Ancrene Wisse, the Katherine Group, and the Wohunge Group
[In the following essay, Dahood presents an overview of Ancrene Wisse, including its origin, manuscripts, editions, languages, sources, and style.]
This chapter deals with several related early Middle English works associated with the West Midlands. The longest and best known is Ancrene Wisse (AW), a rule of living written for anchoresses, female religious of more or less solitary life. The Katherine Group (KG) consists of five works in alliterative prose, of which one is a treatise in praise of virginity, Hali Meiðhad (HM); another is an allegorical homily of body and soul, Sawles Warde (SW); and three are saints' lives, Saint Katherine (SK), Saint Juliana (SJ), and Saint Margaret (SM). The Wohunge or Wooing Group (WG) consists of þe Wohunge of Ure Lauerd, On wel swuðe god Ureisun of God Almihti (the Lambeth version of which Morris printed under the title On Ureisun of Ure Louerde), þe Oreisun of Seinte Marie (the Nero version of which Morris printed under the title On Lofsong of Ure Lefdi), and On Lofsong of Ure Louerde. The texts of the WG are written in alliterative prose and are found almost exclusively in manuscripts also containing texts of AW or KG.
ANCRENE WISSE
AW was originally written at the request of three consanguineous sisters for their own use, but the manuscripts testify that it was soon adapted for use by a larger community and eventually for use by men. The textual history, as far as it can be reconstructed from the extant manuscripts, suggests that AW enjoyed a great reputation within the religious community of western England from the thirteenth through the sixteenth century. Modern readers have valued it chiefly for its literary qualities. Atkins considers AW the “greatest prose work of the time” and “one of the most interesting of the whole Middle English period” (1907, p. 255). Chambers singles it out for its “literary excellence” (1932, pp. xciv-c), elsewhere calling it “the greatest book of its class in either Anglo-Norman or English” (1925, p. 4).
AW consists of an introduction or prologue, followed by eight separate parts. In the introduction the author distinguishes two rules, an outer rule governing external behavior, and a more important inner rule governing matters of the heart. The outer rule is flexible and may be adapted to suit individual needs, capabilities, and circumstances. It serves as a handmaiden to the inflexible inner or “lady” rule. The work is structured so that Parts I and VIII, treating the outer rule, frame Parts II-VII, treating the inner rule. The text reveals its author to have been a learned scholar, a painstaking artist, and an accomplished rhetorician.
THE TITLE
The title Ancrene Wisse appears in a colophon of MS Corpus Christi College Cambridge 402 (fol. 1a4). The precise meaning of the otherwise unrecorded noun wisse (from the verb wissin “to direct, guide”) is not established. Wisse is usually translated “guide,” but Dobson has made a strong case for “rule” (1976, pp. 51-53).
Although modern scholars often refer to the treatise as Ancrene Riwle (or Ancren Riwle), only Ancrene Wisse has ancient authority. Ancren Riwle is the title under which Morton, its first editor, attempting to render Latin Regula Anachoritarum or Regula Inclusarum into Middle English, published AW in 1853. Although in the language of the treatise the genitive plural of ancre is ancrene, scholars with few exceptions (e.g., Jespersen 1905, who used the grammatically correct form Ancrene Riwle, p. 92) followed Morton until Magoun (1937) urged general adoption of AW. Since Magoun's note appeared, usage has been divided mainly between AW and Ancrene Riwle, although the form Ancren Riwle persists (e.g., Blake, HM, 1972 ed., p. 35). Some scholars reserve the title AW for the Corpus text and Ancrene Riwle for the rest, but the distinction is not universally observed. One may find any of the three titles used to refer to any manuscript or version of the work.
THE MANUSCRIPTS
AW survives in seventeen known medieval manuscript codices or fragments, nine in English, four in French, and four in Latin (D'Evelyn 1970, p. 650); an eighteenth, postmedieval manuscript includes some prayers from AW. Dobson's partial collation of the manuscripts (1962), indicates that the relationships are complex (esp. p. 137 for the stemma codicum). Although Dobson's method has been faulted and some of his conclusions rejected (reviewed by Stanley, pp. 130-131), his is the only systematic treatment available. The dates given below for the manuscripts are those assigned by D'Evelyn, unless otherwise noted.
Dobson's collation of the primary hands shows the Corpus MS (ca. 1230) to stand apart from the other medieval copies. It is in Dobson's view “a close copy of the author's own final and definitive revision of his work” (1962, p. 163; again, 1966, p. 195). MS Laud 201 (early 17th c.) includes several prayers from AW, Part I, copied from Corpus, fols. 6b28-8a1, by the antiquary William Lisle (d. 1637), who deliberately introduced archaisms into his copy (Napier 1909 ed.).
Next in importance is the group comprising MS Cotton Cleopatra C. vi (ca. 1225-1230; Dobson 1972 ed., p. x) and the closely related French text of MS Cotton Vitellius F. vii (early 14th c.), which preserve an earlier version of the text than Corpus. In recent years the Cleopatra MS has received much attention. Although its main text is often marred by careless copying, the numerous interlineations and marginal additions by an informed corrector or reviser, “scribe B,” are of especial interest. Some of B's additions, in the dialect of the Corpus text and from all indications authorial, appear only in Cleopatra. Other of his additions appear in Corpus. Dobson concludes that B's revisions are “earlier drafts of additions incorporated in the text of which MS. Corpus … is a fair copy” (1972 ed., p. ix). He concludes further that B's revisions were composed in the Cleopatra margins, and that B is none other than the author of AW (1962, pp. 161-162; 1966, pp. 201-202; 1972 ed., pp. xi, xciii). Dobson's conclusions have great appeal (reviews of 1972 ed. by Frankis, Cottle, and Görlach), but none is beyond doubt. Dobson argues for B's authorship mainly on the grounds that the pronoun ic occurs three times among the additions; that some of the additions are “directly occasioned by” blunders in the main text; that the additions show “precision, skill, intelligence, and understanding”; and that B did not work by systematic comparison of the copy against an original, but “as a modern author commonly does in reading his proofs, reading them through for sense” (1972 ed., p. xcvi). The first-person additions, however, could have been copied from another manuscript, and the others could be the work of an intelligent reader with access to a good exemplar. The difficulty with Dobson's fourth point is that not all unsystematic correctors are authors.
Dobson, furthermore, noting the exact fit of two lengthy marginal additions into the available space, concludes that the additions were “first drafted for their places on the Cleopatra page,” that is, by the author (1972 ed., p. cxxv). But although text written to fit a limited space suggests a painstaking copyist, it does not imply original composition. Neat copying might well be the work of a scribe other than the author. It is perhaps enough to acknowledge B's additions as the work of a scribe who clearly understood the text, who wrote in the language of the Corpus MS, and who possibly but by no means necessarily was the author.
Another important group of AW manuscripts is designated “Nero type,” because of affinities to the text of MS Cotton Nero A. xiv (ca. 1225-1250). As Morton's copy text, MS Nero became the basis of most earlier AW scholarship. Dobson characterizes Nero as “an innovating manuscript … written by a fussy and interfering scribe, constantly archaizing the accidence, attempting to improve the syntax, word-order, and sentence construction (almost invariably with unhappy results), and padding out the phrasing” (1962, p. 133). Nero remains an important text nevertheless, providing in Part I expanded readings of prayers that, if they appear at all in other manuscripts, appear as mere tags. Furthermore, Nero alone preserves the evidence that AW was originally composed for three young gentlewomen, “sisters of one father and of one mother,” who had abandoned the world to become anchoresses (Day 1952 ed., p. 85:12, 23-26). Closely related to Nero, but having much in common with Corpus, is the Vernon MS (MS Bodleian Eng. poet. a. 1.; late 14th c.). Descriptions of Vernon and its manner of compilation are provided by Serjeantson (1937), Sajavaara (1967a, 1967b), Doyle (1974), and Lewis (1981). Bodleian MS Eng. th.c.70, the Lanhydrock Fragment (ca. 1300-1350), also called Napier's or Lord Robartes's Fragment, consists of a single leaf written in English on both sides. The text is from Part III (corresponding to Morton 1853 ed., pp. 138:25-142:24). Dobson has collated the fragment with all manuscripts and finds that despite readings peculiar to itself, Lanhydrock is of the Nero-Vernon type and is significantly closer to Vernon than to Nero (Dobson, review of Mack and Zettersten 1963 ed.). In several cases, moreover, Lanhydrock agrees in substance and in word order with Corpus against Nero.
Fundamentally similar to Nero is a third, large grouping of manuscripts, designated “Titus type” (Mack 1963 ed., pp. xv-xvii). MS Cotton Titus D. xviii (ca. 1230-1240) is a carelessly copied text, rewritten for use by men as well as women. A noteworthy feature of Titus is its unsystematic substitution of masculine for original feminine pronouns. Of the Titus type are the manuscripts of the second French version of the AW, called the “Compilation.” The Compilation consists of five originally independent tracts combined into a single “manual emphasizing especially preparation for confession” (Trethewey 1958 ed., pp. x-xi). Of these five, the first two and the last are derived entirely or chiefly from AW. The Compilation survives in Trinity College Cambridge MS 883 (R. 14. 7; late 13th-early 14th c.), BN MS Fr. 6276 (attributed by Ker to the early 14th c., according to Trethewey 1958 ed., p. xiv), and partially in MS Bodley 90 (attributed by Ker to the late 13th-early 14th c., according to Trethewey 1958 ed., p. xv).
The Latin version, which survives in four incomplete manuscripts, tends to omit and to compress (Dobson 1962, p. 134). It reflects the revised text of Corpus (D'Evelyn 1949, p. 1174) and in some respects is close to Titus (Dobson 1962, pp. 135-136). Merton College Oxford MS c. 1. 5 (Merton 44; 1300-1350) breaks off after the first nine lines of Part VIII. Magdalen College Oxford MS Latin 67 (ca. 1400) omits Part VIII altogether. MS Cotton Vitellius E. vii (early 14th c.) survives only in charred fragments. MS Royal 7 C. x. (beginning of the 16th c.) ends at the same point as the Merton text and also has lost a large section of Part IV. Closely related to the Latin version is the English text of Parts II and III preserved in British Library MS Royal 8 C. i (15th c.).
Also related to Titus, but not derived from it, is Magdalene College Cambridge MS Pepys 2498 (attributed by Ker to the middle of the second half of the 14th c., according to Zettersten 1976 ed., p. xix, n. 1). The text of Pepys, extensively rewritten (Dobson 1966, p. 194), is addressed to both men and women. Colledge (1939b) and Cottle (review of Zettersten 1976 ed.) associate Pepys with the Lollards.
Dobson has found that both the main text of the Cleopatra MS and scribe B's additions have exerted some influence on the texts of the Nero and Titus types (1962, pp. 139-144; 1972 ed., p. xi) and also on Gonville and Caius College Cambridge MS 234/120 (ca. 1250-1300), which consists of rearranged extracts generalized for a wider audience than the original three sisters (Dobson 1962, p. 132).
EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
Until well into the present century Morton's not wholly reliable edition of Nero (1853) was the only complete text of AW available in print. Påhlsson's annotated text of Pepys (1918) made available a text far removed from the authorial version. Of fundamental importance to AW scholarship, therefore, has been the Early English Text Society's publication of the extant manuscript texts. Each of the English texts is edited separately, as is the French of Vitellius F. vii. The French of the Compilation is edited from MS Trinity with variants from MSS BN 6276 and Bodley 90. The Latin text is from MSS Merton and (for most of Part VIII) Vitellius E. vii with variants from MSS Magdalen (Oxford) and Royal. The series, now completed except for the Vernon MS, is intended to meet highly specialized needs. None of the volumes includes a glossary or explanatory notes. The critical apparatuses, which vary in complexity, are predominantly textual. Paleographical features of all editions except the Latin and the Vitellius French have been treated under the supervision of or in consultation with N. R. Ker. All volumes in the series bracket Morton's pagination in the margins.
Critics have noted numerous shortcomings of the series. Because each manuscript presents special problems of its own, and because the project has involved numerous editors working over several decades, inconsistencies in emphasis and presentation have arisen (as noted in, e.g., R. M. Wilson's review of Baugh 1956 ed.). The editions have also been faulted for being little more than transcriptions (Edwards, review of Zettersten 1976 ed.). Furthermore, the transcriptions often are not exact. For example, although editors reproduce manuscript punctuation and capitalization, they expand abbreviations silently. Such practices work at cross-purposes. Irregularities of the scribal hands, moreover, often defeat editorial efforts to reproduce manuscript word division (as, e.g., Colledge notes in his review of Day 1952 ed.). In many ways photographic facsimiles would have been more helpful than attempts at diplomatic transcription (as, e.g., d'Ardenne argues in her review of Wilson 1954 ed.).
The series nonetheless provides scholars with a valuable tool. Having all the texts available in a similar format greatly facilitates comparison of variant readings. Furthermore, if the editions are used with the manuscripts or at least with photographic copies, the series can be very useful. In the case of heavily corrected or badly damaged manuscripts, where letters can be discerned only with much effort or in special light, the edited texts are indispensable. Letters faintly visible in a manuscript do not always show up in a facsimile. In the case of Lanhydrock, for example, although the photographs are far more legible than the manuscript overall, some of the text, especially on the verso, is invisible in the photograph, and for that portion we must depend on the transcription (Zettersten 1963 ed., pp. 166-171). What Dobson has said of the Cleopatra MS applies in some degree to all: “What is necessary is that a single editor should spend the time necessary to solve the problems of the manuscript … and find a means of presenting his results so that others may benefit from his pains; the job should be done thoroughly once, not superficially by each individual user of a facsimile” (1972 ed., p. xiii).
Several volumes in the series merit special attention. Tolkien's edition of Corpus (1962), with a paleographical introduction by N. R. Ker, furnishes a generally reliable text. Zettersten and Käsmann supply corrections in their reviews. Dobson's highly regarded edition of Cleopatra (1972) is a mine of paleographical and linguistic information. Comparison with the manuscript reveals Dobson's transcription of the Introduction and Part I to be extremely accurate. Of the few transcriptional errors the most conspicuous is a misreading of MS unefne as uilefne (fol. 4r, n. i, and p. cxxxix). Herbert's edition of Vitellius F. vii (1944) is extremely helpful, especially toward the beginning and end of the manuscript, where shine-through resulting from fire damage has made the surviving text impossible to read except under ultraviolet light.
Day's edition of Nero (1952), based on a transcription by Herbert, is a great improvement over Morton (reviewed by Samuels, who lists several of Day's transcriptional errors, p. 2, n. 10). Colledge's review is critical of the handling of word division and punctuation, and contains useful reminders of the dangers inherent in “diplomatic” editions. Comparison of a portion of the edited text with the manuscript shows, furthermore, that the editor is silent in at least two places where the text has been altered by a corrector. Day prints without comment MS cleane schir inwit (p. 2:14; fol. 1v8-9), but the ne of cleane, protruding abnormally into the right margin, and schir, protruding abnormally into the left, are written in a different hand (schir over an erasure), and the initial i of inwit has at least been retouched. Again, the first three letters of hwu-che, printed without comment, are written in a different hand over an erasure (p. 3:17; MS 2r15). Despite obvious peculiarities in the letter forms of the rewritten text, perhaps the result of writing over erasures, both revisions appear to be the work of the scribe of fols. 120v-end, who may also be responsible for the marginalia discussed in Day's introduction (pp. xvi-xvii).
In the case of the Titus and Lanhydrock editions (1963) a caveat is in order. The appearance in a single volume of the independently edited texts could, since neither editor addresses the issue of manuscript affiliation, lead casual readers to suppose that Lanhydrock is of the Titus type, whereas it is closer to Vernon and Nero, exhibiting none of Titus's vacillation between masculine and feminine pronouns. Zettersten's transcription of Lanhydrock is an advance over Napier's (1898), for Zettersten is able to read more of the text than Napier could. The new transcription, furthermore, is accompanied by a photographic facsimile. Zettersten unfortunately perpetuates Napier's erroneous transcription of MS nye as uye (fol. 1v13).
D'Evelyn's edition of the Latin text (1944) must be used with care. In comparing only the first two pages of Part VIII against MS Vitellius E. vii, I have found that editorial reconstruction of the text is not always signaled. The first ri of D'Evelyn's … rioribus, for example, cannot be seen in the manuscript because it is partly covered by opaque tape holding the fragment in place (p. 164:12; MS fol. 45b, col. 1). A stroke over what is probably i is visible, but the r and stem of the i cannot be confirmed. Again, the edited text reads volueritis (p. 164:20), but the final three letters (tis) are editorially reconstructed from vestiges. Most of each letter has crumbled away.
In view of the esteem in which AW is held it is somewhat surprising that a full reading text is available only in Morton's now outdated edition of Nero (1853) or in Påhlsson's text of Pepys (1918). Modern annotated editions provide only extracts. Shepherd's edition of Corpus, Parts VI and VII (1959), contains the best introduction to the many problems associated with AW. His transcription is reliable, his endnotes and glossary full and informative, and his discussion of literary aspects of the treatise especially perceptive (pp. xl-lxxiii). His introductory section on language (pp. xiv-xxi), however, has been criticized as insufficient, confused, and inaccurate (reviews by Käsmann and Russell-Smith), and his account of date and authorship should be supplemented by the more recent studies of Dobson (1966, 1976).
The Ackerman and Dahood edition of Cleopatra, Introduction and Part I (1984), includes a brief history of monasticism, an account of the monastic day, and detailed notes identifying the anchoresses' devotions as set forth in Part I. Briefer selections from AW are included in numerous classroom anthologies. Hall's notes (1920 ed.), superseded in many respects, provide a still useful account of the older scholarship. The notes of Mossé (1952 ed.), Dickins and Wilson (1956 ed.), and Bennett and Smithers (1968 ed.) provide especially useful information on language and background.
Only two complete Modern English translations are available, both often departing from the sense of the Middle English. They are Morton's translation of Nero (1853 ed.), later published separately as The Nun's Rule (1905), and the widely used Salu translation of Corpus (1955). The Ackerman and Dahood edition (1984) provides a facing-page translation of the Introduction and Part I. Meunier's translation into French (1928) is based on Morton.
DATE AND AUTHOR
The question of date and the associated questions of authorship and original audience have provoked some of the most interesting work yet done on AW. Tolkien (1929) was too hasty in dismissing the latter two questions as sentimental, and in claiming that the last in particular “is not likely to have any importance to scholarship” (p. 116). A firm identification of the author or the original audience would almost certainly lead to a greater knowledge of the background of AW and, one might hope, a better understanding of AW itself.
Earlier attributions of authorship have been rejected. According to a prefatory note in the Latin MS Magdalen 67, Simon of Ghent, bishop of Salisbury, wrote AW for his sisters, anchoresses at Tarrant in Dorset. Simon, who died in 1315, may have been responsible for the Latin, but the English manuscripts long antedate him. On general linguistic grounds Morton assigned the treatise to the early thirteenth century and speculated that Richard Poor, bishop of Salisbury, 1217-1228, was the author (1853, p. xv), but no specific link between Poor and AW is known. Hall suggested Saint Gilbert of Sempringham (1089-1189) as the author, but likewise without direct evidence (1920 ed., 2:375-376). Also unconvincing are McNabb's and Kirchberger's arguments for Dominican authorship (Dobson 1976, p. 14 and n.2).
Believing the three sisters of the Nero version to be three sister-anchoresses independently documented as having lived at Kilburn Priory, near London, in the 1130s, Allen (1918b, 1935a) assigned AW to the early twelfth century. The many references in AW to works and religious practices dating from the late twelfth century, however, tell against the earlier date. Shepherd provides a lucid critique of Allen's hypothesis (1959 ed., pp. xxi-xxiii).
More recent authorities consider AW a product of the earlier thirteenth century. Even so, the evidence is indirect and somewhat ambiguous. White's attempt (1945) to establish a post-1200 date on the basis of the three-nail crucifix (Corpus, fol. 106a2-3) fails because the three-nail style was known in Europe as early as the mid-twelfth century (Wilson's review of Dobson 1975; Shepherd 1959 ed., p. 27, n. 13).
From the treatment of the sins Bloomfield finds it “hard to date AW much before 1225” (1952, p. 148). In AW's use of meditations wrongly attributed to Saint Anselm, Talbot sees evidence for a thirteenth-century date (1951, p. 170). Sitwell (1955) believes that AW was composed “just before” 1221, the year the Dominicans, who are alluded to only in the revised texts of Corpus and Vitellius F. vii, came to England. In support of this dating he notes that manuals of confession, whose influence he sees in AW, appear in the early years of the thirteenth century. He observes, furthermore, that the Fourth Lateran Council, which convened in 1215, gave a great impetus to the production of these manuals, especially ca. 1217-1222 (pp. xix-xx), and in a recent note Dolan (1974) suggests that the instructions for confession in AW show the council's influence.
Shepherd, on the other hand, arues that AW cannot have been written either before the last decade of the twelfth century or after 1215, partly because of AW's treatment of love tourneys (1959 ed., p. 54, n. 8f.), but especially because in his view AW shows less concern with institutional religion than can be expected in a document composed in the years immediately following the Lateran Council. Shepherd concludes that AW “was written about the year 1200, and on the whole probably after, rather than before 1200” (1959 ed., pp. xxi-xxiv).
Dobson (1966) disputes Shepherd's dating, arguing rather that AW was written between 1215 and 1222. He successfully challenges the evidence of the love tourney (p. 182). He furthermore suggests that AW was indeed influenced by the Lateran Council, citing as evidence on this point, however, only Sitwell's remarks on the increased production of confessional manuals after 1215. He notes, moreover, Sitwell's observations, first, that the anchoresses' devotions are remarkably modern, of the sort one would ordinarily attribute to fifteenth-century works (Sitwell 1955, p. xxii), and second, that AW provides the earliest examples both of salutations used in connection with the elevation of the Host and of an elaborate form of the devotion to the Five Joys of Mary (Sitwell 1955, pp. 194, 196). Dobson also cites Talbot's remarks (1956) first, that the Hours of the Holy Ghost date from the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century; second, that no writer would have referred to the elevated Host as “Godes licome” until the question of when transubstantiation occurs in the Mass was settled (1207 at the earliest); and third, that in England writings specifying the moment of transubstantiation began to appear in the years immediately after 1215 (Dobson 1966, p. 187). In addition, Dobson adduces evidence of monastic bloodletting and dietary rules (1966, pp. 188-190). He points out that in the eleventh century bloodletting had been allowed only when necessary but by 1214 at Peterborough had developed into a part of the annual routine as in AW. Dobson argues, moreover, that since in other respects the author of AW stresses the relative unimportance of external observances, his exceptional concern for strict dietary rules is easier to understand if the work was written after the Lateran Council.
Dobson shows that a post-Lateran date of composition is possible. His evidence, however, does not preclude an earlier date. Although Sitwell observes that the Lateran Council generated the increased production of confessional manuals, he avoids concluding that the systematic treatment of confession in AW is necessarily post-Lateran (1955, p. xix). Further, Sitwell does not suggest that the correspondences between AW and fifteenth-century books of hours can be used in dating AW, and Dobson does not show that they can be. Again, the fact that certain of the devotions in AW are the earliest examples of their kinds does not establish a date for AW, since the date of composition of the devotions is not known. Talbot's evidence (1956) seems likewise inconclusive for a post-Lateran date. It allows a date of composition at least as early as 1207 and possibly earlier, since the 1207 limit depends entirely on Talbot's judgment that the author would not have written as he did about transubstantiation before then. The evidence from monastic practice in bloodletting and diet also is of uncertain value. Knowles (1963, pp. 456-462) indicates that bloodletting may have been routine before 1214 at some monastic houses, and that in dietary matters monastic practice was not uniform throughout England, some houses being stricter than others in adhering to the ancient rules.
Another consideration is Shepherd's objection that AW could not have been written much after 1200 because “it shows so little acquaintance with the most recent Parisian theological teaching, and especially with that of Stephen Langton” (reported in Dobson 1976, p. 315). It is with twelfth-century Paris that the author seems to have most in common (Shepherd 1959 ed., pp. xxviii-xxix). Furthermore, all of the undisputed sources of AW antedate 1200. Dobson's recent attempt (1975) to identify an early thirteenth-century source in the Moralia super Evangelia, well received by some (e.g., review by Wilson), has been vigorously rejected by others (reviews by Wittig and by Rouse and Wenzel). In their review Rouse and Wenzel not only reject the parallels as unconvincing, but also argue on codicological grounds that the Moralia was composed too late to have been a source of AW.
The question of date, then, remains open. Although Allen's early dating can be safely rejected, the best available evidence allows only the broad conclusion that AW was composed during the later twelfth or early thirteenth century and before 1221, if the fact that friars are mentioned only in the revised text means that the original antedates the arrival of the Dominicans.
The problem of authorship, on the other hand, may be closer to a solution. At least Dobson (1976), who has aroused admiration mingled with varying degrees of caution and skepticism, offers hope (reviews by Arngart, Kristensson, Pearsall, Wenzel). Building upon Brewer's suggestion (1956) that the author was an Augustinian canon, Dobson argues that AW was composed in Herefordshire at Wigmore, an Augustinian abbey of the Victorine congregation. He connects the original three anchoresses with Limebrook Priory, near Wigmore, and speculates that the author was their brother, Brian of Lingen, a secular canon of Wigmore, who reveals his name in a cryptogram (1976, pp. 312-368). The evidence for Brian's authorship is inconclusive and without further substantiation is unlikely to win universal acceptance, but the Augustinian backgrounds are now more clearly visible.
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
The early cataloguers, Thomas Smith (1969, pp. 50-51, XIV.1; 97, VII. 6; 103, VII. 1), Humfrey Wanley (1705, pp. 228, 248), and Joseph Planta (1802, p. 581), supposed Latin to have been the original language of AW. Bramlette (1893) and later Mühe (1908) attempted to demonstrate the priority of Latin. Macaulay (1914), however, was able to show the unlikelihood of a Latin original, and D'Evelyn (1949) has since strengthened his case.
Morton (1853), followed by Madden (1854), Wülcker (1874b), and others in the nineteenth century, favored English, but did not make conclusive arguments. In this century, since Napier (1909 ed.) refuted Heuser's suggestion (1907 ed.) of an Old English original, the debate has been chiefly between Middle English and French. Macaulay (1914) and recently Lee (1974) have argued for French, but a growing body of evidence points to Middle English. Although the arguments of Dymes (1924) and of Chambers (1925) have not withstood scrutiny, Samuels (1953) and Käsmann (1957) have produced strong evidence for English. Samuels points to many places in the text where for the sake of alliteration the Middle English includes words not required by the sense; nonetheless, the French, which does not alliterate, corresponds word for word with the English. Second, he points to several proverbs in the French that are apparently translated literally from Middle English. Third, he finds word play in the English that is impossible in French. Fourth, he shows that the French lacks originality and repeatedly exhibits a gracelessness most easily explained as the result of translation. Fifth, he finds readings in the French that can be explained only as mistranslations of the English.
After systematically reviewing and rejecting the evidence of Dymes and Chambers, Käsmann (1957) brings forward new evidence of mistranslation in the French. Also, he finds evidence that the French text includes superfluous glosses of French vocabulary, a circumstance best explained by the assumption that a French translator, following an English original in which unfamiliar French borrowings were glossed, slavishly translated both the borrowings and the glosses.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE MIDDLE ENGLISH TEXTS
The early English manuscripts of AW have been subjected to intensive grammatical and dialectal study. The earlier scholarship is of limited interest today both because of the greater sophistication of more recent linguistic work and because until this century the importance of the Corpus manuscript was not recognized. Even until well into this century most scholars concentrated on the Nero text, available in Morton's edition (1853); thus Bögholm (1937), Brock (1865), Dahlstedt (1903), Dieth (1919), Funke (1921), Ostermann (1905), Püttmann (1908), Redepenning (1906), Serjeantson (1927), and Wülcker (1874a, 1874b). Kölbing's warning (1876) against excessive reliance on Morton and Nero is a notable exception. By the early years of the twentieth century, however, scholars were beginning to look beyond Nero. Mühe (1901) produced a detailed study of the language of Titus. Shortly thereafter, Williams (1905), comparing fourteen phonological and morphological features of Nero and Cleopatra, observed that the language of Cleopatra is very similar to the language of the KG. Then Macaulay (1914) published his collation demonstrating the superiority of the Corpus text.
A turning point for AW studies came with the publication of Tolkien's discovery (1929) that in several respects the language of Corpus (designated A) is identical with the language of MS Bodley 34 (designated B; attributed by Ker to probably the first quarter of the 13th c., Facsimile, 1960, p. x), containing several works of the KG. This language he termed AB, attributing the linguistic uniformity of the two manuscripts to obedience to some school or authority. Although it now seems clear that Tolkien somewhat overstated the similarity of language in Corpus and Bodley 34 (McIntosh 1947-1948; Wilson 1959; Clark 1966; Jack 1975; De Caluwé-Dor 1977), the existence of the AB language may be taken as established. Several other of Tolkien's conclusions, however, have met with resistance. From the consistency of language and spelling Tolkien had inferred that the Corpus and Bodley scribes “used naturally the same language as that of their originals” (1929, p. 107). He had recognized but deemed unlikely the possibility that the originals had been written in some other dialect and then translated into AB (pp. 109-112). D'Ardenne, however, disagrees. In her view, “AB as a whole is a language of conscious cultivation, whose users would be likely to translate, and capable of doing it thoroughly” (SJ, 1936 ed., pp. xxxiv-xxxv). Hulbert likewise thought that Tolkien overemphasized the difficulties of translation, particularly from a dialect not very different from AB (1946, p. 412). Recently Benskin and Laing have argued for the likelihood of translation (1981, pp. 92-93).
Bliss (1952-1953) reasonably objects that the evidence on the question of scribal translation between dialects is inconclusive, the judgments of his predecessors subjective. He nevertheless speculates that the AB scribes probably would not have been capable of consistent translation from a dialect markedly different from AB. Unlike Tolkien, however, he can conceive of the AB scribes' modernizing of an original written in their own dialect as long as fifty years before their time (pp. 2-6). Bliss's important contribution to the study of the AB language was his demonstration that the Corpus and Bodley scribes fairly consistently observe an orthographical distinction between oþer (adj., “other”) and oðer (conj., “either, or”). Because the distinction is arbitrary, that is, not explainable on phonetic grounds, it is a sure indication that AB was a literary standard, a written language with conventionalized spelling. Jack (1976) provides the most detailed account of the oþer/oðer convention, arguing persuasively that the many exceptional instances in which the adjective is spelled oðer are evidence of an additional, competing convention that Bliss had failed to recognize. In a brief note Stevens (1961) points out that the case for AB is reinforced by the distinctive formulae used exclusively in the titles of Corpus and Bodley 34.
Tolkien's work paved the way for d'Ardenne's edition of SJ (1936) with its indispensable account of the AB language. D'Ardenne characterizes AB as a West Midlands dialect related to the Old English of the Vespasian Psalter but does not attempt more precise localization (pp. 178-179). Her discussions of the AB orthography, accidence, and phonology are essential to an understanding of the language of Corpus, although her treatment of the phonology is selective and has been criticized in some of its details (e.g., Dobson, AW, 1972 ed., p. lxxxi, n. 3). Moreover, since AW and SJ have much vocabulary in common, d'Ardenne's comprehensive glossary and etymological appendix are also valuable sources of information about AW. Logan's full account of SK (1973) is another useful repository of AB forms, although some of Logan's conclusions have been sharply criticized (review by Diensberg). Additional discussions of the AB language appear in the notes to relevant selections of the anthologies mentioned above.
More specialized studies deal with limited aspects of the language. On dialectal evidence from the Vernon index, written later than the rest of the manuscript, Serjeantson assigned Vernon to the area of South Shropshire and South Staffordshire (1937, p. 227), but Sajavaara assigns it to northern Worcestershire (1967b, p. 438). Käsmann (1961) provides information about native and borrowed ecclesiastical vocabulary in AW, KG, and WG. Zettersten (1965, with important reviews by Bäckman and Jacobsson) treats mainly the vowels in words of Germanic origin in the Corpus, Nero, and Gonville and Caius MSS, and to a lesser extent other linguistic features and other manuscripts. Zettersten (1964) is a companion study dealing with sixteen of the more difficult words, and Zettersten (1969) lists all the French loans in the Corpus, Nero, and Gonville and Caius MSS. Also useful is Diensberg (1975), concerned mainly with verb forms in the Corpus, Cleopatra, and Nero MSS, but also setting out the phonology of the main hands of the three manuscripts.
Articles dealing with individual words or cruces in the text include Baldwin (1976), Dahood (1978), Diensberg (1978a, 1978b, the latter arguing that numerous forms in AW, hitherto thought to be West Saxon loans, are native to AB), Dobson (1974), Dolan (1979), Jack (1977), Kenyon (1914), Onions (1928), Salu (1952-1953), Smithers (1949-1950; 1965, but see Dobson 1976, pp. 142-143), Turville-Petre (1969), and Zettersten (1969, pp. 232-234). Smithers (1948-1949), Russell-Smith (1957), and Bennett (1958) deal with the interpretation of nore in AW.
Redepenning's (1906) and Dieth's (1919) studies, based on Morton, provide useful syntactical information, especially for Nero. Ladd (1961) and Jack (1979) dispute the view, expressed, for example, by d'Ardenne (SJ, 1936 ed., p. 222), that the language of Nero is more archaic than that of Corpus. Kivimaa (1966) gives compact accounts of the relative and conjunctive uses of þe and þet in AW (Nero, Titus), KG, On Ureisun of Ure Louerde, and Wohunge. Kubouchi's systematic analysis of word order in Parts VI and VII (1975) demonstrates a preponderance of subject-verb word order.
SOURCES AND INFLUENCE
In addition to the studies of Talbot (1951, 1956) and Dobson (1966, 1975, 1976), mentioned above in connection with dating, other source studies have appeared. Allen (1934a) called attention to what she termed a “probable” echo of Geoffrey of Monmouth, but the echo is dim. Smyth (1911, pp. 85-100) lists biblical quotations and paraphrases given in English in the Nero text. Owst (1933) discusses specific passages of AW in connection with the works of medieval sermon writers and homilists. Clark (1954), Ives (1934), Prins (1948), and Whiting (1935) have treated individual proverbs in AW. Brewer (1953) identifies Saint Bernard's Sermones in Cantica as a probable source of the backbiters passage. Colledge (1939a), Kaske (1960), Miller (1962), Shepherd (1956), and Woolf (1962) provide background for understanding individual passages. Woolf (review of Shepherd 1959 ed.) presents an illuminating discussion of love between friends and between body and soul, and of penitential pain and scourging in AW. Raw (1974) identifies many of the devotions specified in Part I. She finds that a number of them occur in Old English manuscripts. Ackerman's (1978) analysis of the liturgical day includes discussion, partly drawing on Talbot (1956), Raw (1974), and others, of devotional material in Part I. Barratt (1980) finds Carthusian sources for AW in Guigo's Consuetudines and Adam of Dryburgh's Liber de Exercitio Cellae. Bishop (1979) reports finding outside of AW (Corpus, fol. 108b25) another early Middle English reference to Greek fire. Maybury (1977) surveys the exegetical tradition drawn upon in Part III of AW for the pelican, owl, and sparrow.
Allen (1918a) touched on the relationship between AW and the mystic tradition (pp. 189-193). She then published three articles (1923, 1924, 1929a) identifying purported borrowings from AW in other medieval works. Her evidence, however, was not consistently strong, and in one instance (1924) she retracted an earlier identification. A brief summary of her findings may be found in Chambers (1932, p. xcix). Allen's successful identification (1940) of AW as a source of the Tretyse of Loue has been confirmed in detail by Fisher (Tretyse, 1951 ed., pp. xiii-xxii; also Fisher 1949, 1959). Colledge (1939b) finds evidence in the Pepys text that AW was used by Lollards. The matter has recently been addressed again by Cottle (review of Zettersten 1976 ed.). Crawford (1930) finds in the Vernon MS text of the Life of Adam and Eve a reminiscence of AW.
STYLISTIC AND LITERARY ANALYSES
In an often-cited study Bethurum, comparing AW to the works of the KG, describes its movement as “simple and direct” (1935, p. 554), and recently Rygiel (1976) has analyzed some of the reasons for the impression of simplicity. Although in general AW is easier to read than KG, with its more obviously self-conscious prose, AW is highly complex in both structure and style. Humbert's respected study (1944) surveys AW's varied and complex iterative patterns. Extremely useful on many aspects of style is Shepherd's discussion (1959 ed., pp. lix-lxxiii). Less successful is Grayson (1974; reviewed by Wenzel), who takes as her point of departure Shepherd's observation that anticipation, accumulation, and recapitulation in the development of themes lend a “curious spiral quality” to the work (Shepherd 1959 ed., p. lxii). For all its complexity, however, the prose is almost always lucid. In his convincing explication of an enumerative sequence in AW (Corpus, fol. 106a22), Waldron (1969) stresses the author's concern for clarity.
Koskenniemi studies the various effects of synonymous pairings in the Nero and Corpus texts of AW (1968, pp. 68-74) and in SM (pp. 61-67). Clark (1968, pp. 370-375) demonstrates how the author uses alliteration for emphasis and also comments on his personal, informal tone. Clark (1978) examines one aspect of the informality, the use of colloquialisms in dialogue. Clark (1977) traces the author's use of grammatical rhyme ultimately to Augustine. Doyle calls attention to the methodical distinction and exemplification, the partial dramatization of the vices, the acute awareness of physical suffering in sentient beings, the antipathy for horrible evil, and the appreciation for details of domestic life as features contributing to the power and effectiveness of AW (1954, pp. 70-76). In Georgianna's view, the author of AW focuses upon the mundane because the anchoress' relationship with God is defined in terms of the everyday. She observes that the decision to become a solitary does not accomplish so radical a break with the world as the enclosure rite might suggest (1981, p. 5). Kliman argues that “the genial and humane author is not a misogynist but a sexist and an antifeminist” (1977, p. 43). Rygiel (1980) finds in Part VII a tripartite structure, consisting of divine action, human response, and judgment of that response. Rygiel (1982) subjects Corpus fol. 98b9-21 to close reading with particular attention to the interrelationship and patterning of various stylistic devices.
KATHERINE GROUP AND WOHUNGE GROUP
A convenient introduction to the KG may be found in Baugh (1967, pp. 123-126). Of especial interest are the Early English Text Society's photographic facsimile of Bodley 34 (1960) and d'Ardenne's separately published transcription (HM, 1977 ed.; the reviews of Millet, Diensberg, and Rynell report numerous errors in the transcription). Apart from matters discussed above in connection with AW (in the sections on language and style), scholarly concern with KG has tended to focus on authorship, form, and sources. Works of the KG and WG survive in Titus (which preserves not only AW but HM, SK, SW, and the unique text of Wohunge), Bodley 34, and Royal 17 A. xxvii (early 13th c.). An incomplete version of On wel swuðe god Ureisun of God Almihti survives in the Lambeth MS (early 13th c.). Some believe the KG to be the work of a single author, others the work of several. In her edition of SJ (1936, pp. xl-xlvii) d'Ardenne reviews the debate and the evidence. She concludes that AW, KG, and perhaps WG are products of a single center and an indeterminate number of authors. The question of form, whether the KG texts are prose or poetry, has long been settled in favor of rhythmic prose. Modern editors survey the earlier scholarship and set forth the evidence for the prevailing view (SJ, d'Ardenne 1936 ed., pp. xxviii-xxix; SW, Wilson 1938 ed., pp. xl-xliii).
Except for HM, the works of KG are adapted from Latin sources. The sources of SJ, SK, and SM are discussed in the editions of d'Ardenne (1936), d'Ardenne and Dobson (1981), and Mack (1934) respectively. Dobson (1976, pp. 164-165, 429-430) argues that the Moralia super Evangelia is the source of a passage in HM, but the Moralia is probably too late (Rouse and Wenzel, review of Dobson 1975). Dobson (1976, pp. 146-153) and, in more detail, Becker (1980) provide a clearer picture than hitherto available of the relationship between SW and its Latin source, De Custodia Interioris Hominis, an independent treatise incorporated in the De Anima, formerly ascribed to Hugh of Saint Victor.
Articles on specific readings include Furuskog (1946) and the response by d'Ardenne and Tolkien (1947b). The latter includes a spirited account of the editorial task and a sharp critique of Furuskog's work. The authors nevertheless accept several of Furuskog's readings (pp. 70-71), all but one of which later appear among the corrigenda or footnotes in the reprint of d'Ardenne (SJ, 1961 ed.). The omission occurs at d'Ardenne 326 (43r20), þi feader wisdom wisse me þi wum under erasure after criste. Tolkien and d'Ardenne further say that at 729 (51r23) the manuscript reads oder not as in her edition oðer. In the facsimile the ascender of the letter in question appears crossed, although not in the way characteristic of the scribe's ð. D'Ardenne omits the revised reading oder from her corrigenda, her silence suggesting a preference for her original oðer. Still, a comment on the unusual shape of the letter would be helpful. D'Ardenne and Tolkien (1947b) argue for a MS reading rw?len (usually read iþþlen) at MS Bodley 72vi, but their reading is rejected by Bennett and Smithers (SW, 1968 ed., p. 419:24n). D'Ardenne (1974) points out that Einenkel's bratewil (SK, 1884 ed.) is a misreading of MS beatewil, a form Dobson discusses further (SK, d'Ardenne and Dobson 1981 ed., pp. 257-258). Hotchner (1942) finds the source of later Latin dux vitae in Old English lifes lattiow, a phrase occurring also in SJ (as liues lattow, 291).
The WG, roughly contemporary with AW and KG, consists entirely of short works in rhythmic prose. Later English mystical writers, and in particular the author of the Talkyng of the Loue of God, draw heavily upon WG. Like AW and KG the group exhibits features of the AB language. WG receives an extensive discussion in Thompson's introduction (1958 ed.), but it has otherwise aroused little scholarly interest. According to Thompson the works of WG “derive particularly from the tradition of the mystical marriage of the Heavenly Bridegroom with Holy Church or the human soul” (1958 ed., p. xv), but only one of the texts has been traced to a direct source: Þe Oreisun of Seinte Marie is freely translated from Marbod of Rennes's Oratio ad Sanctam Mariam, which Thompson prints in an appendix. Thompson has been criticized for giving insufficient attention to the tradition of devotional literature behind the WG (review by Salter) and for inadequate treatment of the language (review by Smithers).
FUTURE STUDY
All the works of KG and WG are available in modern scholarly editions. The most urgent needs for the future concern AW. A critical edition or at least a complete collation in an easily comprehensible form would be welcome, even if it should produce no startling departures from the stemma that Dobson set forth in 1962. Especially needed is a reading text of the whole treatise, annotated on the scale of Shepherd's edition of Parts VI and VII (1959). Selections cannot take the place of a proper edition, and in translations much of what is admirable in AW—the skillful alliteration, the prose rhythms, the sometimes dazzling word play—is inevitably obscured or lost. Until a fully annotated text is available, AW will remain the province of specialists, an acknowledged but largely inaccessible masterpiece.
In the past the most successful work on AW has been linguistic, and much work on the language remains to be done. Tolkien's identification of the AB language and d'Ardenne's edition of SJ (1936) have set the course of AW language study for the foreseeable future. Subsequent work to date has been in the nature of refinements of or supplements to these contributions. We probably cannot expect from future linguistic studies revelations as dramatic as the identification of the AB language, yet developments in graphemic and dialectal study may eventually increase our knowledge of the center or centers at which AB flourished. Again, careful attention to vocabulary and meanings may considerably enhance our appreciation of the author's art. In his opening section, for example, where he explains the need for a rule, the author plays upon the various meanings of the related words rectus, regula, richte, and riwle with startling effect. I suspect in AW the presence of other passages with comparable but as yet unrecognized word play.
Work also remains to be done on the sources of AW. Too often in the past investigators have been willing to accept vague parallels as evidence of borrowing or derivation, where much stronger evidence is required. Dobson, however, has succeeded in directing attention to the largely neglected compilations of the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Further attention also to the devotions in Part I of AW could eventually lead to the identification of service books close in form and content to the exemplar from which the sister anchoresses copied their service (Corpus, fol. 6a2). Identification of such sources might provide further clues to the date and circumstances of AW's composition.
Bibliography
Primary works are listed alphabetically as follows: Ancrene Wisse, Katherine Group, Tretyse of Loue, Wohunge Group. Within the entries, titles of primary works are abbreviated except when abbreviation would be misleading. The following abbreviations are used: AW (Ancrene Wisse), AR (Ancren or Ancrene Riwle), HM (Hali Meiðhad), SJ (Saint Juliana), SK (Saint Katherine), SM (Saint Margaret), and SW (Sawles Warde). For each work or group of works listings include, as appropriate, manuscripts alphabetically by city, facsimiles, printed editions, and translations. Printed editions and translations appear in order of publication. When not otherwise evident, base manuscripts and related information are given within square brackets. Secondary works appear alphabetically by author. For convenient reference, reviews are entered under the works reviewed.
Primary Works
Ancrene Wisse
Manuscripts
English
Cambridge. Corpus Christi College 402, fols. 1-117v
Cambridge. Gonville and Caius College 234/ 120, pp. 1-185
Cambridge. Magdalene College Pepys 2498, pp. 371-449
London. BL Cotton Cleopatra C. vi, fols. 4-199
London. BL Cotton Nero A. xiv, fols. 1-120v
London. BL Cotton Titus D. xviii, fols. 14-105
London. BL Royal 8 C. i, fols. 122v-143v
Oxford. Bodleian Library Eng. th. c. 70 (Lanhydrock Fragment)
Oxford. Bodleian Library Eng. poet. a. 1 (Vernon MS), fols. 371v-391v
Oxford. Bodleian Library Laud 201, fols. 264-265
French
Cambridge. Trinity College 883 (R. 14. 7), fols. 1-154v
London. BL Cotton Vitellius F. vii, fols. 2-70
Oxford. Bodleian Library Bodley 90, fols. 1-77
Paris. BN Fr. 6276, fols. 3-127a/36
Latin
London. BL Cotton Vitellius E. vii, in fragments
London. BL Royal 7 C. x, fols. 69v-124v
Oxford. Magdalen College Latin 67, fols. 1-95
Oxford. Merton College c. 1. 5 (Merton 44) fols. 90-165v
Printed Editions
English Text
Morton, James, ed. (1853) The AR: A Treatise on the Rules and Duties of Monastic Life. Camden Society, os 57. Repr. (1968) New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. [Nero]
Napier, Arthur S., ed. (1898) “A Fragment of the AR.” JEGP, 2, 199-202. [Lanhydrock]
Paues, A. C., ed. (1902) “A XIVth Century Version of the AR.” EStn, 30, 344-346. [Pepys, fols. 224-228b, corresponding to Morton 1853, pp. 412, 424, 426; Zettersten 1976, pp. 182-184 (Part VIII: On Servants)]
Heuser, W., ed. (1907) “Die AR—Ein aus angelsächsischen Zeit überliefertes Denkmal.” Anglia, 30, 103-122. [Laud]
Napier, Arthur S., ed. (1909) “The AR.” MLR, 4, 433-436. [Laud]
Påhlsson, Joel, ed. (1918) The Recluse: A Fourteenth-Century Version of the AR. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, N.F. Avd. 1, Bd. 6, Nr. 1. Lund: Gleerup. Repr. of 1911 ed. with notes. [Pepys]
Hall, Joseph, ed. (1920) Selections from Early Middle English: 1130-1250. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Text, I:54-75; notes, II:354-407. [Corpus, fols. 56-58 and Caius, pp. 126-134 parallel (Seven Deadly Sins); Corpus, fols. 112v-117v and Nero, fols. 116-120v parallel with variants from Cleopatra, Titus (Part VIII: Outer Rule)]
Day, Mabel, ed. (1952) The English Text of the AR: Cotton Nero A. xiv, on the basis of a transcript by J. A. Herbert. EETS, os 225. Reviews: M. L. Samuels (1953) MAE, 22, 1-2, esp. n. 10; Eric Colledge (1953) RES, ns 4, 278-279.
Mossé, Fernand, ed. (1952) A Handbook of Middle English. Translated by James A. Walker. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Text, pp. 138-148; notes, pp. 343-346. [Corpus fols. 13v-14 (Temptation of Eve), 22-22v (Flatterers), 105-106v (Love of Christ), 112-113 (Renunciation of Goods of This World) with corresponding text from Vitellius French and Merton, Vitellius Latin]
Wilson, R. M., ed. (1954) The English Text of the AR: Edited from Gonville and Caius College MS. 234/ 120, with an introduction by N. R. Ker. EETS, os 229. Review: S. R. T. O. d'Ardenne (1958) RES, ns 9, 56-58.
Baugh, Albert C., ed. (1956) The English Text of the AR: Edited from British Museum MS. Royal 8 C. i. EETS, os 232. Reviews: R. M. Wilson (1957) MLR, 52, 625-626; S. I. Tucker (1958) RES, ns 9, 116.
Dickins, Bruce, and Wilson, R. M., eds. (1956) Early Middle English Texts. 2d rev. of 1951 ed. London: Bowes and Bowes. Text, pp. 89-94; notes, pp. 206-210. [Nero fols. 20v-21v (Flatterers and Backbiters), Corpus fols. 78v-80 (Dog of Hell)]
Shepherd, Geoffrey, ed. (1959) AW: Parts Six and Seven. Repr. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972. [Corpus] Reviews: Rosemary Woolf (1961) EIC, 11, 210-214; Hans Käsmann (1962) Anglia, 80, 327-329; Joy Russell-Smith (1962) RES, ns 13, 65-68.
Tolkien, J. R. R., ed. (1962) The English Text of the AR: AW: Edited from MS. Corpus Christi College Cambridge 402, with an introduction by N. R. Ker. EETS, os 249. Reviews: Hans Käsmann (1963) Anglia, 81, 472-474; Arne Zettersten (1966), ES, 47, 290-292.
Mack, Frances M., ed. (1963) The English Text of the AR: Edited from Cotton MS. Titus D. xviii. Together with the Lanhydrock Fragment, Bodleian MS. Eng. th.c.70, edited by Arne Zettersten. EETS, os 252. Reviews: Basil Cottle (1964) JEGP, 63, 761-762; E. J. Dobson (1967) MAE, 36, 187-191.
Zettersten, Arne, ed. (1963). See preceding.
Bennett, J. A. W., and Smithers, G. V., eds. (1968) Early Middle English Verse and Prose, with a glossary by Norman Davis. 2d ed. Repr. with corrections Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. Text, pp. 223-245; notes, pp. 398-416. [Corpus, fols. 65-70 (Holy Thoughts), 77-79v (Remedies of Sin), 104-108v (Love of Christ)]
Dobson, E. J., ed. (1972) The English Text of the AR: Edited from B.M. Cotton MS. Cleopatra C. vi. EETS, os 267. Reviews: Basil Cottle (1974) JEGP, 73, 239-240; M. L. Samuels (1974), MAE, 43, 78-80; P. J. Frankis (1975) RES, ns 26, 196-198; Manfred Görlach (1975) Anglia, 93, 222-225.
Zettersten, Arne, ed. (1976) The English Text of the AR: Edited from Magdalene College, Cambridge MS. Pepys 2498. EETS, os 274. Reviews: Basil Cottle (1977) JEGP, 76, 541-542; A. S. G. Edwards (1979) ES, 60, 82-83.
Ackerman, Robert W., and Dahood, Roger, eds. (1984) AR: Introduction and Part I. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies. Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies: Binghamton, New York. [Cleopatra]
French Text
Herbert, J. A., ed. (1944) The French Text of the AR: Edited from British Museum MS. Cotton Vitellius F. vii. EETS, os 219.
Trethewey, W. H., ed. (1958) The French Text of the AR: Edited from Trinity College Cambridge MS. R. 14. 7, with Variants from Bibliothèque Nationale MS. F Fr. 6276 and MS. Bodley 90. EETS, os 240. Review: Joy Russell-Smith (1960) RES, ns 11, 421-423.
Latin Text
D'Evelyn, Charlotte, ed. (1944) The Latin Text of the AR: Edited from Merton College MS. 44 and British Museum MS. Cotton Vitellius E. vii. EETS, os 216. [includes variants from British Museum MS Royal 7 C. x and Magdalen College Oxford Latin MS 67]
Translations
Morton, James, ed. (1853) s.v. Printed Editions, above.
—, trans. (1905) The Nun's Rule. London: A. Moring. Repr. of the translation in Morton, ed. (1853), s.v. Printed Editions, above.
Meunier, G., trans. (1928) La regle des recluses, dite aussi Le livre de la vie solitaire. Tours: A. Mame. [Nero into modern French]
Salu, Mary B., trans. (1955) The AR. London: Burns and Oates. [Corpus]
Ackerman, Robert, and Dahood, Roger, eds. (1984) s.v. Printed Editions, above.
Katherine Group
Manuscripts
London. BL Cotton Titus D. xviii: HM, fols. 112v-127; SK, fols. 133v-147v; SW, fols. 105v-112v.
London. BL Royal 17 A. xxvii: SJ, fols. 56-70; SK, fols. 11-37; SM, fols. 37-56; SW, ff. 1-10v.
Oxford. Bodleian Library Bodley 34: HM, fols. 52v-71v; SJ, fols. 36v-52; SK, fols. 1-18; SM, fols. 18-36v; SW, fols. 72-80v.
Facsimile
Facsimile of MS. Bodley 34: SK, SM, SJ, HM, SW (1960), with an introduction by N. R. Ker. EETS, os 247.
Printed Editions
Hali Meiðhad
Cockayne, Oswald, ed. (1866) Hali Meidenhad: An Alliterative Homily of the Thirteenth Century. EETS, os 18. [Titus]
Furnivall, Frederick J., ed. (1922) Reedition and reissue of preceding. [Titus, Bodley parallel]
Colborn, A. F., ed. (1940) HM: Edited from MS. Bodley 34 and MS. Cotton Titus D. xviii. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. [Parallel] Reviews: Dorothy Everett (1941) RES, 17, 117-121; S. R. T. O. d'Ardenne (1942) ES, 24, 58-62.
Blake, Norman F., ed. (1972) Holy Virginity. In Middle English Religious Prose, pp. 35-60. London: Edward Arnold. [Bodley, with partly modernized spelling]
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., ed. (1977) The KG. Edited from MS. Bodley 34. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège. Fascicule 215. Paris. Reviews: Bella Millet (1979) RES, ns 30, 333-334; Bernhard Diensberg (1981) Anglia, 99, 226-229; Alarik Rynell (1981) SN, 53, 385-387.
Millet, Bella, ed. (1982) HM. EETS, os 284. [Bodley, Titus]
Saint Juliana
Cockayne, Oswald, ed. (1872) Þe Liflade of SJ. EETS, os 51; repr. 1957. [Royal, Bodley, parallel]
Hall, Joseph, ed. (1920) See s.v. AW, Printed Editions, above. Text, I: 138-149; notes, II: 543-553. [Royal, fols. 56-61v; Bodley, fols. 36v-43; parallel]
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., ed. (1936) Þe Liflade ant te Passiun of Seinte Iuliene. Repr. with corrigenda as EETS, os 248 (1961). [Royal, Bodley parallel with Latin text of MS Bodley 285] Reviews: E. V. Gordon (1937) MAE, 6, 131-143; Eilert Ekwall (1939) ES, 21, 125-129.
———, ed. (1961) See preceding.
———, ed. (1977) See s.v. HM, above.
Saint Katherine
Morton, James, ed. (1841) The Legend of SK of Alexandria. London: Abbotsford Club. [Titus with variants from Royal]
Hardwick, Charles, ed. (1849) A Semi-Saxon Legend of St. Catharine of Alexandria, appended to his An Historical Inquiry Touching St. Catharine of Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge Antiquarian Society. [Titus]
Einenkel, Eugen, ed. (1884) The Life of SK. EETS, os 80. [Royal (emended), with the Latin text of BL MS Cotton Caligula A. viii parallel and variants from Titus and Bodley]
Gibbs, Henry H., ed. (1884) The Life and Martyrdom of SK of Alexandria. London: Roxburghe Club. Includes repr. of preceding in Appendix.
Hall, Joseph, ed. (1920) See s.v. AW, Printed Editions, above. Text, I: 128-131; notes, II: 524-531. [Royal, fols. 11-14]
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., ed. (1977) See s.v. HM, above.
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., and Dobson, E. J., eds. (1981) Seinte Katerine. EETS, supp. ser. 7. [Bodley (emended), Royal, Titus parallel; Latin vulgate Passio]
Saint Margaret
Cockayne, Oswald, ed. (1866) Seinte Marherete: The Meiden ant Martyr. EETS, os 13. [Royal with variants from Bodley]
Mack, Frances M., ed. (1934) Seinte Marherete: Þe Meiden ant Martyr. EETS os 193. [Royal, Bodley parallel] Reviews: Dorothy Everett (1935) RES, 11, 337-341; R. M. Wilson (1936) MLR, 31, 74-75; E. V. Gordon (1937) MAE, 6, 131-143.
Dickins, Bruce, and Wilson, R. M., eds. (1956) See s.v. AW, Printed Editions, above. Text, pp. 95-98; notes, pp. 210-213. [Bodley, fols. 24-25v (The Dragon)]
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., ed. (1977) See s.v. HM, above.
Sawles Warde
Morris, Richard, ed. (1868) Old English Homilies and Homiletic Treatises, pp. 244-267. EETS, os 34. Repr. with os 29 in one vol. (1969) New York: Greenwood Press; (1973) New York: Kraus. [Bodley with variants and missing portions supplied from Royal]
Wagner, Wilhelm, ed. (1907) See next.
—, ed. (1908) SW: Kritische Textausgabe auf Grund aller Handschriften mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen und Glossar. Bonn: P. Hanstein. Text alone appeared as dissertation in 1907. [Royal with variants from Titus and Bodley]
Hall, Joseph, ed. (1920) See s.v. Printed Editions, above. Text, I: 117-128; notes, II: 492-524. [Bodley supplemented by Royal]
Wilson, R. M., ed. (1938) SW: An Early Middle English Homily. Leeds School of English Language Texts and Monographs no. 3. [Titus, Royal, Bodley, Ayenbyte of Inwyt, De Anima; parallel] Review: Dorothy Everett (1940) RES, 16, 72-76.
Mossé, Fernand, ed. (1952) See s.v. AW, Printed Editions, above. Text, pp. 148-151; notes, pp. 343-347. [Bodley fols. 79v-80v supplemented by Royal with corresponding texts of Ayenbite of Inwyt and De Anima (Happiness of the Elect)]
Bennett, J. A. W., and Smithers, G. V., eds. (1968) See s.v. AW, Printed Editions, above. Text, pp. 246-261; notes, pp. 417-426. [Bodley with variants from Royal, Titus]
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., ed. (1977) See s.v. HM, above.
Translations
Hali Meiðhad
Cockayne, Oswald, ed. (1866) See s.v. Printed Editions, above.
Furnivall, Frederick J., ed. (1922) See s.v. Printed Editions, above.
Saint Juliana
Cockayne, Oswald, and Brock, Edmund, trans. (1872). In Cockayne, ed. (1872) s.v. Printed Editions, above.
Saint Katherine
Morton, James, ed. (1841) See s.v. Printed Editions, above.
Einenkel, Eugen, ed. (1884) See s.v. Printed Editions, above. Repr. of Morton, ed. (1841) translation.
Gibbs, Henry H., ed. (1884) See s.v. Printed Editions, above. Repr. of Morton, ed. (1841) translation.
Saint Margaret
Cockayne, Oswald, ed. (1866) See s.v. Printed Editions, above.
Sawles Warde
Morris, Richard, ed. (1868) See s.v. Printed Editions, above.
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., trans. (1979) “La Garde de l'Ame.” MA, 85, 297-315. [Modern French]
Tretyse of Loue
Printed Editions
de Worde, Wynkyn, ed. (1493) London: Wynkyn de Worde. STC 24234.
Fisher, John H., ed. (1951) The Tretyse of Loue. EETS, os 223.
Wohunge Group
Manuscripts
London. BL Cotton Nero A. xiv, fols. 123v-126v On wel swuðe god Ureisun of God Almihti; 126v-128 Þe Oreisun of Seinte Marie [untitled in Nero]; 128-131 On Lofsong of Ure Louerde [untitled in manuscript].
London. BL Cotton Titus D. xviii, fols. 127-133 Þe Wohunge of Ure Lauerd.
London. BL Royal 17 A. xxvii, fols. 70-70v Þe Oreisun of Seinte Marie.
London. Lambeth Palace MS 487, fols. 65v-67 On wel swuðe god Ureisun of God Almihti [incomplete, untitled in Lambeth].
Printed Editions
Morris, Richard, ed. (1868) See s.v. KG, Printed Editions, SW, above. On wel swuðe god Ureisun of God Almihti, pp. 182-190 [Lambeth], 200-203 [Nero]; On Lofsong of Ure Louerde, pp. 208-217; Þe Oreisun of Seinte Marie, pp. 204-207 [Nero], 305 [Royal]; Wohunge, pp. 268-287.
Sampson, George, ed. (1924) Cambridge Book of Prose and Verse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Þe Oreisun of Seinte Marie, pp. 196-198. [Nero repr. from preceding entry]
Thompson, W. Meredith, ed. (1958) Þe Wohunge of Ure Lauerd. Edited from British Museum MS. Cotton Titus D. xviii, together with On Ureisun of Ure Louerde, On Wel Swuðe God Ureisun of God Almihti, On Lofsong of Ure Louerde, On Lofsong of Ure Lefdi, Þe Oreisun of Seinte Marie from the manuscripts in which they occur. EETS, os 241. Reviews: Elizabeth Salter (1962) RES, ns 13, 166-168; G. V. Smithers (1962) MAE, 31, 216-218.
Blake, Norman F., ed. (1972) The Wooing of Our Lord [Wohunge]. In Blake, ed. (1972), pp. 61-72, s.v. KG, Printed Editions, HM, above.
Translations
Morris, Richard, ed. (1868) See s.v. KG, Printed Editions, SW, above.
Sampson, George, ed. (1924) See s.v. Printed Editions, above.
Secondary Works
Ackerman, Robert W. (1978) “The Liturgical Day in AR.” Speculum, 53, 734-744.
Allen, Hope E. (1918a) “The Mystical Lyrics of the Manuel des Pechiez.” RR 9, 154-193, esp. 189-193.
——— (1918b) “The Origin of the AR.” PMLA 33, 474-546.
——— (1919) “A New Latin Manuscript of the ‘AR.’” MLR, 14, 209-210.
——— (1921) “The ‘AR’ and Kilburn Priory.” MLR, 16, 316-322.
——— (1922) “Another Latin MS. of the ‘AR.’” MLR, 17, 403.
——— (1923) “Some Fourteenth Century Borrowings from ‘AR.’” MLR, 18, 1-8.
——— (1924) “On ‘Some Fourteenth Century Borrowings from AR.’” MLR 19, 95.
——— (1929a) “Further Borrowings from ‘AR.’” MLR, 24, 1-15.
——— (1929b) “On the Author of the AR.” PMLA, 44, 635-680.
——— (1933) “The Localization of Bodl. MS. 34.” MLR 28, 485-487.
——— (1934a) “The ‘AR’ and Geoffrey of Monmouth.” MLR, 29, 173.
——— (1934b) “Eleanor Cobham.” Letter to TLS (March 22), 214.
——— (1935a) “The Three Daughters of Deorman.” PMLA, 50, 899-902.
——— (1935b) “The Tortington Chartulary.” Letter to TLS (Feb. 14), 92.
——— (1936a) “The AR.” Letter to TLS (Oct. 24), 863.
——— (1936b) “Manuscripts of the AR.” Letter to TLS (Feb. 8), 116.
——— (1940) “Wynkyn de Worde and a Second French Compilation from the ‘AR’ with a Description of the First.” In Essays and Studies in Honor of Carleton Brown, pp. 182-219. New York: New York University Press.
Atkins, J. W. H. (1907) “Chapter XI: Early Transition English.” In Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. 1, edited by Adolphus W. Ward and A. R. Waller, pp. 241-269. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Baldwin, Mary (1976) “Some Difficult Words in AR.” MS, 38, 268-290.
Barratt, Alexandra (1980) “Anchoritic Aspects of AW.” MAE, 49, 32-56.
Baugh, A. C., ed. (1967) A Literary History of England. Vol. I: The Middle Ages. 2d ed. AW, pp. 127-134; KG, pp. 123-126. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Becker, Wolfgang (1980) “The Source Text of SW.” Manuscripta, 24, 44-48.
Bennett, J. A. W. (1958) “Lefunge o swefne o nore.” RES, ns 9, 280-281.
Benskin, Michael, and Laing, Margaret (1981) “Translations and Mischsprachen in Middle English Manuscripts.” In So Meny People Longages and Tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English Presented to Angus McIntosh, edited by Michael Benskin and M. L. Samuels, pp. 55-106. Edinburgh: privately printed.
Bethurum, Dorothy (1935) “The Connection of the Katherine Group with Old English Prose.” JEGP, 34, 553-564.
Bishop, Ian (1979) “‘Greek Fire’ in AW and Contemporary Texts.” N&Q, 224, 198-199.
Bliss, A. J. (1952-1953) “A Note on Language AB.” EGS, 5, 1-6.
Bloomfield, Morton W. (1952) The Seven Deadly Sins. East Lansing: Michigan State College Press.
Bögholm, N. (1937) “Vocabulary and Style of the Middle English AR.” ES, 19, 113-116.
Bramlette, Edgar E. (1893) “The Original Language of the AR.” Anglia, 15, 478-498.
Brewer, Derek S. (1953) “Postscriptum.” MAE, 22, 123.
——— (1956) “Two Notes on the Augustinian and Possibly West Midland Origin of the AR.” N&Q, 201, 232-235.
Brock, Edmund (1865) “The Grammatical Forms of Southern English (Ab. A.D. 1220-30) Occurring in the AR.” TPS, 150-167.
Chambers, R. W. (1925) “Recent Research upon the AR.” RES, 1, 4-23.
——— (1932) On the Continuity of English Prose from Alfred to More and His School. From the introduction to Nicholas Harpsfield's Life of Sir Thomas More, edited by Elsie V. Hitchcock, pp. xlv-clxxiv. EETS, os 186. Repr. separately as EETS 191A (1957).
Clark, Cecily (1954) “A Mediaeval Proverb.” ES, 35, 11-15.
——— (1966) “AW and KG: A Lexical Divergence.” Neophil, 50, 117-124.
——— (1968) “Early Middle English Prose: Three Essays in Stylistics.” EIC, 18, 361-382, esp. 363-375.
——— (1977) “As Seint Austin Seith. …” MAE, 46, 212-218.
——— (1978) “‘Wið Scharpe Sneateres’: Some Aspects of Colloquialism in AW.” NM, 79, 341-353.
Colledge, Eric (1939a) “‘The Hours of the Planets’: An Obscure Passage in ‘The Recluse.’” MLN, 54, 442-445.
——— (1939b) “The Recluse: A Lollard Interpolated Version of the AR.” RES, 15, 1-15, 129-145.
Coulton, G. G. (1922) “The Authorship of ‘AR.’” MLR, 17, 66-69.
Crawford, S. J. (1930) “The Influence of the ‘AR’ in the Late Fourteenth Century.” MLR, 25, 191-192.
Dahlstedt, August (1903) The Word Order of the AR. Sundsvall: R. Sahlin.
Dahood, Roger (1978) “A Lexical Puzzle in AW.” N&Q, 223, 1-2, 541.
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O. (1974) “*Bratewil (Katerine 1690).” ES 55, 282-283.
d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., and Tolkien, J. R. R. (1947a) “‘iþþlen’ in SW.” ES 28, 168-170.
——— (1947b) “MS. Bodley 34: A Re-collation of a Collation.” SN, 20, 65-72.
De Caluwé-Dor, Juliette (1977) “Divergence lexicale entre le KG et l'AR: valeur statistique des premières attestations de mots d'origine française en anglais.” EA, 30, 463-472.
D'Evelyn, Charlotte (1949) “Notes on Some Interrelations between the Latin and English Texts of the AR.” PMLA, 64, 1164-1179.
——— (1970) “Bibliography.” In A Manual of the Writings in Middle English, 1050-1500, vol. 2, edited by J. Burke Severs, pp. 597-598 (SJ), 599-600 (SK), 606-607 (SM), 650-654 (AW). New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Diensberg, Bernhard (1975) “Morphologische Untersuchungen zur AR: Die Verbalflexion nach den MSS Corpus Christi College Cambridge 402, B.M. Cotton Cleopatra C. vi, B.M. Cotton Nero A. xiv.” Diss., Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. Review: Klaus Bitterling (1978) Anglia, 96, 470-471.
——— (1978a) “AW/R surquide, caue, creauant/creaunt, trusse, bereget, und babanliche.” Archiv, 215, 79-82.
——— (1978b) “Westsächsische Lehnwörter im merzischen AB-Dialekt?” Anglia, 96, 447-450.
Dieth, Eugen (1919) “Flexivisches und Syntaktisches über das Pronomen in der AR: Ein Beitrag zur mittelenglischen Syntax.” Diss., University of Zurich.
Dobson, E. J. (1962) “The Affiliations of the Manuscripts of AW.” In English and Medieval Studies Presented to J. R. R. Tolkien on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by Norman Davis and C. L. Wrenn, pp. 128-163. London: Allen and Unwin. Review: E. G. Stanley (1964) Archiv, 201, 130-132.
——— (1966) “The Date and Composition of AW.” PBA, 52, 181-208.
——— (1974) “Two Notes on Early Middle English Texts.” N&Q, 219, 124-126.
——— (1975) Moralities on the Gospels: A New Source of AW. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reviews: Richard H. Rouse and Siegfried Wenzel (1977) Speculum, 52, 648-652; Edward Wilson (1977) RES, ns 28, 65-66; Joseph Wittig (1980) Anglia, 98, 185-190.
——— (1976) The Origins of AW. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reviews: Derek Pearsall (1977), RES, ns. 28, 316-318; O. Arngart (1978), ES, 59, 154-155; Siegfried Wenzel (1978) Speculum, 53, 354-356; Gillis Kristensson (1981) SN, 53, 371-376.
Dolan, T. P. (1974) “The Date of AW: A Corroborative Note.” N&Q, 219, 322-323.
——— (1979) “‘Riote’ in AW.” ELN, 16, 198-200.
Doyle, A. I. (1954) “A Survey of English Prose in the Middle Ages.” In The Age of Chaucer, edited by Boris Ford, pp. 68-82. The Pelican Guide to English Literature 1. Baltimore: Penguin.
——— (1974) “The Shaping of the Vernon and Simeon Manuscripts.” In Chaucer and Middle English Studies in Honour of Rossell Hope Robbins, edited by Beryl Rowland, pp. 328-341. London: Allen and Unwin.
Dymes, Dorothy M. E. (1924) “The Original Language of the AR.” E&S, 9, 31-49.
Fisher, John H. (1949) “Continental Associations for the AR.” PMLA, 64, 1180-1189.
——— (1959) “The French Versions of the AR.” University of North Carolina Studies in the Germanic Languages and Literatures, 26, 65-74.
Funke, O. (1921) “Zur Wortgeschichte der französischen Elemente in Englischen.” EStn, 55, 1-25.
Furuskog, Ragnar (1946) “A Collation of the KG (MS. Bodley 34).” SN, 19, 119-166.
Georgianna, Linda (1981) The Solitary Self: Individuality in the AW. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Grayson, Janet (1974) Structure and Imagery in AW. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England. Review: Siegfried Wenzel (1976) MAE, 45, 219-221.
Hotchner, Cecilia A. (1942) “A Note on ‘Dux Vitae’ and ‘Lifes Lattiow.’” PMLA, 57, 572-575.
Hulbert, James R. (1946) “A Thirteenth-Century English Literary Standard.” JEGP, 45, 411-414.
Humbert, Agnes M. (1944) Verbal Repetition in the AR. Washington: Catholic University of America Press. Reviews: Gladys D. Willcock (1945) YWES, 26, 71; Beatrice White (1946) RES 22, 230.
Ives, D. V. (1934) “The Proverbs in the ‘AR.’” MLR, 29, 257-266.
Jack, George B. (1975) “Relative Pronouns in Language AB.” ES, 56, 100-107.
——— (1976) “Oþer in the ‘AB Language.’” Anglia, 94, 431-435.
——— (1977) “Luste in AW.” NM, 78, 24-26.
——— (1979) “Archaizing in the Nero Version of AW.” NM, 80, 325-326.
Jespersen, Otto (1905) Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: G. Teubner.
Kaske, R. E. (1960) “Eve's ‘Leaps’ in the AR.” MAE, 29, 22-24.
Käsmann, Hans (1957) “Zur Frage der ursprünglichen Fassung der AR.” Anglia, 75, 134-156.
——— (1961) Studien zum kirchlichen Wortschatz des Mittelenglischen 1100-1350: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Sprachmischung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Kenyon, John S. (1914) “Syntactical Note.” MLN, 29, 127-128.
Kirchberger, Clare (1954) “Some Notes on the AR.” Dominican Studies, 7, 215-238.
Kivimaa, Kirsti (1966) Þe and Þat as Clause Connectives in Early Middle English with Especial Consideration of the Emergence of the Pleonastic Þat. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 39, no. 1. Review: Tauno Mustanoja (1967) NM, 68, 327-329.
Kliman, Bernice W. (1977) “Women in Early English Literature: ‘Beowulf’ to the ‘AW.’” Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, 21, 32-49.
Knowles, David (1963) The Monastic Order in England. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kölbing, Eugen (1876) “Zu der AR.” JRESL, 15, nf 3, 179-197.
Koskenniemi, Inna (1968) Repetitive Word Pairs in Old and Early Middle English Prose: Expressions of the Type “Whole and Sound” and “Answered and Said” and Other Parallel Constructions. Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis. Sarja-Series B OSA, Tom. 107. Turku.
Kubouchi, Tadao (1975) “Word-Order in the AW.” HJA& S, 16, 11-28.
Ladd, C. A. (1961) “A Note on the Language of the AR.” N&Q, 206, 288-290.
Lee, Berta G. (1974) Linguistic Evidence for the Priority of the French Text of the AW: Based on the Corpus Christi College Cambridge 402 and the British Museum Cotton Vitellius F vii Versions of the AW. Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 242. The Hague: Mouton.
Lewis, Robert E. (1981) “The Relationship of the Vernon and Simeon Texts of the Pricke of Conscience.” In So Meny People Longages and Tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English Presented to Angus McIntosh, edited by Michael Benskin and M. L. Samuels, pp. 251-264. Edinburgh: privately printed.
Logan, H. M. (1973) The Dialect of the Life of SK: A Linguistic Study of the Phonology and Inflections. Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 130. The Hague: Mouton. Review: Bernhard Diensberg (1980) Anglia, 98, 125-130.
Macaulay, G. C. (1914) “The ‘AR.’” MLR, 9, 63-78, 145-160, 324-331, 463-474.
McIntosh, Angus (1947-1948) “The Relative Pronouns Þe and Þat in Early Middle English.” EGS, 1, 73-87.
McNabb, Vincent (1916) “The Authorship of the AR.” MLR, 11, 1-8.
——— (1920) “Further Light on the ‘AR.’” MLR, 15, 406-409.
——— (1926) “Further Research upon the AR.” RES, 2, 82-85; with a response by R. W. Chambers (including a letter from Herbert Thurston), 85-89; and a reply to that letter by McNabb, 197-198, with another reply from Chambers and another from Thurston, 199-201.
——— (1934) “The Authorship of the AR.” AFP, 4, 49-74.
Madden, Frederic (1854) “The AR.” N&Q, 9, 5-6.
Magoun, Francis P., Jr. (1937) “AW vs. AR.” ELH, 4, 112-113.
Maybury, James F. (1977) “On the Structure and Significance of Part III of the AR, with Some Comment on Sources.” ABR, 28, 95-101.
Miller, B. D. H. (1962) “She Who Hath Drunk Any Potion …” MAE, 31, 188-193.
Mühe, Th. (1901) Über den im MS. Cotton Titus D. xviii enthaltenen Text der AR. Göttingen: diss., E. A. Huth.
——— (1908) “Über die AR.” Anglia, 31, 399-404.
Onions, C. T. (1928) “Middle English (i) Wite God, Wite Crist, (ii) God It Wite.” RES, 4, 334-337.
Ostermann, Hermann (1905) “Lautlehre des germanischen Wortschatzes in der von Morton herausgegebenen Handschrift der AR.” BBA, 19, 1-91.
Owst, G. R. (1933) Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England: A Neglected Chapter in the History of English Letters and of the English People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Planta, J. (1802) A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library Deposited in the British Museum. London: L. Hansard, printer.
Prins, A. A. (1948) “On Two Proverbs in the AR.” ES, 29, 146-150.
Püttmann, Adolf (1908) “Die Syntax der sogenannten Progressiven Form im Alt- und Frühmittelenglischen.” Anglia, 31, 405-452.
Raw, Barbara (1974) “The Prayers and Devotions in the AW.” In Chaucer and Middle English Studies in Honour of Rossell Hope Robbins, edited by Beryl Rowland, pp. 260-271. London: Allen and Unwin.
Redepenning, Hermann (1906) “Syntaktische Kapitel aus der AR.” Diss., Universität Rostock.
Russell-Smith, Joy (1957) “Ridiculosae Sternutationes (o nore in AW).” RES, ns 8, 266-269.
Rygiel, Dennis (1976) “The Allegory of Christ the Lover-Knight in AW: An Experiment in Stylistic Analysis.” SP, 73, 343-364.
——— (1980) “Structure and Style in Part Seven of AW.” NM, 81, 47-56.
——— (1982) “A Holistic Approach to the Style of AW.” ChauR, 16, 270-281.
Sajavaara, Kari (1967a) The Middle English Translations of Robert Grosseteste's Chateau d'Amour. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 32. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
——— (1967b) “The Relationship of the Vernon and Simeon Manuscrpts.” NM, 68, 428-439.
Salu, Mary (1952-1953) “Some Obscure Words in AW (MS. C.C.C.C. 402).” EGS, 5, 100-102.
Samuels, M. L. (1953) “AR Studies.” MAE, 22, 1-9.
Serjeantson, Mary S. (1927) “The Dialects of the West Midlands in Middle English.” RES, 3, 54-67, 186-203, 319-331.
——— (1937) “The Index of the Vernon Manuscript.” MLR, 32, 222-261.
——— (1938) “The Dialect of the Corpus Manuscript of the AR.” London Mediaeval Studies, 1, 225-248.
Shepherd, Geoffrey (1956) “‘All the Wealth of Croesus …’: A Topic in the ‘AR.’” MLR, 51, 161-167.
Sitwell, Gerard (1955) Introduction and appendix in The AR, translated by Mary B. Salu, pp. vii-xxii, 193-196. London: Burns and Oates.
Smith, Thomas (1696) Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Cottonianae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smithers, G. V. (1948-1949) “Four Cruces in Middle English Texts.” EGS, 2, 59-67.
——— (1949-1950) “Ten Cruces in Middle English Texts.” EGS, 3, 65-81, esp. 72-73.
——— (1965) “Two Typological Terms in the AR.” MAE, 34, 126-128.
Smyth, Mary W. (1911) Biblical Quotations in Middle English Literature before 1350. YSE 41. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Stevens, William J. (1961) “The Titles of ‘MSS AB.’” MLN, 76, 443-444.
Talbot, C. H. (1951) “The ‘De institutis inclusarum’ of Ailred of Rievaulx.” Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, 7, 167-217.
——— (1956) “Some Notes on the Dating of the AR.” Neophil, 40, 38-50.
Thurston, Herbert (1926). See s.v. McNabb (1926).
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1929) “AW and HM.” E&S, 14, 104-126.
Turville-Petre, Joan (1969) “Two Etymological Notes: AW eskibah, hond þet ilke.” SN, 41, 156-161.
Waldron, R. A. (1969) “Enumeration in AW.” N&Q, 214, 86-87.
Wanley, Humfrey (1705) Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis, liber alter. In George Hickes, Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus. Oxford. Repr. (1970) New York and Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
White, Beatrice (1945) “Whale-Hunting, The Barnacle Goose, and the Date of the ‘AR’: Three Notes on Old and Middle English.” MLR, 40, 205-207.
Whiting, B. J. (1935) “Proverbs in the ‘AR’ and the ‘Recluse.’” MLR, 30, 502-505.
Williams, Irene F. (1905) “The Language of the Cleopatra MS. of the AR.” Anglia, 28, 300-304.
Wilson, R. M. (1959) “On the Continuity of English Prose.” In Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie: Fernand Mossé in memoriam, pp. 486-494, esp. pp. 492-494. Paris: Didier.
Woolf, Rosemary (1962) “The Theme of Christ the Lover-Knight in Medieval English Literature.” RES, ns 13, 1-16.
Wülcker, Richard (1874a) “Über die Sprache der AR und die der Homilie: Hali Meidenhad.” BGDSL, 1, 209-239.
——— (1874b) “Übersicht der neuangelsächsischen Sprachdenkmaler.” BGDSL, 1, 57-88, esp. 71-75.
Zettersten, Arne (1964) Middle English Word Studies. Lund Universitets Arsskrift, N.F. Avd. 1, Bd. 56, Nr. 1. Lund: Gleerup.
——— (1965) Studies in the Dialect and Vocabulary of the AR. LSE 34. Reviews: Sven Bäckman (1968) ES 49, 453-462; Ulf Jacobsson (1966) SN, 38, 181-194.
——— (1969) “French Loan-words in the AR and Their Frequency.” In Mélanges de philologie offerts à Alf Lombard à l'occasion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire par ses collègues et ses amis, pp. 227-250. Etudes Romanes de Lund 18.
Abbreviations
ABR: American Benedictine Review
Add.: Additional
AFP: Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum
AHDLMA: Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge
AnM: Annuale médiévale
Archiv: Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen
BBA: Bonner Beiträge zur Anglistik
BGDSL: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur
BHM: Bulletin of the History of Medicine
BJRL: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
BL: British Library
BN: Bibliothèque nationale
BNYPL: Bulletin of the New York Public Library
ChauR: Chaucer Review
DA: Dissertation Abstracts
DAI: Dissertation Abstracts International
Diss.: Dissertation
DownR: Downside Review
EA: Etudes anglaises
E&S: Essays and Studies
EETS: Early English Text Society. Oxford University Press
EETS, es: Early English Text Society, extra series
EETS, os: Early English Text Society, original series
EGS: English and Germanic Studies
EHR: English Historical Review
EIC: Essays in Criticism
ELN: English Language Notes
ES: English Studies
EStn: Englische Studien
FCEMN: Fourteenth Century English Mystics Newsletter
GJ: Gutenberg Jahrbuch
HJA&S: Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences
IMEV: Index of Middle English Verse. Edited (1943) by C. Brown and R. H. Robbins. New York: Index Society.
IMEVSupp: Supplement to the Index of Middle English Verse. Edited (1965) by R. H. Robbins and J. L. Cutler. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
JEGP: Journal of English and Germanic Philology
JHM: Journal of the History of Medicine
JMRS: Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies
JRESL: Jahrbuch für Romanische und Englische Sprache und Literatur
JWCI: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
LeedsSE: Leeds Studies in English
LSE: Lund Studies in English
MA: Le moyen âge
M&H: Medievalia et Humanistica
MAE: Medium Aevum
ME: Middle English
MET: Middle English Texts (Heidelberg)
MLN: Modern Language Notes
MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly
MLR: Modern Language Review
MP: Modern Philology
MS: Mediaeval Studies
N&Q: Notes & Queries
Neophil: Neophilologus
NM: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen
ns: new series
PBA: Proceedings of the British Academy
PBSA: Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America
PL: Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne
PQ: Philological Quarterly
RES: Review of English Studies
RPh: Romance Philology
RR: Romanic Review
RTAM: Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale
RUO: University of Ottawa Quarterly/Revue de l'Université d'Ottawa
SAC: Studies in the Age of Chaucer
SB: Studies in Bibliography
SN: Studia Neophilologica
SP: Studies in Philology
STC: A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland and Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475-1640.
Compiled (1926) by A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave. London: The Bibliographical Society. Rev. ed. (1976-) by K. Pantzer et al.
TCBS: Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society
TLS: Times Literary Supplement
TPS: Transactions of the Philological Society
TRHS: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
TSE: Tulane Studies in English
UNCSGLL: University of North Carolina Studies in the Germanic Languages and Literatures
Wing: Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and British America, and of English Books Printed in Other Countries, 1641-1700. Compiled (1945-1951) by Donald Wing. New York: Index Society.
YES: Yearbook of English Studies
YSE: Yale Studies in English
YWES: Year's Work in English Studies
Get Ahead with eNotes
Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.
Already a member? Log in here.
