Editing Ormulum (section)

==Origins==
Unusually for work of the period, the ''Ormulum'' is neither anonymous nor untitled. Orrm names himself at the end of the dedication:

{| class="wikitable" 
|-
!Early Middle English||Modern English
|-
|{{lang|enm|Icc was þær þær i crisstnedd was}}||Where I was christened, I was
|-
|{{lang|enm|Orrmin bi name nemmnedd}}||named Orrmin by name {{small|(Ded. 323–24)}}
|}

At the start of the preface, the author identifies himself again, using a different spelling of his name, and gives the work a title:
{| class="wikitable" 
|-
!Early Middle English||Modern English
|-
| {{lang|enm|Þiss boc iss nemmnedd Orrmulum}}||This book is named Orrmulum,
|-
|{{lang|enm|forrþi þatt Orrm itt wrohhte}}||for Orrm wrought [created] it {{small|(Pref. 1–2)}}{{efn|Quotations are from [[#Holt1878|Holt (1878)]]. The dedication and preface are both numbered separately from the main body of the poem.}}
|}

The name Orrm derives from [[Old Norse]], meaning ''worm'', ''serpent'' or ''dragon''. With the suffix of "myn" for "man" (hence "Orrmin"), it was a common name throughout the [[Danelaw]] area of England. The metre probably dictated the choice between each of the two forms of the name. The title of the poem, ''Ormulum'', is modeled after the [[Latin language|Latin]] word {{lang|la|speculum}} ("mirror"),<ref>Jack, George, in [[#Matthew2004|Matthew and Harrison 2004]], pp.&nbsp;936–937</ref> so popular in the title of medieval Latin non-fiction works that the term [[speculum literature]] is used for the genre.

The Danish name is not unexpected; the language of the ''Ormulum'', an East Midlands dialect, is stringently of the Danelaw.<ref>[[#Bennett1982|Bennett and Smithers 1982]], pp.&nbsp;174–175</ref> It includes numerous Old Norse phrases (particularly doublets, where an English and Old Norse term are co-joined), but there are very few [[Old French]] influences on Orrm's language.<ref>[[#Bennett1986|Bennett 1986]], p.&nbsp;33</ref> Another—likely previous—East Midlands work, the ''[[Peterborough Chronicle]]'', shows a great deal of French influence. The linguistic contrast between it and the work of Orrm demonstrates both the sluggishness of the Norman influence in the formerly Danish areas of England and the assimilation of Old Norse features into early Middle English.<ref>[[#Bennett1986|Bennett 1986]], pp.&nbsp;259–263</ref>

[[File:BourneAbbeyInterior.jpg|thumb|left|The interior of the church of [[Bourne Abbey]], where the ''Ormulum'' may have been composed: the two nave arcades, although now [[whitewash]]ed, remain from the church Orrm would have known.]]
According to the work's dedication, Orrm wrote it at the behest of Brother Walter, who was his brother both {{lang|enm|affterr þe flæshess kinde}} (biologically, "after the flesh's kind") and as a fellow [[canon (priest)|canon]] of an [[Augustinians|Augustinian]] order.<ref>Jack, George, in [[#Matthew2004|Matthew and Harrison 2004]], pp.&nbsp;936–937</ref> With this information, and the evidence of the dialect of the text, it is possible to propose a place of origin with reasonable certainty. While some scholars, among them Henry Bradley, have regarded the likely origin as [[Elsham Priory]] in north Lincolnshire,<ref>[[#Bennett1982|Bennett and Smithers 1982]], pp.&nbsp;174–175</ref> as of the mid-1990s it became widely accepted that Orrm wrote in the [[Bourne Abbey]] in [[Bourne, Lincolnshire]].<ref>[[#Treharne2000|Treharne 2000]], p.&nbsp;273</ref> Two additional pieces of evidence support this conjecture: firstly, Arrouaisian canons established the abbey in 1138, and secondly, the work includes dedicatory prayers to [[Saint Peter|Peter]] and [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]], the patrons of Bourne Abbey.<ref>[[#Parkes1983|Parkes 1983]], pp.&nbsp;115–127</ref> The Arrouaisian rule was largely that of Augustine, so that its houses often are loosely referred to as [[Augustinians|Augustinian]].<ref>Jack, George, in [[#Matthew2004|Matthew and Harrison 2004]], pp.&nbsp;936–937; [[#Parkes1983|Parkes 1983]], pp.&nbsp;115–127</ref>

Scholars cannot pinpoint the exact date of composition. Orrm wrote his book over a period of decades and the manuscript shows signs of multiple corrections through time.<ref>[[#Burchfield1987|Burchfield 1987]], p.&nbsp;280</ref> Since it is an autograph, with two of the three hands in the text generally believed by scholars to be Orrm's own, the date of the manuscript and the date of composition would have been the same. On the evidence of the third hand (that of a collaborator who entered the [[pericope]]s at the head of each homily) it is thought that the manuscript was finished {{circa|1180}}, but Orrm may have begun the work as early as 1150.<ref>[[#Parkes1983|Parkes 1983]], pp.&nbsp;115–127</ref> The text has few topical references to specific events that could be used to identify the period of composition more precisely.