 35 golde, grid, etc., while palatals 103 pair with palatals, e.g. 1. 100 ongean, gearowe, 265 gysel, geornlice.

With respect to this view all the gifu and gar occurrences in the runic material studied here represent spirants, including galgu, god,

-gadrae of the Ruthwell cross, which later became in New English gallows, god, (to)gether. Of course, kynirg c, the last of which represents PGmc. ng, is interpreted as a stop, and will be discussed separately.

The spirant interpretation for £ in all positions except after n and in gemination is supported by runic evidence. The rune gifu is used for IE i or £, e.g. gessus Bewcastle and giufreasu Franks casket for L. iesus. In fact, this vocalic or semivocalic usage of gifu is so firmly established that

’iohann[i]s,’ using initial £ in preference to ’g’, ’gi’ (cf. Bewcastle ’g[e]ssus,’ Franks Casket 'giujseasu’), or perhaps •j' may evidence a nonrunic spelling tradition. ^-^4

102 Flasdieck, "The Phonetic Aspect of Germanic Alliteration," 267. l03„ Dobbie, The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, 7-16. 104 Page, "The use of Double Runes in 0E Inscriptions," 901. 79

As a matter of fact, the inscription ’iohannis’ occurs on St. Cuthbert’s

Coffin in Latin characters, not runic.The ger rune does not

occur in the inscriptions, and, as stated above (p. 23), Dickins deletes it from his system of transliteration. But, if used, the rune would have had the same glide vowel value as gifu, as the name ger in

the Runic Poem shows. According to Dobbie,

the rune for ger, gear, ’’year" (0. N. ar; Gothic gaar, Wulfilan j er), [occurs] originally with the sound value of later of palatal £. According to Dickins, the word ger here refers specifically to summer; see Beowulf 1134. Grein-KOhler, p. 250, glosses as ’’annona," i.e. "Produce, means of subsistence," a meaning also recorded for 0. N. Ar.106

Further, the iar, ior rune is variously attested in the place where gifu is expected: j^slheard Dover Stone, jilsuifr Thornhill C, jae Igg jgrae Brunswick Gasket. As Page notes above, this (iar, ior) is orthographically in alternation with gifu. With regard to the

Brunswick casket, Elliott notes: "An interesting feature of this inscription is [the] use ... twice of the symbol in lieu of the normal gifu-rune X

Further, there is another alternant, the ambivalent eoh, trans­ cribed by ¿Dickins and in the present study as jx. After explaining

l33Dickins and Ross, "The Alnmouth Cross," Journal of English and Germanic Philology, XXXIV (1940), 176. Also see below Appendix II, Item 42, - . l33The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, 155.

107Ro unes, 0797. 80

its etymology (Gmc. *eihwo) and noting the various names given to the

rune in the MSS (e.g. eoh, Iw, ih, luu), Wrenn concludes that:

we find this rune-symbol as h in almehttig on the Ruthwell Cross and in the Urswick inscription’s ae fter torohtredae , but as _i in the gislheard of the Dover stone and twice (hiraa and hae lig) on the Brunswick Casket. MS St. John’s College, Oxford, 17, which is probably of the earliest eleventh century, in its Old English fujjorc gives hae gel as the name of this rune. I66

To this, one may add rae ghae n (cf. ON regna, regin) Gaistor-by-

Norwich for the consonantal use of eoh, and possibly -fg1?r

in Text VI Bewcastle, which Page transliterates as fgje, and eategnne Thornhill B, which Elliott transcribes as eateinne for „ J . HO Eatinga 'son of Eata’.

The rune gifu itself appears in unneg- and fegtaj? of the Franks Casket ’mit Lautwert der velaren stimmlosen Spirans’,2^^ upon which evidence Schneider proceeds to read as gill on the lid of the casket 112 as Achilles, instead of the usual equation of the form with the

108 "Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery," English and Medieval Studies: presented to J. R. R. Tolkien (1962), 309. 109 Ibid., 308. Also see below Appendix II, Item 11, 110D «« Rune s, 88. 111 Karl Schneider, ."Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket und einer ae. Version des Mythos von Balders Tod," Festschrift fUr W. Fischer (Heidelberg, 1959), 6, fn. 16. 112 Ibid., 6. Also see below Appendix II, Item 21, 81 113 personal name Egil. The voiceless spirant value in unneg and fegtafr is probable, for

whatever the status of [x] and [h] may have been in Proto- Germanic, Pre-0ld-English seems to have had velar [x] finally and before voiceless consonants (/s/, /1/, and later /£>/).

The runic equivalence of gifu with ger, iar, and eoh, which have been shown to occur often with voiceless spirant values, and the usé of gifu and gâr with voiceless spirantal values (gifu in unneg and fegtap Franks Gasket and gar in hnag Ruthwell and-cyniburug

Bewcastle) requires reconsideration of ’voicing’ as an articulatory component of the phonemes that gifu and gâr represent. This can best be provided by an overall review of the palatovelar consonantism of

Old English. According to Moulton,

[the OE roman alphabet] had only the three symbols £, £, h (disregarding the rare uses of £) to use for the seven phones [c g k x q g h] which we have analyzed into the six phonemes /c g k x g h/.l-15

The two voiceless stop phones [c k] will be set aside for later consideration-, although it should be noted that the front allophone of

113 Elis Wadstein, The Clermont Runic Gasket (Uppsala, 1900), 6; A. S. Napier, "The Franks Casket," Furnivall Presentation (Oxford, 1901), 366; Philip Webster Souers, "The Top of the Franks Casket," Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, XVII (1935), 163; and Elliott, Runes, 98. H^Moulton, "The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," 26.

ll5Ibid., 27. 82

/k/, represented by gár-modified, should have been included for the

sake of completeness, i.e. [c £ k]. Is the remaining list of phones

[g g x g h] comprehensive?

Taking [h] first, it probably did not have any other allophonic

variety, because if it is assumed to be somewhat like the New English

sound /h/ with oral cavity friction,1 it did not occur distinctively

according to front or back environments. The sound, deriving from PGmc.

[x] from IE k, kh, became ’Hauchlaut’ initially and medially between 117 voiced sounds, at least according to thevmajority opinion. Moulton

takes this ’Hauchlaut’ to be of glottal articulation.

The proof of glottal (or at least non-velar) articulation medially is the same as in Pre-Old-Icelandic: the voicing of medial voiceless spirants changed [f to their voiced counterparts [B 3]; it did not change [h] to velar [n], but caused its loss; therefore [h] was not velar but something else—presumably glottal.

However, Moulton adds a debatable note:

It is possible that a medial [x] still existed at the time of •breaking’, but changed to glottal [h] afterwards. This would give the following sequence of changes: *[sexan > seohan > se:on], OE seon ’see’. However, this is slim evidence indeed, since there is no reason why ’breaking’ could not have taken place before both W and [h].11

l^See Hockett, A Manual of Phonology, 28.

H?Luick, Historische Grammatik, § 636; and Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik, § 217-8. 118 Moulton, "The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," 26. H^ibid., 26, fn. 59. 83

Inasmuch as 'breaking’ is the development of a back allophone under 120 the influence of a retracted sound in the palatovelar tract, a

glottal [hj, which by Moulton’s own argument is at least nonvelar, if

anything, can scarcely account for seon. It is conceivable that the

[hj in medial position, therefore, is a development after ’breaking’.

Again, this glottal or ’Hauchlaut' character accounts for the absence

of front-back opposition, e.g. her > here, hus > house. However, any

finer phonetic specification seems impossible, and the sound could

have been breathing (pharyngeal or oral cavity friction), whisper

(voiceless glottal spirant) or even murmur (voiced glottal spirant), 121 although from New English evidence the first is most probable.

Next, Moulton lists only one voiced velar spirant [gj. It has

122 been shown above, however, that there is a front-back contrast

(which is phonemic) in this spirant, e.g. gebid, ga ra vs. ga1gu,

sorgum. The front spirant becomes a high front glide, e.g. ME

NE year. The back phone develops initially into a stop gallows, god, and medially into a high back rounded glide, e.g. gallows (ME galwes),

sorrow (ME sorwe). Moulton subsumes both the [j] and values of the

1 70 Hockett, "The Stressed Syllabics of Old English," 576; and Antonsen, "Germanic Umlaut Anew," 226. l2^See above p. 82, fn. 116.

122 See p. 62 on the contrast of the sounds variously represented by £ in da ge, dagas, etc., and pp. 72-3, fn. 84, especially concerning the reference to Hockett’s study of deg, dega forms, from which he posits the two phonemes /j/ and /x/ in the paradigm of the semantically invariant word dae g ’day’.

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY LI3RARY 84 voiced palatovelar consonant under one spirant symbol [g]« By this failure to differentiate the contrast Moulton renders his list of palatovelar phones and phonemes at least insufficient.

For the voiceless spirant, Moulton posits only the velar phone 123 [x] medially before £, £, j>, and in gemination, and finally.

However, the presence of a palatal spirant after a palatal vowel is clear both medially, e.g. lieht (in free alternation with leoht), niht (neaht), ryht (reoht), and finally, e.g. he5 (heah) > ME heh, hih, hiegh, etc. The final palatal spirant disappears in all the dialects before the beginning of New English, but the medial [x] still remains in Scottish, e.g. [fext] ’fight', [mixti], [nixt]. In this light, the £ in unneg, fegtafr Franks Casket may represent a palatal spirant. The two spirants, velar and palatal, develop distinctly, for the velar spirant becomes [f] south of the Humber, e.g. rough, laugh, 126 etc.

Moulton lists [g g], front and back stops, arising after £ and in gemination, e.g. seng(e)an [-g-], sprang [-g], licg(e)an, dogga.

123 The identity of the symbol jc in [x] with the x of Hockett’s /x/ (see above p. 83, fn. 122) should not obscure the fact that the latter signifies a phoneme comprising the voiced back spirant allophone ([.3] in the symbolism of the present study). See above p. 76, fn. 92. 124 Luick, Historische Grammatik, §768, 2. 125 Wright, The English Dialect Dictionarry, II, ’fight’, 353; •mighty’, 107; and ’night.', 270.

Luick, Historische Grammatik, §768, 3. 85

However, as the gar-modified rune suggests [k], a third voiced stop

should have been included, namely, a back stop in front position, to be given the notation [g] here, which unlike [g] does not develop into the New English affricate; sing vs. singe, (dialectal) rig vs. ridge. The Ruthwell carver’s use of cen after the ing rune in kynitg c indicates that he was attempting to give expression to the sound [g]. 128 In back environments there is no occurrence of £ after n in Ruthwell, and it is impossible to say conclusively that cen after ing in kyniqg c is the graphic expression of the sound [g]. Nonetheless, the principle 129 of symmetry recommends the distinctive awareness, on the part of the

Ruthwell master, of front dorsovelar [g], parallelling the cognizance of the voiceless counterpart [R]. Inasmuch as [g] was distinctively in contrast with [g] in front environments (e.g. singan ’sing’ vs. sengan

•singe’), the fact that the Ruthwell master sought the distinction of

[g] is not extraordinary. However, the front dorsovelar [g], occurring only in front environments (e.g. singan), would be complementary to the back dorsovelar [g], which is found in back environments, e.g. sprang, dogga. In short, [g] and [g] are complementary allophones, but are given separate orthographic representations. Nevertheless, the seeming contradiction in the expression ’allophonic distinction’ disappears upon

127 See below p. 86, fn. 130. 128 *• Other inscriptions show no example of the use of cen after ing, especially in back environments, e.g. gae mung Sheffield Brooch, cf. below Appendix II, Item 47, p. 161.

129 see above p. 73, fn. 85. I

86

a closer examination. Since this is an exact parallel of the situation

existing in the voiceless stops [c £ kJ, as noted above, the expla­

nation below (pp. 94-6) concerning [kJ, which is distributionally

complementary to [£J, but is nonetheless given a separate symbol

calc, applies mutatis mutandis to the clarification of [gj, given a

distinctive symbolization in Ruthwell. To give only the conclusions

here, the rune-master’s point of reference was [gj of sengean ’singe’, which contrasted with [gj of singan and of kynirg c (the only instance

of the stop occurring in the runic text). He perceived [gj in kynirg c,

although it occurred in front environments only and was complementary

to [gj in such back environments as sprang, because he was referring

the sound [gj, not to [gj, but to [gj, from which it was distinctive not only -phonemically (cf. singan ’sing’ vs. seng(e)an ’singe’) but phonetically.' The corollary of this phonemic conclusion is that to obtrude itself thus on the linguistic consciousness of the rune carver, [gj must have had a strikingly different sound, most probably something like the New English larainoalveolar affricate /£/, namely, the existence of the affricate or near-affricate in early Old English.

However, in the.available runic material the [gj sound is not attested,

130 See above p. 75, fn. 91. Note that the notations are not adequate in expressing the parallel between [c £ kJ and [g g gj, because for the first voiceless front sound the roman letter £ (useful as it suggests its relationship with NE [Sj) is used. If k had been used throughout, the three sounds would have been represented as [£ k kJ, making the articulatory correspondence with [g g gj at once clear graphically.

131 One hundred per cent complementary. See above p. 75 which' shows this distribution. 87

there being no occasion for the use of words like sengan, ricg, secg,

etc. Also since the argument below concerning [c] applies mutatis mutandis to [g], the problem of affrication is not pursued here further.

It may be noted, however, that Hempl thought [g] was present wherever the voiced stop is found in front environments. This would make the final consonant of kyniig c [-g], contradicting the above argument that it was [-g]. Hempl explained this view on the evidence of the occurrence of c with £ in ng. When c occurs with ng in velar 132 environments, e.g. swuluncga, Hempl. assumes that it signified 133 devoicing, conforming to the majority opinion. In palatal environ­ ments, however, he took the c to be a sign for a dental affricate.

As the voiceless affricate arose out of all single palatal £'s as well as out of cc, it was a much more common sign for an affricate than was £, which stood for an affricate only when palatal after n and when doubled .... The spelling c, cc, for the affricate gg, was defective only in ignoring voice, a matter regularly ignored in Old-English writing in the case of all simple and geminated . But even this defect was usually avoided by the retention of one or both of the ¿’s.^-3^

Hempl sees the dental affricate sign in such examples as frincgferfr and foincgferfring in the Parker MS of the Chronicle (755), flingcferfl in Sweet's Charter 33 (dated 803), cynincges Charter 53 (813), etc.

132 Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 444. 133 See above pp. 37-41. 134"0ld English 6, C£, etc.," 380. 88

This theory presents difficulties. For instance, it does not explain

the total absence of affrication in NE king, , not only in

ordinary vocabulary (dialects included) but also in place-names 135 traceable to cyning or -ing ’son, descendent, follower’. This

failure of affrication contrasts with the affrication of hlinc ’hili’, 136 e.g. Linch Sussex, Moor 1inch Southampton and Standlynch Wiltshire.

The weakly voiced or devoiced -ing, occasionally finding orthographical representation in -inge, -inc, etc., did not participate in further fronting and affrication. When the Ruthwell master added cen after

-ing, there was no danger of confusion with [g] in seng(e)an, and he was only indicating the frontness of the back stop [gj. Further, the use of the voiceless symbol cen adequately expresses the occasional 137 devoicing of the voiced stop component in -ing.

To recapitulate, [g] in seng(e)an contrasts with [g] in kyniig c

(runic transcription), but [g] complements [g] in dogga, so that the pair /g g/ accounts for stops. [^ and [g] contrast phonemically with each other, e.g. wa g [was ^ ( < PGmc. -wa gO-z) ’wave’ vs. wae g [wae rs] (by analogy from plural forms wa gas, wae ga, wae gum) >

135Ekwall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 251-2, 264-5. 136Ibid., 231, 284, 314, and 417.

137 See above pp. 37-41.

9 138Note that the occurrences of [g]• and [g] cannot be exemplified by runic material, there being no scope for words like seng(e)an on the one hand and dogga on the other. 89

NE waw« But the voiced spirants complement the stop phones of /g 140 g/, because their privileges of occurrence do not conflict. The result is a phoneme system /g g/, comprising five phones, three stops and two spirants, [xj and [xj, on the other hand, occur medially and finally but are determined entirely by preceding vowel, except in gemination when the spirant is always velar and again provides no contrast. The two phones are therefore complementary and form a phoneme

/x/. This /x/ cannot coalesce with either /g/ or /g/, because of such contrasting pairs as hlihhan vs. wicga. [hj complements /x/, because neither [xj nor [x] occurs initially or medially between voiced sounds.

Despite this exclusive distribution Moulton refuses to recognize allophonic relationship because [hj is glottal and has no articulatory kinship with [xj.^4'*' But, as shown above,*42 the principle of phonetic

139 The Oxford English Dictionary, XII, ’waw’, 193. See above pp. 71-3, fn. 84 on the validity of using semantically invariant forms to detect phonemic alternation. Also see p. 74, fn. 87. 140 To this the following reason may be added, invoking the principle of phonetic similarity: ’because [gj vs. [qJ and [gj vs. [gj did not appear distinct sounds.’ This would seem to contradict, for example, the evidence of alliteration, cf. above pp. 77-8. However, there is no problem of a ’complementary but distinct symbol’ in this case, and for the sake of symmetry and simplicity (see above p. 70, fn. 79 and p. 73, fn. 85) these pairs, different in the manner of articulation (stop vs. spirant) but not in the point of articulation (either front or back), are subsumed in one phoneme, /g/ and /g/, respectively. 141 "The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," 26-7. This point is well taken and parallels the separate treatment of NE /h/ and /i)/.

142 See above p. 70, fn. 79, and p. 73, fn. 85. I

90 similarity is also a relative concept to be determined by considerations 143 of symmetry and economy. One might assert that there is no similarity between stop [g] and spirant [<%]> and establish them as separate phonemes.I44 The genetic relationship between [h] and [x], alternating

145 by position, is not doubted. Further, in Old English, the change from palatovelar [x] to glottal [h] should be assumed to be of late development, especially because ’breaking’ may be considered to have “ 146 preceded the change [_xj to [hji' e»g» sexan > seoxan > seohan > seon. 147 The continued existence of intervocalic £ in thohae Epinal 3, and other forms .in early texts suggests that the [h] and [x] might have alternated in free variation, nondistinctively. This phonetic uncertainty, together with the consideration of economy, seems to discourage the establishment of a separate phoneme /h/.

There are .then three irreducible phonemes /g g x/. The gifu and gär runes contained in the four runic texts studied represent all of these phonemes, but do not implement all of the allophones subsumed under the three phonemes. The following phonetic values may be given to the gifu and gär occurrences.

143 See Hockett, A Manual of Phonology, 158, where he refers specifically to Moulton's formulation of /h/ separate from /x/. 144See above P- 145See above PP- 146See above pp. 147 Sweet, Oldest 91

/g/ [g] no occurrence. It later appears as the laminoalveolar voiced

affricate in New English, e.g. singe.

ty gidrcs fid, giwundad, gistoddun, geredae , gessus, gebid,

gebidae s, gebiddafr, gae ra, bergi, alegdun, woe rignae , modig,

alme.^ttig, sig. A front dorsovelar or centrodomal spirant,

which further opens to a high front glide, e.g. year, or

completely vocalizes and assimilates to the neighboring vowel,

e.g. suffix or develops into a centrodomal stop, e.g. give,!-49 probably under. Scandinavian inf luence, although

Prokosch attributes to a hypothetical Anglian [g] dating

back to continental times.

/g/ [g] kynirg c belongs here etymologically, cen being used

diacritically, although neither gifu nor gar is used in the

word. It had a front dorsovelar or centrodomal stop value,

front enough to be complementary to [g] in dogga (and other

back environments for g) but it contrasted distinctively with

[g] in seng(e)an ’singe* (vs. singan ’sing’ with [g]). This

sound does not participate in the laminoalveolar affrication

Of [s]-152

l48See Luick, Historische Grammatik, §401.

149 The Oxford English Dictionary, IV, 'give’, 182. ^"3^Luick, Historische Grammatik, §36.

13^A Comparative Germanic Grammar, p. 77.

X 5 ¿See2 the discussion of the distinctive features of [c]• and [£] below pp. 103-6. 92

[gj back or ordinary dorsovelar step. No occurrence, galgu, -gadras ,

god of the Ruthwell cross certainly appear as [gj in Middle 153 English, e.g. galwe, gaddren, godd, and other forms with £, 154 when its pronunciation may be assumed to be a stop. This 155 stop may have developed in late Old English, too. But the

Ruthwell cross, despite its uncertain date, is still believed to be a monument of early Old English.^-88

[gj galgu, -gadras , god, stiga, buga, sorgum. A dorsovelar spirant

later appearing as a high back rounded glide medially, e.g.

sorrow ( < ME sorwe with [-w-J), bow, gallows, and as a dorso­

velar stop initially, e.g. gallows [g-J, gather, god.

/x/ [xj no occurrence. A front dorsovelar or centrodomal spirant which

is lost later, except medially in some dialects.

[xj hnag, cyniburug. A dorsovelar spirant, which is preserved

dialectally, is lost otherwise, or appears as [fj or [wj, e.g.

laugh, borough. [hj no occurrence. An oral or pharyngeal cavity friction, or a glottal

spirant, either voiceless or voiced. Neither gifu nor gar appears

initially with this value in any extant runic monument.

153 The Oxford English Dictionary, IV, under the NE entries. 154 <• Luick, Historische Grammatik, § 56. 155. See above pp. 76-8. 156On the chronology see below Appendix I, Item 2, PP- 116-8.

157.L ui. ck, Historische Grammatik, § 768, 2. 158 3Ibid..,, 768,7 3. Also see The Oxford English Dictionary under the cited NE entries. 93

2. Phonemes represented by cen, calc, and gar-modified

In contrast to the disagreement concerning the sound values of gifu and gar,: there is unanimous agreement as to the existence of the voiceless stop /k/. Quoting Moulton once more;

All ... [handbooks] assume for Proto-Germanic a set of voiceless spirants and a set of voiceless stops; the spirants /f h/ as in English fish, thin, horn, derived from PIE /p t k/ as in Latin piscis, tenuis, cornu; and the stops /p t k/ as in English lip, two, kin, derived from PIE /b d g/ as in Latin labium, duo, genu s'. T 59

The Proto-Germanic /k/ undergoes a split in Old English. A front allophone develops in a front environment, e.g. *kinnjom ’chin’,^33 in complementation with a back allophone in a back environment, e.g. 161 *kunjon ’kin*. However, this back allophone comes to stand in a front environment as a result of ¿-umlaut, i.e. *kyni, and post- 162 consonantal /j/ or final /i/ is lost, i.e. cynn, cin. The front and back allophones, both now occurring in front environments, contrast 163 and become separate phonemes, here given the notation /c/ and /k/.

The front phoneme /c/ contrasts with all the phones of the back phoneme

/k/, as cen occurs in both front and back environments (cf. Table 2, p. 27 above). On the other hand, the back phoneme /k/ has two complementary allophones, [R] and [k], the first occurring in front

159 "The Stops and Spirants in Early Germanic," 1. ^33The Oxford English Dictionary, II, ’chin’, 350 on the etymology.

161Ibid., V, ’kin’, 696. 162 Moulton, "The Stops and Spirants in Early Germanic," 24. 163 See Penzl, "The Phonemic Split of Germanic k in Old English," 41-2. The second phoneme /k/ comprises allophones [R] and [k]. See above p. 86, fn. 130. 94

environments exclusively (kynirg c and urg ket) and the latter in back

environments (cwomu, crist). They naturally form allophones to be

subsumed under one phoneme /k/. The phonetic (but nonfunctional)

difference existing between the two allophones [£] and [k] would not 164 be noticed by ordinary speakers (cf. NE king and coon). But these

two sounds are apparently distinguished in the Ruthwell cross, because two separate symbols are used, gar-modified for [&] and calc for [k].

This ’allophonic distinction’, contradictory by definition, requires some explanation. z

First of all, it should be noted that the invention of calc was to express phonemic difference: it is used distinctively from cen in the Bewcastle cross, e.g. cyniburug vs. ricas s, £ and £ both occurring in front environments.^83 That the Ruthwell master did not make use of this existing, functionally efficient calc, that he used calc in contradistinction to gar-modified for the two complementary sounds, front and back dorsovelar allophones, i.e. the two varieties of [k] in e.g. NE king and coon, seems enigmatic. However, the enigna probably arises because the analyst contrasts (as the Ruthwell carver perhaps never did) the two back allophones. It seems that the carver contrasted

164 Unless of course it can be shown that there exists between the two complementary sounds such a . ' ' phonetic difference as between NE [h] and [q], which do not contrast functionally but are not associated as one phoneme by a New English speaker. See above p. 73, fn. 85. ^83What Elliott thought to be ’obvious errors’ are therefore not errors at all. See above p. 4. /

• 95

each of the allophones separately with the front phoneme /c/. So long

as this separate contrast is possible, /c/ vs. [kJ and /c/ vs. [kJ for

some distinctive reason, 166 the two phones [£j and [kJ can exist

separately in his phonemic system without his actually comparing the two ; - sounds: [£J and [kj.^82 This hypothesis may be proved by

shoxving that the carver had good reason to think that (using the symbolism

of the two preceding footnotes) was not R2. Taking R^ to be the

feature that distinguishes [£J from /c/, this feature is functional,

i.e. cin ’chin* and cin ’kin. R2, the factor that distinguishes [kJ from

/c/, is also distributional and functional, because cên, representing

[cj, can occur in back environments (riienæ ), its privilege of

occurrence thus overlapping with that of calc (crist). Thus the front

phoneme /c/ serves as the common denominator for the back sounds. The

Ruthwell rune-carver’s phonemic reasoning must, have been something like

the following: Since [£J is different from [cj (they occur in front

environments and contrast), it should be given the symbol gar-modified.

[kJ is also different from [cj (they occur in back environments and

contrast) for a different reason. Ergo [kJ must be different from [£J

and should be represented by calc. If the rune-carver had been a thorough

phonemicist, he would have sought to compare [£J and [kJ and would have

^88The contrast in each case must be for a different reason. If, however, a b for and a £ for R2, and R^ = R2, then b> = £.

16 7'if the reasons are different, that is (using the symbolism of the preceding footnote), R^ £ Rj leads to the conviction that b c without the actual investigation or comparison of t> and £. 16 8 See above Table 2, p. 27, and p. 74, 96

found that they could not be compared at all because of their

complementary distribution. But this extra step of phonemic reasoning

he did not take, probably because [c], the common denominator, was

such a different sound as to prevent him from feeling the need

for making any further investigation. The contrast with [c]

was sufficient. What then was the phonetic quality of [c] which

serves as the decisive common denominator of contrast for all

the other sounds? No definite answer can be given, for there is no

definite articulatory or acoustic evidence, and, as Penzl has pointed 169 out, orthographic evidence is not phonetic, seldom even phonemic.

In that sense [c g] are hypothetical entities and do not signify more

than /c g/. However, some boundaries may be drawn. Since [c] contrasts

with [&J (cf. cin ’chin* and cin ’kin1), which, like its counterpart

(as in singan ’sing'), is a front dorsovelar or centrodomal stop,

/c/ must have been more fronted than [£], if it was a stop. As such,

its position of articulation could have been centrodomal, laminoalveolar, apicodomal, or apicoalveolar.^-7^ Since the laminoalveolar articulation

of NE /£/ and /¿/ may be considered the most fronted limit, any point beyond the alveoli may be ruled out. The last two positions, apicodomal and apicoalveolar, would imply some retroflexion of the tongue, especially the former, of a type similar to that postulated for the so-

169 vo See above p. 3. l^See above p. 1, fn. 2. 97

called ’cerebral* stop sound of Sanskrit or Ario-Indian and Dravidian.

Further, the manner of articulation need not have been occlusive. The

/c/ could have already had an affricate articulation. If so, even the

front dorsovelar position might have been included. The variety of

scholarly opinions on this point attests to the wide range of phonetic possibilities. Most prestructuralist linguists seem to have felt the

affricate (or aspirate) articulation of /c/, as well as its frontness,

to have been distinctive.

Grimm assumed ’Kehlaspiration’;

Im ältesten Ags. galt Überall noch die reine Aussprache der Tenuis und Media; das Übrige Niederdeutsche und Niederländische hat sie bis heute erhalten. Das Ags. hingegen mag im 10. Jahrhundert oder sicher im 11. Jahrhundert gleich nach der normannischen Eroberung den Zischlaut oder vielleicht anfänglich statt seiner die Kehl- aspiration begonnen haben.

This ’Kehlaspiration’ is difficult to grasp. Ley, relying on Grimm’s notation [kx], takes it to mean dorsovelar stop and , and 173 calls it an error. But the context suggests that Grimm meant front 174 dorsovelar or even more fronted stop and fricative. Ellis elaborates essentially the same principle:

171w illiam Dwight Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar (Delhi, 1962), 16-7; and Dalibor Brozovió, "Some Remarks on Distinctive Features Especially in Standard Serbocroatian," To Honor Roman Jakobson (The Hague, 1967), I J 415. 172 Quoted in Hermann Ley, Der Lautwert des altenglischen c (Marburg, 1914), 3, from Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, I (Gbttingen, 1822), 262.

173 Der Lautwert des altenglischen c, 3. 174 See above p. 1, fn. 2, referring to Hockett, A Manual of Phonolgy, 37, where he distinguishes ’centrodomal, fronted dorsovelar’, ’dorsovelar’, and ’back dorsovelar’, using the notations k, k, and q respectively. 98

In pronouncing (J) [= 3 or palatal voiced spirantj, the middle of the tongue is arched up against the palate; while for (k) the back and for (t) the tip of the tongue come into contact with the palate. When then (kJ) come together rapidly, the first change is to produce (kj) and (tj) is meant precisely the same as (k') .... For (kj) there is an attempt to pronounce (k) and (3) simultaneously. Hence the back of the tongue still remaining in contact with the palate, the middle of the tongue is also raised, so that both back and middle lie against the palate. This is rather a constrained position, and consequently the back of the tongue readily drops. The result is the exact position for (tj), which, originating in an attempt to sound (t) and (3) simultaneously, brought the tip and middle of the tongue to the palate, and this being almost an impossible position dropped the tip. The two consonants (kj, tj) 1 are therefore ready to interchange. The passage from (tg) to (tsh) is very short and swift, so much so that many writers, as Wallis, have considered (tsh) to be really (tg) . . . .175

In short, Ellis describes the back and front limits of the phonetic change as advanced dorsovelar [kJ and apico- or laminoalveolar [tj. The intermediate phase he gives as (kj) or (k’), the centrodomal modification of [kJ with the (necessarily) attendant fricative [3J, which Ellis describes as being pronounced in this position ’simultaneously’.

According to Lenz the [kJ sound, as it is pushed forward (using his own expression) from the mediopalate to the prepalate, causes a more or less clear semi-fricative with the opening of the tongue closure.

This fricative sets in because the bands of muscle directly behind the main place of stop closure press against the prepalate on both sides of the middle of the tongue, whereas the middle of the tongue itself does not touch the prepalate, either entirely or at the decisive moment of supra-alveolar opening of the stop.

l23Alexander J. Ellis, On Early English Pronunciation (London, 1369), 204-5. 99

Der fricative ansatz wird dadurch hervorgerufen, dass unmittelbar hinter der hauptverschlussstelle die beiden muskelstreifen seit­ wärts der zungenmittellinie sich an das praepalatum anlegen, während die raittellinie entweder Überhaupt oder doch im ent­ scheidenden moment der supraalveolaren verschlusslösung das prapalatum nicht berührt, sondern mit demselben eine lange rinne bildet, die meist bis ins mediopalatum reicht.176

In short, he agrees with Ellis in thinking that the fricative release

of the stop is a physiological necessity in the centrodomal and lamino

or apicoalveolar positions. 177 Sweet has been accused of vacillation in his interpretation,

but he generally follows the theory of centrodomal aspiration,

phoneticized [kj] or [tj], using Ellis* notations. According to Wyld, who supports Sweet,

Sweet has always maintained that O.E. c was a front-stop consonant .... By a front stop is simply meant a stop formed with that part of the tongue which is used in forming the (German) ¿-sound. This latter sound is in fact the front-open-voice consonant, the voiceless form of it being the final sound in German 'ich'. In forming the front stops the middle or 'front' part of the tongue is pressed against the hard palate just behind the alveolars, the effect being that of a kind of £ or d, according to whether there is voice or not. When the stop is opened a ¿-like off-glide is heard, and it is this off-glide that gives the sound its very characteristic 'colour'.178

Similarly, Hempl states:

l78Rudolf Lenz, Zur Physiologie und Geschichte der Palatalen (Bonn, 1887), 25. l77Hempl, "Old English etc.," 375.

178 "Contributions to the History of the Guttural Sounds in English 136 100

There is no question in my mind that the development was along a line of which the chief stages may be marked as: — velar stop £ £ palatal " £ £ " affricate ch- gh $ dental affricate t§ dd.

He equates li with ch in German ich, and adds, ’’The £ and £ would

probably be more correctly written ch and ch, that is, as aspirated 180 stops.” What Hempl has isolated here as three stages (palatalization,

palatal affrication, and.dental affrication) are also found in the

explanations of affrication by other scholars.

Sievers defines palatalization as the assimilation of a velar

sound to the articulation of a palatal vowel to become a palatal 181 (centro- or laminodomal) stop. In the transition from the stop to

the following front vowel, this articulation is apt to produce an

intervening fricative--hence, the second or palatal affricate stage.

The articulator is further pressed forward and the final or dental 182 (apico- or laminoalveolar) affricate is produced.

This phonology of affrication is also found in more recent works.

Ley conducts his dissertation under the three headings, palatalization, assibilation and dentalization, assuming an uninterrupted chain of progression from one stage to the next, with centrodomal aspiration as

179 "Old English d, dg, etc.," 376-7. 180T. 1 Ibid., loc. cit. 181 GrundzUge der Phonetik, 5th ed. (Leipzig, 1901), §482.

182Ibid., £489. 101 a phonetic necessity. Standard grammars of Old English also seek an explanation on the basis of palatal assimilation and aspiration.

Jordan explains:

Während das germ, k vor dunklen Vokalen unverändert blieb, wurde es, wie ähnliche Entwicklung im Friesischen zeigt, vor hellen Vokalen schon in kontinentaler Zeit palatalisiert, d.h. sehr weit nach dem vorderen Gaumen gerUckt und wohl bald auch assibiliert zur Affrikata kx; aus dieser entwickelte sich spätestens um 900 die dentale Affrikata tx und gegen Ende der ae. Zeit, jedenfalls im 11. Jahrhundert, der noch jetzt erhaltene Quetschlaut t £.184 185 Campbell terms the phenomenon ’fronting and assibilation’. Luick follows the three-part scheme to the letter:

Die Palatalisierungsbewegung ... wurde bei den Verschlusslauten, soweit sie kräftig palatalisiert waren, und zwar noch in der altenglischen Periode weitergefUhrt. Die kräftige Ausprägung des palatalen Charakters führte zu einer starken Engenbildung, so dass sich ein Reibegeräusch einstellte und Affrikaten entstanden: stark palatale kx und gj. Weiterhin sprangen, wie es auch in anderen Sprachen oft geschehen ist, die palatalen Verschlusslaute in dentale um, es entstanden tx dj und daraus wieder t^, d£. 186

More recently, Penzl stated:

The phonetic development of the palatal allophone [k] to [t§] and the intermediate stages of this change were formerly widely discussed by scholars. It seemed the most important problem in regard to the development of Germanic k . . . . However, the specific phonetic values at any particular time are not as important as the distinctive sound units and their contrasts. Old English has satisfactory evidence for the phonemic split of Germanic k itself, but only the general sound-types of the historical phonemes can be ascertained on the basis of the available evidence.187

1.83Der Lautwert des altenglischen c, esp. §36, 43. 184 Handbuch der mittelenglischen Grammatik, §177. l330ld English Grammar, §427-442. ^^Historische Grammatik, §685. 187 "The Phonemic Split of Germanic k in Old English 102

These 'general sound-types', not defined by Penzl except with such

traditional schemata as [k], [k'j, [tj], [tX], etc., constitute the 188 two phonemes, front and back, which he represents as /k'/ and /k/.

One who seeks distinctive features for these phonemes must, therefore, 189 refer to the 'phonetic' literature of past scholarship. Among the

various phonetic possibilities suggested, however, the traditional view

seems to have made the most unlikely choice in believing that 'aspiration

or 'affrication' began in the so-called palatal (centrodomal) stage

(because of some physiological necessity of the position) and that the

affricate thus formed had only to shift forward to the alveolar ridge

to become the New English affricate. From Old one may infer that aspiration was present in dorsovelar or front dorsovelar

articulation as well. Random samples from the different dialects will 190 suffice. Early Mercian has crocha and chroca Epinal and Erfurt, and 191 chroa, croha Corpus. This h, occurring in the neighborhood of the voiceless velar stop [k], may be taken as a sign of 'aspiration' or

fricative opening. For pocca 'pouch' West Saxon Cura Pastoralis has 192 193 pohchan. Pohha occurs in the Northumbrian Lindisfarne Gospels, and

188 "The Phonemic Split of Germanic k in Old English," 42. 189 See above p. 3, fn. 8,, and pp. 97-101. 190 Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 46. 191,. .. Ibid., 51. 192 Sweet, King Alfred's Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care, 343. 193 Skeat, The Holy Gospels, 'Luke', 9/3. 103 194 late West Saxon Leechdoms. The latter also has pohchan and croh for ' ' 195 196 croc. More examples are cited by BUlbring. It is therefore difficult to maintain that aspiration arose only in ’palatal* 197 articulation. It is of course granted that palatal articulation had aspiration, as the occurrences of michil, michel Lindisfarne Gospels, chye for ciae Epinal 240, etc. show. Indeed aspiration may be assumed for the stop /k/ in all positions of articulation, for ”in general, 198 £ £ k are aspirated fortes in the Germanic languages."

Since fricative release does not provide the contrast, the distinction must be sought in articulatory position. The need for positional contrast eliminates front dorsovelar and probably even centrodomal positions, where the hypothetical [cj would be easily 199 confused with [£J. Such confusion is contrary to phonemic distinc­ tiveness which has been shown to exist between [cj and [£J.288 That is why laminodomal and apicodomal articulation should also be considered less probable. The remaining alternatives are laminoalveolar andapico-

194 0. Cockayne, Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England (London, 1864-6), II, 138 and 208. 195 Ibid., I, 232; II, 244; and III, 48. 196 "Review of Die northumbrischen Runensteine by ViBtor," 75.

197zSee above pp. 98-101.

198 Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, p. 68. 199 See above pp. 94-6. 2^^See above p. 96. 104

alveolar positions, which are, in fact, the articulatory positions of

the New English affricate. In other words, [c] was articulated most

probably at the point where the New English [£] is now pronounced.

Since fortis Germanic stop /k/ had in all positions an aspirate or

fricative release, [c] must have had a manner of articulation nearly,

if not exactly, like that of NE /If.

The New English /£/ is generally analyzed to have as 'components’

laminoalveolar stop + fricative. At least in the 'Received Pronunciation' 201 of British English and 'General American', the position of

articulation is slightly more retracted than that of the dental /t/, 202 which can, however, vary from apicodental to apicoalveolar. The 203 sequence of the components is without juncture, and this feature

sometimes causes contrast.

In some dialects, these units contrast with clusters /tS/ and /d£/ [Hockett's notation for /£/ and /£/, the latter varying with the following /§/]: pitcher : won't ya; ledger : did ya. In some of these same dialects, /£ g/ contrast also with /ty dy/: choose : tune, teutonic; juice : ■ dune, deuteronomy .... Perhaps we must regard /£/ and / g/ as something like close or intimate sequential clusters of /t/ and /£/, /d/ and /£/, in contrast to the "normal" (though much rarer) clusters /tS di/. This would involve a recognition of two kinds of sequential agreement (intimate and "normal"), not contrasting in most cases; and, of course, one's notation would have to indicate the difference—perhaps precisely by writing the intimate clusters with the symbols /£ g/.204

201 See above p. 50, fn. 1. 202Hockett, A Course in Modern Linguistic^, 55-8; and II. A. Gleason, Jr., An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics (New York, 1966), 314-7. 203 Hockett, A Manual of Phonology, 164. 204 ... , Ibid., loc. cit. I I

105

Hockett's unit phoneraicization expresses the ’intimate' sequence

adequately, but, as far as symmetry is concerned, represents a choice.

/£/ is an anomalous phoneme in the hierarchic scale of English

consonants because

neither /£/ nor /$/ participates in more complex onsets, while the most similar other elements, /p t k b d g/, all do. /£/ and I%/ seem to occupy a position in the hierarchic scale midway between elements like /p t k b d g/ (which remain unbroken further down the . scale) and elements like /pr tr kr br dr gr pi kl bl gl/ (which are ?05 broken into smaller constituents at an earlier step).

On the other hand, the cluster interpretation does not show any more

exact symmetry.

Interpretation as /t£/ means that this is being recognized as the only cluster in the language consisting of stop plus spirant; this throws /t/ out of parallelism with /p k/, and /£/ out of parallelism with /s/. Interpretation as /ty/ yields a neat pattern for stops, since we now have, as occurrent margins, /p t k/, /py ty ky/, /pw tw kw/, /hp ht hk/, /hpy hty hky/, /hpw htw hkw/ . . . .On the other hand, the revised /y/ which is involved in the interpretation has a peculiar distribution; /y/ now occurs before /i i*/ providing that the /y/ is itself preceded by /t/ ... but not otherwise. There is nothing else in the distributional pattern of the system which resembles this.206

Ultimately, the 'unit or cluster’ question seems to depend on personal

aesthetics, a survey of which is given by Gleason with convenient 207 references. Apart from the ’aesthetical' controversy, the juncture­

less, 'functionally indivisible’ laminoalveolar affricate segment of

New English is distinct from any other neighboring stop, not only in

205 Hockett, A Manual of Phonology, 164. 206lbid., 161-2.

207 An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, 314-7. 106 articulatory position but in virtue of its distinctive fricative 208 • release. Whether the Old English /c/ had this New English fricative release or a more open frictionless (so-called ’aspirate’) release is a moot question, but the previous consideration of ’aspiration’ shows. that the manner of release might have remained homogeneous throughout the fronting process. OE /£/ was nearly, if not exactly, NE /£/. As 209 mentioned above, this conclusion is supported by the persistent retention of the functionally (i.e. distributionally) nondistinctive calc. Only a radical dissimilarity in the phonetic quality of [cj explains the separate symbolization of allophones [£J and-[kJ with gar-modified and calc. Such a radical phonetic difference seems best accounted for, if a sufficiently fronted, i.e. laminoalveolar affricate sound for /£/ is posited.

Runic evidence suggests that laminoalveolar affrication prevailed quite early, inasmuch as the Ruthwell Cross is an early Old English 210 monument. The assumption of laminoalveolar affrication at so early a date in Old English seems to contradict the evidence of alliteration.

However, in an intensive study of the problem Flasdieck notes:

The general definition of alliteration stating that each of two syllables begins with the same sound needs certain modifications from a phonetic point of view, with regard to common Germ, usage no less than from an interpretation of OE patterns.2^

208 Kenneth L. Pike, Phonemics (Ann Arbor, 1964), 33. 289See above pp. 94-6. 210 See below Appendix I, Item 2, pp. 115-8. 211 "The Phonetic Aspect of Old Germanic Alliteration,” 273-4. 107

His conclusion regarding such patterns as cu : ceorl is:

There cannot be the slightest doubt about the phonetic split in OE, though the chronology of the stages [k>c>c^>c^q>tq>tj] is rather uncertain .... If the phonetic difference between the OE results of Germ, [k] is neglected in poetry, the reason is apparently found in the unvoiced tectal plosion common to [k] and [c*1] .

Flasdieck's phonetic formula continues the traditional theory of

centrodomal [c^] origin of aspiration [c^q]. Also he recognizes the

common 'tectal plosion' only among the first three sounds [k c c^J, and

attributes the linking of the subsequent sounds with 'aspiration' or ~ 213 fricative opening to the no less traditional solution of 'eye-rimes'.

However, his concept of 'tectal plosion' is useful if interpreted as

•tongue-roof contact'. All the sounds he lists, which are in fact reducible to the three allophones [k Jc c], share this property in common as well as voicelessness. That tongue-roof contact was felt to be a linking articulatory component is supported by the evidence of the 214 Battle of Maldon, considered above, in connection with the stop development of /g/ before back vowels and consonants. The forms which have the stop value in New English alliterate only with stop forms, e.g.

1. 187 Godric gupe - godan, and spirant forms with spirant forms, e.g.

1. 274 gearo geornful - gylpwordum. The voiceless consonants, on the

212 "The Phonetic Aspect of Old Germanic Alliteration," 268. 713 Hempl, "Old English £, etc.", 382; BUlbring, "Review of Die northumbrischen Runensteine by Viator," 102-4; Ley, Der Lautwert des altenglischen c, p. 64; and Penzl, "The Phonemic Split of Germanic k in Old English," 34. 214 See above p. 78 108 other hand, are not distinguished at all, e.g. 1. 91 ceallian - cald, 215 1. 256 ceorl - clypode.

To recapitulate the above discussion, the cen, calc, and gar- modified runes occurring in the four runic monuments studied here can be given the following phonemic and phonetic values.

/k/ [k] crist, cri, cwomu, becun. A dorsovelar stop, cf. come [k-],

Christ, beacon.

[R] cyniburug, kyniig c, uig ket. A front dorsovelar or centrodomal

stop, cf. NE king [R-], junket.

/£/ [£] lic£e s, rica s, riicna , ic (five times), but not the final

consonant of kynirg c. The sound develops into the lamino­

alveolar affricate in New English, e.g. lichgate [-£-], rich,

dialectal ich (utch, utchy)Most probably it was a lamino-

or apicoalveolar stop with an aspirate or fricative release.

215 Dobbie, The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, 9 and 14. 216' Wright, The English Dialect Dictionary, I, ’ch*, 552. /0<7

APPENDIX I

RUNIC MONUMENTS CONTAINING NEW VELAR RUNES

1. Bewcastle Cross West face Text I (between the two top figure panels) [+Jg[eJs^us Cristtus ffi Text II (main inscription, in nine lines in the space below the figure of Christ, between engraved side lines) 4-pissigb.c. 5 » B.setto/nh 15 was tred.. j> 2) 25 gas ra.w.wo. D 3 ft.lcfri

^m.n[g]u.ig 30 $ ,cb....u/ig 63 .gebid. 65 D "j • • so • o 3 North face Text III (across the shaft head) .ssu/s 4 Text IV (between the two lowest decorative panels) cyniburgg 5 9 South face Text V (at the shaft head) (illegible) Text VI (between the two lowest decorative panels). .[g]s. 4 110

The above text divisions, line arrangements and rune counts are

based on Page’s study.+ stands for a cross. is a clearly cut 2 symbol, occurring four times in Texts II and IV. It may be described

as an ur-rune with three transverse bars, and was first read as a bind 3 rune p/u by Maughan. This reading is followed by Stephens, except that

he takes it as ur in Text IV because ’cyniburftug' is impossible and 4 describes the transverse bars as ’chips and flaws’. Although ViBtor has some reservations concerning this reading,3 *S t*e p*hens’ texts are

generally followed by later scholars.3 Elliott seems to be the only

one among recent scholars who reads a gar-modified rune in the alleged kynirg of Text IV, 63-5.7 Willett reads the main inscription, in the

accepted tradition, as ”+{)is sigbecn J>un setton was tred wo})g® r olwowolpu

as ft alcfripum an kuniig eac oswiuig+ gebiddaj) [hine sauulo],” and

l’’The Bewcastle Cross,” 36-57.

2Ibid., 43, fig. 2.

3 John Maughan, A Memoir on the Roman Station and Runic Cross at Bewcastle (London, 1857), 17-8. 4 George Stephens, The Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England, I (London, 1866), 398-404; and Handbook of the Old-Northern Runic Monuments (London, 1884), facsimiles 129 and transcriptions 128-30.

3Pie northumbrischen Runensteine, 13-6.

3Sweet, Oldest English Texts (London, 1885), 124; W. G. Collingwood, "Remains of the Pre-Norman Period," Victoria History of the County of Cumberland, I (London, 1901), 277-8; and Lawrence Stone, in Britain (Harmondworth, 1955), 10; and others referred to by Page, "The Bewcastle Cross," 36-7. 7Runes, 95. I

111

translates, "This slender victory sign set up Wae tred, Wothg® r,

•Olwowolthu in memory of Alcfrith, a king and son of Oswiu. 4- Pray for

[his soul]." He identifies Alcfrith as "the son of Oswiu (or Oswy),

King of , who was made under-king of Deira about 655," and

reads Text IV on the north face as cyniburug, the daughter of Penda of

Mercia, whom Alcfrith married. "[Alcfrith] probably died," adds Willett,

"before Oswiu (who died in 671) for the histories would surely otherwise 8 have explained how he came to be passed over in the succession." Other 9 variant readings of earlier scholarship are examined by Collingwood.

Page shows, however, that Maughan himself vacillated in his

interpretation of the symbol, which Maughan at one time read as ’undoubtedly U’,^ and goes on to examine seven accounts and drawings

of Text IV made before or at about the same time as Maughan’s (1857),

concluding: "None shows any bow or group of transverse lines in rune 8.

Five give the form ‘u’, while the other two interpret it as a roman

CharacterPage suggests some later tampering with the inscription.

Such tampering, if accepted, would invalidate the reading of a bind-rune

•|>/u' and the elaborate theories of Alcfri|>/um, etc. in the main text

(Text II), but would, on the other hand, enhance the authenticity of

g The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses,20-1. Q Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age (London, 1927), 117-8.

10"The Bewcastle Cross," 44-7.

11 Ibid., 47-50. 112

the reading cyniburug for Text IV. Page’s discussion of the puzzling

•symbol 1=1 has been, in his own words, "destructive, [beingj an attack

12 on the ’accepted’ connexion between the cross and Alchfrid," and

does not yield any new explanation. However, he seems justified in

saying that "it is hard to adopt a more positive attitude" to the /

Bewcastle texts as they now stand.

Art historians generally regard the Bewcastle Cross to be 13 contemporary with the Ruthwell Cross. Those who connect the cross

with Alchfrid date it c. 700. Page, while rejecting the connection,

considers it contemporary with the Great Urswick, the third Thornhill

Stone, and the Ruthwell Cross in using the new velar runes, i.e. 750- 14 850. Marquardt has an. extensive bibliography, divided into four 15 sections.

12 "The Bewcastle Cross," 54. 13 Elliott, Runes, 96. See the following discussion of the date of the Ruthwell Cross.

14 "The Bewcastle Cross," 57. ^Bibliographie der Runeninschriften nach Fundorten, 17-26. 113

2. Ruthwell Gross

East (northeast)

Line 39 ...geredæ hinæ god almehttig 40 j»a he walde on galgu gistiga 41 [mjodig f...... men 42 [bjug[aJ (about 30 characters lost)

East (southeast)

Line 44 .... ic riienæ kyniigc 45 hêafunæ s hlafard hæ Ida ic dorstæ 48 bismæ ræ du uigket men ba æ tgad[ræj ic [wæ s J 49 bi (about 40 characters lost)

East (margin of the upper level)

dae gisgæ f

South (cross head, originally the north side)

m/æ faucé j>o

South (margins of the visitation panel)

m....m..i...r dominnæ

West (southwest)

Line 56 crist;.wae S;on- rodi 57 hwejjrae j>ae r fusae fearran cwomu 58 ae j>{>ilae til anum ic wae s al bih[ealdj 59 s[arae ] ic was s mi[j>] sorgum gidrae [fijd h[njag

West (northwest)

Line 62 mij) strelum giwundad 63 alegdun hiae hinae limwoe rignae gistoddun him..... licae s [heajf[dujm 64 [bijhea[l]du[nj hi[as J j>e[rj (about 20 characters lost) 114

The text is based on the transcriptions of Dickins and Elliott.33 The numbered lines are arranged to correspond to the lines

of the poem Dream of the Rood in the Vercelli codex, although some of the words in the lines do not match exactly.37 For a translation of

the numbered lines one may refer to Dickins and Ross who provide abundant 18 notes and glossary. The meaning of the unnumbered texts still remains ain enigma, except for the self-evident dominas . Wrenn suggests the possible reading of (i)das gisgee f as the remains of wae pida gisca ft, 19 corresponding to weop eal gesceaft, line 55 of the Vercelli Book. 20 This reading was also suggested earlier by O’Loughlin. Page states, however:

Wrenn’s comments on (i)das gisgaa f can be ignored, partly because the interpretation of this group of runes is uncertain, partly 21 because there is no justification for the initial (i) of that group.

"A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions,” 17-8; and Elliott, Runes, 91-4. Dickins* transcription is adopted without change in Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, 24-9. 37Krapp, The Vercelli Book, 61-5; and Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, 24-9. 18 19 20 * * * 18 Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, 41-51. 19 "The Value of Spelling as Evidence," Transactions of the Philological Society of London (1943), 21. 20 J. L. N. O’Loughlin, Times Literary Supplement (1931), 648. See Wrenn, "The Value of Spelling as Evidence," 21, fn. 1. 21 "Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," 401. 115

Dickins and Ross have also shown that there could not be room for i 22 .and suggest that the line may represent a name.

The first transcription of the inscriptions on all the four sides

of the shaft appears in Hickes, Thesaurus, I (1703), 3, Tab. 4, based

on the sketches made by one W. Nicolson, and is reproduced in Kemble,

"On Anglo-Saxon Runes," Tab. 18, fig. 18. The second transcription is provided by A. Gordon, in his Itinerarium Septentrionale (1727), Tab.

57, also reproduced in Kemble, op. cit., Tab. 18, fig. 19. Gordon saw 23 the cross himself. A few more transcriptions, including that of Sweet, 24 precede the detailed critical edition by Victor. The transcription and 25 photographs provided by Cook are detailed, and in the words of Forbes and Dickins, "short of actual inspection of the monuments themselves, 26 these must always form the basis for future investigation."

The late date of 1100-1150 was conjectured on artistic and 27 linguistic grounds by Cook, but Forbes and Dickins effectively demolish this reasoning and suggest, on the basis of the new velar runes,

22 The Dream of the Rood, 4-6. 23 Oldest English Texts, 125-6. 24 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 6-13. 25 "The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses," 218-28. 76 "The Inscriptions of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses and the Bridekirk Font," 29. 27 "The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses," 358. 116 a date not earlier than 700. Saxl studied the figures on the cross, compared them with Mediterranean models and with the coffin of St.

Cuthbert (which he dates in 698) and concluded that the cross was "a work 29 of the last quarter of the seventh century". Ross considered all the relevant linguistic features and dated the inscription as of the early 30 eighth century. This view is restated by him and Dickins in their joint work:

From the e in ’men’, from the occurrence of back-mutation in ’heafunas s’ and from the unstressed vowels we conclude that the dialect is very nearly as early as that of the early Northumbrian texts, Casdmon’s Hymn (Moore MS), Bede’s Death-song and the Leiden Riddle; from the unstressed vowels, from the absence of syncope in 'h^afunae s’ and from the form ’hiae ’ we conclude that it is not as late as the late Northumbrian texts, Lindisf, Ritual and Ru^. The conclusion therefore is that the date of the inscription lies between that of these sets of texts. The language of the three early Northumbrian texts is probably to be referred to the early part of the eighth century, and that of Lindisf, Ritual and Ru^ to the tenth .... We are probably justified in assigning the language of the Ruthwell Cross to the first half of the eighth century also.3*-

Wrenn accepts the linguistic conclusions of Dickins and Ross on the whole but, with regard to the inconsistent use of -i and -as in blodas and rodi and the occurrence of £ and se beside _e, suggests the possibility of deliberate anachronism:

28 "The Inscriptions of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses," 24-6. 29 F. Saxl, "The Ruthwell Cross," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, VI (1943), 1-19. 30 "The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of the Ruthwell Cross," 145-55. 31 The Dream of the Rood, 12-3. 117

We are looking at a late eighth century inscription carved in an early eighth century spelling, with the inevitable inconsistencies and errors.32

33 ' In a series of articles, Page has widened the margin of doubt, and states:

It is, then, probably later than [Historia Ecclesiastica] ('[Moore and Leningrad MSS]). A date in the tenth, century is not beyond the bounds of possibility, but is unlikely. There remains the period from, say, 740 to the end of the ninth century.34

In view of this uncertainty on linguistic grounds Page calls for a comprehensive study of the Anglo-Saxon sculptured stones, ’’preferably carried out by an art historian who has not been influenced by uncertain 35 linguistic datings". The findings of art historians are not identical, however. In an extensive survey of early monuments, Collingwood studies the design of ’plaits’ and states:

The Croft continuous plait is of early 8th century type; the Bewcastle.two-member, plait is of late 8th century type. And the analogy of the Ruthwell Cross to Bewcastle Cross suggests a similar date.36

In another place Collingwood dates the Bewcastle and Ruthwell Crosses, on account of their grand style, simplicity of ornament and other

32 "The Value of Spelling as Evidence," 22. 33 "Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," 385-406; "The Old . English Rune ear," 65-79; and "A Note on the Transliteration of Old English Runic Inscriptions," 484-90. 34 "Language and dating in OE Inscriptions," 395. 35Ibid., 405. ’

"The Ruthwell Cross in Its Relation to Other Monuments of the Early Christian Age," Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Antiquarian Society (1918),38. 118

•typological* features, at the very end of the eighth century. This

argument is decisive enough to a layman and Wrenn calls it ’overwhelming 38 evidence for a date at the very end of the eighth century’. But this rather late dating is rejected by modern art historians, who generally 39 assign a date to the Ruthwell Cross of about 670-750. Despite a margin of variation of a century or so, however, no art historian dates the

Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses later than the eighth century. Elliott combines linguistic, artistic and runological evidence, when he states:

The art and epigraphy cf both monuments [Ruthwell and BewcastleJ are very similar and are assigned by most recent authorities to the period 670-750. On linguistic and runological grounds the first half of the eighth century is the more acceptable; before this time the additional rune [gatJ was probably not yet in use, while at a later date one should have expected at least the [stanj-rune to occur which by the end of the eighth century had found its way across to Friesland to figure three times in the yew wand of Westeremden (fig. 22).^

The dialect of the inscription is shown to be North Northumbrian by Dickins and Ross:

From the e in ’almehttig* and ’geredae ’ . . . from the £ in •strelum', ’[bjistemi[dj' and from the £ in ’giwundad’ we conclude that the dialect was not West Saxon; from the retraction in ’al’, •galgu', 'walde' (as well as from the occurrence of PrGerm £ in the

37Northumbrian Grosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 110-9. 38 "The Value of Spelling as Evidence," 19.

39Bibliographies of this study are given in Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, p. 7, fn. 5; and Page, "Language and Dating in Old English Inscriptions," 403. 4^Runes, 96. 119

last form) and from the se. in .'haelda', that it was Anglian; from the loss of final £ and from the £ in ’galgu’ that it was Northumbrian; from the ea in ’f&arran', 'hBafunaes', '[bi]h€a[l]du[n]’ that it was similar to that of Lindis and Ritual rather than to that of Ru^. if we accept Lindelbf's view that the dialect of the two former texts may be considered as North Northumbrian and that of the latter as South Northumbrian we conclude that the dialect of the inscription is North Northumbrian. This is what we should expect from the location of the cross in Dumfriesshire.4^

The early accounts concerning the Ruthwell Cross are gathered .42 and studied by Haverfield, and the history of the cross (e.g. its breaking as an ’idolatrous monument' in 1642, restoration of its fragments in 1802, moving of the restored cross into the church where it now stands), 43 is given by Elliott and Dobbie.

The most extensive and important of Old English runic inscriptions, the Ruthwell Cross, Dumfriesshire, has been studied by many. A biblio- 44 graphy of early studies appears in Victor's dissertation. Cook provides 45 a survey of studies up to 1912, and select bibliographies also appear 46 in more recent works. But Marquardt has the most recent and thorough 47 bibliography, divided into six sections.

41 The Dream of the Rood, 12. 42 "Cotton lulius F. VI. Notes on Reginald Bainbrigg ... on some Roman Inscriptions," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian Society (1911), 355. 43 Dobbie, The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, cxviii-ix; and Elliott, Runes, 90-1. 44 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 2-4. 43"The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses," 218-28.

43Dickins and Ross, The Dream of the Rood, 36-40; Dobbie, The Anglo- Saxon Minor Poems, clxxiv-vi; and Elliott, Runes, 96 and 114-6. ^Bibliographie, 112-23. I

120

3. Thornhill Cross

• Thornhill A: e£>elberht settae [as Jfter ej)elwini Thornhill B: eadred sete ae fte[r] eategnne Thornhill C: jilsuif) arae rde ae fte[r] berhtsuifje becun on bergi gebidda{> £>as r saule 48 Facsimiles are given by Elliott and Collingwood. ViBtor saw - - 49 50 c in becun of Thornhill C, but Dickins read only c. In this study the calc reading is adopted. ViBtor suggests that the first character of jilsuifr be read as the bind-rune of ig. Collingwood follows this and even suggests the reading of gi, translating the third inscription:

"Gilsuith reared this cross after Berhtsuith, a monument on her grave. Pray for her soul."3^ Whitbread reads igilsuith, and points out the

52 alliterative versification of Thornhill C.

According to Collingwood, the ornamentation of the Thornhill stones points to the decadent period of Anglian sculpture before

48 Runes, Pl. 15, figs. 35-7; Collingwood, "Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture in the West Riding,” Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, XXIII (1915), 244. 49 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 22.

50»»a System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions," 18. 3^"Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture," 245.

52 L. Whitbread, "The Thornhill Cross Inscriptions," Notes and Queries (1948), 156. 121

Scandinavian influence, i.e., c. 800. On linguistic and runological 54 grounds Elliott dates it around 800. See Marquardt for previous ,.55 studies.

53"Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture," 245-6. 54 Runes, 89.

^Bibliographic, 130-2. 122

4. Urswick Cross-Slab

.Text: tunwini setae ae fter torogtredas becun ae fter his has urnae gebidas s j>er saulas lyljjiswo 56 J Facsimiles are given by Collingwood. bae urnas could be either

beorn 'prince* or beam 'child', while u in bae urnae compares with such

occurrences in early texts as Eumer in Bede's Historia Ecclesiastics

or Euda in the Calendar of St. Willibrord, greut in the Franks Casket,

steupfaedaer in the Epinal Gloss 1070 and Sceutuald early in the nomina 57 clericorum of Liber Vitae. More linguistic notes are given by Magnus

Olsen. 58 The art of the stone is described in detail by Collingwood. 59

The formula "Tunwini set the’ memorial after Torohtrede, after his prince (or child)" is to be found in the Dewsbury fragment (in half- uncial characters),88 on the Falstone stone and others. Collingwood interprets the last group of runes as lyl jjis wa[~sj, Lyl being the , 61 carver's name.

88"The Ruthwell Gross in Its Relation to Other Monuments of the Early Christian Age," and Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 53, fig. 66. 82page, "Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," 404.

58°"Notes on the Urswick Inscription," Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap, IV (1930), 282-6. 59 "A Rune-Inscribed Anglian Cross-Shaft at Urswick Church," 462. 88British Museum: A Guide to the Anglo-Saxon and Foreign Teutonic Antiquities (London, 1923), 124-5. 82"A Rune-Inscribed Anglian Cross-Shaft," 467. 123

The consistent retention of £, je in inflectional syllables

suggests contemporaneity with the Ruthwell and other monuments.

However, "the -s. ending in ’gebidae s’ is . . . unparalleled in

Northumbrian texts before the 10th century", and Page considers the 6 2 text an archaized memorial stone of the later centuries. In view of the ’incised spiral at the shoulder of a human figure’ Collingwood 63 dates the stone to the late ninth century, and c. 900 is suggested 64 by Wrenn on linguistic grounds. The shaft was found in 1911 at

Urswick, Furness, as "lintel to the easternmost window in the south 65 wall of the nave" of the Urswick Church.

62 "Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," 402-3. 6 3 "A Rune-Inscribed Anglian Cross-Shaft," 468. 84"The Value of Spelling as Evidence," 21.

83"A Rune-Inscribed Anglian Cross-Shaft," 462. APPENDIX II

RUNIC TEXTS NOT CONTAINING NEW VELAR RUNES

1. Aeniwulufu Gold Coin

Text: ae niwulufu The transcription is that of Marquardt.3 4A facsimile of the

2 text appears in Stephens, Handbook, where he reads it as sa niwulucu. 3 Hempl reads ae nifrulufu.

The coin was found at the beginning of the nineteenth century and is preserved in the British Museum. The date of mintage is unknown, although the mixed use of Latin letters seems to place it somewhat late. Marquardt cites six works on the inscription.3

2. Ae{jilrae d Sceatts

Text: ae |>il(i)rae d A facsimile of one example is given by Elliott.3 Some have £ after 1. The coin is described and illustrated by Oman, who attributes it to King Ae{)ilraed of Mercia (675-704).7

3Bibliographie der Runeninschriften nach Fundorten, 43.

2 Handbook of the Old-Northern Runic Monuments, 193. 3 "0ld-English Runic a; niwulufu," Transactions of the American Philological Association, XXVII (1896), lxiv-vi. 4 Stephens, Handbook, 193. 3Bibliographie, 43.

3Runes, Pl. 5, fig. 14.

7The Coinage of England (London, 1967), 12. 125

3. AeJ>red Ring

Text: $ (3red mec ah ea)n(red mec) ag(ro)f Q A facsimile appears in Stephens, Handbook. The characters

enclosed in parentheses are in roman script. The same transcription 9 is given by Sweet.

Considered an eighth century product, the gold ring was found

somewhere in Lancashire and is preserved in the British Museum, London.

4. Alnmouth Cross

front: ..v..... h.... back: myredah.meh.worhte sinister., top line: sav[l] sinister, middle line: adv[w] sinister, bottom line: lfesd

The text is transcribed and illustrated in Dickins and Ross,

"The Alnmouth Cross,” with a bibliography on previous scholarship. 12 Marquardt cites 26 works on the inscription.

Lines 1, 4, and 5 are unintelligible, while 3 may be saule, cf.

Great Urswick, gebidae s ¡>er saule (above p. 122). Dickins and Ross 13 consider myredah to be derived from Muiredach > Murdoch, and compares it with Murdoch in a tenth-century cross at

8Page 139.

9 Oldest English Texts, 130. ^Marquardt, Bibliographie, 87, where 16 works are cited.

1^Journal of English and Germanic Philology, XXXIV (1940), 169-78.

1^Bibliographie, 9-10.

13 See Luick, Historische Grammatik, § 335ff. on the loss of the medial vowe1. 126

in Ireland erected by the order of Muiredach, Abbot of Monasterboice 14 from 890 to 923. Latin letters are used in conjunction with runes and are discussed by Dickins and Ross.^3 Probably because of this

Latin mixture Marquardt does not include the inscription in her list

of ’Inschriften in angelsächsischen (anglischen) Runen',but she has

no consistency, for the Aejjred ring, which has Latin letters as shown

above, is included in the list.

A date of the tenth century is assigned to the ring by Collingwood from, artistic considerations.^2 On linguistic grounds Dickins and Ross

date the cross as contemporaneous with the Lindisfarne Gospels (considered 18 to be of the mid-tenth century). The cross was found in 1789 at

Ainmouth, Northumberland, and was preserved in Alnwick Castle,

Northumberland until 1958, when it was moved to the Museum of Antiquities, 19 King's College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

14 "The Ainmouth Cross," 178. 15Ibid., 176-7.

1^Bibliographie, 167-8.

^Northumbrian Grosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 62-3.

18 "The Ainmouth Cross," 178. 19 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 9. 127

5. Bakewell Stone Fragment

Text: he lg

A facsimile of the text appears in Stephens, Handbook, where 20 he transcribes the first line as [~m~|ingh[~o~|. Marquardt cites six works to date on the fragment, discovered in 1841 at Bakewell, 21 Derbyshire, and now at the Sheffield Museum.

Stephens dates the fragment c. 600-700, and thinks: "The first line may have been part of a Place- or Manse-name, the second a 22 fragment of the word HOLY ("HELIG"), or of a name.”

6. Beonna and Benna Coins

Texts: (beo)nna (rex) (be)nna (re)ss 23 Facsimiles are given by Elliott and Oman. The portions in parentheses are in roman script, except b and £ which could be runic. Samuels takes b as a rune.24

According to Samuels, the inscription reveals "the first datable occurrence of a diphthongization in a funic inscription", dated c. 760.

20PD age 1203,. 21 Bibliographie, 16-7. 22 Handbook, 123. 23 Elliott, Runes, Pl. 5, fig. 15; and Oman, The Coinage of England,

Pl. 2, 20. ' 24 "The Study of Old English Phonology," 37. 25 25Ibid., 36-7. 128

Elliott ascribes the coins to Beorna, King of East Anglia, dated by

Florence of Worcester, and considers beonna the hypocoristic form of

Beornred of Mercia, "the short-lived predecessor of Offa, who reigned 27 for a few months in 757." To the last opinion Dickins generally 28 agrees.

7. Bingley Font

Text: si[gerj....s • • • an■•ny .ddae d.....

The transcription is that of Victor, who suggests other possible 29 readings, the inscription being badly worn, Collingwood gives a facsimile and states: "It seems hardly possible to say more than that any reading with an Anglian name and ’gebiddad* (pray for his soul) is extremely unlikely."38

The font, located at Bingley, Yorkshire, is assigned by Collingwood 31 to a date of the late eleventh century on artistic grounds. Marquardt 32 cites 14 works on the font.

27 The Coinage of England, 16. 78 "The Epa Coins," Leeds Studies in English, I (1932), 21. 29 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 20-1.

30"Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture in the West Riding," 143. 31Ibid., 144.

32 Bibliographie, 26. 129

8. Bramham Moor and Related Runic Rings

Bramham Moor Ring: $ rcriufIt crurijjon glae stae pon tol Kingmoor Ring: (same as above) British Museum Agate Ring: **-erfhri uf doi ri uri jsol 5 30 15 2) wles te pote nol 25 3D 33 Facsimiles appear in the British Museum Guide, and Wilson’s 34 35 article. The Bramham text is based on Page’s reading. Figures

separate the three groups of inscriptions, tol follows directly after

n in the Bramham Moor Ring, but the separation is suggested by the

Kingmoor example. 36 Stephens read the c-rune as an yr, and is followed by Harder, 37 who also reads fel instead of fit. The King-noor Ring bears the same,

inscription as the Bramham, but the last three runes tol are inscribed

on the inside of the ring. In the agate ring text the first symbol, an

x with a vertical shaft in the middle, resembles an ior-rune. The

second unexplained symbol is a gifu-like form with a horizontal shaft

across the middle. The symbol , found twice in the fifth and thirteenth

33Pages 116-7, figs. 148-9.

34 D. M. Wilson, "A Group of Anglo-Saxon Amulet Rings,” The Anglo- Saxons: Studies presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Peter Clemoes (London, 1959), 16~l-8, figs. 7-10.

35 "The finding of the ’Bramham Moor’ Runic Ring," Notes and Queries (1962), 450-2.

36°The Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England, I, 498. 37 Hermann Harder, "Die Inschriften angelsächsischer Runenringe," Archiv fUr das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, C LX IX (1936), 224-8. 130

spaces in the sequence, was read by Harder as yr, but its shape is

quite unusual. On the whole, yr is probably the closest rune, but

its extension to the other two texts, which Harder does, seems

unjustified, there being altogether too many alterations. Harder

attributed the jumble in the agate ring to the rune-cutter’s ignorance

of the meaning of his models, Bramham and Kingmoor or even some other, «• after which all three m^y have been patterned.

Harder interprets se ryr as ’before’, iufel ’evil’, yriurifcon

’bow-wreath' (kenning for ring), glae stae pon ’shining band' (glistening

tape, another kenning for ring), and tol 'toll or offering’, for the

Bramham and Kingmoor ring texts, which altogether means, according to

Harder: "The ring is offered (buried underground) to avert evil."

Harder treats the agate ring as a corrupt version of the two. This

reading requires many forced dislocations and conjectures, such as

reading yr for what is quite clearly calc. On the other hand, as Harder

points out, the reading of c for £ renders the whole text meaningless,

and Stephens was probably right in saying:

I still regard them as connected with some secret sect or society, and as meaningless--a mere abracadabra, or as a cabbala of mystical origin or for mystical use as a charm against some sickness or an Amulet or Pass.38

Wilson recounts the discovery and history of the rings, and assigns the

Bramham and Kingmoor rings from the type of acanthite niello filling 39 used to a period earlier than the tenth century

38, Handbook, 158. 39 "A Group of Anglo-Saxon Amulet Rings," 166-7. 131

Page produces an eighteenth-century manuscript, Cambridge University

MS mm I. 46, no. 35, p. 471, which states that the owner of the ring is

supposed to have been a Danish King or Prince & the Ring to have been bury’d with him--after the Battle fought in the 7th year of the Saxon King Edward the Elder . . . Ao. Dni. 907.^

41 The three rings are separately treated by Marquardt.

9. Brunswick Casket

Text: jae lgg ae lie awritne j>ii sig jsrae liirunu 42 Facsimiles appear in Stephens and Stone’s works. The

inscription is studied in detail by Grienberger, who translates it: 43 "Heilige, der Aalinsel zugeschriebene jungfrau sei ihre leuchte." 44 This interpretation of ae lie as Isle of Ely is generally followed.

The éoh-rune, appearing twice in the text, has the vocalic value of

_i, and the ior-rune, also appearing twice in the same words as the other 45 rune, has the consonantal value of h.

The casket, entered as No. 58 in 1879 in the Catalog of the

Ducal Museum, Brunswick, ’Die Sammlung mittelalterlicher und verwandter

Gegenstände’, is attributed to the eighth century by Grienberger on

48"The Finding of the 'Bramham Moor’ Runic Ring," 450-1.

41 Bibliographie, 26, 43-4, and 84.

A2¿Stephens, Handbook, 119; and Stone, Sculpture in Britain, 23.

A3 rheodor von Grienberger, "Dre westgermanische Runeninschriften," Zeitschrift fUr deutsche Philologie, XLI (1909), 431-7, and 436 for the translation. 44 For example, Stone, Sculpture in Britain, 23. 43Wrenn, "Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery," 309; and Elliott, Runes, 97 132

historical considerations, but to the second quarter of the ninth 47 century by Stone on artistic grounds. Marquardt cites works on the art, language, and history of the casket.48

10. Bury St. Edmunds Leaden Book Cover

Text: fra bo of alhf cuat

A facsimile is provided by Wright, who transcribes the inscrip- 49 tion as fra bok of alhf cuat 'Alfric speaks or says’. The fifth symbol

cannot be read as calc with certainty, however, for the form appears

as eolhx with the value of x rather than k in the Old English fufrorcs

and alphabets. A cen with an upturned oblique stroke occurs three times

in. the Rome bronze fragment, and the conjecture is possible that the

form in question is a corrupt form of calc, with upturned side-

strokes. However, it may be noted that the Rome bronze fragment

itself has the form as the 22nd and last letter after u, clearly 50 with the value of x. For this reason the calc reading is not adopted

in this study. Other characters are also uncertain, notably, what Wright

transcribes as a, h, and o, and Wright is himself doubtful of his own reading.31

"Drei westgermanische Runeninschriften," 436. 47Sculpture in Britain, 23.

48 ' Bibliographie, 28-9. 49 49 Thomas Wright, "Letter ... on a leaden tablet or book cover, with an Anglo-Saxon inscription," Archaeologia, XXXIV (1852), 438, Pl. 36, and 439. 3^*Buck, "An ABC Inscribed in OE Runes," 45-6.

3\/right, "Letter," 439. 133

Underneath the runic inscription are found eight lines of Old

.English inscribed in roman script, which Wright reported as being

undoubtedly "the opening of Alfric’s preface to his first collection 52 of Anglo-Saxon homilies." The metal book cover, in Lord Londesborough’s 53 collection, was found in 1850 in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk.

11. Gaistor-by-Norwich Sheep’s Astragalus

Text: rae cdiae n

A photographic facsimile of this piece, probably the oldest

Old English runic monument (and indeed, the oldest specimen of the 54 English language known) is provided by Clarke. Wrenn also gives a 55 56 drawing. Clarke describes the inscription as unintelligible.

Wrenn considers the inscription to be Old English and cognate to renian ( < IE *rek(w)-, cf. ON ragna, regin) in Beowulf 2168 *dyrnum eras fte dead renian’, and interprets it as ’invoke magic upon’.

Samuels discusses the sheep bone inscription in connection with the chronology, of breaking in Old English.3*7 34 * *

32Wright, "Letter," 439.

53 Marquardt, Bibliographic, 33. 34R. Rainbird Clarke, East Anglia (London, 1960), Pl. 43.

33"Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery," 308.

33East Anglia, 137.

37"The Study of Old English Phonology," 36. 134

The discovery of the inscription in 1935 at Caistor-by-Norwich, 58 Norfolk, and its subsequent history are dealt with by Wrenn. Wrenn 59 suggests the early date of c. 500, on the view that the two as sc- runes may represent the yet unfronted a sound. The Anglo-Frisian fronting of a > ae is dated in the fifth century by Campbell,88 and

61 the fourth century by Luick. The inscription is kept at the Castle . , 62 Museum, Norwich.

12. Chessel Down Sword

Text: ae co see ri 63 A facsimile is given by Elliott. The sword, found in 1850 in a Jutish cemetery at Chessel Down on the Isle of Wright, is described by Hempl,84 and Elliott.88 A facsimile and description are also found

66 in the British Museum Guide.

58 "Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery," 306-7. 59Ibid., 309-12.

880ld English Grammar (Oxford, 1959),§52.

8^Historische Grammatik,§321.

82Marquardt, Bibliographie, 33, where only two works are cited.

63. Runes, Pl. 4, fig. 10. 64 "The Runic Inscription on the Isle of Wight Sword," Publications of the Modern Language Association, XVIII (1903), 95-8. 65 Rune s, 79-80. 66 Page 66. 135

Elliott regards æ co as a variant of eaca ’increase* and

sœ ri as a kentism of sas rgi, dative of sorg • sorrow, pain', with vocalization of and he translates the inscription as ’increase „ • . 67 to pain’.

Elliott dates the sword and inscription c. 700, because of the archaic shape of cen, which is also found on the Scanomodu coin. Hempl dates it c. 800, reading the inverted cen as an open wyn, which he thought was a late invention. Elliott shows the error of this reading and traces the history of the inversion. Page prefers c. 600 on 68 6 historical and archaeological grounds. Marquardt has a bibliography.

13. Collinghara Cross

Text: aa fta; r ae rswifri A facsimile is provided by Collingwood.7^ Stephens read onswini,

72 73 which was followed by Sweet. Victor read ae ftae r as rswifr[hun], 74 The in memoriam nature of the inscription is generally agreed upon.

6 7 Runes, 80. r o "A Note on the Transliteration of Old English Runic Inscriptions," 485. 69 Bibliographie, 34. 70"Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture in the West Riding," 158.

7^The Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England, I, 390-1. 72 The Oldest English Texts, 128. 73 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 19-20. 74 See Hempl, "The Collingham Runic Inscription," Modern Language Notes, XII (1897), 123-4. 136

Attributing the style of inscribed figures to 'decadence of

traditional art in the first generation after the Danish invasion’, Collingwood dates the cross c. 900.73 An extensive bibliography of works, largely by art historians, is given by Marquardt.73

14. Coquet Island Ring

Text: i>is is siuilfur[n]

A facsimile appears in Stephens, Handbook.77 Stephens’ trans-

78 cription is followed by Sweet. The runes ui are uncertain, as is the

last rune, but Stephens translates the inscription as "This is 79 silvern — of silver". See Marquardt for more references.

15. Cramond Ring

Text: (illegible) '

A facsimile is given by Stephens, who states, "The letters 80 have suffered so.much that I cannot read them." ViBtor reads an os in the middle and an ¿e sc before the last character, there being about a dozen rune spaces.33

Found about 1869/70 in Edinburghshire, Scotland, the bronze ring 82 is now in the National Museum of Antiquities, Edinburgh (No. NJ 19).

73,'Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture," 158-9.

73Bibliographie, 36-7.

7 handbook, 151.

7^oldest English Texts, 128. 79 Bibliographie, 37, 80 80 Handbook, 155. Marquardt also describes the inscription as •unleserlich', Bibliographie, 37. 81pie northumbrischen Runensteine, 13, Anm. 1 82{-iarquardt, Bibliographie, 37. 137

16. Crowle Cross

Text: ..... sunr

A facsimile is provided by Stephens, who read ’... lie bae cun 83 ..’. A more recent examination shows only the trace of what seems r ■, 84 ’...... sunr' (somebody’s son?).

’’The figures and horseman are clumsy, and its plaits have the 85 character, of late tenth century crosses." The cross, located at the

Church of St. Oswald, Crowle, Lincolnshire, was first made known by 86 87 J. T. Fowler in 1868. See Marquardt's bibliographical references.

17. Derbyshire Bone Piece

Text: god gecaj» arae hadd £>i j>is wrat

The text is based on the drawing and transcription of Bately 88 89 and Evison, and other facsimiles. It is translated by Dickins: 90 "God saves by His mercy Hadda who wrote this”, and by Bately and 91 Evison: "God increases his mercy to Hadda who wrote this."

83Handbook, 125-7.

84 Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 135. 85 Ibid., loc. cit. 86 Stephens, Handbook, 125.' 87 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 38-9. 88 Janet M. Bately and Vera I. Evison, "The Derby Bone Piece," Medieval Archaeology, V (1961-2), 301-5, fig. 79. 89 A Guide to the Anglo-Saxon Antiquities: British Museum, 118, fig. 151; and Elliott, Runes, Pl. 9, fig. 25. 90 A Guide, 118. 91 "The Derby Bone Piece," 304, 138

A variant interpretation, reading geca}? as gecnafr, is provided by „ . , • 92 Grienberger. 93 Generally dated as of the eighth century. From the vowel £

in gecaf?, as for £ in ara , loss of final n in Hadda, and other

features, Bately and Evison consider the language non-West Saxon,

possibly Northumbrian or Mercian of Farmon's dialect in the Rushworth 94 Gospels, and date the piece between 700 and 1000. Campbell describes

the inscription as: "Perhaps North, in origin, as final -n is dropped

in Hadda (a.s.), but it is wiser not to remove it definitely from the 1 95 area of discovery, since Ru. frequently rejects -£." The bone 96 piece is now in the British Museum, London.

18. Dover Stone

Text: jgsIheard

A facsimile is given by Elliott, who transcribes it as j isIheard 97 98 or Gislheard, a personal name. This is also the opinion of Wrenn.

Elliott dates it "probably no earlier than the 9th century; it 99 may even belong to the early part of the tenth". Dickins dates it

92 "Drei westgermanische Runeninschriften," 428-31. 93 Grienberger, ibid., 431; and Elliott, Runes, 73. 94 "The Derby Bone Piece," 305. 95 Old English Grammar, p. 358, fn. 4. ^Marquardt, Bibliographie, 40. 97 Runes, Pl. 12, fig. 31. 98 "Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery," 309. 99 Runes, 83. 139

"as late as the 10th century". The grave-stone, found in 1332 at

Dover, Kent, is now preserved in the Dover Museum. See Marquardt’s extensive bibliography.^2

19. Epa Goins

Text: epa 103 The text is from the transliteration of Dickins. Oman attributes the coinage to Mercian Ethelred (675-704) from the shape of 104 the roman inscriptions on the coins. Dickins identifies Epa with

Eorpwald, King of East Anglia, 617-628, assuming the phonetic process,

Eorpwald > Eppa (with assimilation of rp > pp ) > Epa by runic simplification.

20. Falstone Stone

Text: ae ftae r roe.t$ [bec]un ae ftae r e. geb.aadfre. saule

On the same face, left, appears the text in roman script:

"+eo.ta. aeftaer hroethberhtas becun aeftaer eomae gebidaedder saule."

A facsimile is provided by Elliott, who traces the illegible [bee] as

100'»The Sandwich Runic Inscription ræhæbul," 83.

lO^Marquardt, Bibliographie, 41.

102 ... „ Ibid., 41-2. 103 "The Epa Coins," 20-1. 104 The Coinage of England, 7-8. 140 bek.I88 Victor thinks k (calc or £ in the notation of the present

study) and c more likely.^88 In a more recent inspection of the

. • . , - 107 _ . , , , 108 inscription Page sees only a cen. This reading is adopted here.

Page points out that the roman text is primary and the runic part a mere transliteration, because otherwise the single rune £ would have been used, not £ and £ separately, and also because the 109 use of d for jj, while common in written texts, is unique in runic texts. 8 Elliott dates the stone as of the eighth century. Discovered

in 1813 at Falstone, Northumberland, the 'hogback* stone has been placed since 1958 at the Museum of Antiquities, King's College,

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.See Marquardt for bibliographical references.

l88Elliott, Runes, Pl. 12, fig. 32.

188pie northumbrischen Runensteine,17.

^82"The Old English Rune ear," 77.

108° The presence of a calc instead of a cê•n would further corroborate the thesis of the present study, cf. becun in Thornhill C and Urswick above, Appendix I, pp. 120-3. Also see above p. 75. 109 See the Vespasian Psalter, Matthew of the Rushworth and Lindisfarne Gospels, etc., cf. Brunner, Altenglische Grammatik, 357, Anm. 3, and 360, Anm. 1. H8"The Use of Double Runes in OE Inscriptions," 901-2.

^Bibliographie, 45.

112 Ibid., 45-6. 141

21. Franks Casket

Lid: ae gili

Front

Left: hrona?. s ban Top: fisc flodu ahof on ferg Right: enberig Bottom: warj? gasric grorn Jjae r he on greut giswom

Left side

Left: o|>las unneg Top: romwalus and reumwalus twee gen Right: gibro£>ae r Bottom: afoe dae hiae wylif in romas cae stri

Back

Left: her fegtaji Top: titus end giufjeasu (hie fugiant hierusalim) Right: afitatores Bottom: dom gisl

Right side

Top: her hos sitae J) on has rmbergae agl.. Right: drigif» swae Bottom: hiri erta egi sgraf sae rden sorgae a Left: nd sefa tornas Facsimiles are provided by Wadstein,333 Napier,334 the British

Museum Guide,333 and Elliott.333 The part enclosed in parentheses, back,

113 The Clermont Runic Casket, Pl. 1-5. 334"The Franks Casket," figs. 1-6.

313 A Guide to the Anglo-Saxon Antiquities: British Museum, Pl. 8.

333Runes, Pis. 19-23. 142

top, is in roman script. On the right side new arbitrary symbols are

used for a, se , e, i, o. Normal vowel runes appear only twice, e in

sas rden and a in sefa. The figures on the casket are dealt with

thoroughly, with facsimiles and bibliography, in four articles by c 117 Souers.

The lid inscription as gili is taken to refer to either Egill in the Wayland saga,^^8 or to the Njal saga.^9 Schneider however

thinks that "se gili ist PN [Personenname] und entspricht lat. Achilles"

in view of £ as a voiceless spirant in unneg and fegtafr. He considers

the form to be the nominative or dative case of the name, which he 120 interprets as an ¿-stem noun in Old English.

Elliott translates the front inscription, read clockwise from

top: "The flood lifted up the fish on to the cliff-bank; the whale 121 became sad, where he swam on the shingle. Whale’s bone." But

Schneider reads hronae, s ban first, and gives a different interpretation, 122 with exhaustive references.

"The Top of the Franks Casket," Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, XVII (1935), 163-79; "The Franks Casket: left side," ibid., XVIII (1935), 198-209; "The Magi on the Franks Casket," ibid., XIX (1937), 249-54; and "The Wayland Scene on the Franks Casket," Speculum, XVIII (1943), 104-11.

^18°Souers, "The Wayland Scene on the Franks Casket," 104-5; and Elliott, Runes, 98. 119 Hugo Gering, "Zum Clermonter Runenkästchen," Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, XXXIII (1901), 140-1. 120h2U ¿en Inschriften u. Bildern des Franks Casket," 6-7. l^lRunes, 99.

122Schneider, "Zu den Inschriften u. Bildern des Franks Casket," 7-8. 143

Schneider reads the left side inscription from top first and

interprets as "Romwalus und Reumwalus, die beiden GebrUder, es futterte 123 sie die Wölfin im Stadtbereich Roms, dem Stammgut unnahe (fern)". 124 125 This reading is found also in Wadstein, and Grienberger.

Elliott reads the back inscription from left to mean: "Here fight

Titus and the Jews: here the inhabitants [afitatores erroneously

incised for habitatores] flee from Jerusalem". He considers the bottom

inscriptions dom ’judgment* and gisl ’hostage’ the legend describing 126 the center figures. However, Schneider, Napier, and Grienberger 127 consider them only the name of the rune-carver.

Elliott reads the right side, also clockwise from top, to yield

the alliterative lines, translated: "Here the horse stands above the mound of woe, it suffers tribulation; just as to her Erta appointed 128 anxiety, a grave .of grief, in sorrow and anguish of heart."

123 "Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket," 5. 124 The Clermont Runic Casket,23-6. 125 "Schriften Uber das ags. Runenkästchen," 409-21. 126 Kunes, 101. This reading is also Wadstein*s, The Clermont Runic Casket, 27-30. 127 Schneider, "Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket," 6; Napier, "The Franks Casket," 371; and Grienberger, "Schriften Uber das ags. Runenkästchen," 418. 128 ■. n ¿ Runes, 106. I

144

sgraf is taken to be the past of scrifan. Napier suggested the 129 emendation of sag rden to sse r dee n ’rendered miserable’. Krause

read herhos [unPunctuated in the inscriptionJ as herh-os 'Tempel-

gottheit'. -

The Northumbrian provenance and the early eighth century date, 131 established by Napier's linguistic analysis, are generally 132 accepted. Anglian features are the smoothing in herig, unneg,

fegtaj), bergae , drigij>, the absence of diphthongization after an

initial palatal in cae stri, while Northumbrian are the loss of -n

in sefa, parasite vowel in berig, ae in cse stri, cf. cest- in the

Vespasian Psalter. The early eighth century is given because of £ in

flodu, i and ae in unaccented syllables and eu in greut.

Marquardt lists 125 works on the casket, divided in five sections. I33 Select bibliographies are given by Krause,^34 Schneider,^-38

136 and Dobbie.

129 "The Franks Casket," 375. 130 Wolfgang Krause, "Erta, ein anglischer Cott," Die Sprache: Festschrift fUr W. Havers (1959), V, 48-9. 131 "The Franks Casket," 379-81.

132Elliott, Runes, 103.

133 Bibliographie, 10-6.

134"Erta, ein anglischer Gott," 4, fns. 2-4. 135 "Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket," 4, fns. 2-4. 136 The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, clxxvi-clxxviii. 145

22. Gilton Pommel

Text: eic sigimer nemde 137 A facsimile is provided by Elliott. Haigh further read 138 'Das ground’, but it is now not legible. Elliott translates:

•’Sigimer named the sword". The pommel, referred to a date of the seventh 139 century, was found in 1844 at Gilton* Kent, and is now preserved 140 in the Liverpool Museum.

23. Hackness Cross

Text: nmciwce

137 ’’Two Neglected English Runic Inscriptions: Gilton and Overchurch," Melanges de Linguistique et de Philologie: F. Mosse in Memoriam (Paris, 1959), 143. / 138 Daniel Henry Haigh, "Notes in Illustration of the Runic Monuments of Kent," Archaeologia Cantiana, VIII (1872), 164ff. 139 Elliott, "Two Neglected English Runic Inscriptions," 144. 140 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 46. 141 "The Ruthwell Cross in Its Relation to Other Monuments of the Early Christian Age," 59, fig. -8. l42The Arts in Early England, VI (London, 1930), Pl. 1, p. 68.

143 Runes, Pl. 14, fig. 33. l44Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 54-5; Derolez, Runica Manuscripta, 140-1; Wrenn, "Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery," 314; and Marquardt, Bibliographie, 48-9. 146 145 early eighth century." According to Collingwood, "its severe

scroll and continuous plait suggests the middle of the eighth „146 century."

24. Hada Coin

Text: hada 147 A facsimile is given by Elliott. Oman reads the legend as 148 *hama*. The coin (solidus of Theodosius I, 379-95), found in

Harlingen (West Friesland), is considered a sixth century Frisian 149 150 product by Elliott, but Oman and Page think it to be Anglo-Frisian.

25. Hartlepool Pillow-Stones

Stone A (St. Hilda’s Church, Hartlepool): hildi£>ry|> Stone B (Black Gate Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): hilddigyj) Facsimiles are provided by Elliott,333 Scott,332 and Kemble.333

The stones are discussed and described by Brown,33and Victor.333

l43Elliott, Runes, 86.

146 "The Ruthwell Cross in Its Relation to Other Monuments," 38. 147 Runes, Pl. 5, fig. 12. 148 The Coinage of England, 4. 149 Runes, loc. cit. 33%man, The Coinage of England, 4; and Page, "The Old English Rune ear," 73. v 333Runes, Pi. 12, fig. 30. 152 Forrest S. Scott, "The Hildithryth Stone and the Other Hartlepool Name-Stones," Archaeologia Aeliana, XXXIV (1956), 196-212, figs. 1-2. 153 "On Anglo-Saxon Runes,” Tab. 16, fig. 12. 1 54 The Arts in Early England, V (1921), 58ff. 155 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 18 147

From the preservation of unstressed i, Scott dates the stones

as contemporary with the Moore MS of Bede of 737 and the Leningrad 156 MS of 746. Elliott shows that the shape of the d rune is archaic, and considers the names to be those of nuns, the nunnery having existed at Hartlepodl, Durham, from 6S6 to c. 800.^82 See Marquardt.^“88

26. Irton Stone Cross

Text: ....b

Victor describes the west side of the stone with some trace of runic inscriptions, from which he could read only the b or possibly 159 at the end of the first line, and none from the other two lines. A more recent examination also shows no legible rune.^“88 See Marquardt.

156 See Hilmer Ström, Old English Personal Names in Bede's History (Lund, 1939), 119, 126-7; and 0. 5. Anderson, The Old English Material in the Leningrad MS of Bede's Ecclesiastical History. (Lund, 1941), 107ff. 157 Runes, 81-2. zl88Bibliographie, 49-51.

159 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 16. ^88C°11ingwood, Northumbrian Grosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 83, fig. 100. ^8^“Bibliographie, 55.

X 148

27. Isle of Man Stones

Stone A: ...blagc.man... Stone B: [blacjgmon... 162 Facsimiles of Stones A and B are provided by Kermode. The

dot between c and m in Stone A is a slip, according to Kermode.

Altogether it seems certain to me that the rune-cutter had intended it for the left leg of his M, but finding it come in contact with his preceding K [for cen], he abandoned it and cut a fresh stroke for the purpose. ^-63

The characters enclosed in brackets, i.e. blac in Stone B are

conjectured from the example of Stone A. Both instances give therefore

an Anglo-Saxon name "which continued in the island for centuries, as it 164 is found at Conchan in the form BLAKMAN on the Rent Roll in 1511."

The two stones, both found in the churchyard of Maughold, Isle

of Man, resemble each other closely in artistic design and runic

inscription. There is nothing certain to indicate the dates of the stone

fragments, and Kermode states:

The main interest of the two inscriptions lies in the fact that they zconnect our series of early Christian monuments with those in the North of England dating from the end of the seventh century, and they support the view of Northumbrian influence on the decorative art of our Max sepulchral monuments.^65

166 Stone A was found in 1902 and Stone B in 1906.

1 A O ¿P. M. C. Kermode, "Some Early Christian Monuments Recently Discovered at Kirk Maughold, Isle of Man," Reliquary (1902), 186; "Inscription in Anglian Runes," ibid. (1907), 266; and Manx Crosses (London, 1907), Pl. 66. 163 "Inscription in Anglian Runes," 266. 164Ibid., 265. 165Ibid., 267.

166 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 70-1. 149

28. Kirkdale Cross

Text: (illegible)

Stephens writes: "Ruined Cross. Has traces of runes. One only, ring-rune], is distinct."337 ViBtor also describes the inscription as no longer decipherable, but gives some previous attempts at an 168 interpretation. The stone cross was found in Kirkdale, North Riding, Yorkshire.33^

-29. Kirkheaton Stone

Text: eoh worhta? 170 The text is based on the transcription of Dickins, who 171 translates: "Eoh made". The epenthetic vowel in worohtae is

Northumbrian and corroborates the find-place of the stone, south of 172 Harewood, West Riding of Yorkshire. The retention of parallels forms in the Ruthwell Cross and other eighth century texts. Page notes 173 "the clumsy decoration" of the stone.

z 337Handbook, 152.

168 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 19. 169 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 86. 370"A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions," 19. 171 "The Sandwich Runic Inscriptions ræhæbul," 85.

172 Elliott, Runes, 87. 173 "Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," 385. f

1

150

30. Lancaster Cross

.Text: gibidæ j) foræ cynibaljj cujibere 174 Facsimiles are provided by ViUtor and Elliott. Elliott translates the text as "pray for Cynibalth Cuthber..^“28 and dates

the cross as of the early eighth century from the epenthetic vowel in

cujjbere-, comparable to such Northumbrian forms as wy1i f, -berig

(Franks Casket), -burug (Bewcastle), and worohtoe (Kirkheaton, 176 Yorkshire). On artistic grounds the cross is assigned to the end of the ninth century. J“22 Marquardt has an extensive bibliography.^“28

31.- Leeds Cross Fragment

Text: cun. onlaf 179 According to the facsimile of Stephens The fragment, found 180 in 1838 in Leeds, Yorkshire, West Riding, is now lost. Marquardt 181 has other bibliographical references.

ï“24Viëtor, Die northumbrischen Runensteine, 23, fig. 16; and Elliott, Runes, Pl. 14, fig. 34. Also see British Museum Guide, 123-4, fig. 157. 175 SA Runes, 86. 176Ibid., 86-7.

177 British Museum Guide, 124. ^“^Bibliographie, 87-9.

129Randbook, 154-5.

Marquardt, Bibliographie, 89; and Collingwood, Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 162,fig.194.

^^Bibliographie, 89-90. 151

32. Leek Cross Shaft

Text: (yet unpublished)

According to Marquardt, the runic inscription on the north side

of the cross was first discovered by Elliott in April, 1959, but

consists of only occasionally legible ’stark verwittert’ runes and 182 has not been published yet. The seven works cited by Marquardt do

not refer to the runic inscription.

33. Lindisfarne Stones

Stone iv: h... Stone v, front: aud back: lac Stone vii: .amwini 183 A facsimile is given by Peers. Ross suggests the reading

h/ae hi, a personal name, for Stone iv, and equates aud lac with Ead-lac, 184 a name which occurs twice in the Liber Vitae. Ross rejects Peers’

interpretation of Eadwini for Stone vii, and after considering six 18 alternatives recommends either hamwini or samwini, both personal names.

Inscribed and sculptured stones, numbering about 20 pieces, were

found in 1915 in the ruins of the Lindisfarne Priory, whose foundation 186 and subsequent fortunes (635-875) are given in detail by Peers. In the context of Anglo-Saxon art history Peers dates Stones iv and v around

1 8? Bibliographie, 90. 183 C. R. Peers, "The Inscribed and Sculptured Stones of Lindisfarne," Archaeologia, LXX1V (1925), Pl. 49, 50 and 53. 184 "Notes on the Runic Stone at Holy Island," Englische Studien, LXX (1935-6), 36-8; and Sweet, Oldest English Texts, 615. 185 "Notes on the Runic Stone at Holy Island," 38-9. 1 86 "The Inscribed and Sculptured Stones of Lindisfarne," 256-70. i

152

the eighth century and Stone vii c. ninth century, the only pieces 187 which bear legible runic inscriptions.

34. Monkwearmouth Stone

Text: tidfirfr 188 189 190 Facsimiles are given by Stephens, Vidtor, and Collingwood.

The inscription is generally considered to be a person’s name.

’’The Monkwearmouth fragment may be part of a cross shaft and probably comes from the cemetery of Biscop’s monastery [founded in n 191 674J." Scott notes that the shape of d is the same as found in the 192 mid-seventh century Pada coin, Hildyfrryth Stone and Franks Casket.

This would give the fragment a date of the early eighth century at the latest. The stone, discovered in 1834 in Monkwearmouth, Durham, 193 is now in the British Museum, London.

187 "The Inscribed and Sculptured Stones of Lindisfarne," 266-70. l88Handbook, 154.

189 Die northumbrischen Runensteine, Pl. 5, fig. 12. 190 Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 13, fig. 17. 191 British Museum Guide, 123. 192 "The Hildithryth Stone and the Other Hartlepool Name-Stones," 202. 193 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 108. 153

35. Mortain Casket

Text: good helpe as adan jjiiosne ciismeel gewarahtaa 194 The text is based on the transcriptions of Page and Harder. 195 The casket and inscription are fully discussed by Cahen and Olsen.

There is no disagreement as to the reading and the translation, "Gott helfe Eada (der) diesen kiismeel machte",^98 but the meaning of ciismeel

remains a puzzle. Holthausen rejects Cahen and Olsen’s explanation of

ciismeel as derived from Medieval Latin ehrismäle, a container for

anointing oil or water box, because the change chrismale > ciismeel

is not clear, and suggests instead a loan from Medieval Latin cismelium

< Gk. kymelion = ’jewel’, while ’das eingeschobene -s- mag durch 197 Einfluss von chrismale oder Lat. cista entstanden sein." However,

Harder rejects both of the preceding interpretations and proposes an

Old English word cis tuna; 1. The dropping of .£ in the heavy consonant 198 cluster stm may be explained as a form of assimilation, and the use of e for as is also not unusual. He notes the doubling of vowels in this inscription, good, foiiosne, ciis-, and does not think that a long vowel is meant by the doubled i. The first element is thus identified

194 Page, "The Old English Rune ear," 77; and Harder, "Zur Deutung von ags. ’kiismeel’," Archiv fUr das Studium neueren Sprachen, CLXI (1932), 87. 195 L’inscription runique du coffret de Mortain. 196 "Zur Deutung von ags. 'kiismeel'," 87.' 197 "Review of Cahen and Olsen, L'inscription runique du coffret de Mortain," Anglia Beiblatt, XLII (1931), 257-3.

198See Sievers, Angelsächsische Grammatik, § 196, Anm. 3. 154

as cyst, cist ’chest, casket’, while the second element mas 1 has the meaning of ’ornament*. Harder interprets the inscription as "Gott helfe 199 Eada (der) diesen Kastenschmuck (Abzeichen des Hastens) machte".

The English provenance of the casket is not doubted: e.g. the 200 presence of the distinctively Old English rune se , the optative helpe, 201 the weak accusative ending in se adan, the accusative of the 202 203 demonstrative foiiosne, thè shape of the runes, etc. However, its exact localization within England is difficult. Page suggests that "it may be Mercian as I. Dahl has suggested on the basis of the form 204 •gewarahtae ’." The inscription may be assigned to a date of the eighth century on account of £ in gewarahtae . The casket was found in 205 Mortain, Normandy, France, in 1864.

36. Northumbrian Brooch

Text: gudred mec worh[t]e ae lchfrith mec a[h] 206 The text is based on Stephens’ facsimile and transcription 207 The brooch is now lost.

"Zur Deutung von ags. ’kiismeel'," 87-8. 233Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, 218.

201 Ibid., 249. Old English shares this feature with Gothic. 202Ibid., 268. 203 Elliott, Runes, 48-9. 204 Dahl, Substantival Inflexion in Early Old English: Vocalic Stems (Lund, 1938), 28.

205Marquardt, Bibliographie, 108. 233Handbook, 125.

207 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 109. 37. Overchurch Stone

Text: folcas araj rdon bec[un] [gejbiddafr fore ae frelmun[de] 208 A photographic facsimile is given by Elliott, and the same 209 transcription is made by Dickins. But a revised version with the

translation, "the people erected this monument: pray for Aethelmund," 210 is later given by Elliott.

"At some time between about a.a. 700 and 900 this inscription was made; more precision we cannot for the present expect," according

to Elliott on the evidence of the name Aethelmund (which occurs only once in the .Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), an ealdorman of the Hwicce, who 211 died in 800. Found in 1889, the Overchurch Stone of Upton, Wirral, 212 Cheshire, is now in the Chester Museum.

38. Owi Ring

Text: owi 213 A facsimile is given by Stephens. The gold ring, found in 214 1860 (?), is now lost.

208"Two Neglected English Runic Inscriptions," 143. 209 "A System of Transliteration for Old English Runic Inscriptions," 19. 2l@Runes, 71.

211 "Two Neglected English Runic Inscriptions," 147. 212 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 110. 213Handbook, 151.

21.4 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 110. 156

39. Pada Coins

Text: pada 2X5 2X6 Facsimiles are given by Elliott, and Oman. There are three 217 different coins bearing the same runic inscription.

The coins are attributed to Peada, mentioned by Bede

(Ecclesiastica Historia, Book III, Chap* 21) as son of Penda, who 2X8 flourished in 655-7. The form Padda appears in other Old English 23 9 sources. ' Page objects to the above attributions, saying that Pada 220 can be a different, rather common name. The runic inscriptions attest

to the strong heathen tradition of Mercia at this time, according to 221 Blomfield.

40. Rome Bronze Fragment

Text: abcdje se gwmnclmnoe pcrstux 5 D 35 23

A facsimile with a detailed description of each character is 222 w provided by Buck. The form of cén "differs in the direction of

215 Runes, Pl. 5, fig. 13. 716 °The Coinage of England, Pl. 2, 1-2. 217 Oman, The Coinage of England, 12.

2X8°Elliott, Runes, 78; and Oman, The Coinage of England, 12. 2X9 Page, "The Use of Double Runes in Old English Inscriptions," 604; and Redin, Studies on Uncompounded Names in Old English, 105-6. Dickins, "The Epa Coin," 20, considers Pada the hypocoristic form of Penda. 2?O "The Old English Rune ear," 74-5. 221 "Runes and the Gothic Alphabet," 186. 222 "An ABC Inscribed in Old English Runes," 44-6. Ii

157 223 the oblique stroke from the usual Old English c~rune." The same form occurs twice more in the positions where Latin k (no. 11) and

£ (no. 17) are expected.

The absence of a separate calc may indicate an early date, and

Buck notes:

If we may judge from the plainer style of the characters, which one must not assume to be due merely to the difference in material, and from the relative accuracy in values, it is certainly of earlier date than the manuscript ABC's, with the possible exception of the few which are without the ornate forms and confused values that characterize the majority.224

41. St. Albans Coins

Text: crispus 225 Sutherland gives a facsimile and transcription. The pieces belong to "the very numerous coins which bear a legend, of semi­ literate or illiterate character, imitated from some Roman or

Merovingian prototype” combining "some form of a Roman imperial name 226 with a purely runic inscription."

42, St. Cuthbert's Coffin

Text: m/arcus 227 A facsimile is provided by Brown, and a transcription by

223 "An ABC inscribed in Old English Runes,” 44, 224 Ibid., loc. cit. 225 C. H. V. Sutherland, Anglo-Saxon Gold Coinage in the Light of the Crondall Hoard (Oxford, 194S), Pl. 2, and p, 40. 226 , ,, Ibid., 51. 227 The Arts in Early England, V (London, 1921), fig. 34, and pp. 397- 411 158 228 Dickins and Ross. Page notes that the inscription is a mere 229 transliteration of the Latin name, and Dickins and Ross discuss the r ... . , cr. 230 Latin inscriptions on the coffin.

Giving artistic and documentary reasons, Saxl assigns the 231 definite date of 698 to the coffin. This view is followed by 232 Blomfield.

43. St. Ninian’s Gave Gross

Text: .....wrate

A facsimile is given by Collingwood, who notes that it has 233 nothing more left than the above. The stone cross from St. Ninian's

Cave, Whithorn, Galloway, was found in 1886 and is now at the Priory 234 Museum, Whithorn.

228 "The Ainmouth Cross," 176. 229 "The Use of Double Runes in OE Inscriptions," 900-1. 230 "The Ainmouth Cross," 176-7. 231 "The Ruthwell Cross," 19. 232 "Runes and the Gothic Alphabet," 184. 233 Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 63, fig.. 80. 234 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 124. I

159

44. Sandwich Stone

Text: ree héE bui ' . , j , 235 , 236 Facsimiles are provided by Brown, and r.lliott. 237 The monument is described in detail by Dickins.

Elliott assumes a date before the middle of the seventh century

from the retention of intervocalic h. On the same grounds Dickins dates 238 it not ’later than 680’. Elliott also notes the archaic shape of 239 the h-rune. Dickins interprets the inscription as 'bellowing bull’

from rae hae (< IE *rak-, cf. L. raccare ’roar’ and rana 'frog', also

MHG ruohen ’bellow’) and bui (weak form in as lfgar hellebula, Johannes 240 hellebula), giving full bibliographical references on the etymologies.

The sepulchral stone, found in c. 1830 at Sandwich, Kent, is now in 241 the Canterbury Museum.

45. Scanomodu Coin

Text: scanomodu 242 243 Facsimiles are provided by Elliott, and Oman. The find- place of the gold solidus, bearing the image of Emperor Honorius

235 The Arts in Early England, III (London, 1915), 181, Pl. 19. 238Runes, Pl. 10, figs. 26-7.

237 "The Sandwich Runic Inscription ræhæ.bul," 83-5. 238 ... . Ibid., 85. 239 Runes, 77. 240 "The Sandwich Runic Inscription," 84. 241 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 124. 242 Runes, Pl. 5, fig. 11. 243 The Coinage of England, Pl. 1, 2. 160 244 24c' (d. 423), is not determined. Wimmer assumes an English origin, 246 which view is followed by Elliott. However, Page considers • -K, 247 Frisian provenance possible.

The coin is dated as early as 500 by Friesen, and this view 248 is quoted with approval by Wrenn. From the shape of the a-rune

and the retention of final -u Elliott considers it the earliest OE 249 runic text (early sixth century). Oman considers late fifth 250 century probable. The meaning of the legend is yet undetermined. 251 Oman considers it the ’genitive of a proper name*.

46. Selsey Ring Fragments

Fragment A: bruprn Fragment B: on el , 252 The text is based on the transcriptions of Stephens, who

244 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 42. 245 L. F. A. Wimmer, Die Runenschrift (Berlin, 1887), 87. 246 -ZT Runes, 77. 247 "The Old-English Runes ear," 74-5. 248 "Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery," 307. 249 Runes, 77. 250 The Coinage of England, 4. 251_,., . Ibid., loc. cit. 252 The Old-Northern Runic Monuments, III (1884), 463; Handbook, 247; and The Runes, whence came they (London, '1894), 31, no. 21. 161

states: "These ring-morsels are so much injured and the runes so 253 faint from long friction, that I will not attempt any engraving."

He proposes the translation: "Brother Niclas On (of) El." The two bits

of a golden finger-ring, found in Selsey, Sussex, around 1875-80, are 254 now in the British Museum, London.

47. Sheffield Brooch

Text: gae mung icu wifae 255 A facsimile is given by Harder, who suggests three alternative

readings for the first line: gae dung, gae mling, and gae dling. Harder

considers icu the Northumbrian dative of ica, a .feminine name, for

"ira north, sind die Kurzesilbigen feminina fast ganz erstarrt, d.h. .256 zeigen in allen casus ausser gen. dat. pl. ein -o oder -u.’ wifse

is the dative of wif, and Harder thus establishes the dedicatory nature

of the object. For gae dung, etc. Harder considers the possibilities of 257 either name or common noun such as ’joy’, ’wedding*, or ’husband’.

"Das C ist nicht das des altenglischen Runenliedes, sondern entspricht dem ’gemeingerm.’ Futhark,” and together with the as of 258 wifae suggests the eighth century for the date of the inscription. 259 The silver brooch is now in the British Museum.

25handbook, 247. 254 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 125. 255 "Die Runenschrift der Silberspange von Sheffield," Archiv ftlr das Studium der neueren Sprachen, CLXTV (1933), 350. 256 Sievers, Angelsächsische GRammatik, § 253, Anm. 2. 257 "Die Runeninschrift der Silberspange," 351-2. 258Ibid., 350. 259 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 83. 162

48. Thames Fitting

Text: sbe/rae dhtcai erh/ad/a? bs 260 A facsimile is given, by Stephens, who however transcribes as

sberae dh tyo bua i erha dasbs, translating, enigmatically: "(Here

Johah) speireth (asks) to bo (bide, be cast) in the arg (waves, trough)

of-the-deep." Describing the bronze mount in detail, Vulliaray states:

"Although the runes are deeply and clearly cut on the side of the 261 edging, there is considerable doubt as to their interpretation."

It was found in the Thames near Westminster Bridge in 1866, and is now • , „ • - , „ 262 in the British Museum.

49. Thames Scramasax

Text: fuporcgwhnijgpxstberg dlmce ase y ea 5 D 5 2D 25 beagno£> 263 Facsimiles are given by Elliott, and the British Museum ’ Guide.234 beagnop is "the name probably of the maker or first owner."233

Dickins confirms the Kentish origin of the scramasax and the name Beagnofr, 266 and assigns the inscription a date of the ninth century. On artistic

233Handbook, 147.

261 C. E. Vulliamy, The Archaeology of Middlesex and London (London, 1930), 266. 262 Ibid., 266; and Marquardt, Bibliographie, 127. 233Runes, Pl. 3, fig. 7. 264Page 96, fig. 117.

265O 7Q Runes, 79. 266 "The Sandwich Runic Inscription ræhæbul," 83. 163 267 grounds the British Museum Guide dates it around 800. Elliott

stresses Danish or Viking influence on the sword and assigns it to 4 , 268 the ninth century.

50. Whitby Comb

Text: god usmas us god aluwaludo helipas cyn....

A facsimile is given by Stephens, who translates: "May-god on-smee

(look on, regard, bless) usj May-god all-wald (almighty) help kin 269 (family, house) ouri" Found in 1867 in Whitby, Yorkshire, the bone comb is now in the Whitby Museum.228

51. Whithorn Cross

Text: [becun dojnfer{)[sj

A facsimile is given by Collingwood, who translates it as "the 271 monument of Donferth, the tenth century form of an Anglian name." 272 The monument has been in the Whithorn Priory Museum since 1884.

267d qa Page 96.

268Q iq Runes,•79. 269 Handbook, 118-9. 270 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 134. 271 Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age, 63, fig. 80. 272 Marquardt, Bibliographie, 135. /6

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, 0. S. The Old English Material in the Leningrad MS of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History» Lund, 1941.

Andrade, M. J. "Some Questions of Fact and Policy concerning Phonemes," Language, XII (1936), 1-14.

Antonsen, Elmer H. "Germanic Umlaut Anew," Language, XXXVII (1961), 215-30.

Arntz, Helmut. Bibliographie der Runenkunde. Leipzig, 1937.

. Handbuch der Runenkunde, 2nd ed. Halle, 1944.

____ . , and Hans Zeiss. Die einheimischen RunendenkmHler Festlandes. Leipzig, 1939.

Bately, Janet M., and Vera I. Evison. "The Derby Bone Piece," Medieval Archaeology, V (1961-2), 301-5.

Bazell, C. E. "Case-Forms in -i in the Oldest English Texts," Modern Language Notes, LV (1940), 136-9.

Björkman, Erik. Scandinavian Loan-words in Middle English. Halle, 1900.

Bloch, Bernard. "Studies in Colloquial Japanese," Language, XXIII (1947), 399-418, reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 4th ed. Chicago, 1966, 243-54.

Blomfield, Joan. "Runes and the Gothic Alphabet," Saga-Book of the Viking Society for Northern Research, XII (1941-2), 177-231.

Bloomfield, Leonard. "A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language," Language, II (1926), 153-64, reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 4th ed. Chicago, 1966, 26-31.

Bolton, W. F. An Old English Anthology. Evanston, 1966.

Bonser, Wilfrid. An Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Bibliography. Oxford, 1957.

Bosworth, Joseph, and T. N. Toller. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 2 vols. Oxford, 1832-1921. 165

British Museum: A Guide to the Anglo-Saxon and Foreign Teutonic Antiquities. London, 1923.

Brown, G. Baldwin. The Arts in Early England, III-VI. London, 1915-30.

Brozovid, Dalibor. "Some Remarks on Distinctive Features Especially in Standard Serbocroatian," To Honor Roman Jakobson, I. The Hague, 1967. 412-26.

Brunner, Karl. "The Old English Vowel Phonemes," English Studies, XXXIV (1953), 247-51.

_____ . Altenglische Grammatik nach der Angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers, 3rd ed. Tubingen, 1965.

Buck, Carl D. "An ABC Inscribed in Old English Runes," Modern Philology, XVII (1919), 43-8.

BUlbring, Karl D. "Review of Die northumbrischen Runensteine by W. Viötor," Anglia Beiblatt, IX (1898), 65-78.

. Altenglisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg, 1902.

Cahen, M., and Magnus Olsen. L1inscription runique du coffret de Mortain. Paris, 1930.

Campbell, A. Old English Grammar. Oxford, 1959.

Chao, Y. R. Language and Symbolic Systems. Carnbridge-Eng., 1968.

Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures. The Hague, 1963.

Clarke, R. Rainbird. East Anglia. London, 1960.

Cockayne, 0. Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England. 3 vols. Rolls Series. London, 1864-6.

Collingwood, W. G. "Remains of the Pre-Norman Period," Victoria History of the County of Cumberland, I. London, 1901. 254, 277-8.

______. "A Rune-Inscribed Anglian Cross-Shaft at Urswick Church," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian Society (1911), 462-3.

______. "Anglian and Anglo-Danish Sculpture in the West Riding," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, XXIII (1915), 129-299. 166

Collingwood, W. G. "The Ruthwell Cross in Its Relation to Other Monuments of the Early Christian Age," Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Antiquarian Society (1918), 34-84.

. Northumbrian Crosses of the Pre-Norman Age. London, 1927.,

Cook, Albert S. "The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses," Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, XVII (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1912), 213-365.

Dahl, Ivar. Substantival Inflexion in Early Old English: Vocalic Stems. Lund, 1938.

Derolez, R. Runica Manuscripta: The English Tradition. Brugge, 1954.

Dickins, Bruce. "The Epa Coins," Leeds Studies in English, I (1932), 20-1.

______. "The Sandwich Runic Inscription rae has bul,11 Festschrift fUr Gustav Neckel, ed. K. H. Schlottig. Leipzig, 1938. 83-5.

______» and Alan S. C. Ross. "The Alnmouth Cross," Journal of English and Germanic Philology, XXXIX (1940), 169-78.

______. The Dream of the Rood, 4th ed. London, 1954.

Dobbie, Elliott van Kirk. The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems. New York, 1942.

Ekwall, Eilert. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 4th ed. Oxford, 1960.

Elliott, Ralph W. V. Runes: An Introduction. Manchester, 1959.

______' "Two Neglected English Runic Inscriptions: Gilton and Overchurch," Melanges de Linguistique et de Philologie: F. Mosse in Memoriam. Paris, 1959. 140-7.

Ellis, Alexander J. On Early English Pronunciation. London, 1869.

Encyclopae dia Britannica. Vol. XIX. London, etc., 1968.

Flasdieck, Hermann M. "The Phonetic Aspect of Old Germanic Alliteration," Anglia, LIX (1950), 266-87. 167

Forbes, M. D.;.and Bruce Dickins. "The Inscriptions of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses and the Bridekirk Font," Burlington Magazine, XXV,-no. 133 (1914), 24-9.

Friesen, Otto von. "Runenschrift," Reallexicon der germanischen Altertumskunde, IV, ed. Johannes Hoops. Strassburg, 1918-9. 5-51.

Gering, Hugo. "Zum Clermonter Runenkästchen," Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, XXXIII (1901), 140-1.

Gleason, H. A., Jr. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. New York, 1966.

Grienberger, Theodor von. "Drei westgermanische Runeninschriften," Zeitschrift fUr deutsche Philologie, XLI (1909), 419-37.

______. "Schriften Uber das ags. Runenkästchen," Zeitschrift fUr das deutsche Philologie, XXXII (1901), 49-521.

Haigh, Daniel Henry. "Notes in Illustration of the Runic Monuments of Kent," Archaeologia Cantiana, VIII (1872), 164-265.

Halle, Morris. "In Defense of the Number Two," Studies presented to Joshua Whatmough, ed. E. Pulgram. The Hague, 1957. 65-72.

______.' The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague, 1959,

. "Phonology in Generative Grammar," Word, XVIII (1962), 54-72. . "On the Bases of Phonology," The Structure of Language, ed. J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz. Englewood Cliffs, 1964.

Harder, Hermann. "Zur Deutung von ags. ’kiismeel'," Archiv fUr das Studium neueren Sprachen, CLXI (1932), 87-8.

______. "Die Runeninschrift der Silberspange von Sheffield," Archiv fUr das Studium der neueren Sprachen, CLXIV (1933), 250-2.

____ . "Die Inschriften angelsächsischer Runenringe," Archiv fUr das Studium neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, CLXIX (1936), 224-8.

Harris, Zellig S. "Simultaneous Components in Phonology," Language, XX (1944), 181-205, reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 4th ed. Chicago, 1966. 124-38.

______. Structural Linguistics, Phoenix ed. Chicago, 1960. 168

Haverfield, F. "Cotton Iulius F. VI. Notes on Reginald Bainbrigg ... on some Roman Inscriptions," Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian Society (1911), 355.

Hempl, George. "Old-English Runic æ nijrulufu," Transactions of the American Philological Association, XXVII (1896), lxiv-vi.

. "The Collingham Runic Inscription," Modem Language Notes, XII (1897), 123-4.

______. "The Runic Inscription on the Isle of Wight Sword," Publications of the Modern Language Association, XVIII (1903), 95-8.

______. "Hickes’s Additions to the Runic Poem," Modern Philology, I (1904), 1-7.

Hickes, George. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-Criticus et Archas ologicus. Oxford, 1705.

Hill, Archibald A. "Phonetic and Phonemic Change," Language, XII (1936), 15-22, reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 4th ed. Chicago, 1966. 81-4.

Hirt, Hermann. Handbuch des Urgermanischen. Heidelberg, 1931.

Hockett, Charles F. A Manual of Phonology: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. XXI, no. 4. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1955.

______’ A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York, 1958.

. "The Stressed Syllabics of Old English," Language, XXXV (1959), 575-97.

Holthausen, Ferdinand. Altenglisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2nd ed. Heidelberg, 1963.

______. "Review of L*inscription runique du coffret de Mortain by M. Cahen and Magnus Olsen," Anglia Beiblatt, XLII (1931), 257-8. '

Ivid, Pavle. "Roman Jakobson and the Growth of Phonology," Linguistics: An International Review, XIII (The Hague, 1965), 35-78. 169

Jakobson, Roman, and Morris Halle. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague, 1956.

, C. Gunnar M. Fant, and Morris Halle. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge-Mass., 1963.

Jones, Daniel. The Pronunciation of English, 4th ed. Cambridge-Eng., 1956.

Jones, L. G. "The Contextual Variants of the Russian Vowels,'’ in Morris Halle, The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague, 1959. 157-67.

Jordan, Richard. Handbuch der mittelenglischen Grammatik; Lautlehre, 3rd ed. Heidelberg, 1968.

Keller, Wolfgang. "Zur Chronologie der ae. Runen," Anglia, LXII (1938), 24-32.

Kemble, John M. "On Anglo-Saxon Runes," Archaeologia, XXVIII (1840), 24-32.

Kenyon, John S. American Pronunciation, lOtli ed. Ann Arbor, 1962.

Ker, N. R. Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford, 1957.

Kermode, P. M. C. "Some Early Christian Monuments Recently Discovered at Kirk Maughold, Isle of Man," Reliquary, n. s. viii (1902), 185-6. .

______• "Inscription in Anglian Runes," Reliquary, n. s. xiii (1907), 265-7.

______. Manx Crosses. London, 1907.

Klaeber, F. Beowulf, 3rd ed. Boston, etc., 1941.

Kluge, Friedrich. "Geschichte der englischen Sprache," Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, ed. Hermann Paul. Vol. I. 2nd ed. Strassburg, 1901. 926-1151.

Krapp, George Philip. The Junius Manuscript. New York, 1931.

______. The Vercelli Book. New York, 1932.

___ , and Elliott van Kirk Dobbie. The Exeter Book. New York, 1936 170

Krause, Wolfgang. "Erta, ein anglischer Gott," Die Sprache; Fest­ schrift fUr W. Havers, V (1959), 46-54.

Lenz, Rudolf. Zur Physiologie und Geschichte der Palatalen. Bonn, 1887.

Ley, Hermann. Per Lautwert des altenglischen c. Marburg, 1914.

Lindelbf, Uno. Die Sprache des Rituals von Durham. Helsingfors, 1890.

Lounsbury, F. "A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage," Language, XXXII (1956), 158-94.

Luick, Karl. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Cambridge-Mass., 1964.

Marquardt, Hertha. Bibliographie der Runeninschriften nach Fundorten: Die Runeninschriften der Britischen Inseln. Gbttingen, 1961.

Martin, S. E. "Korean Phonemics," Language, XXVII (1951), 519-33, reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 4th ed. Chicago, 1966. 364-71.

Martinet, Andre. Phonology as Functional Phonetics. London, 1949.

Maughan, John. A Memoir on the Roman Station and Runic Cross at Bewcastle. London, 1857,

Moulton, William G. "The Stops and Spirants of Early Germanic," Language, XXX (1954), 1-42.

. "Types of Phonemic Change," To Honor Roman Jakobson, II (The Hague, 1967), 1393-1407.

Murray, J. A. H., H. Bradley, W. A. Craigie, and C. T. Onions, ed. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, 1933.

Napier, Arthur S. "The Franks Casket," An English Miscellany presented to Dr, Furnivall. Oxford, 1901. 362-81.

Olsen, Magnus. "Notes on the Urswick Inscription," Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, IV (1930), 282-6.

Oman, Charles. The Coinage of England. London, 3?967,

Page, R. I. "Language and Dating in OE Inscriptions," Anglia, LXXVII (1959), 385-406.

______. "The Bewcastle Cross," Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, IV (1960), 36-57. 171

Page, R. 1. "The Old English Rune ear," Medium Aevum, XXX (1961), 65-79.

. "The Use of Double Runes in Old English Inscriptions," Journal of English and Germanic Philology, LXI (1962), 897-907.

. "A Note on the Transliteration of Old English Runic Inscriptions," English Studies, XLIII (1962), 484-90.

. "The Finding of the ’Bramham Moor’ Runic Ring," Notes and Queries, n. s. IX (1962), 450-2.

Peers, C. R. "The Inscribed and Sculptured Stones of Lindisfarne," Archaeologia, LXXIV (1925), 255-70.

Penzl, Herbert, "The Phonemic Split of Germanic k in Old English," Language, XXIII (1947), 34-42. “

Pike, Kenneth L. Phonemics. Ann Arbor, 1964.

Prokosch, E. A Comparative Germanic Grammar. William Dwight Whitney Linguistic'Series. Linguistic Society of America, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1939.

Redin, Mats. Studies on Uncompounded Personal Names in Old English. Uppsala, 1919.

Reichling, Anton. "Feature Analysis and Linguistic Interpretation," For Roman Jakobson, ed. Morris Halle, et al. The Hague, 1956. 418-22.

Ross, Alan S. C. "The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of the Ruthwell Cross," Modern Language Review, XXVIII (1933), 145-55.

______. "Notes on the Runic Stones at Holy Island," Englische Studien, LXX (1935-6), 36-9.

Samuels, M. L. "The Study of Old English Phonology," Transactions of the Philological Society of London (1952), 15-47.

Saxl, F. "The Ruthwell Cross," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, VI (1943), 1-19.

Schneider, Karl. "Zu den Inschriften und Bildern des Franks Casket und einer ae. Version des Mythos von Balders Tod," Festschrift fUr W. Fischer. Heidelberg, 1959. 4-20. 172

Scott, Forrest S. "The Hildithryth Stone and the Other Hartlepool Name-Stones," Archaeologia Aeliana, XXXIV (1956), 196-212.

Sedgefield, W. J. The Place-Names of Cumberland and Westmorland. Manchester, 1915.

Sievers, Eduard. Angelsächsischen Grammatik, 3rd ed. Halle, 1898.

• Grundzüge der Phonetik, 5th ed. Leipzig, 1901.

. "Zu Cynewulf," Neusprachliche Studien: Luick Festschrift. Marburg, 1925. 60-81.

______• "Gas dmon und Genesis," Britannica: Festschrift für Max Förster. Leipzig, 1929. 57-84.

Skeat, Walter W., ed. The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Versions. Cambridge-Eng., 1871-87.

Smith, A. H. The Place-Names of the North Riding of Yorkshire. Cambridge-Eng., 1928.

______. Three Northumbrian Poems. London, 1933.

Smith, Thomas. Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Cottonianas . Oxford, 1691.

Souers, Philip Webster. "The Top of the Franks Casket," Harvard Studies in Philology and Literature, XVII (1935), 163-79,

______. "The Franks Casket: Left Side," Harvard Studies in Philology and Literature, XVIII (1935), 198-209.

______. "The Magi on the Franks Casket," Harvard Studies in Philology and Literature, XIX (1937), 249-54.

______• "The Wayland Scene on the Franks Casket," Speculum, XVIII (1943), 104-11.

Stephens, George. The Old-Northern Runic Monuments of SCandinavia and England. 4 vols. London and Copenhagen, 1866-1901.

. Handbook of the Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England. London and Copenhagen, 1884.

______. The Runes, whence came they. London and Copenhagen, 1894. 173

Stone, Lawrence. Sculpture in Britain: The Middle Ages. Harmondsworth, 1955.

Streitberg, Wilhelm. Urgermanische Grammatik, 3rd ed. Heidelberg, 1963.

Strbm, Hilmer. Old English Personal Names in Bede's History. Lund, 1939.

Sturtevant, E. H. The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. Chicago, 1920.

Sutherland, G. H. V. Anglo-Saxon Gold Coinage in the Light of the Crondall Hoard. Oxford, 1948.

Swadesh, Morris. ’’The Phonemic Principle," Language, X (1939), 1-10, reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 4th ed. Chicago, 1966. 88-92.

Sweet, Henry. King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care. London, 1871.

. King Alfred's Orosius. London., 1883.

. The Oldest English Texts. London, 1885.

______. History of English Sounds from the Earliest Period, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1888.

Thrope, B. Diplomatarium Anglicum. London, 1865.

Trubetzkoy, N. S. GrundzUge der Phonologie: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, VII. Prague, 1939i

Twaddell, W. Freeman. "The Prehistoric Germanic Short Syllabics," Language, XXIV (1948), 139-51.

______. "On Defining the Phoneme," Language: Monograph Series No. 16 (1935), reprinted in Readings in Linguistics, ed. Martin Joos, 4th ed. Chicago, 1966. 55-80.

ViUtor, Wilhelm. Die northumbrischen Runensteine. Marburg, 1895.

Vulliamy, C. E. The Archaeology of Middlesex and London. London, 1930. r Wadstein, Elis. The Clermont Runic Casket. Uppsala, 1900.

Wanley, Humphrey. Librororum Veterum Septentrionalium Catalogus Historico-Criticus. Oxford, 1705. 174

West, V. Royce. Der etymologische Ursprung der neuenglischen Laut­ gruppe fsk~j. Heidelberg, 1936.

Whitbread, L. "The Thornhill Cross Inscription," Notes and Queries, CXCIII (1948), 156.

Whitelock, Dorothy. Sermo Lupi ad Anglos. London, 1939.

Whitney, William Dwight. Sanskrit Grammar. Delhi, 1962.

Willett, Frank. The Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses. Manchester, 1958.

Wilson, D. M. "A Group of Anglo-Saxon Amulet Rings," The Anglo-Saxons Studies presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. Peter Clemoes. London, 1959. 159-70.

Wimmer, L. F. A. Die Runenschrift. Berlin, 1887.

Wrenn, C. L. "Late Old English Rune-Names," Medium Aevum, I (1932), 24-34.

■ ______. "The Value of Spelling as Evidence," Transactions of the Philological Society of London (1943), 14-39.

______■___ . "Magic in an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery," English and Medieval Studies; presented to J. R. R. Tolkien. 1962. 306-20.

Wright, C. E. "A Postscript to ’Late Old English Rune-Names’," Medium Aevum, V (1936), 149-51.

Wright, Joseph. The English Dialect GRammar. Oxford, 1905.

, ed. The English Dialect Dictionary. 6 volumes. Oxford, 1898-1905.

Wright, Thomas. "Letter from T. Wright, Esq. to Sir H. Ellis, on a leaden tablet or book cover, with an Anglo-Saxon Inscription," Archaeologia, XXXIV (1852), 438-40.

______, and Richard P. WUlker. Anglo-Saxon and Old English ' Vocabularies. London, 1884.

Wyld, Henry C. "Contributions to the History of the Guttural Sounds in English," Transactions of the Philological Society of London (1898-9), 129-260.

Year’s Work in Modern Language Studies. Oxford, 1960ff.