¹ The Parry-Lord Theory of oral verse-making is by now a familiar concept to students of Old English poetry. It was the appearance in 1953 of Francis P. Magoun, Jr.'s “Oral Formulaic Character of Anglo-Saxon Narrative Poetry,” followed in 1955 by his article, “The Theme of the Beasts of Battle in Anglo-Saxon Poetry,” which first made clear the relevance of the Parry-Lord Theory to Old English poetic studies. More recent critics, Robert P. Creed, Robert E. Diamond, Stanley B. Greenfield, Wayne A. O'Neil, Jackson J. Campbell, and others, have addressed themselves to problems of diction and theme, problems first posed by Magoun in his two pioneer articles.

² “Oral Formulaic Character of Anglo-Saxon Narrative Poetry,” Speculum, xxviii (1953), 462.

³ Pope, in listing the expanded verses, sometimes calls attention to those verses which are “doubtful” or “hypermetric by courtesy.” A few additional verses on Pope's list which appear without comment impress me as equally doubtful. Were the following expanded verses to occur outside an expanded context, I would be inclined to accept them as normal: Bwf 1167a, DrR 10a, Chr 921b, Glc 379b, Glc 1158a, Phx 29a, Sfr 23b, Max I 64b, Max I 98a, Max I 100b, Max I 164b, Max 1185b, Max 1192b, Rdl 16, 2a, Rdl 16,3a, Rsg 79b, Dan 440a, Dan 445a, Dan 234a, Max II 2a.

⁴ It should be noted that there are only a handful of whole verse repeats:

⁵ An analysis of the verse types of these final measures for both on- and off-verses reveals that 89.0 percent have the pattern of type A, 7.6 percent the pattern of type D, and the remaining 4.4 percent types B-, C-, and E. The following poems have final measures made up entirely of A-verses: Wanderer, Precepts, Fates of the Apostles, Riming Poem, Riddle 16, Runic Poem, Psalm 50 and Solomon and Saturn. Exodus has the highest percentage of D-verses (22.2 percent) with the following poems next in line: Seafarer (18.2 percent), Phoenix (16.7 percent), Resignation (16.7 percent), Christ (14.2 percent), and Beowulf (13.6 percent).

⁶ William Witherle Lawrence, Beowulf and Epie Tradition (Cambridge, Mass., 1928), p. 4, was perhaps the first to employ the word “mosaic” to describe the style of Old English poetry: “The art of the singer was coming to resemble that of a worker in mosaic, placing in combinations pieces ready to his hand.” This passage was recently quoted by William Whallon in his article “The Diction of Beowulf,” PMLA, lxxvi (Sept. 1961), 318–319. Whallon, using somewhat different methods of analysis than those employed here, arrives at the conclusion that Lawrence's statement may be an accurate description of the Homeric poems but is less accurate when applied to the Beowulf.

⁷ The Anglo-Saxon's love of pattern manifests itself also in the singer's use of alliteration. The alliterative pattern for most of the expanded lines consists of an alliterating word in the opening and closing measures of the on-verse, and one alliterating word in the closing measure of the off-verse. The following poems follow this pattern and are entirely regular: Beowulf, Andreas, Guthlac II, Phoenix, Wanderer, Seafarer, Riming Poem, Resignation, Exodus, Runic Poem, and Psalm 50. Four additional poems might be included in this list since they are largely regular with only a few irregular verses: Judith (4 irregular out of 134), Dream of the Rood (3 irregular out of 64), Elene (2 irregular out of 30), Genesis (3 irregular out of 63). Not all the poems, however, have such a regular pattern. In the following poems, the variation from the expected pattern usually consists of two alliterating words in the final measure of the on-verse and none in the opening measure, and one alliterating word in the opening instead of the closing measure of the off-verse: Maxims I (23 irregular out of 144), Christ (9 irregular out of 56), Daniel (11 irregular out of 93), Meiers of Boethius (5 irregular out of 21), Maxims II (7 irregular out of 17), Solomon and Saturn (8 irregular out of 46), and Fortunes of Men (2 irregular out of 4).

⁸ B. J. Timmer, “Expanded Lines in Old English Poetry,” Neophilologus, xxxv (Oct. 1951), 226–230.