Anglo~

Saxon
England 45

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

. 2565 7A CC 42 3A:586 A8 4 A6 /0 255A6 ,D8 2C D3 64C C C 6 2 3A:586 A6 C6A 7D 6

2 2: 23 6 2C CC 42 3A:586 A8 4 A6 C6A CC 5 : A8 1
 ANGLO-SAXON
ENGLAND
45
Edited by
SIMON KEYNES ROSALIND LOVE
University of Cambridge University of Cambridge

ANDY ORCHARD
University of Oxford

JOHN BLAIR ROBERT E. BJORK

University of Oxford Arizona State University

MARY CLAYTON RICHARD DANCE

University College, Dublin University of Cambridge

ROBERTA FRANK RICHARD GAMESON

Yale University Durham University

HELMUT GNEUSS MICHAEL LAPIDGE

Universität München University of Cambridge

PATRIZIA LENDINARA RORY NAISMITH

Università di Palermo King’s College London

KATHERINE O’BRIEN PAUL REMLEY

O ’ K E E F F E , University of California, University of Washington
Berkeley

DONALD SCRAGG PAUL E. SZARMACH

University of Manchester The Medieval Academy of America

. 2565 7A CC 42 3A:586 A8 4 A6 /0 255A6 ,D8 2C D3 64C C C 6 2 3A:586 A6

C6A 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C CC 42 3A:586 A8 4 A6 C6A CC 5 : A8 1
 Contents

page
List of illustrations vii
List of abbreviations xi

Record of the seventeenth conference of the International Society of

Anglo-Saxonists, at the University of Glasgow, 3–7 August 2015 1
m a r t i n f o y s University of Wisconsin–Madison and
s u s a n i r v i n e University College London

The Trumpington Cross in context 7

s a m l u c y University of Cambridge

A ninth-century Old English homily from Northumbria 39

d o n a l d s c r a g g University of Manchester

The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood 51

l e o n a r d n e i d o r f Nanjing University

Re-dating Alcuin’s De dialectica: or, did Alcuin teach at Lorsch? 71

e v a m . e . r ä d l e r - b o h n LMU Munich

Hands and eyes, sight and touch: appraising the senses in Anglo-Saxon
England 105
k a t h e r i n e o ’ b r i e n o ’ k e e f f e University of California at
Berkeley

The Burghal Hidage and the West Saxon burhs: a reappraisal 141
j e r e m y h a s l a m Independent Scholar

The Fuller Brooch and Anglo-Saxon depictions of dance 183

m a r t h a b a y l e s s University of Oregon

Hybrid forms: translating Boethius in Anglo-Saxon England 213

e r i c a w e a v e r Harvard University
v

. 2565 7A CC 42 3A:586 A8 4 A6 /0 255A6 ,D8 2C D3 64C C C 6 2 3A:586 A6

C6A 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C CC 42 3A:586 A8 4 A6 C6A CC 5 : A8 1
 Contents
The Seafarer, Grammatica, and the making of Anglo-Saxon textual
culture 239
a u d r e y w a l t o n University of Toronto

Liturgy or private devotion? Reappraising Warsaw, Biblioteka

Narodowa, I.3311 265
g e r a l d p . d y s o n Kentucky Christian University

Landscapes of devotion: the settings of St Swithun’s early uitae 285

j e n n i f e r a . l o r d e n University of California at Berkeley

Aristocratic deer hunting in late Anglo-Saxon England: a

Reconsideration, based upon the Vita S. Dvnstani 311
t i m f l i g h t University of Oxford

The Ely memoranda and the economy of the late Anglo-Saxon fenland 333
r o r y n a i s m i t h King’s College London

The earliest modern Anglo-Saxon grammar: Sir Henry Spelman,

Abraham Wheelock and William Retchford 379
p e t e r j . l u c a s University of Cambridge

The editorial assistance of Clare Orchard and Brittany Schorn is gratefully

acknowledged.

vi

. 2565 7A CC 42 3A:586 A8 4 A6 /0 255A6 ,D8 2C D3 64C C C 6 2 3A:586 A6

C6A 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C CC 42 3A:586 A8 4 A6 C6A CC 5 : A8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream
of the Rood
l eon ard n ei do r f

a bs t rac t
Scholarship on The Dream of the Rood has long entertained the suspicion that the poem
might be the product of composite authorship. Recent criticism has tended to reject
this possibility on aesthetic grounds, but the present article identifies new metrical
and lexical reasons to believe that The Dream of the Rood contains contributions from at
least two poets. It reconstructs the poem’s textual history and contends that lines 1–77
represent an original core to which a later poet added lines 78–156.
Theories of composite authorship have long been entertained in the scholarly
literature on The Dream of the Rood. In an early edition of the poem, Albert S.
Cook argued that the passage constituted by the final nine lines ‘has the air of
an interpolation’ and ‘seriously mars the unity of impression’.1 He went on to
remark that the concluding passage ‘seems alien to the prevailing sentiment of
the poem’ because ‘it is cool and objective in tone, and has no necessary and
vital relation to what has preceded’.2 In another edition of the poem, Bruce
Dickins and Alan S. C. Ross propounded a more extensive theory of composite
authorship:
. . . the Vercelli text is probably composite. The last few lines, referring to the
Harrowing of Hell, have all the appearance of an addition, and stylistically the poem
seems to divide at l. 78. The latter half does not aford any metrical or linguistic
evidence which necessitates the assumption of an early date, and in quality it seems
to us definitely inferior. Also it is perhaps significant that the passages found on the
Ruthwell Cross all correspond to passages in the first half of the Vercelli Text.3
The contention that The Dream of the Rood contains contributions from two or
more authors received few adherents in subsequent decades, though it was
credited in an influential study by Rosemary Woolf, who remarked ‘that part

1
The Dream of the Rood: an Old English Poem Attributed to Cynewulf, ed. A. S. Cook (Oxford, 1905),
p. xlii.
2
Ibid. pp. liv–lv
3
The Dream of the Rood, ed. B. Dickins and A. S. C. Ross (London, 1934), p. 18. A similar argu-
ment for composite authorship is advanced in E. E. Wardale, Chapters on Old English Literature
(London, 1935), p. 179.
51

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
of the poem which follows the description of the Crucifixion [lines 78–156]
must surely be a later addition by a writer of the school of Cynewulf’.4 Because
the Dickins–Ross theory of composite authorship, like Cook’s hypothesis of
interpolation, depended upon the judgement that the latter half of the poem
was ‘definitely inferior’, their views have been cited principally for the sake
of refutation in works of literary appreciation. Many scholars who set out to
ascertain and praise the artistic merits of The Dream of the Rood framed their
studies in opposition to the Dickins–Ross theory and presented their obser-
vations as evidence for unitary authorship.5 Faith H. Patten, for example,
forcefully concluded her appreciation of the poem with a statement against
compositional disunity: ‘the Rood poet forged a complex, moving, and pro-
found poem, one of the great monuments of English literature . . . [it] is the
furthest thing imaginable from the patchwork, primitive efort it has frequently
been considered’.6
Questions of authorship should be disentangled from questions of literary
merit, however. To believe that the artistic virtues of The Dream of the Rood
ensure unitary authorship, one must maintain a Romantic conception of liter-
ary excellence as a reflection of the subjectivity of a solitary genius. Yet a work
containing contributions from two or more authors might also possess consid-
erable merit. An involuntary collaboration between two poets of diferent eras
might result in an incoherent and dull work, but it is possible that an inspired
poet who revises and expands the work of a predecessor could produce a work
with a coherent structure and satisfying meaning. Perceptions of artistic gran-
deur and structural integrity – or the absence thereof – are therefore not neces-
sarily the most reliable indicators of unitary or composite authorship. The most
convincing forms of evidence in authorship debates emerge, rather, through the
detection of subtle regularities or distinctions. If the entirety of a work is char-
acterized by linguistic regularities not likely to have been consciously imposed
upon it, the probability of unitary authorship is strengthened  considerably.7

4
R. Woolf, ‘Doctrinal Influences on The Dream of the Rood’, MÆ 27 (1958), 137–53, at 153, n. 34.
The claim that Cynewulf himself was responsible for the expansion of The Dream of the Rood
is registered in S. A. Brooke, The History of Early English Literature: Being the History of English
Poetry from its Beginnings to the Accession of King Alfred (London, 1905), p. 338.
5
See J. A. Burrow, ‘An Approach to The Dream of the Rood’, Neophilologus 43 (1959), 123–33;
J. V. Fleming, ‘The Dream of the Rood and Anglo-Saxon Monasticism’, Traditio 22 (1966), 43–72,
at 54–5; R. B. Burlin, ‘The Ruthwell Cross, The Dream of the Rood, and the Vita Contemplativa’,
S P 65 (1968), 23–43, at 42; N. A. Lee, ‘The Unity of The Dream of the Rood’, Neophilologus 56
(1972), 469–86; C. B. Pasternack, ‘Stylistic Disjunctions in The Dream of the Rood’, ASE 13
(1984), 167–86.
6
F. H. Patten, ‘Structure and Meaning in The Dream of the Rood’, ES 49 (1968), 385–401, at 401.
7
The probability that Beowulf is a unified composition has been established primarily on this
basis: for recent discussions, see J. D. Sundquist, ‘Relative Clause Variation and the Unity
52

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood
On the other hand, if sections of a work exhibit linguistic distinctions that
cannot reasonably be attributed to chance or to the deliberation of a single
author, credence in a theory of composite authorship appears warranted. The
present article operates within this framework in its efort to contribute to the
authorship debate surrounding The Dream of the Rood. It strives neither to praise
nor to denigrate the poem, but aims merely to determine whether there are
compelling reasons to believe that the poem contains the work of more than
one individual.
The most recent contribution to the authorship debate materialized in Peter
Orton’s monograph, The Transmission of Old English Poetry. Orton advanced
the theory of composite authorship by identifying a significant but hitherto
unnoticed metrical distinction between the two halves of The Dream of the
Rood: in the first 77 lines, on-verses of type 1A or 1A* consistently exhibit
double alliteration, whereas in the final 79 lines, five such verses feature single
Table 2: On-Verses of Type 1A/1A*

lines 1–77 lines 78–156

begoten mid golde (7a) menn ofer moldan (82a)
men ofer moldan (12a) hlīfiġe under heofenum (85a)
Sylliċ wæs se siġebēam (13a) rihtne ġerȳmde (89a)
forwunded mid wommum (14a) Dēað hē þǣr byriġde (101a)
ġeġyred mid golde (16a) ānra ġehwylcum (108a)
būgan oððe berstan (36a) biteres onbyriġan (114a)
fēondas ġefyllan (38a) āfȳsed on forðweġe (125a)
Rōd wæs iċ ārǣred (44a) myċel on mōde (130a)
bewriġen mid wolcnum (53a)   ġeriht tō þǣre rōde (131a)
wann under wolcnum (55a) frēonda on foldan (132a)
stōdon on staðole (71a) wuniaþ on wuldre (135a)
ealle tō eorðan (74a) daga ġehwylċe (136a)
drēam on heofonum (140a)
ġeseted tō symle (141a)
wunian on wuldre (143a)
mid blēdum ond mid blisse (149a)
Se Sunu wæs sigorfæst (150a)
mihtiġ ond spēdiġ (151a)
wunedon on wuldre (155a)
Single Alliteration in 1A/1A*: 0% Single Alliteration in 1A/1A*: 26.32%

of Beowulf ’, Jnl of Germanic Ling. 24 (2002), 243–69; R. D. Fulk, ‘On Argumentation in Old
English Philology, with Particular Reference to the Editing and Dating of Beowulf ’, ASE 32
(2003), 1–26, at 16–24; R. D. Fulk, ‘Old English þa “now that” and the Integrity of Beowulf ’,
ES 88 (2007), 623–31; and L. Neidorf, The Transmission of Beowulf: Language, Culture and Scribal
Behavior (Ithaca, 2017).
53

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
alliteration.   The evidence is tabulated above,9 with the exceptional verses
8

printed in bold.
Because double alliteration in such verses is the norm in Beowulf,10 the
most metrically conservative poem in Old English, the diference between
the two halves of The Dream of the Rood might not be the product of chance.
This metrical distinction might reasonably be regarded as a subtle indication
that two poets with difering conceptions of the rules governing the construc-
tion of 1A/1A* verses contributed to The Dream of the Rood. The first poet
shared with the Beowulf poet the notion that double alliteration was basically
mandatory in this metrical context, whereas the second poet appears to have
considered it an optional ornament. Orton’s evidence for composite author-
ship is compelling, since it pertains to a minor feature of versification that
changed as the poetic tradition evolved. For the theory of composite author-
ship to merit widespread credence, however, more evidence of disunity will
be required, and such evidence should be discernible if The Dream of the Rood
is genuinely the work of two or more discrete authors. To be sure, if Orton’s
evidence constituted the sole metrical distinction between the two halves of
the poem, the theory of composite authorship would make limited demands
on credence. Yet if a wide array of similar distinctions could be identified
across  the same  textual  division, the claims to probability possessed by this
theory might prove strong enough to compel credence from reasonable
observers.
The present article thus endeavours to survey and interpret the manifold
ways in which lines 1–77 of the Dream of the Rood difer from lines 78–156.
Several considerations support the heuristic use of this division for investiga-
tions into the poem’s authorship. First, as Dickins and Ross noted, all of the
verses inscribed on the Ruthwell Cross correspond to passages contained
within the first half of the poem. Second, there are frequent clusters of hyper-
metric verses in the first half (lines 8–10, 20–3, 30–4, 39–43,11 46–9, 59–69,
75), yet there are no hypermetric clusters in the final 79 lines. There are some
suspiciously heavy verses scattered throughout the second half of the poem,
the significance of which is explored below, but in the judgement of both Pope
8
P. Orton, The Transmission of Old English Poetry, Westfield Publ. in Med. and Renaissance Stud.
12 (Turnhout, 2000), 160.
9
The text of the poem is cited from The Vercelli Book, ed. G. P. Krapp, ASPR II (New York,
1932). Macrons and other diacritic marks have been silently inserted throughout. Translations
are my own. Table 2 lists the verses cited by Orton, with the exception of 15a, which is to be
scanned as an expanded type D*.
10
See A. J. Bliss, The Metre of Beowulf, rev. ed. (Oxford, 1967), p. 127; and Orton, Transmission of
Old English Poetry, p. 160.
11
This cluster contains, however, one normal four-position verse (40a); the textual problems
inherent in this cluster are discussed below.
54

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood
and Bliss, none of them should be regarded as genuine hypermetric verses.12
Finally, there is widespread agreement that the tone and style of the poem shift
dramatically when, at line 78, the speaking cross ceases to describe the cruci-
fixion and begins instead to deliver a homily to the dreamer. Even advocates
for unitary authorship acknowledge that there are palpable stylistic diferences
from this point forward. N. A. Lee, for example, conceded: ‘the literary sugar
on the doctrinal pill seems to wear a little thin from line 78 onward . . . the
sentences tend to be longer and more diicult to divide’.13 Paavo Rissanen
similarly remarked: ‘Lines 28–77 make a heroic epic in the best Anglo-Saxon
tradition; lines 78–121 constitute a small theological discourse . . . [they] would
seem to belong to diferent genres of literature.’14 As can be seen, there are
ample grounds for suspecting that if meaningful signs of composite authorship
are to emerge, they will become apparent through comparison of the first 77
lines with the final 79 lines.
m e tr i c a l e vid en c e
Following Orton’s lead, this study begins by exploring metrical distinctions
between the two halves of The Dream of the Rood. Metre promises to yield the
most compelling forms of evidence for the authorship question, since it has the
ability to reveal subliminal linguistic tendencies that a medieval poet is unlikely
to have consciously apprehended. A poet’s metrical practice was conditioned
by both the state of the spoken language and the state of the metrical system,
which continuously evolved in tandem. At the same time, an author’s facility
in versification and knowledge of poetic tradition are bound to influence the
characteristics of his work. The value of metrical evidence thus inheres in its
ability to direct attention to an author’s personal idiosyncrasies as well as to the
impersonal forces that conspired to shape his composition. Of course, minor
and random fluctuations in the metre over the two halves of a poetic work are
to be expected. Yet if the two halves exhibit a set of distinctions that possesses
a coherent and systematic character, it may be possible to discern in these dis-
tinctions the compositional profiles of two discrete authors.
The confinement of hypermetric verses to the first 77 lines of the poem
constitutes by far the most salient metrical distinction, as scholars have long
recognized. The significance of the restricted hypermetric verses will be
expounded below, in the light of several other metrical distinctions that have
not previously been observed. Of these, the most important pertains to the

12
J. C. Pope, The Rhythm of Beowulf: an Interpretation of the Normal and Hypermetric Verse-Forms in Old
English Poetry, rev. ed. (New Haven, 1966), p. 101; Bliss, Metre of Beowulf, pp. 163–4.
13
Lee, ‘Unity of The Dream of the Rood’, pp. 469–70.
14
P. Rissanen, The Message and Structure of The Dream of the Rood (Helsinki, 1987), p. 36.
55

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
Table 3: A3 Verses in lines 1–77

hwæt mē ġemǣtte (2a)  þæt iċ wæs āhēawen (29a)

Þūhte mē þæt iċ ġesāwe (4a) Þǣr iċ þā ne dorste (35a)
ac hine þǣr behēoldon (11a) Feala iċ on þām beorge (50a)
oð ðæt iċ ġehȳrde (26a) Hwæðere þǣr fūse (57a)

divergent incidence of type A3 verses across the two halves of the poem. The
A3 verse, often labelled a ‘light verse’, is conceptualized as a normal type A
verse with suppression of its first lift, since it consists of a string of unstressed
syllables followed by one alliterating lift and a final unstressed syllable.15 Poets
evidently regarded the A3 verse as a metrical licence, since its presence is
restricted to on-verses that initiate a sentence or a clause.16 The first 77 lines of
The Dream of the Rood contain 8 A3 verses,17 a figure that appears to represent
a fairly standard proportion. Rendered in raw statistical terms, A3 verses can
be said to occur in 10.39% of the first 77 lines. Because 33 of the lines in this
section are hypermetric and therefore incapable of featuring A3 verses, it is
worth noting that the incidence of A3 verses within the 44 normal lines here
is 18.18%, or less than one-fifth. Regardless of which statistic one selects for
comparison, the incidence of A3 verses can be seen to rise dramatically in the
final 79 lines, which contain 23 of these verses. Nearly one-third, or 29.11%,
of the final 79 lines begin with a type A3 verse. This statistic is significantly
higher than either figure (10.39%, 18.18%) furnished by the first 77 lines. In
fact, the extraordinary incidence of A3 verses in the final 79 lines of The Dream
of the Rood distinguishes this sequence not only from the first 77 lines, but also
from the rest of the poetic corpus.
Geofrey Russom ascertained the incidence of A3 verses in a set of poems
containing more than 300 lines in order to determine whether a correlation
existed between skill in versification and the incidence of A3 verses. The
hypothesis governing his study was that the poets who exhibit the highest
degree of technical expertise would refrain from frequently resorting to the

15
For discussion, see J. Terasawa, Old English Metre: an Introduction (Toronto, 2011), pp. 37–8;
and E. G. Stanley, ‘Some Observations on the A3 Lines in Beowulf’, Old English Studies in honour
of John C. Pope, ed. R. B. Burlin and E. B. Irving, Jr (Toronto, 1974), pp. 139–64. Occasionally,
a lift created by secondary stress replaces the final drop in these verses. The only verse from
The Dream of the Rood with this feature is 127a.
16
Of the verses cited below, for þām worde (111a) is peculiar for failing to initiate a clause, but the
only plausible scansion for this verse is A3.
17
Excluded from this count is the verse Hwæðre iċ þurh þæt gold (18a), which in its transmitted
form is to be scanned as a type B3. The rarity of type B3 suggests, however, that 18a is actually
a corruption of a verse whose intended scansion is now irretrievable.
56

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood
Table 4: A3 Verses in lines 78–156

Nū ðū miht ġehȳran (78a) Ġebæd iċ mē þā tō þan bēame (122a)

ġebiddaþ him tō þyssum bēacne (83a)  þæt iċ þone siġebēam (127a)
Iū iċ wæs ġeworden (87a) lifiaþ nū on heofenum (134a) 
Nū iċ þē hate (95a) wuniaþ on wuldre (135a)
þæt ðū þās ġesyhðe (96a) þe iċ hēr on eorðan (137a)
þæt hē þonne wile dēman (107a) on þysson lǣnan (138a)  
on þyssum lǣnum (109a) ond mē þonne ġebringe (139a)
Ne mæġ þǣr ǣniġ (110a) ond mē þonne āsette (142a)
for þām worde (111a) se ðe hēr on eorþan (145a)
Frīneð hē for þǣre mæniġe (112a) Hē ūs onlȳsde (147a) 
hwæt hīe tō Criste (116a) ond eallum ðām hālgum (154a)
Ne þearf ðǣr þonne ǣniġ (117a)

metrical license represented by the A3 verse. Russom provided the following

rationale for his argument:
Such [A3] verses are easy to construct, since they may contain any number of
unstressed words along with a verse-final stressed word that has the high-frequency
trochaic pattern (e.g. gangan). In other types, the poet must adhere to special constraints
on extrametrical words, placement of the caesura, and placement of alliteration, but no
such constraints are imposed on [type A3] . . . A certain minimal frequency of type A3
would be necessary to accommodate strings of function words in some indispensable
syntactic constructions, but a good poet would not overuse this type.18
The evidence generally conformed to Russom’s prediction, with the virtuosic
Beowulf containing A3 verses in only 8.6% of its lines, whereas the pedestrian
Psalm 118 from the Paris Psalter contained A3 verses in 27.6% of its lines. It
is instructive to set the statistics from the two halves of The Dream of the Rood
beside those that Russom extracted from some of the poems in his corpus.19
Lines 1–77, with their 18.18% incidence, are comparable to Daniel (18.6%),
Christ & Satan (18.8%), and Guthlac A (19%).20 In contradistinction, the 29.11%
incidence of A3 verses in lines 78–156 exceeds all of the poems scrutinized by

18
G. Russom, ‘Dating Criteria for Old English Poems’, Studies in the History of the English
Language: a Millennial Perspective, ed. D. Minkova and R. Stockwell (Berlin, 2002), pp. 245–65,
at 252.
19
For the incidences of A3 verses in other poems, see the table provided in ibid. p. 251.
20
The higher incidence figure for lines 1–77, based on the 44 normal verses, is used here
because Russom excluded hypermetric verses when arriving at his statistics; but the excep-
tional number of hypermetric verses in lines 1–77 actually makes 18.18% incidence somewhat
exaggerated. After all, if a skilled poet sought to limit the use of A3 verses, the hypermetric
verses contribute to this aim by reducing their frequency. It may thus be more appropriate
to regard the overall incidence of A3 verses in lines 1–77 (10.39%) as the proper figure for
57

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
21
Russom. It is approached only by the incidence in Psalm 118 (27.6%), which
stood out in Russom’s data for exceeding every other poem by at least 8%. The
emergence of lines 78–156 as an outlier from conventional norms comparable
to a long poem from the Paris Psalter – a late collection distinguished by its
numerous formal divergences from the poetic tradition22 – raises the distinct
possibility that two poets with discrepant degrees of technical expertise con-
tributed to The Dream of the Rood.
If Russom’s contentions concerning the incidence of A3 verses are correct,
then there is reason to believe that a poet who relied heavily upon this con-
struction felt insecure about the metrical rules pertaining to unstressed and
extrametrical syllables. The presence of a series of metrically defective verses
in the second half of The Dream of the Rood bears this assumption out. Of
particular significance is hæleð mīn se lēofa (78b, 95b), which B. R. Hutcheson
included in his list of verses that are ‘not grammatically corrupt but that defy
scansion entirely’.23 The fact that this verse appears twice, moreover, renders
the possibility of scribal error remote. Yet in traditional poetry, the displaced
mīn would normally occupy a lift, resulting in an unmetrical five-position verse
(SSxSx). Because the poet generally adhered to the four-position principle
of verse construction – ǣġhwylċne ānra (86a) being his one other five-position
aberration – he appears to have regarded the displaced mīn as a word that need
not receive ictus in this position. To maintain this conviction, the poet must
not have possessed a clear understanding of the rules governing the assign-
ment of ictus to particles and proclitics (that is, Kuhn’s laws).24 Uncertainty

comparison: it is comparable to Exodus (8.2%), Beowulf (8.6%), Andreas (11.8%), and the
poetry of Cynewulf (11.8%) – works that display a high degree of technical expertise.
21
It should be noted that in arriving at this figure, three verses (83a, 122a, 135a) have been
included wherein a finite verb presumed to be unstressed is capable of participating in
the line’s alliterative scheme. There is some dispute among metrists as to whether such
alliteration is to be regarded as ornamental or ictic. For arguments supporting the A3 scansion
of these verses, see Bliss, Metre of Beowulf, pp. 9–17; C. B. Kendall, ‘The Metrical Grammar
of Beowulf: Displacement’, Speculum 58 (1983), 1–30, at 8; and P. J. Lucas, ‘Some Aspects of
the Interaction between Verse Grammar and Metre in Old English Poetry’, SN 59 (1987),
145–75, at 152. Russom, however, assigns ictus to alliterating finite verbs in this position; see
Beowulf and Old Germanic Metre (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 128–35. Accordingly, if the verses of
disputed scansion were removed for comparison with his figures, the incidence of A3 verses
in lines 78–156 would be reduced to 25.32%. The adjustment does not alter the exceptional
character of lines 78–156, since the passage still possesses a substantially higher incidence
than any poem in Russom’s corpus beside the anomalous Psalm 118.
22
See B. Tschischwitz, Die Metrik der angelsächsichen Psalmenübersetzung (Breslau, 1908); P. Bethel,
‘Anacrusis in the Psalms of the Paris Psalter’, NM 89 (1988), 33–43; and R. D. Fulk, A History
of Old English Meter (Philadelphia, 1992), pp. 410–14.
23
B. R. Hutcheson, Old English Poetic Metre (Cambridge, 1995), p. 169.
24
See H. Kuhn, ‘Zur Wortstellung und -betonung im Altgermanischen’, Beiträge zur Geschichte
der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 57 (1933), 1–101; for a discussion of the reception of Kuhn’s
58

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood
concerning these rules would account well for the poet’s extraordinary reliance
upon the type A3 verse, where unstressed syllables could be strung together
without constraint.
Five other problematic verses lend credence to the notion that the poet
responsible for the second half of The Dream of the Rood possessed an under-
standing of the metrical system distinct from that of classical Old English
poets (such as the author of lines 1–77). In classical poetry, various constraints
delimit the contexts in which a poet may insert extrametrical syllables (that is,
anacrusis) before the first lift of a verse.25 Two verses in the work of the second
poet exhibit salient violations of these constraints: se ðe ælmihtiġ God (98a) con-
travenes the stricture against the deployment of anacrusis before type E verses;
and mid his miċlan mihte (102a) disregards the conventional avoidance of anacru-
sis before type A verses consisting of two trochaic words.26 An unconventional
understanding of the rules bearing on the construction of heavier verses is also
evident in the following three cases:
āfȳsed on forðweġe (125a)
ġewiton of worulde drēamum (133a)
anwealda ælmihtiġ (153a)
As it stands, the first of these verses might be scanned as an expanded type
D* withboth anacrusis and an uncommon protracted drop (xSxxSsx). Some
editors, however, have emended this verse to āf ȳsed on forðweġ (125a), which
would render it a type A with anacrusis.27 The transmitted form of the second
verse must either be regarded as a hypermetric verse with anacrusis (+HA) or
as a normal verse with an extraordinary string of extrametrical syllables in a
context where anacrusis is not normally permitted (xxxxSxSx). Emendation of
this verse has also been proposed: Pope would alter it to ġewiton of worulddrēamum,
removing both problems by generating a standard type C (xxxxSsx).28 The
third verse might be regarded only as an unusual form of the expanded type
D*, though its possession of six metrical positions (SsxSsx) renders this scan-
sion doubtful, as there do not appear to be any secure parallels. The presence
of five verses of exceptional size (98a, 102a, 125a, 133a, 153a) suggests that
authorial deliberation, not textual corruption, is responsible for the generation

laws, which reairms their validity, see D. Donoghue, ‘Language Matters’, Reading Old English
Texts, ed. K. O’Brien O’Keefe (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 59–78. For another penetrating discus-
sion, see P. Orton, ‘Anglo-Saxon Attitudes to Kuhn’s Laws’, RES 50 (1999), 287–303.
25
See Terasawa, Old English Metre, pp. 45–6; and G. Russom, Old English Meter and Linguistic
Theory (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 33–8.
26
For these constraints, see Bliss, Metre of Beowulf, pp. 40–3.
27
See the textual note provided in The Dream of the Rood, ed. M. Swanton, rev ed. (Exeter, 1996),
p. 136.
28
Pope, Rhythm of Beowulf, p. 101.
59

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
of these metrical curiosities. Orton ofered a sound explanation for the unusual
shape of these five verses: they might represent ‘a rather feeble attempt to
introduce a hypermetric element into a text by a poet lacking the expertise
to make a proper job of it’.29 The second poet, having observed the frequent
clusters of hypermetric verses in his predecessor’s work, sought to include
some hypermetric verses in his expansion, but managed to generate only two
plausible forms (125a, 133a), alongside three verses that are simply anomalous
(98a, 102a, 153a). The poet’s failure to pair any of these pseudo-hypermetric
on-verses with a suitably hypermetric of-verse confirms that he did not appre-
hend the rules governing the construction of hypermetric verses.
In sum, the metrical evidence provides an array of firm support for the theory
of composite authorship.30 The Dream of the Rood appears to contain the work of
two poets with distinct compositional profiles. The first poet regarded double
alliteration as a mandatory condition for on-verses of type 1A/1A*, whereas
the second poet composed five such verses with single alliteration. The first
poet composed the type A3 verse with frequency comparable to several other
classical poets, whereas the second poet relied on this construction far more
than the authors of any classical poem of substantial length. Such exceptional
dependence on the A3 verse intimates that the second poet possessed limited
skills in versification and was not entirely comfortable with the rules governing
the assignment of ictus to particles and proclitics – a suggestion borne out by
the unmetrical hæleð mīn se lēofa and by two or more verses with unconventional
anacrusis. Finally, the recurrence of several exceptionally heavy on-verses
paired with normal of-verses in the work of the second poet suggests that
he did not understand the rules governing the construction of hypermetric
verses. The presence of more than thirty normal hypermetric lines in the work
of the first poet, on the other hand, indicates that this author possessed a clear
understanding of hypermetrics. The first poet is familiar with the conservative
norms of the classical tradition represented by Beowulf, while the second poet
appears to have been somewhat alienated from that tradition.

29
Orton, Transmission of Old English Poetry, p. 159.
30
One minor metrical distinction that is worth registering, in addition to the major ones noted
above, pertains to the deployment of expanded type D* verses: lines 1–77 contain two
standard manifestations of this metrical licence – wǣdum ġeweorðode (15a) and earmra ǣrġewin
(19a) – whereas lines 78–156 contain no unambiguous forms requiring this scansion. If āfȳsed
on forðweġe (125a) or anwealda ælmihtiġ (153a) represent the second poet’s efort to compose
expanded type D* verses, rather than on-verses of pseudo-hypermetric lines, they are nev-
ertheless realizations of the type that difer distinctly from the standard forms attested in the
first half of the poem.
60

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood

l e x i c al e vid e n ce
Lexical considerations must play a significant role in the efort to determine
whether The Dream of the Rood contains contributions from more than one indi-
vidual. The repetition of words, phrases and verses is a salient feature of the
poem’s diction that has attracted much attention from literary critics. Indeed,
Eugene R. Kintgen estimated that the incidence of ‘verbal echoes’ in The Dream
of the Rood substantially exceeds most other Old English poems.31 Naturally,
some critics have interpreted the reappearance in the second half of the poem
of verbal material from the first half as evidence for unitary authorship.32 Yet
this same phenomenon has also been convincingly adduced as evidence for
composite authorship.33 A plausible case can be made for regarding repeti-
tion across the textual division as a single author’s attempt to create thematic
parallels across his work – yet a second author familiar with the work he is
revising might well lift material from that work in order to establish connec-
tions between the original work and its later expansion. Because the repetitions
across the textual division are initially susceptible to either interpretation, a
more compelling form of evidence for the authorship debate may emerge upon
consideration of the ways that repetition difers within, rather than across, each
textual division. If the repetition of material within lines 1–77 proves to be
commensurate with the practice found in lines 78–156, such stability would
constitute solid evidence for unitary authorship. If one half of the poem could
be seen to deploy repetition in a manner that is distinct from the other half,
however, the probability of composite authorship would be strengthened.
The most significant lexical distinction between the two halves pertains to
the repetition of complete verses. Across the textual division, several verses
are repeated verbatim, but within the first 77 lines, no complete verse appears
more than once, whereas several verses are repeated verbatim within the final
79 lines. To be sure, the first half of the poem contains several hypermetric
verses constructed upon a similar lexical core, such as efstan elne mycle (34a)
and ēaðmōd elne mycle (60a), or fæġere æt foldan scēatum (8a) and feallan tō foldan
scēatum (43a). Yet the apparent reluctance of the first poet to fill two or more
verses with precisely the same linguistic material contrasts with the practice of
the second poet. In his contribution, the metrically defective verse hæleð mīn
se lēofa is repeated twice (78b, 95b), the A3 verse on þyssum lǣnum is repeated
twice (109a, 138a), and the pedestrian verse ælmihtiġ God is repeated three times
31
E. R. Kintgen, ‘Echoic Repetition in Old English Poetry, Especially The Dream of the Rood’,
NM 75 (1974), 202–23, at 209.
32
See C. B. Hieatt, ‘Dream Frame and Verbal Echo in The Dream of the Rood’, NM 72 (1971),
251–63, at 261; and Burrow, ‘An Approach’, p. 130.
33
See Orton, Transmission of Old English Poetry, pp. 160–1.
61

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
(93a, 106a, 156a). Nearly verbatim repetition is evident, moreover, in wuniaþ on
wuldre (134a), wunian on wuldre (143a), and wunedon on wuldre (155a). Such repeti-
tion might reasonably be construed as further evidence for the second poet’s
inferior command of the poetic tradition. Particularly striking is his reliance
upon the verse ælmihtiġ God: instead of favouring one of the poetic formulas for
the deity (for example, ece Dryhten), the poet prefers to use a construction con-
sisting of two words that are common in prose texts. If the poet felt insecure
about his understanding of the technical rules of classical versification, such
insecurity would provide a natural motive for the verbatim repetition of verses
believed to be metrically acceptable.
Weaker command of the poetic tradition might also be evident in the second
poet’s predilection for verses that possess the same metrical structure and
assign ictus to the same lexical elements. Verses requiring type D scansion are
relatively infrequent in his work, but their frequency would be even lower if the
poet did not make repeated use of the structure that generated on þrōwode (98b),
ǣr scēawode (137b), and ǣr þrōwode (145b). The exceptionally high incidence of
A3 verses in the second poet’s work is explained, following Russom, by the
ease with which such verses are constructed, and this ease could be increased
through the repetition of the one ictus-bearing lexeme required. In addition
to on þyssum lǣnum (109a, 138a), mentioned above, the poet employed this sort
of repetition in Ne mæġ þǣr ǣniġ (110a) and Ne þearf ðǣr þonne ǣniġ (117a), as
well as in þe iċ hēr on eorðan (137a) and se ðe hēr on eorþan (145a). Repetition of
both metrical structure and its constituent lexical material is likewise evident
in unforht wesan (110b) and anforht wesan (117b). Literary critics have suggested
that rhetorical considerations motivated the composition of the verses dis-
cussed in this paragraph,34 but it is possible that the second poet simply had a
limited repertoire and wanted to make repeated use of forms he felt comfort-
able with.
A minor lexical distinction of potential significance in the present context
inheres in the fact that two verbs repeated frequently in lines 1–77 are not
attested in lines 78–156. Five inflected forms of behealdan, ‘to behold’, are dis-
tributed throughout the first half of the poem (9b, 11a, 25a, 58b, 64a) before
use of this pivotal verb comes to a sudden halt. A similar distribution obtains
for sēon, ‘to see’, which occurs four times in its first-person preterite singular
form, ġeseah (14b, 21b, 33b, 51b). A characteristic feature of the first half of the

34
See L. H. Leiter, ‘The Dream of the Rood: Patterns of Transformation’, Old English Poetry: Fifteen
Essays, ed. R. P. Creed (Providence, 1967), pp. 93–127; Hieatt, ‘Dream Frame and Verbal
Echo’; and Pasternack, ‘Stylistic Disjunctions’, pp. 180–2. The most cogent incarnation of
these arguments to appear in recent years is to be found in A. Orchard, ‘The Dream of the Rood:
Cross-References’, New Readings in the Vercelli Book, ed. S. Zacher and A. Orchard (Toronto,
2009), pp. 225–53.
62

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood
poem is thus the use of these two verbs to introduce material and advance the
narrative. The absence of these verbs from the second half of the poem might
be regarded as a consequence of the change in subject matter, as the dreamer’s
description of his vision and the cross’s description of the crucifixion come
to an end, and an eschatological homily begins. This explanation is plausible
enough, but there is one verb of seeing in the second half of the poem, and
it is a form of neither behealdan nor sēon. Recalling his vision of the cross, the
dreamer uses scēawian, ‘to see’ (137b), a verb that is not found in the first half
of the poem. Such minor changes in lexical preference are to be expected if we
are dealing with the work of two discrete authors.
A more revealing shift that occurs in the second half of the poem pertains to
the pronominal usage of the speaking cross when it refers to itself. Throughout
the first half of the poem, the cross speaks emphatically in the first-person
singular, and it also uses the first-person plural in reference to itself and Christ.
This is evident, for example, in iċ wæs āhēawen (29a), iċ þā ne dorste (35a), Rōd wæs
iċ ārǣred (44a), unc būtū ætgædere (48a), Forlēton mē þā hilderincas (61b), and wē ðǣr
grēotende (70a). 35 Use of the first-person continues in the cross’s speech until
line 95, after which point it begins to refer to itself in the third-person:
Nū iċ þē hāte, hæleð mīn se lēofa,
þæt ðū þās ġesyhðe secge mannum,
onwrēoh wordum þæt hit is wuldres beam36
From this point forward, the cross is no longer iċ, but hit. In subsequent refer-
ences, the cross speaks of itself as ðām bēame (114b), bēacna sēlest (118b), and ðā
rōde (119a). It is surprising, to say the least, that the anthropomorphic cross,
the central conceit of the poem, should be dehumanized while it continues
to speak. Adherents to the theory of unitary authorship might be able to find
some rhetorical grounds for this unexpected shift, but it may be the case that
the second author was simply more interested in expounding doctrine than
in maintaining or elaborating a fanciful conceit. Certainly, the more creative
exploitation of this device is to be found in the first half of the poem.
Turning now to the instances of verbal repetition across the textual division,
we find one piece of evidence that is suggestive of composite authorship. Most
of the words and phrases from the first half of the poem that recur in the second
half are deployed in a manner that attracts no suspicion, but this cannot be said
of the expression mǣte weorode, ‘with limited company’. In its first appearance,
this phrase is used of Christ after the crucifixion, in the verse reste hē ðǣr mǣte
35
For additional examples and further discussion of the poem’s pronominal usage, see Kintgen,
‘Echoic Repetition’, p. 222.
36
95–7: ‘Now I command you, my dear man, that you relate this vision to men, reveal in
words that it is the beam of glory.’
63

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
weorode, ‘he rested there with limited company’ (69b). The expression is here
to be understood either as a litotic circumlocution for ‘alone’ (that is, Christ
is alone on the cross) or a wry comment on the small number of retainers,
including the cross, following with the rīċne cyning, ‘powerful king’ (44b), at
this particular moment. When mǣte weorode recurs toward the end of the poem,
however, there is no need to decide between interpretive possibilities, as the
preceding verse makes the import of the phrase unambiguous:
Ġebæd iċ mē þā tō þan bēame blīðe mōde,
elne mycle, þǣr iċ āna wæs
mǣte werede.37
The combination of the literal āna with the figurative mǣte werede is unusual.
Orton perceptively commented on the redundant pairing: ‘The efect of this
is very odd, rather as if something were described as “not too good” and
“dreadful” in the same breath.’38 The second deployment of mǣte werede thus
clearly difers from the first, and the diference suggests that the poet responsi-
ble for the expansion of The Dream of the Rood made a conscious efort to reuse
material from the antecedent work even when the context for its reuse was not
entirely appropriate.
It is striking that no complete verse should be repeated within the first
77 lines, yet the final 79 lines exhibit repetition not only of several verses
introduced within this section, but also of a few verses that appeared in the
preceding portion of the poem. Indeed, the second poet appears to have lifted
an entire line from the antecedent work, as menn ofer moldan ond eall þēos mǣre
ġesceaft, which previously constituted line 12, is repeated verbatim at line 82.
The verse ġebiden hæbbe is also repeated across the textual division (50b, 79b).
And although it does not represent the repetition of a complete verse, the
verse constituted by elne mycle (123a) clearly derives from the two hypermetric
verses constructed upon this phrase in the first half of the poem (34a, 60a).
Likewise, the verse reordberendum (89b) obviously recalls the use of this com-
pound in syðþan reordberend (3a) from the poem’s introduction. These instances
of verbal repetition shed some light upon the probable process of expansion
that The Dream of the Rood underwent. The second poet did not spontaneously
or hastily add material to a work with which he was unfamiliar. Although the

37
122–124a: ‘I then prayed to that beam with a happy spirit, with great zeal, where I was alone,
with limited company.’
38
Orton, Transmission of Old English Poetry, p. 161. Orchard noted another peculiarity concerning
mǣte werede: ‘in the second occurrence of the phrase the fact that it occurs in parallel varia-
tion with the simple term ana would seem to violate the principle of “specifying variation,”
wherein the more specific variant generally follows rather than precedes’ (‘Cross-References’,
p. 232).
64

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood
second poet possessed diferent literary interests and inferior metrical abilities,
which perhaps motivated his tendency to repeat material, it is clear that he
apprehended, and probably admired, the language and content of his prede-
cessor’s work. Indeed, such intimate familiarity is to be expected, since there
is independent reason to believe that the poet responsible for the expansion
of The Dream of the Rood might also have left his mark in a few places within
original core of the work.
in t er p ol at i o n s i n li n es 1 –77
There is broad consensus among textual critics that material amounting to
two complete verses was interpolated into the first 77 lines of The Dream of
the Rood.39 Confidence in this judgement stems from a combination of metri-
cal considerations and comparison with the verses inscribed on the Ruthwell
Cross. Most of the verses on the eighth-century high cross are substantially
identical to verses recorded in the tenth-century Vercelli Book text, with the
exception of the following passage:
[Ond]geredæ hinæ God almehttiġ þā hē walde on galgu gistiga
[m]ōdiġ f[ore allæ] men.40
The later rendering of this sequence rearranges the word order, exhibits some
lexical substitutions, and contains two additional complete verses:
Onġyrede hine þā ġeong hæleð – þæt wæs God ælmihtiġ,
strang ond stīðmōd. Ġestāh hē on ġealgan hēanne,
mōdiġ on maniġra ġesyhðe, þā hē wolde mancyn lȳsan.41

39
See The Dream of the Rood, ed. Dickins and Ross, p. 25; R. D. Stevick, ‘The Meter of The Dream
of the Rood’, NM 68 (1967), 149–68, at 165; Pope, Rhythm of Beowulf, p. 101; Fulk, History of
Old English Meter, p. 343; Orton, Transmission of Old English Poetry, pp. 147–8; Eight Old English
Poems, ed. J. C. Pope and rev. R. D. Fulk (New York, 2001), pp. 70–1.
40
‘God almighty undressed himself when he wanted to ascend onto the gallows, bold before
all men.’ The text of the Ruthwell Cross inscription is cited from The Dream of the Rood, ed.
Swanton, p. 94. For a fuller reconstruction of the poem, see D. R. Howlett, ‘A Corrected
Form of the Reconstructed Ruthwell Crucifixion Poem’, SN 80 (2008), 255–7. The date
of the inscription is a matter of some dispute, but the linguistic evidence rules out a date
after the mid-ninth century: see B. Dickins, ‘The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of the
Ruthwell Cross’, MLR 28 (1933), 145–55; Fulk, History of Old English Meter, pp. 342–3; and
A. Bammesberger, ‘Two Archaic Forms in the Ruthwell Cross Inscription’, ES 75 (1994),
97–103. For non-linguistic arguments that the inscription was part of the original design
of the eighth-century cross, see E. Ó Carragáin, ‘Who then Read the Ruthwell Poem in
the Eighth Century?’, Aedificia Nova: Studies in honor of Rosemary Cramp, ed. C. E. Karkov and
H. Damico (Kalamazoo, 2008), pp. 43–75.
41
39–41: ‘The young hero then undressed himself – that was God almighty, strong and resolute.
He then ascended onto the high gallows, bold before the sight of many, when he wanted to
absolve mankind.’
65

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
The literary–historical relationship between the two texts of The Dream of the
Rood is a matter of longstanding dispute,42 but there are clear indications that in
the case presented by these passages, the Vercelli text represents an expansion
of original verses that were preserved on the Ruthwell Cross. The inscription
contains here a normal hypermetric line, whereas line 40 of the Vercelli text
is severely defective. Its on-verse (strang ond stīðmōd) stands out for unam-
biguously being a normal four-position verse in the midst of a hypermetric
cluster,43 and its of-verse is peculiar for placing alliteration on Ġestāh, since
the additional foot in the hypermetric of-verse regularly consists of a string
of unstressed syllables. Furthermore, alliteration is required in the position
occupied by the non-alliterating ġealgan. Accordingly, Ġestāh hē on ġealgan hēanne
cannot be considered an adequate hypermetric verse, and it is far too heavy to
be scanned as a normal four-position verse.
The expansion of the line inscribed on the Ruthwell Cross thus appears to
have been undertaken by a poet who did not understand the rules governing
the construction of hypermetric verses. The concept of the hypermetric cluster
was evidently foreign to him, and he must also have been uncertain about the
assignment of ictus to unstressed syllables in the hypermetric of-verse. Such
confusion cannot be attributed to the poet who composed the rest of the mate-
rial in lines 1–77, since well-formed hypermetric lines and clusters are the norm
throughout this portion of the poem. Consequently, it is clear that a second
individual is responsible for the revisions and interpolations in lines 39–41. It is
possible to posit a third poet to account for these alterations, but it may be rea-
sonable to identify the interpolator with the poet who composed lines 78–156.
This author produced no standard hypermetric lines, and his composition of
several exceptionally heavy on-verses paired  with normal of-verses suggests
that he did not understand the principles of hypermetric verse construction.
Since the interpolator plainly shared such confusion with the second author, it
is more economical to assume that they are one and the same than to postulate
a third contributor to The Dream of the Rood. The lexical evidence suggests that
the second poet studied the original work carefully, so it comes as no surprise
to discover that this poet should have made sporadic modifications to that
work. Yet his revisions could not have been too extensive, otherwise the met-
rical and lexical distinctions  between the two halves that remain discernible
would have been obscured.

42
For an overview of perspectives on this issue, see Das altenglische Traumgesicht vom Kreuz:
Textkritisches, Literaturgeschichtliches, Kunstgeschichtliches, ed. H. Bütow, Anglistische Forschungen
18 (Heidelberg, 1935), 153–7; and The Dream of the Rood, ed. Swanton, pp. 38–42.
43
Though it is heavier than a normal verse, Onġyrede hine þā ġeong hæleð is not a recognizable type of
hypermetric verse. Bliss excludes it from his catalogue of hypermetric verses and Fulk supports
this judgement. See Bliss, Metre of Beowulf, p. 163, and Fulk, History of Old English Meter, p. 343.
66

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood
There are, however, two other words in lines 1–77 that appear to have been
interpolated into the text by an individual who did not understand the structure
of the hypermetric verse. Salient metrical problems arise on account of the word
ealle in the verse Behēoldon þǣr enġel Dryhtnes ealle (9b). The transmitted reading is
two positions too heavy (xxxxSxSxSx), and if ealle were moved into the follow-
ing verse, fæġere þurh forðġesceaft (10a), it would produce metrical defects of equal
gravity. The fact that ealle cannot be accommodated to the metrical structure
of either verse leaves little doubt that it is an interpolation.44 Metrical peculiari-
ties suggest that a similar form of interpolation has given rise to the defective
verse Ġenāmon hīe þǣr ælmihtiġne God (60b). Normally, the hypermetric of-verse
consists of a string of unstressed syllables followed by a normal four-position
verse. Since ælmihtiġne alone consists of four metrical positions of descending
prominence, it appears that God is here an interpolation. This interpretation
is supported by the verse Ālēdon hīe ðǣr limwēriġne (63a), where the poet used a
word with prosodic weight equal to ælmihtiġne to provide four metrical positions.
Because ealle and God generate the same kind of problem, both words were
probably interpolated by one individual who did not possess a clear understand-
ing of hypermetric versification and instead imagined the hypermetric verse to
accommodate indefinite expansion. That this individual should be identified
with the author of lines 78–156 is supported both by his ignorance of hypermet-
rics and by his fondness for the collocation ælmihtiġ God (93a, 98a, 106a, 156a).
Seeing the unaccompanied ælmihtiġne in his predecessor’s work, the second poet
evidently felt compelled to improve its diction by interpolating God.
The interpolations in lines 1–77 lend firm support to the claim that more
than one author contributed to The Dream of the Rood. The words ealle and God are
minor enough to have been interpolated by scribes, but the alterations evident
in lines 39–41 are far more extensive than the kinds of changes that scribes
introduce while reproducing texts. Scribal alterations tend to reflect a mechani-
cal engagement with the text, involving the modification or interpolation of
individual words within a textual matrix that remains substantially unaltered.45
The rearrangement of word order and insertion of material amounting to two
complete verses in lines 39–41 is thus uncharacteristic of scribal behaviour.
These changes seem not to have arisen during the mechanical process of

44
Most emendations of 9b, such as Behēoldon þǣr enġeldryhte (adopted by Dickins and Ross),
involve the deletion of ealle and thereby assent to the view that this word is an interpolation.
Pope emended the verse, however, to Behēoldon þǣr enġeldryhta fela (see Rhythm of Beowulf,
p. 223), which implies instead that ealle represents a corruption of fela.
45
For further insights into scribal behaviour, see D. Mofat, ‘Anglo-Saxon Scribes and Old
English Verse’, Speculum 67 (1992), 805–27; M. Lapidge, ‘The Archetype of Beowulf’, ASE 29
(2000), 5–41; and L. Neidorf, ‘Scribal Errors of Proper Names in the Beowulf Manuscript’,
ASE 42 (2013), 249–69.
67

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
textual reproduction, but during a creative process of revision and expansion
undertaken by a poet who cannot be identified with the author of the Ruthwell
crucifixion poem. There is no need, however, to complicate the textual history
of The Dream of the Rood by postulating a third stage of recomposition. The
explanatory power of the theory of composite authorship is elevated by its
ability to accommodate the alterations to lines 39–41 and attribute their gen-
eration to the author of lines 78–156.
c on c lus i o n
The metrical and lexical distinctions that emerge upon comparison of lines
1–77 with lines 78–156 form a coherent set of indications that two poets
contributed to The Dream of the Rood. The author of the first half varied his
versecraft, alternating between clusters of normal lines and hypermetric lines,
while avoiding the repetition of complete verses. His well-formed lines reflect
an awareness of the traditional rules of versification that account for the
regularities observable in Beowulf, Genesis A, Exodus and other metrically con-
servative works. The author of the second half, on the other hand, composed
several defective verses and pseudo-hypermetric lines that reflect alienation
from the classical poetic tradition. His work is characterized by its repetitive
qualities, with several complete verses repeated verbatim and a limited range
of metrical contours subjected to continual reuse. The incidence of A3 verses
in lines 78–156 is perhaps the most telling sign of composite authorship: the
second poet’s extraordinary reliance on this metrical licence distinguishes him
both from the author of lines 1–77 and from every classical Old English poet.
Stylistic explanations might be able to account for some of the diferences
between the two halves of The Dream of the Rood, but it is improbable that
rhetorical considerations could have motivated one poet to alter his metrical
practice so dramatically. The manifestations of inferior versification in the
second half of the poem are suiciently multifaceted and pervasive to require
attribution to a second author, not to one poet’s conscious modification of his
style.46
Some aspects of the textual history of The Dream of the Rood remain obscure.
Because lines 1–77 do not form a complete poem, it is clear that they must

46
It should be noted that judgements concerning a poet’s technical expertise in versification are
not equivalent to judgements about the overall literary merit of his work. The Battle of Maldon
is rightfully considered one of the greatest poems in Old English, yet its poet ranks among
the worst in terms of his skills in versification (see Russom, ‘Dating Criteria’, p. 251). Metrical
considerations seem, in fact, to have played no role whatsoever in the longstanding tradition
of regarding The Dream of the Rood as (in Cook’s words, p. xxxiii) ‘the most perfect piece of art
in Old English poetry’. The demonstration of the metrical inferiority of the poem’s second
half should not be construed as an argument for the abatement of such enthusiasm.
68

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 The composite authorship of The Dream of the Rood
have originally possessed a conclusion in which the cross finishes his speech
and the dreamer reflects on his experience.47 The length and character of this
conclusion are now irretrievable, since the second poet appears to have deleted
the original conclusion in order to make room for his expansion of the work.
A literary motive for the second poet’s expansion is not diicult to conceive. It
has often been remarked that the structure of The Dream of the Rood resembles
that of The Wanderer or The Seafarer, and the similarity is sometimes regarded
as evidence for unitary authorship.48 Yet the significance of this observation
for the authorship question might reasonably be inverted. If the conclusion of
the original poem were not suiciently concerned with matters homiletic and
eschatological, an Anglo-Saxon reader might have felt the need to improve the
poem by elaborating on those subjects and generating a structure that more
closely resembled other poetic works. In the resulting work, the space allotted
to the creative manipulation of the conceit of the speaking cross is equivalent
to the space directed toward the straightforward exposition of doctrine. For
many readers, both modern and medieval, the expanded version of The Dream
of the Rood might ofer a more satisfying aesthetic experience than the complete
version of the work that preceded it.
A codicological explanation for the expansion of the poem must also be
considered. Textual exigency rather than ideological or aesthetic preference
could provide the impetus for a second poet to add material to an earlier work.
If the original ending were lost at some point in the poem’s transmission, an
admirer of the remaining fragment might feel compelled to remedy the loss
and compose a suitable conclusion. An independent reason to credit this
explanation inheres in the fact that a substantial portion of text appears to be
missing after line 75, directly before the suspected textual division:
Þā ūs man fyllan ongan
ealle tō eorðan Þæt wæs eġesliċ wyrd!
Bedealf ūs man on dēopan sēaþe; hwæðre mē þǣr Dryhtnes þeġnas,
frēondas ġefrūnon,
ġyredon mē golde ond seolfre. 49

47
Since no reference is made to the dreamer in the verses inscribed on the Ruthwell Cross,
one might propose that the author of lines 78–156 also composed lines 1–27 and imposed
the entire dream-vision frame onto a poem that originally consisted of the cross’s soliloquy
(resembling the structure of The Wife’s Lament). The presence of several clusters of hyper-
metric lines within lines 1–27, however, renders it doubtful that the author of lines 78–156
composed this section. The alternation between clusters of hypermetric and normal verses
within lines 1–27 resembles the alternation found in lines 28–77, and thus suggests unitary
authorship for the entire first half of the poem.
48
See R. D. Fulk and C. M. Cain, A History of Old English Literature, 2nd ed. (Chichester, 2013),
p. 203; and The Dream of the Rood, ed. Swanton, p. 76.
49
73b–77: ‘Then we were entirely levelled to the ground. That was a terrible fate! We were
69

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1
 Leonard Neidorf
Editors concur that ‘a half-line or more is missing’,50 and there are several
indications that the loss amounts to more than one half-line. The most salient
problem is the absence of a verse to accompany frēondas ġefrūnon, yet loss of text
is also evident in ġyredon mē, which lacks four metrical positions. These con-
siderations suggest an omission between ġefrūnon and ġyredon, but an omission
appears to precede frēondas as well, since the poet has previously restricted the
use of hypermetrics to clusters of such lines. This combination of peculiarities
intimates textual corruption of a more serious nature than what results from
one scribe’s accidental lapse. Physical damage to an antecedent copy of the
poem therefore appears probable. That signs of such damage should material-
ize immediately before the beginning of the second poet’s work is unlikely to
be a coincidence. If the expansion of The Dream of the Rood were undertaken
to compensate for the loss of the original conclusion, its textual history would
find parallels elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon literary culture. Indeed, it has been
argued that the interpolation of Genesis B into Genesis A was motivated by
the loss of a quire.51 Recomposition in response to codicological damage has
also been posited to account for textual divergences in Daniel and Azarias.52
Whatever the motive for expansion might have been, the metrical and lexical
distinctions within the surviving poem provide compelling reasons to believe
that at least two authors made substantial contributions to the work that the
modern world has come to know as The Dream of the Rood.

buried in a deep pit; nevertheless, the servants of the Lord, his friends, heard about me
there . . . they adorned me with gold and silver.’
50
The Dream of the Rood, ed. Dickins and Ross, p. 30.
51
See Genesis A: a New Edition, Revised, ed. A. N. Doane (Tempe, 2013), p. 10. Doane writes:
‘The interpolation of Genesis B was probably not undertaken for aesthetic reasons, as is
frequently said, but because the exemplar at some point before about 900 had lost pages,
probably a quire, containing this crucial episode and so a vaguely appropriate text was found
(perhaps revised/transliterated/translated for the occasion) to make up the loss.’ For an
insightful discussion of manuscript damage and its consequences for modern criticism, see
A. Bliss and A. J. Frantzen, ‘The Integrity of Resignation’, RES 27 (1976), 385–402.
52
See P. G. Remley, ‘Daniel, the Three Youths Fragment, and the Transmission of Old English
Verse’, ASE 31 (2002), 81–140.

70

. 2565 7 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 /0 255 6 , 16 2C , , D3 64C C C96 2 3 :586 6

C6 7 D 6 2 2: 23 6 2C 9CC , 42 3 :586 8 4 6 C6 9CC , 5 : 8 1