Old English and Latin riddles (Exeter Book and Symphosius)

[spiralsheep]

An Old English riddle, circa 10th century CE, from the Exeter Book (text is the currently accepted standard):

Moððe word fræt. Me þæt þuhte
wrætlicu wyrd, þa ic þæt wundor gefrægn,
þæt se wyrm forswealg wera gied sumes,
þeof in þystro, þrymfæstne cwide
ond þæs strangan staþol. Stælgiest ne wæs
wihte þy gleawra, þe he þam wordum swealg.

My transliteration:

Mothe word freet. Me theet thuhte
wreetlicu wyrd, tha ic theet wundor gefreegn,
theet se wyrm forswealg wera gied sumes,
theof in thystro, thrymfeestne cwide
ond thees strangan stathol. Steelgiest ne wees
wihte thy gleawra, the he tham wordum swealg.

My translation:

A moth ate words. I thought it
wondrous weird, when I found the marvel out,
that a worm swallowed someone's song,
that a thief in darkness, ate a well-wrought adage
and its firm foundation. But the thieving stranger wasn't
one whit wiser for the words he swallowed.

Obviously, Old English isn't directly translatable into contemporary British English, particularly because the smaller vocabulary of OE resulted in each word having a wider range of meanings than the contemporary equivalents so OE can make implications, and puns, which contemporary English can't relate because the wider vocabulary has narrowed the specific meaning of each word. I favoured poetry over literality in several instances, e.g. "wundor" should be "wonder" but my brain wants to translate "wreetlicu" as "right/reet" in the Yorkshire sense giving "I thought it right weird" (which I like but isn't exactly an ideal phrase for several reasons) so I exchanged the two adjectives. Also, "weird" for "wyrd"... yes, it is... in the Scottish sense... sort of.... All complaints should be addressed to the management via the comment box provided below. ;-P

The above riddle was probably based on this Latin riddle from the Aenigmata by Symphosius, circa 4th-5th century CE (text from Raymond Ohl, 1928, but the standard rendering of "Littera" would be litera and the punctuation, as always, is arguable):

Littera me pavit nec quid sit littera novi:
In libris vixi nec sum studiosior inde;
Exedi Musas nec adhuc tamen ipsa profeci.

Elizabeth Hickman DuBois (later Peck) translation, 1912:

I thrive on letters yet no letters know,
I live in books, the made more studious so,
Devour the Muses, but no wiser grow.

Raymond Ohl translation, 1928:

Letters have nourished me, but I know not what letters are.
I have lived in books, but am no more studious thereby.
I have devoured the Muses, and yet so far have not myself made progress.

Anyone still mystified by these riddles may apply to me in comment form for the answer(s). :-)

Comments

[seekingferret]

Obviously the answer to both is "Harvard Professor". :P

[spiralsheep]

Ahahahaha! Yes! That's sooo much better than "book of the month club member".

[spiralsheep]

And... I've just realised I didn't edit out the / alternate possibility for "well-wrought adage" when I posted. ::headdesk:: Oh, well, done now. ::facepalm::

[dhobikikutti]

Ah yes, the wyrm more devastating than Smaug. :)

[spiralsheep]

Yes, heh, and a rare angsax wyrm which isn't anticipating Freud... probably because no wyrm is one whit wiser for words.