Consummatum est, inclinato capite tradidit spiritum. ‘”It is accomplished”, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.’
(Homiliae XL in euangelia, homily 37.9, Gregory the Great)
These were the last words of bishop Cassius of Narnia as recorded in Bodleian Library, MS. Laud Misc. 429. The manuscript contains Homiliae XL in euangelia by Gregory the Great (see Bodleian online). Cassius of course quoted from the Bible, Jesus’ last words according to John 19.30. The quotation appears at the end of folio 149v which also contains two scratched glosses in the upper margin, barely visible to the naked eye: ‘[…] braht’ and ‘upbraht’. At first glance, the glosses and the quote have no obvious connection. They stand on opposite sides of the folio (fig. 1) and, semantically, the two similar glosses do not seem to relate to any Latin on the page. It was only when the glosses were captured in a detailed image with the Selene scanner of the ARCHiOx project (ARCHiOx: research and development in imaging) that it was possible to learn more about their origin and meaning.
Fig. 1: Folio 149v of MS. Laud. Misc. 429 (Oxford, Bodleian Library). The position of the scratched glosses is marked in red, the quote by Cassius of Narnia is marked in green.
With the Selene scanner, a clear image of the 3D surface of the object can be created. This is particularly useful for scratched glosses, translations and comments not written with a pen but impressed into the parchment with a stylus. Scratched glosses can usually only be seen by shining a torch onto the parchment at a very shallow angle. But with the new recording system the glosses can be made visible within the context of ink glosses and the main text. Corrections in the main text also become much clearer. Suddenly a sequence of short horizontal scratches become visible, showing where the scribe erased ink with a small knife (fig. 2), apparently to adjust word endings and punctuation. Furthermore, there are longer, finer lines crossing the page that stem from preparing the parchment.
Fig. 2: 3D‑render of the scratches on folio 149v recorded with the Selene scanner. In the top margin, the lexical scratched glosses are visible. On the bottom of the picture are scratches which stem from text erasures.
In the recording, the lexical scratched glosses on folio 149v are clearly visible, except for the first letters. They read (1) ‘[…] braht’ and (2) ‘upbraht’. The words appear right next to each other but are divided by a clear gap. These are not the only lexical glosses in the manuscript. Throughout the text, there are Latin and Old High German glosses, for example the Old High German word ‘agaleizor’ in the right margin of folio 159r and the Latin ‘lapidem’, a few lines below and interlinear (see the digitised manuscript and Hofmann 1963, p. 144). As for the glosses on folio 149v, the second half of the words gives clues as to their language. ‘‑braht’ is the past participle of the Old High German verb ‘bringan’ (see AWB 1,1384), with the basic meaning ‘to bring’ (or in case of the participle, ‘brought’). The first part of the words should therefore be a prepositional prefix which modifies the basic verb. The first part of gloss (2), ‘up’, is known as a prefix – but not in Old High German. The Old High German equivalent of the word is ‘ûf’, with the ‘‑p’ undergoing the Second Consonant Shift (up > uf). That the gloss still has the ‘‑p’ shows that it must belong to a language which did not go through this sound change. To explain this mix of linguistic features, it is necessary to consider the history of the manuscript.
MS. Laud Misc. 429 was written in a German writing centre, possibly Fulda, at the beginning of the ninth century (Bischoff & Hofmann 1952, p. 58; Mairhofer 2014, p. 680). It was in Würzburg from the fifteenth century at the latest and was given to the Bodleian in 1637 (Mairhofer 2014, p. 680). However, it is not unlikely that the manuscript came to Würzburg much earlier because of the intertwined history of the two monasteries. In the eighth century, Saint Boniface and his missionaries came from England and founded several monasteries, including the Würzburg cathedral chapter and Fulda as part of its diocese (Bischoff & Hofmann 1952, p. 5). As they were closely related, the monasteries frequently exchanged manuscripts in the eighth and ninth centuries, or would order manuscripts from each other’s scriptoria (see Bischoff & Hofmann 1952, pp. 142, 168). Fulda was therefore subject to the same Anglo-Saxon influence that has been widely researched for the Würzburg monastery. Anglo-Saxon traces can be seen palaeographically and linguistically in the manuscripts created during that time (Bischoff & Hofmann 1952, pp. 5ff.; Hofmann 1963, pp. 33–4). Written long after Saint Boniface’s death, when the main impact of the Anglo-Saxon mission had already waned, MS. Laud Misc. 429 still shows signs of Anglo-Saxon script (‘Symptome dafür sind die leicht spachtelförmigen Oberlängen, die mit dreieckigem Ansatz beginnenden, tiefgespaltenen r der rcc-Ligatur.’, Bischoff & Hofmann 1952, p. 58). Ties between early medieval scriptoria of the Würzburg diocese and Anglo-Saxon writing tradition remained strong over the centuries and MS. Laud Misc. 429 is evidence for that.
Fig. 3: Close‑up of gloss (2) ‘upbraht’.
On a different note, there is another, though rather minor possibility for the origin of the scratched glosses. Apparently, there have been exchanges between the Low German and East Franconian region since the Old Saxon Heliand was written under consideration of texts which stem originally from Fulda (Schubert 2013, p. 213). Linguistically, the scratched glosses are acceptable Old Saxon forms. Old Saxon did not undergo the second consonant shift, hence the ‘up‑’, and ‘braht’ is the past participle of ‘brengian’, the Old Saxon equivalent of Old High German ‘bringan’ (Gallée 1993, §408). Even though there is no evidence of an Old Saxon verb ‘upp‑brengian’, ‘upp‑’ is known as verbal prefix (Tiefenbach 2010, p. 431). It is similar with the possible prefixes of gloss (1) which will be considered later. Arguably, these could be two Old Saxon hapax legomena (words which are only evidenced once), however, connections between the scriptorium of Fulda and Old Saxon scribes are hardly documented. On the other hand, the link to Anglo‑Saxon writing is not only supported by other manuscripts from Fulda and by the palaeographical characteristics of the script of MS. Laud Misc. 429 but also matches the linguistic evidence seen in gloss (2): ‘up’ (fig. 3) can very well be an Old English form (predecessor of modern English ‘up’) and the combination of an Old English prefix with an Old High German verb stem is a typical result of Anglo-Saxon influence in German writing centres. Since none of the ink glosses show Old English features (see Hofmann 1963, pp. 114–5) it could be that ink and scratched glosses stem from different scribes who followed different writing traditions.
Fig. 4: Close‑up of gloss (1) ‘[…] braht’. The prefix could be read as ‘hu’, but note the difference between the first letter and the penultimate letter ‘h’.
The prefix of gloss (1) is not as easy to decipher. The first letter could be an ‘h’, even though it looks quite different from the ‘h’ in the second half of the word (fig. 4). The latter has a very round curve, while the former shows a sharp bend. And neither in Old English nor Old High German is ‘hu’ a documented verbal prefix.
Fig. 5: Prefix of gloss (1) ‘[…] braht’ with the possible reading ‘zu’ in comparison with the ‘z’ in an ink gloss on fol. 159r (image was rotated to align the letters).
Another possible reading is palaeographically less clear but would make sense lexically: ‘zu’. The lines of the first letter could be a crooked ‘z’ (compare the ‘z’ of ‘agaleizor’ on folio 159r), which, to be fair, would miss some strokes (fig. 5). But an Old High German prefix ‘zu‑’ (or ‘zuo‑’) is indeed recorded in combination with ‘bringan’ (AWB 1,1405; the Old English equivalent would be ‘tó‑’, see Bosworth‑Toller online). Both readings assume that the second part of the prefix is a ‘u’. However, the curves of the letters in ‘braht‑’ are very round and those of the potential ‘u’ are not. Because scratched glosses had to be scratched into the parchment with a stylus which was not a very reliable writing instrument, letter shapes could be distorted (Glaser & Nievergelt 2009, p. 207). Differences between the letters within a gloss could therefore happen and could have a number of reasons. The gap after the prefix, for example, could mean that the scribe paused and then held the stylus differently. But it is curious that the letters of the second part are all very neatly rounded and the first ones are not.
Fig. 6: Prefix of gloss (1) ‘[…] braht’ The image on the right shows the same prefix with mark‑up that illustrates the possible reading ‘vul’, excluding the strokes that connect the letters.
A reading which would take the sharp bends of the beginning a bit more into account would be ‘vul’. Just as in gloss (2), this prefix would be Old English, the Old High German equivalent being ‘fol’. Old English ‘full’ is recorded as a verbal prefix (e.g. ‘fullbétan’, Bosworth-Toller online) and the Old High German variant even exists in combination with ‘bringan’ (‘fol(la)bringan’, AWB 3,1049). However, this reading would assume a ‘v’ with an ascender and an ‘l’ which is missing one (fig. 6). Just as ‘zu braht’, it is palaeographically odd but seems lexically sensible.
The meaning of gloss (1) can be narrowed down by semantically interpreting gloss (2). Both glosses end in ‘braht’ which suggests that they relate to each other. Double glosses are often either synonymous and were meant to provide the reader with lexical variants, or they give alternative semantic interpretations of the lemma. This could be achieved by altering the prefix of a verb. Old English ‘up’ and ‘bringan’ together can have the meaning ‘bring it to pass’, in which ‘up’ is ‘marking effectual action’ (see Bosworth-Toller online; here as an adverb related to a verb, but also recorded as a prefix). In Old High German, only one instance is known in which ‘uf’ appears together with ‘bringan’, in the Muspilli: ‘die pringent sia sar uf in himilo rihi’ (Steinmeyer 1916, p. 66; see AWB 1,1391), and here it means ‘to take (someone) up (to somewhere)’. The form ‘upbraht’ is a past participle. Assuming that the gloss copies the grammatical form of its Latin lemma to translate it in context, it could correspond to Latin consummatum from the aforementioned bible quote. The Latin would fit the possible meaning ‘bring it to pass’, or rather ‘brought to pass’. Their position in relation to each other is rather unusual as they are at opposite ends of the page – glosses are mostly in direct proximity to the word they translate. However, the word summarises the whole tale of Cassius who awaited his death for years after hearing a vision from one of his priests. His last word, ‘accomplished’, could relate not only to his death but also to the long period of waiting. Glossing it on top of the page is similar to a headline.
In this regard, gloss (1) can be expected to have a similar meaning. Of the three presented readings, ‘hu braht’ is the least fitting one. The adverb exists only in Old English and is the predecessor of modern English ‘how’. It references the quality of a verb (Bosworth-Toller online) which does not fit very well in this context. The second variant, ‘zu braht’, works better. The Old High German verb ‘zuobringan’ can have the meaning ‘to bring about’ (AWB 1,1405) – even though the according Old English prefix does not match (‘a prefix denoting separation, division’, Bosworth-Toller online). And finally, the last reading ‘vul braht’ is semantically closest to ‘upbraht’. Old High German ‘fol(la)bringan’ means ‘to finish something, to accomplish something’ (AWB 3,1049). Old English ‘ful’ is a verbal prefix which ‘denotes the fulness, completeness or perfection of the meaning of the word with which it is joined’ (Bosworth-Toller online). Judging from these interpretations, the two glosses could have been designed to give lexical variants which are broadly synonymous for the Latin lemma.
Fig. 7: Profiles of the scratches of gloss (1) on the left and gloss (2) on the right as recorded with the Selene scanner. The line in the glosses marks where the profile was measured.
Again, the ARCHiOx recording reveals more information about the motivation behind the double glosses. Measuring the depth and width of the scratches of the two glosses in the 3D-image shows that their profiles do not match (fig. 7). That means that it is very likely that they were not written in one go. Either the scribe, the writing instrument or the date of writing changed, or possibly all three at once. Whatever the reason for the changing profile was, there was most definitely an interruption between writing the two glosses. Maybe one of the glosses seemed unsufficient to a glossator to translate the lemma, maybe someone working with the text wanted to give a variant of the translation – or maybe a later reader had the same problems in identifying the first gloss as I had and decided to add a more legible translation. With the help of the ARCHiOx recordings, it is possible to gain much more information about a fascinating linguistic phenomenon. The detailed images can paint a clearer picture of how people in the Middle Ages worked with texts. In the case of MS. Laud Misc. 429, the glosses can not only be linked to a rich history of language exchange, but we now have proof that that the manuscript was the subject of work processes that are much closer to today’s way of studying than one would think.
Fig. 6: John Barrett, ARCHiOx, with mark‑up by the author on the right image
Fig. 7: John Barrett, ARCHiOx
AWB = Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Auf Grund der von Elias v. Steinmeyer hinterlassenen Sammlungen im Auftrag der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Elisabeth Karg-Gasterstädt und Theodor Frings. Leipzig 1952-2015ff., http://awb.saw-leipzig.de/cgi/WBNetz/wbgui_py?sigle=AWB (accessed 1 September 2023).
Bischoff, B. & Hofmann, J. (1952): Libri Sancti Kyliani. Die Würzburger Schreibschule und die Dombibliothek im VIII. und IX. Jahrhundert. Würzburg: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Bosworth-Toller online = Joseph Bosworth, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Online, edited by Thomas Northcote Toller, Christ Sean, and Ondřej Tichy. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University, 2014. https://bosworthtoller.com (accessed 1 September 2023)
Glaser, E. & Nievergelt, A. (2009): ‘Griffelglossen’, in Bergmann, R. & Stricker, S.: Die althochdeutsche und altsächsische Glossographie. Ein Handbuch. Vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 202–229.
Haubrichs, W. (2013): ‘Volkssprachige (theodiske) Schriftlichkeit in Fulda (8.–11. Jh.)’, in Schubert, M.: Schreiborte des deutschen Mittelalters. Skriptorien – Werke – Mäzene. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 196–215.
Hofmann, J. (1963): ‘Altenglische und althochdeutsche Glossen aus Würzburg und dem weiteren angelsächsischen Missionsgebiet’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle) 85, 27–131.
Mairhofer, D. (2014): Medieval Manuscripts from Würzburg in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: A Descriptive Catalogue. Oxford: Bodleian Library.
Steinmeyer, E. (1916): Die kleineren althochdeutschen Sprachdenkmäler. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Tiefenbach, H. (2010): Altsächsisches Handwörterbuch. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
There are two opportunities this term to discuss medieval Germanic languages: the Comparative Philology Graduate Seminar and the Germanic Reading Group.
Comparative Philology Seminar: Old High German
We will present general aspects of the language and delve into specialist topics. All are welcome, basic linguistic knowledge is assumed. The seminar will take place on Tuesdays in weeks 2–8, 2.15–4 pm, at the Lecture Theatre of the Centre for Linguistics and Philology (Walton Street). Convenor: Dr Howard Jones
24 January Introduction/Phonology (Luise Morawetz/Howard Jones)
31 January Nominal morphology (Will Thurlwell)
7 February Verb morphology (Luise Morawetz/Howard Jones)
14 February Syntax (Howard Jones)
21 February Lexis (Will Thurlwell)
28 February Metre (Nelson Goering)
7 March The place of OHG (and Old Saxon) among the Germanic languages (Patrick Stiles)
Germanic Reading Group
We’ll be holding four online meetings of the Germanic Reading Group this term, every other Thursday at 4:00 starting second Week in Oxford.
While digitising the manuscript MS. Canon. Pat. Lat. 57 (Bodleian Library), the team of the Bodleian discovered that it contains not only Latin but also Old High German (OHG) glosses – which have not been edited yet. In the following blog post, I will present the vernacular glosses and discuss them, adding more glosses each week.
The manuscript was written and glossed in the 11th century in the South-West area of Germany. It contains the full text of Gregory the Great’s ‘De cura pastorali’. The glosses, Latin and vernacular, are clearly visible between the lines of the main text, but some of them have been erased. At least two different hands can be identified which glossed in Latin as well as in Old High German. The main difference between the hands in this manuscript is the colour of the ink and the thickness of the lines, so it is possible that one scribe glossed and corrected the text in several passes. The erasure of some glosses could be part of the correction process. The text contains not only lexical glosses, but also grammatical markings that connect different words or add endings. I could not find any scratched glosses.
The corpus of glosses matches to a large extent the Alemannic-Franconian glosses of the manuscript B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), interestingly also some of the erased glosses.
A large part of the first page (fol. 1) has been excised. This was to remove part of folio 1r, probably library stamps, as the Latin text on folio 1v is incomplete because of the cut. Parts of the text have been erased in the middle of the page before the excision. Another (later) hand has added a few lines of Latin in the lower half of the page. There are some annotations by a much later hand (light ink) which left comments throughout the manuscript. The text of ‘De cura pastorali’ begins on folio 2r.
In the following, I will present the glosses of MS. Canon. Pat. Lat. 57 with focus on the Old High German glosses. Latin glosses will be included if they give additional information on relations to other manuscripts. At a later stage, the corpus of Latin glosses will be explored as well. Vernacular glosses are first listed and then gradually commented on and interpreted. Comments are very welcome! You can use either the commenting function at the end of this page, or email me (firstname.lastname@example.org).
I would like to extend special thanks to Prof. Dr Andreas Nievergelt (University of Zurich), who helped me with this edition.
Notes about the edition:
the Latin and OHG lemmas are spelled as in the manuscript, including abbreviations
if the Latin lemma or OHG gloss cannot be identified with certainty (mainly when marginal glosses were written without a reference marker, or the gloss was erased), there is a question mark before the lemma
the spelling of the Latin context follows the manuscript, abbreviations are resolved, the punctuation follows the manuscript
line breaks are marked by |, page breaks by ||
book and chapter of ‘De cura pastorali’ are given in brackets after the context (= Greg., Cura), with reference to the appropriate section of the edition Sources Chrétiennes 381/382 (= SC)
Latin lemmas in the context are underlined
if the glosses also appear in the manuscript B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), the glosses and reference to the edition in StSG are included
images were retrieved from the digitised manuscript, for reference please see the folio and line number given for the glosses
pastoralis cu|rę me pondera fugere de|litiscendo uoluisse . benigna frater karissime | atque humillima intentione reprehendis· (Greg., Cura 1,Praef.; cf. SC 381 124,3–5)
1. delitiscendobosconde .i. tacendo (fol. 2r, l. 7, interlinear)
Possibly scribal error b‑ instead of l‑; interpretament is a pres part of wv loskên (AWB 5,1298) ‘sich verbergen, verstecken’ = ‘to hide, to conceal’) with adverbial function, parallel to the function of Latin gerund in dat/ab. sg; vowel ‑o‑ in ending suggests that verb fluctuated between class II (‑ôn) and class III (‑ên) (cf. Braune §369 A.2), shifting from class III to class II is typical for the Franconian dialect (cf. Franck §198); the gloss is supplemented by the Latin gloss .i. tacendo, also a gerund in dat/abl sg, ‘to be silent’.
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,197,22: ‘Delitiscendo losconde’
2. rep̄hendislasteres (fol. 2r, l. 8, interlinear)
Vowel ‑e‑ in ending suggests that verb fluctuated between class II (‑ôn) and class III (‑ên) (cf. Braune §369 A.2), but could also be weakened from ‑ô‑.
Quos rursum dominus detestatur| dicens · Et tenentes legem nescierunt me . Et | nesciri ergo se ab eis ueritas queritur . et nescire prin|cipatum nescientium protestatur · Quia profecto | hi qui ea quę sunt domini nesciunt . a domino nesciuntur · (Greg., Cura 1,1; cf. SC 381 130,32–132,36)
3. detestat̃leidizot (fol. 3r, l. 19, interlinear)
3rd pers sg pres ind act wv leidazzen (AWB 5,753) ‘jemanden, etwas verabscheuen’ = ‘to detest someone, something’
Verb fluctuated between class II (‑ôn) and class I (‑jan) (cf. Braune §369 A.1), here it is class II; shifting from class I to class II is typical for the Franconian and Alemannic dialect (cf. Franck §198, Weinhold A §357).
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,197,27: ‘Detestatur leidizot’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,197,28: ‘Queritur clagot’
Quorum profecto humilitas | si cęteris quoque uirtutibus cingitur . tunc ante | dei oculos uera est . cum ad respuendum hoc quod | utiliter subire praecipitur . pertinax non est . (Greg., Cura 1,6; cf. SC 381 148,5–8)
If the OHG interpretament is equivalent to the Latin (nom sg f pos adj), an unknown adjective must be assumed; the ending ‑u is rare but appears for nom sg f in Franconian sources (Braune §248 A.6a).
Ne | is quem crimen deprauat proprium . intercessor | fieri appetat pro culpis aliorum · (Greg., Cura 1,11; cf. SC 381 164,4–5)
6. depráuatgérget (fol. 11r, l. 13, interlinear)
3rd pers sg pres ind act wv gi-ergen (AWB 3,390) ‘entstellen (in moralischer Hinsicht)’ = ‘distort (in a moral sense)’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,197,29: ‘Déprauat gerget’
Si cęcus fuerit . si claudus . si uel paruo uel | grandi et torto naso . si fracto pede . si manu . | si gippus . si lippus . si albuginem habens in | oculo . si iugem scabiem . si impetiginem in | corpore . uel ponderosus · (Greg., Cura 1,11; cf. SC 381 164,9–12)
7. gippushouer (fol. 11r, l. 23, interlinear)
nom sg str m noun hovar, hovir (AWB 4,1168) ‘Buckel’ = ‘hunch’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,197,53: ‘Gyppus houer’
Sed sunt nonnulli . qui dum se estimari |hebetes nolunt . sepe se in quibusdam inquisitio|nibus plusquam necesse est exercentes . ex nimia | subtilitate falluntur. (Greg., Cura 1,11; cf. SC 381 166,34–6) [the first se was added by a later hand]
8. hébetesslegue (fol. 11v, l. 21, interlinear)
nom pl m pos str adj. slêo (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 557) ‘stumpfsinnig’ = ‘dull’
‑g‑ could have been included to prevent the hiatus of sleuue (cf. Franck §69); StSG 2,197,55 assumes a scribal error (fn 8).
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,197,55: ‘Hebetes slegue’
Quasi enim | cutis pruriginem paulus curabat abstergere | cum dicebat . Temptatio uos non apprehendat . nisi | humana · (Greg., Cura 1,11; cf. SC 381 170,89–91)
9. pruriginēiukiligi · (fol. 12v, l. 23, interlinear)
Cui in | esu quoque pectusculum cum armo tribuitur . ut quod | de sacrificio praecipitur sumere . hoc de semetipso | auctori discat immolare · (Greg., Cura 2,3; cf. SC 381 182,19–21)
12. pectusculūbrustelin (fol. 15r, l. 11, interlinear)
nom sg str n noun brustilî(n) (AWB 1,1460) ‘kleine Brust’ = ‘small breast’
the Latin lemma was translated without context, in context it means ‘Bruststück’ = ‘brisket’ (cf. AWB 1,1460).
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,1: ‘Pectusculum prustelin’
Quod recte etiam super|humerale ex auro . [atque] iacincto . purpura . bis | tincto cocco . et torta fieri bisso praecipitur . | ut quanta sacerdos clarescere uirtutum diuersitate | debeat . demonstretur · (Greg., Cura 2,3; cf. SC 381 184,39–42) [atque was marked as incorrect by underlining with dots]
13. tortagezvvirendero (fol. 15v, l. 3, marginal)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,3: ‘Torta gezvvirendero’
Qui | igitur sic ad auctoris speciem anhelat . ut proximorum curam neglegat . vel sic proximorum | curam exsequitur| ut a diuino amore torpescat . quia qui unum horum | quodlibet neglegit . in superhumeralis ornamento | habere coccum bis tinctum nescit · (Greg., Cura 2,3; cf. SC 381 186,69–73)
14. exsequit̃bigeht (fol. 16r, l. 7, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,6: ‘Exequitur bigeht’
Clauis quippe apertio|nis est . sermo correptionis · Quia increpando | culpam detegit . quam sepe nescit . ipse etiam qui | perpetrauit . (Greg., Cura 2,4; cf. SC 381 188,31–190,33)
15. clauissluzel (fol. 16v, l. 26, interlinear)
nom sg str m noun sluzzil (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 561) ‘Schlüssel’ = ‘key’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,7: ‘Detegit unbaret’
Sa|cerdos namque ingrediens vel egrediens moritur . si | de eo sonitus non auditur · Quia iram contra se oc|culti iudicis exigit . si sine praedicationis sonitu | incedit · (Greg., Cura 2,4; cf. SC 381 190,52–4)
17. exigitésget (fol. 17r, l. 21, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,8: ‘Exegit esget’
Hinc iterum dicit · Siue mente excedimvs . | deo . siue sobrii sumus . uobis . Quia et semetipsum no|uerat contemplando transcendere . et eundem se audi|toribus condescendendo temperare · (Greg., Cura 2,5; cf. SC 381 198,35–8)
18. excedimvsuzgeliden · (fol. 18v, l. 25, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,9: ‘Excedimus uzgeliden’
Unde et ante fores templi ad abluendas ingredien||tium manus . mare eneum . id est luterem . xii . boues | portant · (Greg., Cura 2,5; cf. SC 381 200,68–70)
19. luterē?label (fol. 19v, l. 1, interlinear, erased)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,12: ‘Luterem label’
Plerumque | ergo . dum ex subiectorum affluentia animus inflatur . | in fluxum superbię ipso potentię fastigio lenoci|nante corrumpitur . (Greg., Cura 2,6; cf. SC 381 208,75–7)
20. lenocinante?lôscosendemo (fol. 21r, l. 8, interlinear, erased)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,14: ‘Lenocinante loscosendemo’
Uę his qui consuunt puluillos sub | omni cubitu manus . et faciant ceruicalia sub capite | uniuersę ętatis . ad capiendas animas . (Greg., Cura 2,8; cf. SC 381 232,20–2)
21. puluilloshŏbedfulv en (fol. 26v, l. 20, interlinear)
Second v was erased, hence the gap in the gloss.
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,16: ‘Puluillos hŏbedfulvven’ (fn 2: ‘d scheint aus n corr.’)
22. ceruicaliavvanccussui (fol. 26v, l. 21, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,19: ‘Cer:̌icalia wancussui’
23. effrenata iragenodegot zoren . (fol. 27v, l. 21, interlinear)
uninfl past part wv gi‑nôtagôn (AWB 6,1363) ‘jmdn. bedrängen’ = ‘to harass so.’
nom sg str n noun zorn (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 768) ‘Zorn’ = ‘anger’
‑d‑ is WGmc /d/ which was word‑internally not shifted to /t/ in Middle and Rhine Franconian (Braune §163); glosses were written with visible gap between them and partly in the margins above effrenata, not above ira in the next line; participle is used as adjective attribute (as in Latin); figurative translation of Latin effrenata (literally ‘unbridled’), AWB assumes possible mistranslation.
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,21: ‘Effrenata ira genodegoth zorn’
Aut hoc quod agi | recte aut grauiter potuit . inmature praeueniens | leuiget . aut bonę actionis meritum . differendo | ad deteriora permutet · (Greg., Cura 2,9; cf. SC 381 238,16–8)
24. inmaturecefruo (fol. 28r, l. 2, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,23: ‘Mature cefruo’
Ut cum delinquens . | et deprehendi se agnoscit . et perpeti . has quas in se | tacite tolerari considerat . augere se culpas eru|bescat . seseque iudice puniat . quem sibi apud se rec|toris patientia clementer excusat . (Greg., Cura 2,10; cf. SC 381 238,9–13)
25. dep̄hendiiruarenvverden · (fol. 28r, l. 14, interlinear)
uninfl past part strv ir‑faran (AWB 3,603) ‘jmd. durchschauen’ = ‘to see through sb.’
the glosses do not have a gap between them, which signals their close syntactic relation; the Latin synthetic present passive infinitive is translated with an OHG analytic infinitive construction with the auxiliary vverden.
Ne si minus contra culpas accen|ditur . culparum omnium reus ipse teneatur · Unde be|ne ad ezechielem dicitur · Sume tibi laterem . et pones || eum coram te . et describis in eo ciuitatem hierusalem · (Greg., Cura 2,10; cf. SC 381 244,108–246,1)
26. minus? luzil (fol. 29v, l. 28, interlinear, erased)
base form adj luzzil (AWB 5,1464) ‘wenig’ = ‘little’
27. laterē? zigel (fol. 29v, l. 30, interlinear, erased)
acc sg str m noun ziegal (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 761) ‘Ziegel’ = ‘brick’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,24: ‘Laterem zigel’
Et ordinabis aduersus eam | obsidionem . et ędificabus munitiones . et conportabis | aggerem . et dabis contra eam castra . et pones arietes| in giro . eique ad munitionem suam protinus subinfertur · | Et tu sume tibi sartaginem ferream . et pones eam mu|rum ferreum . inter te et inter ciuitatem · (Greg., Cura 2,10; cf. SC 381 246,112–7)
28. arietes? phederere (fol. 30r, l. 4, interlinear, erased)
Either strong noun or weak noun glossed in base form.
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,29: ‘Sartaginem phanna’
Aggerem namque comportat . | quando praedicator quisque molem crescentis temp|tationis enuntiat . et contra hierusalem castra erigit . | quando recte intentioni audientium . hostis cal|lidi circumspectas et quasi incomprehensibiles | insidias praedicit . Atque in giro arietes ponit . cum | temptationum aculeos in hac uita nos undique | circumdantes . et uirtutum murum perforantes . innotes|cit . (Greg., Cura 2,10; cf. SC 381 248,146–52)
30. p̄dicitfirbûtit · (fol. 30v, l. 11, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,32: ‘Predicit firbûtet’
31. aculeosangola (fol. 30v, l. 12, interlinear)
Per sartaginem | quippe frixura mentis . per ferrum vero fortitudo incre|pationis . signatur . Quid uero acrius doctoris | mentem quam zelus friget dei et excruciat . (Greg., Cura 2,10; cf. SC 381 248,158–61)
32. frixuracôhunga (fol. 30v, l. 20, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,33: ‘Frixura cohunga’
33. frigetcohot (fol. 30v, l. 22, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,34: ‘Friget cohot’
Quia uidelicet cum spiritale || aliquid a subditis pastor inquiritur . ignominiosvm| ualde est . si tunc quęrat discere . cum quęstionem | debet enodare · (Greg., Cura 2,11; cf. SC 381 254,45–256,47)
34. ignominiosv̄honisam . (fol. 32v, l. 1, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,35: ‘Ignominiosum honisam’
Sepe namque aliis officiunt| quę aliis prosunt . quia et plerumque herbę quę | hęc animalia nutriunt . alia occidunt · Et | lenis sibilus . equos mitigat . catulos instigat . (Greg., Cura 3,Prol.; cf. SC 382 258,5–8)
35. officiuntdarent · (fol. 32v, l. 21, interlinear)
36. sibilusvvisbiloht · (fol. 32v, l. 24, interlinear)
Quia et plerumque dura uulnera . per | lenia fomenta mollescunt · (Greg., Cura 3,2; cf. SC 382 270,46–7)
37. fomentabaiunga (fol. 35r, l. 4, interlinear)
Discurre . festina . | suscita amicum tuum . ne dederis oculis tuis somnvm . | nec dormitent palpebrę tuę · Quisquis enim | aliis ad uiuendum in exemplo praeponitur . non solum | ut ipse euigilet . sed etiam amicum suscitet . ut eui|gilet . ammonetur · (Greg., Cura 3,4; cf. SC 382 278,44–8)
38. dormitentnafizon (fol. 36v, l. 23, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,37: ‘Dormitent nasizon’ (fn 3: ‘l. nafizon’)
39. suscitetuueke (fol. 36v, l. 25, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,39: ‘Suscitet vveke’
Quia uidelicet dum | praelatę dignitati . saltim innoxie et latenter dero|gant . quasi regis subpositi . uestem fędant · (Greg., Cura 3,4; cf. SC 382 282,100–2)
40. dérogantbisprehont (fol. 37v, l. 24, interlinear)
3rd pers pl pres ind act wv bi‑sprehhôn (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 580) ‘verleumden’ = ‘to slander’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,40: ‘Derogant bisbrechont’
Quod enim antiquatur . | et senescit . prope interitum est · (Greg., Cura 3,6; cf. SC 382 286,27–8)
41. senescitfiruuesenet · (fol. 38v, l. 28, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,42: ‘Senescit firvvesenet’
42. fascinauitzouberota (fol. 39r, l. 27, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,44: ‘Fascinauit zouberuta’
Nonnunquam vero cum se uicium proteruię | minime perpetrare cognoscunt . conpendiosius| ad correctionem ueniunt . si alterius culpę ma|nifestioris ex latere requisiti inproperio confun|duntur · vt ex eo quod defendere nequeunt . cog|noscant se tenere improbe quod defendunt · (Greg., Cura 3,8; cf. SC 382 290,15–292,20)
43. conpendiosiusgefuorsamero (fol. 39v, l. 20, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,47: ‘Compendiosivs gefoursamero’
Incesti culpam inmedium deduxit . quę apud eos | et perpetrata fuerat . et incorrecta remanebat | dicens · (Greg., Cura 3,8; cf. SC 382 292,22–4)
44. incestihuores (fol. 39v, l. 28, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,49: ‘Incesti houres’
Quatenus eorum teneritudinem| laus audita nutriat . quam culpa increpata | castigat · (Greg., Cura 3,8; cf. SC 382 292,34–5)
45. teneritudinemmurvvin · (fol. 40r, l. 11, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,50: ‘Teneritudinem murvvin’
Illi namque | aurigarum ac strigonum gesta fauoribus efferunt · (Greg., Cura 3,10; cf. SC 382 308,18–9)
46. strigonumscernere · (fol. 44r, l. 6, interlinear)
gen pl str m noun skernâri (AWB 8.1,1022) ‘Schauspieler’ = ‘performer’
the suffix ‑âri appears in Franconian with short /a/ which could be weakened to /e/ (Braune §200 A.1b, Franck §53); the regular ending of the gen pl of OHG ja‑stem nouns, ‑eo, ‑o, was here also weakened to ‑e.
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,52: ‘Cistrionum scernere’
Dicendum itaque est inuidis . quia dum se a liuore mi|nime custodiunt . in antiquam uersuti hostis ne|quitiam demerguntur · (Greg., Cura 3,10; cf. SC 382 312,49–51)
47. uersutihinderscrenckicen (fol. 44v, l. 9, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,54: ‘Uersuti hinderserekun’ (fn 6: ‘l. hinderscrēkun’)
Ibi habuit foueam ericius · (Greg., Cura 3,11; cf. SC 382 318,46–7)
48. ericiusigil · (fol. 46r, l. 3, interlinear)
Et qui totum iam de re|prehendendo uiderat . tergiuersatione prauę de|fensionis illusus . totum pariter ignorat · (Greg., Cura 3,11; cf. SC 382 318,65–7)
49. tergiuersationehindersrencgunce (fol. 46r, l. 24, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,56: ‘Tergiuersatione hindersregone’
Patres quidem carnis | nostrę habuimus eruditores . et reuerebamur eos . non | multomagis obtemperabimus patri spirituum et uiue|mus . (Greg., Cura 3,12; cf. SC 382 328,85–7)
50. reuerebam̃vviruorden (fol. 48v, l. 10, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,58: ‘Reuerebamur eos werfonden’ (fn 7: ‘= wer forhden?’)
Insanus | quippe homo a subiugali muto corripitur · | quando elata mens . humilitatis bonum quod tene|re debeat . ab afflicta carne memoratur · (Greg., Cura 3,12; cf. SC 382 330,109–11)
51. memoraturirhuget (fol. 49r, l. 8, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,60: ‘Memoratur irhuget’
Liuor uulneris abstergit mala . et plagę in | secretioribus uentris . (Greg., Cura 3,12; cf. SC 382 330,119–20)
52. liuor uulnerisbleizza (fol. 49r, l. 17, interlinear)
nom sg w f noun bleizza (AWB 1,1197) ‘Striemen, blauer Fleck’ = ‘weal, bruise’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,61: ‘Liuor uulneris bleizza’
Bona enim pro semetipsis | amanda sunt . et non pęnis compellentibus exsequenda . (Greg., Cura 3,13; cf. SC 382 336,25–6)
53. exsequenda. ceduonne . (fol. 50ar, l. 25, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,63: ‘Ex::sequenda ceduonne’
Plerumque enim sine dedignatione de|dignandi sunt . et sine desperatione desperandi . | ita duntaxat . vt ostensa desperatio formidinem |incutiat . et subiuncta ammonitio ad spem re|ducat . (Greg., Cura 3,13; cf. SC 382 336,33–6)
54. incutiatscude . (fol. 50av, l. 6, interlinear)
‑d‑ is WGmc /d/ which was word‑internally not shifted to /t/ in Middle and Rhine Franconian (Braune §163).
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,70: ‘Scoriam sinder’
59. stagnū. cin . (fol. 50av, l. 26, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,198,73: ‘Stagnum cin’
Scire igitur debent . qui plus quam expedit| tacent . ne inter molestias quę tollerant dum linguam | tenent . uim doloris exaggerant . (Greg., Cura 3,14; cf. SC 382 340,36–9)
60. expeditnucesi (fol. 51r, l. 8, interlinear)
Thimotheum namque ammonens ait . Ar|gue . obsecra . increpa . in omni patientia · et | doctrina · (Greg., Cura 3,16; cf. SC 382 356,36–8)
61. arguefleho (fol. 54r, l. 22, marginal)
Ne enim sibi uir|tutem suę liberalitatis deputent . audiant | quod scriptum est . (Greg., Cura 3,20; cf. SC 382 384,36–7)
62. liberalitatiscebegerni (fol. 61r, l. 4, interlinear)
gen sg str f noun gebagernî (AWB 4,134) ‘Freigebigkeit’ = ‘generosity’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,199,1: ‘Libertatis Gebegerni’
Unde et nonnulli huius mundi diui|tes . cum fame crutientur christi pauperes . effusis | largitatibus nutriunt striones . (Greg., Cura 3,20; cf. SC 382 386,82–4)
63. strionesscernere (fol. 61v, l. 30, interlinear)
Qui ergo innoxios se quia | aliena non rapiunt estimant . ictum securis uicinę | praeuideant . et torporem inprouidę securitatis amit|tant . ne dum ferre fructis boni operis neglegunt . | a praesenti uita funditus quasi auiriditate radicis |exsecentur . (Greg., Cura 3,21; cf. SC 382 398,53–8)
64. exsecenturabegesnidenvverdent · (fol. 64r, l. 29, interlinear)
uninfl past part strv aba‑snîdan (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 565) ‘abschneiden’ = ‘to cut off’
3rd pers pl ind act strv uuerdan (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 712) ‘werden’ = ‘to become’
the gloss forms an analytic passive form translating the synthetic Latin passive, using the auxiliary vverdent and the past part abegesniden; the glosses are written without space between them, to signal that they belong together or because of the lack of space; the auxiliary is positioned after the past part, see also gloss 90.
Qui mercedes congregauit . misit eas in | saculum pertusum . In saculo quippe pertuso uidetur | quando pecunia inmittitur . sed quando amit|titur non uidetur . (Greg., Cura 3,21; cf. SC 382 400,96–9)
65. ꝑtusūlokeroden (fol. 65r, l. 11, interlinear)
66. amittit̃uirlorenvvirdit (fol. 65r, l. 12, interlinear)
uninfl past part strv fir‑liosan (AWB 5,1157) ‘(etw.) verlieren’ = ‘to loose (sth.)’
3rd pers sg ind act strv uuerdan (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 712) ‘werden’ = ‘to become’
the Latin synthetic passive is translated as OHG analytic passive with the auxiliary uuerdan; the glosses were written without a gap and not separated at the line break, which marks the close syntactic relation; the auxiliary follows the participle.
Ex qua scilicet praeceptione . pensandum | est quorum ostia repellitur . quam intollerabilis culpa | monstratur · (Greg., Cura 3,22; cf. SC 382 406,51–3)
67. p̄ceptionegebodeni (fol. 66r, l. 9, interlinear)
Admonendi sunt discordes . ut si aures | a mandatis cęlestibus declinant . mentis oculos ad con|sideranda ea quę ininfimis uersantur aperiant . | quod sepe aues unius eiusdemque generis sese socialiter | uolando non deserunt . quod gregatim animalia bru|ta pascuntur . (Greg., Cura 3,22; cf. SC 382 406,56–61)
68. gregatimcordegliho (fol. 66r, l. 18, interlinear)
Hinc finees pec||cantium ciuium gratiam spernens . coeuntes cum madi|anitis perculit . et iram domini iratus placauit · Hinc | per semetipsam ueritas dicit · Nolite arbitrari quia | uenerim pacem mittere in terram . non ueni pacem mit|tere sed gladium · Malorum namque cum incaute ami|citiis iungimur . culpis ligamur · (Greg., Cura 3,22; cf. SC 382 410,103–9)
69. coeuntesgehivvende (fol. 67r, l. 1, interlinear)
70. arbitraritrahtdon (fol. 67r, l. 3, interlinear)
the glosses translate the complex Latin passive construction consisting of two clauses with a simpler subjunctive syntagm, containing a subject macman with an attributive genitive object ubilis gesellen, and a copula construction siehcvverden; the predicative siehc is nominally declined (cf. Braune §247.2b); the gloss is positioned between the two lines of the Latin sentences, therefore, the glosses are not vertically linked to specific lemmas; the OHG word order still seems to be based on the Latin word order.
Admonendi sunt enim qui sacrę legis uerba non recte | intelligunt . ut perpendant quia saluberrimum uini potvm | inueneni sibi poculum uertunt . ac per medicinale | ferrum uulnere mortali se feriunt . dum per hoc in se | sana perimunt . per quod salubriter abscidere sauciata | debuerunt · (Greg., Cura 3,24; cf. SC 382 418,6–420,11)
72. ꝑ́imuntslahent · (fol. 69r, l. 14, interlinear)
3rd pers pl pres ind act strv slahan (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 555) ‘töten’ = ‘to kill’
Frumentum quippe a domino accipimus . quando in dictis | obscurioribus . subducto tegmine literę . per medullam | spiritus . legis interna sentimus . (Greg., Cura 3,24; cf. SC 382 422,48–51)
74. subductoabegezogenemo · (fol. 69v, l. 22, marginal)
Audiant quod sponsi | eloquio ad sponsam dicitur . Quę habitas in hortis ami|ci . ausculta fac me audire uocem tuam · Ęcclesia quip|pe in hortis habitat . quę ad uiriditatem intimam | exculta plantaria uirtutum seruat . (Greg., Cura 3,25; cf. SC 382 432,67–70)
75. ? ausculta. zuloseno . (fol. 72r, l. 7, marginal)
76. plantaria.i. flanzunga . (fol. 72r, l. 9, interlinear)
In ciuitate quippe considemus . si intra mentium | nostrarum nos claustra constringimus . ne loquendo exterius |euagemur . Vt cum uirtute diuina perfecte induimur . tunc | quasi a nobismetipsis foras etiam alios instruentes exeamus . (Greg., Cura 3,25; cf. SC 382 436,118–22)
77. evagem̃vvadelon (fol. 72v, l. 29, interlinear)
Hinc est quod idem re|demptor noster cum in cęlis sit conditor . et ostensio|ne suę potentię semper doctor angelorum . ante | tricenale tempus in terra magister fieri noluit ho|minum . ut uidelicet praecipitatis uim saluberrimi ti|moris infunderet . cum ipse etiam qui labi non posset . | perfectę uitę gratiam non nisi perfecta ętate praedicaret . (Greg., Cura 3,25; cf. SC 382 436,124–30)
78. p̄cipitatisgahen (fol. 73r, l. 7, interlinear)
Quia uidelicet reprobi cum recta opera diuinis muneribus non | rependunt . cum totos hic se deserunt et afluentibus | prosperitatibus dimittunt . unde exterius proficiunt . | inde ab intimis cadunt . (Greg., Cura 3,26; cf. SC 382 442,72–5)
79. dimittuntcelazent . (fol. 74v, l. 6, interlinear)
Quem igitur cęlibem curarum sęcu|larium impedimentum praepedit . et coniugio se nequaquam sub|didit . et tamen coniugii onera non euasit · (Greg., Cura 3,27; cf. SC 382 454,130–2)
80. cęlibem· ungehiden · (fol. 77r, l. 15, interlinear)
Et quia cum mens | a culpa resipiscit . addicitur . atque admissum flere co|natur . corruptor autem spes ac securitates uacuas an|te oculos uocat, quatenus humilitatem tristicię sub|trahat . recte illic adiungitur . tristemque blandiens | deliniuit · (Greg., Cura 3,29; cf. SC 382 472,56–60)
81. addicit̃geruogetvvirdit · (fol. 80v, l. 25, marginal)
uninfl past part wv ruogen (AWB 7,1256) ‘anklagen’ = ‘to accuse’
3rd pers sg ind act strv uuerdan (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 712) ‘werden’ = ‘to become’
Latin synthetic passive is translated with OHG analytic passive with auxiliary uuerdan; the two glosses stand next to each other without a gap; the participle precedes the auxiliary.
Nonnum|quam uero ita mens baratro temptationis absorbetur . ut nvl|latenus renitatur . sed ex deliberatione sequitur hoc . unde | ex delectatione pulsatur · (Greg., Cura 3,29; cf. SC 382 472,74–6)
82. baratroloke (fol. 81r, l. 13, interlinear)
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,199,7: ‘Baratro vverbin’
83. ex deliƀationefonebemeineda (fol. 81r, l. 14, interlinear)
Ammonendi sunt | qui admissa plangunt . nec tamen deserunt . ut ante | districti iudicis oculos eis se esse similes agnoscant . | qui uenientes ad faciem quorundam hominum magna | eis summissione blandiuntur . recedentes autem . inimici|cias ac damna quę ualent atrociter inferunt · (Greg., Cura 3,30; cf. SC 382 478,37–41)
84. summissioneunderdani (fol. 82r, l. 28, interlinear)
Hinc | est enim quod pharisęis dicitur · liquantesculicem ca|melum autem glucientes · Ac si aperte diceretur . minima | mala discernitis . maiora deuoratis · Hinc est quod | rursum ore ueritatis increpantur cum audiunt · | Decimatis mentam et anetum et ciminum . et relinqve|tis quę grauiora sunt legis · (Greg., Cura 3,33; cf. SC 382 502,53–8)
85. liquantessmelcendo (fol. 87r, l. 19, interlinear)
instr sg m pres part wv smelzen (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 562) ‘klären’ = ‘to clarify’ the instr case was used to translate a Latin acc; the gloss could form a syntagm with gloss 86 flohc but both glosses are written with a large space inbetween; it is also possible to interpret the gloss as adv smelzento which would be a Hapax legomenon and could be translated as ‘durch Klären (einer Flüssigkeit)’ = ‘through clarifying (liquid)’.
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,199,8: ‘Liquantes sihinte’
the interpretament is otherwise attested to translate Latin pulix (cf. AWB 3,992), while culicem is usually translated with str w f noun mugga (cf. AWB 6,817, see also parallel gloss in Basel ms.), flohc is therefore possibly a mistranslation; ‑c was corrected from ‑o.
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,199,28: ‘Culicem muccun’
87. mentãminzun · (fol. 87r, l. 23, interlinear)
acc sg w f noun minza (AWB 6,639) ‘Minze’ = ‘mint’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,199,30: ‘Mentam minzun’
88. anetũdille · (fol. 87r, l. 23, interlinear)
acc sg str m noun tilli (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 625) ‘Dill’ = ‘dill’
d‑ is WGmc /d/ which was at the word beginning not shifted to /t/ in Middle and Rhine Franconian (Braune §163).
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,199,32: ‘Anetum tẏlle’
89. ciminũcinemin · (fol. 87r, l. 23, interlinear)
acc sg str m noun cinamîn (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 763) ‘Zimt’ = ‘cinnamon’
cf. B. V. 21 (Basel, UB), StSG 2,199,34: ‘Ciminum chumi’
Cum uero praua estimatio in quantum sine | peccato ualet . ab intuentium mente non tergitur . cunctis | mala credentibus per exemplum culpa propinatur . (Greg., Cura 3,35; cf. SC 382 516,79–518,81)
90. ꝓpinaturgescencgetvvirdit · (fol. 90v, l. 18, marginal)
uninfl past part wv skenken (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 537) ‘verbreiten’ = ‘to spread’
3rd pers sg ind act strv uuerdan (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 712) ‘werden’ = ‘to become’
‑cg‑ is not an attested spelling for /k/ but for the geminates Franconian /gg/ or Upper German /kk/ (cf. Braune §148 A.3, §149 A.7c), it must therefore be a spelling mistake; the Latin synthetic passive was translated with an OHG analytic passive with past part and auxiliary; the gloss is marginal and has a reference marker leading to the lemma; both glosses were written without space inbetween, emphasising the close syntactic relation of the glosses; the auxiliary is positioned after the past part, see also gloss 64.
Surdo quippe male|dicere . est absenti ac non audienti derogare . Coram | cęco vero offendiculum ponere . est discretam quidem | rem agere . sed tamen ei qui lumen discretionis non habet . | scandali occasionem praebere . (Greg., Cura 3,35; cf. SC 382 518,94–8)
91. derogarebissprachon · (fol. 91r, l. 2, interlinear)
inf bisprâhhôn (Ahd. Gl.‑Wb. p. 60) ‘verleumden’ = ‘to defame’
Et grauis quidem praedicatori labor est . | in communis praedicationis uoce ad occultos | singulorum motvs causasque uigilare . et palestri|tarum more in diuersi lateris arte se uertere . multo | tamen acriori labore fatigatur . quando uni e contrariis | uiciis seruienti praedicare compellitur . (Greg., Cura 3,37; cf. SC 382 522,3–8)
92. palestritarū. dumare . (fol. 91v, l. 14, interlinear)
Cui iam torpenti seductor callidus omne | quod bene gessit enumerat . eamque quasi prae cęteris | praepollentem in tumore cogitationis exaltat . (Greg., Cura 4; cf. SC 382 534,39–41)
93. p̄pollentē· díhendā· (fol. 94r, l. 6, marginal)
AWB = Karg-Gasterstädt, E., Frings, T., Grosse, R., & Schmid, H.-U. (1952–). Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Aufgrund der von Elias von Steinmeyer hinterlassenen Sammlungen im Auftrag der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Elisabeth Karg-Gasterstädt und Theodor Frings.
BMZ = Benecke, G.F., Müller, W., & Zarncke, F. (1854–66): Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Stuttgart: Hirzel.
Braune = Braune, W. & Heidermanns, F. (2018): Althochdeutsche Grammatik. I. Laut‑ und Formenlehre. 16th ed. Boston: DeGruyter.
Franck = Franck, J. (1909): Altfränkische Grammatik. Laut‑ und Flexionslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
SC 381 = Judic, B., Rommel, F. & Morel, C. (1992): Grégoire le Grand. Règle Pastorale. Tome I. Sources Chrétiennes 381. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
SC 382 = Judic, B., Rommel, F. & Morel, C. (1992): Grégoire le Grand. Règle Pastorale. Tome II. Sources Chrétiennes 382. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
StSG 2 = Steinmeyer, E. v., & Sievers, E. (1882): Die althochdeutschen Glossen. Glossen zu nichtbiblischen Schriften. Vol. 2. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Weinhold A = Weinhold, K. (1863): Alemannische Grammatik. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmler.
Participants from all over the world were able to participate thanks to the hybrid conference format, accessible online as well as in person. To allow all participants the same close-up insights into the materiality of the valuable and fragile manuscripts, the workshop opened with a presentation of the manuscript MS. Junius 25. Due to the excellent equipment of the Bodleian Library, it came to life in the expert hands of the curators, who turned the pages and the whole volume as real-time reaction to questions and requests from the audience, who were introduced to the material and linguistic peculiarities of the rare object. The speakers present at Oxford had the chance to consult and discuss the original manuscripts beforehand.
Over the course of further sessions, scholars from different research communities came together and presented their work on linguistics, pragmatics and material studies. Combining different disciplines resulted in a comprehensive survey of the use and characteristics of vernacular in the Early Middle Ages, including Old High German, Old Frisian and Old English. The theoretical insights were put into practice in a Latin-Old High German compline, which demonstrated how the oldest variety of the German language could be brought back to life. For the first time in history, the glosses of the Murbach hymns were set to music, among other Old High German texts read during the service. The workshop was brought to a close with a consultation of further glossed manuscripts of the Bodleian Library (MS. Auct. F. 1. 16, MS. Rawl. C. 697, MS. Canon. Pat. Lat. 57), partly neither digitised nor edited, which put the focus again on the object – the foundation of historical linguistic studies.
The event was designed as a workshop and was intended to allow the participants to interact with each other and develop ideas collectively. Extended breaks were included in which discussions could continue in person as well as online. This opportunity was used by many, despite sessions already overrunning to address all questions. During the sessions, breakout groups allowed smaller groups of participants to share their thoughts before entering the main discussion, enabling equal contributions from listeners and speakers and leading to lively participation.
The interdisciplinary approach to early vernacular and the workshop format worked well, as the high numbers of registrations and intense and vibrant discussions showed. The workshop brought the exciting text and manuscript of the Murbach hymns back into the focus of linguistic research.
We hope to deepen the collaborations established during the event and continue the debates about the status of the vernacular in the Early Middle Ages in future, exploring the interdisciplinary approach further and testing it on other material from the rich collections of Oxford and beyond.
I want to thank all participants and supporters of this workshop, above all the speakers (in order of their presentations): Prof. Dr Daniela Mairhofer (Princeton); Prof. Dr Michael Stolz (Bern); Dr Elke Krotz (Vienna); Dr Matthias Standke (Berlin); Prof. Dr Alderik Blom (Marburg); Dr Helen Gittos (Oxford); Prof. em. Dr Elvira Glaser (Zurich); Prof. Dr Stephan Müller (Vienna).
I also want to thank the team of the Bodleian Libraries, Dr Alexandra Franklin, Dr Matthew Holford and Dr Andrew Dunning; Tom Revell, who produced this event; James Whitbourn, who set the Murbach hymns to music, and the St Edmund Consort, who performed the compline; and Will Thurlwell, Prof. Dr Howard Jones and Prof. Dr Henrike Lähnemann, who supported the workshop in person.
This webinar (17th/18th of February 2022) centres around the Murbach hymns, a Latin hymnal with Old High German interlinear glosses from the ninth century, whose manuscript and textual context will be examined, as well as, on a wider scale, the use and function of vernacular language in the early Middle Ages. The manuscript MS. Junius 25 and other glossed manuscripts from the Bodleian Library will be presented and analysed, giving the audience the opportunity to view these valuable objects up close. In three discussion sessions, the materiality of the manuscripts and their content will be set in context with each other, drawing a connection between the object and its use. The focus will initially be on the texts of MS. Junius 25. In further sessions, the use of vernacular language in different cultural contexts and the emergence and function of (vernacular) glosses will be explored.
PROGRAMME All times are GMT.
Thursday, 17 February 2022
2-3 pm: Meet the Manuscript: MS. Junius 25 and the Murbach Hymnal
What? In this workshop, the fascinating Murbach hymns – a Latin hymnal with Old High German interlinear glosses from the 8/9th century – and their manuscript (Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Junius 25) will be carefully examined regarding their translation technique, use and function, cultural background and transmission. Expect an afternoon full of presentations and discussions, a peek in the original manuscript and a live recitation of the hymns.