Linguistic
“Standards” in Middle English: The Case of the Ancrene Wisse
copyright 2001
The
Ancrene Wisse[1]
is a book of devotional advice written for three sisters by a chaplain in the
early part of the thirteenth century.
Composed in a Southwest Midlands dialect, the language has been
approximated to Herefordshire of the southwestern region of England. Though such details have been proposed, they
remain the topic of much academic discussion, as so little is certain
concerning the origins of the text. As such, the details of its composition and
transcription remain to this day the subject of much academic controversy. An abundance of research has been conducted
to determine the original language of the text, its place and date of origin,
and the original dialect of composition.
Most recently, studies have taken to challenge previous research, and
the dialectal identity of the works continues to be that of widespread
philological debate and commentary.
Ancrene refers to “anchoresses” (genitive plural of “ancre”), wisse to “knowledge” (cf. Contemporary
German wissen – “to know”), while riwle is the thirteenth century spelling
of “rules” as the text details a general “rule” for anchoresses, or female
recluses. The text, authored by a local chaplain, was originally written for
three sisters, but came to serve as a general monastic order for women. The rule survives in English, extant in
eleven manuscript copies, while of these most are composed in Southern
dialects. The text is divided into
eight parts, and though the work is said to have been written for the young
sisters, stylistically the text suggests that it will be read by others. The author assumes that his audience will
have knowledge of Latin and French as well as English, a fact, which in itself
proves that like the ancren, those addressed, will have received their
education in a nunnery, with a background in such prestige languages of
religious discourse.
In marked contrast to other
texts of similar Southwestern region and dialect (e.g. La3amon’s Brut) which tended to be linguistically
more “conservative” and thus retained many Old English forms, the Ancrene Wisse contains a significantly
high proportion of loanwords, and markedly less stylistic similarity to Old
English poetic form. Typical Old
English vocabulary are absent, as are the compounded forms so frequent in Old
English poetry. The text appears as
much more consistent, as words are repeated frequently throughout the text, and
the variety which was so characteristic of Old English is absent.
Loanwords are employed
freely, and the origins of these help to anchor the geographic origins of the
text. Merja Black notes that the
occurrence of Welsh loanwords, otherwise rare in Middle English texts, such as baban, babanliche, and cader (“baby,
babyish”, “cradle”), point towards the western origins of the text and to the
southwestern dialect of the surviving early manuscripts (Black 168 n. 26). In the case of French loanwords, the
incidence is considerable. The use of
Scandinavian vocabulary items is also high, and this has led scholars to
falsely speculate that the text had northern influences. For as Zettersten notes, in the Corpus MS
although there are approximately 100 Scandinavian words recorded, there are
over 500 French vocabulary items which, more importantly, occur often
throughout the text. The implications
of which, point to Southern Middle English linguistic strategies. As well, Zettersten notes French influence
over the phrasing of the text, further evidence for a Southern place of origin.
It has come to be generally agreed that the text could not have been written much before 1200 (Dobson 181). Of the earliest manuscript copy J.R.R. Tolkien concluded that its language was so “pure” and consistent – an anomaly in Middle English textual practice- that it must be assumed the scribe of the manuscript wrote in the same textual dialect as the author. Tolkien argued that in such a period of great linguistic change and orthographic instability as that of Early Middle English, such uniformity in transcription must represent a narrow time interval. Since the Corpus MS has been dated to approximately 1225, the original text could not have been composed much before 1200 (181).
The Ancrene Wisse is notable for both its style as well as the
orthographic regularity in which many of the texts were reproduced (Blake
129). Though numerous manuscripts are
extant of the Ancrene Wisse and
related prose texts, two are of particular prominence: Corpus Christi 402 MS A,
and Bodley 34 MS B, perhaps known better as manuscripts ‘A’ and ‘B’
respectively. These two manuscripts
display remarkable formal similarity and because of this are believed to be
evidence of a regional standardized Early Middle English literary dialect or
lexeme, which Tolkien termed the “AB language”. Though transliterated by different scribes, there is formal
evidence of orthographic and phonological consistency between the two
manuscripts. Tolkien claimed that such
scribal uniformity, so unusual to Middle English textual practice, in turn must
reflect a regionally “standard” orthographic system, created to reflect a
particular local authoritative Southwest Midland dialect. This dialect has been located to Wigmore
Abbey, in north Herefordshire where there existed a “centre of literary
culture…which presumably included a school in which various scribes were
trained to reproduce the spelling system devised by a master or director of the
scriptorium” (Blake130).
Particular features of this
“AB” orthography support the notion of a localized, standardized literary
discourse, and as such they demand further attention (see Blake 130-31,
Zettersten for details). Many scholars
argue that since AB orthographic practice did not reflect the scribes’ own
spoken dialects, that this uniform written dialect must reflect an artificial
form, or “literary standard” learned or imposed upon them (Blake 130)[2]. The language of both the Corpus manuscript
(“A”) and the texts of Bodley 34 MS (“B”), represents a highly consistent form
of a Southwest Midland dialect, one which suggests an early example of a
standardized literary language, to which local scribes must have been trained
to conform.
The Ancrene Wisse belongs to a set of usages that may be seen as
representative of a standardized
(rather than “standard”) language, those which represent merely “a partially
shared set of conventions, reproduced and adapted by a large number of scribes”
(Smith 1996: 68; Black 166). Black
further states that “the work of the scribe producing A is shown to be no
different in kind from that of Orm, in that both were adapting the available
conventions for a particular, local context.
It is only the systematic way in which both scribes carried out the work
that sets them apart from the majority of EME [Early Middle English] scribes”
(Black 166). To accredit this local
form as “standard” would be to falsely grant authority to a particular set of
shared conventions. That local scribes
were taught to conform to such regional forms rather represents the standardization
of a specific set of linguistic practices, in the edification of a regional
dialect.
Primary Texts and Manuscripts:
Seventeen manuscripts, whole or partial survive, with eleven in English (the original language of composition), four in Latin, and two in French.
There are numerous editions of the Ancrene Wisse composed in various languages.
English Editions:
J.R.R. Tolkien (Early English Text Society no. 249, 1962); Frances M. Mack (EETS no. 252, 1962); A.C. Baugh (EETS no. 232, 1956); R.M. Wilson (EETS no. 229, 1954); Mabel Day (EETS no. 225, 1952); J.H. Fisher (EETS no. 223, 1945); J. Pahlsson (Lund: 1911).
French Editions:
W.H. Tretheway (EETS no. 240, 1958) and J. A. Herbert (EETS no. 219, 1944).
The Latin text has been edited by Charlotte d’Evelyn (EETS no. 216, 1944).
Contemporary Transliterations:
The Nun’s Rule, trans. James Morton. London: Chatto and Windus, 1907.
The Ancrene Riwle, trans. M.B. Salu. Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1955.
Lexical Studies of Ancrene Wisse:
Black, Merja. “AB or Simply A?: Reconsidering the Case for a Standard.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen.
100: 2, 1999, 155-74.
Diensberg, Bernhard. “Lexical Change in the Ancrene Riwle, with Special Consideration of the Romance
and Scandinavian Loanwords.” In: Symposium on Lexicography V: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Lexicography. Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen and Arne Zettersten, eds. Lexicographica, Series Major 43, 1992, 295-313.
Hulbert, James R. “A
Thirteenth-Century English Literary Standard.”
Journal of English and Germanic
Philology. 45:4, 1946, 411-14.
Ladd, C.A. “A Note on the Language of the Ancrene Riwle.” Notes and Queries. 206 (August 1961),
288-90.
Zettersten, Arne. The Dialect and Vocabulary of the Ancrene Riwle. Lund: Hakan
Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1965.
General Resources:
Allen, Hope Emily.
“The Origin of the Ancren Riwle.” Publications
of the Modern Language Association
of America. 33, 1918, 474-546.
Blake, N.F. A History of the English Language. New York: NYU Press, 1996.
The Cambridge History of the English Language: v. 2. 1066-1476. Edited by Norman Blake. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, Volume 2, 1992.
Chambers, R.W. “Recent Research upon the Ancren Riwle.” Review of English Studies. 1 (1925), 4-24.
Dobson, E.J. “The
Affiliations of the Manuscripts of the Ancrene Wisse.” In: English
and Medieval
Studies. Presented to J. R. R. Tolkien on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Norman Davis
and C. L. Wrenn, eds. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1962, 128-63.
Macaulay, G.C. “The Ancren Riwle.” Modern Language Review. IX, 1914.
Tolkien, J.R.R. “Ancrene Wisse and Hali Mei had.” Essays and Studies, xiv (1929), 104-26.
Bibliographic Resources:
Burnley, David and Matsuji Tajima. Annotated Bibliographies of Old and Middle English Literature
Volume I: The Language of Middle English Literature. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1994.
Millett, Bella. Annotated
Bibliographies of Old and Middle English Literature Volume II: Ancrene Wisse,
The Katherine Group, and the Wooing Group. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996.