MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153919348 · doi:10.1353/egp.0.0086

<i>Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry</i> (review)

2009· article· en· W2153919348 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gernot Wieland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of English and Germanic Philology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricRhetorical questionPoetryLiteratureVernacularTerminologyArtHistoryPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry Gernot Wieland Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry. By Janie Steen. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Pp. xii + 237. $70. How did Latin rhetoric, and especially the notorious rhetorical figures, influence Old English poetry? This is the question Steen attempts to answer in this most ambitious book. She does so in an Introduction and six chapters. The Introduction concentrates on clarifying the difference between the "native tradition," that is, Anglo-Saxon poetic technique, and "Latin rhetoric," the poetic techniques, and primarily the rhetorical figures, introduced into Anglo-Saxon England with the conversion to Christianity. Chapter 1 moves to a general examination of the knowledge of Latin rhetoric in Anglo-Saxon England, and Steen finds that very few classical rhetorical works survive in manuscripts and that therefore in all likelihood formal rhetoric was not taught. Rhetorical figures, however, were known, less as part of rhetoric and more as part of exegesis and grammar, and they were almost certainly studied in conjunction with Christian-Latin poets such as Juvencus, Arator, and Sedulius. The rhetorical figures which do appear in Old English poetry therefore seem to have "seeped" into the vernacular from the Christian-Latin poets taught in Anglo-Saxon classrooms. Chapter 2 begins with the realization that "rhetorical terminology is a potential minefield" (p. 21). Steen rightly sets out to defuse some of these mines by juxtaposing a passage from Bede's Latin verse Vita Cuthberti to one chosen from the Cynewulfian Andreas and by naming, and commenting on, the rhetorical patterns she finds in each. With the [End Page 119] terminological groundwork laid, she can move into chapter 3 in which she traces the rhetorical "seeping" from Lactantius's Carmen de ave Phoenice to the Old English Phoenix. Steen shows that the Old English poem is replete with rhetorical effects in the same passages in which they abound in the Latin poem. What's more, the Old English poet is not content with simply translating the Latin rhetorical figures but also draws on the full repertoire of the Old English poetic tradition in order to achieve a similar effect in the Old English poem as Lactantius had done in the Latin. Chapter 4 shows a less successful adaptation of a Latin work, namely Bede's or Alcuin's De die iudicii and its Old English translation Judgement Day II. With his great faithfulness to the Latin, the poet does reproduce some of the Latin rhetorical figures, but on the whole the Old English version does not achieve the same poetic vitality as the Latin original. The poems examined in chapter 5, however, namely Riddles 35 and 40, both of them translations of riddles written in Latin by Aldhelm, do achieve that poetic vibrancy, though in different ways: the translator of Riddle 35 takes great pains to stay close to the native poetic tradition, while the translator of Riddle 40 is more Latinate by, for example, allowing classical names such as Vulcanus and Zephyrus stand as metonyms for "fire" and "wind." Chapter 6, finally, presents select passages from Cynewulf's poetry and argues for a most successful melding of native and Latinate poetic traditions in the uses of anaphora, paronomasia, rhyme, and simile. There can be little doubt that Steen is correct in arguing that the rhetorical figures the Old English poets either learned in school or read in the sources they translated, paraphrased, or imitated had an influence on the way they wrote in the vernacular. The difficulty lies in determining the exact influence, and Steen throughout is cautious in showing that, for example, Cynewulf "may" have been inspired by Arator's imagery, or "may" have drawn on Latin-inspired homilies (both on p. 123). This caution, however, does weaken the overall argument somewhat, since it removes the certainty that in any given passage the Old English poets drew on Latin rhetorical figures, and leaves no more than a possibility, especially when the supposed Latin rhetorical influence is completely translated into poetic elements from the native tradition. Moreover, the very act of translating often means that rhetorical elements present in...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of English and Germanic PhilologySame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207