CONTRASTING FEATURES IN THE NON-ÆLFRICIAN LIVES IN THE OLD ENGLISH LIVES OF SAINTS

Abstract

Much attention has been paid by scholars to ^Elfric's approach to "translation" in bis saints' lives and to the techniques and linguistic usages which he employs in them. There has been a series of studies of aspects of his literary style, many taking their direction from the important article by Dorothy Bethurum 1 ; ^Elfric's distinctive linguistic usage, studied many years ago by Karl Jost 2 , and before him by Eduard Dietrich 3 , has recently become a focus of scholarly interest again in the context of the work being done on the Standard form of Old English which has been associated with Winchester 4 ; and, also 1 D. Bethurum, "The Form of ^Elfric's Lives of Saints", Studies in Philology, 29 (1932), 515-33. See also T. Wolpers, Die englische Heiligenlegende des Mittelalters: Eine Formgeschichte des Legendenerzählens von der spätantiken lateinischen Tradition bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts

Ælfric’s Lexical Alterations in his Adaptations from the Old English Boethius

“…Gieldan is also found once in another non-AElfrician writing: the Life of St. Eustace (l. 261). AElfric's strong preference for particular words to the exclusion of others enabled Magennis (1986) to prove that four lives included in Skeat's (1881Skeat's ( -1900Skeat's ( /1966) edition were written by anonymous authors, not by AElfric. 23 The pattern of usage of the four pairs of words mentioned above reinforces Magennis's argument on the authorship of the AElfrician and non-AElfrician Lives of Saints.…”

Old English Hagiography: Recent and Future Research

“…Studies such as that by Hugh Magennis on the anonymous saints' lives in London, British Library, Cotton Julius E.vii, which concludes that each of the four items is the work of a distinct author and differs notably from AElfric's work, have furthered understanding of the diversity of anonymous hagiography. 29 This diversity highlights the difficulty involved in treating this group of texts as one entity and placing them in opposition to AElfrician works. Anonymous saints' lives rarely receive the same level of interest as AElfrician hagiography, and Magennis recently commented on 'the variety of hagiographical material in circulation in late Anglo-Saxon England (material which scholarly preoccupation with AElfric perhaps tends to overlook)'.…”