Poetic Style and Innovation in Old English, Old Norse, and Old Saxon

Abstract

Megan E. Hartman begins her pioneering study of the relationship between poetic form and literary meaning in early Germanic poetry by observing that there has hitherto been a “general paucity of scholarship that combines metrical study with literary analysis” (1). This is an accurate observation: most of the major works of metrical scholarship, from Sievers’s Altgermanische Metrik (1893) to Bliss’s The Metre of Beowulf (1967) to Fulk’s A History of Old English Meter (1992), are light on literary analysis. Metrical studies might contain the casual literary judgment when it pertains to metrical phenomena—for example, the Meters of Boethius are anomalous due to their unwieldy subject matter or King Alfred’s inadequate poetic training—but in general, early Germanic meter has been studied for the light it sheds on questions of relative chronology, textual criticism, and language history rather than literary interpretation. There is good reason for this ostensible imbalance of priorities: meter can offer decisive insights into a poem’s date of composition and textual history, yet it is by no means clear that meter has any bearing on literary meaning. It is not clear, for instance, what kind of meaning would inhere in a poet’s decision to employ more type C verses than type A verses in a particular passage. Indeed, the present reviewer (2019) has argued that metrical archaisms in Beowulf are not conditioned by the poem’s content but are rather unselfconscious indicators of the poem’s relative and absolute antiquity. Yet various scholars, such as Sievers (1887) and Timmer (1951), have plausibly suggested that the alternation between standard and hypermetric versification in a poem appears meaningful: that the contrast between normal and extended lines is used to create solemnity or excitement, to slow down or speed up a narrative, or to call attention to a crucial passage. It is this plausible suggestion, often entertained in a casual and ad hoc manner, that Hartman has masterfully and systematically developed over the course of her book.Hartman’s book possesses a unique structure. Each chapter begins with formal metrical analysis of the hypermetric verses in a particular corpus and concludes with literary analysis of the purposes to which these hypermetric verses appear to be put. The formal analysis deals with matters such as the structure of the onset and the cadence, patterns of distribution, adherence to Kuhn’s laws, and the treatment of finite verbs, while the literary analysis is necessarily more variable. The analyses are, however, intertwined in each chapter, as Hartman endeavors to relate innovations in hypermetric versification to the broader aesthetic program of particular poets. To identify formal innovation, Hartman proceeds in a roughly chronological manner through the poetic corpora under consideration. Chapter 1 (“Conservative Old English Hypermetrics: A Basis for Analysis”) attempts to establish the original properties of hypermetric versification by focusing on five archaic Old English poems—Beowulf, Genesis A, Guthlac A, Daniel, and Exodus—that are distinguished by their general metrical conservatism. Hartman’s formal analysis of these poems identifies the norms from which later or less conservative poets presumably departed: pronounced tendencies include the clustering of hypermetric lines together, the use of heavy onsets in the on-verse and light onsets in the off-verse, the avoidance of types B and C in the cadence, adherence to Kuhn’s laws, and deployment of a simpler, more prosaic syntax than is found in standard Old English versification. Her literary analysis demonstrates, meanwhile, that there appears to have been no unitary or consistent purpose to which hypermetric lines were originally put: in Beowulf, they lend solemnity to Hrothgar’s sermon and call attention to a hint of future turmoil in Heorot, whereas in Guthlac A they are used to lend speech a faster pace and a more colloquial style, and in other poems they are reserved for transitional passages. Hartman thus concludes that “a single generalization that could cover their purpose seems impossible” (50). What the archaic corpus shows, however, is a variety of tendencies concerning the literary deployment of hypermetric lines, which are realized in a more pronounced and innovative manner in the other corpora under scrutiny.In Chapter 2 (“Old English Wisdom Poetry: The Influence of Formulaic Diction”), Hartman examines a corpus consisting of Maxims I, Maxims II, The Fortunes of Men, Precepts, Solomon and Saturn II, The Rune Poem, and The Order of the World. She gives special attention to the Maxims poems, which contain an exceptionally high proportion of hypermetric lines as well as lines that are formally anomalous with respect to length and syntax. Hartman explains these anomalies as resulting in part from the formulaic diction associated with wisdom poetry and in part from poets attempting to fit individual gnomic statements into individual verses. The anomalous hypermetric lines also give the Maxims I poet “another way to emphasize the important moments,” since normal hypermetric lines are so frequent in that poem as to lose that function there (87). Hartman’s discussion of the wisdom poems suggests that literary content can shape metrical form, and this suggestion is developed further in Chapter 3 (“Old Norse Ljóðaháttr and Málaháttr: Dividing Hypermetrics”). Although Old Norse poetry does not have a single hypermetric form equivalent to the Old English hypermetric line, Hartman demonstrates that it actually developed two meters to fulfill the same purposes: málaháttr “becomes a less formal meter that can accommodate numerous syntactic breaks,” whereas ljóðaháttr “elevates the tone for formal situations” (90). She shows that the Atlamál poet uses málah#x0061;́ttr to narrate “actions in quick succession with an almost prosaic tone” (106), much as the Guthlac A poet had used hypermetric lines before him. In contrast, ljóðaháttr is used in Hávamál to give Oðinn’s words a “formal, even magical tone” (105) in a similar manner to how hypermetrics are used in Old English wisdom poetry. She concludes the chapter by exploring the use of the two hypermetric meters in the Eddic praise poems Hákonarmál, Eiríksmál, and Haraldskvæði. The rich discussion of these texts includes many perceptive observations about the variable associations of the meters and the assignment of certain meters to divine and mortal speakers.Hartman turns to Old Saxon poetry in Chapter 4 (“The Old Saxon Heliand: Working through Ambiguity”), where she argues that the author of the Heliand used the tradition of hypermetric versification to lend an aura of familiarity to the novel theological content he was presenting to an audience of recent converts. Whereas Old Norse fornyrðislag meter became shorter than its Old English equivalent (thereby necessitating the development of two hypermetric forms), the Old Saxon poetic form became longer, and this created potential ambiguity between standard and hypermetric versification. Hartman shows that the Heliand poet addressed this ambiguity by developing “alternate strategies to maintain clear and consistent metrical patterns throughout the poem” (156): the poet made his hypermetric lines exceptionally long and clustered them together in long passages so as to ensure that they were not misconstrued as standard lines. The chapter concludes with readings of the Sermon on the Mount and the mourning of Mary Magdalena, in which Hartman demonstrates that the poet combined hypermetric versification with traditional poetic imagery to guide his audience toward “a more willing conversion” (158). In Chapter 5 (“Late Old English Hypermetrics: Linguistic Change and Stylistic Adaptation in the Old English Judith”), Hartman explores how another late poet, the author of the versified Judith, attempted to resist language change and conserve aspects of archaic poetic tradition. Observing an avoidance of long onsets and a preponderance of nouns, Hartman remarks that the poet’s “clear effort to maintain, or even supersede, the conservative norm for hypermetric poetry is an innovation in itself” (174). As in the Heliand, hypermetric versification is used in Judith not only for pacing, but also for “melding the Germanic heroic tradition and Christian ideology” (183). Her reading of the poem generates insights into the poet’s use of variation, repetition, contrast, and the characterization of Judith and Holofernes.Poetic Style and Innovation in Old English, Old Norse, and Old Saxon is an important book. It represents a major advance in the scholarly effort to determine whether there might be a genuine relationship between poetic form and literary meaning in early Germanic poetry, and it makes a convincing case for artistic deliberation behind the deployment of hypermetric lines. At the same time, the book exemplifies the importance of studying Old English poetry from a comparative Germanic perspective, as Hartman’s claims about the uses of hypermetric lines in Old English are validated through the identification of similar uses in Old Norse and Old Saxon. Furthermore, the book demonstrates to literary scholars the importance of such fruits of philological scholarship as the relative chronology of Old English poetry: Hartman’s insights into Judith, for instance, become possible only if this poem is recognized to be relatively later than poems such as Beowulf and Genesis A. Hartman has written a refreshingly honest book, which confronts a mystery that our ancient and anonymous texts present—why is there alternation between standard and hypermetric versification?—and puts forward various answers, some more tentative than others, while wrestling with this mystery. In this book, Hartman makes a major contribution to empirical metrical study, in the tradition of Fulk’s History (1992), while also carving out new terrain for the integration of metrical and literary analysis. She has written an insightful and provocative book that is sure to inspire a great deal of discussion and emulation.