Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:27:30.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ælfric's use of discourse in some saints' lives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Ruth Waterhouse
Ruth Waterhouse
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A writer can put direct speech into the mouths of the characters within his story or he can report their speech indirectly, and his use of different methods of presenting or suggesting their speech is one of his most potent means of creating characterization and of controlling the effect of his story. In general the character who is given direct speech is more dramatically effective, more ‘real’, than the one who is represented through indirect speech; on the other hand, the many gradations within the broad category of ‘indirect speech’ allow the writer much more scope in the variety of function and the subtlety of effect that can be created. This is as true of early writers as of the modern novelist, and Ælfric is one who was clearly aware of the potentiality of both direct and indirect speech in reinforcing the message which he wished to bring home to his audience. This can be illustrated especially well from the saints' lives which he derived from Bede, where the source is more exactly known than it usually is and where comparison is possible not only with the Latin but also with the earlier Old English translation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 5 , December 1976 , pp. 83 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page 83 note 1 I would like to thank my colleague Mrs Yon Maley and Professor P. Clemoes for their constructive criticism of this article.

Page 83 note 2 This is discussed and illustrated by, e.g., Page, Norman, Speech in the English Novel (London, 1973), esp. ch. 2.Google Scholar

Page 83 note 3 Cf. Clemoes, Peter, ‘Ælfric’, Continuations and Beginnings: Studies in Old English Literature, ed. Stanley, E. G. (London, 1966), p. 185Google Scholar, and Homilies of Ælfric, ed. Pope, John C., EETS 259–60 (London, 1967–1968), 150–2.Google Scholar

Page 83 note 4 Whitelock, Dorothy (‘The Old English Bede’, Proc. of the Brit. Academy 48 (1962), 80)Google Scholar, finds no trace of Ælfric's use of the Old English version in the lives of Alban, Æthelthryth and Oswald.

Page 83 note 5 Ælfric's Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat, Walter W., Early Eng. Text Soc. o.s. 76, 82, 94 and 114 (London, 1881–1900), xixGoogle Scholar. Hereafter passages quoted from these lives are identified by the number of the life in Skeat's edition and by line number.

Page 84 note 1 The Latin text is taken from Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Colgrave, Bertram and Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar, and passages quoted are identified by book, chapter and page number of this edition; the page number in brackets is that of Plummer's edition. The Old English text is taken from The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Miller, Thomas, EETS o.s. 95, 96, 110 and 111 (London, 1890–1898)Google Scholar, and passages quoted are identified by page and line number.

Page 85 note 1 The term ‘discourse’ is used here and throughout to cover both direct and indirect speech.

Page 85 note 2 With its 1, 495 lines it is equal to about one-fifth of the total for the twenty-four lives included in the table and its figures would disrupt the proportions; they are: discourse, 318 lines (21·3 %); direct speech, 134 lines (9%); indirect speech, 184 lines (12·3%).

Page 86 note 1 One other example which might be included, though it uses the passive construction, begins at xx.41, ‘Be hire is awrytan þæt …’, where, in giving a description of Æthelthryth's way of life, Ælfric has drawn on but rearranged the information that Bede gives.

Page 87 note 1 Ott, J. H., Über die Quellen der Heiligenleben in Ælfrics ‘Lives of Saints’ (Halle, 1892), p. 46.Google Scholar

Page 89 note 2 Cynefrith‘s speech quotes the direct speech of Seaxburg's exclamation, which Ælfric omits.

Page 89 note 3 Gorrell, J. H., ‘Indirect Discourse in Anglo-Saxon’, PMLA 10 (1895), 351CrossRefGoogle Scholar, includes this example. The word ‘him’ could refer to Cynefrith, but the context makes this unlikely. In any event my main point remains unaffected.

Page 90 note 1 Ælfric makes other slight changes as against the Latin and the Old English Bede to the same effect.

Page 90 note 2 Above, pp. 83–4.

Page 91 note 1 Ott (Quellen, pp. 14–17 and 58–9) suggests the Bollandist version in the Acta Sanctorum of 9 January, pp. 570–87, as the most likely source, though he notes that Ælfric himself specifically mentions abbreviating his source (lines 139–40) and implies it in lines 127–8.

Page 91 note 2 The other two are the speech of the devils in the idols (155–9) and the letter from the emperor (257–62).

Page 92 note 1 The sixth exchange is between Basilissa and Julian in the early part of the story.

Page 92 note 2 I hope to examine Ælftic's use of such epithets in more detail elsewhere.

Page 93 note 1 At this point in the Bollandist version Martianus is given direct speech.

Page 93 note 2 Once more, in the Bollandist version direct speech is used here.

Page 94 note 1 Because of doubt as to how to categorize this passage, I have not included it in my figures for indirect speech.

Page 94 note 2 The same question could be asked of the latter part of the passage (332–6).

Page 94 note 3 The Bollandist version has ‘Quem talia prosequentem jussit Marcianus gladio interfici’; at this point, however, Ælfric is rearranging and condensing his material.

Page 95 note 1 In the Bollandist version the first command is in indirect speech, the second in direct speech with a different emphasis.

Page 95 note 2 These passages are not counted in the figures given above.

Page 96 note 1 His very human doubt about the doctrine that is unfolded for him shows in his questions to Cecilia in the long exchange that follows and especially when, overwhelmed by her exposition of the nature of the Trinity, he still has a final question (175–6).

Page 96 note 2 In view of the behaviour of some of the other virgin martyrs, Agnes, Agatha and Lucy, it is possible that her arrogance is part of the convention of how a female saint confronts a persecuting judge.

Page 97 note 1 Cf. my forthcoming ‘“A Rose by any other Name”: two Versions of the Legend of Saint Cecilia’. The versions of the Legenda Aurea and of Mombritius's Passio (cited hereafter as Legenda and Mombritius respectively) I have used for source study and cited later are those chosen by G. H. Gerould for his chapter on ‘The Second Nun's Prologue and Tale’ in Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ed. Bryan, W. F. and Dempster, G. (London, 1941)Google Scholar.

Page 100 note 1 ‘The Second Nun's Tale’ from The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. Robinson, F. N., 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1957).Google Scholar

Page 101 note 1 Legenda has: ‘Dixitque Tyburcius fratri suo: Obsecro te, frater, ut mihi dicas ad quem me ducturus es.’

Page 101 note 2 Both Legenda and Mombritius give direct speech: ‘Cuius condicionis es?’

Page 101 note 3 Legenda has metaphors like those of the Chaucer version: for once, the difference could perhaps stem from the use of different sources by the two writers.

Page 102 note 1 The tears are mentioned by Ælfric in the next lines. Legenda has: ‘Tune Maximus cum iuramento asseruit se in hora passionis eorum angelos uidisse fulgentes, et animas eorum quasi uirgines de thalamo exeuntes, quas in gremio suo usque in celum angeli detulerunt.’ Mombritius has: ‘Tune Maximus iratus asserabat dicens: uidi angelos dei fulgentes sicut sol: in qua hora uerberati sunt gladio: et egredientes animas eorum de corporibus quasi uirgines de thalamo: quas in gremio suo suscipientes angeli: remigio alarum suarum ferebant ad caelos.’ Chaucer apparently had access to something like both versions, but chose to follow Legenda for this passage. Did Ælfric have access to something more like Mombritius at this point?

Page 102 note 2 For the first example Legenda does not have an exact parallel, but provides a long argument between the judge and the brothers; the nearest is the direct speech: ‘Offerte diis libamina et illesi abscedite.’ Mombritius has indirect speech: ‘et jussit: ut si noluissent sacrificare: ambo fratres pariter capitalem sententiam subirent’. For the second example Legenda has: ‘Tune iratus Almachius iussit eam ad domum suam reduci, ibique tota nocte et die iussit in bulliente balneo concremari.’ Mombritius has: ‘Tune iratus uæhementer Almachius iussit eam domum suam reduci: et in sua domo flammis balnearibus concremari.’

Page 103 note 1 Chaucer concludes the Tale with direct speech from Cecilia herself and both Legenda and Mombritius have direct speech. Ælfric (358–60) suggests that speech lies behind his narrative, no more, and this avoids the note of smugness that creeps into the Second Nun's version.