[Dialect:] The Orison in its present form agrees substantially with the copy of the Ancren Riwle in the same manuscript; both are in the dialect of the scribe, that of the Middle South. But the Midland i for y, ȳ is attested by the spoilt rhymes þing : welsprung 71; wiþinnen : sunne 91; kuðe : siðe 118; schrude : wide 139, which also point to an original filðe : dwilðe 94 (the forms dweoleð, dweoluhðe, dweolðe are found only in this manuscript), and chille : wille 45. There is nothing else in the rhymes to help to a nearer localization of the author: it can only be said that his dialect was Midland.
[Metre:] This is in dispute. Schipper sees in it a mixture of septenaries, alexandrines, and alliterative verse. He regards l. 28, pléieð and swéieð and síngeð bitwéonen as the only indubitable example of the last, but first half-lines have two accents only in, to þé ich búwe 2; and þónkie wúlle 12; ne wéopen ne múrnen 44, 72, 77, and second half-lines in, þi uéir to iséonne 30; mid gúldene chélle 45; mid énglene wílle 46, 52, 70. The alexandrine is a French verse of six stresses equally divided into two half-verses by a caesura; the ending of each half-line may be masculine or feminine; each half-line may also take a prelude. The scheme of the verse is accordingly (x)x́xx́xx́ (x) || (x)x́xx́xx́(x). Such is held to be the rhythm of nís no | wúmmon i|bóren || þét ðe | béo i|líche 23; þíne | blísse ne | méi || nó wiht | únder|stónden 31, where the stress on ‘þet’ and ‘no’ is forced. It is found necessary to employ all the licences of English prosody in scanning this foreign metre, which moreover in its native form is never mixed with other metres, and rhymes, not in couplets, but only in ‘laisses’ or fours. Scanned as septenaries are, biuór|en ðín|e léo|ue súne || wiðín|nen sér|aphíne 26; þú ham | ȝíuest | kíne | scrúd || beíes | and góld|ringes 34. But a line like vor heo neúer ne beoð séad . þi ueír to iséonne 30 may be scanned as an alliterative long line as marked, or as a septenary, vór heo | néuer | né beoð | séad || þi uéir | tó i|séonne, or as an alexandrine, vor heo neú|erne béoð | séad || þi uéir | tó i|séonne. On the other hand, Kaluza refuses to admit such an admixture of metres: he regards the poem as written throughout in septenaries. So the first line is to be scanned, Crístes | mílde | mód|èr || séynte | Már|íè. The unstressed syllable in a foot is often wanting; sometimes all the syllables of a word are stressed, as in the first half of l. 55, Mid bríht|e ȝím | stòn|ès. It is very artificial and unconvincing.
The matter is complicated by the fact that the Orison is only a copy, probably a copy of a copy, perhaps one of a succession of copies. A scribe dealing with an older text was generally little concerned about the form and much about the matter and the transcription of its language into his own dialect and idiom. That the text of the Orison has suffered from this preoccupation is evident from the rhymes; it is fairly certain that the author wrote lefdie 2, 11, 17, 170, sorinisse 36, mildheortnisse 78, 149, 164, edmodnisse 79, luðernisse 107, rene 58, leste 69, leasinge 75, gretinge 85, þas 100, seggen 134, and it may be inferred that alterations, including substitution of words, have been made within the verse. But even taking this into account, it is very doubtful whether the poet meant to write syllabic verse at all. Rather his metre exhibits the alliterative long line in the last stage of its dissolution, in which systematic rhyme has largely displaced the older and once essential elements of the verse. If rhythms occur, which can with some violence be forced into the moulds of purely syllabic verse, they are not of the author’s express purpose; precisely the same phenomenon is seen in Layamon (464/5). Moreover the alliterative element is considerable; the poet starts with two perfect lines, and ll. 60, 94, 101, 115, 153, 157, 171 have each three alliterating words; l. 3 is up to the Layamonic norm, and there are twenty-seven others equally good. But the development of the verse towards rhyme is complete and no longer, as in Layamon, occasional and for the most part imperfect (464/16).
[Introduction:] The author speaks of himself as a monk and of his composition as an English lay, as though it were an original production. He shows acquaintance with the earlier English literature, his manner is English, and the French element in his vocabulary is remarkably small. The highly conventional character of his language makes it difficult to speak with any confidence of his reading, but he would find much of it in his service books, and he was probably acquainted with Adgar’s Mary Legends and the long series of Orationes ad Sanctam Mariam Virginem with the Psalterium S. Virginis of S. Anselm (ed. Gerberon, pp. 276-87, 303-8), the enthusiastic promoter of the cult of the Virgin Mary in England. For the same reason it is impossible to give much weight to the series of parallels from the writings of S. Edmund of Pontigny (Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1234-40), by which Marufke has sought to prove his authorship of the Orison.
In ureisun of the title, both pretonic and tonic u are characteristic of early Anglo-French: ei is historic spelling, and at this time alternates in AF. with phonetic e.
[1]. Comp. 134/67; ‘O mater alma Christi charissima,’ York Brev. ii. 182; ‘virgo singularis: inter omnes mitis,’ id. ii. 477; ‘La duce mere al Salueur,’ Adgar 131/39.
[2]. mi leoue lefdi: comp. ll. 11, 17, 63, 115, 170; ‘ma douce dame,’ Wright, Lyric Poetry, 55/1.
[3]. buwe . . . beie: see 143/84.
[6]. Comp. 134/96, 136/153; ‘te spem meam singularem, te salutem computo,’ Guibert of Nogent, De Laude S. Mariae, 6; ‘Vita, dulcedo et spes nostra, salve!’ l. 2 of Salve Regina; ‘Ki est salu, ueire esperance | A tuz Crestiens, sanz dutance,’ Adgar 107/845;‘Þu art hele and lif and liht,’ OEM 160/11. mid iwisse: see 32/40.
[8]. bi daie &c.: comp. 133/50.