been guided by the authority of printed Anglo-Saxon works, aided by a comparison of the kindred dialects. I do not inquire if he acted up to these principles; but under the circumstances, (unable as he was to procure Anglo-Saxon MSS.) none better could have been followed. The editor of Cadmon informs us, that in the accentuation, “which confirms, in almost every case, the theory of Professor Rask," he has "followed the authority of MSS, and except in a few instances that of the MS. of Cædmon himself." I will not stop to ask, what constitutes the theory of Rask, or in what cases this gentleman differs from his friend, but I have compared his edition with the MS. at Oxford, and find accents omitted or intruded without authority, at the rate of some twenty a page-by what license of language can these be called a few instances?

If the reader ask what theory has been followed, after this bold departure from the original ?—an answer would be difficult. The very same words are found, in one page, with long vowels, and in another with short, as if the accent were inserted or omitted, as the whim of the moment dictated.

To the edition of Beowulf these observations only partially apply. The editor has shown more deference to his reader, and has distinguished between theory and fact-between his own accents, and the accents of the MS.*

I cannot help thinking, however, that in the present state of Anglo-Saxon scholarship, all these speculations are premature. Here is a language, with whose accidence and syntax we are very imperfectly acquainted-the nature of whose dialects we have not yet investigated-and we

* In one of his papers (Gent. Mag. Dec. 1834, p. 605) he promises to explain "the system," on which he has regulated his accentuation. Would it not have been safer policy, if he had first established the system, and then had acted upon it?

are endeavouring to measure the length of its vowel-sounds, with a nicety, to which they who spoke it made no pretension. It is probable that the quantity of the vowels varied with the dialects-if so, their peculiarities should be first studied; it is almost certain that the quantity was sometimes indicated by the spelling-if so, the system of Anglo-Saxon orthography should be first ascertained and settled.

If we look into Anglo-Saxon MSS. we find some without any accents; and few, in which they have been systematically adopted. In the Beowulf MS. the whole number of accents cannot amount to more than a few dozens. In the MS. of Cædmon, they were also at first very sparingly used; but were profusely added by the same hand that corrected the MS.

To charge these conflicting usages upon the ignorance of the writers, is a ready method of solving a very difficult question. That some of our Anglo-Saxon MSS. have been carelessly transcribed, may be admitted, but I cannot allow that such is their general character. Many of them are beautifully written, and have minute corrections, which show they have been revised with equal care; and these MSS. agree no better than the others, with any theory that has yet been started, on the subject of Anglo-Saxon orthography. To pare down their peculiarities to a level with German criticism, is an easy task, but one I think that is little likely to aid the progress of Anglo-Saxon scholarship.*

Another license, very commonly taken, is that of compounding and resolving words.

In English we write some compounds continuously, as

* I have elsewhere suggested, (vol. I. p. 106,) that there may have been three degrees of Anglo-Saxon quantity. This, of course, is mere hypothesis, and would be given up with very little reluctance; but I certainly could wish to have had an opportunity of testing its correctness.

redbreast; others we split, as it were, into distinct words, as coal mine; or link together by means of the hyphen, as pear-tree. The hyphen was unknown to the Anglo-Saxons; but compounds were frequently resolved into their elements, and written as though they formed distinct words. Now there is no objection to the hyphen, if it be used only to tye together the scattered elements of a compound; for even if there be blunders in the construction of a passage, and words united that should be separate, yet the reader possesses an easy remedy-he has merely to strike out the hyphen, and the real text is before him. But the case is widely different, when the hyphen is also used in the resolution of words. He must then rest content with such readings as are given him. The editor is secure from criticism.

Most of our modern editors take this double license. The reader may think that the hyphen is occasionally used to prop a false translation, or that it sometimes mars the rhythm of a section; but he must have a greater confidence in the soundness of his opinion, than would be generally warranted by the present state of Anglo-Saxon scholarship, if he venture an objection. He may be quarrelling with the original, when he thinks he has only the editor to cope with. He cannot be safe unless he have his finger on the manuscript.

What is the object proposed by this resolution of words, is far from clear. Few of our editors follow the same plan; nor are there many of them consistent even with themselves. Sometimes the prefix is separated from its verb; sometimes linked to it by means of the hyphen; sometimes the two are written continuously.* The common adjec

* The English reader must not consider this a mere question of orthography. It sometimes happens, that an adverb is tacked as a prefix to a verb, and not only the rhythm of the line, but even its sense, destroyed.

tival compounds* generally take the hyphen, but in many hundred instances, they are separated into distinct words, as mere flod, god cyning, † &c. &c. So that not only is the integrity of the manuscript violated, but the reader gets nothing in exchange-not even a theory.‡

The versification of our MSS. has been treated with little more ceremony than their system of accents.

I have already mentioned, that Anglo-Saxon poetry was written continuously like prose. In some manuscripts (as in that of Cædmon) the point separated the sections; in others (as in the Dunstan Chronicle) it separated the couplets; in others (as in the Beowulf MS.) the point was used merely to close a period, and the versification had nothing but the rhythm to indicate it.§ The point was often omitted; and sometimes, though very rarely, it was misplaced. Now it would seem easy enough, to copy the MS. correctly, and to mention in the notes the omission or the false position of the points; and it is matter of regret, that the confidence reposed in some eminent grammarian has too often led our editors to "restore " the versification, without informing the reader. The alterations which have been thus made are, I fear, but too

*See vol. i. p. 102.

†The hyphen is very commonly forgotten, when an adjective and substantive are compounded, (even in cases where change of accent points infallibly to a compound,) unless the peculiarities of the syntax be such, as cannot be got rid of without it.

In the MSS. from which I have taken the extracts, which will shortly be submitted to the reader, the preposition is generally joined to its substantive, as onbearm. I have written them separately, as I could not satisfy myself whether or not this custom applied to all the prepositions. The negative particle ne is also generally joined to its verb; and sometimes the article to its substantive. I have written them separately in all cases. With these exceptions, the reader will have only to strike out the hyphen, to get a tolerably pure text.

§ The writer generally leaves a slight interval between his sections; but, as might be expected, this is often forgotten. The Editor should have mentioned the omission of the dot, and have let his reader know that he was, to a great extent at least, answerable for the versification.

numerous; and more than one scholar has thus impaired his usefulness, whose services, in other respects, may well deserve our thanks.*

In their punctuation, the Anglo-Saxons used three kinds of stops. The first was somewhat like our semicolon (;); the second was merely the same stop reversed (); and the third consisted of three dots (..). Most manuscripts have merely the rhythmical point (.), and that too in cases where it is required also to mark the versification-a clear proof how closely the two systems were at first connected. The same hand that altered the spelling, and sometimes even the wording of the Cædmon MS. added also the stops. The task however was carelessly performed; and Junius has pointed his edition, according to his own notions of the author's meaning. The compiler of the Analecta, also, has furnished his text with commas, semi-colons, &c. in the same way as if it were an English composition; but as the sense often depends on the punctuation, the reader ought always to know, how far it is borne out by the original. Many persons may differ with an editor, in the construction of a passage, who would not have confidence enough to impugn the punctuation of a manuscript.t

A modern edition therefore aims at being an improved version, and not merely a copy of the MS. The editors claim the merit of restoring the text; and unfortunately

*The evening before I examined the MS. of Cædmon I marked down between twenty and thirty cases of doubtful prosody. In every one of these instances, but two, the text had been altered.

The motive for these changes was in general obvious enough; it was to bring two alliterative syllables into the first section—or to begin the second section with the chief-letter, as Rask terms it-or to support some of the other prosodial canons of that grammarian. To effect these objects, we have periods ending in the midst of a section, and pauses immediately between a preposition and its substantive!

† As I believe the Cadmon MS. originally had no stops, I have in such extracts as are taken from it, seldom thought it worth while to notice them.