This article was downloaded by:[Swets Content Distribution][Swets Content Distribution]

On: 19 February 2007Access Details: [subscription number 768307933]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

English StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713634227

The Language of the Extant Versions of Rolle's EgoDormioIsabel De La Cruz Cabanillas

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1076/enst.84.6.511.28781URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/enst.84.6.511.28781

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.© Taylor and Francis 2007

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXTANT VERSIONS OF ROLLE’S EGO DORMIO

There are thirteen extant manuscripts of Richard Rolle’s Ego Dormio written inEnglish. In most manuscripts the text is basically the same with minor varia-tions. Of course, each manuscript shows to some extent those linguistic featureswhich are present in the scribe’s original dialect, but the text itself is not altered,except in the case of Trinity College Dublin 155, Takamiya 66 and very slight-ly in Pepysian 2125. The more parallel texts there are available, the better, asthey are likely to help in supplying a full range of dialectal discriminants. By fo-cusing on those features that are dialectally distinctive and that are essential totell the difference between one Middle English variety from another, I try to in-vestigate the spelling usages of these medieval copyists of Ego Dormio to dis-cover the individual scribal practices of each of them and see whether anyconclusions about the provenance of the scribe could be drawn.

1. INTRODUCTIONRichard Rolle’s religious treatise Ego Dormio was written in the fourteenth cen-tury. Most scholars have followed Allen’s assumption (1931:60) that he wrote itin 1343. However, Watson (1991:277) disregards Allen’s argumentation andconsiders Rolle’s actual birth-date to be 1305-1310 rather than 1300 as pro-posed by Allen; Ego Dormio, a late work, would have been written in the late1340s, as his whole literary life would have taken place in the 1330s and 1340s.1

Although a Latin translation exists in manuscript Gonville and Caius College140/180, the treatise was originally written in English. It is extant in English inthe following manuscripts:a) The British Library: Arundel 507 (Ar), Additional 22283 (Simeon, hereafter

S) and Additional 37790 (Ad).b) Cambridge University Library Dd v 64 (Dd) and Magdalene College

Pepysian 2125 (P).c) The Bodleian Library: Rawlinson A 389, which contains two different ver-

sions of the same text known as Rawlinson 1 and Rawlinson 2 (R1, R2), andEnglish Poetry a 1 (Vernon, hereafter V).

d) The Library of the Marquess of Bath, Longleat 29 (Lt).e) Trinity College Dublin 155 (TCD).f) London, Westminster School 3 (W).g) Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève 3390 (G).h) Tokyo, Takamiya 66 (T).

511

1 For Watson’s full argumentation on the topic, see ‘Excursus I: The chronology of Rolle’s writ-ings’ (1991:273-98).

English Studies, 2003, 6, pp. 511-5190013-838X/03/06-511/$16.00© 2003, Swets & Zeitlinger

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 511

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

By and large, many of the English texts have much in common. However,even among the manuscripts that seem to be related, there is a great deal of tex-tual variation. According to Amassian and Lynch (1981:220) ‘it is not possibleto construct a traditional closed stemma’, because, although the manuscriptscan be grouped into families, the tradition is contaminated and the number ofomissions, interpolations and unique textual displacements ‘strongly arguesthat none of the extant manuscripts is copied from any other surviving one’.However, some connections have already been established by Cumming(1927:863), Hanna (1996:39) and Ogilvie-Thomson (1988:lxxiv). I will try toshow some other affinities among some of them.

Thus, all the manuscripts seem to be copies of others which have been lost.Although there is an occasional discrepancy concerning the dates when the extantmanuscripts were copied, the data provided by different sources (A LinguisticAtlas of Late Mediaeval English, hereafter LALME; Allen 1927 and 1931;Amassian & Lynch 1981; Doyle 1974; Hanna 1996; Ogilvie-Thomson 1988 andSajavaara 1967) lead to the assumption that one of the earliest copies must havebeen the Vernon manuscript, approximately in 1390, in Worcestershire. Like-wise, we learn that others were copied in the fourteenth century as well: G inWarwickshire, S in Staffordshire and Cambridge Dd somewhere in the Northof England. At the beginning of the fifteenth century: Ar in the Durham area,TCD in Staffordshire, W in Linconshire and Bod. Lib. Rawlinson; the latter in-cludes two different versions whose origins can be traced either to Staffordshire(R2) or to North-East Lancashire (R1). The remaining manuscripts were copiedlater in the fifteenth century: Lt probably in the second quarter of the same cen-tury in the language of Ireland, although Ogilvie-Thomson does not quite agreewith this Anglo-Irish provenance. In fact, after analysing the linguistic pecu-liarities of the manuscript she concludes by claiming that ‘the sum of these fea-tures points to the standard fifteenth-century literary language based on theEast Midland dialect(s), with a sprinkling of South-Eastern forms. The scribe’sflexibility in all but a few of the Anglo-Irish criteria suggests that he had left hisnative country some time before, retaining only traces of his original linguistichabits’ (1988:xxxv). It can be observed that, although some texts have alreadybeen localised in the Midland area (S, V, R2, TCD, G, W and possibly Lt) andothers seem to reflect the original Northern dialect of Richard Rolle (R1, Ar,Dd), nobody has localised the language of T, P and Ad that were copied in thefifteenth century. Thus, my purpose was to learn more about the linguistic char-acteristics of these manuscripts (T, P and Ad) and to compare them with theremaining texts of Ego Dormio, which have been sucessfully localised, in orderto see whether any conclusion could be drawn in light of the obtained data.

2. METHODOLOGYAs Laing points outs, ‘texts surviving from the same period in more than oneversion can be of great help to the historical dialectologist’ (1992:568), since thecomparison of different copies of a single text assures expedient and veraciousidentification of dialectal discriminants. Greater numbers of texts lead to bettercomparisons for they are likely to supply a full range of dialectal distinctive fea-

512

ISABEL DE LA CRUZ CABANILLAS

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 512

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

tures. Hoad (1994:198) highlights the importance of contrasting alternative ver-sions for word-geography, as they can replicate the results of previous studiesand reveal lexical choices made by individual authors and scribes. With this inmind, by focusing on those aspects that are dialectally distinctive and essentialto distinguish between one Middle English variety and another, I will try to in-vestigate the spelling habits of several medieval copyists of Ego Dormio to dis-cover the individual scribal practices and to see whether any unique trendsindicative of each scribe’s background can be inferred. Linguistic variationamong the three manuscripts whose language has not been identified (Ad, Pand T) is likely to reflect a choice of different regional forms by autochthonousscribes, who were responsible for the spelling variants of the final copy. At thesame time, both P and T exhibit a number of features that certainly have nocounterpart in the other manuscripts, with the exception of TCD. The imposi-tion of free interpretation that departs from the original and thus cannot beconsidered just a mere copy but rather a version of the same text is probablythe most interesting and characteristic trend seen in them. Even though the con-text might be wholly preserved, there are many omissions, interpolations andunique digressions from the original. That is probably why they have neverbeen employed for modern editions.

The methodology follows the original guidelines established by McIntosh andSamuels in conjunction with the production of LALME (1986:I, 7). Severalitems were selected to obtain information on different aspects. The items cho-sen comprise four classes of evidence: 1) graphological, e.g. the use of thorn orth in words like pai/thai; 2) phonological, in order to examine certain specificfeatures like velarization versus palatalization, e.g. in whilk/which; 3) morpho-logical, such as whether the ending for the 3rd person singular is in -th/-s, as inhath/has and 4) lexical: poison/venym.

It is now widely accepted that Mischsprache, which involves the combinationof forms for the same item, was a common practice. According to the group ofscholars of Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities working on the Middle EnglishDialect Project, who were the first to determine how medieval scribes treatedthe language of their exemplars, one of three things may happen (Benskin &Laing 1981:56, McIntosh & Samuels 1986:I, 13):

A) The scribe makes a literatim copy, that is to say, he leaves the language as itappears in the original manuscript without making any alterations.

B) He converts the language into his own dialect, introducing modifications inthe orthography, the morphology and the vocabulary.

C) He does both A and B.

Case A is very infrequent, so one can well imagine a scribe copying EgoDormio and adding a few dialectal variants into the text, as scribes were used totranslating from one variety into another. Although the medieval scribes pre-served some of the original spellings in the assigned exemplar, they also freelyconverted or translated others into their own dialect, into the variety of the areawhere they worked or into a form of English more familiar to the intended au-

513

THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXTANT VERSIONS OF ROLLE’S EGO DORMIO

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 513

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

dience. Since the language of three of the copies has not been identified, I seekto explain why the scribes of these particular works made the spelling choicesthat they did and to attain this purpose it was useful to compare the forms usedin them with the ones found in the other manuscripts. To fulfil this objective Ihave purposely selected some functional words like as, if, when, the, though,through, etc., and other forms that can provide useful data for deducing whichvariety of Middle English the given scribes used. The latter include verbal formsin the 3rd person singular; present participles; the presence of alternative vari-ants like mykel versus much; the reflexes of Old English a-, as in holy and otherpotentially productive items, such as sal versus shall; and items that could pro-vide an answer to the following questions: What kind of distributions can befound for the Old English reflexes for /y(:)/, u, i or e? or Do the h-forms occurfor the 3rd person plural pronoun?

The original manuscript was read in the case of TCD, BL Ar, S and Ad; inthe other cases, photocopies and microfilms were used.2 Reliable printed edi-tions have also been consulted, such as that prepared for the Early English TextSociety by Ogilvie-Thomson, and Horstmann’s and Allen’s editions. However,while the use of printed editions solves some problems, it can be confusing aswell. For instance, when consulting manuscript Dd v 64, the readings are dif-ferent in the three editions (Allen 1931; Amassian & Lynch 1981; andHorstmann 1895). In the case of the word some, the editorial practices vary con-siderably: Horstmann decides not to expand the abbreviation present in themanuscript, Amassian and Lynch’s option is to expand it, by recording theword with a double m and Allen’s solution is to expand it into a final <e>. Oneneeds to go to the original manuscript and make a decision about how to tran-scribe it. Most of the times some appears as som with a bar or macron on topof the <m> to mark the elision. However, there is one instance of some withfinal <e>, hence I have opted for this expansion.

Out of the thirteen copies only eleven were examined. Although I consultedarticles on the manuscripts W and G, and Ogilvie-Thomson’s work includes ex-tensive collations, I had no access to the original texts or to photocopies or mi-crofilms. Printed editions can be of help, but most scholars focus on thevariants themselves rather than on their spelling, which makes their work un-suitable for my study. The manuscript W has been fully analysed by theLALME team; however some information is not available, for instance, onlythe endings of present participles and verbs in the 3rd person singular are pro-vided. Consequently, we cannot determine whether the reflexes of Modern Eng-lish forms like go or stand show the vowel <a> or <o> in the Middle Englishtext. The presence of <a> or <o> in such words is relevant, because it can be

514

ISABEL DE LA CRUZ CABANILLAS

2 I would like to express my thanks to Professor Takamiya and the HUMI Project, Keio Uni-versity, for photographing and digitizing the folios of the manuscript where Ego Dormio is in-cluded. I am also grateful to the Librarians of Trinity College Dublin and the British Libraryfor their help in granting access to the different manuscripts consulted. My thanks are also dueto the staff of the other libraries where Ego Dormio is kept for providing me with photocopiesand microfilms of the required folios. Finally, I am grateful to M. F. Litzler and J. Keller whotook the time to read and comment on various aspects of this article.

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 514

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

considered a salient marker of some varieties. For instance, the Northern dia-lect shows forms with <a> for Modern English go, while in the other dialects<o> is most frequently attested. In the case of stand, the Old English <a> be-fore nasals, as in stand, is rendered differently in West Midland and the rest ofthe varieties: the former presents o-spellings, while the other dialects tend toshow <a> in these forms. Some other items are also missing, as in the case ofevil, which was exclusively collected for the South of England. For these rea-sons, only the data obtained from the consulted manuscripts have been included.

3. DISCUSSIONThe results of my research are displayed in the final table. The eleven columnscorrespond to each manuscript consulted. The present-day English equivalent isprovided in the column to the left. Where two or more forms are given, the oneon the left reflects the most common spelling found in a given copy, althoughon some occasions two different spellings occur just once each.Several specific instances need further explanation to fully understand the in-

formation included in the table. As can be seen, some items are missing in theoriginal tracts. Nevertheless, their absence does not invalidate the data, sincethe allocation of one copy to one area is not decided on the basis of just oneitem. The blanks are due to one or more of the following reasons:

a) Omissions of some sentences in a specific treatise. Some writings omit a givenparagraph or sentence. For instance, manuscript Ar does not contain the ex-tract where the word church occurs.

b) Textual variations, e.g. when the author’s intention is to appeal to an audi-ence, some texts are addressed to a 2nd person singular (thou) and others to a3rd person plural (they), while some use a 1st person plural (we). Other vari-ants result from the use of synonyms for the same concept, such as joy/mirth,euer/ay, ill/evil. In fact, R1 uses ill or wretched instead of evil, which is whythe selected item cannot be found in this tract. In this connection, it wouldbe interesting to examine whether the choice of a specific word is simply mo-tivated by a scribe’s individual preference or has to do with the regional dis-tribution of lexical units in a given dialectal area. No recent research hasbeen carried out along these lines on a large scale, as at present the numberof items included in LALME is insufficient to draw any conclusions.

c) Some tracts finish before others. In fact, Ar, TCD and P are incomplete. Arlacks some forms, which are present in Ad, but both seem to have beencopied piecemeal from a single exemplar. Ad contains the whole treatise and,thus, contains the parts missing in Ar (Ogilvie-Thomson 1988:xlii). In addi-tion, one of the folios is missing in Ar and the edges have been severely dam-aged, which makes reading impossible in some places. In the case of TCDand P, although the former finishes a few lines before P, TCD contains manyadditions, which explains why it has more items than the latter. In fact, TCDseems to contain more sentences than any other copy. T also contains someadditions and digressions and like P, they are a free version, but not as freeas TCD.

515

THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXTANT VERSIONS OF ROLLE’S EGO DORMIO

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 515

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

Based on the data, groups can be established taking into consideration dif-ferent criteria, in such a way that TCD, T and P could be regarded as a groupbased on whether they follow the original treatise or digress from the exemplarfrom which they were copied. Cumming has already pointed out the close rela-tionship between R2 and G in stating that the only differences he notes are‘slight variations in spelling’ (1927:863) and he also refers to various other sim-ilarities, such as the absence of addressee, the omission of the Latin words EgoDormio at the beginning of the treatise or the inclusion of certain terms such asraper, not present in some other copies used for Horstmann’s printed edition.However, if we simply take language variation as a basis, undoubtedly Ar, Ad,Dd and R1 are Northern texts, as can be inferred from the items included in thefinal table. Apart from the presumed velarization of functional words, e.g. ilk,whilk, swilk, mikel, and the pronominal system pai/pei, pair, paim, all of thesetexts preserve a large number of <a> forms, and therefore they exhibit similarspellings for words such as fra, gast, haly, mare, na, saule, swa, waa, etc. I amalmost certain that both Dd and Ad, according to the data provided byLALME, have a West Riding Yorkshire origin, even if the latter shows a closerelationship with Ar copied in Durham.3 In addition, all of these four copies(Ar, Ad, Dd and R1) apparently differ from the remaining texts in a number ofways:

1) The presumed velarization of some groups (kyrke, swilk, mykel) versus theapparent palatalization observed in the other texts (church, such, much), withsome minor exceptions in T (cherche, suche, meche alongside mekyl, mekel).

2) The preservation of <a> in the Northern copies versus the rounding of OldEnglish a- in the remaining manuscripts (gost, holy, so, woo).

3) The object and possessive forms of the 3rd person plural pronoun (thaim/thamand thair/their), and the absence of the reflexes of the corresponding OldEnglish pronouns (ham/hem and har/her/heore), which are present in all theother tracts.

4) Present participles always in –and versus the predominance of –ing forms innon-Northern copies.

5) Verbs in the 3rd person singular in -s, rather than -th (with some exceptionsin TCD, e.g. holdes and schewes).

Even though there are affinities among the Midland manuscripts (S, V, R2,TCD), there are also some differences. Despite the divergences, they seem toshare more features in common than the Northern tracts, as evidenced in thetable.

S and V are obviously related, as has been demonstrated in several previouspublications (see Doyle 1974 and Sajavaara 1967, for instance). R2 and TCD

516

ISABEL DE LA CRUZ CABANILLAS

3 Margaret Laing (personal communication) has suggested that Ego Dormio may be too shortto identify the exact place where a manuscript was copied. In this way, the localisation of themanuscripts (Dd, P, TCD and T) must be considered tentative, rather than authoritative, asthe data can be insufficient on their own without taking into consideration any other textsfrom the same manuscripts.

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 516

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

were also copied in the West Midland variety. Therefore, we have Lt, P and Tthat show a variety of forms. Lt, following LALME and Ogilvie-Thomson1988, seems to reflect Anglo-Irish or rather the East Midland dialect(s), with asprinkling of South-Eastern forms. P may be a West Midland text because ofthe abundance of –u forms (bute, whuch, whuche), and the similarities which itpresents with TCD and to a certain extent with S, R2 and V, for instance thedevelopment of the Old English rounded vowel /y(:)/ in words such as churche,michel/mychel, euel/euyl, bisynese, myrthe and luste. Even if the data providedby LALME are not conclusive in this case, because they are shared by many dif-ferent counties, they seem to point to Warwickshire or Worcestershire (al-though I cannot be completely certain at this point).

Regarding the allocation of T to one dialectal area, on the one hand the textexhibits a pronominal system that corresponds to the Midland dialects, and thedistribution of presumed velarized and non-velarized items (meche, mekyl,mekel) is quite interesting. On the other, at first sight it seems to point to theEast or South-East area of the country with the predominance of e forms inwords like merth, besy or cherche, but representation of the voiceless palatalfricative as x, e.g. in xal, is found mainly in the Norfolk area (Fisiak 1968:21).In view of these differences, and some others, such as the distribution of wych,T seems to represent the Norfolk variety, yet the Suffolk dialect cannot be com-pletely disregarded, until a distinctive linguistic profile has been established.

4. CONCLUSIONSSome manuscripts seem to preserve the Northern forms of the original text e.g.Dd, R1, Ar and Ad. Others were copied in nearby areas, mainly Central andEast West Midlands, e.g. S, V, R2, TCD, G. The remaining manuscripts seemto reflect mainly the West or East Midland tradition, e.g. W, T, P and Lt. It canbe concluded, therefore, that no extant tract was copied in the South of Eng-land. A question that arises from this simple observation is: were Rolle’s writ-ings followed by a mainly Northern or Central Midland audience? Was thereno Southern readership? Watson wonders about similar matters, although hedoes not seem to provide an answer for them: ‘There is, of course, little we cansay with certainty about Rolle’s clerical patronage; there is no telling evenwhether his “patrons”, “readers” and “disciples” were the same people’(1991:297-8).

A possible explanation for the restricted distribution mentioned above has todo with the centres of book production. Beadle notes that most of the four-teenth and fifteenth-century texts he analysed did not make their way south ofthe river Thames (1994:82). He also points out that, while before 1300 ‘the ap-paratus for disseminating writings in English was better developed in the Here-fordshire-Worcestershire-Gloucestershire area than anywhere else’ (p.71), fromthat date onwards the emphasis shifts towards the North, especially to York-shire. He concludes by stating that a good number of the surviving manuscriptsmust have been copied from others existing in nearby areas. Hence, the absenceof important centres of learning in the South of England at the time probablyaccounts for the lack of copies in this particular area.

517

THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXTANT VERSIONS OF ROLLE’S EGO DORMIO

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 517

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

There are many open questions related to the facts presented here, which alsoreveal gaps that require further research: the necessity of a comprehensive andup-to-date work on Middle English word geography, for instance. This need isfelt by other scholars, such as Hoad who considers that ‘the history of word-ge-ographical studies in Middle English has been a disappointing one’ (1994:197).Even if LALME is immensely useful, it is insufficient when tracing the geo-graphical distribution of lexical units that are not included in the limited set ofvocabulary items analysed (280 in all). Its authors admit its limited use, al-though the situation could be improved in the near future, as they point outthat A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English, along with the Atlas of OlderScots, ‘will offer more scope for word-geographical study since the corpora willcontain complete texts, fully tagged’ (Laing & Williamson 1994:13). It is hopedthat these works will soon be available to the general scientific community, sothat more conclusive results can be achieved.

Likewise, it is hoped that this sort of study will continue in the future, for, asSmith claims, ‘on the one hand, the interpretation of individual texts requiresan understanding of their wider context, while, on the other, to understand thewider context a good deal of analysis of individual texts is needed’ (1994:104).More must be learned before the questions raised here can be answered and thisprocess entails carrying out further research on the topic.

University of Alcalá ISABEL DE LA CRUZ CABANILLAS

Dept. of Modern PhilologySan José de Caracciolos3, Trinidad St.28801 Alcalá de HenaresMadridSpain

REFERENCES

Allen, Hope E. Writings Ascribed to Richard Rolle, Hermit of Hampole and Materials for His Bio-graphy. (New York and London, 1927).

Allen, Hope E. English Writings of Richard Rolle. (Oxford, 1931). [Reprinted Gloucester, 1988.]Amassian, Margaret G. ‘The Rolle Material in Bradfer-Lawrence Ms 10 and its Relationship to

other Rolle Manuscripts’. Manuscripta, 23 (1979), 67-78.Amassian, Margaret G. & Dennis Lynch. ‘The Ego Dormio of Richard Rolle in Gonville and

Caius MS. 140/80’. Medieval Studies, 43 (1981), 218-49.Beadle, Richard. ‘Middle English Texts and their Transmission, 1350-1500: Some Geographical

Criteria’. Laing & Williamson (1994), 69-91.Benskin, Michael & Margaret Laing. ‘Translations and Mischsprachen in Middle English Man-

uscripts’. Benskin & Samuels (1981), 55-106.Benskin, Michael & Michael L. Samuels, eds. So meny people longages and tongues. Philological

Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English Presented to Angus McIntosh. (Edinburgh: Middle Eng-lish Dialect Project, 1981).

Cumming, William P. ‘A Middle English MS in the Bibliothèque Ste. Geneviève, Paris’. Publi-cations of the Modern Language Association, (1927), 42, 862-4.

Doyle, A. Ian. ‘The Shaping of the Vernon and Simeon Manuscripts’. Rowland, B. (1974). 328-41.

518

ISABEL DE LA CRUZ CABANILLAS

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 518

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

Fisiak, Jacek. A Short Grammar of Middle English. (Warsaw, 1968).Hanna, Ralph. ‘The Origin and Production of Westminster School MS. 3’ in his Pursuing His-

tory. Middle English Manuscripts and Their Texts. (Stanford, 1996), 35-47.Hoad, Terry. ‘Word Geography: Previous Approaches and Achievements’. Laing & Williamson

(1994), 197-203.Horstmann, Carl. Yorkshire Writers: Richard Rolle of Hampole and his Followers. Vols. 1-2.

(London, 1895-96).Laing, Margaret. ‘A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English: The Value of Texts Surviving in

More than One Version’. Rissanen, Ihalainen, Nevalainen & Taavitsainen (1992), 566-81.Laing, Margaret & Keith Williamson. ‘Introduction’. Laing & Williamson (1994). 1-15.Laing, Margaret & Keith Williamson, eds. Speaking in our Tongues. Proceedings of a Colloqui-

um on Medieval Dialectology and Related Disciplines. (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1994).Machan, Tim W. & Charles T. Scott, eds. English in Its Social Contexts. Essays in Historical So-

ciolinguistics. (Oxford, 1992).McIntosh, Angus, Michael L. Samuels, Michael Benskin, Margaret Laing & Keith Williamson,

eds. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (LALME) Vols. 1-4. (Aberdeen, 1986).Ogilvie-Thomson, Sarah J. Richard Rolle: Prose and Verse Edited from MS Longleat 29 and Re-

lated Manuscripts. [EETS]. (Oxford, 1988).Rissanen, Matti, Ossi Ihalainen, Tertu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen, eds. History of Eng-

lishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. (Berlin, 1992).Rowland, Beryl. ed. Chaucer and Middle English Studies in Honour of Rossell Hope Robbins.

(London, 1974).Sajavaara, Kari. ‘The Relationship of the Vernon and Simeon Manuscripts’. Neuphilologische

Mitteilungen, (1967), 48, 4:428-40.Smith, Jeremy J. ‘The Use of English: Language Contact, Dialect Variation, and Written Stan-

dardisation During the Middle English Period’. Machan & Scott (1992). 47-68.----------------. ‘A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English: tradition and typology’. Rissanen,

Ihalainen, Nevalainen & Taavitsainen (1992). 582-91.----------------. ‘A Philologist’s View’. Laing & Williamson (1994). 99-105.Watson, Nicholas. Richard Rolle and the Invention of Authority. (Cambridge, 1991).

519

THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXTANT VERSIONS OF ROLLE’S EGO DORMIO

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:24 Pagina 519

Dow

nloaded By: [Swets C

ontent Distribution] At: 14:14 19 February 2007

APPENDIX

Opmaak 84/6 08-01-2004 09:25 Pagina 520