Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The manuscript relationships of Rudolf von Ems’s Barlaam und Josaphat with special reference to rubrication 1974

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1974_A1 Z33_9.pdf
UBC_1974_A1 Z33_9.pdf
UBC_1974_A1 Z33_9.pdf [ 8.58MB ]
UBC_1974_A1 Z33_9.pdf
UBC_1974_A1 Z33_9.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0099942.json
JSON-LD: 1.0099942+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0099942.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0099942+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0099942+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0099942+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0099942.ris

Full Text

THE MANUSCRIPT RELATIONSHIPS OF RUDOLF VON EMS 1S BARLAAM UND JOSAPHAT WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO RUBRICATION, by K a r l August Zaenker A t h e s i s s u b m i t t e d i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e degree o f D o c t o r o f P h i l o s o p h y i n t h e Department o f German We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia March 19 74 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Abstract The medieval legend of the two Saints Barlaam and Josaphat has attracted wide attention since, i n the nineteenth cen- tury, some of i t s roots were discovered i n ancient Indie Buddha legends and parables. Our study l i m i t s i t s e l f to the German version by Rudolf von Ems, a free t r a n s l a t i o n from a Latin source, written around 1225. Although t h i s work was edited as early as 1818, i t was not u n t i l the l a s t decade that some detailed but rather opposite i n t e r - pretations were devoted to i t . A l l recent studies of Bar- laam und Josaphat have been based on a r e p r i n t of P f e i f f e r e d i t i o n of 1843 which, however, has grave shortcomings: i t takes only a few manuscripts and fragments into account selects t h e i r readings at random, and does not provide a r e l i a b l e c r i t i c a l apparatus. Therefore, i t seemed appro- priate to work towards a new, t r u l y c r i t i c a l text e d i t i o n which would be b e n e f i c i a l to further investigations i n t o meaning and structure of the work. Our f i r s t step was to locate a l l e x i s t i n g manuscripts and fragments and obtain photocopies of them. For the ensuing process of assessing t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n order to determine t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l value f o r a text r e c o n s t i - t u t i o n , we t r i e d an approach d i f f e r e n t from t r a d i t i o n a l practice. Instead of basing a grouping on common readings or mistakes alone, we began by comparing the paragraph - i i - markings (rubricated i n i t i a l s ) i n the major manuscripts. We believe that they were placed o r i g i n a l l y to subdivide the narrative and that, generally, they were copied by l a t e r scribes and rubricators. During the transmissibn process involuntary or deliberate "misplacements" occurred which would show up i n further copies and could thus i n d i - cate group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Therefore we l i s t e d a l l r u b r i - cation. marks i n a comprehensive chart and calculated the o v e r a l l agreement between the major manuscripts i n percen- tage fi g u r e s . The evaluation showed that the oldest two manuscripts C and D, as well as A and b have a very s i m i l a r rubrica- t i o n pattern, probably s t i l l close to the o r i g i n a l one. This likeness makes i t d i f f i c u l t i f not impossible to deter- mine i f another manuscript i s r e l a t e d to e i t h e r of these. On the other hand, a c l e a r a f f i n i t y could be established between the h i t h e r t o overlooked manuscripts G, M, and, to a l e s s e r extent, E, as well as between W and L i n the f i r s t h a l f of the text and C and L i n the second h a l f . We had divided the t o t a l number of i n i t i a l s into four even sec- tions (covering ca. 4000 verses) to see i f the "agreement figure" of one manuscript to another changes markedly. A subsequent look at i n d i v i d u a l "spurious i n i t i a l s " (mostly f a u l t s i n rubrication) confirmed the f i r s t r e s u l t s and established a t h i r d d e f i n i t e grouping, that of DK CK a (K a i s only represented by the text e d i t i o n of 1818). A comparison of the smaller fragments followed i n which the main c r i t e r i o n was t h e i r textual agreement with other manuscripts. The r u b r i c a t i o n was also taken into account but not overemphasized since conclusive evidence was often lacking due to the shortness of most fragments. We found that i n three cases fragments belonged together to one otherwise l o s t manuscript (dq, mF2, and e l ) . Many of the fragments showed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the GEM-group, whereas only very few seemed rel a t e d to e i t h e r A, b, C, or D. This sampling of common variants and text omissions throughout the work served also to v e r i f y the r e s u l t s gained by the " i n i t i a l method." In general, the above mentioned groupings were confirmed or s l i g h t l y modified. It became c l e a r that i n some cases a straightforward text transmission (as represented i n a stemma) cannot be assumed. E s p e c i a l l y i n the loosely r e l a t e d body of manu- sc r i p t s A, b, (B), C, L, and W, there i s strong evidence of contamination which would make a tentative c l a s s i f i c a - t i o n f u t i l e . A c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n should, i n our view, follow the old r e l i a b l e Freiburg codex D as lead manu- s c r i p t and confront i t s text consistently with the read- ings and paragraphs of the other two large groupings, mainly C and G. The c l o s i n g chapter outlines the spreading of Rudolf's - i v - Barlaam und Josaphat as documented i n i t s manuscript t r a - d i t i o n , from i t s l i m i t e d Alpine o r i g i n to i t s popularity within the Teutonic Order of Knights i n East Prussia u n t i l i t s l a s t flowering i n Southern Germany at the end of the f i f t e e n t h century. V Content s page 1. Survey of Barlaam research to the present day 1.1. Understanding of the text 1 1.2. The text t r a d i t i o n 6 2. The Barlaam manuscripts 18 2.1. Major manuscripts 19 2.2. Smaller fragments 2 2 3. Study of r u b r i c a t i o n c 3.1. Textual c r i t i c i s m and comparison of i n i t i a l s 2 7 3.2. Chart of i n i t i a l s 3 8 3.3. Evaluation of the i n i t i a l systems 3.3.1. Frequency i n the placing of i n i t i a l s 91 3.3". 2. Manuscripts A, b, C, D 94 3.3.3. Manuscripts L and W 101 3.3.4. Manuscripts G, M, and E 104 3.3.5. The K-manuscripts (K a, K b, K C) 107 3.4. Spurious i n i t i a l s ; t e x t u a l variants at the beginning of a paragraph 110 4. The smaller fragments 4.1. Introductory remarks 117 v i page 4.2. Matching fragments 4.2.1. Fragments d and q 119 4.2.2. Fragments e and 1 12 5 4.2.3. Fragments m and F2 130 4.3. Single fragments 4.3.1. Fragment h 139 4.3.2. Fragment i 14 3 4.3.3. Fragment k 146 4.3.4. Fragment n 148 4.3.5. Fragment p 151 4.3.6. Fragment r 153 4.3.7. F l "Basel fragment" 156 4.3.8. F3 157 4.3.9. F6 "Breslau fragment" 159 4.3.10. F7 "Freiburg fragment" 162 4.3.11. F8 "Fulda fragment" and "Prague fragment" 165 4.3.12. F9 The "Gfittingen fragment" 169 4.3.13. F10. "Hannover fragment" 171 4.3.14. F l l "Oettingen fragment" 17 3 4.3.15. F13 "London fragment" 175 4.3.16. F18 " B e r l i n fragment" 177 5. Conclusion V X 1 5.1. F i n a l grouping of manuscripts based on text and r u b r i c a t i o n 5.2. The geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of Barlaam und Josaphat L i s t of Works Cited Map: Geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of Rudolf von Ems' Barlaam und Josaphat 1 1. Survey of Barlaam research to the present day 1.1. Understanding of the text The story of Barlaam and Josaphat, though seemingly foreign to the l i t e r a r y taste of today, i s one of the most wide- spread themes of world l i t e r a t u r e . Hiram P e r i , i n his com- prehensive bibliography of the legend, including the few pre-Christian forerunners, c i t e s versions i n almost f o r t y d i f f e r e n t vernaculars.^ The Buddhist core of the subject matter and i t s complex and disputed t r a d i t i o n w i l l not be considered i n t h i s study; the work of P e r i gives a good 2 introduction into t h i s f i e l d . We s h a l l l i m i t ourselves to the Middle High German version, created by Rudolf von Ems around the year 1225 a f t e r a L a t i n model. This s o - c a l l e d "Vulgata" version from which a l l the medieval Barlaam texts descend i s i t s e l f one of two early translations of the Greek Barlaam, composed probably i n the eighth century by John of Damascus according to diverse older sources. Although both Barlaam and Josaphat are registered i n the authoritative Saints' calendar of the Roman Catholic Church, the Martyrologium Romanum, the text i t s e l f does not represent a t y p i c a l Saint's v i t a . This i s indicated already ^ Hiram P e r i , Der Religionsdisput der Barlaam-Legende (Universidad de Salamanca, 1959), pp. 223-272. 2 See also the study by Charlotte Nagler, "Studien zu Barlaam und Josaphat von Rudolf von Ems," Diss. Karlsruhe 19 72, which takes xnto consideration the Stoffgeschichte• 2 by the rather unusual naming of two saints i n the t i t l e : here the emphasis i s not on the s e l f - d e n i a l , martyrdom and miracle works of one heaven-inspired man, but rather on the i n s t r u c t i o n that the neophyte Josaphat receives from his God-appointed teacher Barlaam, his observance and dissemin- ation of the Chr i s t i a n teachings and, f i n a l l y , the r e u n i f i - cation of teacher and d i s c i p l e i n a common ascet i c l i f e . We accept H. Brackert's t h e s i s , that Rudolf's work should not be regarded as a "miracle legend" (Wunderlegende), but rather as the much rarer type of "conversion story" (Bekeh- rungsgeschichte). The overcoming of heathendom and the vic t o r y of C h r i s t i a n i t y are demonstrated i n several repeated instances. The conversion of the heathen prophets Nachor and Theodas (Barlaam 11030-11264 and 13179-13310) , 4 the C h r i s t i a n i z a t i o n of his own kingdom through Josaphat and, as the crowning triumph, the conversion of his own f a t h e r - a l l of t h i s constitutes the glory (ruom) of the " e l e c t " (der gotes erwelte reine, 15841) and bestows on him, i n martyr- dom's stead, the rank of sainthood. To t h i s i s also added a fundamental feature of most legends, the personal stead- fastness of the neophyte, who must maintain himself against a l l worldly temptations; i n the case of Josaphat, they 3 Helmut Brackert, Rudolf von Ems: Dichtung und Ge- schichte (Heidelberg: U n i v e r s i t a t s v e r l a g , 1968), p. 214. 4 Quoted a f t e r Franz P f e i f f e r , ed., Rudolf von Ems: Barlaam und Josaphat (1843; rp t . B e r l i n : de Gruyter, 1965). 3 appear i n the form of reason, love, and power.b The popu- l a r i t y of the Barlaam and Josaphat story i n medieval times i s due l a r g e l y to i t s d i d a c t i c passages in form of parables, the exempla, with which the lengthy i n s t r u c t i o n s and Bible interpretations were i l l u s t r a t e d and i n which o r i e n t a l f a i r y - t a l e motifs have found t h e i r way into the Western world. The Barlaam material has been extensively studied by diverse d i s c i p l i n e s during the past hundred years, which prompted J. Sonet to begin the preface of his book on the Latin and French Barlaam versions with the words: "Le roman de Barlaam et Josaphat a deja f a i t couler des f l o t s d'encre." Surp r i s i n g l y , on the other hand, the Germanists had treated 7 Rudolf's work " s t i e f m u t t e r l i c h , " although such an author- i t y as de Boor termed i t "von der Form her . . . das r e i n s t e , 8 kla s s i s c h s t e Werk Rudolfs." In fact t h i s negligence i s 9 in e x p l i c a b l e , the more so as Rudolf's Barlaam was one of 5 see Johannes Erben, "Zu Rudolfs Barlaam und Josaphat," i n Germanistische Studien, ed. J. Erben and E. Thurnherr (Innsbruck, 1969), pp. 34-35. g Jean Sonet, Le_ Roman de Barlaam et Josaphat: Recherches sur l a t r a d i t i o n manuscrite l a t i n e et francaise (Namur, 19 49T7 7 Heinz Rupp, "Rudolfs von Ems Barlaam and Josaphat," i n Dienendes Wort: Festgabe Bender (Karlsruhe, 19 59) , p. 11. g H. de Boor, Die httfische L i t e r a t u r (Munich, 1953), p. 187. 9 see Roy Wisbey, "Zum Barlaam und Josaphat Rudolfs von Ems," ZfdA 86 (1955/56), 294. 4 the e a r l i e s t reprinted texts i n the h i s t o r y of German medi- eval philology. I t was only i n the l a s t decade that Barlaam began to receive greater consideration, primarily due to the e f f o r t s of H. Rupp's two essays and his r e p r i n t of P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n . Since then there has evolved some discussion as to the l i t e r a r y evaluation of t h i s work: does i t manifest an inherent r e l i g i o u s c r i s i s of i t s author; i s i t purely contemptus mundi poetry (according to de Boor, Die httfische L i t e r a t u r , pp. 177 and 181); or i s the accent more on the work and e f f e c t of the Saint within the world, and does the author a c t u a l l y disassociate himself from the idea of asce- t i c i s m presented in the Latin source, as R. Schnell postu- lates i n accordance with Rupp's in t e r p r e t a t i o n ? " ^ Does the 12 "httfische Form" stamp the character of t h i s r e l i g i o u s work, or Is i t to be understood almost as d i d a c t i c l i t e r a t u r e (lere) and "Exemplum eines dieser le r e entsprechenden Welt- verhaltens," according to H. Brackert (pp. 214-2 20)? And how does t h i s r e l a t e to the v e r d i c t of "Epigonentum" which has been commonly applied to Rudolf's works? Does his Heinz Rupp, "Rudolf von Ems und Konrad von Wurz- burg," Der Deutschunterricht 17, No. 2 (1965), 5-17. See also footnote 7. RUdiger Schnell, Rudolf von Ems: Studien zur inne- ren Einheit seines Gesamtwerkes (Bern, 1969) , pp. 84-115. 12 Xenja von E r t z d o r f f , Rudolf von Ems_: Untersuchungen zum httfischen Roman im 1_3. Jahrhundert TMunich, 1967), pp. 216 and 349. 5 reshaping of the Barlaam legend point into the future of this genre, and i s Rudolf therefore not a mere imitator of the great medieval epic authors, but rather a forerunner of 13 l a t e r developments, as H. Rupp sees i t ? Or i s there i n Barlaam an ambivalent mixture of i d e a l i z i n g and problematici- zing tendencies, an unsolved c o n f l i c t between legend and courtly romance, which would characterize the work as e p i - g o n a l " ? 1 4 These questions must remain open i n t h i s context. In order to answer them, i t would be necessary to make an i n - tensive analysis of the text i n respect to i t s L a t i n and 15 Greek precursors, as well as other s i m i l a r l i t e r a r y works of the time (Saints' v i t a e , courtly legends and romances) to determine the s p e c i f i c p o s i t i o n of Barlaam i n terms of i t s genre. We have merely alluded here to the var- ious facets of t h i s work of Rudolf von Ems and to d i f f e r e n t approaches adopted by l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s during the past dec- ade i n order to achieve a better understanding of the text -s c and reassess the rank of i t s author. 13 H. Rupp, "Rudolf von Ems und Konrad von Wurzburg," 13. 14 U l r i c h Wyss, "Rudolfs von Ems Barlaam und Josaphat zwischen Legende und Roman," i n Probleme mittelhochdeutscher Erzahlformen, ed. P. F. Ganz and W. Schroder ( B e r l i n , 1972), pp. 214-238. x ^ The study by Hannah Czizek, "Rudolfs von Ems Barlaam und Josaphat und seine l a t e i n i s c h e Vorlage," d i s s . Vienna 19 31 applies questionable categories and i s of l i t t l e use. 6 1.2. The text t r a d i t i o n The aforementioned contributions, d i v e r s i f i e d as they are i n t h e i r methods and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , concur i n one respect: they do not take into account the manuscript t r a d i t i o n of Barlaam. The only avai l a b l e e d i t i o n of t h i s work, 130 years old, seems to be t a c i t l y accepted as presenting the " r i g h t " text and i s not expressly questioned. An evaluation of the exi s t i n g Barlaam manuscripts and t h e i r text versions has not been attempted so f a r , although i t would seem important to come to p o s i t i v e conclusions regarding the text t r a d i t i o n —which also includes the text reception by l a t e r s c r i b e s — before drawing any inferences as to the inte n t i o n of the author and the genre of the work. As long as the text i t - s e l f does not stand on firmer ground, int e r p r e t a t i o n s of i t cannot be well-founded. Let us take, f o r example, the discussion over the mean- ing of the author's digressions (the courtly "Damenpreis," 11735-870 ,. and the "Schimpf rede," 12259-289) i n the context of the en t i r e work.. None of the modern inte r p r e t e r s has remarked on the fac t that these passages appear complete i n only four of the twelve major manuscripts that we know of ( i n A, B, b, and E, as opposed to C, D, G, K a, K b, K c, L, and the Vienna manuscript W), and none has examined the con- sequences which could be drawn from t h i s f a c t with regard to the reception or possibly even the conception of Barlaam 7 und Josaphat. Or, to c i t e a l e s s e r example, H. Rupp bases h i s thesis that Josaphat i s summoned to be active within the world, to f u l f i l l his p o s i t i o n as a C h r i s t i a n r u l e r of a country partly on verses 6571-75, i n which Barlaam admonishes his d i s c i p l e not to follow him to his hermitage. wis ein bredigaere gotes unde ein l e r e r sins gebotes, wan dus gar gewaltic b i s t : a l h i e so k r e f t i c niemen i s t , der wider d i r getlirre s i n . . . " H. Brackert, on the other hand, contradicts Rupp's argument as follows: "Doch vergleichen wir den Text. Barlaam sagt: 'wan dus gar gewaltec b i s t . ' Der Genitiv bezieht s i c h auf die beiden vorhergehenden Substantive bredigaere, l e r e r . Es i s t also keineswegs vom Ftirstenamt schlechthin die Rede" (Brackert, p. 217). On examining the manuscripts, we con- clude that P f e i f f e r ' s reading i n 6 57 3 i s based only on man- uscripts E and D, s t r i c t l y speaking. Manuscripts A and G come very close ("wan du des gar gewaltic b i s t , " and "wan du i s gar gewaltic b i s t " ) , and also manuscripts C, E, L, and W read b a s i c a l l y the same ("wan du sein gar . . . " r e f e r r i n g thus to gebote). Rupp's explanation i s supported, however, by the reading of K ("wan du gar gewaltic b i s t " ) and equally by the B e r l i n codex K which omits verses 6571-74 e n t i r e l y and continues by reversing l i n e s 6575 and 8 6576 ("wan niemen geturre wider d i r s i n " ) , which would allude to the "FUrstenamt" rather than the "Predigeramt" which Brackert emphasizes pr i m a r i l y . To be sure Brackert's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s supported i n t h i s case by more manuscripts than that of Rupp. However, the "correct," or rather the most probable, reading cannot be taken from a purely numeri- c a l "majority decision" from the manuscripts, as long as t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s one to another have not been examined. The rediscovery of Rudolf's Barlaam i s connected with the names of the great l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s of the Enlighten- ment, Gottsched and Bodmer. The seventh volume of the l i t - erary magazine Beytrage zur c r i t i s c h e n H i s t o r i e der deutschen, Sprache (L e i p z i g , 1741, 406-4-14) , edited by Johann Christoph Gottsched, contained a short description by Conrad Arnold Schmid and an extract of almost 200 verses of an incomplete manuscript found near Llineburg ( l a t e r bought by the B r i t i s h Museum). Shortly after this, Johann Jacob Bodmer printed several fragmentary passages of Barlaam und Josaphat i n addition to 17 his Nibelungenlied text. Bodmer had received both manu- s c r i p t s , the Nibelungen codex C and the Barlaam manuscript A, from the l i b r a r y at Hohenems Castle, and followed them 16 See H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue of Romances i n the Department of Manuscripts i n the Britis~h~Tluseum, II (London, 1893), 142. 17 Chriemhilden Rache und die Klage, zwei Heldengedichte aus dem schwabischen Zeitpuncte (Zurich, 17 5 7), pp. 251-286. 9 i n his e d i t i o n . His Barlaam excerpts are headed by t i t l e s and present the following sections: "Anfang des Gedichtes" (1-62), "Eingang" (125-164), " L i t u r g i c a " (6673-6956), "Vor- t r e f f l i c h k e i t der c h r i s t l i c h e n Religion" (10825-10950 and 12747-12894), "Hymnus" (139 0 7-14049), "Traum" (12 32 5-125 32), "Ablegung der Krone" (14751-14904), and, f i n a l l y , "Ende des Gedichtes" (16022-16164). Bodmer seemed to be interested merely i n o f f e r i n g his public a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e l e c t i o n of the work, and not i n preparing a complete ed i t i o n of Bar- laam, which, a f t e r a l l , was only of minor i n t e r e s t to him compared to his NibeTungenlied studies. He did, however, take a f i r s t small step i n the d i r e c t i o n of a c r i t i c a l e d i - t i o n , i n that he annotated his f i r s t passage with several variants of a Strassburg manuscript (probably the large fragment, P f e i f f e r ' s s i g l e : a). This Hohenems manuscript used by Bodmer came into the possession of F r e i h e r r Joseph von Lassberg at the beginning of the nineteenth century, who claimed i t to be Rudolf's own handwritten work. Bodmer had already shown a much more enlightened judgment on the 18 value of his two Barlaam manuscripts, and Karl Lachmann i n his l e t t e r to Jacob Grimm of March 27, 1821 dismisses 19 Lassberg's assertion rather i r o n i c a l l y . 18 "Es scheint, dass jeder Schreiber sic h eine eigene Buchstabierart erfunden, und grosse Freyheiten genommen habe." (Chriemhi1den Rache . . ., p. 253). 19 Briefwechsel der Briider Jacob und' Wilhelm Grimm mit Karl Lachmann, ed. A. Leitzmann (Jena, 1927) , pp. 289-290 . 10 The f i r s t complete e d i t i o n of Barlaam und Josaphat was published i n 1818 by F r i e d r i c h K a r l Ktipke, with an appendixed l i s t of corrections and commentaries contributed by the 20 young K a r l Lachmann. Kfipke, who was Gymnasialprofessor i n Ktinigsberg at that time, based his e d i t i o n on two manuscripts found i n the Kttnigliche Btichersammlung at Kfinigsberg ( P f e i f - fer's s i g l e s K a and K b ) , as well as on a manuscript preserved i n B e r l i n ( P f e i f f e r ' s s i g l e K c ) , of which he obtained a copy written f o r him by J . G. Btisching. In addition K5pke men- tioned some of the variant readings of the Bodmer se l e c t i o n s . Kttpke defended the method of his e d i t i o n i n his preface as follows: "Es sind i n den neuesten Zeiten uber die Art, wie alte deutsche Gedichte herausgegeben werden s o l l e n , ver- schiedene Ansichten bekannt geworden, so lange aber aus diesen noch nicht ein bestimmtes Ergebniss gezogen werden kann, schien es am gerathensten, die a l t e s t e von den Hand- s c h r i f t e n , welche zu Gebote standen [ t h i s would mean K a ] , zum Grunde zu legen und von dieser nur dann abzuweichen und die Lesart einer andern aufzunehmen, wenn die erste einen entschieden verderbten Text b i e t e t ; alsdann muss aber f r e i - l i c h i n den Lesarten Nachricht davon gegeben werden. Dieses Verfahren i s t bei nachfolgendem Abdrucke beobachtet worden" (KSpke, pp. VII-VIII). 20 F. K. Kttpke, Barlaam und Josaphat von Rudolf von Montfort (Kttnigsberg, 1818) . We quote from i t s second e d i - ti o n ( L e i p z i g , 1838), henceforth r e f e r r e d to as "Kfipke." 11 This p r i n c i p l e of e d i t i n g — f o l l o w i n g a lead manuscript —appears nowadays p e r f e c t l y legitimate. I t i s however a long way from the method of textual c r i t i c i s m which became standard f o r medieval editions by the second h a l f of the nineteenth century. I t i s understandable that Lachmann, who i s regarded as having i n i t i a t e d t h i s method i n the f i e l d of German philology, expressed some cautious reservations i n the appendix of Kttpke1s e d i t i o n : "Ubrigens i s t Ihr Streben sowohl wie meines nur auf einen lesbaren Abdruck gegangen: zu einer k r i t i s c h e n Ausgabe f e h l t e es an Hulfsmitteln" (Kopke, p. 436). Since the two Kfinigsberg manuscripts i n a l l probabil- i t y were destroyed at the end of World War I I , we remain dependent on Kttpke's e d i t i o n as f a r as our investigations into K a and K*3 are concerned. For t h i s reason, i t appears necessary to respect Lachmann's opinion, since he had com- pared K a and with Kflpke's version. F i r s t , he makes sev- e r a l negative comments on the value of K a, remarking on ". . . die ungeheure Menge von Schreibfehlern, die schlechte Orthographie, und die nur seiten schfine, aber sehr ungleiche S c h r i f t . . ." (KSpke, p. 428). While t h i s judgment may primarily r e f l e c t Lachmann's own i d e a l i s t i c concept of a uniform Middle High German poetic language, his verdict on Kttpke's r e l i a b i l i t y as an editor cannot be overlooked. In his correspondence with Jacob Grimm, Lachmann gives free r e i n to his displeasure. He not only reproaches Ktipke f o r 12 being "borniert, unwissend, trage und l a c h e r l i c h e i t e l , " he also accuses him of dishonesty and deliberate deception (i n another e d i t i o n , Ktipke had t a c i t l y omitted several ver- ses). He r e c a l l s ". . . wie 1816 b e i meiner Ankunft sein druckfertiger Barlaam, mit dem Glossarium von 6-8 Quartblat- tern, aussah (es fe h l t e n ganze Verse, von der schlechten Orthographie war eben das fehlerhafteste beibehalten, sammt a l i e n Schreibfehlern, i n der ersten Halfte stand daz, i n der zweiten das; im Glossarium kein C i t a t , aber enwizzen 21 und andre Ungeheuer)." The only information given by Kttpke which we can s t i l l v e r i f y concerns h i s notes to the B e r l i n manuscript K . Many of i t s pages are not at a l l annotated, but at l e a s t KSpke mentions the many omissions i n K , a l b e i t p a r t i a l l y i n c o r r e c t l y : instead of 157,27 - 158,25 i t should be 157,7 - 158,35, and instead of 356,31-32 i t should rather be 356, 23-24 and 356,27-28 i n KSpke 1s e d i t i o n ( t h i s corresponds to 6229-6297 as well as 14307-308 and 14311-312 i n P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n ) . Neither Kfipke nor Lachmann have given any i n f o r - mation as to the placement of i n i t i a l s i n the Kfinigsberg manuscripts. Therefore, we can merely suppose that a para- graph i n Kttpke's e d i t i o n compares with an i n i t i a l i n the text of K a. In spite of these objections, we must n a t u r a l l y use Kttpke's text as representative of K a, but we are e n t i t l e d 21 Briefwechsel, p. 223. Letter of November 5, 1820. 13 to some scepticism as to i t s accuracy. Moreover, the mere b c lack of a variant f o r K or K i n Kfipke's apparatus does not prove eo ipso that they share a p a r t i c u l a r reading with K a. Five years a f t e r the second p r i n t i n g of Kfipke's Barlaam und Josaphat Franz P f e i f f e r published h i s c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n of this work. He named the author no longer a f t e r his over- l o r d , the Count of Montfort, but rather according to h i s place of o r i g i n , Hohenems (thus following the continuator of Rudolf's Weltchronik). In the preface of his e d i t i o n P f e i f f e r sets himself apart from Ktipke with self-confidence: "Seinen Zweck bloss einen lesbaren Abdruck zu geben hat er ohne Zweifel e r r e i c h t , und wenn der Abdruck auch Manches zu wunschen tibrig l i e s s , so waere es doch u n b i l l i g , den Mass- stab unserer Zeit daran legen zu wollen. Mein Streben gieng dahin, eine Ausgabe zu l i e f e r n , wie s i e der gegenwartige Standpunkt der Wissenschaft verlangt" (Barlaam, p. XIV). This recent stage i n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m to which P f e i f f e r refers i s embodied at i t s best i n Lachmann's second e d i t i o n 2 2 of Hartmann von Aue's Iwein, which also appeared i n 1813. We can allude to t h i s method b r i e f l y as that of c l a s s i c a l philology, introduced by Lachmann into the f i e l d of medieval text e d i t i o n s . According to the usual d e s c r i p t i o n i t con- s i s t s of three steps: of recerisio ( c r i t i c a l examination of 22 We used the s i x t h e d i t i o n ( B e r l i n : de Gruyter, 1962) which contains the o r i g i n a l "Anmerkungen und Lesarten zum Iwein" by Benecke and Lachmann. 14 a l l manuscripts, i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e i r degree of r e l a t i o n - ship) , emendatio (elimination of errors i n the text t r a d i - t i o n , securing the best text version), and conjectio (hypo- t h e t i c a l reconstruction of the o r i g i n a l reading i n face of 2 3 a corrupt passage. Measured against these standards, P f e i f f e r c e r t a i n l y did not reach his g o a l — b u t the same holds true for Lach- 24 mann's own e d i t o r i a l work. To begin with, P f e i f f e r did not base his e d i t i o n on "den gesamten damals bekannten 2 5 Handschriften-Bestand," as J. Klapper maintains, but only on the following s i x manuscripts: A, B, C, D, E, and b (the incomplete Heidelberg manuscript which P f e i f f e r l i s t s under his fragments). In addition, he draws on fragment a and three lesser fragments c, d, and e, as w e l l as ( f o r the Parable of the Unicorn only) on fragments f and g. P f e i f - f e r ' s apparatus contains also d i f f e r e n t readings of the Kttpke e d i t i o n ( P f e i f f e r ' s s i g l e K), without however passing on i t s variants f o r K and K . P f e i f f e r ' s choice of 2 3 See F r i e d r i c h Neumann, Studien zur Geschichte der deutschen P h i l o l o g i e ( B e r l i n , 1971), pp. 17-18. 24 The discrepancy between Lachmann1s rigorous theore- t i c a l demands and his own practice i n the f i e l d of textual c r i t i c i s m has been pointed out convincingly by Rudolf A. Hofmeister, "Lachmann1s Role i n the Transmission of P a r z i - v a l , " Seminar X, 2 (1974) f 87-100. 2 5 J. Klapper, "Barlaam und Josaphat," i n Verfasser- lexikon, ed. W. Stammler, I ( B e r l i n , 1933), p. 170. 2 6 Except f o r two cases, the omission of the author's digressions i n K^ and K c (see Barlaam, pp. 449 and 451). Even here P f e i f f e r ' s information i s p a r t i c a l l y f a u l t y i n i t s d e t a i l s . 15 s i g l e s i s generally unfortunate since i t does not d i f f e r - t i a t e between vellum and paper manuscripts by using c a p i t a l and small l e t t e r s , i t does not rank b among his major manu- s c r i p t s , and i t confuses s i g l e K and K a. There were f i v e further manuscripts which P f e i f f e r should have been acquainted with, as they were already mentioned i n von der Hagen's 2 7 L11erarischer Grundriss. These were G, the Gotha manuscript H, a manuscript i n Hamburg M, the incomplete London manuscript mentioned above (p. 8 ) N, a manuscript formerly owned by Raimund K r a f f t at Ulm W, a former Ambras codex i n Vienna. P f e i f f e r mentions G and W at one place i n his apparatus (Barlaam, p. 4 4 9 , concerning the author's digression), but he had apparently not consulted them himself. Furthermore, P f e i f f e r did not undertake to study i n d e t a i l the possible r e l a t i o n s h i p s of his manuscripts; he contents himself with a ca t e g o r i c a l remark on the a f f i n i t y of D and "K" as well as of B and b. On the other hand, he did not a t t r i b u t e an outstanding value to any of his Bar- laam manuscripts which would have allowed him to follow i t as a "Leithandschrift." Therefore he f e e l s e n t i t l e d to select the appropriate reading from any one of the manu- s c r i p t s , depending on his own judgment alone (see Barlaam, 27 L i t e r a r i s c h e r Grundriss zur Geschichte der Deutschen Poesie von der altesten Z e i t bis i n das 1 6 . Jahrhundert, ed. F. H. von der Hagen and J . G. Busching ( B e r l i n , 1 8 1 2 ) , pp. 2 8 2 - 9 4 . 16 p. 409). It cannot be expected that P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus contains the divergent readings of a l l manuscripts f o r each verse; Lachmann himself emphasizes the need f o r withholding such 2 8 superfluous information i n his Iwein commentary. But we cannot overlook the fact that the variants provided by P f e i f f e r are frequently misleading or f a u l t y . As proof, l e t us r e c t i f y here merely some of P f e i f f e r ' s information regarding the omission of verses. 91,21-22 are not missing i n E; 120,11-12 and 120,33-34 are missing i n b; 155,17-18 are omitted i n E (and K bG); 230,36-38 are omitted i n E; 275,32 and 277,10 are not omitted i n d; three leaves are missing i n C between 276,23-389,30; 402,3-4 reversed i n K a and K c , but not i n A. These are only a few out of many more inco r r e c t i n d i c a t i o n s , but the amount of suppressed information of that kind i s even f a r greater i n P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus. Moreover, P f e i f f e r neglected to mention that C and E i n s e r t Latin Bible quotations i n ce r t a i n passages. In one regard P f e i f f e r went beyond Lachmann's p r a c t i c e , i n that he included paragraph markings i n his c r i t i c a l apparatus. But here, too, his information i s so sporadic and inaccurate that i t can only be considered a step i n the ri g h t d i r e c t i o n . This lack i s p a r t i c u l a r l y regrettable i n the case of manu- sc r i p t s B and a which have meanwhile been destroyed. 2 8 Iwein, 6th ed. ( B e r l i n , 1962), pp. 362-63. 17 D u r i n g t h e p a s t 130 y e a r s a g r e a t number o f a d d i t i o n a l t e x t w i t n e s s e s h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d . H o w e v e r , a s m a l l p o r - t i o n o f t h e s e h a s y e t b e e n e v a l u a t e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e e n t i r e t e x t t r a n s m i s s i o n . The f i r s t a n d so f a r o n l y p u b l i s h e d a t t e m p t i n t h i s r e g a r d was made i n t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n by F. 2 9 S t t h n s . S6hns b a s e d h i s s t u d y m a i n l y on P f e i f f e r ' s a p p a r a - t u s w h i c h e x p l a i n s many o f i t s f l a w s . I n a d d i t i o n t o i t , he t o o k i n t o a c c o u n t one f u r t h e r , m a n u s c r i p t ( L ) a n d s i x f r a g - m ents ( h , i , k, 1, m, n ) . R e g a r d i n g f r a g m e n t s m a n d n , Stthns drew h i s c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m s e c o n d h a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e m a n u s c r i p t d e s c r i p t i o n s a n d c o l l a t i o n s o f D i e m e r a n d M i n z l o f f ( s e e c h a p t e r 2 . 2 ) . Of f r a g m e n t s i a n d k SGhns h a d o b t a i n e d a h a n d w r i t t e n c o p y , w h e r e a s he h i m s e l f e x a m i n e d o n l y L, h , a n d 1. S t t h n s ' s own c o l l a t i o n s o f L, h , i , k, a n d 1 a r e a d d e d by H. Rupp t o h i s r e p r i n t i n g o f t h e P f e i f f e r e d i t i o n ( B a r l a a m , pp. 4 6 4 - 5 0 5 ) . T h i s a p p e n d i x i s o f r e l a - t i v e l y l i t t l e v a l u e h o w e v e r , a s L shows a v e r y c o r r u p t t e x t 3 0 v e r s i o n , a n d two o f t h e f r a g m e n t s , l a n d k, r a n k l o w com- pared w i t h o t h e r s . H. Rupp i s w e l l a w a r e t h a t h i s r e p r i n t c a n o n l y be a t e m p o r a r y s o l u t i o n ( s e e h i s " N a c h w o r t , " B a r l a a m , p. 5 1 2 ) . I t h a s become o b v i o u s t h a t f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e s t r u c - t u r e a n d m e a n i n g o f R u d o l f v o n E m s 1 s B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t c a n no l o n g e r be b a s e d m e r e l y o n P f e i f f e r ' s a n d Stthns's 29 F r a n z Sflhns , Das H a n d s c h r i f t e n v e r h a l t n i s s i n R u d o l f s v o n Ems B a r l a a m , D i s s . E r l a n g e n 18 78 ( E r l a n g e n , 18T8 ' J~ 3 0 See F. J . W o r s t b r o c k ' s r e v i e w , Z f d A 77 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 114. <3 18 readings i n the l a s t instance. For the time being, the manuscripts themselves have to be consulted i n each case. This impractical and time consuming procedure would make a 31 t r u l y c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n highly desirable, but this goal cannot be reached without extensive preliminary studies. Our purpose, therefore, i s to contribute to t h i s end by making an inventory of a l l e x i s t i n g manuscripts, assessing t h e i r possible r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and comparing t h e i r rubrica- t i o n . 2. The Barlaam manuscripts The following survey proceeds from the information provided by P f e i f f e r and S films—updated, corrected or completed whenever deemed necessary—and i s based f o r most of the remaining fragments on the l i s t i n g established by Worstbrock (see above). In order to avoid confusion, the s i g l e s i n t r o - duced by P f e i f f e r and Sfihns w i l l be kept here; furthermore we follow Worstbrock's numbering of fragments (our s i g l e s " F l " to "F18"). Deviations from t h i s procedure w i l l be accounted f o r . Information on the age and material condi- 31 Apparently, a new e d i t i o n i s planned by Siegmund Ŵ̂ A ^ P r i l l w i t z i n Hamburg (according to his note i (of June 2 , 1973). His unprinted thesis "Rudolfs von Ems BuJ. Uberlieferung und late i n i s c h e Vorlage" ( l i s t of diss e r t a t i o n s i n progress i n Jahrbuch fur Infernafionale Germanistik, I I , 2, No. 1828) has not been av a i l a b l e . 19 Irion of manuscripts i s usually taken from the pertinent l i b r a r y catalogues or manuscript descriptions which are only e x p l i c i t l y mentioned when a point i s under discussion (see 32 chapter 4). 2.1. Major manuscripts P f e i f f e r ' s text consists of 16164 verses, but none of the existing manuscripts contains t h i s text i n i t s e n t i r e t y . Due to text omissions or physical damage, they are more or less reduced i n size and could a l l be c a l l e d "fragmentary". Therefore i t does not seem l o g i c a l to l i s t manuscript b under "Bruchstucke," as P f e i f f e r does, while i t has pre- served nearly as much text as C. Likewise, we rank the a l - ready mentioned "London fragment" among the major manu- s c r i p t s , since i t presents three extensive text sections from the beginning, the middle, and the end of the work, altogether more than h a l f of a l l the verses. The smaller fragments, on the other hand, consist only of very few leaves, the larg e s t of them does not even contain one tenth of the enti r e text.. The major Barlaam manuscripts which we used are: A formerly at Hohenems, now Ftt r s t l i c h FUrstenbergische Hofbibliothek, Donaueschingen. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h to \ fourteenth century; 16122 verses. Microfilm. sJLuU^ 32 ' We would l i k e to thank a l l the l i b r a r i e s mentioned i n this section f o r t h e i r assistance i n providing micro- fi l m s . 20 b Univer s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k Heidelberg, Cod. Pal. Germ. 811. Paper, fourteenth century; twelve leaves are missing, 14052 verses. Microfilm. C Bayerische Staatsbibliothek MUnchen, Cgm. 16. Vellum, 1284; eight leaves are missing, 14292 verses (including 58 verses of the beginning which were l a t e r added). Microfilm. D Un i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k Freiburg i . Br., Hs. 480. Vellum, thirteenth to fourteenth century; f i v e leaves are mis- sing, 15234 verses. Microfilm. E Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Munchen, Cgm. 273. Paper, 1459; 16118 verses. Microfilm. G formerly at Gotha, now Niedersachsische Staats- und Uni v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k , Gttttingen, 2° P h i l o l . 188/10. Vellum, fourteenth century; 15966 verses. Microfilm. K a formerly U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k KHnigsberg, Hs. 89 8, missing since 1945. Vellum, fourteenth century; ca. 15660 verses. Text taken from Kflpke's e d i t i o n (see above pp. 10-12). Quoted as K, unless Kfipke's or Lachmann's commentary e x p l i c i t l y assign a reading to K a. K Staatsbibliothek Preussischer K u l t u r b e s i t z , B e r l i n , Germ. F o l . 20. Paper, f i f t e e n t h century; 15410 verses. Microfilm. L U n i v e r s i t a t b i b l i o t h e k Bonn, S 502. Vellum, fourteenth century; 15 59 0 verses. Microfilm (loan). 21 M B r i t i s h Museum, Additio n a l MS 10,288. Vellum, fourteenth century. Three large sections with missing leaves i n between, 9142 verses. L i s t e d by Worstbrock as fragment No. 12. Our s i g l e : M. Microfilm. W Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, Cod. Vind. 2884. Paper, fourteenth century; 16028 verses. Our s i g l e : W. Microfilm. The following manuscripts are ei t h e r not preserved or unavailable: B formerly Johanniter Bibliothek Strassburg, A 144. Vellum, fourteenth century. Destroyed i n 1870. Some variants and paragraph indications i n P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus. K b formerly U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k Kfinigsberg, Hs. 89 0b. Vellum, fourteenth or f i f t e e n t h century. Missing since 1945. Some variants i n KSpke's apparatus. H formerly Staats- und Un i v e r s i t a t b i b l i o t h e k Hamburg, Cod. Germ. 19 (acquired from the Uffenback c o l l e c t i o n i n Frankfurt). Paper, f i f t e e n t h century. Missing since 1945 (see Worstbrock, 112). Manuscript M contains a few i n - serted pages on which J . J . Eschenburg copied short pas- sages from H i n order to integrate the three sections of 3 3 M into the context. Our s i g l e : H. N u n t i l 17 39 owned by Dr. Raymund K r a f f t at Ulm (see Worstbrock, 113), missing since then. Vellum. Bernhard 3 3 • John Koch, "Fragmente von Rudolfs von Ems BuJ i n einer Hs. des Britischen Museums i n London," ZfdPh 13 (1881), 78-89, gives short samples of Eschenburg's copy. 22 Docen i n his review of Kttpke's e d i t i o n mentions " . . . die Kraftische Handschrift zu Ulm ( a l t und gut, aber wo j e t z t ? ) . " 3 4 Our s i g l e : N. P p r i v a t e l y owned by H. P. Kraus, New York, formerly Bib- l i o t h e c a Bodmeriana, Cologny-sur-Geneve. Paper, 14-69. Only i l l u s t r a t e d Barlaam manuscript with 13 8 full-page pen and water-color drawings from the a t e l i e r of Diebolt Lauber at Hagenau. Ca. t h i r t y leaves (out of 3 79) are 3 5 missing. Our s i g l e : P. 2.2. Smaller fragments d Zentralbibliothek ZUrich C 79c I. Vellum, thirteenth century, two leaves. Photocopy. e Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Munchen, Cgm. 5249. Vellum, thirteenth century, one double l e a f . Microfilm. h U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k WUrzburg. Vellum, thirteenth century. Eight leaves, s l i g h t l y damaged. Microfilm. i Staatsbibliothek Preussischer K u l t u r b e s i t z , B e r l i n , Germ. F o l . 720a. Vellum, thirteenth to fourteenth cen- tury, two leaves. Microfilm. k Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, B e r l i n , Germ. F o l . 720b. Vellum, fourteenth century. Three 3 4 Docen, Wiener Jahrbucher der L i t e r a t u r , XI (1820), 113. 35 . . . According to the detailed manuscript description which Mr. H. P. Kraus kindly provided. 23 leaves, greatly damaged. Microfilm. 1 Bibliothek des Germanischen Nationalmuseums Ntirnberg. Vellum, thirteenth to fourteenth century. One double lea f , damaged. Microfilm. m "Gttttweig fragment," i t s l o c a t i o n could not be esta- blished. Two vellum leaves, thirteenth century. Studied 3 6 from Joseph Diemer's des c r i p t i o n and l i s t of variants, n M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin State Library Leningrad, No. 2568. Two and a h a l f leaves. Photocopy. p p r i v a t e l y owned by Gerhard E i s , his signature: 153. Vellum, fourteenth century. One l e a f , badly damaged. 3 7 Studied from G. E i s ' s t r a n s c r i p t i o n . Our s i g l e : p. q Staatsarchiv, Schaffhausen. Vellum, thirteenth century. One l e a f , damaged. Studied from Peter Ochsenbein's 3 8 t r a n s c r i p t i o n . S i g l e q introduced by Ochsenbein. r Staatsarchiv, Schaffhausen. Vellum, fourteenth century. One l e a f , damaged. Studied from Ochsenbein's t r a n s c r i p - t i o n . S i g l e r introduced by Ochsenbein. F l U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k Basel, N.I.4 BI. S. Vellum, t h i r - teenth century, one l e a f . Photocopy. 3 6 J. Diemer i n Sitzungsberichte der Akad. der Wissen- schaft en. P h i l . H i s t . Klasse. Vienna, xi -(1853), 640-53. 37 G. E i s , "Ein neues Fragment von Rudolfs von Ems BuJ," GRM 49 (1968), 448-50. 3 8 We are much obliged to Dr. Ochsenbein (Basel) f o r sending a copy of his t r a n s c r i p t i o n . F2 Staatsbibliothek Preussischer K u l t u r b e s i t z , B e r l i n , Germ. F o l . 737, 16-18. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h century. Two leaves, damaged. Microfilm. F3 Staatsbibliothek Preussischer K u l t u r b e s i t z , B e r l i n , Germ. F o l . 737, 20-21. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h century. Two leaves, damaged. Microfilm. F6 University Library, Wroclaw, No. R3259. Vellum, four- teenth century. One double l e a f , s l i g h t l y damaged. Photocopy. F7 U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k , Freiburg, Hs. 529. Vellum, thirteenth to fourteenth century, two leaves. Microfilm. F8 Hessische Landesbibliothek, Fulda, Hs. C4a. Vellum, four teenth century. One badly damaged double l e a f . Photo- copy. F9 Niedersachsische Staats- und U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k , GBttingen, P h i l o l . 189b. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h century. Two leaves. Microfilm. F10 Kestner-Museum, Hannover, Inv. Nr. 3979a/b. Vellum, th i r t e e n t h century. One and a h a l f leaves, greatly dam- aged. Photocopy. F l l F u r s t l i c h Oettingen-Wallerstein 1sche Bibliothek und Kunstsammlung, Schloss Harburg, 1,3,4°, I. Vellum, four- teenth century. One badly damaged double l e a f . Microfilm F13 B r i t i s h Museum, Ad d i t i o n a l MS 10,288, f f . 157, 158. Vellum, thirteenth century. One l e a f , s l i g h t l y damaged. Microfilm. 25 F16 National Museum Library, Prague, IE a 7. Vellum, four- teenth century. One double leaf and another greatly damaged l e a f . Microfilm. F18 Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, B e r l i n (DDR), Fgt. 93b. Vellum, fourteenth century. One double l e a f , greatly damaged. Microfilm. The following fragments were unavailable: a formerly Johanniterbibliothek Strassburg, A 94. Des- troyed i n 1870. Vellum, fourteenth century, ca. twenty leaves. Some variants i n P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus. c formerly owned by Gymnasialprofessor Heinrich Schreiber at Freiburg, but not to be found among his papers i n 3 9 the City Archives at Freiburg. Vellum, fourteenth century, four leaves. Some variants i n P f e i f f e r ' s appa- ratus . F17 formerly K5niglich-ttffentliche Bibliothek, S t u t t g a r t , 4 0 but today not registered i n the Wurttembergische Lan- 41 desbibliothek at Stuttgart. Vellum, fourteenth to f i f t e e n t h century, one damaged l e a f . Worstbrock l i s t s i n c o r r e c t l y the damaged double leaf Germ. Fol. 923 Nr. 2 of the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kultur- besitz which, however, represents another independent Bar- 39 We are obliged to Dr. W. Hagemaier of the Univer- s i t S t s b i b l i o t h e k Freiburg f o r t h i s information. 40 Hermann Fischer, "Fragment aus BuJ," Germania 30 (1885), 102-103. 41 Letter of June 12, 197 3. Worstbrock's information i s erroneous. 26 laam version together with fragment C 79c II of the Zentral- bibliothek Z u r i c h . 4 2 Fragments which consist e x c l u s i v e l y of one or several of the Barlaam exempla have not been considered. They were taken out of the context of the narrative and revised by various authors, among them Str i e k e r or l e s s e r poets i n h i s 4 3 manner (the so-called " S t r i c k e r s c h u l e " ) . Thus they have a t r a d i t i o n of t h e i r own and can hardly shed any l i g h t on the Barlaam text transmission. This i s true f o r f O s t e r r e i c h i s c h e Nationalbibliothek, Wien, Cod. Vind. 2705, Nr. 87-92 ("Wiener Strickerhandschrift") g U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k , Heidelberg, Cod. P a l . Germ. 341, f f . 188b and 202d ("Heidelberger Strickerhandr- s c h r i f t " ) . F5 Staatsbibliothek Preussischer K u l t u r b e s i t z , B e r l i n , Germ. Oct. 137, f f . 148 v-150 r F14 B r i t i s h Museum, Ad d i t i o n a l MS 24,946, f. 65 r F15 Bibliotheca Bodmeriana ("Nikolsburger Bispelhand- s c h r i f t " ) , see Ute Schwab, Die Barlaamparabeln, p. 175. 42 This Zurich fragment i s also wrongly a t t r i b u t e d to Rudolf i n Katalog der Handschriften der Zentralbibliothek ZUrich. I. M i t t e l a l t e r l x c h e Handschriften by L. C. Mohlberg (ZUrich, 1951), p. 45. 43 See Ute Schwab, Die Barlaamparabeln im Cod. Vind. 2705 (Naples, 1966). Unfortunately, t h i s study also goes astray occasionally since i t r e l i e s on P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus. Example: Barlaam 118,37 (4697) reads "ein l u t z e l honicseimes" not only i n E and f,g (as U. Schwab claims, p. 199), but also i n M and i . 27 3. Study of r u b r i c a t i o n 3.1. Textual c r i t i c i s m and comparison of i n i t i a l s "Recent studies i n textual c r i t i c i s m mark the end of an age- long t r a d i t i o n . The ingenious technique of e d i t i n g evolved by the great masters of the nineteenth century has become as obsolete as Newton's physics, and the work of generations of c r i t i c s has l o s t a good deal of i t s value. I t i s no longer possible to c l a s s i f y manuscripts on the basis of "common errors," genealogical "stemmata" have f a l l e n i n t o d i s c r e d i t , and with them has vanished our f a i t h i n compos- i t e c r i t i c a l t e x t s . " 4 4 Before we undertake to study the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the Barlaam manuscripts, we must question the v a l i d i t y of our project i n the l i g h t of Vinaver's negative judgment. Vin- aver i s influenced to a large degree by the arguments of Joseph Bedier. Both a r t i c l e s put forward three main objections to the t r a d i t i o n a l method of textual c r i t i c i s m (for the sake of convenience c a l l e d "the Lachmann method," although Lachmann never propounded his ideas i n a t h e o r e t i - c a l t r e a t i s e ) , which could be summed up as follows: 4 4 \ Eugene Vinaver, " P r i n c i p l e s of Textual Emendation," i n Studies i n French Language and Mediaeval L i t e r a t u r e presented to M.. K. .Pope (Freeport, N.Y., 1939), p. 351. 4 5 J . Bedier, "La t r a d i t i o n manuscrite du Lai de 1'Ombre. Reflexions sur l ' a r t d'editer les anciens textes," Romania LIV (1928), 161-196 and 321-356. 28 a) The c r i t e r i o n of "common errors" i s declared misleading i n the grouping of manuscripts. In i t s stead Vinaver gives a thorough demonstration of how deviations from the r i g h t version can frequently be the r e s u l t of some mental s l i p on the part of the scribe during the copying process. b) The further back a genealogical stemma i s traced, the more hypothetical and less meaningful i t becomes. Most of these stemmas end, or rather begin, with an archetype and two major branches of text transmission descending from i t , mainly because- the text researcher has been c a r r i e d away by the "force dichotomique." "Le systeme lachmannien l ' a lance dans l a chasse aux fautes communes, mais sans l u i donner aucun moyen de savoir a quel moment i l a l e devoir de s'arreter" (Bedier, 176). However, i t i s highly impro- bably that no more than two copies were made from most of the o r i g i n a l s . c) A possible i n t e r a c t i o n of several manuscripts i s not suf- f i c i e n t l y recognized by the "genealogical method," which generally assumes a straightforward transmission from a 4-6 single source to a copy. Many of the medieval manuscripts however show traces of interference (contamination) from other sources. Bedier concludes from these and other objections that, 46 The t r a d i t i o n a l textual c r i t i c i s m declares i t s e l f powerless, indeed, against the occurrence of contamination* see Paul Maas: "Gegen die Kontamination i s t kein Kraut gewachsen." T e x t k r i t i k ( L e i p z i g , 419 60) , p. 30. 29 i n e d i t i n g a medieval t e x t , the e d i t o r should f o l l o w the be s t - t r a n s m i t t e d manuscript, which should be emended only i n the case of obvious flaws i n the t e x t . For such emenda- t i o n s there i s no mechanical procedure based on a stemmatic grouping of the manuscripts, the e d i t o r must l e t h i s own t a s t e ("gout") be the u l t i m a t e judge. As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , P f e i f f e r p u b l i s h e d h i s Barlaam e d i t i o n before the g e n e a l o g i c a l method was at i t s apogee. Thus h i s readings are s e l e c t e d e n t i r e l y on the b a s i s of h i s personal preference and not on a systematic scheme. I t was not u n t i l more than t h i r t y years l a t e r t h a t F. Stthns undertook t o e s t a b l i s h a stemma of Barlaam manuscripts, and t h i s work seems to confirm Bedier's n e g a t i v e - i r o n i c o p i n i o n . S5hns d i v i d e d a l l the manuscripts i n t o two major branches, BCLE on the one s i d e , and ADK a b c on the o t h e r , according t o the c r i t e r i o n of common e r r o r s . P a r a l l e l readings such as waere - was, w i r t - i s t , ersehen - versehen are considered as proof of a g e n e a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p (SShns, pp. 4-5). Subsequently Sfihns attempts to determine the " c o r r e c t " r e a - ding of one manuscript and one manuscript branch over another on the b a s i s of "innere Grunde" and by comparing them w i t h the L a t i n v e r s i o n . H is c o n c l u s i o n i n t h i s r e s - pect i s negative: "Legen w i r diesen Masstab der K r i t i k an die e i n z e l n e n H a n d s c h r i f t e n , so e r g i e b t s i c h im Ganzen dasselbe R e s u l t a t , das w i r von den beiden Reinen behaup- t e t e n . Es ragt keine an Q u a l i t a t entschieden vor den 30 andern hervor, es hat bald diese bald jene einmal die r i c h t i g e mit der Quelle [ i . e . , the L a t i n source] congruente Lesart erhalten" (Sflhns, p. 24). The doubtfulness of Stihns's stemma was pointed out already i n a contemporary review: "Der Herr Verfasser hat b e i bei der Auswahl der zum Beweise angeftlhrten Lesarten h i e r wie anderswo v i e l zu wenig erwogen, inwieweit Handschriften auch z u f a l l i g und unabhangig von einander oder von einer gemeinsamen Quelle i n einer Lesart zusammentreffen kfinnen, und daher . . . i n der Mehrzahl solche S t e l l e n vorgefuhrt, 4 7 die nichts beweisen kttnnen." C e r t a i n l y , Lambel's c r i t i q u e i s not an attack on the method involved, but rather on i t s careless a p p l i c a t i o n i n Stthns's study. However shaky th i s stemma may be, i t has nonetheless 48 remained a t t r a c t i v e enough to be reprinted and quoted as a standard of reference, even up to t h i s day, as shown i n an a r t i c l e by Gerhard E i s : "Die Einordnung des neuen Bruchstuckes i s t mit H i l f e der D i s s e r t a t i o n von Franz Stthns mflglich. Es gehttrt zur Gruppe BCLE, die s i c h d e u t l i c h von abc 49 der Gruppe ADK abhebt. . ." I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that Eis's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of his fragment f a i l s , since Sdhns's information was i n c o r r e c t and incomplete (see below 4.3.5). 4 7 H. Lambel, Germania 25 (1880), 377. 4 8 See Paul Piper,' Hafische' Epik, Dt. Nat.-Lit., ed. J. Kurschner, 4. Bd., 1. Abtlg. (Stuttgart, n.d.), I l l , 561. 49 G. E i s , "Ein neues Fragment von Rudolfs von Ems Barlaam und Josaphat," GRM 49 (1968), 448-450. 31 To return to our opening question: i n working towards a new Barlaam e d i t i o n , i s i t possible to renounce completely an inves t i g a t i o n into possible manuscript groupings and to content ourselves with p r i n t i n g one complete good manuscript? On f i r s t glance, t h i s appears already problematic, consider- ing the various lengths of the transmitted versions. The most extensive manuscript, the Hohenems codex A, contains numerous obvious mistakes as well as signs of a l a t e r r e v i - sion, so that even P f e i f f e r made use of i t "nur mit grosser Vorsicht" (Barlaam, p. 408). The other nearly complete manuscript E i s of a very l a t e date (mid-fifteenth century) with unsuitable d i a l e c t a l forms, and thus not applicable. The remaining manuscripts would require the i n s e r t i o n of missing passages, i n which case again we would have to decide to which manuscripts to r e f e r . To some extent a complete Barlaam e d i t i o n would therefore be a "composite text" i n any event. In our view, a d i v e r s i f i e d text trans- mission such as that of Barlaam makes a preliminary study of manuscript rel a t i o n s h i p s imperative. This does not mean that we believe i n s e t t i n g up a complete stemma, but rather that a comparison of the manu- sc r i p t s would f a c i l i t a t e the choice of a lead manuscript pr of lead manuscripts). Based on i t (or them), one would have to consult the main representatives of the other groupings i n dubious cases and weigh t h e i r divergent read- ings. This would not lead to a mechanical p r i n c i p l e of 32 s e l e c t i o n , but, i t i s hoped, towards achieving greater con- sistency and accuracy i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a text version which would be more r e l i a b l e than the one r e s u l t i n g from P f e i f f e r ' s purely subjective approach. F. Whitehead's remarks con- cerning a new e d i t i o n of the Chanson de Roland could well be applied here to Barlaam: " I t seems . . . as though what i s needed i s less a new c r i t i c a l doctrine than a return to old and w e l l - t r i e d p r i n c i p l e s of textual c r i t i c i s m , which seem to have been strangely neglected . . . from the days 5 0 of the early e c l e c t i c editors down to our time." A cau- tious return to the more t r a d i t i o n a l ways of textual c r i t - icism, without the dogmatic pretension.of the l a t e nine- teenth century scholarship, has also been observed and 51 endorsed by K a r l Stackmann. A study of the manuscript t r a d i t i o n of a medieval text remains an indispensable pre- paration f o r a c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n . The c r i t e r i o n of "common erro r " has u n t i l now been mainly applied to textual variants. I t i s rare that a c r i - t i c draws attention to noticeable concurrences i n the placement of i n i t i a l s or that such p a r a l l e l s are used as an argument f o r a possible r e l a t i o n s h i p of manuscripts. E d i - tors have almost t r a d i t i o n a l l y neglected the e x t e r i o r struc- ^° F. Whitehead, "The Textual C r i t i c i s m of the Chanson de Roland: An H i s t o r i c a l Review," Studies i n Medieval French presented to A l f r e d Ewert (Oxford, 1961), p. 86. 5 1 K. Stackmann, " M i t t e l a l t e r l i c h e Texte als Aufgabe," F e s t s c h r i f t f ur Jost T r i e r (Cologne, 1964), pp. 240-267. 33 t u r a l marks i n manuscripts, and where they have been r e g i s - tered (as i n Lachmann's preliminary studies to his Pa r z i v a l and Willehalm e d i t i o n s ) , they usually do not appear i n the c r i t i c a l apparatus. Only recently has s t r u c t u r a l research paid s p e c i a l attention to these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : "To some extent indications of the structure may be found i n manu- s c r i p t s . I t seems therefore necessary to pay greater heed not only to formal p r i n c i p l e s themselves but also to those technical d e t a i l s of manuscript production, which, though frequently passed over by edi t o r s , may . . . a s s i s t i n the 5 2 determination of t h i s structure." Linke's study i n par- t i c u l a r pursues t h i s aspect and takes the paragraph markings of the manuscripts as basis f o r determining the "authentic" 5 3 textual d i v i s i o n s of the works of Hartmann von Aue. B. Schirock's d i s s e r t a t i o n follows a somewhat s i m i l a r course for P a r z i v a l . Schirock, however, stands i n opposition to Linke when he considers the paragraph markings i n the var- ious manuscripts depending on t h e i r place and importance i n a pre-established manuscript grouping. "Erst wenn wir die Uberlieferung der Gliederungszeichen auf dem Hintergrund der Handschriftenverhaltnisse, der Gruppenbildungen und Konta- minationen beurteilen, lassen s i c h gultige Ergebnisse ab- 52 M. S. Batts, "Poetic Form and Medieval German Sc r i b a l Practice," JEGP LXII (1963), 702. 5 3 Hansjttrgen Linke, Epische Strukturen i n der Dich- tung Hartmanns von Aue (Munich, 1968) . 34 lesen. For t h i s purpose, Schirock c h i e f l y makes use of the work of Gesa Bonath who h e r s e l f i s one of the few schol- ars to recognize the importance of i n i t i a l s " . . . a l s wichtiges H i l f s m i t t e l zur Feststellung der Abhangigkeitsver- hSltnisse. . . 1 , 5 5 Our study w i l l take up t h i s idea and investigate whether a systematic comparison of i n i t i a l s i n Barlaam manuscripts can serve as a guide through the maze of seemingly contradictory readings. We s h a l l set out from the following hypotheses which have to be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d l a t e r : a) I n i t i a l s and other paragraph markings are to be regarded primarily as s t r u c t u r a l signs and not as ornaments. b) I n i t i a l s are generally taken over from the source manu- s c r i p t by the scribe (and the rubricator) of a copy and not placed at random. c) A marked agreement between the i n i t i a l patterns of two or more manuscripts c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t from the p r a c t i c e of others indicates a "genealogical" r e l a t i o n s h i p . The extent of coincidence i n r u b r i c a t i o n can be calculated i n percen- tage f i g u r e s . Some obvious objections could be r a i s e d regarding 54 Bernd Schirock, "Der Aufbau von Wolframs P a r z i v a l , " d i s s . Freiburg 1972, p. 63. ^ Gesa Bonath, Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung des Parzival Wolframs von Eschenbach. Germanische Studien, No. 238 (Llibeck and Hamburg, 1970), p. 53. 3 5 these three statements which should be discussed at t h i s point. With regard to a): I n i t i a l s also f u l f i l l an aesthe- t i c function by creating c o l o u r f u l patterns on a manuscript page, sometimes they are of decidedly a r t i s t i c character (illuminated i n i t i a l s ) . Their prime purpose i s nevertheless to organize the narrative into smaller u n i t s . The rare case that a scribe places i n i t i a l s f or purely aesthetic reasons without concern f o r the i n t r i n s i c structure of the 5 6 text i s described f o r the P a r z i v a l codex G, and f o r the 57 Munich T r i s t a n codex (Cgm 51). Such manuscripts would naturally be of no value for our purpose. The same would hold true f o r manuscripts i n which i n i t i a l s are set accor- ding to a mechanical p r i n c i p l e , e.g., every t h i r t y verses. In Barlaam manuscripts, however, there i s no such regular- i t y nor any s t r i k i n g v i s u a l p r i n c i p l e i n the placement of the i n i t i a l s ; one needs only to look at the f i r s t thousand verses, which have been uniformly handed down. With regard to b): In the f i e l d of textual c r i t i c i s m i t i s commonly acknowledged that there were wide differences in the r e l i a b i l i t y .of s c r i b e s . We d i s t i n g u i s h the "good" scribe who preserved the version of his source manuscript without w i l f u l a l t e r a t i o n s from the "thinking" scribe who t r i e d to improve on the o r i g i n a l . The same d i s t i n c t i o n can be applied regarding r u b r i c a t i o n . I t i s true that the 5 6 B. Schirock, p. 97. 5 7 M. S. Batts, 699. 36 execution of the i n i t i a l by the r u b r i c a t o r can be an addi- t i o n a l source of errors, but such flaws can usually be iden- t i f i e d rather e a s i l y . That a scrupulous scribe overlooks, misreads, or a c c i d e n t a l l y adds an i n i t i a l occurs now and then. We suggest, however, that such errors are less l i k e l y at rubricated paragraphs than i n the middle of a text pas- sage. The scribe's concentration i s more challenged at these points than anywhere els e , since he has to leave out the i n i t i a l c a p i t a l l e t t e r , indent one l i n e or even several l i n e s , and write the required l e t t e r minutely on the margin ("Repr&sentant") so that the r u b r i c a t o r can execute the correct i n i t i a l afterwards. Thus, the p o s i t i o n and the reading of a paragraph beginning are more l i k e l y to be handed down through generations r e l a t i v e l y undisturbed and can generally be considered more r e l i a b l e than most text variants. Naturally, i n the case of a "thinking" scribe who might introduce paragraph d i v i s i o n s of his own, i t would be very d i f f i c u l t to determine his source just by looking at the r u b r i c a t i o n . But again, other copies depen- dent on his manuscript would be even more e a s i l y recognized, and t h i s would r e s u l t at l e a s t i n a p a r t i a l grouping. With regard to c ) : A c o i n c i d e n t a l agreement can occur with i n i t i a l s just as with readings. The scribes could set paragraph markings independently from one another at the same prominent places i n the narrative (e.g., at the begin- ning of a speech, change of l o c a t i o n or time), where t h e i r 37 sources did not have an i n i t i a l . Obviously t h i s might lead to wrong conclusions with respect to a manuscript grouping, but th i s coincidence factor diminishes when we compare texts of greater length. Therefore i t seems reasonable to express the agreement of r u b r i c a t i o n i n percentage figures among the larger manuscripts only: i n comparing the smaller fragments we s h a l l pay sp e c i a l heed to the placement of i n i - t i a l s , but only i n conjunction with a comparison of textual variants. The common variants at the beginning of a paragraph could also be of great importance, as they are usually pro- 5 8 duced by a rubr i c a t o r who misinterpreted a "ReprSsentant." We concur with A. Dain's remark: "Les fautes dues aux erreurs de r u b r i c a t i o n font l a j o i e des philologues et sont souvent d'un secours precieux pour l e classement des manu- s c r i t s . " 5 9 In spite of our s t a t i s t i c a l approach, we must not forget that we are dealing with l i t e r a r y products from which we cannot expect mathematical r e g u l a r i t y . Bedier's words: ". . . le c r i t i q u e l i t t e r a i r e ne devrait jamais consentir ^ 6 0 . . . a s'effacer devant l e s t a t i s t i c i e n " should p r e v a i l 5 8 Heinz Schanze provides some examples for the Willehalm manuscripts i n " D r e i s s i g e r i n i t i a l e n i n der Willehalm-Handschrift 6," i n Wolfram-Studien, ed. W. Schrtider ( B e r l i n , 1970), pp. 174-176. 59 A Dain, Les manuscrits (Paris, 1964), p. 37. 6 0 J . Bedier, Romania LIV (1928), 329. 38 as a warning. Nonetheless, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y evaluated com- parison of r u b r i c a t i o n could provide textual c r i t i c i s m with information which, properly interpreted, could shed more l i g h t on the text t r a d i t i o n of Barlaam und Josaphat. 3.2. Chart of i n i t i a l s The following chart of i n i t i a l s sets out from the paragraphs i n P f e i f f e r ' s text ( i n the verse count of the reprinted e d i - tion) , i n order to show on which manuscripts P f e i f f e r based his subdivision. The manuscripts are subsequently l i s t e d i n alphabetical order with the exception of M which follows a f t e r G f o r the sake of a better perspective. In the few cases where P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus notes i n i t i a l s f o r B, these w i l l be mentioned on the r i g h t hand margin, together with the i n i t i a l s of a l l fragments which w i l l be dealt with i n chapter four. I n i t i a l s which match a paragraph i n P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n are marked as x on the same l e v e l , or as X i n the case of a large i n i t i a l . I n i t i a l s at other places are indicated by the verse number ( l a s t three d i g i t s ) f o r the f i r s t manuscript, underlined i f i t i s a large i n i t i a l . A straight v e r t i c a l l i n e symbolizes a loss of text i n a manuscript due to physical damage, i r r e g u l a r v e r t i c a l l i n e indicates an omitted text passage. The numerous paragraph t i t l e s which can be found i n some manuscripts (mainly i n E, t i t l e s such as "hie chumbt 39 barlaam zue Josaphat") are not mentioned i n the chart. They are usually added on the margin of the manuscript and do not constitute genuine s t r u c t u r a l marks. However, we indicated where there i s a capitulum sign instead of an i n i t i a l ( i n our chart as * ) • Probably the scribe had over- looked an i n i t i a l i n his source and afterwards marked the paragraph by a- capitulum sign on the margin. In a few cases i t i s doubtful whether there was meant to be an i n i t i a l or not. Places where the r u b r i c a t o r c l e a r l y forgot to draw an i n i t i a l — w h e r e a "ReprSsentant" or an indentation give evidence of the scribe's i n t e n t i o n — are represented i n the chart i n parentheses. This i s more d i f f i c u l t to decide i n the case of the i n i t i a l J (occurring very often with the name Josaphat). This l e t t e r i s mostly drawn out on the margin and by i t s p a r t i c u l a r shape does not require any indentation at the beginning of the l i n e s . I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g to see that a l l large i n i t i a l s i n the Barlaam manuscripts (with the exception of the very f i r s t i n i t i a l "Alpha" and 3045 i n L) are c a p i t a l J's. For t h i s reason alone, as well as f o r t h e i r very haphazard occur- rence, we do not believe that these large i n i t i a l s con- s t i t u t e the remains of an authentic major structure of the work ("Grossgliederung"), comparable to the one that B. Schirock t r i e d to e s t a b l i s h for P a r z i v a l on t h i s b asis. Nevertheless, we w i l l keep the d i s t i n c t i o n between regular and large i n i t i a l s since i t might be another aid for esta- 40 b l i s h i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . At places where a marginal i n i t i a l J was most l i k e l y forgotten (e.g., "Osaphat"), we set an (X) . The size of "regular" i n i t i a l s i s sometimes not con- s i s t e n t l y maintained by the scribe (who a l l o t t e d the free space) and the r u b r i c a t o r (who executed the design). In the beginning of manuscript D, i n i t i a l s vary between one and two l i n e s height. In L the standard size of i n i t i a l s i s increased a f t e r verse 1287 from two to three l i n e s . The scribe of W, on the other hand, seems to have been fond of drawing out the shafts of c a p i t a l s at the beginning of a l i n e , mainly at predominant places where one might other- wise expect an i n i t i a l (e.g., 11603 and 12435). Here only a comparison with the usual practice of r u b r i c a t i o n i n W can t e l l which one i s a true i n i t i a l and should be taken into the chart. I t would be of great help i n some doubtful cases to check with the o r i g i n a l manuscripts themselves as coloration and v a r i a t i o n s i n ink do not show s u f f i c i e n t l y on microfilms. But these few exceptions, even i f misinter- preted, could not seri o u s l y d i s t o r t the o v e r a l l s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s . 41 A b C D E G M K K L V/ 1 X X x X X X x X X X 33 x x x x x 63 x x X x x x 75 89 X X X X X X X X x x x 125 x x X X X X 123 X 165 x x x X x x I x x x x 197 X X X X X X X X X X 227 x x x x x x X X 253 265 X X X X X X 295 X X X X X X 313 X X X 273 X X 42 A b C D E G M K K c L M 335 x x x X x x 3^1 369 x 401 x X X X X X X 431 X X X X X X 475 X X X X X 509 X X X X X X 5̂ 5 X X X X X X 577 x x x x x x 617 X X X X x x x X X X X X x x x x F2 x x F2 x x x x F2 x x x F2 5̂ 7 x x x x F2 x F2 659 x (x) X X X X x x x F2 43 A b C D E a M K K c L W 691 X X X X X x x F2 737 x x x x x x x x x x * F 2 769 x x x x x x x x x x x 799 x x x x x x x x x x 801 829 X X X X X X X X X X X 859 X X X X X X X X X X 887 x x X X X X - X X X 909 933 x x x x x x x x x x x 971 X X X X X X X X X X * 44 A b C D E G M K K c L W 1009 X X X X X X X X X X X 1039 X X X X X X X X X X 1071 X X X X X X X X X X 1103 x x x x x (x) x x x x F7 113 1135 x x x x x x x x x x x F7 I I 6 5 x x x x x x x x x x x F7 1191 x X x x x X 1227 x x x x x x x x x x x 1253 X X X X X X X X ' 255 1287 x x x x x x x x x x x 45 A b C D E G M K K c L W 1317 x x x x x x x x x x . x 13^7 X X X X X X X X X X X 1379 x x x x x x x x x x 392 1423 x x x x x x x x x x 1455 x x x x x x x x x x 1491 x x x x x x x x x x x 1513 X X X X X X x x x 1545 X X X X X X X X X 1585 X X X X X X 1619 x X X X X X X X X 46 A b C D E G M K Kc L W 1651 X X X X X X 1691 X X X X X X 1729 X X X X X X 1765 X X X X X 1795 X X X X 815 X 1837 x x x x x x I863 X X X X X X 1897 x X 1937 X X X. X X X 1981 X X X X X X X X X X x x x X X X X X X X X X X X x x p x P 47 A b C D E G M K K L W 2019 x x x x 2051 x x x x x x x F? 2089 x x x x x F? 2131 X X X X X X x x x F7 2161 x 2196 X X X X 195 x X (175) x F7 B:2195 22*H x x x x x B 2281 x x x x x x x x x 2311 x X X X X X 2351 X X X X ' 3̂ 3 x X X X X 4 8 A b C D E G M K K L W 2 3 8 ? X X X X 2^29 X X x x x 2463 x x x x x x 2493 X X X X X X 2529 X X X X X X 2569 x X X 2615 X X X X 26^9 x x x x x x X B X x x x 567 x B x x x x B 2693 x x x x x j x x x x n 2729 x x x x x x i x x x x n 49 A b C D E 0 M K K c L W 276 I X X X X X x x x 2797 X X X X X X X X X X 2837 x x x x x x 2881 x x x x x x 291*4- $t5 x x 933 29̂ 7 x X X 937 x • B-.933 x x x 2985 X x X x 3019 x x x x X 009 x x x B 039 30̂ 5 X X X X X X x X x 3083 X X X X X X 101 x X X 50 A b C D E G M K K c L W 3125 x x x x x x x x x x m 3155 x x x x x x x x x x m 3177 X X 3187 X X X X X m 3225 X X X X 237 x x x x x m 3257 x x x x x x x x x x m 3287 x x x x x x m,B 3319 x x x x x x 339 x 3351 x x x x x x m x x x m 3389 x x x x x x m 399 51 A b C D E G M K K c L W 3425 x x x x x x x x x m 3^59 x x X X X x 3511 x x x x x x B 35^1 x x x x X x x x x x 3573 x x x x B 3603 X X X X 3643 X X X X x x x 3675 X X X 679 3701 x x x x X X X 3733 x x x x x x 52 A b C D E M K K c L W 3759 x x x x x x 3805 x x X x x X 3839 x x x x 3883 x 3915 x X x x X X 39̂-1 x x x x x x 3969 x 991 3993 X X X X X X X X x x X X 819 x B X X F l x x x F1.F8.B X X 992 4-013 x X X X X X X X X X F l 4C43 x x x x x x x x F l 53 A b C D E G M K K c L W 4 0 6 ? x . x x x x x x x x x F 8 4105 x x x x x x x x 4 1 3 7 x x x x x x x x 147 4 1 7 5 x x x x x x x x x x x F 8 4 2 0 7 x x 2 1 1 4233 x x x x X X X X X X X 4269 x x X 4301 x x x x x 4 3 4 1 X 311 X X 325 X X X X 2£5 4375 x x x . X X x B X X 54 A b C D E G M K K c L W 4391 x S x (x) x / X X 4413 x x x x x x x x x x x l 4^3 x x x Bs443 4457 x x x x x x x l 4491 X X X X X X X X 1 4527 x x x x x x x 1,B 5^3 4565 x x x x (x), x X X X X 1 4597 X X X X X X 603 X X 4629 x x x x 4663 x x x x x x x x x x 4705 x x • X X X 55 A b C D E G M K K c L W 4737 x x x x 4767 x x x x x x x x x x i 775 x 4797 X X X X B 4829 x x x x x x 486 l x x x x x x 4895 x 897 4931 x x 4963 x x 4991 X X 5027 X X x x x x X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 987 i»987 X X 5009 X X x X 041 x x x i x x x x x i 56 M K K L W 5059 x x x x x B 5091 x x x x x x x x x x i 5121 x x x x x x x x x x x i 143 x x i,k 5151 x x x x x x x 5189 x x x x X X X x F 1 3 5223 x ^ x x x x x x x x x k,F13 5265 x 5307 x 5337 x 5369 x x x x x x x x x x k,F2,F13 273 X x x X x x x X X k,(F2) 321 X X X X x x x x x x F2 375 381 x x k ) ( 57 A b C D E 0 M K K c L W 5396 x x x X X 5̂ 3? x 546? X 5497 x x x x x x x x x x k , F 2 447 X X X X X X X X X 479 X x x (X) x x x X X F2 5525 x X X X X X x x x 5555 x X X X X X 5585 x 5615 x 5649 5679 653 X X .599 X X X X X 631 X X X X 663 X X X 689 695 X X X x k, n k,n,B X X x x x x k,B 58 A b C D E G M K K c l W 5713 x 57^5 x 5785 x 5817 x 5855 x 5893 x 5933 x 5965 x 5995 x 6031 x 703 x x x x x x x k x x x x x x x x x k x x x x x x 825 X X X x X X 973 x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X B x x x x x x x F18 x x (X) X X X X X B.F18 x x B x x x x n,q 59 A b C D E G M K K c L W 6061 x x x x x x x x x x n, q 6099 X x x x x x x x x x 6131 X X X X X X x x q 6163 x X X x x x B 6197 189 X X X X X X 6229 x 6263 X X X x x x 2k7 x X X X x x x ra x X X m 6297 x 291 x x x x x x x x m.Fll 6329 x x x x x x x x x x m,Fll 636I x x x x x x x x x m.Fll 60 A b C D E G M K K c L W 639? x x x x x x x x x m,q,F11 6427 x X X x x x x m 6459 x X X X 467 x x x x x m 6491 x X X X X X x x x m,q,Fl6 6521 x x x X x x x x x m 6551 553 6587 x X X X X X X X X X X X X X 567 X X 6613 X X X X X X X 6645 x X X X X X X 6677 x X X 697 x x x F l l 61 A b G D E G M K K c L W 6705 x 6733 x 676I x 6793 6825 x 6857 x 6891 x 6921 x •6957 x 6983 x x x x X X X B x x x x x x F l l B x x x x x x x x x X X X X x x x x 897 863 919 X X X X X X X X X x x x B 959 x x x x x x x x B 62 A b C D E G M K K c L W 7019 x X X x x B 029 X X 7057 x x x x x x x x x x 7087 x X x B 7123 x 7157 x x x x x x x x x 141 X X X X X X X X X X 7189 x x x x x x x x x 7223 X X X x 7255 x 7287 x 237 X X X X x x x X X X X X x x x B X ( 7321 x x x x x x x x x x x 63 A b C D E G M K K c L W 7351 x x x x x x x x 365 X X 7383 X X X X X X X X . X X 7415 x x X X ) (X) X 7447 x x x x x x x x x x x 467 x x 7473 X X X X X 7503 x X X X X X X X X 7537 x x x x x 541 X x X X 7569 x x x x B 7599 x x x x x x x x x x x 621 625 7637 x x x x x x x x x x x 6 4 A b C D E G M K K c L W 7667 X X X 7699 X X X X 7729 x x x x ) x x x x x x 7759 x x x x x x x x x x x 7789 X X X X . X X X X X 7817 X X X X X X X 7847 x x x x x x x x x x 7877 x x X X x x X X 887 x x 7907 X X X X X X X X X 7939 x x x x x x x x x x 65 A b C D E G M K K c L W 7969 X X X X X X X X X X 8003 X x x X 8033 X X X X X X X X X 035 8063 X X X X X X X X X O85 X X 8101 x x x x x x x x 8137 x x x x x x x x x y 8165 X X X X 8195 X X X X X X X X X J 8223 X X X 8255 x x x x x : 66 A b C D E G M K K c L W 8289 x x x x x x x x x x x 295 8321 x x x x 327 x x 8351 X X X X x x x 355 8379 X X X X 8409 x x x x 417 x x x x x 8447 x x x x X x x x X X 84?7 x x X X X X X X X 8509 x X X X X X X F6 8539 x X X. x (X) X x F6 8571 x x 5 6 1 X X X X X X X X F6 67 A b C D E G M K K c L W 590 8602 601 x x x B « 6 0 1 8631 X X x x B 8659 x x x x 8693 x x X X x X X x x X X F 6 703 707 x - 8729 x x x x x x x x x x F 6 8761 x x x x x x x F 6 8 7 9 1 x x x x X X 8 8 1 9 X X X X 8851 x x x x x x x x x x x 869 869 8881 x x x x x x x 895 X X X X X X X X x x x x X X X X X X X X x x x x x x 6816 x x x x 6£l6 x x x x 6ET6 x x x x x x 6606 x x x x $906 x x x x ££06 x x x x x x £006 6L6 X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ( X ) x x Ti68 89 6 9 A b C D E G M K K c L W 9220 219 x x x 9247 x x x x 9277 x X X X X 9313 X X X X X X 93^3 x x 9373 9^03 x x 9433 9^63 x * 9^95 x X X X X x x x X X X X X X X X X X 331 X X X X 353 367 379 x B X X X X B x x x 70 A b C D E G M K K c L 9527 x x 9557 x x 9591 x x 9629 x 9665 X X 9701 X X 9735 x 9765 x x 9799 x x x x 567 x x 599 x x x x 647 X X 679 X X ... 707 x X X X x x X 777 9829 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 713 721 X 741 747 757 X X X X 7 1 A b C D E G M K K c L W 9859 X X X X X X X X 9891 x x x x x x x x x x 9923 * X X X 99^5 x x x x x 957 x N x / 2^1 9987 X * j X X X ) x ( j 10017 X x I X / x / 10047 x x ' x x (X) x x X 071 X x IOO83 X X . X X X X X \ \ / ' / 1011? X * / X X X X X I X ; 143 x 10153 X X X X X X f 1 i j X 72 A b C D E G M K K c L W I O I 8 5 X X ) X X X X \ X / 1 9 8 ! 2 0 7 X X \ 1 0 2 1 7 X X j X X X X X / X / \ 2 2 9 X X N 1 0 2 5 1 X X X X X X X X X X 2 6 7 1 0 2 8 9 x x x x x x x 3 0 7 x I O 3 2 5 X X X X X X x x 1 0 3 5 9 x x X x x x X X 3 7 3 x x x B 1 0 3 9 5 x x x x x x x x x x 4 1 5 1 0 4 1 9 x x x 4 2 5 X X X X X 10457 x x x x x x x x x x 10493 X X X X X X 5 0 1 x B . 5 0 1 73 A b C D E G M K K C L W 1 0 5 2 5 x x x x X X I O 5 6 3 x x x x X X I O 5 9 3 x x x x 1 0 6 2 9 x x x x X X X I O 6 5 7 X X X X X X ' 681 x I O 6 8 5 X X X X x x x x 6 7 8 1 0 7 1 7 x X X X X 1 0 7 ^ 7 x x x x X X 1 0 7 9 1 X X X X X X x x x x 1 0 8 2 5 X X X X 74 A b C D E G M K K C L W IO855 x x 10885 10921 x x 10951 x x 10983 x x X 11013 x x x 11043 x x X x x x x x x 969 x x (x) 999 X X 029 X X X X 11073 x x x x 11103 x x X x 11133 X X X X X X X X X X x x x 929 x x X x d,h,F10 x F10 x x x d x x X X d x x d,h x x h 75 A b C D E G M K K c L W 11161 X X X 11191 x x X x x (X) x x X X F3 11223 x x x x x x x x x x h,F3 11257 x x x x x x x x 265 11287 x x x x x x x x x x 11317 x j x x (X) x x X F J 11345 x x x x x x x 11375 X X X X X 387 x d 11407 x x X x x X d 11441 x x x x x x x x d 76 A b C D E G M K K c L W 11475 x x x x x x 11507 x x x x x 521 11549 X X X X X X 11581 X X X I I 6 1 3 x x x x 11643 x x x x (621) 11671 X X X 11701 X X X X X X 11735 . x X I I 7 6 9 x X X X X X x x x x 603 / X X 645 663 X X / / / i ) X / \ I 77 A b C D E G M K K c L W 1180? x x 11841 x 11871 x x 1 x \ X 11901 x x x x 11931 x x x x x x 11961 (x) x x x x 11991 X X X 12023 X X X X X X 12053 x x x x x x 12087 x x x x \ x x x x h x x x h x x x x h x x x x x x x h x x x h x x x x h x x h 111 B i l l l 78 A b C D E G M K K c L W 12119 x x x x x x h 12149 x x x x x x x x x 1218? x x x x 12215 x 12247 x x x x 191 x 223 (X) x (X) ( 12289 x x x x x x 12325 x x x x 12357 192 164 x x (X) X 307 X X X I ) x 291 290 x x x h x x h 12391 x x x x x x x x x x x h 12421 x x X x x x x h 435 X X x (X) 7 9 A b C D E G M K K c L W 12453 x x X X (X) x X X h 12487 x x x x x x x x x x h 12517 x x x h 523 533 x x 541 5^1 12551 x x x x x x h 573 x N B 12581 x x X x x X h 12613 x x x x x x x x x x x 12643 x x x x x x x x x x 12673 x x x x x x x x x x F10 679 12701 X X X X 12731 X X X X X X X X X 80 A b C D E G M K K c L W 12765 x x x 12797 x x x 12829 x x x 12859 x x 12895 x x x 12933 x x x 12963 x x x 12993 x x X 13023 x x x 13053 x x x X X X X X x x x x X X X X X X x (X) X x X X X 079 X X 799 X X X x x x F3 x x x h x x x h 981 x (X) X (Fl6) x h x x h 81 A b C D E S M K K L W 13087 x x x x x x h 13119 x x x x x x x x x x h 13147 x x x x x x 175 13179 x x x x x x x x x x x 13213 x x x x x x x h B:221 231 X X X 13247 x x x x x 13281 X X X X X X X X X X 13311 x x x x x x x x x x 13343 X X X B«353 371 13375 X X X X X X X X X X 82 A b C D E G M K K c I, W 13̂ 07 x x x x x x x x x x x 1343? x x x x x x x x x x 13467 x x x x x x x x x x x 13499 x x x x x x x x 13529 x x x x x x x x x x x 13561 X X X X X X X X X X X 13591 x x x x x x x x x x 13621 x X X X X X 13651 x x x x x x x x x x x 1368I x x x x x x x x 83 A b C D E G M K K c L W 13711 X X X X X X 731 13745 x x x x x x x x 13775 X X X X X X 781 X X 13811 x x x x x x x x x x x Fl6 13841 (x) * x x ^ x x 13873 X X X X X X 13907 X X X X X X X X X X F9 929 13937 X X X 9̂ 5 13969 X * X X x x x 14001 x x x x x x x x x x 84 " A ' b G D E G M K K L W_ 14033 x x x x x x x x x 055 14065 x x x x x x 079 1409? x x x x x x x x x x x 14127 x x x x x x x x 14157 x x x x x x x Bi14162 14187 x x x x x x x x x x 14219 x x x x x x x x x x x r (241) X (X) X 14251 x x x x r 14283 x x x x (x) x x x x x r 14315 x x x x x x x x x x x 327 x 85 A b C D E G M K K c L W 143^5 X X X X X X 353 * 359 359 14375 x x x x x 14403 x x x x x x 14433 x x x x x x x x x x x 14465 x x x x x x x x x x x 14495 x x x x x I 14527 X X X X X X X X 14561 x x x x x x x x x r 589 14597 x x x x x x r 601 609 x X 613 B«613 14627 x x x 64^ 8 6 A b C D E C- M K K c L V/ 14661 x x x x x x x x x x x r 14691 x x x x x x x 14721 x x x x 14751 X X X i 14783 x x x 14813 x x x 14843 x x x x x x x x 735 x x x x x x x x x 831 X X x (x) 861 14873 x x x x x x x x x x x 14905 x x x x x x x x x x x F9 923 x F9 14935 x x x x x x 950 87 A b C D E M K K c L W 14969 X X X X X 973 x x X X F9 14999 x x x x x x x x x F 9 15035 15061 x x 15091 x x 15117 x x 15147 x x 15183 x x 15211 15241 x x 029 x x x X 039 045 x X X x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x x x x x X X x x x 235 X X X X X 88 A b C D E G M K K c L J 15275 x x 15305 X X x x x x x x x x 287 X X 317 x 15337 x X 15367 x X 15397 x X 15425 X X 15459 15497 x x 15527 x X X x x x x X X X X X X X X X x x x x x x x x X X X X X x x x x x x 519 547 x (x) 553 x x 15557 x x x x x x (x) 569 581 89 A b C D E M K K c L W 15593 x x x X X X X 15623 X X X X X X X X X X X 645 15653 X X X X X X X X 15687 x x x x x x x x x x 691 15717 157̂ 7 x X X 15779 x x X 15793 15809 x x x 15839 x x x 769 761 X X X X X X x X x (X) X x x x B X X 90 A b C D E G M K K C L W 15869 x x x 15899 16029 16057 x I6O89 x 16129 x 16151 x I6158 x X X 15927 x x x 15959 x x x 15993 x x x X X X X X 001 ( x ) 105 X X X X x x x x X X X X x x x x x (X) x x x x x x X X X X 91 3.3. E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l s y s t e m s 3.3.1. F r e q u e n c y i n t h e p l a c i n g o f i n i t i a l s B e f o r e we a t t e m p t t o c a l c u l a t e t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e manu- s c r i p t s w i t h e a c h o t h e r on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r i n i t i a l s , we s h o u l d b e a r i n m i n d t h a t some s c r i b e s p l a c e i n i t i a l s more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n o t h e r s a n d t h a t t h i s f a c t o r m i g h t l e a d t o w r o n g c o n c l u s i o n s . The f i r s t f o u r l i s t e d m a n u s c r i p t s , n o t - a b l y D a n d C, h a v e p a r a g r a p h m a r k i n g s a t f a i r l y r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s , h e r e a n d t h e r e o m i t t i n g one i n i t i a l o r i n s e r t i n g an a d d i t i o n a l o n e . B u t t h e y n e v e r come c l o s e t o t h o s e c l u s - t e r s o f i n i t i a l s s u c h a s o c c a s i o n a l l y shown by L a n d o t h e r s ( e . g . , c h a r t p. 69/70) o r t o l o n g p a s s a g e s f r e e o f i n i t i a l s common t o K a n d o t h e r s ( e . g . , c h a r t p. 6 5 ) . To i n d i c a t e t h e f r e q u e n c y o f p a r a g r a p h d i v i s i o n s i n t h e m a n u s c r i p t s we w i l l s i m p l y d i v i d e t h e number o f v e r s e s by t h e i r number o f p a r a g r a p h s i g n s . T h u s , t h e r e i s a new p a r a g r a p h i n C e v e r y 33 v e r s e s ( 1 4 2 9 2 v e r s e s , 434 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) D e v e r y 33 v e r s e s ( 1 5 2 3 4 v e r s e s , 460 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) b e v e r y 35 v e r s e s ( 1 4 0 5 2 v e r s e s , 403 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) A e v e r y 35 v e r s e s ( 1 6 1 2 2 v e r s e s , 457 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) L e v e r y 39 v e r s e s ( 1 5 5 9 0 v e r s e s , 402 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) W e v e r y 39 v e r s e s ( 1 6 0 2 8 v e r s e s , 411 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) G e v e r y 43 v e r s e s ( 1 5 9 6 6 v e r s e s , 369 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) M e v e r y 44 v e r s e s ( 9142 v e r s e s , 206 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) E e v e r y 46 v e r s e s ( 1 6 1 1 8 v e r s e s , 347 p a r a g r a p h s i g n s ) 92 K°~ every 48 verses (15712 verses, 327 paragraph s i g n s ) b X c 6 2 K every 50 verses (15410 verses, 310 paragraph signs) P f e i f f e r ' s text with i t s 16164 verses has a paragraph approx- imately every 32 verses (501 paragraphs) and thus comes close to the average frequency i n C and D. Although P f e i f - f e r ' s c r i t i c a l remarks concerning the various manuscripts (Barlaam, p. 408) might suggest that he followed E more than any other source, his s e l e c t i o n of paragraph d i v i s i o n s d i s - proves his own words. His reference i n t h i s matter i s the practice of D, C and A (probably B as w e l l , more so than b). I t i s only i n a few cases that he abandons t h i s procedure and follows the paragraph markings of other manuscripts or his own conception of what i s appropriate f o r the narrative. Thus he begins a new paragraph on the second verse of a couplet i n 2196, 2914, 8602 and 9220, and inserts a para- graph at 3177 (with EG), 3993 (with E), 10419 (with EGK), 15035 (with bK) and 15793 (with EGKL). P f e i f f e r was c e r t a i n l y well advised i n following mainly A, D, and C. A comparison with the age of the Bar- laam manuscripts (see pp. 19-21) shows that the younger ones tend to place t h e i r i n i t i a l s less frequently and, more 61 Kttpke's e d i t i o n (K) consists of 16060 verses and 332 paragraphs. I f these paragraphs correspond to i n i t i a l s i n K a i s doubtful, however, and w i l l be discussed further. 6 2 The figures concerning the number of verses are mostly approximated. Even with s l i g h t adjustments the over- a l l picture would hardly change. 93 important, less r e g u l a r l y . We can assume that the older texts represent a more authentic system of i n i t i a l s which has undergone considerable changes and omissions at a younge stage. Consequently, the absolute number of i n i t i a l s i n which a younger manuscript (Y) agrees with an older one (X) might not be very i n d i c a t i v e of t h e i r actual r e l a t i o n s h i p since Y might have omitted a great number of i t s source X. However, i f we calcu l a t e the percentage that these common i n i t i a l s constitute i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l number of i n i - t i a l s contained i n Y (as well as X), then the r e l a t i o n s h i p would become more obvious. To c l a r i f y t h i s further, l e t us look at the agreement c of K , a r e l a t i v e l y young manuscript ( f i f t e e n t h century), with D (thirteenth century). K has 284 i n i t i a l s i n common with D. This constitutes only 61.5% of a l l the D - i n i t i a l s , a rather low percentage. But we have to keep i n mind that K has only two thir d s as many i n i t i a l s as D. This f a c t i s accounted f o r by the second percentage fig u r e which i n d i - cates that these 2 84 common i n i t i a l s constitute 9 6% of a l l • • • • c c the i n i t i a l s e x i s t i n g i n K , very few of K 's i n i t i a l s do not have a counterpart i n D. This would suggest that K either derives from D or that they have a common source. For the sake of brevity we write down the agreement of K 's i n i t i a l s with those of D simply as K c: 96% - D - 61.5% Furthermore, we can obviously compare two manuscripts only 94 i n those passages extant and l e g i b l e i n both. Wherever one of them has a gap i n i t s text transmission due to e x t r i n s i c causes (s t r a i g h t v e r t i c a l l i n e s i n our chart) we exclude the corresponding i n i t i a l s of the other manuscript from the count, so the percentage figu r e w i l l not change. On the other hand, when one manuscript has de l i b e r a t e l y l e f t out cer t a i n passages or inhe r i t e d such cuts from i t s source (waved l i n e s i n our chart) whereas the other manuscript shows the f u l l . t e x t we include the l a t t e r ' s corresponding i n i t i a l s into the count; thus, the d i s s i m i l a r i t y of the two manuscripts i s r e f l e c t e d i n the percentage figu r e as we l l . 3.3.2. Manuscripts A, b, C, D. As mentioned before, A. b, C and D show a high degree of congruence i n t h e i r i n i t i a l s . The s t a t i s t i c a l figures i n d i - cate t h i s f a c t very c l e a r l y . A b C D 95.5%-D-90% 95.5%-D-92% 94.5%-D-94% 94% -C-94.5% 91.5%-b-90% 90% . -A-91.5% 88% -A-91.5% 90% -A-95.5% 91.5%-C-88% 92.5%-C-89% 89% -b-92.5% 92% -b-95.5% 77.5%-W-86.5% 79% -W-87.5% 76% -W-89.5% 77% -W-91.5% 62.5%-KC-92% 60% -K C-91% 61% KC-94.5% 61.5%-KC-96% 71% -L-80.5% 72% -L-83.5% 72.5%-L-90% 72% -L-87% (59% -Ka-81.5% 59% -Ka-82.5% 58 . 5%-Ka-8 3 . 5% 59% -Ka-86.5%) 61% -G-75.5% 62.5%-G-79% 59.5%-G-78% 61.5%-G-81% 95 A b C D 59% -M-75% 60.5%-M-81% 56% -M-81.5% 60.5%-M-82.5% 52.5%-E-69% 51% -E-70% 51.5%-E-71% 51.5%-E-72.5% The strong a f f i n i t y that A, b, C and D show i n t h e i r plac- ing of i n i t i a l s sets them apart from the other manuscripts. Their next cl o s e s t manuscripts W, L and K C have a consider- ably lower percentage of agreement with any one of the four, and the l a s t three manuscripts G, M and E even much less so. Does that mean that the f i r s t four manuscripts belong to one genealogical branch or even that they copied from one another? The percentage figures do not give a c l e a r answer. In any case, there are no two manuscripts which have a n o t i - ceably higher agreement with each other which would suggest that one i s a d i r e c t offshoot of the other. C and D have the greatest congruence i n t h i s group but i t i s only s l i g h t l y higher than that of the other combinations. In our search f o r a clo s e r grouping within t h i s group we should now look f o r i n d i v i d u a l cases of p a r a l l e l i n i - t i a l s . We s h a l l disregard a l l the other manuscripts f o r that purpose and l i m i t ourselves to those text passages common to A, b, C and D. Are there s t r i k i n g deviations i n the placing of i n i t i a l s i n two manuscripts against the other two? D has 3 i n common with C (3603, 8975, 15717), 3 i n common with A (3883, 4207, 11317) and one with M12517). C has one i n common with b (4829) and two with A (1897, 9945). The greatest congruence exists between A and b which 96 i n contrast to the others contain both Autorreden (11735 - 11870 and 12247 - 12288), and i t i s only there that they have f i v e i n i t i a l s i n common against the other two manu- s c r i p t s . Furthermore, i s there evidence for a clo s e r group- ing of three manuscripts against one? A, b and C have common i n i t i a l s against D only i n 5 cases (2649, 2693, 3511, 4705, 11581). A, b and D stand against C i n 4 cases (691, 887, 2569, 8911), but since C omits a lengthy passage (9949 - 10047 and 10083 - 10251) there are an a d d i t i o n a l 9 cases of common i n i t i a l s i n AbD. I t i s remarkable, though, that the grouping CD plus either A or b appear i n many more instances: 23 times ACD without b (396, 401, 1191, 1619, 2161, 2429, 2914, 2947, 3969, 3991, 4043, 4457, 4565, 7287, 7503, 7667, 8631, 9277, 10717, 11991, 14375, 14627, 14691) and 24 times bCD without A (2195, 4767, 7473, 8033, " ? 8101, 8223, 8819, 9923, 10325, 11161, 11345, 11441, 11671, 12357, 12643, 12859, 13147, 13621, 13937, 14157, 14251, 14527, 15595, 15653). Based on t h i s evidence, one would t e n t a t i v e l y group CD and Ab together and. assume that C and D have the most au- thentic i n i t i a l s but that they are not dependent on each other. Whenever a C - i n i t i a l contradicts a D - i n i t i a l we would check with the other branch i n order to assess which paragraph sign can be trusted. C and D, moreover, share the omission of the author's excurses. On the other hand, each of the two has"major gaps i n i t s text which are not 97 shared by the other one, C as mentioned above and D from 4213 - 4396 (the scribe probably skipped a l e a f of his source). A and b, although i n major respects d i f f e r e n t from CD, cannot be d i r e c t l y dependent on each other, either, Otherwise, i t would be sur p r i s i n g that they have no common i n i t i a l s d i f f e r i n g from the other two manuscripts (except fo r those i n the author's excurse). P f e i f f e r had noticed that b was a l t e r n a t e l y written by two scrib e s . He suggests that the f i r s t scribe was following B and the second one another source closer to A (Barlaam, p. 408). According to P f e i f f e r , manuscript b was written as follows: part 1_ u n t i l page 38 v (7332), f i r s t scribe (between page 37 and 38 a whole quire of 12 leaves i s missing) part 2_ page 39 to 64 v (10765), second scribe part 3 page 65 to 77 V (12944), f i r s t scribe part 4 page 78 to 90 v (14893), second scribe part 5_ page 91 to 97 v (16039), f i r s t scribe ( f i n a l l e a f i s missing). F. Sohns adopts t h i s theory i n p r i n c i p l e but modifies i t somewhat. According to him, the second source "discovered" by the second scribe was A. A and B together were used as source by both scribes between 7941 and 14608, f o r the r e s t , both scribes again copied only from B, "wahrscheinlich aus L a s s i g k e i t . " ^ 3 6 3 F. Sohns, Das Handschriftenverhaltnis, p. 37-38. Stthns claims erroneously that verses 7332 to 7941 are mis- sing, instead of 5239 to 7167. Sflhns does not give any reasons f o r choosing 14608 as a turning point. 98 P f e i f f e r ' s assumption that each of the two scribes f o l - lowed a d i f f e r e n t source i s highly u n l i k e l y and should be rejected on the basis of e x t r i n s i c evidence alone. It would make sense only i f each scribe within a scriptorium were i n charge of one or several quires which were to be written simultaneously i n order to speed up the copying process. In manuscript b, however, there are only•two cases (at the t r a n s i t i o n from part one to two and three to four) where a change i n handwriting coincides with a new quire. The sign- atures (Kustoden) are p e r f e c t l y l e g i b l e on the lower margin of the l a s t page i n each quire, so we can t e l l that a new quire begins with page 13, 25, 37, 39 (the missing leaves, probably more than 12, are not counted i n the modern pagi- nation; 5 1 , 6 6 , 78 and 9 0 . The change i n handwriting i s sometimes d i f f i c u l t to recognize but, judging by our micro- f i l m reading, P f e i f f e r ' s d i v i s i o n i s correct. The f i r s t scribe writes his cursiva more evenly and within h i s pre- drawn sets of l i n e s , whereas the second one usually exceeds them or completely forgets about them and generally shows more i r r e g u l a r i t i e s • i n his writing and i n the number of li n e s that he f i t s into one column (from 29 l i n e s to 4-0 l i n e s ) . This l a t t e r circumstance would make i t very d i f f i - c u l t f o r a scribe to keep track of the number of written verses and calcu l a t e the remaining space so that his part would p e r f e c t l y match the beginning of the next quire. At one instance, however, at the t r a n s i t i o n from part 99 one to two, a peculiar gap i n the text occurs which could very well be interpreted as "mismatching" of two simultan- eously written quires. On page 3 8 v a the text continues normally u n t i l 7 27 7 on the bottom l i n e but then, with the f i r s t l i n e of the r i g h t column, the scribe abruptly jumps to 7301 without even completing the rhyme. Did he at t h i s point c a l c u l a t e the remaining space and attempt to f i t his verse material into i t by conveniently cutting out the nec- essary number of verses? I f so, he s l i g h t l y miscalculated i t and ran out of his shortened text (7332) two l i n e s above the bottom. Instead of leaving some blank space the scribe f i l l e d i t with two random verses that he had skipped before: 7293 - 94. Such a mutilation of the text seems to be d e l i - berate, d i f f e r e n t from simple "human err o r s , " e.g., the omission of a couplet at the beginning of a new page or quire (such as 11037 - 38 at the beginning of page 66 r i n b where the same scribe continues). While i t i s l i k e l y that i n t h i s one mentioned case the second scribe of b began his copying work before the f i r s t scribe had fini s h e d his part, i t does not mean at a l l that they necessarily followed two d i f f e r e n t sources. The source- manuscript may have been chopped up into several parts given to the two scribes . I f the text handed down by the second scribe was taken from A or a c l o s e l y r e l a t e d manu- s c r i p t and the res t from B, there should be a noticeable difference i n the agreement of i n i t i a l s . We calculated the 100 agreement of b with the other manuscripts f o r each of these f i v e parts i n d i v i d u a l l y and could not ascertain a major change i n i t s r e l a t i o n to A or any other manuscript other than those fluctuations due to the d i f f e r e n t length of the compared parts. It i s unfortunate that we no longer have the testimony of B, a l l that remains are the notes i n P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus. Thus we s h a l l never know with abso- lute c e r t a i n t y i f b was i n fa c t copied from B by the f i r s t s c ribe; but there i s room fo r doubt. Among the few i n i t i a l s of B that P f e i f f e r has passed on to us there are several that do not conform to the pattern of b but agree with other manuscripts (E, G or K a) or stand alone, e.g., at 7237, 12111 and 12573 i n those passages written by scribe I. B and b do have a close a f f i n i t y ( t h e i r p a r a l l e l i n i t i a l s at V2933, 4443 and 14613 being one of many i n d i c a t i o n s ) , but ? i t i s not l i k e l y that b i s a d i r e c t copy from B, not even i n parts. A l a t e r look at common and divergent text omissions and some textual variants should confirm t h i s a s s e r t i o n . I t i s more l i k e l y that B and b were dependent on a common source *Bb, b probably through intermediaries. *Bb must have been rel a t e d to A as the high percentage of common i n i - t i a l s and the'preservation of the author's excurses suggest. Thus we assume that "Bb and A on the one side and CD on the other side represent two old branches of the Barlaam text t r a d i t i o n . 101 3.3.3. Manuscripts L and W The Bonn and -the Vienna codexes L and W both date from the fourteenth century and show a s i m i l a r frequency i n t h e i r paragraph d i v i s i o n s , every 39 verses on the average. Other than that, they seem to have l i t t l e i n common, being of d i f f e r e n t provenance (L from Middle-Franconian t e r r i t o r y , W from the famous l i b r a r y at Ambras / Tyrol and of d i f f e r e n t i n t r i n s i c value. Since the oldest manuscripts C and D and, by extension, A and b are r e l a t i v e l y close together i n t h e i r paragraph agreement i t i s d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, to assign any younger text to one of them just by looking at the o v e r a l l s t a t i s t i c a l f i g u r e s . Going through the chart f o r AbCD one discovers a remarkable likeness i n the correspondance of the younger manuscripts with any of the four above mentioned. Judging by the s t a t i s t i c s alone, W would tend s l i g h t l y more to D: 91.5% of i t s i n i t i a l s correspond with p a r a l l e l ones i n D (89.5% with C, 87.5% with b and 86.5% with A)\ L, on the other hand, has. a higher congruence figu r e with C: 90% (87% with D, 83.5% with b, 80.5% with A). The agreement with the other manuscripts i s much lower, f o r W between 6 8% with GM and 57% with E and f o r L between 65% for GM and 5 3% for E, therefore, these manuscripts have no importance for L and W i n t h i s regard. A comparison of W and L makes i t evident that the two 102 have a h i g h degree o f a f f i n i t y . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y n o t i c e - a b l e f o r L where 84% o f i t s i n i t i a l s a r e c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h o s e i n W ( L : 84% - W - 8 2 % ) , t h e r e b y n e a r l y e q u a l l i n g t h e agreement f i g u r e s w i t h C and D and s u r p a s s i n g t h o s e o f A and b. L has a somewhat e r r a t i c method o f s e t t i n g i t s i n i t i a l s , f r e q u e n t l y t h e y a r e not c o n c u r r e n t w i t h any o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t . However, t h e r e a r e a few ca s e s i n w h i c h L and W a l o n e show common p a r a g r a p h m a r k i n g s : 2175, 2567, 5703, 8707, 9379, and t o g e t h e r w i t h m a n u s c r i p t s o t h e r t h a n AbCD ( m a i n l y E) a t 4325, 5009, 7237, 8417, 9647. S u r p r i s i n g l y enough, t h e s e p a r a l l e l s o c c u r o n l y i n t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e t e x t , whereas l a t e r , L f o l l o w s more t h e p r a c t i c e o f C. The two p a r a l l e l i n i t i a l s o f C and L i n 8869 and 8895 ( d i v e r g e n t from t h e AbCD p a t t e r n ) seem t o mark a t u r n i n g - p o i n t . I ndeed, t h e p e r c e n t a g e f i g u r e s c o r r o b o r - a t e o ur i m p r e s s i o n . Up t o 8850, L shows an agreement o f 92.5% i n i t s i n i t i a l s ystem w i t h W and 88.5% w i t h C. A f t e r t h a t t h e agreement w i t h C i n c r e a s e s up t o 91.5%, w h i l e t h a t w i t h W drops s h a r p l y t o 76%. T h i s i s a v e r y u n u s u a l change wh i c h does n ot a f f e c t L's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h any o t h e r manu- s c r i p t . Moreover, t h e c h a r t shows p a r a l l e l t e x t o m i s s i o n s i n C as w e l l as i n L i n t h e second h a l f w h i c h may p a r t l y a c c o u n t f o r t h e s t r o n g s t a t i s t i c a l c o n c u r r e n c e o f t h e two. Thus, we a r e l e d t o assume t h a t t h e s c r i b e o f L a f t e r u s i n g a s o u r c e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o W ( o r even W i t s e l f ) f o r more t h a n the f i r s t h a l f o f h i s copy changed t o a n o t h e r 103 source more cl o s e l y related to C. I t i s also possible that he followed one single manuscript based on the two d i f f e r - ent sources. We believe that he could not have worked con- currently from two d i f f e r e n t sources, r e l y i n g at f i r s t more on the *W manuscript and l a t e r more on *C. His many s c r i b a l errors and text d i s t o r t i o n s of which a glance at Sfihns's apparatus gives a s u f f i c i e n t impression make him appear as rather inept. The best one can say of him i s that he wrote a very pleasant textura s c r i p t . The p o s i t i o n of W i n the text t r a d i t i o n cannot be ascertained by consulting the i n i t i a l system alone. I t could derive from D or a rela t e d manuscript since 9 out of 10 i n i t i a l s might have been taken from that source. How- ever, unlike D and most other manuscripts (except ABbE), W has preserved the text of one of the author's two digres- sions (the "Schimpfrede", 12247 - 289). Yet W does agree with D and most other manuscripts (again except AbBE) i n the omission of the f i r s t digression (the "Damenpreis", 11735 - 870). Does W represent an ancient branch d i f f e r - ent from the ones that we have t e n t a t i v e l y established so f a r , or i s i t dependent through various stages on a common source with D, a source that must have presented the f u l l text? We s h a l l have to leave t h i s question open at t h i s point and r e f e r i t to a l a t e r study of textual variants and text omissions. 104 3.3.4. Manuscripts G, M, and E Like W, the Gotha codex G and the large London fragment M have been disregarded by P f e i f f e r ' s text e d i t i o n and by any detailed manuscript study so f a r . Their i n c l u s i o n into a new edi t i o n seems timely since they o f f e r i n t e r e s t i n g per- 64 spectives. Although M contains only s l i g h t l y more than h a l f of the entire verse material of Barlaam, i t s three sec- tions cover representative parts of the beginning, the mid- dle and the end of the narrative. For t h i s reason we have incorporated i t into our s t a t i s t i c s . Of a l l manuscripts, G and M show by f a r the highest agreement i n t h e i r paragraph d i v i s i o n . There i s not one i n i t i a l i n M that does not have i t s counterpart i n G (10 0% congruence), and the common i n i t i a l s with M account f o r 9 8% of G's number of comparable i n i t i a l s . This nearly t o t a l congruence would suggest that one text might have been copied d i r e c t l y from the other, and the question arises as to which one was the source. Both manuscripts date from approximately the same period, and we therefore have to look for i n t e r n a l evidence. G has a t o t a l of four i n i t i a l s which M does not share (#4043, 6031, 7123, 14001) but which 6 4 See Worstbrock's remark i n AfdA 77 (1966), 114: "Wenn schon eine Ausstattung des Neudrucks durch zusatzliche Materialien zur T e x t k r i t i k erwllnscht war, hatten zuerst die Gothaer Hs. und die grossen Londoner Fragmente die Ehre verdient." 105 are i n agreement with most of the other manuscripts. There- fore i t i s appropriate to assume that M omitted these para- graphs rather than to think that G inserted them on i t s own. We surmise that M i s a copy of G; however, at t h i s point, we cannot r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y that G and M are two very f a i t h f u l copies of one manuscript (*G). The Munich codex E o f f e r s the youngest complete Barlaam version that we know. Written i n 1459, i t s Bavarian d i a - l e c t a l forms as well as i t s Bastarda s c r i p t give i t an appearance very d i f f e r e n t from that of the much older manu- sc r i p t s G and M of Middle German provenance. The scribe of E seems to take more l i b e r t y i n s t r u c t u r i n g h i s work: at numerous spots there are paragraph markings d i f f e r e n t from a l l the other manuscripts. But i n many more cases E shows a basic agreement with the practice of G and M as demon- strated by some s t a t i s t i c a l f i g u r e s : 84% - G - 79.5% ; 80.5% - M - 79% ; 72% - CD - 51% ; 67% - W - 57%. The a f f i n i t y of G, M and E i s p a r t i c u l a r l y recognizable i n our chart since the three d i f f e r i n many instances from the AbCD pattern. G or rather *G has a l t e r e d the i n i t i a l sys- tem which we believed to be tantamount to the "authentic" one and has introduced or omitted a great number of para- graph d i v i s i o n s . The 5';G-group does not show a d i f f e r e n t trend of s e t t i n g i t s paragraph marks from the very begin- ning, but a change takes place only a f t e r the f i r s t quarter 106 of the text. Before 3000 there are only very few cases of diverging i n i t i a l s i n G and E (1815, 2343, 2937), between 3000 and 4000 the number increases and a f t e r that i t occurs very frequently. This gradual break with the t r a d i t i o n makes i t impossible to t e l l by a mere study of the i n i t i a l agreement which ( i f any) of the older manuscripts known to us might have been used as source. In the f i r s t 4000 ver- ses the congruence with ACD i s about equally high, around 90% f o r G, somewhat less 'for E. After that the agreement figure drops sharply, giving G an o v e r a l l agreement factor of 81% - D - 61.5%; 78% - C - 59%; 78.5% - b - 62%; 75.5% - A - 61%; 76% - W - 68%; 71% - L - 65%; 56.5% K c - 6 7%. (The figures f o r E see above".) The manuscripts of the *G-group do not share any of those i n i t i a l s of D, C or A which deviate from the "main- stream" (the consensus of DC and Ab), thus there i s no i n d i c a t i o n here of a closer r e l a t i o n s h i p to the one rather than the other. Among the paragraphs i n B given i n P f e i f - fer's apparatus we f i n d a few coinciding with one or a l l manuscripts of the *G-group: 4443, 5631, 5825, 5973, 7237, 10373, 10501, 12573. This would suggest e i t h e r that the scribe of B used a manuscript belonging to the *G-group besides the one he followed mainly (*Bb, see p. 100), or even that B originated the deliberate modification of the old i n i t i a l system to some extent. At t h i s stage, we can- not be c e r t a i n i f the "G-group derives from B or any other 107 manuscript or i f i t represents an independent, o r i g i n a l branch of text transmission. 3.3.5. The K - manuscripts (K a, K b, K C) As mentioned above (p. 10-12, 20-21), the only one of the three K-manuscripts s t i l l a v a i l a b l e f o r scrutiny i s the c c Be r l i n codex K of the f i f t e e n t h century. K has r e l a t i v e l y few i n i t i a l s but the ones preserved are well i n agreement with the oldest manuscripts, foremost with D, as outlined c on p. 92. Here are the percentage figures showing K 1 s agreement: 96% - D - 61.5%; 94% - C - 61%; 92% - A - 62.5%; 90% - b - 59%; 81% - W - 61.5%; 75.5% - L - 58%; 67% - K a - 62%; 66% - G - 56%; 59.5% - E - 53.5%. This high percentage of congruence with D as well as par- c a l l e l text omissions make i t very l i k e l y that K stands i n the t r a d i t i o n of D. There i s no noticeable a f f i n i t y c . a between K and the "G-group, nor with K . If we assume that the paragraphs i n Kopke's e d i t i o n (K) f a i t h f u l l y correspond to paragraph d i v i s i o n s i n the f i r s t Kflnigsberg codex K a, our s t a t i s t i c s do not give a clear picture of i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to other manuscripts. Its agreement with D i s , r e l a t i v e l y speaking, the highest, but not at a l l comparable to the closeness of K and D. In contrast to K , K has a number of i n i t i a l s i n common with 108 GM and also WL but not enough to warrant a closer r e l a t i o n - ship . 86.5% - D - 59%; 83.5% - C - 58.5%; 81.5% - A - 59%; 82.5% - b - 59%; 78% - W 63%; 73.5% - L - 61%; 73% - G - 66%; 73.5% - M - 66.5%; 63% - E - 59.5%. While i t i s not impossible that K a could have shown a rather d i f f e r e n t i n i t i a l system, due either to the inte n t i o n or carelessness of i t s scribe or to a contaminated source, we f e e l j u s t i f i e d i n doubting that Kttpke's paragraphs r e f l e c t the i n i t i a l s i n K . Neither he nor his collaborator Lach- mann ever claimed they did; they do not mention t h i s aspect at a l l . KSpke, who consulted K b and K° i n addition to K a, . . c c e r t a i n l y did not use K f o r his paragraphs, the low agree- ment figure speaks against i t . Furthermore, i n one instance where two leaves are missing i n K , KSpke f i l l e d i n the text according to K° a f t e r comparing i t with K b.^ However, KSpke does not follow the i n i t i a l s of K i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r passage (1910-2132): he leaves out four of K 's nine i n i - t i a l s , s e t t i n g paragraphs only at 1815, 1837, 1937, 1981, and 2131. These long paragraph units of up to 150 verses correspond nearly p e r f e c t l y to the d i v i s i o n s i n E and G with t h e i r i n i t i a l s at 1815, 1837, 1863, 1937, 1981 and 2131. For an e d i t o r i a l whim, t h i s seems an u n l i k e l y coincidence. Probably KSpke followed the paragraphs of f i n d i n g them KSpke, p. 408: "Der Text i s t nach C [ i . e . , K°] mit Vergleichung von B [i.e.; K*3] gegeben, und die Schreibung der von A [i.e.) K a] g l e i c h gemacht." 109 more suitable for the narrative. Is there any further evidence that K b might have been associated with the *G-group? K b seems to have been a codex recentior i n which text omissions and a l t e r a t i o n s abound. Since we have no information on i t s i n i t i a l system, we have to look for textual variants provided by Kflpke's apparatus i n order to support our theory. The strongest evidence i n our favour i s that K b and manuscripts of the *G-group share i n three cases the omission of a couplet and i n one instance the addition of a couplet. Missing are 3721-22 (with GE, section missing i n M), 6157-58 (with GEM), and 13631-32 (with M; E has changed the order of verses, G has the regu- l a r text with CD and the other manuscripts). More impor-. tant even i s the a d d i t i o n a l couplet i n K b and GE a f t e r 94-00 (section missing i n M) i n which K b and E have a blatant mis- reading i n common. In the disputation between Nachor as i n - voluntary spokesman for the Christians and the representa- tives of other r e l i g i o n s , the Chaldean p r i e s t s end t h e i r speech by saying to Nachor: "Nobody else but d e c e i t f u l \ people would choose your C h r i s t i a n l i f e - s t y l e , people such \ ̂ WJU~v^ as you and your kind. What could be more g u i l e f u l ? " 9399 an diz leben s i c h ergebent 9400 die mit valscher trtlge lebent GEKb: als du und die genozen din G: waz mochte gouclicher s i n ("more g u i l e f u l " ) EKb: waz mochte g o t l i c h ' s i n ("more godly") 110 T h u s , we may c o n c l u d e t h a t Ku must h a v e b e l o n g e d t o t h e * G - g r o u p , p r o b a b l y c l o s e r t o E o r M t h a n t o G. G o i n g one s t e p f u r t h e r now, we s u g g e s t t h a t i n many c a s e s w h e r e t h e KSpke e d i t i o n h a s p a r a g r a p h s i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h o s e o f t h e " G - m a n u s c r i p t s , t h e y a r e most l i k e l y t o h a v e b e e n t a k e n o v e r f r o m . T h i s means t h a t o u r a p p r o a c h t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p o s i t i o n o f K a o n t h e b a s i s o f i t s p a r a g r a p h d i v i s i o n i s n o t v i a b l e . We h a v e t o s t u d y t h e t e x t v a r i a n t s " o f K S p k e 1 s e d i t i o n a n d hope t h a t KSpke h a s shown more a c c u r a c y i n t r a n s c r i b i n g t h e w o r d i n g t h a n he h a s done i n p r e s e r v i n g t h e t e x t u a l d i v i s i o n s o f K . 3.4. S p u r i o u s i n i t i a l s ; t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a p a r a g r a p h So f a r we h a v e made i t a p r i n c i p l e t o s t u d y o n l y t h e p o s i - t i o n o f p a r a g r a p h s i g n s a n d d i s r e g a r d a l l t e x t u a l r e a d i n g s ( w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f K^) i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a f i r s t g r o u p i n g o f t h e B a r l a a m m a n u s c r i p t s . When we now l o o k a t t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s a t t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f a p a r a g r a p h a n d s e e i f t h e y s u p p o r t o r c o n t r a d i c t o u r p r o v i s i o n a l g r o u p i n g we seem t o f a l l b a c k o n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t e x t u a l m e t h o d . And y e t , t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e due t o t h e f a c t t h a t m i s - r e a d i n g s o r r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t r e a d i n g s c a n be c a u s e d by t h e s c r i b e h i m s e l f o r by t h e r u b r i c a t o r . I t i s s o m e t i m e s c l e a r who i s t o b l a m e : i n c a s e s w h e r e t h e r e a r e b l a t a n t l y n o n s e n - I l l s i c a l forms of d i s t o r t i o n s of names, the r u b r i c a t o r , most l i k e l y u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the t e x t , executed a wrong i n i t i a l ( I n i t i a l e n f e h l e r ) . We found s e v e r a l examples f o r t h i s type of mistake, such as "A l o f e r n u s " i n s t e a d of Olofernus ( i n b, 2387), "Doboam" i n s t e a d of Roboam ( i n b, 2311), " B r a c h i s " i n s t e a d of A r a c h i s ( i n A, 7 7 5 9 ) 6 6 or "Polus" i n s t e a d of Eolus ( i n E, 10229). I t i s obvious t h a t such s t r i k i n g mis- takes would not l i k e l y be taken over i n t o a dependent copy and t h e r e f o r e these cases h a r d l y ever shed l i g h t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of manuscripts, In some i n s t a n c e s , however, the change of an i n i t i a l can modify the sense of the phrase without making i t mean- i n g l e s s . I t must be remembered t h a t , because of t h e i r ornamentation, some i n i t i a l s look very much a l i k e although they are d i f f e r e n t c a p i t a l l e t t e r s . Thus the change co u l d have been caused by the misreading of the s c r i b e or by the carelessness of the r u b r i c a t o r . In such cases i t i s impro- per to l a b e l them as " f a l s e i n i t i a l s " ( I n i t i a l e rifehler) s ince the o r i g i n a l ' r e a d i n g i s undetermined. The beginning of the paragraph at 19 81 provides a good example. In the preceding passage, Barlaam p r a i s e s the C h r i s t i a n God and the t r i n i t y and c o n t r a s t s them w i t h the pagan i d o l s . The new s e c t i o n continues the p r a i s e . 66 There i s an o c c a s i o n a l c onfusion between the names of the two c o u n s e l l o r s "Barachias" and " A r a c h i s " i n other manuscripts, e s p e c i a l l y i n L. 112 c • P f e i f f e r reads with manuscript K : "Einen got v x l lobesa- men/geloube i c h , einen i n drin namen . . . " The Bonn codex L shows the same variant without an i n i t i a l . The other manuscripts read "Disen got" : C, "Dinen got" : DW, "Minen got" : AbGp, "Ainen got" : E. The only version that does not make sense i s that of DW, since Josaphat i s s t i l l a heathen at that point of the dialogue. The most s a t i s - fying form i s indeed "Einen got", underlining the contrast between the one almighty God and the many powerless i d o l s ; c however, only the more recent manuscripts E, K and L sup- port t h i s version. I t seems as i f the i n i t i a l in,D had actually been altered, but i t i s impossible to discover which one might have been the o r i g i n a l c a p i t a l l e t t e r . This gives room f o r speculation. W e i t h e r followed D—our s t a t i s t i c a l study showed that W could probably depend on D or a common s o u r c e — o r the r u b r i c a t o r of W could have made the same mistake independently from D. C could have found th i s form i n i t s source and have t r i e d to correct i t by a l t e r i n g the "Dinen" into "Disen." On the other hand, "Disen" might represent the o r i g i n a l reading d i s t o r t e d i n t o "Dinen" by DW. The t h i r d version "Minen got" i s p e r f e c t l y possible and could be the o r i g i n a l reading also . The four manuscripts presenting i t are r e l a t e d i n p a i r s , fragment p belonging to the *G-group and b coming f o r t h from a source close to A (see above). Was there any i n t e r a c t i o n between these two groups or do we have independent attempts to 1 1 3 correct an obviously f a u l t y variant "Dinen?" These considerations aptly demonstrate the d i f f i c u l - t i e s i n evaluating such divergent forms.in order to deter- mine which one might be the authentic version, i f we assume there was only one. The e d i t o r , i n such a case, w i l l most l i k e l y resort to his taste, just as Bedier had suggested, unless the L a t i n text gives strong support f o r one theory. Here, i n t h i s instance, the L a t i n version, as presented by Migne's PatroTogia Tatina, t.73, p. 464-, f u l l y j u s t i f i e s P f e i f f e r ' s choice: "Neque enim ex eorum numero sum qui multos hos et petulantes deos colunt . . . verum unum 6 7 Deum agnosco et c o n f i t e o r qui i n tribus personis . . ." Fortunately, such cases are rare. One single common v a r i - ant of that kind cannot be regarded as evidence f o r a c l o - ser r e l a t i o n s h i p between manuscripts: i t needs a more f r e - quent occurrence or cases where there are altogether d i f f e r - ent words or phrases at the beginning of a new paragraph which could not be ascribed to an i n a t t e n t i v e r u b r i c a t o r . This t h i r d type, the proper textual variant, i s probably the f i n a l r e s u l t of a copying process i n which errors of r u b r i c a t i o n were t e n t a t i v e l y amended at a l a t e r stage. Thus they stand as a d i f f e r e n t version of t h e i r own and are 6 7 For a more de t a i l e d comparison Migne's t e x t — a l a t e r t r a n s l a t i o n from the Greek—would not s u f f i c e and the preserved Latin manuscripts of the "vulgate" version of Barlaam should be consulted. Sonet l i s t s 62 such manu- scr i p t s (Le Roman de BuJ, I, 74-88); whether Rudolf's source i s among them i s unknown. 114 usually conducive to recognizing closer groupings of manu- scr i p t s . The comparison of the various paragraph beginnings i n the Barlaam-manuscripts y i e l d s no surprises; i t confirms mainly two clea r groupings which were shown already by our s t a t i s t i c a l survey: a) the *G-group (GEM) and b) the close r e l a t i o n s h i p between W and L. 6 8 a) 1455 Pf. Er hate daz wol ervarn GEM Barlaam hatte wol ervarn 4325 Pf. Noch w i l i c h d i r ktinden; Doch . . . L GEM Aber w i l i c h . . . ( i n i t i a l s i n GEMLW), text missing i n D 712 3 Pf. Nach d i r r e l e r e wart getan GEM Nu diz wart alsus getan (no i n i t i a l i n M) 7287 ACKK° Noch l a dich des durch got gezemen GEM Doch l a . . .; So l a . . . D BWL Nu l a . . . (no paragraph); no text i n b 750 3 Pf. Als er des boten rede vernam GM Da Zardan die botschaft vernam; Zardan . . . ] 14315 Pf. Alsus-nahet im der tot GEM Hiemit nahete im'. . . b) 165 Pf. Hie vor i n der gnaden z i t WL Die i n der gnaden z i t 6 8 P f e i f f e r ' s text (Pf.) represents the variants of a l l the other unmentioned manuscripts. The s p e l l i n g i s u n i f i e d . 115 431 Pf. Do vuogte sic h . . . WL Nu fugete ez sich . . . 3541 Pf. Ouch hat uns b i s p e l gegeben; Doch hat . . . b WL Nu hat uns . . .; Ich han uns geleuchniz . . . E 39 91 Pf. Dar an raerke minen rat WL Heran merke . . . 84 7 7 GEMAb Noch waer min rat also getan; Doch . . . D WL Nu wer . . .; Joch . . . K; Ouch . . . K In the second h a l f of the text, there are no further com- mon variants i n the paragraph beginnings of W and L. This would confirm our findings i n the study of i n i t i a l s , namely that L changes i t s source a f t e r approximately the f i r s t 8850 verses and follows C or a common source. Since C i s usually r e l i a b l e i n i t s i n i t i a l s and paragraph beginnings, L and C do not show any s t r i k i n g variants from thereon. At 160 29, the scribe of L must have misread the l i n e "In kriechisch man diz maere schreip" and changed i t into " Z Q k r i c h i n man." An even greater misinterpretation occurs i n W: "Ein kriechschen man dis schreip" and i n E: "Ain krieche d i t z maere schraip." However there i s no further evidence f o r the above mentioned p o s s i b i l i t y that W and D might belong to one group. On the other hand, the theory that K and D are close- ly r elated to one another i s supported by the paragraph at 1009 where D, K° and K read "Do was b i im . . ." instead 116 of "Nu was . . . " a s a l l the others do. Two f u r t h e r examples are 8477 as mentioned above (D, K and K have s l i g h t l y d i f - f e r e n t forms from the r e s t , but not q u i t e congruous w i t h each o t h e r ) , and 10359 where D and K read "An alsus getanes leben" i n s t e a d of "In alsus . . ." l i k e the other manu- c c a s c r i p t s i n c l u d i n g K . Thus, i t seems t h a t both K and K (which could not be assessed on the b a s i s of i t s i n i t i a l s ) are d e r i v e d from a manuscript very c l o s e t o D, but probably not D i t s e l f . D shows a few p a r t i c u l a r misreadings which are no found i n K or K: 10 39 "Der sprach" i n s t e a d of "Er sprach"; 7287 "So l a d i c h des durch got gezemen" i n s t e a d of "Noch l a . . ." i n K and K c, "Doch" i n GEM and "Nu" i n BWL; or 9129 " S i t v r i d e wart gevestent d o r t " (shared by b) i n s t e a d of "Mit v r i d e wart . . . " The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the two major manuscripts C and D i s as yet the l e a s t c l a r i f i e d . The study of t h e i r i n i t i a l s showed great l i k e n e s s , however the comparison of t h e i r para- graph beginnings d i d not provide us w i t h any f u r t h e r c l u e s . When we now proceed t o analyse the Barlaam-fragments i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the complete manuscripts, we hope to gain more m a t e r i a l whereby we might be able to assess more ac c u r a t e l y t h e i r rank w i t h i n the framework of the t e x t t r a - d i t i o n . 117 4. The smaller fragments 4.1. Introductory remarks The following chapter takes into account a l l available smaller Barlaam fragments and attempts to assess t h e i r im- portance f o r a r e l i a b l e new text e d i t i o n . A considerable amount of confusion i s noticeable i n t h i s matter. As men- tioned before, P f e i f f e r used only very few fragments f o r his e d i t i o n and Sflhns's thesis added information on s i x f u r - ther fragments, a l b e i t some of i t from second hand. Since then, a number of further Barlaam fragments have been d i s - covered and some have disappeared; even since the l a s t and so f a r only l i s t of fragments a f t e r P f e i f f e r and S6hns, that of Worstbrock i n 1966 (see chapter 1.2), three further fragments p, q, and r have been made known. Worstbrock j u s t l y corrects the errors contained i n H. Rupp's Nachwort to the reprinted P f e i f f e r e d i t i o n , but his own indicat i o n s are not completely free of mistakes. Worstbrock does not update P f e i f f e r ' s and Sflhns's information and he does not deal with the i n t r i n s i c value of the fragments he l i s t s . Various figures f o r the o v e r a l l number of manuscripts and fragments have been suggested; Worstbrock claims: "In der Tat lassen si c h mindestens 45 Textzeugen nachweisen." For our purpose, such figures are i r r e l e v a n t . What we are concerned about i s to learn which fragments have preserved an independent version of the Barlaam text and could be con- 1 1 8 suited f o r a r e - e d i t i o n . That means we have to f i n d out f i r s t which fragments are "matched," are part of the same, otherwise l o s t manuscript and have to be considered as one text witness. The next step i s to assess how the fragments re l a t e to each other, to the major manuscripts and manu- sc r i p t groupings and which of them deserves s p e c i a l atten- t i o n i n view of a text reconstruction. During t h i s pro- cess we gather material concerning not only the fragment under study but also having a bearing on other manuscripts. This evidence i s needed f o r a c r i t i c a l look back upon the tentative r e s u l t s gained i n chapter three and hence f o r a f i n a l evaluation of the i n i t i a l method applied there. An attempt to group manuscripts on the basis of tex- t u a l variants i s constantly confronted with the problem of sel e c t i o n and c r e d i b i l i t y and thus open to the reproach of s u b j e c t i v i t y . This i s sometimes unavoidable, a d e t a i l e d j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the c i t a t i o n of common variants or the omission of others cannot be expected i n t h i s framework. For convenience's sake,, the s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t s p e l l i n g of various manuscripts showing p a r a l l e l readings has been d i s - regarded, abbreviations are sp e l l e d out and obsolete l e t t e r s (the two d i f f e r e n t forms of -s-, - r - , and -z-) or d i a c r i t i - c a l marks modernized or given up. Whenever P f e i f f e r ' s text represents the consensus of a l l manuscripts the s i g l e Pf can stand alone i n t h e i r place. 119 4.2. Matching fragments 4.2.1. Fragments d and q The Zurich fragment d i s among the few that P f e i f f e r used for his e d i t i o n . He ranked i t above the others ("Von den Bruchstucken wusste i c h keines auszuzeichnen ausser d, das gut und a l t i s t . " Bar1aam, p. 409), without f o r that rea- son always following i t s reading. These two vellum leaves of the thirteenth century contain 242 verses (10967 - 11084 and 11331 - 11454), neatly written i n two columns of 29 to 31 l i n e s with i n i t i a l s a l t e r n a t i n g i n red and blue. The seven i n i t i a l s i n d agree with those i n CDb with two excep- tions: ddoes not have a paragraph at 11345 as a l l the others do and at 1140 7 the r u b r i c a t o r set the marginal i n i - t i a l I one l i n e too low: ICh bin durch daz her zuo d i r komin / Ich han uon d i r ain t a i l uirnomin. The scribe had c l e a r l y meant i t to be drawn i n front of the f i r s t ICh as the c a p i t a l follow-up l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s . Therefore, the rubricator's s l i p could have e a s i l y been recognized and corrected by scribes copying from t h i s manuscript. The text i n d i s r e l i a b l e , indeed, there are only a few cases i n which d does not show a meaningful variant, such as 11009: Do gibot der kunic sa / Daz s i c h schiede des k'nappin s t r i t , instead of "des' kamphes s t r i t , " or at 11033 the singular form instead of the correct p l u r a l : Sinen maister nam er do / Die schiedin dan mit im unvro. 120 P f e i f f e r claims erroneously i n his apparatus that verses 10972 (275,32) and 11030 (277,10) are missing; however, there are no text omissions at a l l i n d. SShns, who dealt with the po s i t i o n of d i n r e l a t i o n to the other manuscripts, associated i t c o r r e c t l y with the DK aK c-group (obviously giving up his i n i t i a l claim that cL C t h i s Reihe consists of A as well as DK K ). He supported his statement by four textual variants, the l a s t of which i s i n v a l i d (11408 "von d i r ein t e i l " i s read not only i n d and DK aK c, but also CGWLb. P f e i f f e r follows A and E which read "ein t e i l von d i r . " ) . I t seems adequate, therefore, to o f f e r our own b r i e f s e l e c t i o n of common readings i n order to e s t a b l i s h the a f f i n i t y of d with the DK K -group. 109 76 Pf: (ein riche daz niemer zergat/) unde an ende vreude hat d: daz anegande vroude hat; und anegende . . . DK aK C 10992 Pf: got lobte solher guete K cd: got lobter siner g l i e t i ; got lobte siner guete D K a E 11001 Pf: Swenne er gen im kerte Ld: Swenne er sich gein im k.; S. e. gen im sich kerte DK aK° 11336 Pf: so d i s i u veste wart erkant; d i s i u hoch- gezit W DKaKcd: so diu foste wart irkant 121 11369 DK aK Cbd Pf DK aK Cd 11371 C Pf DK aK Cd 11348 Pf: daz der kttnec belibe alvro daz der kunic belibe vro und waz Nachor i n haete getan; u. w. i n N. . . . EGb und was N. im hette getan und was N. hete getan i r s i c i r saelde i r ere i r saelde i r sige i r ere In conclusion, one could agree with SShns' statement that d as well as DK aK C originated from a common source, although other p o s s i b i l i t i e s could be suggested. It i s nota- ble that d shares a common variant alone with K i n two instances: . . . daz tuon ouch i c h . . , daz tuon i c h (und ander hfivesche l i u t e guot//) die den goten machen I . . . I die hohgezit 11028 Pf dK C 11431 Pf d: die dem l i u t e machin; den luten machen K It seems that K is- probably even more cl o s e l y r e l a t e d to d than D and K a, although i t could not have descended from i t i n a d i r e c t l i n e . Their d i f f e r e n t age and d i a l e c t make a a more d e f i n i t i v e judgment on the basis of these few verses impossible. In 1972, attention was drawn to two formerly unknown Barlaam fragments kept i n the federal archives (Staatsarchiv) 122 Schaffhausen/Switzerland. P. Ochsenbein described them minutely, included two facsimile samples, and attempted to compare t h e i r version to that of the other manuscripts (see p. 23, footnote 38). We concern ourselves here with q, the f i r s t one of these two fragments, consisting of two p a r t l y damaged vellum leaves which contain most of the text between 6017 and 6137 and on the other leaf 6 3 85 to 6 415 and 6475 to 6504, a l t o - gether about 180 verses (some of them cut i n h a l f ) . Con- trary to Ochsenbein's assumption that q i s an independent witness of the Barlaam text t r a d i t i o n , we could e s t a b l i s h that q a c t u a l l y i s a part of the same otherwise l o s t manu- 69 s c r i p t to which the Zurich fragment d belonged. A compar- ison of the facsimile sample of q with a photocopy of d proved that the arrangement of the text, the measurements of the columns, the handwriting and the execution of i n i t i a l s are i d e n t i c a l . Furthermore, both fragments show the same alemannic d i a l e c t features (". . . im ttstlichen hochaleman- nischen Raum entstanden," Ochsenbein, p. 323) and a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n to other manuscripts. P. Ochsenbein's statement that a r e l i a b l e grouping (Eiriordnung) of t h i s fragment i s not possible cannot be upheld. His scepticism towards the r i g i d , yet questionable 69 . . . . . Dr. Ochsenbein kindly confirmed our findings i n a l e t t e r of May 14, 1973. 123 stemma of SfcVhns i s commendable, however i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r matching q with d and thus having a larger basis of comparison, we can p o s i t i v e l y conclude that q belongs to the DK aK C group. The few i n i t i a l s i n q are not c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i v e of t h i s a f f i l i a t i o n , but the follow- ing three common variants should s u f f i c e i n support of our theory. 6051 ACLW: DK aK Cq: do wart er guotes r i c h e r der wart guotis r i c h i r GMn: sus wart er g . r.; also wart er . . . E 6112 Pf: dich sihe so wol gehorsam s i n DK aq: dich sihe so gar g. s.; dich sihe . . . K C und gar 6125 Pf: s i s t i n siner wunne groz DK aK cq: s i s t i n sinen wunen groz Ochsenbein mentions two s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l readings i n q and C which i n his view make a l l attempts at grouping q f u t i l e . In 6091 C and q use the verb dulten instead of l i d e n , and i n 6116 they both avoid the r e p e t i t i o n of got through i t s r e l a t i v e pronoun: 11. . . ze gote w i l l e c l i c h e n muot / daz er din ende mache guot." We hold that t h i s l a t t e r example could very well be an independent, spontaneous smoothing of s t y l e i n both man- us c r i p t s . Such a l t e r a t i o n s occur here and there, the oppo- s i t e appears e.g. i n 6 04-5 where only q has a repeated noun der sweher within two verses and a l l other manuscripts use 124 t h e p e r s o n a l p r o n o u n i n s t e a d . As t o t h e f i r s t e x a m p l e , we n o t i c e d t h a t t h e e x p r e s s i o n a r b e i t d u l t e n d o e s n o t o c c u r a n y w h e r e e l s e i n B a r l a a m , a r b e i t l i d e n , h o w e v e r , i s u s e d s e v e r a l t i m e s i n a l l m a n u s c r i p t s ( 5 3 1 8 , 8 2 2 1 , 1 2 4 4 7 ) . The a u t h o r u s e s b o t h t e r m s i n v e r y s i m i l a r p h r a s e s , d u l d e n a p p e a r s i n r h y m e d p o s i t i o n a t 3486 a n d 15248 a n d seems t o be t r e a t e d a s synonym t o l i d e n i n t h e s e n s e o f " t o s u f f e r , 70 t o b e a r . " The d i a l e c t o g r a p h i c a l s t u d y by G. de Smet shows t h a t t h e two w o r d s c o - e x i s t e d i n German d i a l e c t s t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d t h a t t h e p r e f e r e n c e o f t h e one o v e r t h e o t h e r was f l u c t u a t i n g f o r a w h i l e u n t i l f i n a l l y l i d e n became p r e d o m i n a n t . We f o u n d a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f t h i s f l u c t u a t i o n i n A a n d h a t 1 2 0 3 5 , w h e r e m u o s t e d u l t e n r a t i s r e p l a c e d b y m u o s t e l i d e n r a t . T h u s , we s u g g e s t t h a t a t 6091 C a n d q c o u l d h a v e s u b s t i t u t e d l i d e n b y d u l t e n i n d e - p e n d e n t l y f r o m one a n o t h e r due t o t h e s c r i b e ' s d i a l e c t a l p r e f e r e n c e a n d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e a u t h o r ' s u s a g e i n o t h e r p a s s a g e s . The a f f i n i t y o f dq w i t h t h e DK K g r o u p i s n o t c a l l e d i n q u e s t i o n by t h e s e t w o p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n q a n d C. G i l b e r t de Smet, " D i e A u s d r i l c k e f u r l e i d e n i m A l t d e u t s c h e n , " ' W i r k e n d e s W o r t 5 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 69-79": 1.2 5 4.2.2. Fragments e and 1 At a perfunctory glance i t seems u n l i k e l y that e and 1 should be part of one otherwise l o s t manuscript. The two leaves of the Nuremberg fragment 1 contain the text i n a continuously written form whereas i n the Munich fragment e one verse i s assigned to each l i n e . Furthermore, the i n d i - cations as to age and size of the fragments d i f f e r some- what: e i s dated from "Middle of the thirteenth century" to "fourteenth century" (see chapter 2.2.), and i t i s des- cribed as "Grossoktav" as well as "small quarto;" 1, on the other hand, i s written at the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century and i s i n octavo, 71 according to F. P f e i f f e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n . For h i s Barlaam e d i t i o n P f e i f f e r used fragment e only i n form of a tran- s c r i p t , fragment 1 was sent to him a f t e r the appearance of his e d i t i o n . So P f e i f f e r never compared both fragments i n the o r i g i n a l or commented on t h e i r possible connection. The same holds true f o r Sfihns who does not go s u b s t a n t i a l l y beyond P f e i f f e r . The two fragments were used f o r bookbinding and so they are both cut down to d i f f e r e n t sizes as b e f i t t i n g the purpose. However, i n both e and 1 the c a r e f u l l y drawn set of lines f o r the two columns of each page has a height of 71 F. P f e i f f e r , "Bruchstdck aus Barlaam und Josaphat von Rudolf von Ems," Anzeiger f u r Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit (1854), 108-109. 126 14.5 cm, a width of 4.4 cm, the free space i n the middle between the columns i s of 0.6 cm and a l l l i n e s are 0.45 cm 72 apart. Both fragments show the same handwriting with some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features such as the c a p i t a l S, D and N and have the same abbreviations. The Alemannic d i a l e c t a l forms are mainly the same as much as one can t e l l from such a short sample (e has altogether only 138 verses, moreover both scribes vary i n t h e i r s p e l l i n g ) . It i s c e r t a i n l y unu- sual to f i n d a manuscript where the s c r i b e s t a r t s out writing his text continuously and l a t e r changes to w r i t i n g i n verse l i n e s , but i t does not seem to be impossible. The small format of the vellum makes i t d i f f i c u l t f o r a scribe to f i t a whole verse into one l i n e of each column. In frag- ment e> which has preserved only the major part of the e p i - logue, a s p e c i a l e f f o r t seems to have been made, and yet i n ' one instance a verse (16 057) has to be spread over two l i n e s as wel l . Possibly only the epilogue was written i n verses to set i t o f f from the narrative part of the work, but there i s no proof f o r such an assumption. The Nuremberg fragment 1 with i t s text between 436 8 • c and 4612 agrees m f i v e of i t s six i n i t i a l s with K. and A (D having a text omission u n t i l 4396) and diverges to a stronger degree from those i n other manuscripts. P f e i f f e r had noticed already that the text of 1 resembles mostly that of D. Sflhns took t h i s theory up and supported i t by four 7 2 . . A l l measurements are taken from the microfilm copy. 127 common variants, one of them in c o r r e c t : 45 85 mit vreuden i r s l a f inphiengen (instead of Pf: mit vreuden s l a f . . .) can be found i n GEM as well as DK aK c. He overstrains the argument however by suggesting that DK aK C might have been d i r e c t l y copied from 1; the opposite case ("oder umgekehrt . . .," Sohns, p. 41) does not make any sense at a l l since K aK C are younger than 1 by at least a hundred years. - The following examples should provide s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r the close a f f i n i t y between 1 and DK aK c: 4465 4556 4560 Pf DK aK Gl Pf D K aK Gl Pf 4585 DK aK°l Pf DKC1 4595 W Pf DKC1 i r l i p i r muot wurden b e k l e i t i r l i p i r leben wart b e c l e i t und mttgen l e i d e r doch niht komen omission of l e i d e r mit ir'gezierde trtigelich mit i r geheizen t r u g e l i c h Swer sich uf s i s l a f e n l e i t Swer s i c h uf sl a f e n l e i t Swer sich s i s. 1.; Swer s i c h s l a f e n l e i t L den l a t s i li g e n i n der not den l a t l i g e n i n der not In these l a s t two cases, KSpke's text agrees with P f e i f f e r ' s and he does not give any information i n his apparatus of a d i f f e r e n t reading i n K . I t i s possible, though, that KSpke t a c i t l y corrected K 's version i n his e d i t i o n . 449 2, only 1 and D share a common reading: Pf: die d i r r e welte minne bot 128 ID: die d i r r e wunne bot; die dirre welte wunne bot K K A. These variants would support the view that there might have been a common source f o r K K on the one hand (possibly- connected with dq) and another one f o r ID. In any case, they a l l belong to one branch d e f i n i t e l y d i f f e r e n t from the other manuscripts. A does not share any of the other common variants of thi s group i n the above quoted passage and can therefore not be counted. In the paragraph before 4 4-9 2, both expressions "die welt minnen" (4445) and "der welte wunne" (4451) occur: thus, the agreement of A and K aK c i n 449 2 could be accidental or due to contamination. Going back to Sfihns' suggestion that D and 1 might have been copied from one another, the following counter-argu- ments must be raised: D has a text omission between 4213 and 4396 i n which 1 seems to have contained the text (1 begins at 4368). On the other hand, D has not l i k e l y been copied from 1. The gap i n D which leaves out the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Good Shepherd and jumps from the middle of Barlaam's speech into Josaphat's response must have been caused by accident. The most l i k e l y explanation i s that the scribe of D accidentally turned two pages. The missing amount of 184 verses would indicate that the source of D was written i n two columns of 46 verses, which i s obviously not the case with 1 ( i t s verse 4396 being in the middle of a page). Once the position of 1 has been established we can look 129 at the much shorter fragment e which i s , as stated before, part of the same manuscript as 1. Fragment e has been held i n high esteem by P f e i f f e r and Stihns since i t i s the only one to mark the a c r o s t i c RVODOLF (16151-157) by r u b r i c i z e d c a p i t a l s . Sunns declares himself unable to group t h i s fragment on grounds of i t s alleged lack of evidence. In f a c t , a comparison with D i s impossible as the l a s t leaves of of D have been l o s t , the same holds true f o r b and M. The i n i t i a l s i n e coincide completely wxth those i n K (even to the extent of assigning a marginal i n i t i a l to 16 0 29 and f o r g e t t i n g i t s execution), but K does not mark the a c r o s t i c . Furthermore, there are some common readings and mistakes i n e and i n K aK c, as follows: 16049 16050 16064 16148 A: die k r i e c h i s c h kunnen verstan; d.: k. kunden verstan E K aK Ce: die criecsche kunnen wol verstan CGWL: die k r i e c h i s c h kunnen s i c h verstan CGW: waer ez i n kriecheschem gelan K aK ce: wer ez c r i e c h i s c h gelan (see Ktfpke 1s apparatus) A: . . . i n kriechscher rede g.; h i e t ez der herre n i t getan E do g e v i e l diu geschiht do v i e l d. g. (see Kopke 1s apparatus) wunschet mir und i u daz wir; ... . daz i r E wunschit mir und daz wir; w. i u unde mir A Pf K aK Ce GWKC K e 130 1616 0 AEGWK : h i l f uns daz wir von schame r o t ; daz wir niht von . . . C K e: h i l f uns daz von schame rot The l a s t two s c r i b a l errors could possibly be found i n K a as well and have been t a c i t l y corrected i n Kttpke's e d i t i o n . Fragment e shows two or three minor variants of i t s own (the most important: 16071 "an suozer rede" instead of a c c l e r e ) , just as K or K do (K leaves out 1 6 0 5 5 - 5 6 ) , but the strong o v e r a l l agreement between e and K K i s beyond any doubt. I t must be remembered that K c i s a very la t e manuscript with numerous cuts, thus the a f f i n i t y i s the more s t r i k i n g . In conclusion we maintain that the fragment consisting of the two parts e and 1 belonged to a r e l i a b l e manuscript of the DK aK° -branch, s i m i l a r to dq, and should be consulted whenever a reading i n D i s i n doubt or non-existent. 4-. 2 . 3 . Fragments m and F2 The so-called 'Gdttweig fragment' (m) owes i t s name appar- ently to a misunderstanding. I t was described f o r the f i r s t time by the nineteenth century Austrian germanist Joseph Diemer, d i r e c t o r of the University Library i n Vienna, who began his a r t i c l e with the somewhat ambiguous words: "Zwei Pergamentblatter i n F o l i o aus dem Ende des 13. Jahr- hunderts, deren Mittheilung ich der zuvorkommenden Gute \ 131 des hochwlirdigen Herrn Bibliothekars and Subpriors des Be n e d i c t i n e r s t i f t e s zu Gttttweig, P. G o t t f r i e d Reichardt 7 3 verdanke." Stihns who based his study of m on Diemer's description concluded from the above quoted word "Mit- theilung" that t h i s fragment was a c t u a l l y located i n the monastery of GBttweig (Sfihns, p. 4-). Since then fragment m i s known and r e f e r r e d to as the "Gttttweig fragment." However, within the past two centuries there have never been any Barlaam fragments i n the monasterial l i b r a r y at Gttttweig and i t might be assumed that P. Reichardt acquired these two leaves from a private owner and forwarded them ("mitteilen") 74 . to J. Diemer. - Unfortunately, t h e i r whereabouts are unknown since then. It would seem a f r u i t l e s s endeavour to analyse a l o s t fragment on the mere basis of a c o l l a t i o n , i f i t were not f o r two reasons. a) m must have been one of the oldest known manuscripts and Diemer's description and catalogue of variants i s very extensive b) we discovered a matching fragment to m which broadens the basis f o r our analysis and allows us to take outward c r i t e r i a such as handwriting, execution of i n i t i a l s into 7 3 J. Diemer, "Kleine Beitrage . . .," p. 6 50. 74 We are much obliged to P. Petrus van A a l s t of, the S t i f t s b i b l i o t h e k Gflttweig and Dr. Otto Mazal of the Oster- reichische Nationalbibliothek i n Vienna for t h e i r kind . information. 132 consideration as well. This other fragment containing parts of the same otherwise l o s t manuscript i s presently kept at the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Worstbrock l i s t s i t as No. 2. The four features proving that m and F2 belong to the same manuscript are a) both fragments consist of vellum f o l i o leaves and date of the late thirteenth century, b) t h e i r pages contain three columns of 5 8 l i n e s each, altogether 174- verses per page, a very high number, c) t h e i r marked d i a l e c t a l forms are the same (Tyrolian, according to Diemer who l i s t s the p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of m), d) m and F2 show an i d e n t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to other manu- s c r i p t s , foremost to C. Taking m and F2 together now, a t o t a l amount of 1210 verses i s at our disposal: more than h a l f only i n Diemer's v a r i - ants (3107-3448 and 6203-6548) but the remaining 522 verses extant i n F2 (411-758 on the f i r s t complete l e a f , and on 'the second one with i t s upper h a l f cut o f f 5193-5220, 5251-5278, 5309-5336; 5367-94, 5425-52, 5483-5510). A glance at the paragraphs of m and F2 i n comparison to the other manuscripts gives the f i r s t clue as to t h e i r grouping: m and F2 show the same pattern as AbCD, yet, more p r e c i s e l y , F2 shows the same large i n i t i a l s i n length and i n shape as C (we cannot judge f o r m since Diemer did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e ) . The I i n i t i a l at 5497 ("Ich horte sagen . . .") i s nine l i n e s high both i n F2 and C and at 133 5 30 7 ("Josaphat sprach . . .") i t i s f i v e l i n e s high i n both (the upper two l i n e s are cut o f f i n F2 but one can e a s i l y calculate the i n i t i a l ' s f u l l height). The three other manuscripts which place large i n i t i a l s at these same spots are L and W and to a much lesser extent G where the rubricator forgot the execution of the marginal I at 549 7. Therefore, one has to study the r e l a t i o n s h i p of mF2 with C i n the f i r s t place before widening the scope. The closeness of m and C was pointed out already by S5hns (Das Handschriftenverhaltniss, pp. 41-43). Of the eight examples given by him to prove mC's common stand against the other manuscripts two are i n c o r r e c t , however: 82,27 ( not 82,17 as Sfihns mistakenly writes) reads hohist i n A as well as i n mC and 164,14 reads d i r volgen und diner lere i n a l l manuscripts except DK aK°. The following common variants of m and C are a few out of many, the s i g l e m w i l l be applied also f o r F2 from hereon. 439/440 the two verses are interchanged i n Cm (WL read completely d i f f e r e n t , see Stthns' Anhang) 590 Pf ob er so r e i n e t sinen s i n mC ob er so raine w i l hie s i n 711 Pf nu h i l f i c h d i r alrgernest mC nu h i l f i c h alrgernest 742 Pf (daz er der genaden gotes/) gar vergaz.. mC. omission of gar 134 3448 Pf: nu mac niht geschehen daz mC: nu kan niht . . . 5392 Pf: man vert die witen straze gar / diu gen des - 94 todes porte gat / der enge s t i c verwahsen stat mC: p l u r a l forms gant / starrt, die engen stige 6312 Pf: zeinem huse hat gegeben mC: ze ainem huze i s t gegaeben 6366 Pf: guote bruoder dar i r brot mC: guote. bruoder ander brot; gute bredigaere i r b. WL 65 39 Pf: doch nach dem tage . . . ; da nach tage . . . mC In some instances a common reading of mC i s shared by WL, i n other cases i t i s s i m i l a r but not quite i d e n t i c a l : 477 682 Pf mCWL Pf mC WL 5272 DKAG MmC L 6494 Pf mCWL er dachte helfen im durch got er gedahte h i l f ime dur got ich w i l d i r alsam ein kneht I . . . I iemer dienen i c h w i l d i r helfen als ain knaeht ich w i l d i r dienen . . . den iemer mere staeten hort; d. i . streten hort E den iemer maere waerenden hort den ymer werndin stedin hort; W omits stedin von der gesihte er sere erschrac von der geschiht . . . The great likeness of m and C makes i t quite possible 135 that one-is the d i r e c t copy of the other, but since they both date from the same period, the i n t e r n a l evidence alone w i l l have to decide. In the text covered by the "Gttttweig fragment" two b i b l e quotations occur a f t e r 3204 and 6206 which the scribe has l e f t f i r s t i n t h e i r Latin o r i g i n a l before t r a n s l a t i n g them (the Latin words are included by Diemer i n his l i s t of v a r i a n t s ) . Based on t h i s evidence, S5hns concludes that C must have been copied from m as i t allegedly does.not have the L a t i n version. He even suggests a reason for t h i s omission: 11. . . v i e l wahrscheinlicher wird bei der F l u c h t i g k e i t und dem Leichtsinne, mit dem C gemacht i s t , dass sein Schreiber diese la t e i n i s c h e n Citate i n seiner Vorlage m sehr unntitz gefunden, j a v i e l l e i c h t nicht einmal verstanden und deshalb weggelassen habe" (Stihns, p. 4 2 ) . Unknown to Stthns, manuscript C does have both L a t i n quotations i n t h e i r entire length, just as m, only P f e i f f e r did not bother to remark on i t i n h i s appa- ratus. Thus, Stthns's argument f o r a d i r e c t dependence of C from m collapses. A f t e r s i f t i n g through the textual variants of m and comparing them to C and the other manuscripts, two posi- t i v e statements can be upheld: a) m cannot have been copied from C, but b) C could have been copied from m. In regard to a) C has several readings of i t s own which m does not share, where m agrees with the other manuscripts 136 (represented by P f e i f f e r T s t e x t ) , such as i n manegem hohem s t e i n ; i n m. holen s t a i n mPf vor der wunden a r b e i t ; von der w. a. mPf alsus hast hie funden; alsus hie hast f. mPf ob ich sein ane waere; obe i c h ez ane w. mPf ain reicher man bat c h r i s t ; a. r. m. der bat c. mPf danne man tuo die enge / durch . . . dringen danne man die enge j dan daz man die e. Pf und im v i i chlaine bezzert sein muot und kleine b. s. m. und im sein l i e h t ; und ime daz l i e h t mPf 6474 and 6482 C: z_e naehst; instead of ze l i c h e : mPf In regard to b) C i s so close to m that, i n addition to the common variants c i t e d above they share also some obvious mistakes and gaps: 3405/3406 Pf: . . . klagen / . . . getragen mC: . . . klagen / . . . begraben (impure rime) 6208 Pf: (gotes gttenlicher gewalt/) von den himeIn i s t gezalt mC: i n t h e i r t r a n s l a t i o n of the preceding L a t i n quotation " c e l i enarrant gloriam dei" omit himeln 642 3 Pf: dem neven wart er h e i n l i c h 429 CD: 464 C: 488 CE: 5256 C: 5329 C: 5384 C: Wm: 5428 C: mPf: 5430 C: m: dem wart do er v i e l h.; dem wart er do v. h. C 137 6537 Pf: und gie mit i n v i i balde mC: omit gie Furthermore, we pointed out that m and C have s t r i k i n g l y i d e n t i c a l i n i t i a l s , with one exception: at 691 m has an i n i t i a l together with AbDEGLW which C has l e f t out. In t h i s context, t h i s would speak also i n favour of C being depend- ent on m. Last l y , there are only f i v e cases i n which m shows a reading s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from C and the other manuscripts: 589 CPf: der vindet ez man l a t i n d r i n ; 3304 CPf: so der l i p mit der sele erstat m: . . . mit sele . . . 5214 CPf: wir miiezen un han wol bewart Gkm: wir miiezen unz han wol bewart 6394 CPf: unde ein vreuden r i c h e r ruom m: unde an froide r i c h e r r . 6433 CPf: daz i c h mit gotes rate m: daz i c h mich gottes rat e . Do these f i v e divergent readings i n m and C rule out the p o s s i b i l i t y that C was copied from m? The t h i r d example (5214) alone i s not strong enough to prove or disprove a grouping since the synt a c t i c p o s i t i o n of adverbs such as wol i s highly f l u c t u a t i n g i n a l l manuscripts of the time. The remaining variants are quite c l e a r l y s c r i b a l errors, misreadings which any a l e r t scribe copying from that manu- 138 s c r i p t could have e a s i l y corrected. Therefore, i n our opinion the evidence i s convincing enough f o r the claim that C was indeed copied from m; Sunns 1 theory i s proven r i g h t i n spite of his f a u l t y arguments. In conclusion i t should be stressed again that the "Gottweig fragment" m and the B e r l i n fragment F2 taken together deserve the greatest attention for a new c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n . I t i s c l e a r that m cannot be considered the archetype from which a l l manuscripts could be traced, i t s text omissions speak against i t . But m i s c e r t a i n l y one of the three oldest, i f not the oldest text witness of Rudolf's Barlaam, older and more r e l i a b l e than C. Moreover, i t sheds some l i g h t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between C and LW which w i l l be discussed i n chapter f i v e . I t seems possible that the two leaves of the "Gttttweig fragment" are s t i l l hidden somewhere i n Austrian archives and w i l l be unearthed i n the future. Then we would gain a d d i t i o n a l information on on those parts where up to now we had to r e l y on Diemer's c o l l a t i o n . 139 4.3. Single fragments 4.3.1. Fragment h The Wurzburg fragment h, consisting of eight leaves i n quarto, i s about as long as m and F2 combined. It covers a major part of the text between 10933 and 13214, with seven leaves missing: four a f t e r l e a f two (leaving out 11237- 11852), one a f t e r leaf four (leaving out 12148-12307) and two a f t e r leaf six (leaving out 12604-12909). Moreover, some leaves are s l i g h t l y damaged or have been p a r t i a l l y cut, so that a t o t a l of approximately 1150 verses are pre- served. Stthns'slist of variants i s included i n the Anhang of the reprinted Barlaam e d i t i o n , pp. 501-502. The f i r s t 7 5 mention of fragment h was made by Karl Roth and a few years 7 6 l a t e r by Eduard Reuss. P f e i f f e r does not seem to have known t h i s fragment although he refe r s to Roth f o r fragment e (Barlaam, p. 408). In his thesis Stthns devoted a short paragraph to h claiming that h i s a d i r e c t copy from A and that, wherever they d i f f e r , " . . . dann hat A gewfihnlich die r i c h t i g e Les- a r t , die von h f l d c h t i g und f a l s c h abgeschrieben i s t . " His conclusion as to the value of h i s very negative: "h i s t daher bei etwaigen Textfeststellungen ebensowenig Werth 7 5 K. Roth, Deutsche Predigten des XII. und XIII. Jhdts. (Leipzig, 1839), p. 6. 7 6 E. Reuss, ZfdA 3 (1843), 446. 140 beizulegen wie b" (Sflhns, p. 40). In the evidence produced by Stthns to support his assertions, he managed not only to misread P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus frequently, but he even contra- dicted himself b l a t a n t l y : i n his own variants (see Barlaam, p. 501) he indicated c o r r e c t l y that verse 277,10 (11030) had i n i t i a l l y been l e f t out by the scribe of h but a f t e r - wards been inserted i n the bottom l i n e of the same column -probably, we may add, with an omission sign i n accordance with the s c r i b a l p r actice of the time (since the margin of the page i s cut o f f , we cannot t e l l , but 110 30 i s put i n parentheses). However, i n his paragraph on the r e l a t i o n - ship of h, S6*hns claims that this p a r t i c u l a r verse i s mis- sing i n h and since i t i s extant i n A, the l a t t e r could not be dependent on hI The Wurzburg fragment gives proof of a c a r e f u l s c r i b e : i t s clean and regular handwriting, i t s i n i t i a l s indented over three or four l i n e s and the meticulously drawn set of l i n e s produce a remarkable contrast to manuscript A. There i s reason to believe that h was written before 1300 which would make i t one of the oldest text documents we have. Its t h i r t y recognizable i n i t i a l s agree with those i n A (28), C (29), b (29), and mostly with D (30). Both h and D have preserved the old paragraph pattern equally f a i t h f u l l y , but, as the textual variants show, they are not c l o s e l y r e l a t e d . Stihns was r i g h t i n pointing out the strong a f f i n i t y between A and h, even though he was l e d to wrong conclu- 141 sions. The following l i s t of major common readings i n A and h should be s u f f i c i e n t to prove t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p : 13081-32 omitted i n Ah 10979 Pf: da lebet diu gots essentia Ah: da lebet gots essentia 10984 Pf: ein also vreuderichez leben Ah: ein also v r o l i c h i z leben 11084 Pf: der gar vervluochten diete Ah: der gar virworhten diete 11861 b: daz zeigte i c h gerne baz mShtich; das zaigte was mocht i c h E Ah: daz z e i g i t i c h gerne moht i c h (the "Damenpreis" passage 11735-11871 kept only by AhbE [B^ h ca r r i e s the text from 11853 on) 11986 Pf Ah 12035 Pf 12073 Pf Ah be h i e l t er l u t e r als ein glas b i h i e l t er als ein l u t e r glas dulten; Ah: l i d e n (see also p. 124) twanc s i nach dem geheize han; . . . wan Cb twanc s i nach dem geheize an. It cannot be concluded from these common readings that h was copied from A, as Stthns proclaimed. In a number of places A presents a version of i t s own where h agrees with the other manuscripts and P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n . 11003 hPf 11198 hPf A daz er belibe sigelos ; d. er wurde s. A swenn er din reinez herze s i h t swenn er din herze reine s i h t •1.4 2. 11230 hPf A 12054 hPf A 12080 hPf A 12452 hPf A des got an d i r begunnen hat d. g. an d i r gegangen hat des ktineges kint von Syria; . . . a s s y r i a C d. k. k. von pers i a din l i e h t i u jugent d. 1. varwe behalten gote und siinden bar behalten und s. b.; behalten reine und s. b DK aK G These examples being only a few out of many, there can be no doubt that A of f e r s a much less r e l i a b l e text than h and that i t presents a l a t e r and possibly contaminated stage. Fragment h contains hardly any s c r i b a l e r rors, apart from 12090: daz muoz iemer mich; instead of: muet, , and 12538: the omission of wolte. In conclusion, we believe that A and h represent an in d i v i d u a l branch or subgrouping of the Barlaam text t r a - d i t i o n , c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t from the DK aK c group or any other version. The Wurzburg fragment would f u l l y deserve the attention of a new Barlaam e d i t o r , but regrettably i t i s A and not h that has preserved the text i n i t s entire length. 4.3.2. Fragment i The B e r l i n fragment i consists of two vellum leaves i n quarto with two columns of 4 6 l i n e s per page. The text preserved extends from 4607 to 4790 and 4975 to 5158 (one lea f i s missing i n between). The outward appearance of the manuscript i s very neat and the text i s l e g i b l e i n nearly a l l parts. S6"hns dates i t as of the thirteenth cen tury (Stthns, p. 3), but the catalogue of the Preussische Staatsbibliothek i s more credible i n assigning i t to the 77 fourteenth century. S5hns places I m his "Reihe CLBE" and maintains that i i s most cl o s e l y r e l a t e d to L. A l l of the f i v e examples c i t e d by him as common readings of i L alone are not only i n s i g n i f i c a n t but can also be found i n other manuscripts. Before screening the textual variants, the paragraph di v i s i o n s i n i should be considered. Out of i t s eight i n i t i a l s , there are three d i f f e r e n t from the AbCD pattern: at 49 87, i has a common i n i t i a l with L, at 5009 with GEMLW and at 5143 with GEMk. Furthermore, i has capitulum signs i n the margins at 4707, 4756, 4775, 5041 and 5105 which have no equivalent i n any other manuscripts (there i s a paragraph at 4775 i n AK and at 5041 i n E, however). These marginal signs occur at the beginning of a parable ( i n 77 H. Degering, Kurzes Verzeichnis der Germanischen Handschriften der Preussischen Staatsbibliothek, v o l . I (Graz 1970), p. 95. •+775 the Tale of the Man and his Three Friends, and i n 5041 the Tale of the King f o r One Year), and they mark the beginning and the end of the t y p o l o g i c a l exegesis of the parable of the Man and the Unicorn at 4 70 7 and 47 5 5 (the marginal sign at 510 5 stands at the p i v o t a l verse within the parable and i s therefore somewhat d i f f e r e n t ) . These parables (exempla) are integrated into the d i d a c t i c dialogue between master and p u p i l and are not usually marked by i n i - t i a l s i n most manuscripts, e s p e c i a l l y AbCD. So these mar- g i n a l signs i n i could c a l l f o r the attention of a copyist or a public reader who sought only a f t e r these e d i f y i n g t a l e s . To what extent the Barlaam parables preserved i n various exempla manuscripts (Bispelhandschriften, see p. 26) show readings s i m i l a r to i should be compared i n detail*, the Unicorn versions of fragments f and g suggest a possible r e l a t i o n s h i p with i . The comparison of i n i t i a l s had l e f t open whether i belonged to the GEM group or to L. Its text, however, shows a much stronger congruence with GEM than with LW. 4612 Pf: do er was i n sorgen vluht; do er also was xn E do er sus was an s. v • 3 do er sus was i n GM 4697 Pf: ein kleine honicseimes gan EMfgi: ein l u t z e l h • 3 ein weninc h. G 4756 Pf: do sprach der guote Josaphat 145 d. sp. die reine J . ; d. sp. der reine J. GEMDK 4776 Pf der d r i e r vriunde nam sic h an CGEMfi der nam sich d. v. an 5126 Pf si e sluogen i n v i i sere GEMi sie zogen i n v. s. The common variants with L and also with W are of a less s i g n i f i c a n t nature, p a r a l l e l s such as 4620 iLW: bournes; boumelines Pf 4675 i L : an sinen grozen noeten; i n sinen g. n. Pf 4716 iW: vertaget; verzaget L; betaget Pf Moreover, L and W do not share any of the above c i t e d variants of i and GEM but have numerous readings of t h e i r own: e.g., 5045; vremeder l i u t e ; against Pf: vremeder s i t e , at 4745-56 the order of verses i s inverted and 4772-73 are omitted. F i n a l l y , judging by the number of missing verses between l e a f one and two, i cannot have omitted any text. In LW, however, as well as ABb and probably C four verses between 4883 and 4886 are missing. Thus, Sflhns theory of a close r e l a t i o n s h i p between i and L cannot be upheld. Fragment i gives proof of how the wording preserved by more r e l i a b l e manuscripts has been watered down through the continuous copying process. More e a s i l y understood phrases replace older ones or rather unusual ones, e.g., the roaring of the Unicorn s i n liiejen (4608) i s changed i n i 14 6 into s i n don (likewise i n G: s i n stimme), at 5074, instead of i n ein vremedez ei n l a n t , i reads i n ein verre vremedes lant, and at 5134, instead of von maneges mangels a r b e i t , i reads an manigen dingen a r b e i t . Fragment i alone does not o f f e r any alternatives f o r a text r e c o n s t i t u t i o n other than those i n common with GE and more so with M. 4.3.3. Fragment k Fragment k consists of three vellum leaves, one le a f i s missing between the second and t h i r d l e a f . Its text covers 5129 to 5448 and 5609 to 5768; i t i s written i n two columns with 40 l i n e s each. Unfortunately, t h i s fragment i s i n very poor condition, several pages are hardly l e g i b l e due to chemical stains and two pages have been reduced i n siz e by a v e r t i c a l cut. S5hns used a t r a n s c r i p t f o r his l i s t of variants (Barlaam, Anhang) but does not attempt to group k: "k i s t i n Folge seiner zu geririgen Ausdehnung unbestimmbar" (Stthns, p. 41). In the case of k, a look at the paragraph d i v i s i o n s proves advantageous since even at places where the words can no longer be deciphered, the p o s i t i o n of i n i t i a l s can s t i l l be made out. The i n i t i a l s i n k agree e n t i r e l y with those i n GEM, notably at 5143 (as well as i ) , 5381, 5631 (as well as BLn), and 5663 (as well as B). A comparison of k's textual variants with the other 147 manuscripts confirms the f i r s t impression that there i s a constant agreement with the versions of GEM. 5142 Pf: die im s i brahten . . . GMk: di s i im brachten; die sy brachten • • • E 5174 Pf: uns den burgaeren g i t GEMk: von den b. g. 5213 Pf: dar han wir eine lange vart GEMk: dez han wir . . . 5305 Pf: daz er d i r ewicliche g i t GMk: daz d i r ewiclicke g. 5665 Pf: daz wort hat er v i i schiere vernomen GEMk: daz wort het er schiere vernomen 5677 Pf: daz ich hie von vernam niht e GEMk: daz ich vernam hie von nicht e Within the GEM-group, k i s most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to th< "Gotha manuscript" G as shown by several common variants with i t alone, such as 5183 Pf: und iemer l e i t l i c h ungemach kG: und iemerlich ungemach 5273 Pf: b i gotes durftigen hant kG: di gotes d. h. 5286 Pf: d i r r e broeden welte ge l t kG: di r r e snoeden w. g.; d i r r e ploden . . . E C: diser werlde broder gelt 5645 Pf: da kumber arbeit jamer zorn; d. k. arbeit und zorn WL 148 kG: da kuraer lamer arbait zorn 5764 Pf: s i n vater mahelt im ein wip k: s. v. vreyet im . . s. v. vrigete im . . . Both k and G were written i n the fourteenth century but are not dated more p r e c i s e l y . G cannot have been copied from k as k has a few divergent readings of i t s own 5292 k: swaz man durch i n den alten g i t ; instead of: armen 5624 k: und swaz man i r zu warhait giht ; instead of: r i c h e i t 56 5 8 k: mit worten wol erkennen; instead of: werken On the other hand, k could have been derived from G, but the basis f o r such d e f i n i t e grouping i s not large enough. 4.3.4. Fragment n This vellum fragment of the f i f t e e n t h century, the "Peters burg fragment," was described by the curator of the former 7 8 Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, S. Min z l o f f . I t consists of three leaves i n quarto and each page contains two columns with 2 8 l i n e s each on which the text i s writ- ten continuously with periods separating one verse from another. One l e a f has l o s t two thir d s of i t s inner column 7 8 S. Minzloff, Die altdeutschen Handschriften der k a i s e r l i c h tt'ffe n t ' l i ch en Bibliothek zu 'St.' Petersburg (Petersburg, 1853), p. 34 was unavailable to us. S&hns quotes from i t , p. 43. 14 9 due to a v e r t i c a l cut. Since SShns' information as to the preserved text i s i n c o r r e c t , a r e c t i f i c a t i o n i s appropriate. F i r s t l e a f : 2670-2756. I r a (2670-90) and I v b (2734-56) have retained only one t h i r d of the f u l l width, second l e a f : 5555-5645. t h i r d l e a f : 5999-6084. The paragraph d i v i s i o n s are sometimes marked by al i n e a with i n i t i a l s of two l i n e s height (2729 and 5631) or they are merely indicated by a paragraph sign and an i n i t i a l within the l i n e (2693, 5615, 6031, 6061), probably set o f f i n a d i f f e r e n t colour. Minzloff and Stihns were unable to group t h i s fragment using P f e i f f e r ' s and Kfipke's e d i t i o n s , but there are never- theless, some group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be found i n n. The f i r s t hint i s given by the i n i t i a l at 5631 which occurs only i n GEMkLB. The text of fragment n shows primarily a number of omissions of i t s own (e.g., 6025-26, me 6034, gulte 60 81, and others), as well as divergent readings not shared by others (e.g., hole instead of loche 5555, r i c h e i t instead of schohheit 5617). However, there i s d e f i n i t e l y a much stronger agreement with the GEM-branch than with any other manuscript as the following variants show: 26 8 3 ADEKW: als ein prophete hat enbart; erbart BbC n: (text cut off) at g_e (. . . ) ; geoffenbart G K bL: offenbart; (no text f o r M) 5590 Pf: und i n der hoehsten armuot swebent 150 6037 6038 GMBn: und i n der grosten armuot swebent; i n grosser a. E 5623 Pf: den dunket gar diu welt ein niht; 5623-24 omitted LW GEMn: omission of gar; ein wicht n Pf: bi_ grozen schrinen l i g e n v o l EMn: dy grozen schrine 1. v.; s_o grozen . . . G Pf: swaz er dar inne hate h o i GEMCn: omission of er There are also several cases i n which n apparently shares a reading with B, i n addition to the common i n i t i a l at 5631. 5631 Pf: der ktinic vraget i n viirbaz; omission of i n nBC 5638 Pf: da r i c h e i t armuot i n niht l a t nB: do r i c h e i t armut nicht enlat; . . . n i t i n l a t L Pf: min zunge hat mir niht verjehen ABn: myn zunge hat des nicht v. Pf: du volgest minem rate nG: du envolgest m. r . ; dune volgest m. r. ABM To draw p o s i t i v e conclusions from these common read- ings would be unwise since we depend e n t i r e l y on P f e i f f e r ' s notes as f a r as B i s concerned. The text p a r a l l e l s between n and B could be of a genealogical nature or merely accidental. The f i r s t p o s s i b i l i t y cannot t o t a l l y be 6020 6065 151 brushed aside, as the congruence of i n i t i a l s had indicated that B might have been influenced i n some way by the GEM- branch (see chapter 3.3.4.). In any event, n i s a small fragment of no importance whatsoever f o r a text r e v i s i o n , most l i k e l y a very l a t e offshoot of the GEM-branch. 4.3.5. Fragment p This fragment which consists only of the remnants of one damaged vellum l e a f was described i n d e t a i l by i t s present owner G. E i s . The following remarks are based on his text t r a n s c r i p t i o n covering the passage from 1933 to 1992. We have to take issue with Ei s ' s f i n a l paragraph i n which he follows the stemma and the variants given by SiJhns and groups his fragment together with B and E, but mainly with A close look at the one and only variant on which Eis based his assertion shows how mistakes have been perpetu- ated i n t h i s f i e l d : "Von den unterscheidenden Gruppenmerk- malen f a l l t eins i n die erhaltene P a r t i e : i n 51,11 [=1991] lesen (nach SShns, S. 36) die meisten Handschriften unzalhaft, nur B und E u n z e l l i c h wie das neue Fragment" (Eis , 450). The f a u l t l i e s not with Eis who quotes correct- ly but with SShns whose information on B—as well as on any other manuscript except L — i s taken e n t i r e l y out of 7 9 G. E i s , GRM 49 (1968), 448-450. 152 P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus ( i n c i d e n t a l l y , B had been destroyed seven years before Stthns' s thesis appeared). P f e i f f e r ' s text reads 1991 (51,11) s i n k r a f t unzalhaft unvurbraht and P f e i f f e r annotates f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r verse: 51.11 un z e l l i c h DKEb. There i s no mention of B. The correct and complete information should be, however: unzalhaft ACLW; un z a l l i c h DGK ; u n z e l l i c h Ep; si n k r a f t unz (lberdaht b (on the margin); no text i n KaM. There i s no textual evidence at a l l that fragment p should belong to the Strassburg manuscript B. However, there are indications i n the text that i t can be assigned to the GEM group. 1960 Pf 1975 1981 EGK°p Pf EGp Pf GAbp E (see h e i l i c eine reine h e i l i c und reine die hoerent . . . Sie horent . . .; si e enhorint Einen got . . . Minen got . . ."} Ainen got . . . above, p. .112) It was argued before that K b must have belonged to the GEM-group, a l b e i t as a codex recentior. In the text passage covered by p, there i s one outstanding common variant between K b and p which would further confirm t h i s theory. 19 36 Pf: daz mileze d i r ze h e i l e ergan; zuo guote Bb p: [ ] daz was wol getan ( f i r s t word cut o f f ) K b: herre das was wol getan 15 3- Consequently, we suggest that K b might have descended from the manuscript of which fragment p has preserved a t i n y section, or that, at l e a s t , they both belonged to the same subgrouping of the GEM-branch of text t r a d i t i o n . 4.3.6. Fragment r The second of the two recently discovered "Schaffhausen fragments" i s less spectacular than the f i r s t one (q): i t i s a younger document of the fourteenth century, i t has suffered more physical damage, and i t presents more problems concerning i t s p o s i t i o n within the manuscript t r a d i t i o n . Its two leaves cover the text between 14192-14314 and 14559-14680 which we consulted i n a t r a n s c r i p t made by 8 0 P. Ochsenbe.in. Ochsenbein's attempt to group r (based on P f e i f f e r and SShns) f a i l s , but rather than o f f e r an a r b i - trary s o l u t i o n , he leaves t h i s question open and presents the contradictory common variants (which would require a number of r e c t i f i c a t i o n s and additions, nonetheless). The paragraph d i v i s i o n s i n r are i n d i c a t i v e of a group- ing only insofar as they are d i f f e r e n t from GEM as w e l l as from LW. In three instances j r omits a couplet: 14201-202 and 14307-308, both times together with K C, and 14583-584 8 0 For further information on r , see P. Ochsenbein, "Zwei neue Bruchstucke zum Barlaam und Josaphat des Rudolf von Ems," ZfdA 101 (1972), 322-326. 154 together with b (none of which i s given by P f e i f f e r ) . As mentioned before, K abounds i n text omissions throughout the entire work, and even here, i n the passage under study, K C has two more cuts (14199-200 and 14311-312) which r does c a c not share. K belongs, as suggested before, to group DK K . This shows c l e a r l y i n our passage as well: DK aK G change the order of verses i n 14577-578, and i n 14577 they read iuwers landes krone instead of des riches krone as do a l l the others, including r . Thus, there i s l i t t l e reason to believe in a group a f f i n i t y between r and K°. A common reading i n both such as 14284 Pf: von sinem zwivel schiere e r l o s t ; K°r omit schiere 14632 Pf: des landes krone und ouch das la n t ; K Ar omit ouch must consequently be dismissed as acc i d e n t a l . Likewise, p a r a l l e l omissions of a couplet do not necessarily prove the interdependence of the two or more manuscripts i n ques- t i o n . They are sometimes triggered independently by the nature of the text . i t s e l f : a couplet written i n verse l i n e s with a rhyme i d e n t i c a l or very s i m i l a r to the preced- ing one i s more l i k e l y to be overlooked by a scribe than any other, and also the r h e t o r i c a l r e p e t i t i o n of c e r t a i n key-words can e a s i l y produce a mental s l i p on the scribe's part. These reasons could be responsible f o r the common verse omissions i n r and K c as well as b. 155 14572 Pf rb 14290 Pf rb 14234 Pf rb On the other hand, there are also some noticeable text p a r a l l e l s between r and b, apart from the common omis- sion. gen sinen hulden missetan gegen ime missetan do du der welte wlirde kunt daz du der werlte i e w. k. diu vorhte die s i n sunde im bot d. v. die ime s i n slinde bot Moreover, owing to P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus we know that B, the destroyed Strasbourg manuscript c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to b, shared some variants with r at 14236 Pf: wan owe mir armen we owe mir armen und owei du hast mir versuenet got; d. h. mir gesilenet g. AbCWL rB: du hast mich gisuenit got Pf: des lone er d i r rB: dez lone d i r On the basis of t h i s sparse evidence i t seems possible that fragment r was remotely a f f i l i a t e d with Bb, but on both sides there are also several p a r t i c u l a r deviations. 14311 ErB Pf 14312 156 4.3.7. F l "Basel fragment" This single octavo vellum l e a f presents the text from 3903 to 4062 i n c a r e f u l l y written double columns of 40 verses. On the margin, the rubricator added ornamental designs into which the i n i t i a l s at 3915, 3941, 4013 and 4043 are i n t e r - woven. A. Gessler i n his b r i e f notice of t h i s fragment dated i t from the end of the th i r t e e n t h century and claimed 81 that i t agreed mostly with the variants of B. However, the examples given by him cannot support t h i s statement. It i s remarkable that F l does not subdivide the passage between 3941 and 4013 (the end of a lengthy speech by Bar- laam and his d i s c i p l e ' s response and next question), where ACD have two paragraphs. This brings the Basel fragment i n l i n e with G, the Fulda fragment (F8), and also with b (the text of M begins again with 3996). In i t s textual v a r i a n t s , F l gives proof of being close to the GEM-group. 3909 Pf: nach a l l e r unser guottat GEF8F1: nach unser a l l e r g. 3917 CDWL: diu boteliche l e r e GEKK°BbFl: diu gotliche le r e 3950 Pf: und l e i d e z z i l . . . GEK bF8Fl: und l e i d e z ende It i s not possible to determine the place of F l within the GEM—branch more p r e c i s e l y because M and F8 do not have 81 A. Gessler, "Bruchstlick einer Barlaamhandschr i f t , " AfdA XIV (1888) , 147. 157 a concurrent text with F l . But the Basel fragment seems to be closer to the l a t t e r ones, e s p e c i a l l y F8, than to the Gotha manuscript G which has a few variants of i t s own: 3910 FlF8Pf: gedienet; v i r d i n e t G 3912 FlF8Pf: daz du . . . s o l t ; must G 3929 FlF8Pf: mit staete; mit v l i z e G 40.30 FlMPf: er nennet; der nennet G 4052 FlF8MPf: . . . ie niuwe; omission of I f the basel fragment F l i s c o r r e c t l y dated as of before 1300, i t i s one of the e a r l i e s t representatives of the GEM-branch. 4.3.8. F3 The f i r s t of these two vellum leaves has i t s outer column reduced to one h a l f by a v e r t i c a l cut, thus the text between 11209 and 11289 i s incomplete. The t o t a l text pas- sage covered by F3 extends from 11169 to 11330 and 12753 to 12914. Each column contains 40 verses with i n i t i a l s set i n over three l i n e s at 11223 and 12895 or, i n the case of I - i n i t i a l s , drawn out over ten l i n e s on the margin at 11191 and 11317 (due to the v e r t i c a l cut we do not know i f F3 had i n i t i a l s at 11257 and 11287). The fragment i s dated as of the (probably late) thirteenth century by Degering's cata- logue (see footnote 77). F3 shows a r e l a t i v e l y high number of errors and read- 158 i n g s o f i t s own, s u c h a s 11184 P f F3 11208 P f F3 do k e r t e i c h m i n e m e i s t e r s c h a f t do h a t t e i c h i n b u o z e i m b u o z e 11255-56 P f : s i c h s c h i e d e n g o t e s d e g e n e / m i t b r u o d e r - l i c h e m s e g e n e F 3 : (. . .) z u l e b e n e / (. . .) g o t e s d e g e n e ( r e s t c u t o f f ) 12821-822 a r e r e v e r s e d i n F 3 . Of t h e two v e r s e o m i s s i o n s o c c u r r i n g i n F3 ( 1 1 3 2 5 - 2 6 a n d 1 2 7 8 7 - 8 8 ) , t h e f i r s t one i s s h a r e d a l s o b y K a w h i c h t h e n r e a r r a n g e s t h e s e q u e n c e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g v e r s e s . T h r o u g h o u t F 3 , t h e r e a r e c o n g r u e n t r e a d i n g s w i t h G a n d E, a n d o n i t s s e c o n d l e a f a l s o w i t h M ( t h e t e x t i n M b e g i n s a g a i n a t 1 2 3 5 1 ) , a l t h o u g h t h e s e v a r i a n t s may be more c o n v i n c i n g b y t h e i r number t h a n by t h e i r q u a l i t y . 11210 11215 P f GEF3 P f -216 DKK^GEF3 11313 P f GEF3 12779 P f F3 d a z du b i s t e i n a l t e r man o m i s s i o n o f d a z und z e i g e t d i r demdete / d u r c h s i n e r e i n e g t i e t e und z. m i t d e m t l e t e / d i r s i n e r . g. d a z e r da v o r s e i t e n l i e d a z e r d a v o r d o c h s e i t e n l i e e r i s t s w i e d u m a c h e s t i n ; . . . a l s du A e r i s t s w e r e man m a c h e t i n ; s w i e man 159 GEMF10 12789 ACDKW ein vihe gehoert ez s i h t ez gat F3 ein v i e daz horet daz s i t z e t daz stat GEMF10 i z sihet i z stat 12854 Pf ein toubez hor; ein tumraes hor GMWF3 F i n a l l y , at 12765, we f i n d an i n t e r e s t i n g variant i n ACDEKW: Din got dem du dich e r g i s t ( i n i t i a l s i n AbCDK cL). This misreading could have originated from a rub r i c a t o r ' s mistake whereby the l o g i c a l l y correct form Din got was altered into Ein got as i n G or into Eyn got as i n M. This l a t t e r form seems to be the base f o r the corrupt reading i n Thus, we assume that F3 belongs to the GEM group but, due to the small extent of the fragment, a more precise grouping i s not possible. 4.3.9. F6 "Breslau fragment" These two vellum leaves contain the Barlaam text from 8477 to 8804, but since the second l e a f was cut down i n s i z e , i t s top verses are missing (8644-48, 8684-88, 8725-29, and 8765-69). P. Pietsch described t h i s fragment and gave i t s variants from P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n but he did not attempt to F3: Ey dem du dich e r g i s t ; instead of F3 . 16 0 assess i t s position within the manuscript t r a d i t i o n . F6 does not set paragraphs at any unusual places and yet i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the passage containing the long speech of Avenier to his son Josaphat (8571 to 8693) i s not subdivided (whereas ACD have three paragraphs), but that i t i s l e f t i n one coherent block just as i n GEM. W and L have no subdivision i n t h i s passage, e i t h e r , but t h e i r other i n i - t i a l s do not agree with those i n F6. G and M, on the other hand, show a t o t a l congruence i n t h e i r i n i t i a l s with F6, and also E with the one exception at 8 561. The scribe of the Breslau fragment i s presumably res- ponsible f o r a few s l i p s of the pen, e.g. , 8522 the r e p e t i t i o n of the rhyme-word sere instead of mere 8505 the impure rhyme werde (instead of werbe) / sterbe 8711 and 8712 are contracted into one verse: (daz ein i e g l i c h k i n t geste/) ze sines vater l e r e * unde muter ere; instead of Pf: ze sines vater ler e / vater und muoter ere. In a number of cases F6 has common variants with GEM as the following s e l e c t i o n shows: 8579 Pf: den reinen Josaphaten GEMF6: sinen sun Iosaphaten 8586 Pf: so denken aber vurbaz GMF6: so denke wir aber v.; so gedenken wir a. v. E 8 2 P. Pietsch, "Fragment einer Hsft. von BuJ," ZfdPh 13 (1881), 163-164. 161 8637 Pf: GEF6: 8704 Pf: GMF6 : 8721 . Pf: GEMBbF6: I t i s obvious that F6 i s an offshoot of the GEM-branch. In one reading, though, i t d i f f e r s from the other manu- sc r i p t s of t h i s group: 8562 Pf: (diz gebet erhorte got /) im erzeigte gotes gebot/ (einen vreuderichen t r o s t ) GEMKb: im erzeigete s i n gebot F6: im erzeigte got s i n gebot Apparently, the scribe of F6 found the GEM version (replac- ing the rep e t i t i o u s got by sin) i n his source, but he re i t e r a t e d got acc i d e n t a l l y or on purpose without dele t i n g s i n , thus a l t e r i n g the grammatical construction of the phrase. This composite form, however, does not contradict our assumption that F6, through i t s paragraph d i v i s i o n s , i t s variants, i t s middle German d i a l e c t and i t s age (fourteenth century) i s cl o s e l y r e l a t e d to manuscript G. si e s i n t mir a l l e noch gelegen s i s i n t noch under gar gelegn; gar i s omitted i n M vttr die welt vur guot vlir l i p vor a l l e d i welt vor gut un l i p ; . . . welt gut und 1. E min sele mir v i i l i e b e r i s t omission of v i i 16 2 4.3.10. F7 "Freiburg fragment" F7 consists of a vellum double l e a f containing the text from 1081 to 1216 and 2043 to 2178. I t i s quite l e g i b l e i n most parts, only page l v and 2 V show some discolouring. The handwritten catalogue notice by Richard Newald dates i t from the thirteenth century whereas Worstbrock l i s t s i t as thirteenth to fourteenth century. The l a t t e r i n d i c a t i o n seems more l i k e l y judging by i n t e r n a l evidence alone. F7 gives proof of a r e l a t i v e l y large number of variants from the other manuscripts. In some instances these variants must be s c r i b a l errors: Pf: daz mit des ungelouben naht / reht geloube wart bedaht F7: . . . ungelouben c r a f t / . . . wart bedaht Pf: d r i v a l t e n mit der gesiht; d r i v a l t i k a i t . . . F7 Pf: (die drie patriarchen s i n t /) huetaere gewalteclich F7: . . . / huetet er gewaltecliche In some cases, a look at the Latin source might help to decide whether a meaningful but i s o l a t e d variant i n F7 could possibly be considered authentic i n spite of the t e s t i - mony of most other manuscripts or whether i t i s just one out of various d i f f e r e n t versions. On three occasions within our passage, th i s seems a reasonable approach: a) In the b r i e f medical explanation on the roots of sickness 2129 -130 2149 2171 163 (1192-1202), l i n e 1200 reads i n most manuscripts l i k e Pf: und i r materje ersterben; as opposed to WF7: und i r nature ersterben; das i r nature mus verderben b (b jumbles up the l i n e s , the above quoted i s 1199). The term materia, however, occurs at this p a r t i c u l a r spot i n the L a t i n text and can therefore be regarded as authentic: " i l l i has humanas calamitates esse responderunt quae ex corruptae materia . . ." (Migne, t . 73, p. 458), b) 1117 Pf: i c h wolde gerne vlir diu tor bLF7: ich wolde gerne vur daz tor The Latin text suggests the p l u r a l form as authentic: "etenim g e s t i t animus ea quae extra has ianuas sunt perspicere . . ." (Migne, p. 457). c) 1094 Pf: hant dich beswaeret die hie s i n t F7: Beswerent dich . . . Only in this case, the Freiburg'fragment is supported by the Latin text which shows a present tense: "quisnam s i t hie moeror qui te obsidet . . ." (Migne, p. 457). These samples should make clea r that F7, i n spite of i t s given age and i t s numerous deviations from P f e i f f e r ' s text, i s by no means closer to what might be considered the "authentic" version. The few paragraph markings in F7 do not show any noticeable group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s but seem to agree more with AbCD which, d i f f e r e n t l y from G and E, set paragraphs at 2051 and 2089. The divergent readings are manifold and contra- 161+ dictory i n F7. However, there i s one important variant i n F7 and b which gives a lead: 2175 Pf: Jacob zwelf sline do gebar / von den daz -77 geslahte gar / kam der israhelschen diet bF7: Jacob zwelf sline do gewan / von den daz geslehte kan / der israhelschen diet, (b omits 2177-78) This speaks very strongly f o r a genealogical a f f i n i t y between F7 and b of which, there are further i n d i c a - t i o n s , such as the variants at 1200 and 1117 (see above). To what extent the destroyed Strasbourg manuscript B might have shared these p a r a l l e l s can no longer be determined. But there i s evidence that Bb as well as WL have some common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A l l four manuscripts omit the couplet 2177/78 and also 1209/10. For the l a t t e r omission, we do not have any information on B, and WL leave out the preceding couplet 120 7/0 8, too. F7 does not share any of these omissions, but i n a few common readings one could detect some wider r e l a t i o n s h i p between F7 and LW along with bB. 1111/12 bLF7 1192 Pf AWF7 3113 Pf erden I . . . werde der smaehen s i e c h e i t ungemach der smehen siechen ungemach macht er im sa ein b i l d e ; omission of sa i n F7bL The picture does not become e n t i r e l y c l e a r . The only 16 5 conclusion we can draw i s that the Freiburg fragment was part of a manuscript belonging to the same branch or sub- grouping as b, probably B, and i n a wider sense WL. Assum- ing some form of dependence, Bb and WL could have been derived from a source re l a t e d to F7. That source would have had the gaps common to WL and Bb where F7 has the f u l l text. The Freiburg fragment does not o f f e r any valuable alterna- tives to P f e i f f e r ' s text. 4.3.11. F8 "Fulda fragment" and F16 "Prague fragment" The Fulda fragment consisted of a vellum double l e a f which was cut into s t r i p s f o r bookbinding purposes. E. Schrttder succeeded i n p a r t i a l l y reassembling i t and thus re s t o r i n g 8 3 some of i t s text. In his description of the fragment, he gives i t s measurements and main variants but r e f r a i n s from grouping i t . Schrttder concludes: "Das bruchstuck hat keinen t e x t k r i t i s c h e n wert und kaum textgeschichtliches interesse. es mag nur als weiteres zeugnis f u r die grosse verbreitung des werkes dienen . . .: es m6gen gut 40 handschriften und fragmente bekannt sein. ein fragment, das wie das unsere 36 z e i l e n auf der spalte hat, i s t , s o v i e l ich sehe, nicht darunter." This l a s t statement, however, i s not correct, Schr5der must have overlooked an a r t i c l e by 8 3 E. Schrttder, "Fuldaer Bruchstuck von Rudolfs von Ems Barlaam," ZfdA 54 (1913), 23-24. 16 6 V. E. Mourek i n which the author presented a Barlaam frag- ment kept i n the former Bohemian Museum i n Prague (our s i g l e : F16). Both fragments, F8 and F16, show many s i m i l a r i t i e s : they are written i n two columns of 36 l i n e s with nearly the same measurements (width: 11 cm; F8 seems to be some- what longer than F16: 20 cm instead of 17) and the hand- writing and r u b r i c a t i o n present a very s i m i l a r p i c t u r e . Both fragments date from the fourteenth century. Their d i a l e c t a l provenance i s hardly d i f f e r e n t , e i t h e r : F8 i s , according to Schrtider, "oberdeutsch, alemannisch," but he admits that i t does have Middle German forms as w e l l . He mentions forms such as s a l f o r s o l , s a l t u f o r s o l t du:, e f o r Alemannic ae i n words l i k e swere, and he could have named several others, e.g., monophthong u f o r Upper German i u and lie i n buzen f o r btiezen or stete ruwe fo r s t a e t i u riuwe, -Id- f o r Upper German - I t - i n forms l i k e werlde. The Prague fragment F16 on the other hand shows Middle German forms more consiste n t l y , but has preserved a number of Upper German forms as w e l l . Consequently, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to decide whether the Fulda and the Prague fragment belong to the same otherwise l o s t manuscript or not, the very l i m i t e d text sample pro- vided by F8 makes a comparison by photocopy nearly impos- 84 V. E. Mourek, "Prager bruchstlick einer pergamenthand- s c h r i f t des Barlaam und Josaphat von Rudolf von Ems," Sitzungsberichte der Ktiriigl. Bflhm. Ges. der Wissenschaften, (1893), 1-16. 167 s i b l e . It seems, though, that the differences between the two outweigh t h e i r common features: the d i f f e r e n t height of the column, F16 having a second v e r t i c a l l i n e to separate the c a p i t a l s at the beginning of a verse (perhaps bleached out i n F8?), and some s l i g h t differences i n handwriting (e.g., the c a p i t a l D) and d i a l e c t forms. Thus, i t seems doubtful that F8 and F16 were parts of the same manuscript. However, they must have been written at approximately the same time and not f a r from each other (according to t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c features), and they belong to the same branch of text t r a d i t i o n , namely that of GEM. The Fulda fragment covering very s p o r a d i c a l l y the pas- sage from 3894 to 4181 cannot always be compared with the London manuscript M, which has a gap u n t i l 3995, but F8 p a r t l y overlaps with the Basel fragment F l . Of the GEM- group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t i s s u f f i c i e n t to name the long sections without paragraph markers i n GF8F1 between 3941 and 4013 and again between 406 7 and 4175 i n GEMF8 ( F l ends with 40 61) and to r e c a l l the two textual variants given before (see p. 156): 3909 nach unser a l l e r guttat, and 39 50 und l e i d e z ende. The Prague fragment F16, which consists of less than h a l f a l e a f and one double l e a f , contains the text between 6483-6554, 12969-13112 and 13691-13834. I t pro- vides a long text passage, a speech by Josaphat (1299 3- 13112), without any paragraph d i v i s i o n s , just as G and M 168 do. Moreover,the r u b r i c a t o r i n G and F16 forgot the mar- gi n a l i n i t i a l J at 12993. Likewise, the passage between 13681 and 13811, which i s subdivided i n AbCDL by three com- mon paragraphs, i s l e f t i n one piece i n F16, whereas E and GM have only one i n i t i a l i n t h i s whole section (E at 13731 and GM at 13781). Thus, i n i t s paragraph pattern, F16 appears to be i n l i n e with the'GEM-group, just as the Fulda fragment was. This i s also documented by the following variants: 6506 Pf: wan du so kumberliche; s i t du s. k. F16GEM 12994 Pf: sinneloser Theoda; v i i sinneloser t . F16GEM 13029 Pf: diner gote werdekeit K bF16: mit siner gute werdekeit; go'te M; gotlichen G 130 32 Pf: die l i u t e twungen . . .; d i l u t e trugen . . . F16GM 13089 Pf: der stleze der gewaere K r i s t GMF16: der suze und der gewere c r i s t ; . . . geware c. E 13097 Pf: von gotes kreften sprichet sus GMF16: von gotes worten sprichet sus; von des sp. alsus E 13754 Pf: der unheil der andern h e i l ; der ain unhail . . . C GEMF16: d i r r e h e i l der andern unheil The Fulda and the Prague fragment deserve l i t t l e 169 attention i n themselves; they both show signs of how the text at t h i s younger stage i n a d i f f e r e n t d i a l e c t a l form gradually loses i t s p r e c i s i o n . Blatant mistakes are rare, e.g., 13695-696 swer umbe gelt gevangen wart / (instead of: lac) daz gelt er balde vur i n wac but s l i g h t a l t e r a t i o n s and omissions occur frequently. F8 and F16 enhance the impression that the Barlaam text as represented by the GEM-group must have been widely spread i n Middle Germany i n the fourteenth century. 4.3.12. F9 The ""Gottingen. fragment" These two vellum leaves of a la t e t h i r t e e n t h century manu- s c r i p t contain the Barlaam text between 13811-13946 and 14903-15038. I t i s written i n two columns with 34 l i n e s each and quite l e g i b l e , with one faded passage on page 1 . Its i n i t i a l s at 13811 and 13907 (thus not subdividing the section presenting Avenier's l e t t e r to his son), as well as 14905, 923, 973, 999, coincide e n t i r e l y with those i n G and M. The text i n F9 i s written with great care, there are no obvious s c r i b a l errors and hardly any deviations from P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n other than: 13876 Pf: min herze ein kleine e r l i u h t e t i s t GMBF9: m. h. e. k. entluhtet i s t ; m. h. ein l u t z e l erlaucht i s t E 170 13927 -28 13944 14938 14959 14973 15015 Pf: GMLWF9: Pf: GEMbF9 Pf GMF9 Pf GMWbF9 Pf GEMF9 Pf F9: siner guete l o b e t i n do / sin munt s i n herze. er sprach also Siner guete lobeter i n do / s. m. s. h. sprach also (daz der verhertet adamas / . . . / ) d i r vorgeweichet suezer k r i s t ; gewichen AB von d i r geweichet suezer c r i s t und niht mit dem rehten gant daz s i niht mit rehten gant; . . . mit dem r . g. E b i einem alten armen man b i einem armen alden man sus truoc er dan s i n haerin k l e i t sus truoc dan s. h. k. ze gote schrei er a l l e stunt; z. g. r i e f er DK aK° ze got s c r e i er z a l l e r stunt; zu a l l e r s t . GMb There can be no doubt that the Gttttingen fragment belongs to one branch with G and M and to a noticeably l e s - ser extent with E (also WLBb show occasional agreement with F9). F9 could not have depended on ei t h e r G or M. G has two divergent readings of i t s own where F9 and M agree with the other manuscripts: 13 854 MF9Pf: unde im rehter volge jach; rehter warheit G 13884 MF9Pf: die min l i p gevrumet hat; begangen G 171 On the other hand, the London manuscript M leaves out 149 34-937 where F9 and G have the f u l l text, thus r u l i n g out the p o s s i b i l i t y that F9 might have been copied from i t . The opposite, however, that G or even more so M might have descended from F9 or a very c l o s e l y r e l a t e d manuscript, seems rather l i k e l y , although the evidence to prove such a suggestion i s f a r too slim. This would also be i n accord- ance with the f a c t that F9 i s dated s l i g h t l y e a r l i e r than M and G. 4.3.13. F10 "Hannover fragment" This fragment consists of only one and a h a l f leaves i n quarto, the verso of which i s so badly destroyed that i t i s not worth photocopying. The description by Wolfgang Stammler l i s t s a number of variants on which we have to 8 5 r e l y f o r the verso parts. Stammler dates the fragment as of the second h a l f of the thirteenth century, but the form of some l e t t e r s seems to point to a l a t e r period, presum- ably a f t e r 1300. The text covered by F10 i s : l r 10965- 11006, 1 V 11091-132; 2 r 12643-726, 2 V 12727-810. Thus, the text of the f i r s t l e a f overlaps with the Zurich frag- ment d and the Wurzburg fragment h, the second l e a f with F3; M can be compared only f o r the text of the second l e a f . Stammler concludes from his c o l l a t i o n of variants: 8 5 W. Stammler, "BruchstUcke einer Barlaamhandschrift," Beitrage zur Gesch. d. dt. Sprache u. L i t . 43 (1918), 554-55. 172 "Die handschrift steht mit ihren lesarten keiner der bekannten nahe, sondern s t e l l t offenbar einen besonderen zweig der uberlieferung dar. Eine reihe k l e i n e r besserungen und anderungen zeigte einen spateren selbstandigen {iberar- b e i t e r an." Stammler's assumption points i n the r i g h t d i - rection. The hitherto unknown branch of text t r a d i t i o n to which F10 belongs i s the one represented mainly by Q and M, to a le s s e r degree by E, and by a number of fragments. One i n d i c a t i o n of t h i s a f f i n i t y i s given by the para- graph sign i n F10 at 10999 which i t shares only with G and W (W shows a d i f f e r e n t i n i t i a l pattern i n the rest of the comparable text and can therefore be disregarded). The following textual variants support our theory s u f f i c i e n t l y : 10965 Pf: mit dienestlichem werde / . . . uf der erde -966 GF10: mit d i n s t l i c h e n werden / . . . uf der erden 109 86 Pf: lachte s i n , herz unde muot GEdFlO: lachete herze und mut 10996 Pf: der warheit i e verkerte GEdFlO: der di warheit i verkerte 11104 Pf: daz ich dich wise uf daz leben F10: daz ich wise uf d. 1.; daz dich wise uf d. 1. G 11124 Pf: wirf durch den guoten got von d i r GF10: omission of guoten 17 3 11127 Pf: unz an dines l i b e s z i l GEF10: b i z an d. 1. z. 12681 Pf: do sie gesazen an den r a t ; s ie gesazen GF10: do gesazen an d. r . ; d i gesazen . . . M 1274-7 Pf: du vervluochter a l t e unwis; . . . a l t e r greys E GF10: der vervluchter alder u. 12789 Pf: ein vihe gehoert ez s i h t ez gat GEMF3F10: . . . i z stat (see p. 159). It follows that the Hannover fragment F10 i s part of the GEM-group and stands closest to the Gotha manuscript G. I t i s too small and too badly damaged to be of any value f o r a c r i t i c a l text r e c o n s t i t u t i o n . 4.3.14. F l l "Oettingen fragment'-' This vellum fragment of the fourteenth century consists of a double l e a f i n quarto. The text has become scarcely l e g i b l e i n large parts; i t i s written i n two columns of 32 li n e s each and covers the text between 6285-6412 and 6670- 6796. Its i n i t i a l s are placed at 6297, 6329, 6361, 6397 and 6697, 6733 which already gives a hint as to i t s pos- s i b l e group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : at 669 7, only manuscripts GEM plus K (which could mean: K b) set a paragraph. A comparison of the textual variants that F l l shares 174 with other manuscripts points into the same d i r e c t i o n : 6287 Pf: rehte leben daz i s t daz leben GEMF11 : r . 1. daz i s t leben 6295 Pf: so s o l daz tot ouch heizen niht EF11: so s o l der tot doch h. n.; so s o l daz t . doch h.n. GM 6301 Pf: so wirt des l i b e s ende erkant GF18F11: so wirt des ende erkant; s. w. daz ende e. ME 6347 Pf: unser koch i s t gotes segen GEMFll: unser koch i s t der g. s. 6348 Pf: sunne tou hit z e regen GMF11: s. t . h i t z e unde regen 6357 • Pf: swie v i i i r der eine hat GEMFll: swie v i i der eine hat 6765 Pf: i n broeder menschlicher maht; i n broder m. m. M EF11: i n bloder m. m. ; i n snoder m. m. G 676 8 Pf: do vraget er i n aber sa GMF11: omission of i n ; do sprach er und fragt i n aber sa E The Oettingen fragment F l l can be considered a furthe member of the GEM-group. I t has a few minor textual d i f f e ences with e i t h e r G, M, or E, but because of i t s large deletions i t cannot be determined more p r e c i s e l y . 175 4.3.15. F13 "London fragment" Together with the la r g e r incomplete London manuscript M, one l e a f of another vellum manuscript unrelated to the f i r s t one has been preserved. This l e a f has l o s t three l i n e s i n the middle of each column due to i t s being cut i n h a l f , but other than that the text between 5174 and 5 29 5 i s well preserved. John Koch i n his a r t i c l e on both London frag- 8 6 ments seems to be more fascinated by t h i s small piece than by M, probably because of i t s age (he dates i t from the middle of the thirteenth century). On the other hand, Koch states r i g h t l y that i t s variants are of l i t t l e i n t e r - est, so he contents himself with giving a mere t r a n s c r i p t of the text. In i t , he a c c i d e n t a l l y leaves out one verse: 5 210 frumet dc vor hin wirt gesant / ( i n daz gedende lones l a n t ) . A fragment of such great age would deserve p a r t i c u l a r attention since i t might promise a version closer to the o r i g i n a l one. However, i n the case of F13 any such hopes are unfounded. The variants which F13 o f f e r s as opposed to the other text witnesses seem deteriorations rather than improvements. There are two clumsy a d d i t i o n a l verses by which a scribe intended to bridge the abrupt change of speaker a f t e r 5272: "Barlaam der sprach do / Der frage waz er v i i f r o . " 8 6 J. Koch, "Fragmente von R.v.E. Barlaam . . .," ZfdPh 13 (1881) 78-89 . On F13 i n p a r t i c u r pp. 87-89. 176 The true i n d i c a t i o n f o r the change i n speaker comes a f t e r 5276 i n a l l manuscripts, however ("sprach des herren l e r e r do"); i n F13 t h i s phrase has become redundant a f t e r the additional scribe's verses. Further examples of a dete- r i o r a t i o n i n the text of F13 are 5175 von den werden wir erslagen; instead of geslagen Pf as required by the context ("beaten," not " s l a i n " ) 5225 (die lebent als a i n tube tuot /) als s ie ain her besezzen hat; instead of ein ar Pf 5 249 s i n t ein wol i n solher not; instead of eine wile Pf. The three i n i t i a l s i n F13 at 5189, 5223 and 5265 are i n l i n e with a l l manuscripts except GEM which leave out 5189. Only the following variants can be compared with other man- uscripts : wie d i s i u welt s o l zergan w. d. welt muoz zergan den•iemer mere staeten hort den iemer maere waerenden hort (see p. 134) daz almuosen dest daz guot daz almuosen i s t daz guot The picture i s not c l e a r at a l l . F13 could be related to v i r t u a l l y any manuscript or grouping, i t s 112 verses simply do not contain s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r any theory. 5196 5272 5275 AbCWLi DKKCGEMF13 ADKKCGF13 MCm ADKKC CGEMWLkmF13 177 4.3.16. F18 " B e r l i n fragment" The two quarto leaves of thi s fourteenth century fragment are i n a very poor state: not only was the lower h a l f of both leaves cut o f f f o r bookbinding purposes, but pages l v and 2 r have become v i r t u a l l y i l l e g i b l e i n part due to the imprint of another s t r i p of the same otherwise l o s t manu- s c r i p t , with which our fragment had been a f f i x e d to the inside cover of a volume. Since P. Strauch gave a de t a i l e d description of i t s physical condition and of the text pre- 8 7 served, i t may s u f f i c e to say that the two leaves would have covered 5881 to 5992 and 6215 to 6326. Due to the damage sustained by F18, not even h a l f of the text mater- i a l has survived and even less i s s t i l l l e g i b l e . Strauch remarks j u s t l y that F18 shows l i t t l e deviation from P f e i f f e r ' s text and indeed, nearly a l l of the variants l i s t e d by him are n e g l i g i b l e . The only exception i s at 6 301 ACDKK°LW: so wirt des l i b e s ende erkant GF11F18: so wirt des ende erkant; s. w. daz ende EM Furthermore, F18 shows an i n i t i a l at 59 7 3 together with GEMB, whereas ACDKKCLW set t h e i r i n i t i a l at 59 6 5 (b has no t e x t ) . Based on thi s evidence, the common paragraph and the common variant, we can assume that F18 probably belonged to the GEM-group, probably more c l o s e l y to manu- 8 7 P. Strauch, "Fragment aus Rudolfs Barlaam," ZfdA 52 (1910), 354-356. 178 s c r i p t G and the Oettingen fragment F l l . One objection could could be raised: Strauch noticed that the missing l e a f between the two of F18 could have contained only 222 verses (5993 to 6214) instead of 224 (eight columns with 28 verses each), and he concludes that F18 must have l e f t out 6159-60, just as ABC did (Strauch erroneously adds E as w e l l ) . How- ever, since GEMKb omit the preceding couplet 6157-58, we can assume that the B e r l i n fragment F18 would have shared t h i s omission. 5. Conclusion 5.1. F i n a l grouping of manuscripts based on text and ru b r i c a t i o n Having studied the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the larger manuscripts on the basis of t h e i r r u b r i c a t i o n and that of the smaller frag- ments using a more textual approach, we s h a l l now attempt to sum up our r e s u l t s , v e r i f y them by taking into account com- mon text omissions throughout the work, and discuss the value of the " i n i t i a l method." A p a r a l l e l text omission can indeed be highly i n d i c a t i v e of a manuscript r e l a t i o n s h i p , but i t i s not the ultimate c r i t e r i o n of manuscript grouping. It can be caused, just as a common reading or a common i n i t i a l , independently by a sometimes psychologically e x p l i - cable error of the scribe (see above, section 4.3.6.). Thus, one has to note whether p a r a l l e l text omissions occur 179 repeatedly and how they r e l a t e to data gained by other methods. The f i r s t grouping which can be established without any doubt i s that of DK aK c. In three instances, at 2817/18, 12243/44 and 13487/88, these manuscripts leave out a couplet (mentioned neither by P f e i f f e r nor by Stthns). Furthermore, a f t e r 376 DK K leave out a verse and read d i f f e r e n t l y as follows: (umb daz iemer wernde guot/) Daz d i r din leben gevromidet hat/ Daz d i r unlange i n vroden s t a t . P f e i f f e r follows the other manuscripts which read: daz iemer wert und hih t zergat/ daz d i r din lebn gevremdet hat. A s i m i l a r case at 14577/78 was c i t e d already (see p. 154). As f a r as the r e v e r s a l of 1602 3/24 i n K and K i s con- cerned, D can no longer be compared, i t ends at 15743. D does not share any omissions with other manuscripts, and presents a very r e l i a b l e , early text version with only one major omission of i t s own (4213-4396, see p. 128) and three reversed couplets i n a short sequence at 13563/64, 13571/72, 13593/94. In these instances, K a and K° have the "normal" text, that of the consensus of manuscripts, there- fore they cannot have been derived from D. Also, the source of K a must have contained the author's digressions, since K a has cut out only parts of the courtly praise of 180 l a d i e s , whereas i t i s altogether missing i n DKC. K a and es p e c i a l l y K have a number of i n d i v i d u a l text omissions which do not indicate any other a f f i l i a t i o n . The only fragments that we found re l a t e d to t h i s group are dq and e l (see 4.2.1 and 4.2.2) . The study of i n i t i a l s helped only p a r t i a l l y i n deter- mining t h i s group of manuscripts, i t i s true. As f a r as the p o s i t i o n of K a i s concerned, the f a u l t l i e s with the unreliable paragraph t r a n s c r i p t i o n i n Kfipke's e d i t i o n which d i s t o r t s the agreement f i g u r e s . However, the high congru- ence of i n i t i a l s between D and K indicated a close r e l a - tionship between those two manuscripts. As we extended our scope and took into consideration divergent readings at places of r u b r i c a t i o n , we found cases which pointed i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n (see pp. 115-16), which suggested that K a as well as K belong to one group together with D, but that they could not have been copied from D i t s e l f . S6hns had claimed "that one class of manuscripts (Hand- schriftenreihe) was constituted by ADK as opposed to the BCLE-class. However, neither the study of i n i t i a l s nor textual comparisons yielded any conclusive evidence that A should belong to DK aK C (as to K b, see pp. 109-10). A does not show any consistent agreement with any manuscript other than the Wurzburg fragment h (see 4.3.1). A has l e f t out a verse or a couplet on i t s own here and there, but only the following omissions and reversals are shared 181 by other manuscripts and appear to be s i g n i f i c a n t : 4 215/16 omitted i n ALW. These verses have the same rhyme words as the preceding couplet. 4883-86 omitted i n ABbLW; C has a missing l e a f here on which four verses must have also been l e f t out. These verses are p l a i n l y redundant. 4885/86 repeat the rhyme words of 4881/82. 6159/60 omitted i n ABC (b has missing leaves). The preced- ing passage leads to a r h e t o r i c a l r e p e t i t i o n of key-words and a double rhyme at 6157/58 which i s l e f t out by GEMKb. 6863/64 reversed i n ACGLW, with C having a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r - ent reading. A l l these examples would range A on the side of Bb, LW and C rather than, of DK aK°. One r a t h e r - i n t e r e s t i n g omission should be mentioned here. A leaves out verses 7863-66, again r e p e t i t i o u s i n contents and rhyme, whereas L omits 7 86 2-6 5. I t i s i n t r i g u i n g to see that codex C had i n i t i a l l y l e f t out the same verses as A, but that they were l a t e r added on the margin. Were they added by the same scribe or his corrector at the time of the manuscript production, or were they f i l l e d i n at a consider- ably l a t e r date? And could the fa u l t y version, i n the meantime, have been copied by other manuscripts? At a few places C does indeed show corrections and additions of a l a t e r stage, which p a r t l y coincide with gaps i n other manu- 18 2 scr i p t s . - F i r s t l y , C had l e f t out the f i r s t two paragraphs of the prologue; the overly large and illuminated i n i t i a l at 63 proves that t h i s i s where the scribe started his work. The missing section (with the omission of 33-36) was l a t e r added on the inner cover, according to P f e i f f e r "von anderer nicht v i e l spaeterer Hand" (Barlaam, p. 407). There i s no p a r a l l e l f o r t h i s omission i n any other manuscript. On the other hand the Heidelberg codex b has omitted verses 32 37- 40, and so had C o r i g i n a l l y ; however, they were l a t e r added on the margin "von anderer Hand" (Barlaam, p. 421). In th i s case, just as i n the above c i t e d common omissions, the gap i n Cb could also be explained as independent s c r i b a l error: 3235/36 have the same rhyme words as 3239/40, and so the scribe's eye could have e a s i l y slipped down four l i n e s and taken up the text from there. But i t would seem unlikely that t h i s type of s c r i b a l error should have occurred repeatedly only i n some manuscripts and not i n others. I t i s more convincing to assume that C and ABbLW might have drawn some of these omissions from a common source or, f o r that, matter, that they do not show r e p e t i - tious verses f i l l e d i n by l a t e r scribes which the other manuscripts contain (t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i s admissible espec- i a l l y at 4883-86 and 6159-60, see above). The information which we gained from the study of the above mentioned manuscripts i s too contradictory to esta- b l i s h a stemmatic r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t seems that not only C 183 but a l s o other manuscripts were l a t e r c o r r e c t e d from other sources and t h a t t h i s contamination cannot be disentangled. To quote two more examples: C has l e f t out 9 2 75/76 at the end of a paragraph; i n W l i n e 9276 i s i n i t i a l l y omitted and l a t e r added at the bottom of the page. Likewise A has l e f t out 2542; W a l s o d i d so o r i g i n a l l y , but has added the mis- s i n g verse at the bottom again. Coincidence or a s i g n of interdependence? We b e l i e v e t h a t the v e r s i o n s of A, b, C, L, and W have absorbed some i n t e r f e r e n c e and t h a t , i n s p i t e of t h e i r loose group r e l a t i o n s h i p , they cannot be t r a c e d i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e from one source. The "Gflttweig fragment" m i s too c l o s e to C to be considered a key element f o r t h i s conglomeration. The problem of dependence could not be solved by the comparison of i n i t i a l s , e i t h e r , which showed only the same b a s i c paragraph p a t t e r n i n AbCD. Before abandoning t h i s group a l t o g e t h e r , we s h a l l attempt a c o n c l u s i v e assessment of WL and Bb. The compar- i s o n of the r u b r i c a t i o n had a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t L and W have a strong s i m i l a r i t y i n the f i r s t h a l f of the work, but that afterwards t h i s s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ceases e n t i r e l y and L f o l l o w s the p a t t e r n of C. We considered the two p a r a l l e l i n i t i a l s i n CL at 8869 and 8895 to be a l i k e l y t u r n i n g p o i n t . Taking now common t e x t omissions i n t o account, our t e n t a t i v e judgment appears f u l l y corroborated. There are p a r a l l e l omissions i n LW at 1207-10 (1209/10 a l s o i n b ) , 1281/82, 2177/78 ( a l s o i n Bb), 2295-98 ( a l s o i n a ) , 184 3775-80, 3784/85, 4113/14, 4215/16 (also i n A), 4772/73, 7616/17 (also i n B), 8320 (W leaves out also 8321, L rever- ses 8321/22) and 87 21. Furthermore, there are several coup- l e t s with reversed l i n e s , i n one case, at 1709/10, together with Bb. The d i v i d i n g l i n e i n L, however, s h i f t s by about 300 verses. W and L show the l a s t noticeable p a r a l l e l at 9195/ 96, where both reverse the order of l i n e s . I t i s only a f t e r t h i s point, that L and C share the same text omissions, namely 9949-10046, 10055-58, 10065/66, 10083-250, 10333-54, 11587-94, 11921-24, 12235-38, 12259-90, 16089/90, 16105-110 and 16129-45. Furthermore, i t i s only i n t h i s second part of the work, that L contains some of the Latin b i b l e quota- tions which C has preserved a f t e r 13065, whereas i t s La t i n verses i n the f i r s t h a l f of the text (between 2449 and 3785, at 6191, 6207, and 6930) do not occur i n L. The question was raised e a r l i e r (see p. 10 3) whether W might have ultimately been derived from D, as the agree- ment between t h e i r i n i t i a l s i s s l i g h t l y higher than that of W and C. A look at t h e i r text omissions, however, rules t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y out. W and L share common text omissions with ABb and C ( a l l of which occur i n the f i r s t h a l f , see above), but none with the DK aK c-group. As we pointed out e a r l i e r , C does not always represent the old paragraph pattern as c a r e f u l l y as D and sets i n i t i a l s of i t s own. Also, the major text omissions i n the second h a l f of C, 185 where W has the f u l l text, would account f o r the lower agreement figure between C and W. On the basis of a textual comparison, we can now defin- i t e l y r e j e c t Sfihns's claim that the Heidelberg codex b was alte r n a t e l y copied from B and A. The study of the r u b r i c a - t i o n i n b and of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the alt e r n a t i o n of the two scribes and the various gatherings of the codex suggested that b does not follow two d i f f e r e n t sources, but rather that B and b originated from one source which was loosely r e l a t e d to A (see p. 100). This preliminary state- ment has to be modified to some extent. It appears that within the f i r s t 5000 verses B and b are cl o s e l y r e l a t e d , but not dependent on each other (e.g., B leaves out 1697/98 where b has the f u l l t e x t ) . Their common omissions consist of 733-36, 1369, 2064, 2971, 4157-60, 4411/12, 4752/53, 4774/75. There are also several p a r a l l e l cases of reversed l i n e s , the l a s t such reversal occurring i n B and b at 5289/90. Hereafter, the p a r a l l e l i s m between the two manu- sc r i p t s ceases completely and both have omissions e n t i r e l y of t h e i r own. Codex b continues i t s regular paragraph pattern i n agreement with that of ACD, whereas B seems to j o i n the GEM-group i n a number of common i n i t i a l s . However, in the f i n a l 150 0 verses of the work, the p a r a l l e l i s m between B and b i s re-established (recognized c o r r e c t l y by Sfihns, p. 37). Again, they have a common i n i t i a l d i f f e r - ent from a l l other manuscripts at 14613, they reverse two 186 li n e s at 14821/22 and omit others at 15371/72, 15481/82 (double rhyme, also omitted i n LK aK b), 15729/34 and 15985/86. The most plausible explanation f o r t h i s change i n the r e l a - tionship between B and b i s to assume that the l o s t Strassburg manuscript B (and not the Heidelberg codex b) might have drawn i t s middle part from a d i f f e r e n t source, a source that obviously had some of the r u b r i c a t i o n of the GEM-group. A great handicap i n further pursuing t h i s hypo- thesis i s the f a c t that f o r a l l information on B we are com- pl e t e l y dependent on P f e i f f e r ' s sketchy and not very r e l i - able apparatus. I t seems hardly necessary to compile further evidence i n order to e s t a b l i s h a t h i r d manuscript group, which we c a l l e d a f t e r i t s three surviving codices the GEM-group. A number of fragments had to be included i n t h i s group, as well as the second Koenigsberg manuscript K b, known to us through K6pke's few variants. As mentioned before (see p. 109), K b shows important c r i t e r i a by which i t can be associated with t h i s group, several verse omissions with GEM and also one add i t i o n a l couplet a f t e r 9400 with EG (section missing i n M). While i t i s cl e a r that the incom- plete London manuscript M and the Gotha codex G are much more clos e l y r e l a t e d with each other than with E (e.g., G and M omit paragraph 12933-62), i t should be stressed that E does indeed belong to t h i s group, a l b e i t to a l e s s e r extent. This a f f i n i t y i s suggested by the agreement of i t s 187 i n i t i a l s as well as several cases of divergent readings at rubricated paragraphs (see p. 114). E was written consid- erably l a t e r than G and M and i t s scribe treated the text with some l i b e r t y , i n s e r t i n g a whole d i d a c t i c poem, the Magezoge, into i t and adding occasional paragraph t i t l e s . Apart from some text cuts of i t s own (e.g., 7729-58 and 15466-75) E shares the following omissions with other manu- s c r i p t s , 3895 with b, 9176-78 with C, and 16089-90 with CL. It seems that E or i t s source could have also used a manu- s c r i p t r e l a t e d to the C-group. Besides these omissions E would have derived from t h i s source the text of the two author's digressions which are otherwise not documented i n the GM-group (with the exception of the Schimpfrede i n K b, according to Kttpke, p. 416). E has also preserved some of the L a t i n quotations which appear only i n CmL, but they do not correspond e n t i r e l y with those i n C. The only L a t i n verses i n E occur towards the end, a f t e r verse 1306 5; they are missing i n the e a r l i e r passages, a f t e r 2449, where C and m abound i n them. Moreover, E contains one Latin quo- t a t i o n which i s l e f t out i n CL: 13250 "Vivo ego d i c i t dominus nolo mortem peccatoris etc." Thus, there could have been no d i r e c t influence of C and E. And yet E gives proof of an amalgamation of two d i f f e r e n t text versions, that of the GM-group which prevails and that of the C-group. In view of the nearly t o t a l agreement in the paragraph di v i s i o n s of G and M, the p o s s i b i l i t y that one manuscript 188 might have been copied from the other had to be l e f t open (see pp. 104-05). G could not have descended from M, since the l a t t e r has several omissions where G shows the f u l l text (5641-42, 6067-68, 6135-36, 8171-72, 8247-48, 13163-64, 13497-98, 14117-18 and 14934-37). M, on the other hand, cannot have been copied from G eit h e r , f o r the following reason alone: the Latin b i b l e quotation which C and the "Gottweig fragment" m i n s e r t a f t e r 6206 ( " c e l i enarrant gloriam dei et opera manuum ejus annunciant firmamentum") appears also i n M but not i n G. I t i s the only L a t i n verse in M; none of the others which we encountered i n Cm, E, or L have been preserved i n M. Certainly M cannot be derived from C or m, otherwise i t would have copied t h e i r f a u l t y omission of himeln at 6208, i n the German t r a n s l a t i o n of this Latin quotation (see p. 136). Consequently both M and G can merely be derived from one source. This brings us to a f i n a l point. We noticed that G shares a common omission with A at 119 7 (a redundant cou- plet with word r e p e t i t i o n ) , and that i t reversed the order of verses at 6863-6.4 together with ACLW and at 16141-42 together with ABEW (CL have omitted the paragraph). M, i n spite of i t s close a f f i n i t y to G, does not coincide with i t in the f i r s t two instances and has no text for the l a s t one. With respect to these common readings, to the Latin quota- ti o n i n M, to E's occasional p a r a l l e l s with bCLW and to i t s Latin verses,should we regard the GEM-group as a sub-group- 189 ing within the larger conglomerate group represented by manuscripts such as C, m, A, B, b, L and W? Or should GEM be rather considered an independent "branch" with i t s own o r i g i n a l readings? I f we r i g i d l y adopted the f i r s t p o s i t i o n , we would have to account f o r the preservation of 4883-86 which i s omitted i n ABbLW (and most l i k e l y i n C), whereas these verses appear i n DK aK C as well as i n GEM (see p. 181). If we adopted the other p o s i t i o n , we would have to assume an archetypal source of the GEM-group, which would have con- tained the Latin quotations as well as the two author i a l digressions. The few p a r a l l e l text omissions i n GEM and manuscripts of the "C-group would have to be explained as coincidental scribe's errors. Let us, at th i s point, r e c a l l Bedier's warning, that, the further back an in v e s t i g a t i o n into a text t r a d i t i o n i s pushed, the more i t becomes mere speculation. Throughout our study, we found manuscripts GEM plus a number of frag- ments to be a group c l e a r l y d i s t i n c t from a l l the others, not only by a d i f f e r e n t r u b r i c a t i o n pattern (which we con- side r as of a more recent stage), but also by textual c r i t e r i a , common variants, omissions, and additions. I t would serve no purpose to draw a stemma that pretended to trace the genealogical r e l a t i o n s h i p of a l l manuscripts back to an archetype. The image of a tree with larger and smaller branches would, i n our view, be a mirage rather than a useful model. A f t e r a l l , we know only very few 190 surviving manuscripts out of a probably f a r greater number, and we do not always know them i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l form. Therefore, whether GEM and t h e i r r e l a t e d fragments ultimately go back to an ancient text version equivalent to that of the "D- or the *C-group, or whether t h e i r source i s already the product of a mixture of these two groups, cannot be esta- blished. In any case, i t i s an important group i n i t s own r i g h t within the Barlaam text t r a d i t i o n and should be given c r e d i t accordingly. In our attempts to group and assess a l l e x i s t i n g Bar- laam manuscripts and fragments, i n order to help pave the way f o r a new text e d i t i o n , we found the method of tabu- l a t i n g and comparing the p o s i t i o n and reading of a l l r u b r i - cated paragraphs very u s e f u l . As shown i n the i n d i v i d u a l cases, t h i s method has i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . Sometimes the per- centage values d i d not constitute c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of a manuscript's group a f f i l i a t i o n , and they c e r t a i n l y do not determine a genealogical r e l a t i o n s h i p . But which other methodical' approach i n t h i s f i e l d i s free of ambiguities? On the other hand, adopting i t as one of several methods, i t draws attention to p a r a l l e l s between manuscripts, i t indicates when a manuscript changes i t s paragraph pattern and thus possibly i t s source, and i t can channel, support, or contradict r e s u l t s gained by a comparison of textual variants. Moreover, i t provides data which can hence be used i n s t r u c t u r a l studies. We hold that an inquiry i n t o 191 t h e m a n u s c r i p t r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a m e d i e v a l work, w h i c h i g n o r e s t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f i t s r u b r i c a t i o n , i s i n c o m p l e t e . Moreover, such an e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e p a r a g r a p h agreement c o u l d be e f f i c i e n t l y o r g a n i z e d i n o r d e r t o save t i m e , t h e m e c h a n i c a l work c o u l d be d e l e g a t e d t o a s s i s t a n t s , t h e d a t a c o m p u t e r i z e d . N a t u r a l l y t h e f i g u r e s would have t o be i n t e r p r e t e d , b u t t h e b a s i s f o r a d i v i s i o n i n t o groups would become b r o a d e r and more s o l i d . And t h a t means a l s o : . t h e a r e a s , i n w h i c h a p o s i t i v e judgment cannot and s h o u l d n o t be be v e n t u r e d , would be more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d . F i n a l l y , what p r i n c i p l e s f o r a new Bar l a a m e d i t i o n can be d e r i v e d from o ur st u d y ? We have come t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a new e d i t i o n s h o u l d f o l l o w t h e F r e i b u r g codex D as a L e i t h a n d s e h r i f t . Wherever D has a t e x t o m i s s i o n o r an ob v i o u s m i s t a k e , t h e r e a d i n g o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t s and f r a g - ments b e l o n g i n g t o i t s group ( d q , e l , K , and Kttpke's e d i - t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g K a ) s h o u l d be g i v e n p r i o r i t y f o r t h e n e c e s s a r y emendations; t h e i r d i f f e r e n t d i a l e c t a l forms would have t o be adapted t o t h o s e i n D. Only when t h e group as a whole has a gap o r an o b v i o u s m i s r e a d i n g would t h e main r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e two o t h e r groups be u s e d , namely C (and m) on t h e one s i d e , and G ( o r M) on the o t h e r . I d e a l l y t h e v a r i a n t s o f C and G would be c o n t i n u - o u s l y g i v e n t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e t e x t o f D, e i t h e r i n t h e margin o r a t t h e bottom o f t h e page, w h i l e t h e r e a d i n g s o f the o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s c o u l d be p r i n t e d i n an ap p e n d i x . 19 2 The passages containing the author's digressions would have to be f i l l e d i n according to the text i n A and b. One of the advantages i n following D would be that D gives a r e l i a b l e , early version of Rudolf's Barlaam i n the author's own Alemannic d i a l e c t ; another, that D has best preserved the early paragraph pattern. The greatest weak- nesses of P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n are, i n our opinion, his inconsistent text s e l e c t i o n (with undue consideration given to E) and the inaccurate and sometimes confusing material i n the apparatus. I f these shortcomings are suc c e s s f u l l y avoided, H. Rupp's s c e p t i c a l remark that a new Barlaam e d i - t i o n might not be able to improve much on P f e i f f e r ' s (Bar- laam, p. 512), would consequently be proven wrong. 5.2. Geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of Barlaam und Josaphat Judging by the number of i t s preserved manuscripts, Rudolf von Ems's Barlaam und Josaphat must have gained a consider- able popularity throughout the German speaking t e r r i t o r i e s between the thirteenth and f i f t e e n t h century. This impres- sion becomes the more convincing by contrast with the two other Middle High German Barlaam versions written i n the thirteenth century, the so — c a l l e d Laubacher Barlaam by bishop Otto of F r e i s i n g , of which just one manuscript i s 193 p r e s e r v e d , and t h e s o - c a l l e d Z u r c h e r B a r l a a m, known t o us 89 o n l y ' m two s h o r t f r a g m e n t s . An a t t empt t o o u t l i n e the s p r e a d i n g o f R u d o l f ' s B a r l a a m v e r s i o n on t h e b a s i s o f i t s m a n u s c r i p t t r a d i t i o n meets w i t h grave o b s t a c l e s . I t i s a r a r e e x c e p t i o n t h a t t h e m a n u s c r i p t s t h e m s e l v e s g i v e any d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n as t o t h e date and t h e p l a c e o f t h e i r o r i g i n ; t h i s o c c u r s o n l y i n t h e c ases o f m a n u s c r i p t s C — w r i t t e n by a s c r i b e Chunrat i n 1284 E — w r i t t e n i n 1459 f o r V e i t von E g l o f f s t e i n P.—the i l l u m i n a t e d m a n u s c r i p t o f 1469 , produced i n t h e a t e l i e r o f D i e b o l t L a uber i n Hagenau ( A l s a c e ) . F o r a l l o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s and f r a g m e n t s we depend on s e c o n - dary i n f o r m a t i o n as p r o v i d e d by c a t a l o g u e d e s c r i p t i o n s and a r t i c l e s , o r even, i n s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s , on o u r own d i a l e c t d e f i n i t i o n o f a t e x t . I n t h e case o f s h o r t e r f r a g m e n t s , such p r o b i n g i n t o d i a l e c t a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o u l d y i e l d q u e s t i o n a b l e r e s u l t s , due t o t h e i n c o n s i s t e n t s p e l l i n g o f most s c r i b e s and t h e s h o r t n e s s o f t h e sample. F u r t h e r m o r e , some s u b t l e r a s p e c t s o f such a l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s ( e . g . , t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the d i a l e c t o f t h e s o u r c e , t h e n a t i v e d i a l e c t o f t h e s c r i b e , and t h e t a r g e t d i a l e c t o f t h e copy) c o u l d n o t be s t u d i e d w i t h i n t h e framework o f t h i s o u t l i n e . 88 See A d o l f P e r d i s c h , Der Laubacher Barlaam: Vor- s t u d i e n zu e i n e r Ausgabe (Marburg^ 1904) . 89 See J . K l a p p e r "Barlaam und J o s a p h a t , " m V e r f a s s e r l e x i k o n , I , 171. 194 I t has been e s t a b l i s h e d by v a r i o u s s c h o l a r s t h a t B a r - laam und J o s a p h a t was w r i t t e n about 1225, a t a t i m e when R u d o l f l i v e d a t Hohenems i n t h e a l p i n e Rhine v a l l e y as a M i n i s t e r i a l e o f the Lords o f M o n t f o r i r . One major a i d i n d e t e r m i n i n g when the work was composed i s i t s r e f e r e n c e t o the C i s t e r c i a n monastery o f C a p p e l n e a r Z u r i c h and i t s abbot Wide who p r o v i d e d t h e a u t h o r w i t h t h e L a t i n s o u r c e ( B a r l a a m , 144-149 and 1 6 0 5 7 - 1 6 0 7 4 ) . 9 0 I t i s most l i k e l y t h a t R u d o l f a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f h i s c a r e e r was known o n l y i n h i s home t e r r i t o r y , t h e a r e a s o u t h o f Lake C o n s t a n c e , i f we judge by t h e l i t e r a r y p a t r o n s whom he mentions i n h i s e a r l i e r P e r guote G e r h a r d and i n h i s Barlaam. " R u d o l f s H o r i z o n t i s t g l e i c h s a m noch a l p i n b e g r e n z t , s e i n e A u f t r a g - 91 geber l e b e n i n d e r u n m i t t e l b a r e n Umgebung s e i n e r Heimat." There a r e no m a n u s c r i p t s l e f t t h a t c o u l d be a s c r i b e d t o t h i s e a r l y p e r i o d . A, w h i c h was k e p t a t t h e c a s t l e o f Hohenems u n t i l t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( see pp. 8-9), i s d e f i n i t e l y o f a much l a t e r o r i g i n and was t r a n s f e r r e d t o 9 2 Hohenems a t a l a t e r s t a g e . The o n l y r e m a i n i n g w i t n e s s e s t o a B a r l a a m t e x t t r a d i t i o n i n t h i s a r e a , a l t h o u g h d a t i n g from about h a l f a c e n t u r y l a t e r , a r e t h e two m a t c h i n g 9 0 See X. v. E r t z d o r f f , R u d o l f von Ems, pp. 80-89. 91 H. B r a c k e r t , R u d o l f von Ems, p. 29. 9 2 See Edward S c h r 5 d e r , " R u d o l f von Ems und s e i n L i t t e r a t u r k r e i s , " ZfdA 67 (1930 ), 211: 11. . . un s e r R u d o l f h a t damit n i c h t s zu t u n . " 195 fragments k e p t a t Z u r i c h and S c h a f f h a u s e n , d and q. We can e x p e c t t h a t l i t e r a r y works a t t h a t t i m e would be p r o p a g a t e d a l o n g t h e upper Rhine v a l l e y w i t h i t s c l o s e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between c o u r t s , c i t i e s and m o n a s t e r i e s . The F r e i b u r g m a n u s c r i p t D w h i c h b e l o n g s t o t h e same group w i t h dq b u t does n o t show t h e i r marked S w i s s - A l e m a n n i c f e a t u r e s would i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t . O t h e r , younger documents o f t h e g r e a t e r A l e m a n n i c a r e a i n c l u d i n g A l s a c e and Swabia a r e t h e two d e s t r o y e d S t r a s s b u r g m a n u s c r i p t s B and a, t h e above mentioned Hohenems codex A, t h e second S c h a f f h a u s e n f r a g - ment r and t h e ( m i s s i n g ) S t u t t g a r t fragment F17, a l l o f the f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . However, as i n d i c a t e d i n c h a p t e r 5.1, t h e s e m a n u s c r i p t s have n o t , o r n o t p r i m a r i l y , d e r i v e d t h e i r t e x t v e r s i o n s from dq o r D. I n t h i s c o n t e x t , t h e two fragments e ( i n Munich) and 1 (Nuremberg), w h i c h i n o u r o p i n i o n b e l o n g t o g e t h e r , pose a problem. K. R o t h , i n h i s r e f e r e n c e t o e, s t a t e s t h a t 9 3 the d i a l e c t i s " a l a m a n n i s c h ( s c h w e i z e r i s c h ) . " T h i s a s s e r t i o n i s p r o b a b l y p r o v o k e d by t h e h a n d w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f a l a t e r owner (Roth s u g g e s t s o f t h e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y ) underneath t h e f i n a l v e r s e s : "Wer dys buch f i n d e t , d e r s o l es Hans von W i n t e r t u r wyder geben." The d i a l e c t a l f e a t u r e s o f t h e s e 138 v e r s e s , however, show some unmis- t a k a b l y M i d d l e German c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : t h e Umlaut i s n o t 9 3 K. R o t h , Deutsche P r e d i g t e n , p. x x i i . 196 i n d i c a t e d i n words such as v r o l i c h e , h o r e n , l u g e , t r u g e , the Upper German d i p h t h o n g ae i s not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from e, and an o c c a s i o n a l d f o r t o c c u r s i n i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n ( e r d e t ) . The same f e a t u r e s can be found i n t h e Nuremberg fragment 1 w h i c h Stthns c l a s s i f i e d c o r r e c t l y as M i d d l e German. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h i s fragment 1, j u s t as e, c o n t a i n s a l s o a few minor A l e m a n n i c t r a c e s , e.g., t h e grapheme ch. f o r k w i t h i n t h e word ( d u n c h e t , b e c h a n t , g e c h u n d e t ) . I n one case i n 1, t h e r e i s a p p a r e n t l y even a remnant o f t h e O l d H i g h German s t r o n g a d j e c t i v e d e c l e n s i o n w h i c h , w i t h i t s f u l l f i n a l v o w e l s , was k e p t on i n A l e m a n n i c d i a l e c t s : 4 5 9 8 unde disem v a l s c h a n b i g e s t a n t . P f e i f f e r mentioned t h a t he r e c e i v e d fragment 1 from a f r i e n d ( W i l h e l m Wackernagel) i n B a s e l (see f o o t n o t e 7 1 ) . There i s not i n f o r m a t i o n on i t s former owners, b u t one might assume t h a t 1 was k e p t i n t h e A l e m a n n i c - S w i s s a r e a . C o u l d i t have b e l o n g e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h e, t o t h e same "buch" which was owned i n t h e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y by a c e r t a i n Hans of t h e town o f W i n t e r t h u r (between Z u r i c h and t h e R h i n e ) , b e f o r e i t was c u t up and i t s p a r t s d i s p e r s e d ? Whatever t h e answer may be, b o t h f r a g m e n t s , e and 1, g i v e p r o o f o f an e a r l y t r a n s i t i o n from t h e A l e m a n n i c d i a l e c t t o t h e p r e v a i l - i n g M i d d l e German fo r m s . The c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o D would a c c o u n t f o r t h i s i n f l u e n c e . By t h e second h a l f o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , R u d o l f ' s Barlaam had a p p a r e n t l y s p r e a d not o n l y t o t h e North-West, 197 but a l s o e a s t w a r d s i n t o t h e B a v a r i a n r e g i o n . The Munich codex C, w r i t t e n by a B a v a r i a n s c r i b e i n 1284, was a l r e a d y p receded by a m a n u s c r i p t i n T y r o l i a n d i a l e c t o f w h i c h t h e " G t t t t w e i g " and t h e B e r l i n fragment m and F2 b ear w i t n e s s . C was u s u a l l y downgraded by n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y s c h o l a r s because o f i t s s e v e r a l t e x t o m i s s i o n s ; P f e i f f e r c a l l e d i t s s c r i b e " f a h r l a s s i g " ( B a r l a a m , p. 4 0 8 ) , w h i c h i s a m i l d r e p r o a c h compared t o K. Roth's v e r d i c t : "Er a n d e r t e , s t r i c h oder schob e i n , was ihm gut dunkte . . . Wenn es A l l e machten, wie Chunrat . . . so wUrden w i r von den a l t e n guten T e x t e n b a l d N i c h t s mehr haben" (Deutsche P r e d i g t e n , p. x x i i ) . I t seems t o u s , however, t h a t the t e x t o m i s s i o n s i n C, whether t h e y were i n t r o d u c e d by t h e s c r i b e Chunrat o r a l r e a d y e x i s t e d i n h i s source, a r e not a s i g n o f n e g l i - gence, but r a t h e r o f v i g i l a n c e . What i s l e f t o ut a r e e l e - ments f o r e i g n t o a t y p i c a l s a i n t ' s l e g e n d , e v e r y t h i n g t h a t d e t r a c t s from i t s o t h e r w i s e r e l i g i o u s and e d i f y i n g n a t u r e : th e a u t h o r ' s p r a i s e o f l a d i e s , h i s r a t h e r f l i p p a n t d i g r e s - s i o n s (schimphrede) and even the b r i e f m e n t i o n o f c o u r t l y l o v e and a v e n t i u r e i n t h e e p i l o g u e (16105-09), t h e r e f e r - ence t o the Guote Gerhard where the a u t h o r a d d r e s s e s h i s l i t e r a r y p u b l i c , and a l s o the e x p l i c i t description o f pagan l o v e and o f t h e ungodly conduct o f t h e Greek gods (9949- 10047, 10083-251 and 10333-54). These c u t s b e a r t h e stamp o f a c l e r i c a l c e n s o r ; moreover, the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e L a t i n b i b l e q u o t a t i o n s i n the t e x t c o u l d a l s o p o i n t 198 t o a m o n a s t i c s p h e r e . Helm and Z iesemer quote a passage o f t h e A p o c a l y p s i s by H e i n r i c h von H e s l e r i n w h i c h t h e a u t h o r encourages th e r e c i t e r t o s k i p t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a ^ graph i f he deems i t t o o o f f e n s i v e f o r h i s a u d i e n c e . I t would even seem c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t R u d o l f h i m s e l f might have w r i t t e n o r a u t h o r i z e d a v e r s i o n f o r a m o n a s t i c a u d i e n c e ( s i n c e "von K a p e l l e d e r abbet und a l d i u samenunge" en c o u r - 9 5 aged h i s w o r k ) , as w e l l as one f o r a c o u r t l y c i r c l e . R u d o l f ' s B a r l a a m i s o t h e r w i s e v e r y s c a r c e l y documented i n t h e B a v a r i a n a r e a , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e two l a t e r f ragments k, F l l ( " O e t t i n g e n f r a g m e n t " ) , and t h e above men- t i o n e d Munich codex E, a l l d e r i v e d f r o m t h e GM-group. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s l i g h t l y e a r l i e r B a r l a a m poem by b i s h o p O t t o o f F r e i s i n g w i t h i t s more c h u r c h l y c h a r a c t e r hampered t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f R u d o l f ' s work i n t h i s a r e a . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e e a r l y B a v a r i a n documents M and C do not c o n s t i t u t e a dead end i n t h e t e x t t r a n s m i s s i o n , b u t , as we showed b e f o r e , t h e y e x e r t e d a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on the M i d d l e F r a n c o n i a n m a n u s c r i p t L i n i t s second h a l f . F u r - thermore, t h e y a r e l o o s e l y r e l a t e d t o ABbW, perhaps descend- i n g u l t i m a t e l y f r om one common s o u r c e . We assume t h a t by t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , m a n u s c r i p t s o f t h i s " B a v a r i a n l i n e " had s p r e a d w e s t , i n t o t h e R h e n i s h r e g i o n s , and t h a t t h e i r 9 4 K. Helm and W. Z i e s e m e r , D i e L i t e r a t u r des Deutschen R i t t e r o r d e n s ( G i e s s e n , 19 5 1 ) , p. 29. 9 5 X. v. E r t z d o r f f a d m i t s o n l y t h e l a t t e r p o s s i b i l i t y pp. 88-89. 199 text versions merged with others. Where t h i s i n f l u x took place ( i f as f a r south as Strassburg where B and a were preserved) and through which channels, we do not know. Manuscript W, formerly of the famous Ambras l i b r a r y , did not originate there, but displays Middle German character- i s t i c s , j u s t as the Wurzburg fragment h, which might have used the same source as A. Approximately a hundred years a f t e r the composition of Barlaam, the mainstream of i t s text t r a d i t i o n had moved northwards into the Middle German regions. These various l i n g u i s t i c areas, heterogeneous as they may be, share cer- t a i n o v e r a l l d i a l e c t a l features, which set them apart from the Upper German areas, e.g., the trend towards monophthong- i s a t i o n , the lacking of Umlaut, the l e s s e r impact of the High German Sound S h i f t . Regarding t h i s Middle German area f o r our purpose as one large u n i t , i t appears that the number of Barlaam manuscripts and fragments o r i g i n a t i n g from there i s about equal or even superior to those known of Upper German o r i g i n . In the West, codex L must have been written at that period; i t s l a t e r owners up to the eighteenth century were the lords of Blankenheim i n the E i f f e l . Two further manu- s c r i p t s of which only parts have been preserved show Middle-Franconian features. One i s the b r i e f fragment F10, kept at Hannover, which Stammler defines as Middle 200 German, perhaps M i d d l e F r a n c o n i a n (see p. 172)- The o t h e r one i s t h e i n c o m p l e t e London m a n u s c r i p t M w h i c h i n t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y was r e d i s c o v e r e d i n a monastery n e a r 9 6 ' Ltineburg. Whether i t was a c t u a l l y w r i t t e n t h e r e o r n o t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o s a y , b u t i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t even i n r e g i o n s where th e v e r n a c u l a r was Low German, p o e t i c t e x t s o f M i d d l e German d i a l e c t were c o p i e d and u n d e r s t o o d a t t h a t t i m e . Most o f t h e M i d d l e German B a r l a a m m a n u s c r i p t s , w h i c h we know m a i n l y i n t h e form o f fragments o n l y , do not come from t h e Western p a r t s o f t h e t e r r i t o r y b u t r a t h e r f rom C e n t r a l Germany ( n o r t h o f t h e Main R i v e r ) and from t h e N o r t h e a s t e r n b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e H o h e n s t a u f e n empire. The b e s t p r e s e r v e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h i s c a t e g o r y i s m a n u s c r i p t G, f o r m e r l y k e p t a t Gotha, w h i c h p r o v e d t o be a v e r y impor- t a n t f a c t o r f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the- GEM-group. How- e v e r , G i s not t h e o l d e s t m a n u s c r i p t o f i t s group f r o m which t h e o t h e r s descended, fragments such as F l (now i n B a s e l ) o r F9 (now i n G f i t t i n g e n ) have p r o b a b l y p r e c e d e d G. I t i s r e m a r k a b l e t h a t by f a r t h e g r e a t e s t number o f M i d d l e German Barlaam t e x t s b e l o n g t o t h e GEM-group, namely i , n, p, F l , F3, F6, F8, F9, F 1 0 ( ? ) , F16 and F18. One o f t h e r e a s o n s t h a t might a c c o u n t f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f so many M i d d l e German m a n u s c r i p t s i s t h e p o p u l a r i t y w h i c h R u d o l f ' s B a r l a a m a p p a r e n t l y e n j o y e d w i t h i n t h e Order 9 6 See J . Koch, ZfdPh 13 ( 1 8 8 1 ) , 80. 201 of Teutonic Knights i n the easternmost parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Inventories made around 1400 l i s t a Barlaam manuscript i n the l i b r a r i e s of the Teutonic Order at Konigsberg, Elbing, Osterode, and two at 97 ,a b Marienburg. Of t h i s heritage, ¥r and K survived u n t i l the end of the Second World War at Konigsberg, and only K°—which by virtue of i t s close a f f i n i t y to K and i t s d i a l e c t must have sprung from the same t r a d i t i o n — i s s t i l l preserved i n t a c t . The other manuscripts have perished or were dispersed a f t e r the order was incorporated into Prussia; probably one or another of the above mentioned .Middle German fragments might have 98 belonged to such a manuscript. The esteem i n which Rudolf's Barlaam must have been held among the i n f l u e n t i a l c i r c l e s of the Teutonic Order i s e a s i l y understood. Since the order's mission was to carry on the ideals of the e a r l i e r Crusades, subjugate the pagan population of Eastern Europe, and convert them to the Christian f a i t h , there was a strong need to strengthen the motivation within i t s own ranks. Religious l i t e r a t u r e , at the same time entertainment (miracles and saints' legends) and i n s t r u c t i o n , played an important role i n that respect. Lectures and r e c i t a t i o n s from suitable works were 97 See K. Helm and W. Ziesemer, p. 34. 98 The o f f i c i a l written language of the Teutonic Order was Middle German, see G. Ehrisrrann, Geschichte der deutschen L i t e r a t u r bis zum Ausgang des / l l t t e l a l t e r s (Munich, 1935), I I , 2.2., 67̂ 7 202 p r e s c r i b e d f o r v a r i o u s o c c a s i o n s , such as communal m e a l s , and the l i b r a r i e s were w e l l p r o v i d e d w i t h m a n u s c r i p t s . Not o n l y must t h e i d e a l o f a s c e t i c i s m i n B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t have been c o n s i d e r e d v e r y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h i s community o f men ( E . K a n t o r o w i c z c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e T e u t o n i c K n i g h t as 99 a m i x t u r e o f monk and w a r r i o r ) , b u t a l s o t h e theme o f overcoming h e a t h e n b e l i e f s and ways o f l i f e would have a p p e a l e d t o them. The passage i n w h i c h J o s a p h a t ' s a c t i v i t y as a C h r i s t i a n r u l e r o v e r a f o r m e r l y pagan c o u n t r y i s des- c r i b e d (13467-13755), r e f l e c t s v e r y w e l l t h e i d e a l i z e d r o l e w h ich t h e T e u t o n i c Order b e l i e v e d i t s e l f t o p l a y , and which was d e p i c t e d i n i t s own c h r o n i c l e s . A n o t h e r f a c t o r , w h i c h c o u l d a l s o a c c o u n t f o r t h e e x i s - t e n c e o f Barlaam m a n u s c r i p t s w i t h i n t h e T e u t o n i c Order o f K n i g h t s , i s a p o l i t i c a l one. R u d o l f i n h i s l a t e r y e a r s i s known t o have been c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e H o h e n s t a u f e n p a r t y and w i t h Konrad IV i n p a r t i c u l a r t o whom he d e d i c a t e d h i s W e l t c h r o n i k . S i n c e t h e H o h e n s t a u f e n r u l e r s , f r om t h e days o f F r e d e r i c k I I on, were the g r e a t e s t b e n e f a c t o r s o f the T e u t o n i c O r d e r , R u d o l f ' s p o s i t i o n a t t h e c o u r t would have f a c i l i t a t e d the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f h i s work. The f a c t t h a t t h e K o e n i g s b e r g m a n u s c r i p t K a i s so c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e A l e m a n n i c m a n u s c r i p t s D and dq, d e s p i t e the d i f f e r - ence i n time and p l a c e , would s u g g e s t t h a t a r e l i a b l e 99 E. K a n t o r o w i c z , K a i s e r F r i e d r i c h d e r Zweite (19 2 7; r p t . D U s s e l d o r f , 1963), pp. 81-88. 203 m a n u s c r i p t c l o s e t o Ddq might have been t r a n s m i t t e d d i r e c t l y t o t h e O r d e r and c o p i e d t h e r e . K°, on t h e o t h e r hand, shows s i g n s o f a l o n g c o p y i n g p r o c e s s by w h i c h th e t e x t g r e a t l y d e t e r i o r a t e d . K b has d e r i v e d from the GEM-group, and i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e a d i n g s o f t h e DK-group and o f t h e GEM- group m i n g l e d w i t h i n t h e T e u t o n i c O r d e r ( K b , as much as we know o f i t , has a common o m i s s i o n o f a v e r s e w i t h K a t 5088 and w i t h K c a t 8341). The f i n a l major o f f s h o o t s o f t h e B a r l a a m m a n u s c r i p t t r a d i t i o n o c c u r i n t h e S o u t h e r n German a r e a a g a i n . I t i s not e s t a b l i s h e d whether R u d o l f ' s c o m p o s i t i o n l i v e d on i n t h e B a v a r i a n r e g i o n a f t e r i t s e a r l y appearance t h e r e , o r whether i t was r e i n t r o d u c e d w i t h E w h i c h drew i t s t e x t p r i - m a r i l y f rom t h e M i d d l e German GM-group. E, as m e ntioned b e f o r e , was w r i t t e n i n 1459 f o r a nobleman i n N o r t h e r n B a v a r i a , V e i t von E g l o f f s t e i n . W i t h s e l f - a s s u r a n c e , he names h i m s e l f on t h e f i r s t page: "Das puech hab i c h V e i t von E g l o f s t a i n p f l e g e r zue Vochburg m i r s c h r e i b n l a s s e n yn dem L V I I I I j a r der g e p u r t X p i . " A decade l a t e r , i n 1469, t h e a t e l i e r o f D i e b o l t Lauber i n Hagenau ( A l s a c e ) p r o d u c e d t h e l a s t known hand- w r i t t e n m a n u s c r i p t o f R u d o l f ' s B a r l a a m. W h i l e we were u n a b l e t o s t u d y i t s t e x t , i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e emphasis was e n t i r e l y on t h e p i c t o r i a l s i d e ; t h e m a n u s c r i p t i s r i c h l y i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h 138 f u l l - p a g e w a t e r - c o l o u r d r a w i n g s . The c o m m e r c i a l and y e t sometimes h i g h l y a r t i s t i c 204 p r o d u c t i o n o f c o d i c e s such as t h i s one p r esupposes a p a r t i - c u l a r c l i e n t e l e . D i e b o l t Lauber's a d v e r t i s e m e n t s a p p e a l e d t o a more t r a d i t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d a r i s t o c r a c y who s t i l l c h e r i s h e d t h e overcome c o u r t l y v a l u e s and t h e o l d German l i t e r a t u r e . I n a n o t i c e w h i c h Lauber a d d r e s s e d t o h i s l o r d " h e r t z o g R u p r e c h t " (who, a c c o r d i n g t o Konrad B u r d a c h , had become b i s h o p o f S t r a s s b u r g i n 1439 and d i e d i n 1 4 7 8 ) } - ^ 0 Lauber p r a i s e d h i s i l l u s t r a t e d c o p i e s o f such works as W i l h e l m von Or l e n s by R u d o l f von Ems, P a r z i v a l and I w e i n . A t about th e same p e r i o d , t h e i n t e r e s t i n c l a s s i c a l p h i l - osophy and l i t e r a t u r e was awakening i n S o u t h e r n Germany t h r o u g h the i n f l u e n c e o f I t a l i a n p o e t s and s c h o l a r s . The l i s t o f book a c q u i s i t i o n s o f t h e H e i d e l b e r g l i b r a r y ( " P a l a t i n a " ) r e f l e c t s t h i s s w i f t change i n l i t e r a r y t a s t e w h i c h was summed up by Burdach as f o l l o w s : "um und v o r 1440 s t e h t d i e a l t e m i t t e l h o c h d e u t s c h e L i t t e r a t u r auch im Sudwesten, im E l s a s s , i n Baden, i n d e r P f a l z b e i A d e l und F t i r s t e n i n B e l i e b t h e i t und Ansehen: um 146 0 , k e i n Men- s c h e n a l t e r danach, i s t s i e d o r t b e r e i t s von d e r modernen, durch neue E i n f l u s s e F r a n k r e i c h s , d e r N i e d e r l a n d e und I t a l i e n s bestimrnten L i t t e r a t u r z u r i i c k g e d r a n g t and v e r - X ^ K. B u r d a c h , "Die p f a l z i s c h e n W i t t e l s b a c h e r und d i e a l t d e u t s c h e n H a n d s c h r i f t e n d e r P a l a t i n a , " C e n t r a l b l a t t f u r B i b 1 i o t h e k s w e s e n , 5 ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 126. See R u d o l f K a u t z s c h , " D i e b o l t Lauber und s e i n e W e r k s t a t t i n Hagenau," C e n t r a l b l a t t f u r B i b l i o t h e k s w e s e n , 12 ( 1 8 9 5 ) , 5. 205 d u n k e l t " ( l o c . c i t . ) . F u r t h e r m o r e t h e p o e t i c a t t r a c t i o n w h i c h t h e rhymed c o u p l e t s w i t h t h e i r f i x e d metre had h e l d f o r more t h a n two hundred y e a r s had f i n a l l y waned by f o r c e o f s t e r e o t y p e d r e p e t i t i o n . P r o s e v e r s i o n s were t a k i n g t h e p l a c e o f t h e o r i g i n a l rhymed v e r s i o n s . F o r t h e Ba r l a a m , such an anony- mous p r o s e v e r s i o n o f t h e l a t e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y i s p r e - s e r v e d i n B e r l i n ( S t a a t s b i b l i o t h e k P r e u s s i s c h e r K u l t u r - b e s i t z , MS. Germ. F o l . 1259). A n o t h e r v e r y o b v i o u s r e a s o n f o r t h e a b r u p t e n d i n g o f the B a r l a a m m a n u s c r i p t t r a d i t i o n l i e s i n t h e r a p i d s p r e a d - i n g o f book p r i n t i n g . As f a r as we know, R u d o l f von Ems' s work was n e v e r p r i n t e d a t t h a t t i m e . On t h e o t h e r hand, o n l y seven y e a r s a f t e r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e D i e b o l t Lau- b e r m a n u s c r i p t (1469) t h e f i r s t i n c u n a b u l u m o f a p r o s e v e r s i o n o f t h e Ba r l a a m s t o r y ( i n d e p e n d e n t o f R u d o l f ' s t e x t ) appeared i n Augsburg under t h e t i t l e : "HIE v a h e t ann eyn g a r l o b l i c h unnd heylsam c h r i s t g l a u b i g e n c r o n i c a . Sagend von eynem h e i l i g e n k l i n i g m i t namen J o s a p h a t . wie d e r ward b e k e r e t von eynem h e y l i g e n v a t t e r unnd a y n s i d e l n genant Barlaam." A second p r i n t i n g f o l l o w e d s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r . W h i l e R u d o l f ' s c o m p o s i t i o n had f a l l e n i n t o o b l i v i o n , the B a rlaam s t o r y w i t h i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a r a b l e s s t a y e d a l i v e i n Germany as a C h r i s t i a n l e g e n d o v e r t h e f o l l o w i n g c e n t u r i e s . New t r a n s l a t i o n s f r om l a t e r , a b r i d g e d L a t i n 206 versions were published, probably i n connection with the Counter Reformation, around l600. But t h i s subject did not stimulate i n Germany such r i c h a l i t e r a r y output as i n Spain, where several Baroque Barlaam dramas were written and produced by, among others, Lope de Vega. Performances of various Barlaam plays by Jesuit seminaries or schools are also docu- mented i n Germany u n t i l the middle of the seventeenth century, but these texts were usually i n L a t i n . In the German vernacular no further adaptations of the Barlaam and Josaphat story seem to have existed i n the l a t e seventeenth and eighteenth 102 centuries, with the exception, perhaps, of a rhymed Jewish-German version. It was not u n t i l the early nineteenth century p h i l o l o g i s t s and t h e i r fore- runners Bodmer and Gottsched rediscovered the Middle High German Barlaam und Josaphat, that interest i n t h i s work and i t s author was revived. For a short time, t h i s rediscovery produced nearly euphoric reactions from some 101 l i t e r a r y scholars. J Rudolf von Ems was held i n such great esteem that he was widely credited with the creation of the Hibelungenlied. Such extreme praise could not f a i l to draw adverse c r i t i q u e on the work i t s e l f and further i t s subsequent downgrading as "epigonal." This may p a r t l y 102 We were able to consult fragments of a Hebrew manuscript (Cod. hebr. monac. 3^7) i n the t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n by Dr. M. S. Batts. 'This i n t e r e s t i n g version does not seem to have drawn i t s material, mainly parables, from the known Christian sources and can therefore be disregarded i n t h i s context; see also H. P e r i , pp. 23^-35. See e.g., K. Roth, Deutsche Predigtcn, p. 6. 207 explain why, a f t e r i t s editions i n the f i r s t h a l f of the nineteenth century, so l i t t l e research has been done on i t . A better founded and more balanced judgment on Barlaam und Josaphat, as mentioned before, would necessitate a new, r e l i a b l e text e d i t i o n . Our study has attempted to contribute to t h i s aim. 208 L i s t o f Works C i t e d B a t t s , M i c h a e l S. " P o e t i c Form and M e d i e v a l S c r i b a l P r a c t i c e . " J o u r n a l o f E n g l i s h and Germanic P h i l o - l o g y , 62 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 697-702. B e d i e r , J o s e p h . "La t r a d i t i o n m a n u s c r i t e du L a i de 1'Ombre. R e f l e x i o n s s u r l ' a r t d ' e d i t e r l e s a n c i e n s t e x t e s . " Romania, 54 ( 1 9 2 8 ) , 161-96 and 321-56. Bodmer, Johann J . C h r i e m h i l d e n Rache und d i e K l a g e : Zwey H e l d e n g e d i c h t e Aus dem Schwabischen Z e i t p u n c t e , samt Fragmenten aus dem G e d i c h t e von den NibeTungen und Aus dem J o s a p h a t . Z u r i c h ; C. O r e l l , 175 7. Bonath, Gesa. Untersuchungen z u r Ub e r l i e f e r u n g des ' P a r z i v a l ' Wolframs von Eschenbach. Germanische S t u d i e n , 238/239. Hamburg and Lubeck: M a t t h i e s e n , 1970/71. de Boor, Helmut. Die h t i f i s c h e L i t e r a t u r : V o r b e r e i t u n g , B l O t e , A u s k l a n g , 1170-1250. G e s c h i c h t e d e r deut- schen L i t e r a t u r , v o l . I I . 6 t h ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1964. B r a c k e r t , Helmut.. R u d o l f von Ems: D i c h t u n g und G e s c h i c h t e . H e i d e l b e r g : C. W i n t e r , 1968. B u r d a c h , Konrad. "Die p f a l z i s c h e n W i t t e l s b a c h e r und d i e a l t d e u t s c h e n H a n d s c h r i f t e n d e r P a l a t i n a . " C e n t r a l - b l a t t f u r B i b l i o t h e k s w e s e n , 5 ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 111-3 3. C z i z e k , Hannah. " R u d o l f s von Ems B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t und s e i n e l a t e i n i s c h e V o r l a g e . " D i s s . V i e n n a , 19 31. D a i n , A l p h o n s e . Les m a n u s c r i t s . 2nd ed. P a r i s : B e l l e s - L e t t r e s , 1964. Diemer, J o s e p h . " K l e i n e B e i t r a g e z u r a l t e r e n d e u t s c h e n Sprache und L i t e r a t u r . X I . B r u c h s t t i c k e von Bar- laam und J o s a p h a t des Rudolph von Hohenems." S i t z u n g s b e r i c h t e d e r Akademie d e r W i s s e n s c h a f t e n , V i e n n a . P h i l o s o p h i s c h - H i s t o r i s c h e C l a s s e . XI (1853) , 650-53 . Docen, B e r n h a r d J . Review o f B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t . Ed. F r i e d r i c h K. Kttpke. J a h r b u c h e r d e r L i t e r a t u r , V i e n n a , 11 ( 1 8 2 0 ) , 110-38. Ehrismann, Gustav. G e s c h i c h t e d e r d e u t s c h e n L i t e r a t u r b i s zum Ausgang des M i t t e l a l t e r s . 2. T e i l : D ie m i t t e l h o c h d e u t s c h e L i t e r a t u r . 1935; r p t . Munich: C. H. Beck, 1959. I I , 2. 209 E i s , G e r h a r d . " E i n neues Fragment von R u d o l f s von Ems Bar l a a m und J o s a p h a t . " German i s ch-roman i s che M o n a t s s c h r T f t , 49 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 448-50. E r b e n , Johannes. "Zu R u d o l f s Barlaam und J o s a p h a t . " G e r m a n i s t i s c h e S t u d i e n , ed. J . Erben and E. Thurnher. "Inns b r u c k e r B e i t r a g e z u r K u l t u r w i s s e n s c h a f t , 15. I n n s b r u c k , 1969. von E r t z d o r f f , X e n j a . R u d o l f von Ems: Untersuchungen zum h t t f i s c h e n Roman im 13. J a h r h u n d e r t . Munich: W i l h e l m F i n k , 1967. F i s c h e r , Hermann. "Fragmente aus Barlaam und J o s a p h a t . " Germania, 30 ( 1 8 8 5 ) , 102-03. G e s s l e r , A l b e r t . " B r u c h s t u c k e e i n e r B a r l a a m h a n d s c h r i f t . " A n z e i g e r f u r de u t s c h e s A l t e r t u m . u n d d e u t s c h e L i t e r a t u r , 14 ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 147. von d e r Hagen, F r i e d r i c h H. and B u s c h i n g , Johann G. L i t e r a r i s c h e r G r u n d r i s s z u r G e s c h i c h t e d e r Deut- schen P o e s i e "von den a l t e s t e r i Z e i t e n b i s i n das se c h z e h n t e J a h r h u n d e r t . B e r l i n : Duncker und Humblot, 1812. Helm, K a r l and Z i e s e m e r , W a l t h e r . Die L i t e r a t u r des Deutschen R i t t e r o r d e n s . G i e s s e n e r B e i t r a g e z u r de u t s c h e n P h i l o l o g i e , 94. G i e s s e n , 1951. H o f m e i s t e r , R u d o l f A. "Lachmann's R o l e i n t h e T r a n s m i s s i o n o f P a r z i v a l . " Seminar, 10 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 87- 100. . K a n t o r o w i c z , E r n s t . K a i s e r F r i e d r i c h d e r Z w e i t e . 192 7; r p t . D U s s e l d o r f : Helmut Kttpper, 196 3. K a u t z s c h , R u d o l f . " D i e b o l t Lauber und s e i n e W e r k s t a t t i n Hagenau." C e n t r a l b l a t t f ( l r B i b l i o t h e k s w e s e n , 12 (1 8 9 5 ) , 1-113. K l a p p e r , J o s e p h . "Barlaam und J o s a p h a t . " D i e deu t s c h e L i t e r a t u r des M i t t e l a l t e r s : V e r f a s s e r l e x i k o n . Ed. Wolfgang Stammler. B e r l i n und L e i p z i g : de G r u y t e r , 1933. I , 167-72. Koch, John. "Fragmente von R u d o l f s von Ems Bar l a a m und J o s a p h a t i n e i n e r H a n d s c h r i f t des B r i t i s c h e n Museums i n London." Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r de u t s c h e P h i l o l o g i e , 13 ( 1 8 8 1 ) , 78-89. K6pke, F r i e d r i c h K., ed. Bar l a a m und J o s a p h a t von R u d o l f von M o n t f o r t . 2nd ed. L e i p z i g : G e bhardt, 1838. 210 Lachmann, K a r l , ed. I w e i n . E i n e E r z a h l u n g von Hartmann von Aue. 6 t h ed. B e r l i n : de G r u y t e r , 1962. L e i t z m a n n , A l b e r t , ed. B r i e f w e c h s e l der B r u d e r Jacob und W i l h e l m Grimm m i t K a r l Lachmann. J e n a : Frommann, 19 27. L i n k e , H a n s j u r g e n . E p i s c h e S t r u k t u r e n i n d e r D i c h t u n g Hartmanns von Aue: Untersuchungen z u r F o r m k r T t i k , W e r k s t r u k t u r und V o r t r a g s g l i e d e r u n g ~ Munich: W i l h e l m F i n k , 1968. Maas, P a u l . T e x t k r i t i k . 19 27; 4 t h ed. L e i p z i g : B. G. Teubner, 1960. Migne, Jacques P'. P a t r o l o g i a e c u r s u s c o m p l e t u s . S e r i e s l a t i n a . P a r i s : G a m i e r 1844-80. Mourek, V a c l a v E. " P r a g e r B r u c h s t l i c k e i n e r Pergamenthand- s c h r i f t des B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t von R u d o l f von Ems." S i t z u n g s b e r i c h t e d e r K t i n T g l i c h Bflhmischen G e s e l l s c h a f t d e r W i s s e n s c h a f t e n . C l a s s e f U r P h i l o - s o p h i e , G e s c h i c h t e und P h i l o l o g i e , J a h r g a n g 189 3. Prague, 1894, pp. 1-16. N a g l e r , C h a r l o t t e . " S t u d i e n zu B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t von R u d o l f von Ems." D i s s . K a r l s r u h e , 1972. Neumann, F r i e d r i c h . S t u d i e n z u r G e s c h i c h t e d e r d e u t s c h e n P h i l o l o g i e . B e r l i n : E. S c h m i d t , 19 71. O c h s e n b e i n , P e t e r . "Zwei neue B r u c h s t u c k e zum B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t des R u d o l f von Ems." Z e i t s c h r i f t f i l r d e u t s c h e s A l t e r t u r n und d e u t s c h e L i t e r a t u r , 101 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 322-26. P e r d i s c h , A d o l f . Der Laubacher Barlaam: V o r s t u d i e n zu e i n e r Ausgabe. Marburg: E l w e r t , 1904. P e r i , Hiram. Der R e l i g i o n s d i s p u t d e r Barlaam-Legende: E i n M o t i v a b e n d l a n d i s c h e r D i c h t u n g . A c t a Salman- t i c e n s i a , S e r i e de F i l o s o f i a y L e t r a s , v o l . XIV, 3. U n i v e r s i d a d de Salamanca, 1959. P f e i f f e r , F r a n z , ed. B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t von R u d o l f von Ems. M i t einem Anhang aus F r a n z Stthns, Das H a n d s c h r i f t e n v e r h a l t n i s i n R u d o l f s von Ems 'Barlaam,' einem Nachwort und einem R e g i s t e r von H e i n z Rupp. Deutsche Neudrucke. R e i h e : T e x t e des M i t t e l a l t e r s . 1843; r p t . B e r l i n : de G r u y t e r , 1965. P f e i f f e r , F r a n z . " B r u c h s t u c k e aus Barlaam und J o s a p h a t von R u d o l f von Ems." A n z e i g e r fur~Kunde d e r d e u t - schen V o r z e i t . N.F. 2 ( 1 8 5 4 ) , 108-09. 211 P i e t s c h , P a u l . "Fragment e i n e r H a n d s c h r i f t von B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t . " Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r d e u t s c h e P h i l o l o g i e 13 (1881) , 163 - 6 1 + . P i p e r , P a u l . H t t f i s c h e E p i k . 3. T e i l . Nachahmer Wolframs und G o t f r i d s . K l e m e r e Epen und C h r o n i k e n . Deut- sche N a t i o n a l - L i t e r a t u r , ed. J . K t i r s c h n e r . 4. Bd., 1. A b t l g . S t u t t g a r t : U n i o n , n.d. Re u s s , Eduard W. " B e i t r a g e z u r d e u t s c h e n H a n d s c h r i f t e n — kunde." Z e i t s c h r i f t f ttr d e u t s c h e s A l t e r t u m und d e u t s c h e L i t e r a t u r , 3 "1X843), 432-46. R o t h , K a r l , ed. Deutsche P r e d i g t e n des X I I . und X I I I . J a h r h u n d e r t e s . B i b l i o t h e k d e r gesammten d e u t s c h e n N a t i o n a l - L i t e r a t u r , X I , 1. L e i p z i g : G. B a s s e , 1839 . Rupp, H e i n z . " R u d o l f von Ems und Konrad von Wurzburg." P e r D e u t s c h u n t e r r i c h t , 17, No. 2 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 5-17. Rupp, H e i n z . " R u d o l f s von Ems B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t . " Dienendes Wort: Festgabe f l l r E r ns t Bender. Ed. W a l t e r F r a n k e . K a r l s r u h e : G. Braun, 19 59, - pp. 11-37. Schanze, H e i n z . "Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch d e r D r e i s s i g e r - i n i t i a l e n i n d e r W i l l e h a l m H a n d s c h r i f t G ( c o d . sang. 857)." 'Wolfram-Studien. Ed. Werner S c h r t t d e r . - B e r l i n : E r i c h S c h m i d t , 1970, pp. 170-87. S c h i r o c k , Bernd. "Der Aufbau von Wolframs P a r z i v a l . " P i s s . F r e i b u r g , 19 72. S c h n e l l , R u d i g e r . . R u d o l f von Ems: S t u d i e n z u r i n n e r e n E i n h e i t s e i n e s Gesamtwerkes. Bern: F r a n c k e , 19 69. Schr t t d e r , Edward. " F u l d a e r B r u c h s t u c k von R u d o l f s von Ems Barlaam." Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r d e u t s c h e s A l t e r t u m und d e u t s c h e L i t e r a t u r , 54 ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 23-24. Sch r t t d e r , Edward. " R u d o l f von Ems und s e i n L i t t e r a t u r k r e i s . " Z e i t s c h r i f t f l l r d e u t s c h e s A l t e r t u m und d e u t s c h e L i t e r a t u r , 6 7 ~ T l 9 3 0 ) , 209-51. Schwab, Ute. P i e B a r l a a m p a r a b e l n im Cod. V i n d . 2705: S t u d i e n z u r V e r f a s s e r s c h a f t k l e m e r e r m i t t e l h o c h - d e u t s c h e r G e d i c h t e . I s t i t u t o U n i v e r s i t a r i o O r i e n t a l e d i N a p o l i . Q u a d e r n i d e l l a S e z i o n e Ger- manica d e g l i A n n a l i I I I . N a p l e s , 1966. de Smet, G i l b e r t . " P i e AusdrUcke f l i r l e i d e n i m . A l t h o c h - d e u t s c h e n . " Wirkendes Wort, 5 (1954) , 69-79 . 212 Stthns, F r a n z . Das H a n d s c h r i f t e n v e r h a l t n i s s i n R u d o l f s von Ems 'Barlaam. T D i s s . E r l a n g e n , 1878. E r l a n g e n : Junge, 1878. Sonet, J e a n , S. J . Le_ Roman de Barlaam e t J o s a p h a t . V o l . 1: Recherches s u r l a t r a d i t i o n m a n u s c r i t e l a t i n e e t f r a n c a i s e . B i b l i o t h d q u e de l a F a c u l t e de P h i l o s o p h i e e t L e t t r e s de Namur, F a s c i c u l e 6. P a r i s : J . V r i n , 1949. Stackmann, K a r l . " M i t t e l a l t e r l i c h e T e x t e a l s Aufgabe." F e s t s c h r i f t f u r J o s t T r i e r . Eds. W. F o e r s t e and K. H. Bock. Cologne: B o h l a u , 1964, pp. 240-67. Stammler, Wolfgang. " B r u c h s t U c k e e i n e r B a r l a a m h a n d s c h r i f t . " B e i t r a g e z u r G e s c h i c h t e d e r d e u t s c h e n Sprache und L i t e r a t u r , 43 ( 1 9 1 8 ) , 554-55. S t r a u c h , P h i l i p p . "Fragmente von Wolframs W i l l e h a l m und R u d o l f s Barlaam." Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r d e u t s c h e s A l t e r - tum und d e u t s c h e L i t e r a t u r , 5 2 T T 9 1 0 ) , 351-56. V i n a v e r , Eugene. " P r i n c i p l e s o f T e x t u a l Emendation." S t u d i e s i n F r e n c h Language and M e d i a e v a l L i t e r a t u r e p r e s e n t e d t o M. K. Pope. 1939; r p t . F r e e p o r t , N.Y.: Books f o r L i b r a r i e s P r e s s , 1969, pp. 351-69. Ward, H a r r y L. D. C a t a l o g u e o f Romances i n t h e D e p a r t - ment o f M a n u s c r i p t s i n t h e B r i t i s h Museum. V o l . 2. London: 189 3. Whitehead, F r e d e r i c k . "The T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m o f t h e Chan- son de R o l a n d : An H i s t o r i c a l Review." S t u d i e s i n M e d i e v a l F r e n c h p r e s e n t e d t o A l f r e d E l w e r t . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 19 61*7 pp. 7 6-89. Wisbey, Roy. "Zum B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t R u d o l f s von Ems." Z e i t s c h r i f t f t i r d e u t s c h e s A l t e r t u m und d e u t s c h e " L i t e r a t u r , 86~TT955/56) , 293-301. W o r s t b r o c k , F r a n z J . Review o f t h e r e p r i n t e d e d i t i o n o f B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t von R u d o l f von Ems. Ed. F. P f e i f f e r . A n z e i g e r f u r d e u t s c h e s A l t e r t u m und d e u t s c h e L i t e r a t u r , 7 7 T T 9 6 6 ) , 111-15. Wyss, U l r i c h . " R u d o l f s von Ems Barlaam und J o s a p h a t z w i s c h e n Legende und Roman." Probleme m i t t e l h o c h - d e u t s c h e r E r z a h l f o r m e n : M a r b u r g e r C o l l o q i u m 1969. Eds. P. F. Ganz and W. Schro"der. B e r l i n : E r i c h S c h m i d t , 1972. 213 i G e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f R u d o l f von Eras's B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t The d i a l e c t d i v i s i o n f o l l o w s i n i t s major o u t l i n e s t h e map " S c h r i f t d i a l e k t e i n m i t - t e l h o c h d e u t s c h e r [-1350] und m i t t e l n i e d e r d e u t s c h e r [-1600] Z e i t , " c o n t a i n e d i n Herrn. Paul,' Mi11elhochdeu't sche Grammatik, 18th ed. ( T u b i n g e n , 1960) .

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Canada 16 0
Germany 4 12
United States 4 1
Japan 3 0
Serbia 3 2
China 2 11
Switzerland 1 0
Mexico 1 0
Spain 1 0
City Views Downloads
Toronto 16 0
Unknown 4 11
Belgrade 3 2
Tokyo 3 0
Berlin 2 1
Ashburn 2 0
Beijing 2 0
Madrid 1 0
Jackson Township 1 0
Seattle 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items