› bitstream › handle › ... · web view chinca and christopher young. responsible philology....
TRANSCRIPT
Mark Chinca and Christopher Young
Responsible Philology
Editing the Kaiserchronik in the Digital Age
Abstract: This essay considers the problem of normalized orthography in critical
editions of Middle High German texts. Whether the orthographical conventions that
crystallized in nineteenth-century philology present a reliable picture of medieval
manuscript spelling is a question that has long been debated by editors and historians
of the German language. It becomes all the more urgent, however, now that digital
reproductions afford direct access to manuscripts. Drawing on their experience of
producing both a digital and an analog print edition of the Kaiserchronik, the authors
of this essay advocate a print spelling from which a certain amount of scribal variation
is filtered out, but always in such a way as to respect and reflect the writing system of
the medieval manuscript. They also suggest that this practice, although its results and
emphases are very different from the orthographies of Lachmann, Benecke, and
Grimm in the nineteenth century, nonetheless shares with its predecessors the
conviction that any representation of scribal writing practices in the typographical
medium of print must bring its readers into contact with some aspect of the historical
linguistic reality. This, the authors contend, is one of the main tasks for a responsible
editorial philology in the digital age.
1. Introduction
Was there a standardized literary language in medieval Germany? The question of the
so-called Middle High German (MHG) “Dichtersprache” cuts to the heart of literary
endeavor in the Blütezeit, the period that witnessed the major flowering of medieval
German literature ca. 1170-1230. Did poets of such regionally diverse origins as the
Swabian Hartmann von Aue (fl. ca. 1170-1210) and the Austrian Walther von der
Vogelweide (fl. ca. 1180-1230) compose their works in a uniform, supraregional form
of the German language? Such uniformity as may be observed is distributed
differently across the various subsystems of literary language. Correspondences are
particularly close on the levels of register, style, and vocabulary—not least in loans
from Old French—whereas greater regional traces are detectable in the phonology
1
and morphology. Poets from the north, whose native language was Low German,
composed almost exclusively in High German, showing that the latter was understood
and accepted at courts in northern Germany, and all poets—High German ones
included—avoided rhymes they knew would not function outside their own linguistic
region.1 As Thomas Klein shrewdly observed over thirty years ago, precisely this
technique of avoidance proved that there was no genuine supraregional language that
poets could rely on ca. 1200;2 Klein later returned to erode the edifice further by
arguing that Low German authors had been orientating themselves towards High
German much earlier in the twelfth century than the emergence of the so-called
“Dichtersprache,” and done so, moreover, on the basis of its Central rather than Upper
German variety.3
The question of the “Dichtersprache” also has far-reaching implications for
editorial practice. Most modern editions of MHG literary works use a normalized
orthography, which evolved in the early nineteenth century and is largely associated
with the philologist Karl Lachmann (1793-1851). Lachmann’s goal was to uncover
both the literary koine of the German Middle Ages and the individual author’s
original through careful consideration of the manuscript transmission. Following the
Giessen manuscript of Hartmann’s Iwein (Giessen, University Library, Ms 97, second
quarter of the 13th century), he settled on a set of principles (e.g. the resolution of
superscripts, a diacritic denoting vowel length, differential marking of short and long
mutated vowels) which, after codification in nineteenth-century dictionaries, still
holds sway. Even today, editions of works from the Blütezeit which are transmitted in
late medieval manuscripts are often normalized back across several centuries into
Lachmann’s early thirteenth-century norm, thus both obscuring and obstructing the
history of the language and giving the editor a great deal of leeway in the construction
of a text that is nowhere preserved in the form into which it is being cast.
Doubts about the validity of Lachmann’s orthographical principles have
grown, and perplex editors, who nevertheless find it difficult to abandon the norm, so
entrenched has it become. As Thomas Klein has noted: “Today this dubious paradigm
is mostly either rejected outright or treated at least with skepticism, and yet somehow
it manages to remain in handbooks and people’s minds.”4 The problem is only
exacerbated by the increased interest in, and availability via digital media of,
2
manuscripts in the last few decades, which has given rise to “a more or less openly
expressed mistrust of Lachmann’s MHG Dichtersprache, without the debate about the
pros and cons of the matter ever being reopened.”5
This mistrust has been picked up recently by Florian Kragl, in the first full-
length research article on the normalization of MHG orthography for several decades.
Discussions of the theory of text-editing among German medievalists have largely
ignored spelling in favor of semantics and content; Kragl records moreover that after
a brief period of adhering more closely to the orthography of the base manuscripts in
the wake of New Philology, editors have overwhelmingly returned to Lachmann’s
norms.6 The list of authors and texts is stark testimony to a discipline caught in a trap
of its own making: Gottfried’s Tristan, Hartmann’s Erec and Iwein, Wolfram’s
Parzival, and poets such as Walther, Reinmar and Morungen, to name only a few.7
Like Klein, Kragl questions the practice of scholars who implement a linguistic norm
that they know to be illusionary and do so—almost exclusively8—with both a sense of
resignation and a feeble gesture to a student audience that would, apparently,
otherwise be unable to read the language.
Kragl has thrown down the gauntlet to all who edit MHG texts. In this essay,
we take up the challenge, but extend his question further, asking: not only how we
should edit medieval works in full knowledge of the manuscript base, but also how
we produce a critical printed edition alongside the digitization of that manuscript
base? This latter is a dimension that Kragl leaves untouched, yet it is of vital
importance for those who edit today. Kragl’s insouciance towards the digital is
symptomatic of a disjuncture in German thinking about the relationship between
manuscripts, their online presentation and edited texts, which we have experienced
when talking about our own work in recent years: our long-term Kaiserchronik
project, which will be the first work in medieval German to be edited simultaneously
within the different parameters of online and print. We have been advised by various
experts either to normalize (since the manuscripts will be available online) or to
replicate the text of the base manuscript (again, since the manuscripts will be
available online). Neither view is satisfactory: the former because it uses twenty-first-
century technology to justify the continued, unreflected use of nineteenth-century
solutions; the latter because it essentially allows that technology to render the modern
3
editor obsolete. As electronic media have become increasingly embedded in academic
pursuits, it is time the discipline addressed itself seriously to the relationship between
the old and the new.
The Kaiserchronik is an excellent place to begin this re-consideration.
Composed in mid-twelfth-century Bavaria, it is the first verse chronicle in any
vernacular and comprises some 17,000 lines that recount the reigns of thirty-six
Roman and nineteen German emperors. It exists in three recensions (A, composed,
probably in Regensburg, ca. 1150; B also in Bavaria, ca. 1200; and C, likewise, ca.
1250) of which there are fifty manuscripts, making it one of the most important works
of the German Middle Ages. Our print edition will be a synoptic one of all three
recensions, with an English translation of A and a critical apparatus of A, B, and C. It
will be accompanied by a website at Heidelberg University Library that will comprise
digitizations and transcriptions of all manuscripts and, via a Lichtpultfunktion, allow
multiple comparisons within and across the recensions.9
Scholarship has relied on Edward Schröder’s late nineteenth-century edition,
which contains the text of A only. Apart from the lack of the other two recensions,
this edition is considered robust, as Mathias Herweg’s recent reproduction of extracts
from it evinces. Yet two questions remain. How should we edit a text that was
composed fifty years before the Blütezeit, on which Lachmann’s linguistic norm was
based, and transmitted moreover in a base manuscript (Vorau, Stiftsbibliothek Codex
276) that also predates it? And how, when thinking of such pre-classical orthography,
do we conceive of it in such a way as to do justice to the massive electronic apparatus
that will accompany it and be used by future readers in as yet indeterminate ways—as
its minor, major or equal partner?
This essay will explore these issues with reference to the A text. It will return,
first, to the aims of the philological pioneers of the nineteenth century, whose work
has been often misunderstood; it will proceed to a thorough examination of
Schröder’s editorial practice, which—again—is misconstrued by scholars today,
paradoxically as near-exemplary; and it will go on to scrutinize the orthographic
inventory of the base manuscript. The conclusion will expand on our contention that
such attention to old philology should be seen as vital to editors in the age of new
philology and digital humanities.
4
2. The nineteenth-century origins of German philology
It is common for medievalists nowadays to reject Lachmann’s editorial method out of
hand, without however appreciating his seminal accomplishments, and above all
without seeking first to understand the rationale for his method in the context of the
emergent field of German philology in the first half of the nineteenth century.10 Not
not only did Lachmann produce, in a period of just thirteen years between 1820 and
1833, the first critical editions of medieval German literature—a selection of
thirteenth-century poets, the Nibelungenlied and Klage, Hartmann’s Iwein, the lyrics
of Walther von der Vogelweide, Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival, Willehalm, and
Titurel—but he also translated Shakespeare’s sonnets and Macbeth; completed
Bentley’s plan for a critical edition of the New Testament (1831, and in a second
fuller edition 1842-1850); and produced new texts of Catullus (1829), Tibullus
(1829), Genesius (1834), Terentianus Maurus (1836), Babrius (1845), Avianus
(1845), Gaius (1841-1842), the Agrimensores Romani (1848-1852), and Lucretius
(1850). This is not to neglect his two late vernacular German undertakings
(Hartmann’s Gregorius and Ulrich von Lichtenstein’s Frauendienst and Frauenbuch),
influential studies (e.g. his habilitation thesis on the original form of the
Nibelungenlied, 1816), commentaries (e.g. Zu den Nibelungen und der Klage, 1836)
and posthumous editions (Lucilius, by Vahlen 1876).
Lachmann’s endeavor appears all the more formidable when set against the
context of German philology in the early nineteenth century. For together with his
Göttingen teacher Georg Friedrich Benecke (1762-1844), an expert in English and
German literature, and the polymath grammarian Jacob Grimm (1785-1863), he did
not so much establish an academic field as transform it in the act of making it.11
Central to the common pursuit of these three scholars was the desire to apply the
methods of biblical and classical philology to the study of medieval German language
and texts in a period when manuscripts were being discovered and subjected to
investigation by librarians and academics.
At a time when medieval German editions were either reprints of partially
corrected single manuscripts or simple modernizations, there was a genuine need for
methodological reflection. On the one hand, Bodmer and Breitinger had set the tone
5
in the mid-eighteenth century with their Sammlung von Minnesingern aus dem
schwaebischen Zeitpuncte CXL Dichter enthaltend (1758-59) and its precursor
Proben der alten schwäbischen Poesie des Dreyzehnten Jahrhunderts. Aus der
Maneßischen Sammlung (1748), which reproduced single witnesses without
punctuation or accurate division between strophes; Christoph Heinrich Müller
(occasionally Myller) produced serviceable copies, which sometimes depended on
questionable transcriptions by other parties; and other texts still, such as Casparson’s
Wilhelm, came from scholars whose paltry knowledge of MHG produced texts of
dubious quality. On the other hand, modernizers such as Johann Joachim Eschenburg
(Boner’s Edelstein, 1810) and Ludwig Tieck (Minnelieder aus dem Schwäbischen
Zeitalter, 1803) cloaked MHG in New High German (NHG) forms, and not always
without wrinkle. The most prominent and convoluted example was Friedrich Heinrich
von der Hagen’s Nibelungenlied, which underwent three editions between 1807 and
1816. The first was neither a translation nor a reproduction of the MHG text, with the
medieval lexicon appearing in NHG guise; the second, while aspiring to be critical,
returned to Müller’s single manuscript; and the third produced something approaching
a diplomatic transcription of the oldest surviving witness.
A step change was announced, if not immediately realized, by Benecke in his
review of the first edition of von der Hagen’s Nibelungenlied and the introduction to
his own Beyträge zur Kenntniss der altdeutschen Sprache und Literatur (1810).
Editions of Boner’s Edelstein and Wirnt von Grafenberg’s Wigalois based on several
manuscripts followed, with Benecke’s Boner, in particular, containing the tools—
glossary, short text extracts grammatical explanation, and cross reference to other
works—that enabled the first proper study of MHG literary language. By this stage,
he had been joined in Göttingen by the precocious and prodigious Lachmann who was
eager to introduce the central tenets of biblical scholarship to the medieval vernacular
—i.e. editing on the basis of the reconstruction of the text’s history achieved by an
examination of all manuscripts. If Lachmann was not the only scholar to have had
such thoughts, he was the first to pursue them with a singularity of purpose, working
his way through the MHG corpus to collect forms, rhymes, and usage that would form
a solid basis for editorial intervention. His own first edition, Auswahl aus den
hochdeutschen Dichtern des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts, a selection of MHG poetry for
classroom use in the Gymnasium in Königsberg, where he taught at school and
6
university before returning to a chair in Berlin, appeared in 1820—a year after the
publication of Benecke’s Wigalois edition and the first volume of Grimm’s Deutsche
Grammatik.
As these dates suggest, the emergence of the field was dynamic, and it would
remain so throughout the 1820s. The correspondence between the three scholars as
well as their reviews of one another’s works demonstrate how much they were
gaining from a febrile epoch of philological discovery. Benecke and Grimm, for
instance, solved mutual problems and corrected the other’s misapprehensions (e.g.
about the lack of inflection of the pronoun ir, the status of i-mutation, and the
declension of the defiinite article). Lachmann trawled urgently through his notes for a
day to disabuse Benecke of the notion that original /iu/ and the mutation of /û/ should
be differentiated orthographically. Grimm responded to Lachmann’s Walther edition
with a plea to rely less on fashionable and potentially soon obsolete metrical theory in
favor of grammatical knowledge, which, he said, had already been established for a
good five years.
Philological knowledge was a moving target. There was no dictionary of
MHG—only Benecke’s unpublished collection of lexicographical notes which, on the
evidence of his posthumous collaborators, were less rigorous than many had believed.
Having agreed to take on the supposedly straightforward job of preparing Benecke’s
collection for publication, Wilhelm Müller, who paid Benecke’s executors for the
privilege, and his assistant Friedrich Zarncke, found themselves lumbered with a
gargantuan task that they later lamented in a series of despairing forewords.12
Lachmann, Benecke’s first choice for the project, almost certainly knew better from
first hand, and turned down the opportunity. Until 1822, there was also no account of
MHG phonology. This did not arrive until the second edition of Grimm’s Deutsche
Grammatik, which added some 600 pages of phonological analysis of the Germanic
languages to the first volume, which had appeared in 1819 with only an examination
of the inflectional systems.
Work on Lachmann’s Auswahl had obviously been fast, furious and, for the
editor and his correspondents, fascinating. As he was aware himself, he was not
always consistent, and ideas changed as he worked: “There has been no lack of fervor,
certainly, or industry: but as knowledge accrues our own endeavors inevitably seem
7
less satisfactory from day to day.”13 Word separation and the marking of elision
through apostrophe were irregular. Punctuation was not always inserted. Three full
pages of grammatical corrections (e.g. strong for weak nouns) had to be appended to
the introduction. The appearance of Benecke’s Wigalois during his writing forced him
eventually to distinguish between /iu/ and /ü:/ (as opposed to running them together,
as in some manuscripts, under <u̍>)—a feature he could only correct, however, from
the eleventh gathering. And following correspondence with Grimm on his as yet
unpublished phonology, the glossary contained nuanced distinctions between vowel
qualities depending on stress, although these were not implemented in the edition.
While Lachmann, Benecke, and Grimm shared the same conviction that the
language of the German Middle Ages should be captured and rendered as accurately
as possible, they differed in their views as to what was achievable and why.
Orthography, therefore, was a contested issue between them—particularly in the
1820s. As their conversations continued, contradictions in their respective convictions
were gradually leveled. Sometimes this resulted simply from compromise, e.g. when
in 1820 Lachmann gave up writing <k> at the end of words against the usage of both
Benecke and Grimm, “basically so as not to stand alone.”14 There was also a reduction
of elaboration: the complexities of Grimm’s phonology, adopted for the glossary of
Lachmann’s Auswahl, disappeared from his editions through the rest of the 1820s.
And by the time of the Wolfram edition in 1833, Lachmann had definitely decided to
settle for the less complicated status quo: “It seemed best to me to settle without
artificiality for the MHG orthography that we have established in recent years ... e.g.
the marking of all long vowels, the strict distinction of mutated vowels, the separation
of <k> and <ch>. For this orthography delivers what one can expect of it.”15
It is important to register that the orthography of MHG which a few decades
later became codified in the Benecke-Müller-Zarncke dictionary (BMZ) and which
prevails as the standard to the present day emerged in the 1820s on the basis of
historical grammar, a forensic study of manuscripts, a detailed knowledge of usage
and rhyme, as well as discussion, compromise, and accommodation—rather than
simply by diktat or, as is too often assumed, by a mere desire to present MHG as
easily as possible to the lay reader (even if the second edition of Lachmann’s Iwein,
for which he was joined as co-editor by Benecke, might give rise to that impression).16
8
It is equally vital though, for the purposes of this essay, to understand the reasoning
behind the positions taken up by Benecke, Lachmann, and Grimm on the way to this
norm, and how these changed in emphasis over the formative years of the subject.
In short: Benecke championed the documentary character of the manuscripts,
Grimm the etymology of phonemes, and Lachmann pronunciation.17 Benecke and
Grimm represented polar opposites, Benecke privileging the witness of the
manuscripts, Grimm the abstract language system that might be extrapolated from
them:
Benecke: “I confess that my orthography does not consider the novice at all;
rather I seek to follow what appears to me most desirable when applying any
writing system to a language. Neither too much nor too little ... We must
reproduce faithfully and authentically what we find in the language. We
should improve nothing, drawing from neither an earlier nor a later period.”18
Grimm: “Whatever is there in the language itself should be reproduced
faithfully and authentically ... Whatever is there in the language itself, not in
manuscripts, which are by turn good or bad or, if we only want to take good
ones (which is a relative concept), display infinite degrees of goodness. The
comparison of many good manuscripts, drawing on older and younger ones,
and ultimately attention to rhymes will allow us to see to the core of the
language itself—from what we attain this way we can draw out a general
rule.”19
Grimm used linguistic comparison, particularly with Old High German (OHG), to
help determine the underlying MHG language he believed the manuscripts to be
revealing; whereas Benecke considered it impossible to determine linguistic change
with such precision that the manuscript forms and their rendition with diplomatic
accuracy could be abandoned. For Benecke, recording what scribes actually wrote
was as important as figuring out what system lay behind it.
Lachmann’s priority was different again. Not only did he wish to produce a
text that was as close as possible to the author’s original in content, but—influenced
by the Italian humanist philologist Leonardo Salviati (1540-1589)—one that scanned
9
and sounded as if straight from the author’s mouth. Lachmann’s thinking about how
to achieve this altered over time, and his early principle “to introduce an archaic but
exact spelling”20 turned out to be more flexible in practice than it first appeared. The
gap between the text of the Auswahl and its more sophisticated glossary is a case in
point. And despite the latter being influenced by Grimm, Lachmann’s inclination was
to stay close to his teacher Benecke. The manuscripts seemingly contained enough
evidence to suggest that pronunciation was “oscillating,” and this being so, the editor
was to stay close to his source and alter only with extreme caution:
Now there is altogether so much oscillation in the orthography that I am loath
to abandon the firm footing of the manuscripts. My basic rule, therefore, is
only to deviate from them where I think I can prove the author had a different
spelling, or where the spelling of the manuscript is clumsy and can be altered
without changing the pronunciation.21
By 1826, the “oscillation of pronunciation” had led him to an apparent volte-
face on the issue of “precision”: “I don't like to be absolutely precise when it comes to
certain small matters (Kleinigkeiten) of orthography and punctuation.”22 The operative
word here is “Kleinigkeiten.” For at the same time, Lachmann’s interests also
resonated with Grimm’s. Both, after all, wanted to get beneath the surface of the
manuscript, and both shared a distrust of scribes. In the introduction to the Auswahl,
Lachmann had already sought to convince Benecke that the oldest manuscript was not
necessarily the most reliable, listing a series of stylistic and grammatical infelicities in
the Cologne manuscript of Wigalois, and concluding:
For we are agreed that, with the exception of a very few dialectal details, the
poets of the thirteenth century spoke a distinct invariant High German, while
uneducated scribes permitted to themselves other forms of the common
language, which were in part older, in part corrupt.23
This sentiment was reasserted to the point of principle in the first edition of his
Iwein and seven years later in his Parzival. As early as 1822, in fact, Lachmann had
begun to seek out the works that would give best access to the language that poets
spoke and scribes in his view habitually disfigured. His initial search took him to
Wolfram, Walther, and Hartmann, but further investigation persuaded him to
10
concentrate on the latter. Hartmann’s comparative “regularity” and the state of the
best manuscripts would allow him to distill the underlying structure of the poetic
language of the age. For this, a relatively conservative orthography, based closely on
the manuscripts, suited the task. Thus the views of Benecke (who would join him as
co-editor of the second edition of Iwein) and Grimm could be combined.24 Having set
these parameters, Lachmann could nonetheless be flexible when it came to the
practice of capturing the poet’s voice. He had drawn criticism from Grimm about his
overly confident intervention on grounds of meter, and did so again for his view that
Wolfram’s language changed during the long gestation of a work on the scale of
Parzival. Manuscript evidence led him to admit limited spelling variation to reflect
this belief.
Lachmann was therefore a pragmatist, a philologist of the highest order, and a
Romantic idealist. His decisions were made on the basis of painstaking and extensive
groundwork. He knew when the means were proportionate, if not perfect—the MHG
orthography being “completely commensurate with pronunciation, even if it could not
capture all of the finer nuances equally well”25 And he strove “to produce the original,
without any expectation of complete success.”26 Like his major interlocutors, he saw
in the language of the manuscripts a task to be solved. It is hardly his failing if the
solution he devised for a narrow set of authors in a narrow time period became
institutionalized in German philology through the MHG dictionaries and the influence
of Neogrammarians in the second half of the nineteenth century, and through the
publishers and the university seminars they serve in the twentieth. They have missed
his intent (even if we no longer share it) and disregarded his flexibility (even if it is
limited).
If Lachmann saw the manuscripts as a task and the edition as an accumulation
of the editor's endeavors to render these in simpler form, the doyen of post-1945
German philology, Karl Stackmann, reversed the poles in his seminal essay of 1964,
“Mittelalterliche Texte als Aufgabe.” Lachmann’s luster had long since diminished.
This was partly due to the obvious discrepancy between his principle that the editor
should follow objective rules and his practice of indulging considerable discretion,
(particularly for metrical purposes); and partly because the lack of explanatory notes
—Lachmann wrote for intelligent lay readers who would gratefully accept his
11
expertise rather than for experts who could in any case find their own way round
manuscripts—fell short of academic scrutiny. But it was mainly the recognition that it
was futile for an editor to try to reconstruct the author’s original that had cast his
method into doubt. This method, moreover, could only work under very specific
conditions.27
Yet, as Stackmann argued, this was no reason to give up on the idea of
producing a critical text. In the early twentieth century, the Old French scholar Joseph
Bédier set a new trend with his insistence that only by editing a single manuscript
with minimum intervention could scholars establish requisite objectivity. Stackmann,
however, took up Lachmann’s mantle in revised form, and showed how, with
appropriate controls, it was nevertheless possible to produce a text that was “better
than the best” available manuscript. Editions, Stackmann proposed, should: be based
on a full knowledge of the transmission; rely on a base manuscript; clearly mark all
deviations from this manuscript; and contain an apparatus that explained major
variants and where the text had come from a lectio difficilior. Stackmann’s creed has
held sway in German philology for over half a century, and not surprisingly he gave
an authoritative and robust response to New Philology in the 1990s. Tantalizingly, on
the matter of orthography, Stackmann was cautious, bracketing out a full discussion,
and noting simply: “Since practically no one believes any more that it is possible to
reconstitute a medieval author’s personal language in all its particulars, we shall have
to adopt, wherever possible, the cautiously normalized usage of a base manuscript.”28
3. The Monumenta Germaniae Historica and Schröder’s
Kaiserchronik edition
Stackmann presented his general principles as a belated adjustment of Lachmann’s
method to the challenge posed for text-editing by Bédier. Yet the style of editing he
advocated, in which both the critical text and the linguistic norm are oriented to a base
manuscript, already had a tradition in Germany that reached back to the founding
period of philology in the early nineteenth century. It was not, however, practiced on
poetic works, but on historical sources from the Middle Ages. Georg Heinrich Pertz
(1795-1876), the first editor of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), the
series of primary sources for German history before ca. 1500, argued that the text of
12
every historical source must be established on the basis of the “best manuscript,”
which for him meant the one that analysis of the entire transmission revealed to be the
most reliable witness to the original version. Pertz’s principles were incorporated into
the editorial guidelines formally adopted by the MGH in 1824: each source was to be
critically edited on the basis of the manuscript or manuscripts that were considered to
transmit the original text most faithfully; manuscript spelling was to be retained,
except for the use of <u>, <v>, and <w> and capital letters, which was to be
normalized according to modern typographical conventions; modern punctuation was
to be introduced, except in editions of charters.29 These principles evidently envisaged
a Lachmannian recensio of the transmission, in order to determine manuscript
filiations and the proximity of each surviving witness to the archetype and the
original; the difference was the expectation that the linguistic form of the edited text
should be oriented to scribal usage in a base manuscript or group of manuscripts.
The 1824 guidelines were extremely general and left room for a range of
editorial approaches and solutions in practice. Nowhere is this more apparent than in
the editions of vernacular German chronicles that were published in the MGH
“Deutsche Chroniken” series in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Where the source in question was transmitted in a unique manscript, the only issue for
the editor was how far to normalize the scribal language over and above the minimal
changes expressly mandated by the guidelines. At one extreme, Carl Kraus’s edition
of the Trierer Silvester reproduced the digraphs <uͦ> and <vͦ> of the manuscript
fragments rather than replace them with the modern typographical symbols that had
become conventional philological notation for the several MHG phonemes they may
represent; at the other end of the spectrum, Hans Naumann’s text of the Kreuzfahrt
des Landgrafen Ludwigs des Frommen von Thüringen normalized the manuscript
spelling very considerably. In the case of sources transmitted in multiple manuscripts,
the editor invariably performed a Lachmannian recensio in order to determine the
relationship of the extant manuscripts to the archetype and orginal of the work, but
exercised considerable freedom when deciding how to treat the linguistic form of the
chosen base manuscript. Sometimes, as with Ludwig Weiland’s Sächsische
Weltchronik, where the Middle Low German manuscript presented little difficulty of
transposition into the modern print alphabet, the scribal language was only moderately
normalized; in other editions (the works of Jans Enikel; the Österreichische Chronik
13
von den 95 Herrschaften) it was far more extensively standardized in the direction of
typographical Middle High German; in one case, that of the Limburger Chronik,
whose best manuscript is from the sixteenth century, the original language of the
fourteenth-century author was restored on the basis of extant charters known to have
been written by him.
Edward Schröder’s edition of the Kaiserchronik appeared in the “Deutsche
Chroniken” series in 1892. So far as establishing the text was concerned, Schröder
followed the established MGH practice of Lachmannian recensio in order to
determine the base manuscript and also the principles for emending it whenever it
seemed to him that another branch of the transmission preserved the original text
more faithfully.30 The manuscript on which his edition is based—Vorau,
Stiftsbibliothek Codex 276—dates from the last quarter of the twelfth century; it is the
oldest of the surviving manucripts that transmit the complete text of the
Kaiserchronik. Three scribes were involved in copying the chronicle: the main scribe,
who was responsible for almost all of the text; a second, near-contemporary hand who
added corrections in-text and marginally, and a third, later hand, who recopied the
outer leaves of the first and twelfth quires, which must have become worn from use;
the written language of the text is regionally Bavarian.31 When it came to deciding the
external form of his critical text, Schröder declared that he would take scribal usage as
his guide, in conformity with the editorial principles of the MGH, rather than impose
any of the standardized versions of the language then in use among editors:
So far as the outward form of the text is concerned, the Vorau Manuscript
(which is close in time and place to the original) by and large preserves the
guise of the original so faithfully that I have preferred to tolerate a part of its
irregularities (thereby remaining true to the well-established principle of the
Monumenta Germaniae) and not sought by normalizing to achieve a form that
would inevitably have divested the work of its character of belonging to a
transitional period, and made it appear either too archaic or too modern.32
On careful reading, the statement is not a declaration against all normalization and in
favor of reproducing every aspect of the manuscript orthography. (Note that Schröder
says he tolerated only “part” of its “irregularities.”) Rather, it is a declaration against
extreme forms of normalization that would have resulted in a text that looked either
14
too archaic for a mid twelfth-century work such as the Kaiserchronik, or too modern.
The former would have been the outcome if Schröder had aligned the spelling and
grammatical forms of his text with a canonical earlier author such as Notker III of St
Gallen (ca. 950-1022);33 the latter would have been the result if he had adopted the
norms of Lachmann’s editions, which are based on literary language around the turn
of the thirteenth century.
In actual fact, Schröder intervened in the manuscript language to an extent that
went considerably beyond the minimal changes provided for in the MGH guidelines.
Although his critical text retains a degree of scribal variation (for example, the
spellings of initial and medial /k/ as either <k> or <ch> and of final /g/ as <c>, <k>,
or <ch>), Schröder performed a normalization, especially in the representation of
vowels, that was not very far from Lachmann’s standard: the scribal digraphs <oͮ>,
<uͦ>, <vͦ>, and <wͦ> are replaced by monophthongal or diphthongal graphs in line with
the conventions of typographical MHG; long vowels are consistently distinguished
from short by the addition of a circumflex;34 the scribe’s “more or less unsteady”
representation of the high front and back vowel sounds of MHG is replaced by the
univocal system of graphs used by Lachmann, the Grimms, and the standard
dictionaries: <i> and <u> for the short monophthongs, <î> and <û> for their long
equivalents, and <ie> and <uo> for the diphthongs.35
The principal area of vowel spelling where Schröder chose not to implement
Lachmannian norms was i-mutation: a combinatory sound change involving the
palatalization (fronting and raising) of stressed vowels when they are followed by an
unstressed short or long /i/ or by the semivowel /j/ (thus OHG gasti, nom. pl. > MHG
geste “strangers”; OHG skônî > MHG schœne “beauty”; OHG skarjo > MHG scherge
“messenger, usher”).36 Although the sound change was likely complete well before
the beginning of the MHG linguistic period ca. 1050, consistent marking of all
palatalized vowels and diphthongs became the rule in written German only from the
thirteenth century;37 versions of the scribal graphs provide the basis of the
typographical conventions for representing MHG i-mutation that have been
established in philology from the time of Lachmann and the Grimms: <e>, <ä>, and
<æ> for the palatal phonemes arising from mutation of /a/ and /â/, <ö> and <œ> for
mutated /o/ and /ô/, <ü> and <iu> for /u/ and /û/, and finally /öu/ and /üe/ for the
15
mutated diphthongs /ou/ and /uo/. In the case of the Kaiserchronik, only the mutation
of short /a/ is regularly represented in the spelling of the Vorau manuscript; that of
long /â/ is often, but by no means universally, reflected in the graph <æ>; the mutated
allophones of the other vowels and diphthongs are marked either sporadically, or by
graphs that are not unequivocally umlaut markers, or not at all. Thus, although
introducing the conventional typographical symbols across the board would have
brought the text closer to the norm of MHG as it is presented in the standard
grammars, dictionaries, and critical editions, it would also have imposed upon the
work precisely the misleadingly modern aspect that Schröder wished to avoid.
Accordingly, his text marks the mutation of short /a/ always (e.g. geste “strangers”;
geslähte / geslehte “race”); it mirrors scribal variance by tolerating allographs of the
same word with either unmutated long <â> or mutated <æ> (mâre ~ mære “story,
tidings”); finally, it leaves umlaut completely unmarked in all other contexts, so that
the words that BMZ and Lexer give as hövesch “courtly,” hœren “to hear,” vürste
“prince,” siure “bitterness,” vröude “joy,” vüeren “to lead” appear in Schröder’s
edition as hovesc, hôren, vurste, sûre, vroude, vuoren.
Thus far, we have observed Schröder balancing respect for manuscript
orthography (for example in the representation of i-mutation) with the desire to help
the reader (hence interventions such as the resolution of scribal digraphs). There was,
however, a third factor in play in his decisions about the external form of the text, one
that moreover exceeded the parameters set by the usage of the base manuscript. That
factor—which has to be inferred from Schröder’s editorial decisions, since he never
enunciates it explicitly—was his readiness to adjust, and even override, scribal usage
so as to make the linguistic form of his text reflect more clearly what he took to be the
metrical and prosodic structures of the author’s original verse composition.
Sometimes this readiness manifests itself in the redistribution or reduction of lexical
and phonological variation, as the following three examples illustrate. (1) The
temporal adverb and conjunction dô “then” is spelled three different ways by the main
Vorau scribe: duͦ, doͮ, do. Schröder reduced these forms to two, representing the first
as duo (an older and longer form of dô), and the second and third as either duo or dô
according to whether the word bears metrical stress.38 (2) The MHG definite article in
the nominative and accusative plural has the regular form die in the masculine and
feminine genders, and diu for the neuter gender; the Vorau scribe observes the
16
distinction, but sometimes collapses it by writing the short form di for both. Schröder
restored the full, distinctive forms. (3) The devoicing of initial /d-/ to /t-/, a
characteristically Upper German pronunciation which is reflected in manuscript
spellings such as tonreslege “thunderclaps,” is reversed by Schröder except when the
letter is preceded by a voiceless stop or fricative: line 753 “an dem triten tage” (on the
third day) > “an dem dritten tage”; but line 15265 “ân sik tan” (without victory
thence).39 Schröder provided no explicit rationale for these changes; presumably the
resulting distribution of voiced and voiceless variants according to phonetic
environment was intended to reflect the original author’s desired pronunciation.40 (4)
Variant spellings of the same sound which Schröder otherwise tolerated are leveled in
rhymes: lines 7418-19 mac : tach > mac : tac (<-c ~ -ch> are allographs of affricate /-
kx/); lines 4919-20 waren : romære > wæren : Rômære; lines 11534-35: romare :
nivmære > Rômâre : niumâre (<a ~ æ> are allographs of the palatal long vowel /æ/
resulting from i-mutation of /â/). It is not entirely clear in this instance whether
Schröder’s changes were intended to reflect the spelling as the author wanted it, or
whether they were meant purely to help modern readers, who might otherwise be
misled into believing that the words in question are not pure rhymes.
In the foregoing examples, Schröder generalized certain scribal spellings at the
expense of others; he did not introduce anything into his text that the main Vorau
scribe could not have written. In other instances, however, he adopted forms that the
scribe never wrote, or wrote only very rarely, because he believed they were required
by the prosody of the original work. One example is the word for “nothing”: the
scribe’s preferred form niht is regularly altered by Schröder to nieth when it rhymes
or assonates with words like diet “people” or liep “dear, beloved,” even though the
second form is generally not found in Bavarian written varieties from this period, and
the scribe hardly ever writes it: in the entire chronicle, the form nieth or nît occurs
only twice in rhyme position (line 3270 : liep; line 160004 : widerriet “counseled
against”).41 A second example is the word for “bishop.” The scribe always writes the
distinctively Bavarian form biscolf for the more usual biscof;42 Schröder substitutes
the latter, not only in rhymes and assonances (with hof “court,” (ie)doch “yet,” noch
“still”) but also in line-internal position, even though the form is nowhere in the
scribal repertoire of spellings.
17
From this survey of Schröder’s treatment of the external form of the text, it is
evident that the MGH principle of following the manuscript orthography came under
pressure from two other principles: serving the convenience of the reader, and
restoring the original prosody and meter of the work. Scribal “irregularities” are not
tolerated where they might confuse the reader (in addition to the examples mentioned
above, one may add: the reversal of the <th> metathesis in forms such as (du) math >
maht “(you sg.) can,” and the disambiguation of <ſ> according to whether its value is
sibilant or shibilant, thus geſah > either gesach “saw,” or gescah “happened”).43 Many
of these normalizations are justified if the text is to be accessible to users without
specialist paleographical training. The normalizations that Schröder undertook to
reveal the putative original structure of the verse, on the other hand, are more
contentious, since they rely on assumptions about the rules of vernacular prosody in
the middle of the twelfth century which cannot be proven. It is well known that
assonances and consonantal half-rhymes were acceptable in poetry of the early MHG
period (ca. 1050-1170); the difficulty lies in determining the boundaries of tolerance
for these less than pure forms of rhyme. Schröder’s substitution of biscof for biscolf
assumes that, in the middle of the twelfth century, the rules did not permit half-
rhymes between a single consonant and a consonant cluster: thus biscolf : hof, and
biscolf : noch are unacceptable, whereas biscof : hof and biscof : noch are within the
zone of tolerance. There is, however, no guarantee that the parameters were drawn
this tightly, and indeed the manuscript evidence strongly suggests that they were not.44
Schröder arguably went too far in allowing his “convenience” and “prosody”
principles to override scribal usage; the result is a critical text that is at some distance
not only from the language of the Vorau codex but also from the Bavarian written
variety of which that manuscript is a specimen. Even though Schröder believed that
the chronicle was originally composed in Bavaria,45 and even though his critical text
retains several of the manuscript’s very marked Upper German or Bavarian features
(chom, preterite indicative sg. “came”; haln “to fetch”; megen present indicative pl.
“can”; devoiced initial /b-/ in spellings such as pilde “image,” plîe “lead”),46 he
reduced or eliminated many other Bavarian features: in addition to the already
mentioned substitution of biscof for biscolf and nieth for niht, he removed
characteristically Bavarian spellings such as the <æi> graph for the diphthong /ei/
(e.g. æin “one,” hæilic “holy”), and wart for wort “word” (a spelling which reflects
18
the phonological collapse of /ar/ and /or/ in Bavarian dialect).47 Not only are these
interventions based on sometimes challengeable assumptions about both modern
readers’ limitations and twelfth-century prosody, they create a misleading impression
of the written variety of the chronicle’s oldest complete manuscript: the Bavarianisms
that are retained appear all the more marked and unusual, because they appear in a
normalized linguistic landscape many of whose other Bavarian features have been
significantly eroded.
4. Linguistic normalization in the new Kaiserchronik edition
Our critical text of Recension A of the Kaiserchronik is, like Schröder’s, based on the
Vorau manuscript. Unlike Schröder (or, for that matter, Stackmann) the goal however
is not to produce a “better” text than the “best” manuscript; we follow a deliberately
conservative emendation policy of correcting only outright errors of copying (e.g.
grammatical and lexical solecisms, passages where the text would otherwise be
meaningless), in the conviction that such a strategy is the most appropriate one for the
genre. Chronicles were written with a view to further continuation and reworking;
hence the text-states of individual manuscript recensions are at least as important as
any putative original or archetype standing at the head of the transmission.48
When it comes to the external linguistic form of the text, here too the policy is
to respect the documentary character of the manuscript by subjecting the scribal
writing system to the minimum of interventions required to produce a readable text in
the modern typographical medium. Thus, unlike Schröder, we do not distinguish long
vowels from short by adding a circumflex, because the scribe did not use this or any
other accent to mark vowel length consistently;49 scribal usages that Schröder leveled
are retained whenever they pose no insuperable difficulty for the modern reader who
has become accustomed to them, for example: the <æi> spelling for the diphthong
/ei/, the alternation between voiced and devoiced spellings of initial /d-/; spelling
alternants in rhyme position (e.g. mac : tach; romare : nivmære) are left unadjusted,
as is the manuscript’s characteristic preference for the forms biscolf and niht; we do
not emend or normalize on the grounds of rhyme, meter, or prosody, since we cannot
be certain about the parameters of acceptable usage, either at the time of the
chronicle’s original composition or when the Vorau manuscript was copied.
19
Manuscript spellings are normalized only in those very rare cases when they confront
philologically and paleographically untrained readers with genuine comprehension
difficulties, or might mislead them into positing dialectally anomalous forms. Thus,
like Schröder, we disambiguate the graph <ſ> according to whether it is sibilant /s/ or
shibilant /sc/; metathetical <th> for /ht/ is reversed; the idiosyncratic spelling sprak
“spoke” is normalized to sprah so as not to give the misleading appearance of a Low
German form in this Upper German text.50
The only challenge to producing a readable printed edition of the Vorau text is
the interpretation and resolution of the scribal digraphs <oͮ>, <uͦ / vͦ>, <wͦ>. Simply
reproducing these symbols exactly as they appear in the manuscript is not a defensible
strategy in an edition designed to be used by a wider readership than the small number
of philological specialists, for a number of reasons. First, spellings like voͮrste
“prince” or wͦnder “miracle, wonder” are difficult to recognize and look up under their
standard dictionary lemmas vürste, wunder. Second, the relationship between graph
and phoneme is by no means univocal, so that the user cannot count, for example, on
<uͦ> always representing the diphthong /uo/ (it does in guͦt = guot “good,” but not in
buͦrc = burc “town, castle” or tuͦfe = toufe “baptism”). Third, there is the danger that
readers might deduce from manuscript spellings such as wͦnne and voͮrste that the
scribe wrote the dialectally incongruous Central German forms wonne and vorste
instead of Bavarian wunne “bliss” and vurste / vürste “prince”:51 in fact, <wͦ> must
here be interpreted as a double letter <vv>, with the first <v> standing for the
approximant /w/ and the diacritic distinguishing the second as vowel /u/; <oͮ> is a
positional variant used by the scribe after <v> because it is optically more distinct
than plain <u>.
The scale of the challenge is illustrated by figures 1 and 2. These show the
range of usage of the digraphs <oͮ>, <uͦ / vͦ>, and <wͦ> in two large samples of the
Vorau text of the Kaiserchronik: lines 2875-5838 (fig. 1) and lines 8704-11585 (fig.
2). Totalling almost six thousand lines, these samples account for roughly one third of
the complete chronicle and are therefore extensive enough to be regarded as
representative.
[INSERT FIGURES 1 AND 2 HERE OR, IF IMPRACTICAL, AT END OF ESSAY]
20
The table below integrates and simplifies the data into an overview of the standard
MHG phonemes and phoneme sequences that the digraphs may represent. (For the
purposes of counting, words with alternative forms are normally included under their
main form; occurrences of the temporal adverb and conjunction dô / duo have been
omitted from the count because the scribal spellings constitute a special case.)52 From
the spread and the frequencies two salient facts emerge. First, <oͮ> has a much wider
functional range than the other digraphs, largely because of its function as a positional
graph for a /u/-type sound after <v> or <w>. Second, <uͦ / vͦ> is predominantly a graph
for the diphthong /uo/.
<oͮ> represents:
/o/ (17 examples)
/ô/ (1)
/œ/ (3)
/u/ (97; 83 of these occurrences follow <v> or <w>)
/ü/ (135; 132 of these occurrences follow <v> or <w>)
/û/ (84; 73 of these occurrences are the preposition ûf “(up)on”)
/iu/ (3)
/uo/ (65; 50 of these occurrences follow <v> or <w>)
/üe/ (23; 21 of these occurrences follow <v> or <w>)
/ou/ (161)
/öu/ (11)
/ouw/ (59)
/öuw/ (15)
21
<uͦ / vͦ> represents:
/o/ (2; 3 if sloz is short)
/ô/ (1 if slôz is long)
/u/ (24)
/ü/ (15)
/û/ (16)
/iu/ (6)
/uo/ (384 + 15 ambivalent instances which may be /üe/)
/üe/ (54)
/ou/ (3)
/ouw/ (1)
<wͦ> represents:
/vü/ (2)
/vuo/ (2)
/w/ (2)
/wu/ (10 + 1 ambivalent case which may be /wü/)
/wü/ (4)
/wuo/ (3)
Since the spelling of our edition aims to reflect the writing system of the
manuscript, rather than the phonemic structure of MHG, the resolution of the digraphs
is not as simple as this overview might lead one to think. Specifically, the final
22
decision will depend on our assumptions about important sound changes that occurred
before and during the MHG period, and about whether the digraphs reflect these
changes in spelling in the relevant contexts. The sound changes in question are i-
mutation and diphthongization. So far as the former is concerned, we have already
noted that the scribe deploys the unambiguous graphs <e> and <æ> to mark palatal
variants of short /a/ and long /â/;53 the same clarity does not however attach to the
digraphs that sometimes occur in contexts where, phonologically speaking, one would
expect the palatal variants of the back vowels and diphthongs /o ô u û ou uo/, i.e. /ö œ
ü iu öu üe/. In the first place, <oͮ>, <uͦ / vͦ>, and <wͦ> are not unequivocal markers of
palatalization, since they are all also capable of representing unmutated sounds, e.g.
genoͮmen = genomen past participle “taken,” geboͮten = gebuten past part.
“commanded,” choͮme = chûme / kûme “scarcely,” oͮh = ouh “also,” twoͮgen = twuogen
pret. ind. pl. “washed”; zuͦrnde = zornde pret. ind. sg. “grew angry,” ſluͦz = sloz / slôz
“lock,” beguͦnde = begunde pret. ind. sg. “began,” buͦch = bûch “belly,” huͦbet =
houbet “head,” bruͦder = bruoder “brother”; wͦrden = wurden pret. ind. pl. “became,”
beſwͦr = beswuor pret. ind. sg. “beseeched.” Conversely, the same single vowel graphs
that represent unmutated /ô/, /u/, and /û/ may also represent their palatal variants (e.g.
horen = hœren “to hear”; uerbute = verbüte pret. subj. sg. “might forbid,” ſure = siure
“bitterness”). The lack of univocal graph-phoneme relations is especially palpable in
the forms of strong verbs with morphophonemic contrast in their root vowels between
/u/ in the preterite indicative plural and /ü/ in the preterite indictative 2nd person
singular and the preterite subjunctive plural: compare, for example, woͮrden ~ wͦrden =
wurden “became” vs. wurd- ~ woͮrd- ~ wuͦrd- ~ wvͦrd- = würd- “might become / you
(sg.) became”; voͮnden ~ vvͦunden = vunden “found” vs. voͮnde = vünde “you (sg.)
found”; gewunnen ~ gewoͮnnen = gewunnen “won” vs. gewunn- ~ gewoͮnn- = gewünn-
“might win / you (sg.) won.” The absence of clear orthographical distinctions must be
set against the background of two general considerations: the well-known tendency of
German spelling before 1200 not to mark any umlaut except that of /a/,54 and the
often-noted resistance of Upper German dialects to the mutation of /u/, /û/, /ou/,
and /uo/ in certain phonetic environments.55 When all these factors are weighed, the
only philologically responsible solution is, in our view, to follow Schröder and leave
the mutation of the back vowels and diphthongs unmarked in a modern print edition.
To do otherwise would impose univocity on an area of scribal spelling that may be
described as ambivalent at best, as well as involve a bold claim about the “modernity”
23
of the language of the Vorau manuscript that contradicts everything we know about
the state of German spelling in the later twelfth century.
The second phonological change to consider is the diphthongization of /î/, /û/,
and /iu/ to /ei/, /au/, and /eu/. For example, mîn “my, mine,” hûs “house,” niuwe
“new” develop the diphthongal pronunciations that are standard in New High
German: mein, Haus, neu. This sound change took place during the MHG period,
beginning in the South-East and embracing the dialects of Central Germany during
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.56 Although the new diphthongs were almost
certainly the norm in spoken Bavarian by the time the Vorau manuscript was written,
there is no reflection of the sound change in the scribal spelling system—except,
Karin Schneider has claimed, in the case of /û/, where the digraphs <oͮ> and (to a
lesser extent) <uͦ> in the preposition oͮf / uͦf = standard MHG ûf “upon” may according
to her represent a diphthongal pronunciation auf.57 Since the digraphs are indisputably
used to represent the old and phonetically very similar diphthong /ou/, this
interpretation cannot be dismissed altogether; on the other hand, the arguments in its
favor are not so strong as to be overwhelming. The only evidence from this period and
region that Schneider cites for the use of the digraphs <oͮ> and <uͦ> to spell the new
diphthong /au/ is from the Vorau manuscript itself;58 moreover, in common words that
are candidates for the diphthongization /û/ > /au/, digraphic spellings in the
manuscript alternate with unambiguously monophthongal spellings. Only the
preposition ûf is written preponderantly as either oͮf or uͦf (207 and 19 occurrences
respectively in the entire text, compared with 33 uf / vf and 1 ûf); digraphic spellings
are in the majority for forms of the verb rûmen “to vacate” (5 ruͦm-, 1 roͮm- vs. 3
rum-), forms and derivatives of bûwen “to inhabit” (13 boͮ(w)-, 1 bvͦ(w)- vs. 2 buwͦ-, 1
buw-), and trût “dear, beloved” (10 truͦt vs. 2 trut, 3 trût); single graphs dominate
however for ûz “out” and derivatives (189 uz(-) vs. 3 oͮz), hûs “house” (56 hus, 1 hûs
vs. 1 huͦs, 1 hoͮs), lût “loud” and derivatives (22 lut(-), 2 lût(-) vs. 6 luͦt(-)).59 Given this
very mixed picture, it seems to us that, as in the case of i-mutation, it would overstep
the bounds of philological responsibility and impose too modern an aspect on the text
if one were to posit diphthongal spellings for any of these words, including ûf; we
therefore render the vowel as the monophthong <u>.
24
Drawing the conclusions from the above discussion, we arrive at the following
resolutions of the scribal digraphs:
<oͮ>
= standard MHG /o/ or /ô/: <o> zornde “grew angry,” tro “threat”;
= /œ/: <o> chom pret. subj. sg. “might come”;
= /u/ or /û/: <u> vunden past part. “found,” uf “(up)on”;
= /ü/ or /iu/: <u> erchuchet pres. ind. sg. “revives,” turlich “dearly”;
= /ou/ or /öu/: <ou> ouh “also,” vroude “joy”;
= /ouw/ or /öuw/: <ouw> frouwe “lady,” (sich) vrouwen “to rejoice”;
= /uo/ or /üe/: <uo> twuogen pret. ind. pl. “washed,” getruoben “to
darken.”
<uͦ / vͦ>
= /o/: <o> worden past part. “become”;
= /u/ or /û/: <u> burc “castle, town,” uf “(up)on”;
= /ü/ or /iu/: <u> furste “prince,” turst “dearest”;
= /uo/ or /üe/: <uo> guot “good,” gruozen “to greet”;
= /ou/: <ou> zouber “magic”;
= /ouw/: <ouw> drouwest pres. ind. “you (sg.) threaten.”
<wͦ>
= /vü/: <vu> vurbringen “to bring forth”;
= /vuo/: <vuo> vuoren pret. ind. pl. “went”;
25
= /w/: <w> getruwen “to believe”;
= /wu/ or /wü/: <wu> wunderlich “strange,” antwurten “to answer”;
= /wuo/: <wuo> swuor pret. ind. sg. “swore.”
5. Conclusion: For a Responsible Philology
The technical and granular detail of the preceding section illustrates the central point
this essay seeks to make: that for text editors in the age of digital humanities there is
no way to avoid the rigors of traditional philology. In concluding, we draw back from
the specificities of the Kaiserchronik to map our findings on to a broader program.
The example of digraphs in a single work in a particular manuscript of the German
Middle Ages demonstrates the tension that arises between the demands of readability
on the one hand and the preservation of manuscript spellings on the other when a
medieval text is transposed into modern typography and full normalization is
abandoned. We believe, however, that this tension can be eased with a combination of
simple and sophisticated methods:
(1) Vocalic and consonantal variation may be left largely unaltered without hindering
relatively straightforward comprehension for modern readers; alterations were only
necessary in a very small number of instances. This recommendation—to follow the
manuscript exactly whenever possible—is easily generalizable.
(2) Certain features however pose challenges. Digraphs appear neither in modern
typeface nor in the lemmas of MHG dictionaries and grammars, and they can
represent a wide range of phonemes. Here our recommendation is to follow the grain
of the scribal spelling system, by which we mean not being any more explicit or
univocal than the scribe was prepared to be. In our concrete case, vowel length,
palatal (mutated) back vowels, and the new dipththongs arising from /î/, /û/, and /iu/
will not be marked orthographically, even though these distinctions were certainly
observed in the spoken language, and the first two also form part of the “standard”
MHG described in grammars and taught in introductory courses. The linguistic reality
this sort of orthography aims to capture is the writing system of the codex, with the
noise filtered out where it would lead to confusion, or make what is represented
26
equivocally and ambivalently in the scribe’s spelling system appear more categorical
than it is. While the specific solution we propose for our text is not generalizable, the
principle is.
As the previous section has demonstrated, arriving at this second
recommendation requires a considerable effort as well as a commitment to stringent
methods. Such an approach, if a label is to be placed on it, may be termed
“Responsible Philology.” Philological responsibility has two essential components: an
expert knowledge of the medieval vernacular in its synchronic and diachronic
structures and varieties; and an extensive and forensic analysis of the linguistic forms
of any given manuscript. Vitally, it also requires the ability to make the one bear upon
the other: in our case, we saw that the puzzling out of multiple superscript values
depends on grammars, while the act of that deciphering could lead to the correction of
those grammars and related scholarship (e.g. Schneider’s assumptions about the
representation of diphthongization in twelfth-century manuscripts).
Responsible philology further requires the editor to negotiate new questions
the material throws up, even if these are unanswerable or ultimately fade from view in
the edition. To return briefly to one final detailed example from the Kaiserchronik,
figures 1 and 2 show that scribal spelling habits were not static, but dynamic. Some
graphs, such as <wͦ>, decline dramatically in frequency as the text progresses,60 while
others by contrast come to be used more frequently in certain contexts. There is, for
example, a marked upward drift in the use of <oͮ> as diphthongal graph and as
positional graph for /u/ or /ü/ after <v> or <w>.61 This dynamism is lost from view in
the spelling of our edition: since it reflects something particular to the scribe—
perhaps his gradual coming to grips with the spelling norms of his exemplar, which
may not have been exactly the same as his own—rather than an aspect of the writing
system, it falls outside the bounds of what any editorial solution might reasonably
seek to capture. In cases such as these, it is the editor’s task both to register the
phenomenon, so that others may work on it—to the best of our knowledge, this scribal
habit of orthographic drift has not featured in medieval German scholarship to date—
and to take the decision to filter it out from the edited text.
Responsible Philology involves ensuring readability while respecting the form
of the original manuscript. The resultant text will not be a one-to-one mapping of the
27
manuscript; rather, it will be based upon and reflect its underlying orthographical
system. In many respects—as in recommendation (1)—it will indeed be identical with
the original; and in others—as in recommendation (2)—it will be more akin to a
transposition of it. To pick up the previous example of the use of <oͮ> as a positional
graph for /u/ or /ü/ to avoid confusion <v> or <w>, it is important to recognize that a
necessity in one medium (writing) need not be reflected when it is no longer
functional in another medium (print). Or to take another example, our final text will
not mark i-mutation, not because we believe there to have been none in the spoken
reality of late twelfth-century Bavarian or, for that matter, in the orthography of the
manuscript, but simply because the distribution of forms strongly suggests that the
medieval scribe’s system did not unambiguously distinguish between mutated and
unmutated vowels. As our analysis has shown, such decisions are not possible without
a considerable amount of detailed work on large data sets. Decisions and
generalizations on the basis of small samples or targeted key word searches can be
misleading.
What role has digital philology to play in all of this? We believe that it is
central to the discussion. It informs the context, sets a challenge, and creates
perspective. The context for our considerations was the long shadow cast by Karl
Lachmann over editorial practice in medieval German studies. While rejecting his
method and motivation, editors still largely return faute de mieux to his
orthographical system, even when it is scarcely appropriate. In reconsidering this
position, the context of Lachmann’s work is vital. For Lachmann and his
contemporaries were editing at a time when there was no ready public access to
manuscripts. Their task was to take their own privileged access and make it available
in suitable form to a broader public. Our task is quite different. We operate in an age
of digital luxury. In the face of this new reality, one could possibly side with Joachim
Heinzle (the editor of Wolfram’s Willehalm and the Nibelungenlied and one of
Germany’s most eminent postwar philologists) and argue that the ubiquity of
manuscript material should satisfy the needs of those wishing to study scribal habits
and the history of the language (here with distinct echoes of Lachmann himself), thus
freeing editors of medieval texts to render them in the most readable and convenient
form possible—i.e. fully normalized.62 We on the other hand believe that it is
28
incumbent upon us to find a mode of editing that respects the textuality of our object,
which modern technology has made so manifest.
Lachmann’s orthography, based on a single manuscript, served the—for him
possible, for us impossible—task of rendering the diction of medieval poets, at a point
when the greatest among them were being rediscovered and presented for the first
time in editions striving towards the highest philological standards. Our task now is to
design orthographical systems that take account of students’ and scholars’ exposure to
the primary sources in a way that Lachmann and his contemporaries could never have
conceived and that was barely even imagined at the dawn of New Philology in the
early 1990s. Modern editions must have an orthography that fits the demands of the
digital age, otherwise they risk becoming irrelevant or driving a wedge between print
and electronic media, at a time when the latter has the potential to revolutionize our
subject.
As we emphasize, the responsible philologist has much groundwork to do. By
their very existence, digitized manuscripts throw down a simple challenge to the
editor of printed texts: to add value. Today, an edition that ignores that imperative and
brings nothing or little to what is freely available online loses its justification. That
value cannot derive from simple normalization and involves a serious engagement
with the manuscript and its underlying system. There is a paradox in this situation.
The closer the manuscripts come to us, the more, not—as many assume—the less
work they cause us. Both new and digital philology have made old philology harder.
Finally, we must consider perspective and note that much recent work falling
under the umbrella of digital philology has a particularly visual focus. Stephen G.
Nichols’ recent monograph From Parchment to Cyberspace: Medieval Literature in
the Digital Age is illustrative of this point. Justly recognized as the work that captures
the moment when New Philology meets Digital Philology and galvanizes the field
afresh, the book works through richly suggestive paradigms for reading illustrated
manuscripts in material, cultural, social, and philosophical contexts. It will certainly
inspire the field as Nichols’ earlier work did. But it has nothing to say about edited
texts—except to treat them occasionally as a perhaps too easy foil63—and we would
encourage scholars of medieval literature to consider scribal as well as visual material
and editors of texts to discover a zeal of their own with which to inspire others.
29
For too long, medieval German scholars have donned the straitjacket of
Lachmann’s orthography. Worse still, as Florian Kragl has observed without
producing a workable solution himself, they have done so without real purpose.64 That
is not something one could accuse Lachmann of. Our plea is for editors to reflect on
the orthography they use in the digital age, and to use orthography with purpose. Even
Karl Stackmann—who returned to Lachmann in the 1960s and to whom Germans
turned for a doughty rebuttal of New Philology in the 1990s65—observed that the
main impetus his colleagues should take from the movement would be to rethink the
orthography of modern editions.66 In this spirit, we advocate that editors practice
Responsible Philology: to avoid skewing the text (as, for example, Schröder did), to
respect the documentary evidence of the manuscripts (Benecke), to determine
underlying structures (Grimm), and to search extensively through the relevant forms
(Lachmann). We cannot speculate how Lachmann would have edited today,
especially in a field that has grown upon and benefited from the foundations he laid
himself nearly two hundred years ago. But we can be certain that the wealth of
manuscript evidence now available to him and his readers at the press of a button
would have informed his choices. Those that disparage him or accept his norms
fatalistically should ponder this.
30
Figure 1: Scribal digraphs, Vorau Kaiserchronik, lines 2875-5838
Note: Words in which digraphs occur are given in their standardized dictionary spelling, so as to reveal the phonemic correspondences more clearly. Anomalous and otherwise notable manuscript spellings are however given, as are alternative forms of the same word. Multiple occurrences are indicated by a number after the word.
For phoneme values, the symbols conventional in German philology are used in preference to IPA symbols (thus /ü/ and /iu/ for example rather than IPA /y/ and /y:/).
< >oͮ�
o ô u û oe ü uo üe ou ouw öu öuwwonet (pret.)
zornde 2
genomen
woltest (MS uoͮltest)
verworhte (past part.)
dô (alt. form duo) 5
antwurte (pret.) 7
antwurt (noun; alternative form antwürte) 2
wurde 4
urvar
wunder
(ge)vunden 5
vulte
ûf 8
bûwen
rûmen
broede (alt. form brôde)
koeme
vür (prep., adv.) 28
vür (vb complement)
vür (vb prefix) 2
vürht- (vb) 3
gebürte (i-stem noun, dat. sg.)
antwürte(n) (alt. form: antworte(n)) 5
twuogen
wuochert 2
muosen
vuor (pret.) 4
-tuom (suffix)
huob
ruom
gevuocte 2
getrüeben
vüere(n) 4
müez (pres. subj.; alt. form: muose)
vüeze (pl.)
ouh 22
vrouwen 5
erloubte
troum 5
gloube 6
goukelaere 3
urloup 4
ouh 2
ouge 2
tougen- 3
vrouwe 4
gerouwe
schouwen
getouwet (past part.)
vröude 10 (MS vroͮvde, line 5312)
vröuwen 3
31
gebuten
-wurfen
würde 4
vrüm- (alt. form vrum-)
vürsten
swuor 4
vuorte 3
wuohs
ruowe
(MS toͮugen, line 3581)
roub
houbet (noun and vb) 4
anlouk
betrouc
houpten
flouc 2
boum 2
< / >uͦ� vͦ�
o ô u û ü iu uo üe ou
32
zornte dô (alt. form duo) 113
burc
ougen (MS auͦgen)
antwurt (pret.)
trûten
rûmen 2
bûch
ûf 4
vürgân 3
kürn
süne(n)
vürste 2
verlüre
bürgetor
vlühte
würde
liute
tiurst
muoz(-)unambiguous /uo/ 33
ambiguous /uo ~ üe/ 91
bruoder 7
guot 42
muoter 5
zuo 9
huob 14
tuon 23
muote 3
muot 9
haimuot
buoch 14
genuoc 8
vruo 2
müejen / müewen
grüezen 3
müede (alt. form muode)
müezec
geüebede
süeze 2
güete 7
behüeten 2
büeze
üeben (alt. form uoben) 2
vüeze 3
chüene 6
grüene 2
toufe
houbet
zouber
1 Parts of the verb müezen “must”: Unambiguously without vowel mutation (i-umlaut) = pres. ind. sg.; pres. subj. 2nd person sg.; pret. ind. With either mutated or unmutated vowel = pres. ind. pl.; pres. subj. (except for 2nd person sg.). Unambiguously with mutation: pret. subj. (no examples in this sample).
33
armuot 2
beruoch- (vb and noun) 2
huote 2
-tuom (suffix) 2
truoc 5
zwuo (“two” fem.; MS zuͦv)
stuont 7
bluome
sluoc 8
vuort(e)
begruoben
suochen 4
vuor 3
bluot
scuof
vluochen
übermüetec
diemüete (alt. form diemuote)
verrüemen
34
ruohte
< >wͦ�
vuo vü w wu wü wuovuoren
vuorten
vürbringen
vürhte
bûwet
getrûwen
wurden 3
wurfen
antwurte (pret.) 2
antwurt (noun; alt. form antwürte)
wunden
wunne
wunderlihiu
erwürve
antwürte (pres.)
antwürten (inf.) 2
gewuohsen
beswuor
35
Figure 2: Scribal digraphs, Vorau Kaiserchronik, lines 8704-11585
Note: Words in which digraphs occur are given in their standardized dictionary spelling, so as to reveal the phonemic correspondences more clearly. Anomalous and otherwise notable manuscript spellings are however given, as are alternative forms of the same word. Multiple occurrences are indicated by a number after the word.
For phoneme values, the symbols conventional in German philology are used in preference to IPA symbols (thus /ü/ and /iu/ for example rather than IPA /y/ and /y:/).
< >oͮ�
o ô u û oe ü iu uo üe ou ouw öu öuwzornde 2
worden
vernomen 2
molte 2
offenlîche
beslozzen
ungewon
hovestat
drô (MS troͮ)
dô (alt. form duo)58
antwurte (pret.) 12
antwurt (noun; alt. form antwürte) 2
überwunden 4
verlurn
wunne 2
gewunnen 6
wundert 2
wunder(-)
ûf 65
kûme
bûwen 7
getrûwen
koem (MS choͮem)
vür (prep., adv.) 42
vüeren 2
vürste 13
würde 10
antwürte (inf., imp., pres.) 4
vürhten 7
gewünne(n) 2
gebürte (i-stem noun, dat. sg.)
tiurlîch
ungetriuwe(lîch) 2
vuor 15
vuorte 4
geschuof
tuot 3
huop 2
-tuom (suffix)
ruowe
guot (adj.)
vuoz 4
vervluochen
vüere (pret. subj.; 2nd sg. pret. ind.) 4
vüeren (inf.) 3
zevüeret (past part.; alt. form zevuoret)
gevüegen
wüesche (2nd sg., pret. ind.)
ouch 30
lougen 3
gelouben 22
ougen 5
houbte (noun and vb) 9
tougen(-) 2
toufe(n) 15
rouch 2
souften 2
vrouwe 46
rouw (pret.)
touwen (alt. form töuwen) 2
blouw
schouwen 2
vröude
vröuwen (all tenses) 11
cröuwelen
36
14
vunden 4
sult 2
wurden 6
(er)vullet (past part.; alt. form (er)vüllet) 4
(er)vulte (pret.) 2
trum
zerunnen
kum(t) 4
begunde 2
wullin (alt. form wüllin) 2
bevulhen
kunde (alt. form konde)
karvunkel
(ver)würken 4
(er)vüllen
gebüten (pret. subj.)
wünde (pret. subj.)
vünde (pret. subj.)
swuor 2
wuohs 2
wuosch 2
armuot
wuoft 2
wuocher
vüeze 3
swüere
wüeterich (alt. form wuoterich)
wüehse (pret. subj.)
erloubte
zouber(-)
vlouc
louc
verlougenen
beroubet
37
< / >uͦ� vͦ�
o ô u û ü iu uo üe ouwworden
sloz (alt. form slôz
dô (alt. form duo) 2
wunne
suln 8
begunde 4
ougen (MS auͦgen)
uralten
wunder 2
gebunden
munster (alt. form münster)
fluhen (pret.)
vunden
ûf 4
hût
kûm
trût
bûch(te)2
erkücket
würde (2nd pers. pret. ind.)
über(-) 2
biutet
liute 2
getriuwe
muoz(-) unambiguous /uo/ 173
ambiguous /uo ~ üe/ 6
(über)muot (masc./fem.) 5
muot 3
diemuot
muoter 5
guot 31
guotlîch (alt. form güetlîch 1
buoch 20
huob 12
diemüetec
(über)müete (fem. dat. sg.) 4
rüegen
gerüeren 2
güete 2
müet (pres. ind.)
trüege (2nd pers. pret. ind.)
süeze 2
grüene
erhüebe
behüeten
drouwest
2 Line 10683 “si chochete und buͦch.” The latter is either the preterite of backen “to bake” = buoch; or preterite of bûchen “wash with lye,” which fits context better, but the scribe has neglected to add the dental preterite suffix bûchte.3 See Figure 1, n1.
38
tuon 18
schuof 2
stuol
(ver)suochen 8
ruoche(n) (noun and vb) 5
vruo 4
huoch
genuoc 2
sluoc 5
behuote (pret.)
bluot 5
uoben 2
ruorten (pret.)
stuont 3
zuo 5
(inf., subj.) 2
gemüete (alt. form gemuote)
39
huot
getruobte (pret.)
almuosen
ruofen (alt. form rüefen)
-tuom (suffix) 2
tuoch 2
bruoder 3
truoc
< >wͦ�
wu wuowunderlich swuor
Notes
40
1. Since the beginning of the historical record, the German language has been divided into
three major dialect areas. These are, running from south to north, Upper German and Central
German (which together form High German) and Low German. Hence the term Middle High
German stands for the language written and spoken in the High German dialect in the period
between Old and (Early) New High German.
2. Klein, “Heinrich von Veldeke” 91.
3. Klein, “Niederdeutsch” 227.
4. Klein, “Niederdeutsch” 203.
5. Klein, “Niederdeutsch” 203.
6. Kragl 1-5, citing Fromm as the last intervention in 1971.
7. Kragl 2 n4.
8. The prominent example is Heinzle 4-7.
9. Further detail on the work and our project may be gleaned from Chinca and Young.
10. The following account draws on Ganz, Lutz-Hensel (in particular 89-104, 164-227, 284-
94, 354-60, 401-404) and Timpanaro, but places its own emphasis at critical junctures.
11. For general background, see Neumann.
12. These can be read at BMZ “Vorworte.”
13. Lachmann, “Auswahl” 157.
14. Cited in Lutz-Hensel 188.
15. Wolfram von Eschenbach vii.
16. Iwein iii.
17. Lutz-Hensel 191.
18. Cited in Lutz-Hensel 185-6.
19. Cited in Lutz-Hensel 183-4.
20. Lachmann, “Auswahl” 164. Ganz (17) by contrast saw no change in Lachmann’s notion
of exactitude.
21. Lutz-Hensel 188.
22. Lutz-Hensel 190.
23. Lachmann, “Auswahl” 161.
24. This critical convergence was overlooked by Lutz-Hensel.
25. Wolfram von Eschenbach vii.
26. Iwein 8.
27. Stackmann, “Mittelalterliche Texte” 246-7.
28 Stackmann, “Mittelalterliche Texte” 254.
29. Bresslau 104, 139.
30. Schröder gives an account of the manuscript filiation and sets out his principles of
emendation in the introduction to his edition Die Kaiserchronik (26-35). We discuss his procedure
for establishing the critical text more fully than space permits here in a forthcoming essay.
31. Schneider 37-41. Further information and bibliography for this codex at
<http://www.handschriftencensus.de/1432>.
32. Die Kaiserchronik 35.
33. The edition of Notker’s Psalm translations by Heinzel and Scherer (1876) would have
been available to Schröder.
34. The main scribe of the Vorau manuscript makes sporadic use of the circumflex, but
places it over long and short vowels indiscriminately, and sometimes also over the first element of a
diphthong. <û> additionally corresponds in some contexts to mutated /ü/ or /iu/, or even
diphthong /uo/.
35. One example of what Schröder meant by the “more or less unsteady” manuscript
orthography (Die Kaiserchronik 36) in this area may suffice: the grapheme for long /î/ comprises
the symbols <i ~ î ~ ie ~ ih>.
36. The controversies surrounding the description and interpretation of i-mutation in German
need not concern us; for an overview see Paul § L16.
37. Schneider 17.
38. It is noticeable that 244 of the 249 instances of the spelling duͦ occur in the first half of the
text of the Kaiserchronik; by contrast, the plain do spelling becomes markedly more frequent from
around the middle of the text (93 occurrences in the first half versus 535 in the second); the
frequency of doͮ also drops off (182: 113), although less dramatically. The distribution of the
spellings over the text suggests that the scribe may not have been distinguishing between the long
and the short forms of the conjunction, but settling into a habit of spelling.
39. On this UG devoicing see Weinhold, Alemannische Grammatik § 169; Paul § E24, L115.
40. The resulting distribution is in accordance with “Notkers Anlautgesetz”: the principle,
implemented in late OHG manuscripts of Notker III of St Gallen, of writing <p> <t> <k> for /b/
/d/ /g/ at the beginning of a clause or when immediately preceded by a voiceless consonant; see
Braune and Eggers § 103.
41. The form niet / niut is a feature of western MHG dialects to which Bavarian was
generally resistant; Paul § L109 n3, L110,2.
42. For this form see Weinhold, Bairische Grammatik § 159.
43. On scribal use of <ſ / s> to write the shibilant /sch/ in the twelfth century, see Schneider
22.
44. Schröder’s criteria also appear to be more restrictive than actual poetic practice as
subsequently described in authoritative accounts of early MHG rhyme: Heusler 2: 21-3; Wesle 103-
43; Hennig 54-82.
45. Die Kaiserchronik 52.
46. See Paul § M79 n4 (kom / chom), M99 (megen), L98 (<p-> for /b-/); Weinhold, Bairische
Grammatik § 4 (haln).
47. See Schneider 83, 85, 89, 98 (<æi>); Paul § E27,10 (/ar/ and /or/).
48. The constitutive openness of chronicle-writing is emphasized by Melville 308-15.
49. See n34 above.
50. Schröder explains that the scribe arrived at sprac on the analogy of other strong preterite
singular forms in /a/ where there is alternation between a final stop spelling <-c> and an affricate
spelling <-ch> which looks identical to the fricative in HG sprach, e.g. lac ~ lach, phlac ~ phlach
(Die Kaiserchronik 36).
51. For the lowering of /u/ to /o/ in Central German dialects see Paul § L35.
52. The manuscript’s spellings of duo / dô are difficult to interpret. Since the graphs <uͦ> and
<oͮ> very seldom represent /ô/ but frequently or even predominantly stand for the diphthong /uo/,
the most plausible plausible resolution of both doͮ and duͦ is duo. On the other hand, if we resolve in
this way, we must find a way to explain that duo forms predominate over dô in the first half of the
work, and this is inverted in the second half.
53. See 00-00 above.
54. See n37 above.
55. Paul § L36, L43, L47, L50.
56. Paul § L17.
57. Schneider 40.
58. Of the late twelfth-century Bavarian manuscripts that Schneider discusses, only two
others, Munich BSB clm 2 and Vienna ÖNB Cod. 2721, contain examples of new diphthongal
spellings; in the examples that she gives however, the sound is not represented by a digraph, but is
written out as two letters: ouzvart “going out,” ouf “upon,” prouchet pres. ind. sg. “uses” (Schneider
43, 48).
59. These numbers are also for the entire text of the chronicle, not just the two samples. In
the case of ûz and hûs, the digraphic spellings are without exception on the first folio, one of the
leaves of the manuscript that was recopied by another scribe a few decades after the main text was
completed; see 00-00 above.
60. In lines 1-2874, i.e. before the first sample, <wͦ> occurs 47 times, in lines 5839-8703, i.e.
between the two samples, 12 times, in lines 11586-17283 (the end of the text) merely 3 times.
61. The frequencies of duͦ / dvͦ are: lines 1-2874: 72; lines 5893-8703: 59; lines 11586-17283:
3. For do the numbers are: lines 1-2874: 18; lines 2875-5892: 6; lines 5893-8703: 69; lines 8704-
11585: 120; lines 11586-17283: 415. The spelling doͮ also drops off over the course of the text: 1-
2874: 102; lines 2875-5892: 5; lines 5893-8703: 75; lines 8704-11585: 58; lines 11586-17283: 55.
62. Heinzle 6. On Lachmann’s views on the subordinate needs of language, see Wolfram von
Eschenbach vii.
63. In particular, Nichols 98-9.
64. Kragl 26-7.
65. See Stackmann, “Die Edition,” “Neue Philologie?” and “Autor.”
66. Stackmann, “Die Edition” 13.
Manuscripts cited
Vorau, Stiftsbibliothek Codex 276. <http://www.handschriftencensus.de/1432>.
Works cited
Auswahl aus den Hochdeutschen Dichtern des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts. Für Vorlesungen und
Schulgebrauch. Ed. Karl Lachmann. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1820. Print.
Benecke, Georg Friedrich. Beyträge zur Kenntniss der altdeutschen Sprache und Literattur.
Minnelieder. Ergänzung Der Sammlung Von Minnesingern. Göttingen: Dietrich, 1810.
Print.
BMZ: Benecke, Georg Friedrich, Wilhelm Müller, and Friedrich Zarncke. Mittelhochdeutsches
Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854-1866. Web. 4 January 2017.
<http://woerterbuchnetz.de/BMZ/>.
BMZ “Vorworte.” Web. 4 January 2016. <http://woerterbuchnetz.de/cgi-bin/WBNetz/wbgui_py?
sigle=BMZ&lemid=BA00001&mode=Vernetzung&hitlist=&patternlist=&mainmode=Vorw
orte>.
Boner’s Edelstein in hundert Fabeln, mit Varianten und Worterklärungen. Ed. Johann Joachim
Eschenburg. Berlin: Unger, 1810. Print.
Braune, Wilhelm, and Hans Eggers. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 14th edition. Tübingen:
Niemeyer 1987. Print.
Bresslau, Harry. “Geschichte der Monumenta Germaniae Historica.” Neues Archiv für ältere
deutsche Geschichtskunde 42 (1921): 1-769. Print.
Chinca, Mark, and Christopher Young. “Uses of the Past in Twelfth-Century Germany. The Case of
the Middle High German Kaiserchronik.” Central European History 49 (2016): 19-38.
Print.
Der Edel Stein getichtet von Bonerius. Aus Handschriften berichtiget und mit einem Wörterbuch
versehen. Ed. Georg Friedrich Benecke. Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung 1816. Print.
Der Nibelunge Not mit der Klage. In der ältesten Gestalt mit den Abweichungen der gemeinen
Lesart. Ed. Karl Lachmann. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1826. Print.
Der Nibelungen Lied. Ed. Friedrich Heinrich von der Hagen. Berlin: Unger, 1807. Print.
Der Nibelungen Lied. In der Ursprache mit den Lesarten der verschiedenen Handschriften. Zu
Vorlesungen. Ed. Friedrich Heinrich von der Hagen. Berlin: Hitzig, 1810. Print.
Der Nibelungen Lied, zum erstenmal in der ältesten Gestalt aus der St. Galler Handschrift mit
Vergleichung der übrigen Handschriften. Ed. Friedrich Heinrich von der Hagen. Breslau:
Josef Max, 1816. Print.
Die Gedichte Walthers von der Vogelweide. Ed. Karl Lachmann. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1827. Print.
Die Kaiserchronik eines Regensburger Geistlichen. Ed. Edward Schröder. Hanover: Hahn, 1892.
Print.
Die Kaiserchronik. Eine Auswahl. Mittelhochdeutsch / Neuhochdeutsch. Transl. Mathias Herweg.
Stuttgart: Reclam, 2014. Print.
Enikel, Jans. Weltchronik. Fürstenbuch. Ed. Philipp Strauch. Hanover: Hahn, 1900. Print.
Fromm, Hans. “Stemma und Schreibnorm. Bemerkungen anläßlich der 'Kindheit Jesu' des Konrad
von Fußesbrunnen.” Mediaevalia litteraria. Festschrift für Helmut de Boor zum 80.
Geburtstag. Ed. Ursula Hennig and Herbert Kolb. Munich: Beck, 1971. 202-10. Print.
Ganz, Peter F. “Lachmann as an Editor of Middle High German Texts.” Probleme mittelalterlicher
Überlieferung und Textkritik. Oxforder Colloquium 1966. Ed. Peter F. Ganz and Werner
Schröder. Berlin: Schmidt, 1968. 12-30. Print.
Gregorius. Eine Erzählung von Hartmann von Aue. Ed. Karl Lachmann. Berlin: Georg Reimer,
1938. Print.
Grimm, Jacob. Deutsche Grammatik. 2 vols. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1819, 1826. Print.
Handschriftencensus. Eine Bestandsaufnahme der handschriftlichen Überlieferung
deutschsprachiger Texte des Mittelalters. Web. 4 January 2017.
<http://www.handschriftencensus.de>.
Heinzle, Joachim. “Zur Logik mediävistischer Editionen. Einige Grundbegriffe.” editio.
Internationales Jahrbuch für Editionswissenschaft 17 (2003): 1-15. Print.
Hennig, Ursula. Untersuchungen zur frühmittelhochdeutschen Metrik am Beispiel der ‘Wiener
Genesis.’ Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1968. Print.
Heusler, Andreas. Deutsche Versgeschichte. 3 vols. Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1925-1929.
Print.
Iwein. Der Riter mit dem Lewen. Getihtet von dem Hern Hartman Dienstman ze Ouwe. Ed. Georg
Friedrich Benecke and Karl Lachmann. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1827. Print.
Klein, Thomas. “Heinrich von Veldeke und die mitteldeutschen Literatursprachen. Untersuchungen
zum Veldeke-Problem.” Zwei Studien zu Veldeke und zum Strassburger Alexander. Co-
authored Thomas Klein and Cola Minnis. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1985. 1-121.
———. “Niederdeutsch und Hochdeutsch in mittelhochdeutscher Zeit.” Die deutsche Sprache und
die Regionen. Entstehungsgeschichtliche Fragen in neuer Sicht. Ed. Raphael Berthele.
Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2003. 203-9. Print.
Kragl, Florian. “Normalmittelhochdeutsch. Theorieentwurf einer gelebten Praxis.” Zeitschrift für
deutsches Altertum 144 (2015): 1-27. Print.
Kreuzfahrt des Landgrafen Ludwigs des Frommen von Thüringen. Ed. Hans Naumann. Hanover:
Hahn, 1923. Print.
Lachmann, Karl and Wilhelm Wackernagel. Zu den Nibelungen und der Klage. Anmerkungen.
Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1936. Print.
Lachmann, Karl. “Auswahl.” Kleinere Schriften zur deutschen Philologie von Karl Lachmann. Ed.
Karl Müllenhoff. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1876. Print.
Lexer, Matthias. Mittelhochdeutsche Handwörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1872-1878. Web. 4 January
2017. <http://woerterbuchnetz.de/Lexer/>.
Limburger Chronik. Ed. Arthur Wyss. Hanover: Hahn, 1883. Print.
Lutz-Hensel, Magdalene. Prinzipien der ersten textkritischen Editionen mittelhochdeutscher
Dichtung. Brüder Grimm – Benecke – Lachmann. Berlin: Schmidt, 1975. Print.
Melville, Gert. “System und Diachronie. Untersuchungen zur theoretischen Grundlegung
geschichtsschreiberischer Praxis im Mittelalter.” Historisches Jahrbuch 95 (1975): 33-67,
308-41. Print.
Minnelieder aus dem Schwäbischen Zeitalter. Ed. Ludwig Tieck, Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung,
1803. Print.
Neumann, Friedrich. Studien zur Geschichte der deutschen Philologie. Aus der Sicht eines alten
Germanisten. Stuttgart: Erich Schmidt, 1971. Print.
Nichols, Stephen G. From Parchment to Cyberspace: Medieval Literature in the Digital Age. New
York: Peter Lang, New York, 2016. Print.
Notker III of St Gallen. Notkers Psalmen. Ed. Richard Heinzel and Wilhelm Scherer. Strassburg
and London: Trübner, 1876. Print.
Österreichische Chronik von den 95 Herrschaften. Ed. Joseph Seemüller. Hanover: Hahn, 1909.
Print.
Paul, Hermann. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 25th edition, revised by Thomas Klein, Hans-
Joachim Solms, and Klaus-Peter Wegera. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2007. Print.
Paul, Otto, and Ingeborg Glier. Deutsche Metrik. 9th edition. Munich: Hueber, 1974. Print.
Proben der alten schwäbischen Poesie des Dreyzehnten Jahrhunderts. Aus der Maneßischen
Sammlung. Ed. Johann Jacob Bodmer and Johann Jacob Breitinger. Zurich: Heidegger,
1748. Print.
Sächsische Weltchronik. Ed. Ludwig Weiland. Hanover: Hahn, 1877. Print.
Sammlung deutscher Gedichte aus dem XII., XIII. und XIV. Jahrhundert. Ed. Christoph Heinrich
Myller [Müller]. 2 vols. Berlin: Christian Sigismund Spener, 1784, 1785. Print.
Sammlung von Minnesingern aus dem schwaebischen Zeitpuncte CXL Dichter enthaltend; durch
Ruedger Manessen, weiland des Rathes der uralten Zyrich. Aus der Handschrift der
Königlich-Französischen Bibliothek herausgegeben. Ed. Johann Jacob Bodmer and Johann
Jacob Breitinger. Zurich: Conrad Orell, 1758-59. Print.
Stackmann, Karl. “Mittelalterliche Texte als Aufgabe.” Festschrift für Jost Trier zum 70.
Geburtstag. Ed. William Foerste and Karl Heinz Borck. Cologne and Graz: Böhlau, 1964.
240-67. Print.
———. “Die Edition – Königsweg der Philologie?” Methoden und Probleme der Edition
mittelalterlicher deutscher Texte. Ed. Kurt Gärtner and Rolf Bergmann. Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 1993. 1-18. Print.
———. “Neue Philologie?” Modernes Mittelalter. Neue Bilder einer populären Epoche. Ed.
Joachim Heinzle. Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1994. 398-427. Print.
———. “Autor – Überlieferung – Editor.” Das Mittelalter und die Germanisten. Zur neueren
Methodengeschichte der Germanischen Philologie. Freiburger Colloquium 1997. Ed. Eckart
C. Lutz. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1998. 11-32. Print.
Timpanaro, Sebastiano. The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2006. Print. (Original: La genesi del metodo del Lachmann. Florenz: Le Monnier, 1963.
German translation: Die Entstehung der Lachmannschen Methode. Hamburg: Helmut
Buske, 1971.)
Trierer Silvester. Ed. Carl Kraus. Hanover: Hahn, 1895. Print.
Ulrich von Lichtenstein. Ed. Karl Lachmann. Notes Theodor von Karajan. Berlin: Verlag der.
Sanderschen Buchhandlung, 1841. Print.
Weinhold, Karl. Alemannische Grammatik. Berlin: Dümmler, 1863. Print.
———. Bairische Grammatik. Berlin: Dümmler, 1867. Print.
Wesle, Karl. Frühmittelhochdeutsche Reimstudien. Jena: Fromann, 1925. Print.
Wigalois. Der Ritter mit dem Rade getihtet von Wirnt von Gravenberch. Ed. Georg Friedrich
Benecke. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1819. Print.
Wilhelm der Heilige von Oranse von Tvrlin oder Vlrich Tvrheim, einem Dichter des schwäbischen
Zeitpuncts. Ed. W. I. C. G. Casparson. Cassel: Cramer, 1781. Print.
Wolfram von Eschenbach. Ed. Karl Lachmann. 2nd edition. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1854. Print.