Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T21:09:53.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Old English Riddle No. 4: Handmill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Erika von Erhardt-Siebold
Erika von Erhardt-Siebold*
Affiliation:
Vassar College
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since 1859, when Dietrich suggested hand-mill among the possible solutions for the present riddle, this answer has been advocated time and again without, however, finding general acceptance. Finally, the latest commentators of the Old English Riddles, while hesitatingly offering handbell or flail as possible solutions, label the riddle “unsolved.” In my opinion hand-mill is the subject of the riddle. The reason that this solution has not appealed to readers seems to lie in the fact that so far the repeated references to a ring or a plurality of rings in the riddle have defied interpretation. I offer the following translation which varies from the accepted one only in a few details, and shall then discuss the famoux crux of the riddle.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 1946, pp. 620 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 ZfdA, xi, 461.

2 As late as 1920 Holthausen, however, proposed hand-bell, Anglia, xliv, 346.

3 W. S. Mackie, The Exeter Book, part ii EETS 194 (London, 1934), 249; G. Ph. Krapp—E. van K. Dobbie, The Exeter Book, The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, iii (New York, 1936), 324.

4 The text conforms to the latest edition.

5 Through the kindness of Prof. Max Förster, Munich, designs based on photographs made by Prof. A. Götze, Berlin, and on models in the Deutsche Museum, Munich, were forwarded to me. See also J. Hoops, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, iii (Strassburg, 1915-16), 243; M. Ebert, Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, viii (Berlin, 1927), 321-325; O. Schrader-A. Nehring, Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde, ii (Berlin, 1929), 24-28.

6 Cecil Curwen, “Querns,” Antiquity xi, March 1937, pp. 133 sq… . “More about Querns,” Antiquity xv, March 1941, pp. 15 sq.

7 Grottasqngr, 18, 1, … 20,3, … 23,3 … and BelgakviÐa Hundingsbana, ii, 3,4 … 4,2 … . For = Germ. mangel, Engl. mangle, cf. Falk-Torp, Norweg. Dän. Etym. Wörterbuch (Heidelberg, 1910), s.v. mangle.

8 The rod was far more difficult to make and to maintain in good condition and for this reason could be considered only for mills with greater grinding capacity and larger stones. These mill-stones, because of their larger diameters, could not be rotated conveniently by a plain handle, however, for smaller mills a plain handle had certain advantages. Hence, we may presume that rod-driven mills were comparatively rare and that their drive appeared as one of those “wonders” of Anglo-Saxon England.

9 Cf. articles by the present writer: “An Archaeological Find in a Latin Riddle of the Anglo-Saxons,” Speculum, vii (1932), 252-256; “History of the Bell in a Riddle's Nutshell,” Engl. Stud. lxix (1934), 1-14; “Aldhelm's Chrismal,” Speculum, x (1935), 276-280; “Aidhelm in Possession of the Secrets of Sericultute,” Anglia LX (1936), 384-389; “The Hellebore in Anglo-Saxon Pharmacy,” Engl. Stud., lxxi (1936), 161-170 (in connection with Aldhelm's Enigma 98). Other “wonders” of the time will be discussed in the edition of Latin Enigmas of Anglo-Saxon England, which has been prepared.