Читать книгу A Catalogue of Manuscripts Known to Contain Old English Dry-Point Glosses - Dieter Studer-Joho - Страница 21

The existence of OHG dry-point glosses in L. MSS has been known at least since the early 19^thcMünchen, Bayerische StaatsbibliothekClm 6277.1 Yet dry-point glosses played only a marginal role in the study of OHG glossography until late in the 20^th c., when dry-point glosses could no longer be ignored as an important source of OHG, as Glaser (1996: 51) puts it. By that time, OHG ink glosses had been investigated very thoroughly and edited comprehensively (yet not exhaustively) in Elias von Steinmeyer and Eduard Siever’s monumental Die althochdeutschen Glossen (StSG), published between 1879 and 1922, as well as in numerous further publications and editions.2 In 1973, Bergmann (1973) compiled a preliminary list of 1,023 OHG gloss MSS that had been identified until then. He numbered the MSS consecutively, and his numbers (nicknamed “Bergmann-Nummern”, i.e. ‘Bergmann numbers’) have since become an important reference system in OHG (and OS) gloss studies.3 Bergmann continuously updated and maintained his list, and by 2005, when Bergmann’s (1973) list had been turned into a full-blown 3,000-page catalogue (BStK), a large number of additional OHG gloss MSS had been identified. As a consequence, the numbering scheme was continuously expanded and letters were introduced to allow for a meaningful internal differentiation of the numbering logic, so that MSS from the same repository could be arranged in meaningful groups (e.g. 710, 710a, 710b, … 710z, 710aa, 710ab, etc. for various MSS from München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek). In addition to that, changes in the treatment of MS fragments and MS parts entailed a number of modifications to the numbering scheme (through splitting of former units and fusion of formerly separate entries). BStK, as published in 2005, listed 1,309 entries, but the numbers have kept rising at a steady pace since.

An impressive amount of palaeographical, lexicographical and glossographical work is continuously done in the field of OHG glossography, too. Major dictionaries include Starck & Wells (1971–1990) and Schützeichel (2004) and the current state-of-the-art handbook on OHG glosses is BStH, which was published in 2009. Incidentally, Schützeichel (2004: 12: 9–32) even includes a number of OE dry-point glosses in a special section of the Althochdeutscher und altsächsischer Glossenwortschatz, devoted to OE glosses that are encountered alongside OHG glosses (i.e. glosses from [1/K:287*], [12/K:A41], [13/K:121*], [14/K:98*] and [34/K:400]).Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer KulturbesitzMs. lat. 4° 676Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska Berol. Ms. lat. 4° 676Paris, Bibliothèque nationalelat. 2685Trier, Bibliothek des PriesterseminarsMS 614

When Glaser (1996) for the first time dedicated a whole monograph specifically to OHG dry-point glosses, she included a preliminary list of 70 OHG dry-point gloss MSS as a first overview of the state of OHG dry-point gloss research up to the mid-1990s. Apart from a few samples edited by StSG and Meritt (1934, 1961), Glaser’s list mainly consists of MSS that had been identified as OHG dry-point gloss MSS by Bernhard Bischoff during his work for Lowe’s CLA in the 1920s and 1930s. Editions based on Bischoff’s findings were published only gradually in loose succession by himself (e.g. Bischoff 1928) and – after a summarizing description of his gloss discoveries had been published by Stach (1950) – by scholars who heavily relied on Bischoff’s notes (e.g. Stach 1951, Hofmann 1963, Mayer 1974 and others).

By editing dry-point glosses from five MSS from Freising in Bavaria, Glaser (1996: 637) shows convincingly that even MSS whose dry-point glosses have been edited before may yield substantial further dry-point gloss harvests upon close inspection. Both Nievergelt (2007) and Ernst (2007) could edit large numbers from well-known gloss MSS. Mainly due to Nievergelt’s subsequent efforts, the number of known OHG/OS dry-point gloss MSS has been steadily rising (cf. Fig. 1) since Glaser counted 70 OHG dry-point gloss MSS in 1996:5 85 OHG/OS dry-point gloss MSS were known in 2004,6 118 in 2009,7 146 in 2011,8 155 in 20129, 179 in 201310 and 202 in 201511. That also means that the percentage of OHG/OS dry-point gloss MSS has been constantly rising within the corpus of OHG/OS gloss MSS: from about 7 % in 2004/2005 (85 out of 1,309) to roughly 13.8 %12 of all OHG/OS gloss MSS in 2015 (ca. 202 out of ca. 1,465).

Figure 1: Development of numbers of known OHG dry-point gloss MSS.

Glaser (1996) set a new standard in the edition of dry-point glosses by discussing in great detail the exact visual appearance of the individual dry-point glosses and by expounding the difficulties that are involved in deciphering dry-point material. The manner of presentation has since become standard in OHG dry-point gloss editions (e.g. Nievergelt 2007, Ernst 2007). Such a typical edition entry consists of:

1 a general indication where the gloss is placed on the MS page, i.e. folio/page, line or relative placement in the margin;

2 a sufficiently long quotation of the L. base text, allowing for enough context to make sense of the lemma, indicating textual deviations in that particular MS from the standard text editions, typesetting the lemma in italics;

3 a G. translation of the L. base text, typesetting the presumed lemma of the base text in italics;

4 a detailed transcription of the lemma followed by a detailed transcription of the interpretamentum;13

5 comments on the precise placement of the interpretamentum with respect to the lemma and comments on uncertain readings and possible alternative readings;

6 a detailed linguistic commentary, entailing (a) lemmatization, (b) exhaustive morphological discussion of the respective forms with respect to case, number, person, declension class, conjugation class, mood, voice, tense etc., (c) bibliographical cross-references to relevant dictionaries, grammars or word studies, (d) a discussion of the semantic equivalence of lemma and interpretamentum and (e) references to equivalent lemma/interpretamentum pairs.

Since dry-point writing can sometimes offer variable degrees of legibility, a small set of symbols and diacritics is generally used to indicate such considerations (cf. Glaser 1996: 100). In OHG dry-point gloss editions, uncertain readings are customarily indicated by adding dots underneath doubtful letters, such as <ị> for an uncertain reading of <i>. This is not to be confused with an expunction mark (cf.p. 83 below). If not even an attempt at a reading seems possible to the editor, a dot <.> is written in lieu of the undecipherable letter. If the number of undecipherable letters cannot be specified, three dots – i.e. a horizontal ellipsis – are put in curly brackets <{…}> (e.g. in Nievergelt 2007, 2009a) or square brackets <[…]> (e.g. in Ernst 2007). Sometimes, the editor cannot even decide whether the scratches are letters or just suspicious-looking creases in the parchment surface. In such cases, one or two question marks are used to indicate the possible presence of one <?> or several <??> further letters or scratches.

Since Nievergelt’s (2007) and Ernst’s (2007) in-depth analyses of the physical properties of dry-point glosses, it has also become customary to classify the physical nature of the dry-point writing (i.e. cutting the surface vs. mere indentation or presence of pigment or rust residues vs. entry without any traces of discolouring). Since dry-point writing usually does not offer the same palaeographical detail as ink writing, such observations are crucial in distinguishing layers of dry-point gloss activity. Both Nievergelt (2007: 47–59) and Ernst (2007: 71–73) present classificatory systems of dry-point glosses based on their physical properties (see above p. 27). Nievergelt (2007: 70–74) also discusses the special difficulties that dry-point writing presents to the human eye due the often only minute contrast differences that are created by the impressions on the parchment surface.

Since editions that follow Glaser’s model are much more refined than the list-like editions that were customary during the nineteenth and the better part of the 20^th c., they are necessarily much longer. Where a traditional gloss edition (such as StSG, Napier 1900, Meritt 1945 or even Gwara 1992) would have one line, consisting of a lemma-interpretamentum pair, with perhaps a footnote, the edition of an averagely complex gloss in Glaser (1996), Nievergelt (2007) or Ernst (2007) will easily occupy a page. The OHG dry-point gloss Rotlaħħ on f. 176^v of München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 6272München, Bayerische StaatsbibliothekClm 6272 (BStK: 1033–1034 [no. 516]) may serve as an extreme example. The interpretamentum is entered in the right margin and, hence, the corresponding L. lemma of the base text (HIERONYMUS, Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Mathaeum) is difficult to identify. Meritt (1934: 232) interprets this dry-point entry as two separate glosses, even though there is no space in between, namely OHG rot glossing L. roseo and OHG tuhh- glossing L. limbo. He duly lists the lemmata and the interpretamenta in two half-lines with minimum space requirements, so that another two dozens of lemma-interpretamentum pairs can be fitted onto the same page. Meritt relegates some observations about his readings to two short footnotes (1934: n. 61 and n. 62): the first footnote gives a deviating form for the first lemma in the critical edition consulted by Meritt, which reads L. rufo instead of L. roseo (i.e. PL 208: 24), and the second footnote suggests the expansion OHG tuhhil for the partial second interpretamentum OHG tuhh-, also referring to two instances of that word in StSG. In summary, the edition of this dry-point entry takes up two half-lines and two short footnotes.

In Ernst (2007: 317–322 [no. 39]) the edition of the same dry-point entry runs for five full pages. After describing the appearance of the gloss in detail and discussing readings by former gloss scholars (including Meritt), Ernst presents two different interpretations of the gloss, based on the allocation of the gloss to two different lemmata in the base text. Pairing up the OHG gloss with L. clamidem coccineam or perhaps roseo limbo (as Meritt suspected), it can be interpreted as a compound or as a nominal group meaning ‘red fabric’ or ‘red coat’. However, in the context of Christ’s crucifixion, pairing the OHG gloss up with either L. spineam (which may be corroborated by that word’s physical proximity on the MS page and by a possible signe-de-renvoi, consisting of a vertical dry-point bar on top of L. spineam) or L. calamum (which also features a signe-de-renvoi, consisting of the Greek letter ϕ, though that may perhaps point to a partly legible dry-point entry in the left margin), the gloss could be interpreted as referring to some kind of plant, perhaps ‘buckthorn’ (based on L. spineus ‘thorny’, referring to Christ’s crown) or ‘reed’ (based on L. calamus ‘reed’, which the soldiers gave to Christ as a mocking symbol of his power).14 Ernst’s exhaustive treatment of the gloss – of which I have only sketched the bare outlines – shows great erudition and makes for a highly informative read, yet it ultimately leaves us in a state of informed ignorance: we still do not know what the gloss actually means. The range of possibilities has been limited drastically, yet several candidates seem almost equally eligible and it is clear that lexicographers have an easier job incorporating Meritt’s edition rather than Ernst’s in their work.

It is to be expected that further OHG dry-point MSS will be identified in the near future and, as Stricker (2009: 1655) points out, it may safely be assumed that the glosses to be found in them will change our knowledge of OHG substantially.