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 Zaenker, Karl August 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A1 Z33_9.pdf [ 8.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099942.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099942-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099942-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099942-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099942-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099942-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099942-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099942-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099942.ris

Full Text

THE MANUSCRIPT RELATIONSHIPS OF RUDOLF VON BARLAAM UND  EMS S 1  JOSAPHAT  WITH S P E C I A L REFERENCE TO  RUBRICATION,  by K a r l August  Zaenker  A thesis submitted i n p a r t i a l  fulfillment  the requirements f o r the degree  of  Doctor of Philosophy i n t h e Department of German We a c c e p t t h i s required  t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e  standard  The U n i v e r s i t y  of British  M a r c h 19 74  Columbia  of  In p r e s e n t i n g an the  advanced degree a t Library  I further for  this thesis  shall  the  of  this thesis  written  University  of B r i t i s h  permission for  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may his  f u l f i l m e n t of  make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e  agree t h a t  by  in partial  representatives.  be  permission.  Department  of  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  Columbia  shall  the  not  Columbia,  Head o f my  be  I agree and  copying of  It i s understood that  for f i n a n c i a l gain  requirements  for reference  extensive  g r a n t e d by  the  that  study.  this  thesis  Department  copying or  for  or  publication  allowed without  my  Abstract  The medieval legend o f the two S a i n t s Barlaam and Josaphat has a t t r a c t e d wide a t t e n t i o n s i n c e , i n the n i n e t e e n t h cent u r y , some o f i t s r o o t s were d i s c o v e r e d i n a n c i e n t I n d i e Buddha legends and p a r a b l e s . the  Our study l i m i t s i t s e l f  German v e r s i o n by Rudolf von Ems,  a free  from a L a t i n s o u r c e , w r i t t e n around 1225. work was  e d i t e d as e a r l y as 1818,  i t was  to  translation  Although  this  not u n t i l the  l a s t decade t h a t some d e t a i l e d but r a t h e r o p p o s i t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were devoted t o i t .  A l l r e c e n t s t u d i e s o f 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 o f 1843 which, however, has grave it  shortcomings:  takes o n l y a few manuscripts and fragments  into  account  s e l e c t s t h e i r r e a d i n g s at random, and does not p r o v i d e a reliable critical  apparatus.  p r i a t e to work towards  a new,  T h e r e f o r e , i t seemed approtruly c r i t i c a l  text  edition  which would be b e n e f i c i a l t o f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s  into  meaning and s t r u c t u r e o f the work. Our f i r s t step was and fragments  t o l o c a t e a l l e x i s t i n g manuscripts  and o b t a i n photocopies o f them.  For the  ensuing process o f a s s e s s i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n o r d e r to  determine t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l value f o r a t e x t  reconsti-  t u t i o n , we  t r i e d an approach d i f f e r e n t from  practice.  I n s t e a d o f b a s i n g a grouping on common r e a d i n g s  or  mistakes a l o n e , we began by comparing  traditional  the paragraph  -ii-  markings ( r u b r i c a t e d i n i t i a l s ) i n the major m a n u s c r i p t s . We  b e l i e v e t h a t they were p l a c e d  o r i g i n a l l y to  subdivide  the n a r r a t i v e and  t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , they were copied  l a t e r s c r i b e s and  rubricators.  During the  process i n v o l u n t a r y  or d e l i b e r a t e  which would show up  i n f u r t h e r copies  cate group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  transmissibn  "misplacements" and  T h e r e f o r e we  cation. marks i n a comprehensive c h a r t and  by  occurred  c o u l d thus  indi-  listed a l l rubricalculated  the  o v e r a l l agreement between the major manuscripts i n p e r c e n tage f i g u r e s . The C and  D,  evaluation  showed t h a t the o l d e s t two  as w e l l as A and  b have a very s i m i l a r r u b r i c a -  t i o n p a t t e r n , probably s t i l l This  manuscripts  c l o s e to the o r i g i n a l  l i k e n e s s makes i t d i f f i c u l t  i f not  one.  impossible  to  mine i f another manuscript i s r e l a t e d t o e i t h e r o f On the o t h e r hand, a c l e a r a f f i n i t y  c o u l d be  h a l f o f the t e x t and d i v i d e d the tions  C and  (covering  f i g u r e " o f one  ca.  and,  We  i f the  first had  i n t o f o u r even  4000 v e r s e s ) to see  to  L i n the  L i n the second h a l f .  t o t a l number o f i n i t i a l s  these.  established  between the h i t h e r t o o v e r l o o k e d manuscripts G, M, a l e s s e r e x t e n t , E, as w e l l as between W and  deter-  sec-  "agreement  manuscript to another changes markedly.  subsequent look at i n d i v i d u a l "spurious f a u l t s i n r u b r i c a t i o n ) confirmed the  initials"  (mostly  f i r s t results  e s t a b l i s h e d a t h i r d d e f i n i t e grouping, t h a t o f D K K C  only r e p r e s e n t e d by the  t e x t e d i t i o n of 1818).  A  and a  (K  a  is  A comparison  of the s m a l l e r fragments  which the main c r i t e r i o n was other manuscripts.  t h e i r t e x t u a l agreement w i t h  The r u b r i c a t i o n was  account but not overemphasized was We  followed i n  a l s o taken  s i n c e c o n c l u s i v e evidence  o f t e n l a c k i n g due t o the s h o r t n e s s o f most found t h a t i n t h r e e cases fragments  to one o t h e r w i s e l o s t manuscript o f the fragments  into  fragments.  belonged t o g e t h e r  (dq, mF2, and e l ) .  Many  showed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the GEM-group,  whereas o n l y very few  seemed r e l a t e d t o e i t h e r A, b, C, or  D. T h i s sampling o f common v a r i a n t s and t e x t  omissions  throughout the work s e r v e d a l s o t o 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." mentioned  In g e n e r a l , the above  groupings were confirmed or s l i g h t l y m o d i f i e d .  I t became c l e a r t h a t i n some cases a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d t r a n s m i s s i o n (as r e p r e s e n t e d i n a stemma) cannot assumed.  text  be  E s p e c i a l l y i n the l o o s e l y r e l a t e d body o f manu-  s c r i p t s A, b, ( B ) , C, L, and W,  t h e r e i s s t r o n g evidence  of contamination which would make a t e n t a t i v e tion f u t i l e .  classifica-  A c r i t i c a l e d i t i o n s h o u l d , i n our  view,  f o l l o w the o l d r e l i a b l e F r e i b u r g codex D as l e a d manus c r i p t and c o n f r o n t i t s t e x t c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h the r e a d ings and paragraphs mainly C and The  o f the o t h e r two  large  groupings,  G.  c l o s i n g c h a p t e r o u t l i n e s the s p r e a d i n g o f Rudolf's  -iv-  Barlaam und Josaphat as documented i n i t s manuscript dition,  from i t s l i m i t e d  Alpine origin  tra-  to i t s p o p u l a r i t y  w i t h i n the T e u t o n i c Order o f Knights i n E a s t P r u s s i a  until  i t s l a s t f l o w e r i n g i n Southern Germany at the end o f the fifteenth  century.  V  Content s page 1. Survey o f Barlaam r e s e a r c h t o the p r e s e n t day 1.1. Understanding o f the t e x t  1  1.2. The t e x t t r a d i t i o n  6  2. The Barlaam manuscripts  18  2.1. Major manuscripts  19  2.2. S m a l l e r fragments  22  3. Study o f r u b r i c a t i o n  c  3.1. T e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m and comparison  of i n i t i a l s  3.2. Chart o f i n i t i a l s  38  3.3. E v a l u a t i o n o f the i n i t i a l 3.3.1. Frequency  27  systems  i n the p l a c i n g o f i n i t i a l s  3.3". 2. Manuscripts A, b, C, D  91 94  3.3.3. M a n u s c r i p t s L and W  101  3.3.4. Manuscripts G, M, and E  104  3.3.5. The K-manuscripts  (K , K , K ) a  b  C  107  3.4. Spurious 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 the b e g i n n i n g o f a paragraph  110  4. The s m a l l e r fragments 4.1. I n t r o d u c t o r y remarks  117  vi  page 4.2. Matching fragments 4.2.1. Fragments d and q  119  4.2.2. Fragments  12 5  e and 1  4.2.3. Fragments m and F2  130  4.3. S i n g l e 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 " B a s e l fragment"  156  4.3.8. F3  157  4.3.9. F6 " B r e s l a u fragment"  159  4.3.10. F7 " F r e i b u r g 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  171  fragment"  4.3.14. F l l " O e t t i n g e n fragment"  17 3  4.3.15. F13 "London  fragment"  175  4.3.16. F18 " B e r l i n fragment"  177  5. C o n c l u s i o n  VX1  5.1.  F i n a l grouping of manuscripts based on and  5.2.  rubrication  The 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 Barlaam und  Josaphat  L i s t o f Works  Map:  text  Cited  G e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of Rudolf von  Barlaam und  Josaphat  Ems'  1  1.  Survey o f Barlaam r e s e a r c h  1.1.  Understanding o f the  The  t o the p r e s e n t  text  s t o r y o f Barlaam and  Josaphat, though seemingly  to the l i t e r a r y t a s t e of today, i s one spread themes o f world l i t e r a t u r e . prehensive b i b l i o g r a p h y  foreign  o f the most wide-  Hiram P e r i , i n h i s com-  o f the l e g e n d , i n c l u d i n g the  pre-Christian forerunners, different vernaculars.^  day  c i t e s versions  The  i n almost f o r t y  Buddhist core  disputed  o f the  matter and  i t s complex and  considered  i n t h i s study; the work o f P e r i gives 2  introduction into this f i e l d .  We  few  subject  t r a d i t i o n w i l l not a good  s h a l l l i m i t ourselves  the Middle High German v e r s i o n , c r e a t e d by Rudolf von around the y e a r 1225 "Vulgata"  a f t e r a L a t i n model.  to  Ems  This s o - c a l l e d  v e r s i o n from which a l l the m e d i e v a l Barlaam t e x t s  descend i s i t s e l f one  o f two  e a r l y t r a n s l a t i o n s of  Greek Barlaam, composed p r o b a b l y i n the e i g h t h John of Damascus a c c o r d i n g  to diverse o l d e r  Although both Barlaam and  the  century  sources.  o f the Roman C a t h o l i c  Church, the M a r t y r o l o g i u m Romanum, the t e x t i t s e l f does a t y p i c a l Saint's v i t a .  by  Josaphat are r e g i s t e r e d i n  the a u t h o r i t a t i v e S a i n t s ' c a l e n d a r  represent  be  This i s i n d i c a t e d  not  already  ^ Hiram P e r i , Der R e l i g i o n s d i s p u t der Barlaam-Legende ( U n i v e r s i d a d de Salamanca, 1959), pp. 223-272. 2 See a l s o the study by C h a r l o t t e N a g l e r , "Studien zu Barlaam und Josaphat von Rudolf von Ems," Diss. Karlsruhe 19 72, which takes xnto c o n s i d e r a t i o n the S t o f f g e s c h i c h t e •  2  by the r a t h e r unusual naming o f two s a i n t s 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 m i r a c l e works o f one h e a v e n - i n s p i r e d man, but r a t h e r on the i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t the neophyte Josaphat  r e c e i v e s from h i s  God-appointed t e a c h e r Barlaam, h i s observance a t i o n o f the C h r i s t i a n t e a c h i n g s and, f i n a l l y ,  and d i s s e m i n the r e u n i f i -  c a t i o n o f t e a c h e r and d i s c i p l e i n a common a s c e t i c  life.  We accept H. B r a c k e r t ' s t h e s i s , t h a t Rudolf's work s h o u l d not be regarded  as a " m i r a c l e legend"  (Wunderlegende), but  r a t h e r as the much r a r e r type o f " c o n v e r s i o n s t o r y " rungsgeschichte).  (Bekeh-  The overcoming o f heathendom and t h e  v i c t o r y o f C h r i s t i a n i t y are demonstrated i n s e v e r a l r e p e a t e d instances.  The c o n v e r s i o n o f the heathen prophets  and Theodas (Barlaam  11030-11264 and 13179-13310) , t h e 4  C h r i s t i a n i z a t i o n o f h i s own kingdom through as the crowning all  Nachor  Josaphat and,  triumph, the c o n v e r s i o n o f h i s own f a t h e r -  o f t h i s c o n s t i t u t e s the g l o r y  (ruom) o f t h e " e l e c t " ( d e r  gotes e r w e l t e r e i n e , 15841) and bestows on him, i n martyrdom's s t e a d , the rank o f s a i n t h o o d .  To t h i s i s a l s o added  a fundamental f e a t u r e o f most legends, the p e r s o n a l s t e a d f a s t n e s s o f the neophyte, who must m a i n t a i n h i m s e l f a g a i n s t a l l w o r l d l y temptations;  i n the case o f Josaphat,  they  3  schichte 4  Helmut B r a c k e r t , Rudolf von Ems: Dichtung und Ge( H e i d e l b e r g : U n i v e r s i t a t s v e r l a g , 1968), p. 214.  Quoted a f t e r Franz P f e i f f e r , ed., Rudolf von Ems: Barlaam und Josaphat (1843; r p t . B e r l i n : de Gruyter, 1965).  3  appear i n the form o f r e a s o n , l o v e , and power.  b  The popu-  l a r i t y o f the Barlaam and Josaphat s t o r y 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 i n form o f p a r a b l e s , the  exempla, w i t h which the lengthy i n s t r u c t i o n s  interpretations  were i l l u s t r a t e d and i n which  f a i r y - t a l e m o t i f s have found t h e i r way  and  Bible  oriental  i n t o the Western  world. The Barlaam m a t e r i a l has been e x t e n s i v e l y s t u d i e d by d i v e r s e d i s c i p l i n e s d u r i n g the past hundred y e a r s , which prompted  J . Sonet t o b e g i n the p r e f a c e o f h i s book on the  L a t i n and French Barlaam v e r s i o n s w i t h the words: de Barlaam e t Josaphat a d e j a f a i t Surprisingly,  "Le roman  c o u l e r des f l o t s  d'encre."  on the o t h e r hand, the Germanists had  treated  7  Rudolf's work " s t i e f m u t t e r l i c h , " ity  although such an author-  as de Boor termed i t "von der Form h e r . . . das 8  klassischste  Werk R u d o l f s . "  reinste,  In f a c t t h i s n e g l i g e n c e i s  9 inexplicable,  the more so as R u d o l f ' s Barlaam was  one o f  5 see Johannes Erben, "Zu Rudolfs Barlaam und Josaphat," i n 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. Thurnherr (Innsbruck, 1969), pp. 34-35. g  Jean Sonet, Le_ Roman de Barlaam et Josaphat: Recherches s u r l a t r a d i t i o n manuscrite l a t i n e et f r a n c a i s e (Namur, 19 49T7 7  Heinz Rupp, "Rudolfs von Ems Barlaam and Josaphat," i n Dienendes Wort: Festgabe Bender ( K a r l s r u h e , 19 59) , p. 11. g  p.  H. de Boor, Die httfische L i t e r a t u r  (Munich, 1953),  187. 9  see Roy Wisbey, "Zum Barlaam und Josaphat R u d o l f s von Ems," ZfdA 86 (1955/56), 294.  4  the e a r l i e s t r e p r i n t e d t e x t s i n the h i s t o r y o f German medieval  philology. I t was  o n l y i n the l a s t decade t h a t Barlaam began t o  r e c e i v e g r e a t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , p r i m a r i l y due o f H. Rupp's two edition.  essays  to the  efforts  and h i s r e p r i n t o f P f e i f f e r ' s  Since then t h e r e has e v o l v e d some d i s c u s s i o n as  t o the l i t e r a r y e v a l u a t i o n of t h i s work: an i n h e r e n t r e l i g i o u s c r i s i s  does i t m a n i f e s t  of i t s author; i s i t p u r e l y  contemptus mundi poetry ( a c c o r d i n g t o de Boor, Die httfische L i t e r a t u r , pp.  177  and 181); o r i s the accent more on the  work and e f f e c t o f the S a i n t w i t h i n the world, and does the author a c t u a l l y d i s a s s o c i a t e h i m s e l f from the i d e a o f ascet i c i s m p r e s e n t e d i n the L a t i n source, as R. S c h n e l l postul a t e s i n accordance  w i t h Rupp's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ? " ^  Does the 12  "httfische Form" stamp the c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s r e l i g i o u s work, o r I s i t to be understood ( l e r e ) and  almost as d i d a c t i c  literature  "Exemplum e i n e s d i e s e r l e r e entsprechenden  v e r h a l t e n s , " a c c o r d i n g t o H. B r a c k e r t (pp. 214-2 20)? how  WeltAnd  does t h i s r e l a t e t o the v e r d i c t of "Epigonentum" which  has been commonly a p p l i e d t o Rudolf's works?  Does h i s  Heinz Rupp, "Rudolf von Ems und Konrad von Wurzburg," Der D e u t s c h u n t e r r i c h t 17, No. 2 (1965), 5-17. See a l s o f o o t n o t e 7. RUdiger S c h n e l l , Rudolf von Ems: S t u d i e n zur i n n e ren E i n h e i t s e i n e s 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 o f the Barlaam legend p o i n t i n t o the f u t u r e o f t h i s genre, and i s Rudolf t h e r e f o r e not a mere i m i t a t o r o f the great medieval  e p i c a u t h o r s , but r a t h e r a f o r e r u n n e r o f 13  l a t e r developments, as H. Rupp sees i t ? Barlaam an ambivalent  mixture  z i n g t e n d e n c i e s , an unsolved  Or i s t h e r e i n  o f i d e a l i z i n g and p r o b l e m a t i c i c o n f l i c t between legend and  c o u r t l y romance, which would c h a r a c t e r i z e the work as e p i gonal"?  1 4  These q u e s t i o n s must remain open i n t h i s c o n t e x t . o r d e r t o answer them, i t would be n e c e s s a r y  In  t o make an i n -  t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s o f the t e x t i n r e s p e c t t o i t s L a t i n and 15 Greek p r e c u r s o r s , o f the time  as w e l l as o t h e r s i m i l a r l i t e r a r y works  ( S a i n t s ' v i t a e , c o u r t l y legends and  romances) t o determine the s p e c i f i c p o s i t i o n o f Barlaam i n terms o f i t s genre.  We have merely a l l u d e d here t o t h e v a r -  i o u s f a c e t s o f t h i s work o f Rudolf von Ems and t o 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 ade  d u r i n g the past dec-  i n o r d e r t o achieve a b e t t e r understanding  o f the t e x t  -s c  and r e a s s e s s the rank o f 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 m i t t e l h o c h d e u t s c h e r Erzahlformen, ed. P. F. Ganz and W. Schroder ( B e r l i n , 1972), pp. 214-238. ^ The study by Hannah C z i z e k , "Rudolfs von Ems Barlaam und Josaphat 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 . Vienna 19 31 a p p l i e s q u e s t i o n a b l e c a t e g o r i e s and i s o f l i t t l e use. x  6  1.2. The t e x t  tradition  The aforementioned  c o n t r i b u t i o n s , 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 r e s p e c t : they do not take i n t o account the manuscript t r a d i t i o n o f Barlaam.  The o n l y a v a i l a b l e e d i t i o n o f t h i s work, 130 years  o l d , seems t o be t a c i t l y accepted as p r e s e n t i n g the " r i g h t " t e x t and i s not e x p r e s s l y q u e s t i o n e d .  An e v a l u a t i o n o f the  e x i s t i n g Barlaam manuscripts and t h e i r t e x t v e r s i o n s has not been attempted  so f a r , although i t would seem important  t o come t o p o s i t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the t e x t — w h i c h a l s o i n c l u d e s the t e x t r e c e p t i o n by l a t e r before drawing  tradition scribes—  any i n f e r e n c e s as t o the i n t e n t i o n o f the  author and the genre o f the work.  As l o n g as the t e x t i t -  s e l f does not stand on f i r m e r ground,  interpretations of i t  cannot be w e l l - f o u n d e d . Let us t a k e , f o r example, the d i s c u s s i o n over t h e meani n g of the author's d i g r e s s i o n s (the c o u r t l y  "Damenpreis,"  11735-870 ,. and the "Schimpf rede," 12259-289) i n the c o n t e x t o f the e n t i r e work..  None o f t h e modern i n t e r p r e t e r s has  remarked on the f a c t t h a t these passages  appear  complete i n  only f o u r o f the twelve major manuscripts t h a t we know o f ( i n A, B, b, and E, as opposed t o C, D, G, K , K , a  b  K, c  L,  and the Vienna manuscript W), and none has examined the consequences  which c o u l d be drawn from t h i s f a c t w i t h r e g a r d  to the r e c e p t i o n o r p o s s i b l y even the c o n c e p t i o n o f Barlaam  7  und  Josaphat. Or, t o c i t e a l e s s e r example, H. Rupp bases h i s t h e s i s  t h a t Josaphat  i s summoned t o be a c t i v e w i t h i n the w o r l d , t o  f u l f i l l h i s p o s i t i o n as a C h r i s t i a n r u l e r o f a country p a r t l y on v e r s e s 6571-75, i n which Barlaam admonishes h i s d i s c i p l e not t o f o l l o w him t o h i s wis e i n b r e d i g a e r e  gotes  unde e i n l e r e r s i n s wan  hermitage.  gebotes,  dus gar g e w a l t i c 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 g e t l i r r e s i n  ..."  H. B r a c k e r t , on the o t h e r hand, c o n t r a d i c t s Rupp's argument as f o l l o w s : 'wan  "Doch v e r g l e i c h e n w i r den Text.  dus gar gewaltec b i s t . '  Barlaam s a g t :  Der G e n i t i v b e z i e h t s i c h  auf  d i e beiden vorhergehenden S u b s t a n t i v e b r e d i g a e r e , l e r e r . Es i s t a l s o keineswegs vom ( B r a c k e r t , p. 217).  Ftirstenamt s c h l e c h t h i n d i e Rede"  On examining  the m a n u s c r i p t s , we  con-  c l u d e t h a t P f e i f f e r ' s r e a d i n g i n 6 57 3 i s based o n l y on manu s c r i p t s E and D, s t r i c t l y speaking. come very c l o s e ("wan  Manuscripts A and G  du des gar g e w a l t i c b i s t , " and  du i s gar g e w a l t i c b i s t " ) , and a l s o manuscripts and W read b a s i c a l l y the same ("wan r e f e r r i n g thus t o gebote). however, by the r e a d i n g o f K  "wan  C, E, L,  du s e i n gar  ..."  Rupp's e x p l a n a t i o n i s supported, ("wan  and e q u a l l y by the B e r l i n codex K  du gar g e w a l t i c b i s t " ) which omits  verses  6571-74 e n t i r e l y and c o n t i n u e s by r e v e r s i n g l i n e s  6575 and  8  6576 ("wan  niemen g e t u r r e wider d i r s i n " ) , which would  a l l u d e t o the "FUrstenamt" which B r a c k e r t emphasizes  r a t h e r than the primarily.  "Predigeramt"  To be sure B r a c k e r t ' 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 t h a t o f Rupp.  However, the " c o r r e c t , " o r r a t h e r the  most probable, r e a d i n g cannot be taken from a p u r e l y  numeri-  c a l " m a j o r i t y d e c i s i o n " from the m a n u s c r i p t s , as l o n g as t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s one t o another have not been examined. The r e d i s c o v e r y o f Rudolf's Barlaam the names o f the g r e a t l i t e r a r y ment, Gottsched and Bodmer.  The  critics  i s connected w i t h o f the E n l i g h t e n -  seventh volume o f the  lit-  e r a r y 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) , e d i t e d by Johann C h r i s t o p h  Gottsched, c o n t a i n e d a s h o r t d e s c r i p t i o n by Conrad A r n o l d Schmid and an e x t r a c t o f almost 200 v e r s e s o f an incomplete manuscript found near Llineburg ( l a t e r bought  by the  British  Museum). Shortly  after this,  fragmentary passages  Johann Jacob Bodmer p r i n t e d  several  o f Barlaam und Josaphat i n a d d i t i o n t o 17  his Nibelungenlied text.  Bodmer had r e c e i v e d 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 a t Hohenems C a s t l e , and f o l l o w e d them 16 See H. L. D. Ward, Catalogue o f Romances i n the Department o f Manuscripts i n the Britis~h~Tluseum, I I (London, 1893), 142. 17 Chriemhilden Rache und d i e Klage, zwei Heldengedichte aus dem schwabischen Z e i t p u n c t e ( Z u r i c h , 17 5 7), pp. 251-286.  9  i n his e d i t i o n .  His Barlaam  e x c e r p t s are headed by  and present the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s : (1-62), "Eingang" trefflichkeit  "Anfang des  titles  Gedichtes"  (125-164), " L i t u r g i c a "  (6673-6956),  "Vor-  der c h r i s t l i c h e n R e l i g i o n "  (10825-10950  and  12747-12894), "Hymnus" (139 0 7-14049), "Traum" (12 32 5-125 32), "Ablegung der Krone" (14751-14904), and, Gedichtes"  (16022-16164).  finally,  Bodmer seemed to be  "Ende des  interested  merely i n o f f e r i n g h i s p u b l i c a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e l e c t i o n o f the work, and not i n p r e p a r i n g a complete e d i t i o n o f Barlaam, which, a f t e r a l l , was  o n l y o f minor i n t e r e s t t o him  compared to h i s N i b e T u n g e n l i e d take a f i r s t  studies.  He  d i d , however,  s m a l l s t e p i n the d i r e c t i o n o f a c r i t i c a l  t i o n , i n t h a t he annotated  h i s f i r s t passage w i t h s e v e r a l  v a r i a n t s o f a S t r a s s b u r g manuscript fragment, P f e i f f e r ' s s i g l e :  edi-  a).  ( p r o b a b l y the l a r g e  T h i s Hohenems  manuscript  used by Bodmer came i n t o the p o s s e s s i o n o f F r e i h e r r Joseph von Lassberg a t the b e g i n n i n g o f the n i n e t e e n t h who  claimed i t t o be R u d o l f ' s own  handwritten  century,  work.  had a l r e a d y shown a much more e n l i g h t e n e d judgment on  Bodmer the  18 value o f h i s two  Barlaam m a n u s c r i p t s ,  and K a r l Lachmann  i n h i s l e t t e r t o Jacob Grimm o f March 27, 1821  dismisses  19 Lassberg's  assertion rather i r o n i c a l l y .  18 "Es s c h e i n t , dass j e d e r S c h r e i b e r s i c h e i n e eigene B u c h s t a b i e r a r t erfunden, und grosse F r e y h e i t e n genommen habe." (Chriemhi1den Rache . . ., p. 253). 19 B r i e f w e c h s e l der Briider Jacob und' Wilhelm Grimm mit K a r l Lachmann, ed. A. Leitzmann (Jena, 1927) , pp. 289-290 .  10  The  first  complete e d i t i o n o f Barlaam und Josaphat  p u b l i s h e d i n 1818  by F r i e d r i c h K a r l Ktipke, w i t h an  was  appendixed  l i s t o f c o r r e c t i o n s and commentaries c o n t r i b u t e d by  the  20 young K a r l Lachmann.  Kfipke, who  was  Gymnasialprofessor  Ktinigsberg a t t h a t time, based h i s e d i t i o n on two  in  manuscripts  found i n the Kttnigliche Btichersammlung a t Kfinigsberg ( P f e i f fer's sigles K in Berlin  a  and K ) , as w e l l as on a manuscript b  preserved  ( P f e i f f e r ' s s i g l e K ) , o f which he o b t a i n e d a copy c  w r i t t e n f o r him by J . G. Btisching.  In a d d i t i o n K5pke men-  t i o n e d some o f the v a r i a n t readings o f the Bodmer s e l e c t i o n s . Kttpke defended follows:  the method o f h i s e d i t i o n i n h i s p r e f a c e as  "Es s i n d i n den neuesten  a l t e deutsche  Z e i t e n uber d i e A r t , wie  Gedichte herausgegeben werden s o l l e n , v e r -  schiedene A n s i c h t e n bekannt geworden, so lange aber  aus  d i e s e n noch n i c h t e i n bestimmtes E r g e b n i s s gezogen werden kann, s c h i e n es am g e r a t h e n s t e n , d i e a l t e s t e von den Hands c h r i f t e n , welche zu Gebote standen  [ t h i s would mean K ] , a  zum  Grunde zu l e g e n und von d i e s e r nur dann abzuweichen  die  L e s a r t e i n e r andern aufzunehmen, wenn d i e e r s t e e i n e n  e n t s c h i e d e n v e r d e r b t e n Text b i e t e t ; alsdann muss aber lich  und  frei-  i n den L e s a r t e n N a c h r i c h t davon gegeben werden.  Dieses V e r f a h r e n i s t b e i nachfolgendem Abdrucke  beobachtet  worden" (KSpke, pp. V I I - V I I I ) . 20  F. K. Kttpke, Barlaam und Josaphat von R u d o l f von Montfort (Kttnigsberg, 1818) . We quote from i t s second e d i t i o n ( L e i p z i g , 1838), h e n c e f o r t h r e f e r r e d t o 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 —appears long way  nowadays p e r f e c t l y l e g i t i m a t e .  manuscript  I t i s however a  from the method o f t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m which became  standard f o r medieval e d i t i o n s by the second h a l f o f the nineteenth century. who  I t i s understandable t h a t Lachmann,  i s regarded as h a v i n g i n i t i a t e d t h i s method i n the  field  o f German p h i l o l o g y , expressed some c a u t i o u s r e s e r v a t i o n s i n the appendix o f Kttpke s e d i t i o n : 1  "Ubrigens i s t I h r Streben  sowohl wie meines nur auf e i n e n l e s b a r e n Abdruck gegangen: zu e i n e r k r i t i s c h e n Ausgabe f e h l t e es an H u l f s m i t t e l n " (Kopke, p.  436).  S i n c e the two Kfinigsberg manuscripts i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y were d e s t r o y e d a t the end of World War  I I , we  dependent on Kttpke's e d i t i o n as f a r as our  investigations  into K  and K*  a  3  are concerned.  remain  F o r t h i s r e a s o n , i t appears  necessary to r e s p e c t Lachmann's o p i n i o n , s i n c e he had compared K  a  and  with Kflpke's v e r s i o n .  F i r s t , he makes sev-  e r a l n e g a t i v e comments on the v a l u e o f K , a  remarking  on  ". . . d i e ungeheure Menge von S c h r e i b f e h l e r n , d i e s c h l e c h t e O r t h o g r a p h i e , und d i e nur s e i t e n schfine, aber sehr u n g l e i c h e Schrift  . . ."  (KSpke, p. 428).  primarily reflect  Lachmann's own  While t h i s judgment  may  i d e a l i s t i c concept o f a  uniform Middle High German p o e t i c language, h i s v e r d i c t  on  Kttpke's r e l i a b i l i t y as an e d i t o r cannot be o v e r l o o k e d .  In  h i s correspondence w i t h Jacob Grimm, Lachmann g i v e s f r e e r e i n to h i s d i s p l e a s u r e .  He not o n l y reproaches Ktipke f o r  12  being " b o r n i e r t , unwissend, t r a g e und l a c h e r l i c h  eitel,"  he a l s o accuses him o f d i s h o n e s t y and d e l i b e r a t e d e c e p t i o n (in  another e d i t i o n , Ktipke had t a c i t l y o m i t t e d s e v e r a l v e r -  ses).  He r e c a l l s ". . . wie 1816 b e i meiner Ankunft  sein  d r u c k f e r t i g e r Barlaam, mit dem G l o s s a r i u m von 6-8 Q u a r t b l a t t e r n , aussah  (es f e h l t e n ganze Verse, von d e r s c h l e c h t e n  Orthographie war eben das f e h l e r h a f t e s t e b e i b e h a l t e n , sammt a l i e n S c h r e i b f e h l e r n , i n d e r e r s t e n H a l f t e s t a n d daz, i n der zweiten das; im G l o s s a r i u m k e i n C i t a t , aber  enwizzen  21 und andre  Ungeheuer)."  The o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n by Kttpke which we can s t i l l v e r i f y concerns h i s notes t o the B e r l i n manuscript  K .  Many o f i t s pages a r e not a t a l l annotated, b u t a t l e a s t KSpke mentions the many omissions i n K , a l b e i t incorrectly:  partially  i n s t e a d o f 157,27 - 158,25 i t s h o u l d be 157,7  - 158,35, and i n s t e a d o f 356,31-32 i t s h o u l d r a t h e r be 356, 23-24 and 356,27-28 i n KSpke s e d i t i o n 1  ( t h i s corresponds t o  6229-6297 as w e l l as 14307-308 and 14311-312 i n P f e i f f e r ' s edition). mation  N e i t h e r Kfipke nor Lachmann have g i v e n any i n f o r -  as t o the placement  manuscripts.  of i n i t i a l s  T h e r e f o r e , we can merely  i n the Kfinigsberg suppose t h a t a p a r a -  graph i n Kttpke's e d i t i o n compares w i t h an i n i t i a l i n the text of K . a  In  s p i t e o f these o b j e c t i o n s , we must n a t u r a l l y use  Kttpke's t e x t as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f K , but we are e n t i t l e d a  21  B r i e f w e c h s e l , p. 223. L e t t e r o f November 5, 1820.  13  to some s c e p t i c i s m as to i t s accuracy. b l a c k of a v a r i a n t f o r K  Moreover, the mere  c or K  i n Kfipke's apparatus does  not prove eo i p s o t h a t they share  a p a r t i c u l a r reading  with  K. a  F i v e years a f t e r the second p r i n t i n g o f Kfipke's Barlaam und Josaphat  Franz P f e i f f e r p u b l i s h e d h i s c r i t i c a l  of t h i s work.  edition  He named the author no l o n g e r a f t e r h i s over-  l o r d , the Count o f M o n t f o r t , but r a t h e r a c c o r d i n g t o h i s p l a c e of o r i g i n , Hohenems (thus f o l l o w i n g the of Rudolf's W e l t c h r o n i k ) .  continuator  In the p r e f a c e o f h i s e d i t i o n  P f e i f f e r s e t s h i m s e l f a p a r t from Ktipke w i t h s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e : "Seinen  Zweck b l o s s einen l e s b a r e n Abdruck zu geben hat  er  ohne Z w e i f e l e r r e i c h t , und wenn der Abdruck auch Manches zu wunschen t i b r i g l i e s s , so waere es doch u n b i l l i g , den Massstab unserer  Z e i t daran l e g e n zu w o l l e n .  dahin, e i n e Ausgabe zu l i e f e r n , wie Standpunkt der W i s s e n s c h a f t  Mein Streben  s i e der  gegenwartige  v e r l a n g t " (Barlaam, p.  T h i s r e c e n t stage i n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m t o which  o f Hartmann von Aue's Iwein, which a l s o appeared i n can a l l u d e t o t h i s method b r i e f l y as t h a t o f  XIV).  Pfeiffer  r e f e r s i s embodied at i t s b e s t i n Lachmann's second  We  gieng  edition 22 1813.  classical  p h i l o l o g y , i n t r o d u c e d by Lachmann i n t o the f i e l d o f medieval text editions.  A c c o r d i n g t o the u s u a l d e s c r i p t i o n i t con-  s i s t s of t h r e e s t e p s :  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 G r u y t e r , 1962) which c o n t a i n s the o r i g i n a l "Anmerkungen und L e s a r t e n 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 -  s h i p ) , emendatio ( e l i m i n a t i o n of e r r o r s i n the t e x t  tradi-  t i o n , s e c u r i n g the b e s t t e x t v e r s i o n ) , and c o n j e c t i o  (hypo-  t h e t i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the o r i g i n a l r e a d i n g i n f a c e of 23 a corrupt passage. Measured a g a i n s t these s t a n d a r d s , P f e i f f e r  certainly  did  not reach h i s g o a l — b u t the same h o l d s t r u e f o r Lach24 mann's own e d i t o r i a l work. To b e g i n w i t h , P f e i f f e r d i d not base h i s e d i t i o n on "den gesamten damals bekannten 25 Handschriften-Bestand,"  as J . Klapper m a i n t a i n s ,  on the f o l l o w i n g s i x m a n u s c r i p t s : (the  A, B, C, D, E, and b  incomplete H e i d e l b e r g manuscript  under h i s fragments).  which P f e i f f e r  lists  In a d d i t i o n , he draws on fragment a  and t h r e e l e s s e r fragments  c, d, and e, as w e l l as ( f o r the  Parable o f the U n i c o r n o n l y ) on fragments f e r ' s apparatus  but o n l y  f and g.  Pfeif-  c o n t a i n s a l s o d i f f e r e n t r e a d i n g s o f the  Kttpke e d i t i o n ( P f e i f f e r ' s s i g l e K ) , w i t h o u t however p a s s i n g on i t s v a r i a n t s f o r K and K . P f e i f f e r ' s choice of 23 See F r i e d r i c h Neumann, S t u d i e n zur G e s c h i c h t e der deutschen P h i l o l o g i e ( B e r l i n , 1971), pp. 17-18. 24 The d i s c r e p a n c y between Lachmann s r i g o r o u s theoret i c a l demands and h i s own p r a c t i c e i n the f i e l d of t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m has been p o i n t e d out c o n v i n c i n g l y by Rudolf A. H o f m e i s t e r , "Lachmann s Role i n the T r a n s m i s s i o n of P a r z i v a l , " Seminar X, 2 (1974) 87-100. 25 J . K l a p p e r , "Barlaam und Josaphat," i n V e r f a s s e r l e x i k o n , ed. W. Stammler, I ( B e r l i n , 1933), p. 170. 26 Except f o r two c a s e s , the o m i s s i o n of the author's d i g r e s s i o n s i n K^ and K (see Barlaam, pp. 449 and 451). Even here P f e i f f e r ' s i n f o r m a t i o n i s p a r t i c a l l y f a u l t y i n i t s details. 1  1  f  c  15  s i g l e s i s g e n e r a l l y u n f o r t u n a t e s i n c e i t does not  differ-  t i a t e between v e l l u m and paper manuscripts by u s i n g c a p i t a l and s m a l l l e t t e r s , i t does not rank b among h i s major manus c r i p t s , and i t confuses s i g l e K and K . a  f u r t h e r manuscripts which  There were f i v e  P f e i f f e r s h o u l d have been a c q u a i n t e d  w i t h , as they were a l r e a d y 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 f o r m e r l y owned by Raimund K r a f f t a t W,  Ulm  a former Ambras codex i n Vienna.  P f e i f f e r mentions  G and W at one p l a c e i n h i s apparatus  (Barlaam, p. 4 4 9 , c o n c e r n i n g the author's d i g r e s s i o n ) , but he had a p p a r e n t l y not c o n s u l t e d them h i m s e l f . Furthermore,  P f e i f f e r d i d not undertake t o study i n  d e t a i l the p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f h i s m a n u s c r i p t s ; he contents h i m s e l f w i t h a c a t e g o r i c a l remark on the o f D and "K"  as w e l l as o f B and b.  affinity  On the o t h e r hand, he  d i d not a t t r i b u t e an o u t s t a n d i n g v a l u e t o any o f h i s Barlaam manuscripts which would have a l l o w e d him t o f o l l o w i t as a " L e i t h a n d s c h r i f t . "  T h e r e f o r e he f e e l s e n t i t l e d t o  s e l e c t the a p p r o p r i a t e r e a d i n g from any one o f the manus c r i p t s , depending  on h i s own  judgment alone (see  Barlaam,  27  L i t e r a r i s c h e r G r u n d r i s s zur G e s c h i c h t e der Deutschen Poesie von der a l t e s t e n Z e i t b i s i n das 1 6 . J a h r h u n d e r t , ed. F. H. von der Hagen and J . G. Busching ( B e r l i n , 1 8 1 2 ) , pp.  282-94.  16  p. 409). I t cannot be expected the d i v e r g e n t readings  t h a t P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus  o f a l l manuscripts  contains  f o r each v e r s e ;  Lachmann h i m s e l f emphasizes the need f o r w i t h h o l d i n g  such  28 superfluous  i n f o r m a t i o n i n h i s Iwein commentary.  cannot o v e r l o o k  But we  the f a c t t h a t the v a r i a n t s p r o v i d e d by  P f e i f f e r are f r e q u e n t l y m i s l e a d i n g o r f a u l t y . As p r o o f , l e t us r e c t i f y here merely some o f P f e i f f e r ' s i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the omission not m i s s i n g  of verses.  i n E; 120,11-12 and 120,33-34 are m i s s i n g i n b;  155,17-18 are omitted  i n E (and K G ) ; 230,36-38 are omitted b  i n E; 275,32 and 277,10 are not o m i t t e d are m i s s i n g K  a  i n d; t h r e e  leaves  i n C between 276,23-389,30; 402,3-4 r e v e r s e d i n  and K , but not i n A. c  91,21-22 are  These are o n l y a few out o f many  more i n c o r r e c t i n d i c a t i o n s , but the amount o f  suppressed  i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h a t k i n d i s even f a r g r e a t e r i n P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus. Moreover, P f e i f f e r n e g l e c t e d t o mention t h a t C and E i n s e r t L a t i n Bible quotations  i n c e r t a i n passages.  In one  r e g a r d P f e i f f e r went beyond Lachmann's p r a c t i c e , i n t h a t he i n c l u d e d paragraph markings i n h i s c r i t i c a l apparatus.  But  here, t o o , h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s so s p o r a d i c and i n a c c u r a t e t h a t i t can only be c o n s i d e r e d a step i n the r i g h t  direction.  T h i s l a c k i s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e g r e t t a b l e i n the case o f manus c r i p t s B and a which have meanwhile been 2 8  destroyed.  Iwein, 6th ed. ( B e r l i n , 1962), pp. 362-63.  17  During  the  text  witnesses  tion  of  entire  these  past  130  years  great  number o f  have been d i s c o v e r e d . has  yet  been e v a l u a t e d  text transmission.  attempt  a  in this  regard  The  was  first  additional  However, a  small  i n the  context  and  far only  made i n t h e  so  por-  of  dissertation  the  published by  F.  29 Stthns.  S6hns based h i s s t u d y  tus  e x p l a i n s many o f  which  took  into  account  one  ( h , i , k,  Stthns  drew h i s c o n c l u s i o n s  manuscript  m,  obtained  a handwritten  1  are  h,  added  edition tively  chapter  and  1.  by  H.  from  2.2).  pp.  appara-  and  it,  collations fragments  frag-  and  n,  This  however, as  L  Diemer  i and  k  himself  collations  464-505).  of  of of  and  SGhns  h,  the  had  i , k,  and  Pfeiffer i s of  shows a v e r y  to  examined  L,  appendix  he  six  second hand, a c c o r d i n g  Of  own  (L)  fragments m  Rupp t o h i s r e p r i n t i n g  value  Pfeiffer's  In a d d i t i o n to  c o p y , w h e r e a s he  Stthns's  (Barlaam, little  Regarding  d e s c r i p t i o n s and  (see  L,  i t s flaws.  n).  Minzloff  only  on  further, manuscript  ments  the  1,  mainly  rela-  corrupt  text  3 0 version,  and  pared w i t h H.  has  ture can  the  fragments,  l and  k,  rank  low  com-  others.  solution  aware  (see  become o b v i o u s  and no  of  Rupp i s w e l l  temporary It  two  meaning of  longer  be  his  that  Rudolf  based  that his reprint "Nachwort,"  Barlaam,  future research von  merely  Ems s 1  on  can  into  Barlaam  Pfeiffer's  und and  only p. the  be  a  512). struc-  Josaphat Stthns's  29 von  <3 Ems 3 0  F r a n z S f l h n s , 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 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 , 1 8 T 8 ' J ~ S e e 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.  18  readings i n the l a s t i n s t a n c e .  For the time b e i n g , the  manuscripts themselves have t o be c o n s u l t e d i n each case. T h i s i m p r a c t i c a l and time consuming procedure would make a 31 truly c r i t i c a l edition highly desirable,  but t h i s g o a l  cannot be reached without e x t e n s i v e p r e l i m i n a r y  studies.  Our purpose, t h e r e f o r e , i s t o c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s end by making an i n v e n t o r y o f a l l e x i s t i n g m a n u s c r i p t s , a s s e s s i n g t h e i r p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and comparing  their  rubrica-  tion.  2. The Barlaam  manuscripts  The f o l l o w i n g survey proceeds by P f e i f f e r and S  films—updated,  whenever deemed n e c e s s a r y — a n d remaining fragments (see above).  from the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d c o r r e c t e d or  completed  i s based f o r most o f the  on the l i s t i n g e s t a b l i s h e d by  In o r d e r t o a v o i d c o n f u s i o n , the s i g l e s  duced by P f e i f f e r and Sfihns w i l l be kept here; we  Worstbrock  f o l l o w Worstbrock's  " F l " t o "F18"). accounted f o r .  numbering o f fragments  intro-  furthermore (our s i g l e s  D e v i a t i o n s from t h i s procedure w i l l  be  I n f o r m a t i o n on the age and m a t e r i a l c o n d i -  31 A p p a r e n t l y , a new e d i t i o n i s planned by Siegmund ^W^A P r i l l w i t z i n Hamburg ( a c c o r d i n g t o h i s n o t e o f June 2 , 1973). His u n p r i n t e d t h e s i s "Rudolfs von Ems BuJ. U b e r l i e f e r u n g und l a t e i n i s c h e V o r l a g e " ( l i s t of d i s s e r t a t i o n s i n progress i n Jahrbuch f u r I n f e r n a f i o n a l e G e r m a n i s t i k , I I , 2, No. 1828) has not been a v a i l a b l e . i(  ^  19  Irion o f manuscripts i s u s u a l l y taken from the p e r t i n e n t l i b r a r y catalogues o r manuscript d e s c r i p t i o n s which are o n l y e x p l i c i t l y mentioned  when a p o i n t i s under d i s c u s s i o n (see  32 chapter 4 ) .  2.1. Major  manuscripts  P f e i f f e r ' s t e x t c o n s i s t s o f 16164 v e r s e s , but none o f the e x i s t i n g manuscripts c o n t a i n s t h i s t e x t i n i t s e n t i r e t y . Due to t e x t omissions o r p h y s i c a l damage, they are more o r l e s s reduced i n s i z e and c o u l d a l l be c a l l e d  "fragmentary".  Therefore i t does not seem l o g i c a l t o l i s t manuscript b under "Bruchstucke," as P f e i f f e r does, w h i l e i t has p r e served n e a r l y as much t e x t as C. L i k e w i s e , 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 b e g i n n i n g , the m i d d l e , and the end o f the work, a l t o g e t h e r more than h a l f o f a l l the v e r s e s .  The s m a l l e r  fragments, on the o t h e r hand, c o n s i s t o n l y o f very few l e a v e s , the l a r g e s t o f them does not even c o n t a i n one t e n t h o f the e n t i r e text.. The major Barlaam manuscripts which we used a r e : A  f o r m e r l y a t Hohenems, now F t t r s t l i c h F U r s t e n b e r g i s c h e H o f b i b l i o t h e k , Donaueschingen.  Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h t o  f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ; 16122 v e r s e s . M i c r o f i l m .  \  sJLuU^  32 ' We would l i k e t o thank a l l the l i b r a r i e s mentioned i n t h i s s e c t i o n f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n p r o v i d i n g microfilms.  20  b  U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k H e i d e l b e r g , Cod. P a l . Germ. 811. Paper, f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ; twelve  l e a v e s are m i s s i n g ,  14052 v e r s e s . M i c r o f i l m . C  Bayerische 1284;  S t a a t s b i b l i o t h e k MUnchen, Cgm. 16. Vellum,  e i g h t leaves a r e m i s s i n g , 14292 v e r s e s  (including  58 v e r s e s o f the b e g i n n i n g which were l a t e r added). Microfilm. D  U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k F r e i b u r g i . B r . , Hs. 480. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h to fourteenth century;  f i v e l e a v e s are m i s -  s i n g , 15234 v e r s e s . M i c r o f i l m . E  Bayerische 1459;  G  S t a a t s b i b l i o t h e k Munchen, Cgm.  273. Paper,  16118 v e r s e s . M i c r o f i l m .  f o r m e r l y a t Gotha, now N i e d e r s a c h s i s c h e  S t a a t s - und  U n i 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, f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ; K  a  15966 v e r s e s . M i c r o f i l m .  f o r m e r l y 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, m i s s i n g s i n c e 1945.  Vellum, f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ; c a .  15660 v e r s e s . Text taken from Kflpke's e d i t i o n pp. 10-12).  (see above  Quoted as K, u n l e s s Kfipke's o r Lachmann's  commentary e x p l i c i t l y a s s i g n a r e a d i n g t o K . a  K  Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, B e r l i n , Germ. F o l . 20. Paper, f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y ;  15410 v e r s e s .  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, f o u r t e e n t h century;  15 59 0 v e r s e s . M i c r o f i l m ( l o a n ) .  21  M  B r i t i s h Museum, A d d i t i o n a l MS 10,288. Vellum, f o u r t e e n t h century.  Three l a r g e s e c t i o n s with m i s s i n g  leaves i n  between, 9142 v e r s e s . L i s t e d by Worstbrock as fragment No. W  12. Our s i g l e :  M. M i c r o f i l m .  O s t e r r e i c h i s c h e N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k Wien, Cod. Vind. Paper, f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ; 16028 v e r s e s . Our s i g l e :  2884. W.  Microfilm. The  f o l l o w i n g manuscripts  are e i t h e r not p r e s e r v e d o r  unavailable: B  f o r m e r l y J o h a n n i t e r B i b l i o t h e k S t r a s s b u r g , A 144. Vellum, fourteenth century.  Destroyed  i n 1870.  and paragraph i n d i c a t i o n s i n P f e i f f e r ' s K  b  Some v a r i a n t s apparatus.  f o r m e r l y 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, f o u r t e e n t h o r f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y . M i s s i n g s i n c e 1945.  H  Some v a r i a n t s i n KSpke's  apparatus.  f o r m e r l y S t a a t s - und U n i v e r s i t a t b i b l i o t h e k Hamburg, Cod. Germ. 19 ( a c q u i r e d from the Uffenback c o l l e c t i o n i n F r a n k f u r t ) . Paper, f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y . M i s s i n g s i n c e 1945 (see Worstbrock, 112). Manuscript  M c o n t a i n s a few i n -  s e r t e d pages on which J . J . Eschenburg c o p i e d s h o r t passages from H i n o r d e r to i n t e g r a t e the three s e c t i o n s o f 33 M i n t o the c o n t e x t . N  Our s i g l e :  H.  u n t i l 17 39 owned by Dr. Raymund K r a f f t at Ulm (see  Worstbrock, 113), m i s s i n g s i n c e then. Vellum. Bernhard 33 • John Koch, "Fragmente von Rudolfs von Ems BuJ i n e i n e r Hs. des B r i t i s c h e n Museums i n London," ZfdPh 13 (1881), 78-89, g i v e s s h o r t samples o f Eschenburg's copy.  22  Docen  i n h i s review of Kttpke's e d i t i o n mentions  die K r a f t i s c h e Handschrift jetzt?)." P  Our  3 4  sigle:  p r i v a t e l y owned by H.  zu Ulm  ( a l t und  gut,  "... aber  wo  N. P.  Kraus, New  York, f o r m e r l y  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 f u l l - p a g e pen  and  w a t e r - c o l o r drawings from the  Lauber at Hagenau. Ca.  t h i r t y leaves  a t e l i e r of  Diebolt  (out o f 3 79)  are  35  missing.  2.2. d  Our  P.  S m a l l e r fragments  Z e n t r a l b i b l i o t h e k ZUrich c e n t u r y , two  e  sigle:  leaves.  B a y e r i s c h e S t a a t s b i b l i o t h e k Munchen, Cgm. double l e a f .  5249. Vellum,  Microfilm.  U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k WUrzburg. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h century. Eight  i  I. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h  Photocopy.  t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , one h  C 79c  leaves,  s l i g h t l y damaged. M i c r o f i l m .  Staatsbibliothek Preussischer  Kulturbesitz,  Berlin,  Germ. F o l . 720a. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h to f o u r t e e n t h t u r y , two k  leaves.  Microfilm.  Staatsbibliothek Preussischer  Kulturbesitz,  Germ. F o l . 720b. Vellum, f o u r t e e n t h 3 4  cen-  Berlin,  c e n t u r y . Three  Docen, Wiener Jahrbucher der L i t e r a t u r , XI  (1820),  113. 35  . . . A c c o r d i n g to the d e t a i l e d manuscript d e s c r i p t i o n which Mr. H. P. Kraus k i n d l y p r o v i d e d .  23  l e a v e s , g r e a t l y damaged. M i c r o f i l m . 1  B i b l i o t h e k des  Germanischen Nationalmuseums Ntirnberg.  Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h to f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y .  One  double  l e a f , damaged. M i c r o f i l m . m  "Gttttweig fragment," i t s l o c a t i o n c o u l d not be b l i s h e d . Two  vellum  l e a v e s , t h i r t e e n t h century.  estaStudied 36  from Joseph Diemer's d e s c r i p t i o n and n  M. E. S a l t y k o v - S h c h e d r i n 2568. Two  p  and  of variants,  State L i b r a r y Leningrad,  No.  a h a l f l e a v e s . Photocopy.  p r i v a t e l y owned by Gerhard E i s , h i s s i g n a t u r e : Vellum, f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y .  q  list  153.  l e a f , badly damaged. 37 S t u d i e d 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. S t a a t s a r c h i v , Schaffhausen. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y .  One  One  l e a f , damaged. S t u d i e d from P e t e r Ochsenbein's 38  transcription. r  S i g l e q i n t r o d u c e d by  S t a a t s a r c h i v , Schaffhausen. One  l e a f , damaged.  Ochsenbein.  Vellum, f o u r t e e n t h  century.  S t u d i e d from Ochsenbein's t r a n s c r i p -  t i o n . S i g l e r i n t r o d u c e d 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 B a s e l , N.I.4  BI. S. Vellum,  thir-  t e e n t h c e n t u r y , one l e a f . Photocopy. 36 J . Diemer i n S i t z u n g s b e r i c h t e der Akad. der Wissens c h a f t en. P h i l . H i s t . K l a s s e . Vienna, x i ( 1 8 5 3 ) , 640-53. 37 G. E i s , " E i n neues Fragment von Rudolfs von Ems BuJ," GRM 49 (1968), 448-50. 38 We are much o b l i g e d t o Dr. Ochsenbein ( B a s e l ) f o r sending a copy o f h i s t r a n s c r i p t i o n . -  F2  Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, B e r l i n , Germ. F o l . 737, 16-18. Vellum,  t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . Two  l e a v e s , damaged. M i c r o f i l m . F3  Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, B e r l i n , Germ. F o l . 737, 20-21. Vellum,  t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . Two  l e a v e s , damaged. M i c r o f i l m . F6  U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , Wroclaw, No. R3259. Vellum, t e e n t h c e n t u r y . One double  leaf, slightly  four-  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 , F r e i b u r g , Hs. 529. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h t o f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , two l e a v e s . M i c r o f i l m .  F8  Hessische  L a n d e s b i b l i o t h e k , F u l d a , Hs. C4a. Vellum,  teenth century.  One badly damaged double  leaf.  four  Photo-  copy. F9  N i e d e r s a c h s i s c h e S t a a t s - 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 l e a v e s . M i c r o f i l m . F10  Kestner-Museum, Hannover, Inv. Nr. 3979a/b. Vellum, t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . One and a h a l f l e a v e s , g r e a t l y damaged. Photocopy.  F l l F u r s t l i c h O e t t i n g e n - W a l l e r s t e i n s c h e B i b l i o t h e k und 1  Kunstsammlung, S c h l o s s Harburg, 1,3,4°, I . Vellum, t e e n t h c e n t u r y . One badly damaged double F13  four-  leaf. Microfilm  B r i t i s h Museum, A d d i t i o n a l MS 10,288, f f . 157, 158. Vellum,  t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . One l e a f , s l i g h t l y  Microfilm.  damaged.  25  F16  N a t i o n a l Museum L i b r a r y , Prague, IE a 7. Vellum, f o u r teenth  century.  damaged l e a f . F18  One  Deutsche S t a a t s b i b l i o t h e k , B e r l i n  damaged. The  troyed  c  century.  One  (DDR), Fgt.  93b.  double l e a f , g r e a t l y  Microfilm.  f o l l o w i n g fragments were  formerly  another g r e a t l y  Microfilm.  Vellum, f o u r t e e n t h  a  double l e a f and  Johanniterbibliothek  i n 1870.  unavailable: Strassburg,  Vellum, f o u r t e e n t h  A 94.  century,  leaves.  Some v a r i a n t s i n P f e i f f e r ' s  formerly  owned by G y m n a s i a l p r o f e s s o r H e i n r i c h  Des-  c a . twenty  apparatus. Schreiber  at F r e i b u r g , but not t o be found among h i s papers i n 39 the C i t y A r c h i v e s century,  at F r e i b u r g .  four leaves.  Vellum,  fourteenth  Some v a r i a n t s i n P f e i f f e r ' s  appa-  ratus . F17  formerly but  K5niglich-ttffentliche Bibliothek,  today not r e g i s t e r e d i n the Wurttembergische 41  desbibliothek  at S t u t t g a r t .  f i f t e e n t h century, Worstbrock l i s t s F o l . 923  Stuttgart,  Nr.  one  4 0  Lan-  Vellum, f o u r t e e n t h  to  damaged l e a f .  i n c o r r e c t l y the damaged double l e a f Germ.  2 of the 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  Kultur-  b e s i t z which, however, r e p r e s e n t s another independent Bar39 We are o b l i g e d to Dr. W. Hagemaier o f the Univers i t S t s b i b l i o t h e k Freiburg for this information. 40 Hermann F i s c h e r , "Fragment aus BuJ," Germania 30 (1885), 102-103. 41 L e t t e r of June 12, 197 3. Worstbrock's i n f o r m a t i o n i s erroneous.  26  laam v e r s i o n bibliothek  t o g e t h e r w i t h fragment C 79c Zurich.  I I o f the  4 2  Fragments which c o n s i s t e x c l u s i v e l y o f one of the  Barlaam exempla have not  taken out various  of the  Zentral-  c o n t e x t o f the  or  been c o n s i d e r e d . narrative  and  several They were  revised  by  a u t h o r s , among them S t r i e k e r o r l e s s e r poets i n h i s 43  manner (the  so-called "Strickerschule").  a t r a d i t i o n o f t h e i r own  and  can h a r d l y  the Barlaam t e x t t r a n s m i s s i o n . f  g  87-92 ("Wiener  and  Staatsbibliothek Germ. Oct.  137,  light  Vind.  Strickerhandschrift")  202d ("Heidelberger Preussischer  f f . 148 -150 v  P a l . Germ.  Strickerhandr-  Kulturbesitz,  Berlin,  r  F14  B r i t i s h Museum, A d d i t i o n a l MS  F15  B i b l i o t h e c a Bodmeriana ( " N i k o l s b u r g e r B i s p e l h a n d s c h r i f t " ) , see  Ute  on  for  Wien, Cod.  U n i v e r s i t a t s b i b l i o t h e k , H e i d e l b e r g , Cod. 341, f f . 188b schrift").  F5  shed any  i s true  Nationalbibliothek,  Osterreichische  2705, Nr.  This  Thus they have  Schwab, Die  24,946, f .  65  r  Barlaamparabeln, p.  175.  42 T h i s Z u r i c h fragment i s a l s o wrongly a t t r i b u t e d to Rudolf i n K a t a l o g der H a n d s c h r i f t e n der Z e n t r a l b i b l i o t h e k Z U r i c h . I . M i t t e l a l t e r l x c h e H a n d s c h r i f t e n by L. C. Mohlberg ( Z U r i c h , 1951), p. 45. 43 See Ute Schwab, Die Barlaamparabeln im Cod. V i n d . 2705 (Naples, 1966). U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s study a l s o goes a s t r a y o c c a s i o n a l l y s i n c e 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 " e i n l u t z e l honicseimes" not only i n E and f , g (as U. Schwab c l a i m s , p. 199), but a l s o i n M and i .  27  3.  Study o f r u b r i c a t i o n  3.1.  T e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m and comparison o f i n i t i a l s  "Recent s t u d i e s i n t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m mark t h e end o f an agelong t r a d i t i o n .  The ingenious technique  of editing  evolved  by the g r e a t masters o f the n i n e t e e n t h century has become as o b s o l e t e as Newton's p h y s i c s , and the work o f g e n e r a t i o n s of c r i t i c s has l o s t a good d e a l o f i t s v a l u e . l o n g e r p o s s i b l e t o c l a s s i f y manuscripts  I t i s no  on the b a s i s o f  "common e r r o r s , " g e n e a l o g i c a l "stemmata" have f a l l e n d i s c r e d i t , and w i t h ite critical  into  them has vanished o u r f a i t h i n compos-  texts."  4 4  Before we undertake t o study the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e Barlaam m a n u s c r i p t s ,  we must q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i d i t y o f o u r  p r o j e c t i n the l i g h t o f V i n a v e r ' s n e g a t i v e judgment. V i n aver i s i n f l u e n c e d t o a l a r g e degree by the arguments o f Joseph B e d i e r .  Both a r t i c l e s put forward t h r e e main  o b j e c t i o n s t o the t r a d i t i o n a l method o f t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m ( f o r the sake o f convenience  called  "the Lachmann method,"  although Lachmann never propounded h i s i d e a s i n a t h e o r e t i c a l t r e a t i s e ) , which c o u l d be summed up as f o l l o w s : 44  \  Eugene V i n a v e r , " P r i n c i p l e s o f T e x t u a l Emendation," i n S t u d i e s i n French Language and M e d i a e v a l L i t e r a t u r e presented t o M.. K. .Pope ( F r e e p o r t , N.Y., 1939), p. 351. 45  J . B e d i e r , "La t r a d i t i o n manuscrite 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 anciens t e x t e s , " Romania LIV (1928), 161-196 and 321-356.  28  a) The  c r i t e r i o n o f "common e r r o r s " i s d e c l a r e d  i n the grouping of m a n u s c r i p t s . a thorough demonstration o f how  misleading  In i t s s t e a d V i n a v e r d e v i a t i o n s from the  gives  right  v e r s i o n can f r e q u e n t l y be the r e s u l t o f some mental s l i p the p a r t o f the s c r i b e d u r i n g the b) The  process.  f u r t h e r back a g e n e a l o g i c a l stemma i s t r a c e d ,  more h y p o t h e t i c a l and these stemmas end, two  copying  l e s s meaningful i t becomes.  or rather begin, with  major branches o f t e x t t r a n s m i s s i o n  mainly because- the t e x t r e s e a r c h e r has the " f o r c e dichotomique." lance dans l a chasse aux  "Le  on  the  Most o f  an archetype  and  descending from i t , been c a r r i e d away by  systeme lachmannien l ' a  f a u t e s communes, mais sans l u i  donner aucun moyen de s a v o i r a q u e l moment i l a l e d e v o i r de s ' a r r e t e r " ( B e d i e r , 176). bably the  t h a t no more than two  However, i t i s h i g h l y  impro-  copies were made from most o f  originals.  c) A p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n of s e v e r a l manuscripts i s not f i c i e n t l y recognized  by the  suf-  " g e n e a l o g i c a l method," which  g e n e r a l l y assumes a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d t r a n s m i s s i o n  from a  4-6 s i n g l e source t o a copy.  Many o f the medieval manuscripts  however show t r a c e s of i n t e r f e r e n c e (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 t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m d e c l a r e s i t s e l f powerless, indeed, a g a i n s t the o c c u r r e n c e o f contamination* see Paul Maas: "Gegen d i e Kontamination i s t k e i n Kraut gewachsen." T e x t k r i t i k ( L e i p z i g , 19 60) , p. 30. 4  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 b e s t - t r a n s m i t t e d m a n u s c r i p t , which s h o u l d be emended o n l y i n t h e case o f o b v i o u s f l a w s i n t h e t e x t .  F o r such emenda-  t i o n s t h e r e i s no m e c h a n i c a l p r o c e d u r e based on a stemmatic g r o u p i n g o f t h e m a n u s c r i p t s , t h e e d i t o r must l e t h i s own t a s t e ("gout") be t h e u l t i m a t e j u d g e . 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 b e f o r e t h e g e n e a l o g i c a l method was a t i t s apogee. Thus h i s r e a d i n g s a r e s e l e c t e d e n t i r e l y on t h e b a s i s o f h i s p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e and n o t on a s y s t e m a t i c scheme. I t was n o t u n t i l more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s 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 o f B a r l a a m m a n u s c r i p t s , and t h i s work seems t o c o n f i r m B e d i e r ' 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 t h e m a n u s c r i p t s i n t o two m a j o r b r a n c h e s , BCLE on t h e one s i d e , and A D K  a b c  t h e c r i t e r i o n o f common e r r o r s .  on t h e o t h e r , a c c o r d i n g t o P a r a l l e l r e a d i n g s such as  waere - was, w i r t - i s t , e r s e h e n - v e r s e h e n a r e c o n s i d e r e d as p r o o f o f 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). S u b s e q u e n t l y Sfihns a t t e m p t s t o determine t h e " c o r r e c t " r e a d i n g o f one m a n u s c r i p t and one m a n u s c r i p t b r a n c h  over  a n o t h e r on t h e b a s i s o f " i n n e r e Grunde" and by comparing them w i t h t h e L a t i n v e r s i o n . pect i s n e g a t i v e :  His conclusion i n this  res-  "Legen w i r d i e s e n Masstab d e r K r i t i k an  d i e 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 i m Ganzen d a s s e l b e R e s u l t a t , das w i r von den b e i d e n R e i n e n behaupteten.  Es r a g t k e i n e an Q u a l i t a t e n t s c h i e d e n v o r den  30  andern h e r v o r , es hat b a l d d i e s e b a l d jene einmal d i e r i c h t i g e mit  der Q u e l l e  Lesart erhalten" The already  (Sflhns, p.  doubtfulness  i n a contemporary review:  "Der  pointed  gemeinsamen Q u e l l e daher . . .  out  H e r r V e r f a s s e r hat  Beweise angeftlhrten L e s a r t e n  anderswo v i e l zu wenig erwogen, inwieweit  auch z u f a l l i g und  und  24).  o f Stihns's stemma was  b e i der Auswahl der zum wie  [ i . e . , the L a t i n s o u r c e ] congruente  unabhangig von  zusammentreffen  i n der Mehrzahl s o l c h e  hier  Handschriften  e i n a n d e r oder von  i n einer Lesart  bei  Stellen  einer kfinnen,  vorgefuhrt,  47 d i e n i c h t s beweisen kttnnen." i s not  C e r t a i n l y , Lambel's  an a t t a c k on the method i n v o l v e d , but  c a r e l e s s a p p l i c a t i o n i n Stthns's  be,  i t has 48  remained a t t r a c t i v e enough t o be r e p r i n t e d of reference,  an a r t i c l e by  even up  Gerhard E i s :  r a t h e r on i t s  study.  However shaky t h i s stemma may  a standard  critique  to t h i s day,  nonetheless and  quoted  as  as shown i n  "Die Einordnung des  Bruchstuckes i s t mit H i l f e der D i s s e r t a t i o n von  neuen Franz Stthns  mflglich.  Es gehttrt zur Gruppe BCLE, d i e 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 t h a t E i s ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f h i s fragment f a i l s , s i n c e Sdhns's information 4 7  H.  was  i n c o r r e c t and  Lambel, Germania 25  incomplete (1880),  (see below 4.3.5). 377.  See Paul Piper,' Hafische' E p i k , Dt. N a t . - L i t . , ed. J . Kurschner, 4. Bd., 1. A b t l g . ( S t u t t g a r t , n.d.), I l l , 561. 4 8  49 G. E i s , " E i n neues Fragment von Rudolfs von Barlaam und Josaphat," GRM 49 (1968), 448-450.  Ems  31  To r e t u r n t o our opening q u e s t i o n :  i n working  a new Barlaam e d i t i o n , i s i t p o s s i b l e t o renounce  towards completely  an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o p o s s i b l e manuscript groupings and t o content o u r s e l v e s w i t h p r i n t i n g one complete  good manuscript?  On f i r s t g l a n c e , t h i s appears a l r e a d y p r o b l e m a t i c , c o n s i d e r i n g the v a r i o u s l e n g t h s o f the t r a n s m i t t e d v e r s i o n s .  The  most e x t e n s i v e manuscript, the Hohenems codex A, c o n t a i n s numerous obvious mistakes as w e l l as s i g n s o f a l a t e r  revi-  s i o n , so t h a t even P f e i f f e r made use o f i t "nur m i t g r o s s e r Vorsicht"  (Barlaam, p. 408). The o t h e r n e a r l y  complete  manuscript E i s o f a v e r y l a t e date ( m i d - f i f t e e n t h century) w i t h u n s u i t a b l e d i a l e c t a l forms, and thus not a p p l i c a b l e . The remaining manuscripts would r e q u i r e the i n s e r t i o n o f m i s s i n g passages, i n which case a g a i n we would have t o decide t o which manuscripts t o r e f e r . complete  To some e x t e n t a  Barlaam e d i t i o n would t h e r e f o r e be a "composite  t e x t " i n any event.  In our view, a d i v e r s i f i e d t e x t  trans-  m i s s i o n such as t h a t o f Barlaam makes a p r e l i m i n a r y study of manuscript r e l a t i o n s h i p s i m p e r a t i v e . T h i s does not mean t h a t we b e l i e v e i n s e t t i n g up a complete  stemma, but r a t h e r t h a t a comparison  o f t h e manu-  s c r i p t s would f a c i l i t a t e the c h o i c e o f a l e a d manuscript pr o f l e a d m a n u s c r i p t s ) .  Based on i t ( o r them), one would  have t o c o n s u l t the main r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f the o t h e r groupings i n dubious cases and weigh t h e i r d i v e r g e n t r e a d ings.  T h i s would n o t l e a d t o a mechanical p r i n c i p l e o f  32  s e l e c t i o n , but, s i s t e n c y and  i t i s hoped, towards a c h i e v i n g  accuracy i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a t e x t v e r s i o n  would be more r e l i a b l e than the purely  subjective  cerning be  a new  approach.  which  r e s u l t i n g from P f e i f f e r ' s  Chanson de Roland c o u l d  a p p l i e d here to Barlaam:  and  one  con-  F. Whitehead's remarks con-  e d i t i o n o f the  i s needed i s l e s s a new old  greater  " I t seems . . .  critical  doctrine  well  as though what  than a r e t u r n  to  w e l l - t r i e d p r i n c i p l e s o f t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m , which  seem t o have been s t r a n g e l y  neglected  . . . from the  days  50 of the  e a r l y e c l e c t i c e d i t o r s down t o our  tious return  A cau-  to the more t r a d i t i o n a l ways o f t e x t u a l  i c i s m , w i t h o u t the  dogmatic p r e t e n s i o n . o f  t e e n t h century s c h o l a r s h i p , endorsed by  time."  has 51  K a r l Stackmann.  the  l a t e nine-  a l s o been observed A study o f the  crit-  and  manuscript  t r a d i t i o n o f a medieval t e x t remains an i n d i s p e n s a b l e paration The  for a critical  edition.  c r i t e r i o n of "common e r r o r " has  mainly a p p l i e d to t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s . t i c draws a t t e n t i o n t o n o t i c e a b l e placement o f i n i t i a l s  or that  argument f o r a p o s s i b l e  pre-  u n t i l now  been  I t i s rare that a  concurrences i n  cri-  the  such p a r a l l e l s are used as  r e l a t i o n s h i p of manuscripts.  an  Edi-  t o r s have almost t r a d i t i o n a l l y n e g l e c t e d the e x t e r i o r s t r u c ^° F. Whitehead, "The T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m o f the Chanson de Roland: 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 French p r e s e n t e d t o A l f r e d Ewert (Oxford, 1961), p. 86. K. Stackmann, " M i t t e l a l t e r l i c h e Texte 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 (Cologne, 1964), pp. 240-267. 5 1  33  t u r a l marks i n m a n u s c r i p t s , and where they have been r e g i s tered  (as i n Lachmann's p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d i e s t o h i s P a r z i v a l  and W i l l e h a l m e d i t i o n s ) , they u s u a l l y do not appear c r i t i c a l apparatus.  i n the  Only r e c e n t l y has s t r u c t u r a l r e s e a r c h  p a i d s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n to these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :  "To some  extent i n d i c a t i o n s o f the s t r u c t u r e may be found i n manuscripts.  I t seems t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r y t o pay g r e a t e r heed  not o n l y t o f o r m a l p r i n c i p l e s themselves  but a l s o t o those  t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s o f manuscript p r o d u c t i o n , which, f r e q u e n t l y passed over by e d i t o r s , may  though  . . . a s s i s t i n the  52 d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s s t r u c t u r e . "  L i n k e ' 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 b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g the " a u t h e n t i c " 53 t e x t u a l d i v i s i o n s o f the works o f Hartmann von Aue. S c h i r o c k ' s d i s s e r t a t i o n f o l l o w s a somewhat for Parzival.  similar  B. course  S c h i r o c k , however, stands i n o p p o s i t i o n t o  Linke when he c o n s i d e r s the paragraph markings i n the v a r ious manuscripts depending  on t h e i r p l a c e and importance i n  a p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d manuscript g r o u p i n g .  " E r s t wenn w i r d i e  U b e r l i e f e r u n g der G l i e d e r u n g s z e i c h e n auf dem H i n t e r g r u n d der H a n d s c h r i f t e n v e r h a l t n i s s e , der Gruppenbildungen  und Konta-  minationen b e u r t e i l e n , l a s s e n s i c h g u l t i g e E r g e b n i s s e ab52 M. S. B a t t s , " P o e t i c Form and M e d i e v a l German S c r i b a l P r a c t i c e , " JEGP LXII (1963), 702. 53 Hansjttrgen L i n k e , E p i s c h e S t r u k t u r e n i n der D i c h tung Hartmanns von Aue (Munich, 1968) .  34  lesen.  For t h i s purpose,  the work of Gesa Bonath who  S c h i r o c k c h i e f l y makes use o f h e r s e l f i s one o f the few  a r s to r e c o g n i z e the importance o f i n i t i a l s  "...  schol-  als  w i c h t i g e s H i l f s m i t t e l zur F e s t s t e l l u n g der A b h a n g i g k e i t s v e r hSltnisse.  . .  1 , 5 5  Our study w i l l take up t h i s i d e a and i n v e s t i g a t e whether a s y s t e m a t i c 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.  hypotheses  We  s h a l l s e t out from the f o l l o w i n g  which have t o be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  later:  a) I n i t i a l s and o t h e r paragraph markings are t o be r e g a r d e d p r i m a r i l y as s t r u c t u r a l s i g n s and not as ornaments. b) I n i t i a l s are g e n e r a l l y taken over from the source manus c r i p t by the s c r i b e  (and the r u b r i c a t o r ) o f a copy and  not  p l a c e d a t random. c) A marked agreement between the i n i t i a l p a t t e r n s o f  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 o f others i n d i c a t e s 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 .  The e x t e n t  of c o i n c i d e n c e i n r u b r i c a t i o n can be c a l c u l a t e d i n p e r c e n tage f i g u r e s . Some obvious o b j e c t i o n s c o u l d be r a i s e d r e g a r d i n g 54 Bernd S c h i r o c k , "Der Aufbau von Wolframs P a r z i v a l , " d i s s . F r e i b u r g 1972, p. 63. ^ Gesa Bonath, Untersuchungen zur U b 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 , No. 238 (Llibeck and Hamburg, 1970), p. 53.  35  these t h r e e statements which should be d i s c u s s e d a t t h i s point. tic  With regard  to a): I n i t i a l s also f u l f i l l  f u n c t i o n by c r e a t i n g c o l o u r f u l p a t t e r n s on a manuscript  page, sometimes they a r e o f d e c i d e d l y a r t i s t i c (illuminated i n i t i a l s ) . to  an a e s t h e -  character  T h e i r prime purpose i s n e v e r t h e l e s s  o r g a n i z e the n a r r a t i v e i n t o s m a l l e r u n i t s .  case t h a t a s c r i b e p l a c e s i n i t i a l s reasons without  The r a r e  f o r purely aesthetic  concern f o r t h e i n t r i n s i c s t r u c t u r e o f the 56  t e x t i s d e s c r i b e d f o r the P a r z i v a l codex G, 57 Munich T r i s t a n codex (Cgm 51).  and f o r the  Such manuscripts would  n a t u r a l l y be o f no v a l u e f o r our purpose. h o l d t r u e f o r manuscripts i n which i n i t i a l s  The same would 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 In Barlaam manuscripts,  verses.  however, t h e r e i s no such r e g u l a r -  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 o f the i n i t i a l s ; one needs o n l y t o look a t the f i r s t thousand v e r s e s , which have been u n i f o r m l y handed down. With r e g a r d t o b ) : In the f i e l d it  of textual c r i t i c i s m  i s commonly acknowledged t h a t t h e r e were wide d i f f e r e n c e s  i n the r e l i a b i l i t y .of s c r i b e s . s c r i b e who preserved without  We d i s t i n g u i s h the "good"  the v e r s i o n o f h i s source  manuscript  w i l f u l a l t e r a t i o n s from the " t h i n k i n g " s c r i b e who  t r i e d t o 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 a p p l i e d r e g a r d i n g r u b r i c a t i o n .  I t i s t r u e t h a t the  5 6  B. S c h i r o c k , p. 97.  5 7  M. S. B a t t s , 699.  36  e x e c u t i o n o f the i n i t i a l  by the r u b r i c a t o r can be an a d d i -  t i o n a l source of e r r o r s , but such flaws can u s u a l l y be t i f i e d rather easily.  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  then.  suggest, however, t h a t such e r r o r s a r e l e s s  at  We  occurs now  r u b r i c a t e d paragraphs than i n the middle  sage.  The  iden-  and likely  o f a t e x t pas-  s c r i b e ' s c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s more c h a l l e n g e d a t  these p o i n t s than anywhere e l s e , s i n c e he has t o l e a v e out the i n i t i a l c a p i t a l l e t t e r , i n d e n t one  l i n e o r even s e v e r a l  l i n e s , and w r i t e the r e q u i r e d l e t t e r m i n u t e l y on the margin ("Repr&sentant") so t h a t the r u b r i c a t o r can execute  the  correct i n i t i a l  the  afterwards.  r e a d i n g of a paragraph handed down through  Thus, the p o s i t i o n and  b e g i n n i n g a r e more l i k e l y t o be  generations r e l a t i v e l y undisturbed  and  can g e n e r a l l y be c o n s i d e r e d more r e l i a b l e than most t e x t variants. who  N a t u r a l l y , i n the case o f a " t h i n k i n g " s c r i b e  might i n t r o d u c e paragraph  would be very d i f f i c u l t  to determine h i s source  l o o k i n g a t the r u b r i c a t i o n . dent on h i s manuscript  d i v i s i o n s o f h i s own,  it  just  But a g a i n , o t h e r c o p i e s depen-  would be even more e a s i l y  and t h i s would r e s u l t a t l e a s t i n a p a r t i a l  recognized,  grouping.  With r e g a r d to c ) : A c o i n c i d e n t a l agreement can with i n i t i a l s paragraph  by  j u s t as w i t h r e a d i n g s .  markings independently  The  from one  occur  scribes could set another  a t the  same prominent p l a c e s i n the n a r r a t i v e ( e . g . , a t the  begin-  ning of a speech, change o f l o c a t i o n o r t i m e ) , where t h e i r  37  sources d i d not have an i n i t i a l . to  O b v i o u s l y t h i s might  lead  wrong c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a manuscript g r o u p i n g ,  but t h i s c o i n c i d e n c e f a c t o r d i m i n i s h e s when we compare texts of greater length.  T h e r e f o r e i t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o  express the agreement of r u b r i c a t i o n i n percentage among the l a r g e r manuscripts o n l y :  i n comparing  figures  the s m a l l e r  fragments we s h a l l pay s p e c i a l heed t o the placement t i a l s , but o n l y i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a comparison  of i n i -  of textual  variants. The common v a r i a n t s a t the b e g i n n i n g o f a paragraph c o u l d a l s o be o f great importance, as they a r e u s u a l l y p r o 58 duced by a r u b r i c a t o r who m i s i n t e r p r e t e d a "ReprSsentant." We concur w i t h A. Dain's remark:  "Les f a u t e s dues aux  e r r e u r s de r u b r i c a t i o n f o n t l a j o i e des p h i l o l o g u e s e t sont souvent d'un secours p r e c i e u x pour l e classement des manuscrits." In  5 9  s p i t e o f our s t a t i s t i c a l approach, we must not  f o r g e t t h a t we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h l i t e r a r y products from we cannot expect mathematical r e g u l a r i t y .  which  B e d i e r ' s words:  ". . . l e c r i t i q u e l i t t e r a i r e ne d e v r a i t jamais c o n s e n t i r ^ 60 . . . a s ' e f f a c e r devant l e s t a t i s t i c i e n " should p r e v a i l 58 Heinz Schanze p r o v i d e s some examples f o r the W i l l e h a l m 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 W i l l e h a l m - H a n d s c h r i f t 6," i n Wolfram-Studien, ed. W. Schrtider ( B e r l i n , 1970), pp. 174-176. 59 A Dain, Les m a n u s c r i t s ( P a r i s , 1964), p. 37. 6 0  J . B e d i e r , Romania LIV (1928), 329.  38  as a warning.  Nonetheless, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y e v a l u a t e d com-  parison of r u b r i c a t i o n could provide t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m with i n f o r m a t i o n which, p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t e d , c o u l d shed more l i g h t on the t e x t t r a d i t i o n o f Barlaam und Josaphat.  3.2. Chart o f i n i t i a l s  The f o l l o w i n g c h a r t o f i n i t i a l s i n P f e i f f e r ' s text  s e t s out from the paragraphs  ( i n the v e r s e count o f the r e p r i n t e d  t i o n ) , i n o r d e r to show on which manuscripts P f e i f f e r his subdivision.  The manuscripts are subsequently  edi-  based  listed  i n a l p h a b e t i c a l o r d e r w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f M which f o l l o w s a f t e r G f o r the sake o f a b e t t e r p e r s p e c t i v e . cases where P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus notes i n i t i a l s these w i l l be mentioned  f o r B,  on t h e r i g h t hand margin, t o g e t h e r  with the i n i t i a l s o f a l l fragments i n chapter four.  In the few  which w i l l be d e a l t w i t h  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 a r e marked as x on the same l e v e l , o r as X i n the case o f a l a r g e i n i t i a l .  I n i t i a l s at other places  are i n d i c a t e d by the v e r s e number ( l a s t t h r e e d i g i t s ) f o r the f i r s t manuscript, u n d e r l i n e d i f i t i s a l a r g e  initial.  A s t r a i g h t v e r t i c a l l i n e symbolizes a l o s s o f t e x t i n a manuscript due t o p h y s i c a l damage, i r r e g u l a r v e r t i c a l i n d i c a t e s an omitted t e x t  line  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 " h i e chumbt  39  barlaam zue  Josaphat") are not mentioned i n the  chart.  They are u s u a l l y added on the margin of the manuscript do not c o n s t i t u t e genuine s t r u c t u r a l marks. i n d i c a t e d where t h e r e initial looked  ( i n our  i s a capitulum  c h a r t as * ) •  an i n i t i a l  paragraph by a- capitulum In a few  sign instead of  Probably the  i n h i s source and s i g n on the  However,  we an  s c r i b e had  over-  a f t e r w a r d s marked  the  margin.  cases i t i s d o u b t f u l whether t h e r e was  to be an i n i t i a l  or not.  and  meant  Places where the r u b r i c a t o r  c l e a r l y f o r g o t to draw an i n i t i a l — w h e r e a "ReprSsentant" or an i n d e n t a t i o n g i v e evidence of the are r e p r e s e n t e d difficult  i n the c h a r t  i n parentheses.  drawn out on the margin and not r e q u i r e any i s not  by  reason a l o n e ,  exception  lines.  first  For  this  as w e l l as f o r t h e i r very haphazard o c c u r -  do not b e l i e v e t h a t these l a r g e i n i t i a l s  we  con-  major s t r u c t u r e o f  comparable to the one  t r i e d to e s t a b l i s h f o r P a r z i v a l on t h i s  Nevertheless,  i n the  of the v e r y  3045 i n L) are c a p i t a l J ' s .  work ( " G r o s s g l i e d e r u n g " ) ,  and  i s mostly  i t s p a r t i c u l a r shape does  s t i t u t e the remains of an a u t h e n t i c  Schirock  This l e t t e r  (occurring  s u r p r i s i n g t o see t h a t a l l l a r g e i n i t i a l s  "Alpha" and  r e n c e , we  J  i n d e n t a t i o n a t the b e g i n n i n g of the  Barlaam manuscripts (with the initial  T h i s i s more  to d e c i d e i n the case o f the i n i t i a l  very o f t e n w i t h the name J o s a p h a t ) .  It  scribe's i n t e n t i o n —  that  the  B.  basis.  w i l l keep the d i s t i n c t i o n between r e g u l a r  large i n i t i a l s  s i n c e i t might be another a i d f o r e s t a -  40  blishing relationships. J was  At p l a c e s where a m a r g i n a l  most l i k e l y f o r g o t t e n (e.g., "Osaphat"), we  initial  s e t an  (X) . The  size of "regular" i n i t i a l s  s i s t e n t l y maintained space) and beginning two  by the s c r i b e (who  the r u b r i c a t o r (who of manuscript  lines height.  D,  executed  from two  the d e s i g n ) .  wise expect  In the and  s i z e of i n i t i a l s i s to t h r e e l i n e s .  The  on the o t h e r hand, seems to have been fond  drawing out the s h a f t s of c a p i t a l s at the b e g i n n i n g l i n e , mainly  con-  a l l o t t e d the f r e e  i n i t i a l s vary between one  In L the standard  i n c r e a s e d a f t e r v e r s e 1287 s c r i b e o f W,  i s sometimes not  of  of a  at predominant p l a c e s where one might o t h e r an i n i t i a l  (e.g., 11603  and  12435).  Here o n l y  a comparison with the u s u a l p r a c t i c e of r u b r i c a t i o n i n W can t e l l which one i n t o the c h a r t .  i s a true i n i t i a l  and  should be  taken  I t would be o f g r e a t h e l p i n some d o u b t f u l  cases to check w i t h the o r i g i n a l manuscripts  themselves as  c o l o r a t i o n and v a r i a t i o n s i n i n k do not show s u f f i c i e n t l y on m i c r o f i l m s .  But these  few  e x c e p t i o n s , even i f m i s i n t e r -  p r e t e d , c o u l d not s e r i o u s l y d i s t o r t results.  the o v e r a l l  statistical  41  A  b  C  D  E  G  1  X  X  x  X  X  X  33  x  x  63  x  x  M  K  K  L  V/  x  X  X  X  x  X  x  x  x  X  x  X  x  X  X  75  89  X  X  X  X  125  x  x  X  X  165  x  197  X  227  x  x  X  x  x  X  x  X  X  x  x  X  x  x  X  X  I  x  X  x  X  x  253 265  X  x  X  x  123  X  X  x  x  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  313  X  X  273 X  295  X  X  X  X  x  X  42  A  b  C  D  335  x  x  x  X  369  x  X  X  401  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  x  5^5  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  X  E  x  G  M  K  K  x  x  3^1  x  x  L  c  x  M  x  X  X  X  X  x  x  F2  x  x  F2  x  x  F2  x  F2  x  F2  x  F2  x  F2  x  5^7 577  x  617  X  659  x  x  X  (x)  x  x  X  X  X  X  x  X  x  X  x  x  x  x  x  43  b  A  691  X  C  D  X  E  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  769  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  M  X  737  799  a  x  x  x  x  x  K  x  K  x  c  x  x  x  x  x  L  W  x  x  x  x  *  x  F  x  x 801  829  X  X  X  859  X  X  887  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  909  933  971  x  X  x  X  x  X  X  x  x  X  x  X  x  X  x  X  x  X  x  X  F2  x  *  2  44  A  b  1009  X  X  1039  X  X  1071  X  X  1103  x  C  D  E  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  M  X  X  x  G  K  X  X  X  X  x  K  X  X  W  X  X  X  X  X  x  L  c  (x) x  X  X  X  x  x  x  F7  113 1135  x  x  II65  x  x  1191  x  1227 1253  X  x  x  x  x  x  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  F7  x  x  x  x  x  F7  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  X  x X  x  x  x  x  x  X  x  X  x X  ' 255 1287  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  45  b  A  1317  x  13^7  X  1379  x  x  C  D  x  X  X  x  x  E  x  x  x  X  X  X  X  x  M  G  x  x  K  x  K  x  x  X  L  c  x  W  .  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  x  x  x  x  x  1491 1513  X  1545  X  1585  X  1619  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  46  A  b  C  D  E  G  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  1795  X  X  X  X  M  K  K  X  X  X  x  X  X  X  I863  X  x  X  X  X  x  x  X  X  X X  x x  W  X  815  1837  L  c  x  X  x  X  X  x X  X  x  x  p  x  P  X X  1897  x  X X  1937  1981  X  X  X  X  X.  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  47  A  b  C  2019  x  x  x  x  2051  x  x  x  x  2089 x  x  x x  2131  X  X  X  X  X  X  2161  x  X  X  X  X  22*H x  x  2281  x  x  2311  x  X  2351  X  X  E  G  M  K  K  L  W  x  x  x  x  x  F?  x  F?  x  F7  F7  (175) x  195  2196  D  x  x  X  x  x  X  X  x  x x  X  ' 3^3 X  X  x  X  x  x  X  X  x  x  X  X  B:2195  B  48  A  238?  X  2^29  X  2463  x  2493  b  X  C  D  E  G  M  K  K  X  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  2529  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  2569  x  X  2615  X  X  X  26^9  x  x  x  2693  x  x  x  2729  x  x  x  x  L  x  W  x  X  x  x  567  x  X  X  x  x  B  x  x  x  B  B  x  x  j  x  x  x  x  n  x  x  i  x  x  x  x  n  49  A  276I  X  b  X  C  D  E  X  X  2797 X  X  X  X  2837 x  x  x  x x  2881  x  x  x  x  291*4- $t5  29^7  x  2985 X  x  933  x  x  X  X  3083 X  W  L  c  x  x  X  X  x  X  x  x  • B-.933  x x  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  x  x  X  x  X  039 30^5  K  x  X x x  K  x  X X  009 3019  M  X  937 X  x  0  X  x  X  X X 101 x  X  x  x  X  x  X  B  50  A  b  C  D  E  G  3125  x  x  x  x  x  3155  x x  x  x  3177  3187  X  3225  3257  X  x  3287  3319  X  X  X  x  x  x  X  X  x  x  x  x  K  K  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  x  x  x  x  3389  x  x  x  x  x  m  x  x  x  m  x  x  x  x  m  x  x  x  x  m  x  x  x  x  m  x  x  m  x x  x  x  m,B  x  x  x  x  x  x  x x  W  m  237  339 3351  L  c  X  x  x  M  x 399  m  51  A  b  C  D  E  G  3425  x  x  x  x  x  x  3^59  x  x  X  X  3511  x  x  35^1  x  x  3573  x  x  3675  3701  x  3733  x  X X  x  x  c  x  X  L  W  x  x  m  x  B  x  B  x  x  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  x  K  x x  X  X  K  x  3603 3643 X  M  X  X  X  679 x  x  X  x  x  x  X  x  x  X  x  x  X  X  52  A  K  K  x x  X  x X  x  b  C  D  E  3759 x  x  x  x  3805 x  x  X  x  M  L  W  X  X  X  x  X  X  c  819 3839 x  x  x x  x  B  X  Fl  3883 x 3915  x  X  x x  39^-1  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  x  3969 x 991  X  X  X  x  x  x  4-013  x  4C43  x  X  X  X  x  x  X  X  X  x  x  X  992  3993  x  x  F1.F8.B  X  X  Fl  x  Fl  53  A  406?  b  x  .  4105  4137  C  x  x  x  x  x  D  x  x  x  x  E  x  G  x  M  x  K  K  L  c  x  W  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  F8  x  x  x  x  147  4175  x  4207  x  4233  x  x  4341  x  X  x  211  x  4269 x 4301  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  311 X  X  325 X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  x X x  x  X  X  x  x  x  2£5  4375  F8  x  x x x .  X  X  B  54  A  b  C  D  x  4391  4413  x  x  4^3  S  G  x  x  x  x  4457  x  x  4491  X  X  X  X  4527  x  x  x  x  M  K  K  c  (x) x  x  /  x  x  E  x  X  x  x  x  X  x  x  L  W  X  X  x  x  x  x  X  x  X  x  x  X  X  x  l  Bs443 l  1  1,B  5^3 4565  x  4597  X  x  X  x  X  x  (x), x  X  X 603  4629  x  4663  4705  x  x  x  x  x  x  • X  X  X  X  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  1  55  A  b  C  4737 x  x  x x  4767  x  775  486l  4895  x  x  x  X  4963 x x  x  4991  X  x  K  x  L  c  x  W  x  x  i  B  x  x  x  x  K  x  x  4931  x  M  x  x  897  G  X X X x  x  x  E  x  4797 X 4829  D  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  5009 X x 041  x  x  X  x  x  x  x  X  x  x  X  X  x  x  X  5027 X X  x  x  x  X  x  x  i»987  987  x x  X  x x  x  x  x x  i  i  56  M  K  K  L  W  x  x  x  5059 x x 5091  x  x  5121  x  x  5151  x  5189  5223  ^  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  143  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  x  x  5265 x  x  x  5307 x  X  x  x  x  x  i  x  x  x  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  x  x  x  X  X  F 1 3  k,F13  x  x  273  i  i,k x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  B  k,F2,F13  k,(F2)  321 5337 x  X  5369 x  x x  X  X  375 381  x x  x  X  x  x  x  F2 k  57 ) (  A  C  D  5396 x  x  x  5^3?  x  x  x  b  E  x  M  0  x  x  K  K  X  X  x  x  L  c  x  W  k,F2  x  447 546? X  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  X  X  X  X  X  F2  x  k, n  479 5497 x  X  x  x  (X)  x  5525 x  X  X  X  X  X  5555 x  X  X  X  X  5585 x  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  x  x  x  .599 5615  x  X  X  X  631 5649 5679  653  X  X  X  X  X  663 X  k,n,B  X  X  689 695  X  k,B  X  x  x  x  x  58 A  b  C  D  5713  x  x x  57^5  x  x  x  5785  x  x  x  5817  x  x  x  E  x  G  M  x  x  x  x  K  K  x  x  x  x  X  825  X  c  k  x  X  X  k  X  B  X  x  5933  x  X  x  x  x  5965  x  X  X  X  X  x  x  973  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  X  X  X  F18  (X) X  X  X  B.F18 x  x  B  x  x  n,q  X  x  x  x  x  x  X  x  X  5893  6031  703  X  x  5995  W  x  5855  x  l  x  59  A  b  C  D  6061  x  x  x  6099  X  x  x  6131  X  X  X  6163  x  X  X  E  x  x  G  M  x  x  x  X  x  X  K  K  x  x  c  x  x  L  W  x  x  n, q  x  q  x  x  x  X  x  x  x  B  189 6197  6229  x  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  2k7 6263  X  X X  6297  x  x x  6329  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  x  x  x  X  x  ra  X  m  291  636I  x  x  x  x  m.Fll  x  x  x  m,Fll  x  x  x  m.Fll  60  A  b  C  D  E  639? x  x  x  6427 x  X  X  6459 x  X  G  x  x  K  x  K  x  X  L  c  x  x  W  m,q,F11  x  x  X  467  x  X  X  6491 x  X  X  6521  x  x  x  6551  X  X  X  553  M  X  x  x  X  x  X  x  m  x  x  m  x  x  X  x  x  X  x  x  x  m,q,Fl6  x  m  X  567 X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  6587 x 6613  X  X  X  X  6645 x  X  X  6677 x  X  X  X  X  697  x  x  x  X  Fll  61  A  b  G  D  G  M  K  K  L  c  W  B  6705  x  6733  x  x  676I  x  x  X  X  X  x  6793  E  6825  x  x  6857  x  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  F l l  B  x  x  X  x  X  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  X  X  863 6891  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  897  919 6921  x  •6957  x  6983  X  X  x  x  x  B  959 x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  B  62  A  7019  7057  b  C  D  X  x  x  x  7087 x  X  7123  x  x  E  X  G  X  x  x  7189  7223  X  x  X  x  x  L  W  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 237  X  X  7255 x  X  X  x  x  x  7287  X  X  X  X  X  x  x  x  X  ( 7321  x  x  B  B  X  X  x  c  x  X  x  K  X  x  141 7157  K  x  029  x  M  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  B  63 A  7351  x  x  b  C  x  x  D  E  G  X  7415  x  X  X  x  7473  x  7537  x  x  x  X  X  X  7599  x  x  c  x  X  X  X  X  x  X  x  x  .  x  X  X  (X)  X  x  x  X  X  X  x  X  X  x  467  x  x  X  X  X  x  X  x  x  W  x  )  x  L  X  X  541 7569  K  X  x  X  7503  X  X  x  7447  K  x 365  7383  M  x  X  x  X  x  x  x  x  x  625 x x  B  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  621 7637  x  64  A  b  7667  X  7699  X  7729  x  7759  x  7789  X  7817  X  7847  x  x  7877  x  x  C  X  X  x  )  x  X  x  X  X  x  .  X  X  x  X  G  x  X  x  X  7939  x  X  x  X  K  x  x  x  X  X  X  X  K  x  c  x  x  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  x  x  x  887 7907  M  L  W  x  x  X  x  x  X  E  X  X  x  D  x  x  X  X  x  x  x  x  X  X  x  x  X X  X  X  x  x  X  x  65  A  b  7969  X  8003  X  8033 8063  X  X  D  X  x  x  X  X  E  X  G  M  K  K  c  L  W  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  x  X  X  X  035 X  X  8101  x  8137  x  8165  X  X  8195  X  X  8223 8255  C  x  X  x  X  x  x  X  X  X  X  x  X  X  X  O85  X  X  x  x  x  x  X  x  X  x  X  x  X  X  x  x  X  x  X  X  x  y  X  J  x  :  X  x  66  A  8289  b  x  C D  x  E  x  x  G  x  M  x  K  x  K  x  c  x  L  W  x  x  295 8321  x  x  x  x  8351  X  X  X  X  8379  X  X  X  X  8409  x  x  x  x  8447  x  x  x  x  84?7  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  327  x  x x  355  417  5 X  x X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x x  X  X  x  X  X  X  6 1  x  x  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  F6  67  A  b  8602  601  x  8631  X  8693  D  x  x  x  G  M  K  K  L  c  W  590 B«601  x  x  x  E  x  X  x  8659  C  x  B  x  X  x  X  X  x  X  x  X  F 6  X  703 707  8729  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  8761  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  8791  x  x  8819  x  X  x  8851  x  x  X  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  F  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  869  x  895  x  x X  X  6  F6  869 8881  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  x  X  X  6606  $906  x  x  6£l6  6ET6  x  x x  X  x  x  x  x  6816  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  ££06 £006  6L6  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  89  x  x  x  (X)  x  x  x  x  Ti68  69  A  b  C  D  9220 219  x  x  x  9247  x  x  x  x  9277  x  9313  X  X  X  X  X  E  X  X  X  G  M  K  K  c  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  L  W  X  X  X  X  331 93^3  x  X  x  X  X  353 367  9373  9^03  X  x  x  X X  X  X  B  379  x  X  X  X  B  9433  9^63  x  *  9^95  x  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  70  A  b  9527  x  x  9557  x  x  9591  x  C  D  x  x  9629  x  x  E  G  567  x  599  x  x  x  647  9665 9701  X  X  X  9735  x  9765  x  X  X  X  X  M  K  K  x  x  X  X  X  X  X  679  X  X  X  X  X  X X  ... 707  L  c  x  X  X  X  X  713 721  X  X  741 747 757  x  X  777 9799  9829  x  X  x  X  x  X  x  X  X  X  X  X  X  7 1  A  b  C  9859  X  X  X  9891  x  x  x  9923  99^5  9987  *  x 957 X  x x *  D  E  X  X  x  X  G  M  K  K  x  j  X  W  X  x  x  x  X  x  x  /  2^1  )  x  /  x  X  x  x  L  X  X  N  c  X  x  x  X  (  j 10017  X  x  I  X  /  10047  IOO83  x  X  x  X  '  .  x  X  x  (X)  x  071  X  x  X  X  X  X  X  X  143  x  X  X  x  X  X  \  \  1011?  / X  *  /  ' X  /  X  I  X  i ;  10153  X  X  X f  j X  X 1  72  IOI85  A  b  X  X  C  D  E  G  )  X  X  X  /  M  K  K  c  X  L  W  \  X  198  !  207  X  X  X  X  X  229  X  X  \  10217  X  X  X  j  X  /  X  / \ 10251  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  N  X  X  X  267 10289  x  x  x  x  x  x 307  IO325  10359  X  x  X  x  X  X  X  X  10419  x  x  425  x  x  X  X  X  x  x  10457  x  x  10493  X  X  X  x X  x  x  x 373  10395  x  x  x  X  x  x  x  x  X  x  X  B  x  x  x  X  x  X 501  x  415  x  x  X  x x  x x  x  x  x  X  B.501  73  A  b  C  D  E  G  M  K  K  L  C  W  10525  x  x  x  x  X  X  IO563  x  x  x  x  X  X  IO593  x  x  x  x  10629  x  x  x  x  X  X  IO657  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  x  x  x  x  678  ' 681 IO685  X  10717  x  107^7  X  x  X  X  X  X  x  10791  X  X  10825  X  X  x  X  x  X  x  X  X  X  X  x  x  X  X  x  x  X  X  74  IO855  A  b  x  x  C  D  x  x  10951  x  x  G  M  K  K  L  C  X  10885  10921  E  x  x  x  X  x  x  x  x  W  X  X  x  x  929  969 10983  x  x  X  x  (x)  x  x  x  X  x  d,h,F10  x  F10  x  x  d  X  X  d  x  d,h  x  h  999 11013  x  x  x  X  X  029 11043  x  11073  x  x  X  x  x  X  X  X  x  X  x  x  X  x  11133  X  X  X  X  x  x  x  11103  x  X  X  x  75  A  b  11161  C  X  11191 x  x  11223  x  x x  11257  x  x  11287  x  11317  x  11345  11375  x  X  K  (X)  x  x  x x  x  x  x x  x  x  x  x  j X  K  x  x  G  x  x  x  x  E  x  c  x  x  (X)  x  X  M  L  W  X  X  F3  x  h,F3  X  X  x  x  X  D  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  x  X  x 265  x  x  X  FJ  x  x  d  X  d  x  d  387 11407  11441  x  x  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  76  A  b  C  D  E  G  11475  x  x  x  x  x  11507  x  x  x  x  M  K  K  L  W  x  X  X  x  X  X  c  521 11549  X  11581  X  II613  11643  X  X  X  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  603  X  X  x 645  X  X  X  11735 . x  X  X  X  663  X  X  X  X  X  /  / II769  x  /  (621) x  x  X  x  11671  11701  X  x  X  i  )  X /  /  \ I  X  77  A  b  1180?  x  x  11841  x  C  D  M  K  K  L  c  W  \ \  1  11871  E G  x  x  11901  x  11931  x  11961  (x)  11991  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  12053  x  12087  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X x  x  x  X  12023 X  X  x  x  x  X  X x  x  x  x  X X x  x  x  x  x  x  x  h  x  x  h  x  x  h  x  x  x  x  x  h  x  x  x  h  x  x  h  x  x  h  x  x 111  x  Billl  78  A  12119  12149  b  x  x  C  x  x  D  x  E  G  M  K  K  c  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  L  W  x  x  h  x 164  1218?  x  12215  x  12247  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  191  192  x  x  x  (X)  X  )  x  223 (X) x  (X)  ( 12289  x  x  x  x  x x  I  307 12325  x  x x  12357  X  12391  x x  12421  x  x  x  x  X  X  x  X  291 290  x x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  h  x  x  h  x  x x  435  X  X  x  x h  x h (X)  79  A  b  C  D  12453 x  x  X  X  12487  x  x  12517  x  x  x  G  E  x  x  K  x  x  x  x  x  x  12613  x  12643  x  12673  x  x  12701  X  X  12731  X  X  533  x  X  X h x h  h  x 5^1  x  N  x  x  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  W  x  X  x  L  x  x  x  c  x  x  523  573 12581  K  (X) x  541 12551  M  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  h  x  x 679  X  X  B  x  x  x  h  X  X  F10  80  A  12765  x  12797  x  12829  x  12859  b  x  C  D  E  G  M  K  x  x  X  x  x  X  x  x  X  x  x  x  12933  x  x  x  12963  x  x  x  x  L  c  X  x  12895  K  X  W  X  799 X  X  X  X  X  x  x  X  x  X  X  X  x  x  x  F3  x  x  x  h  x  x  x  h  981  12993  x  x  X  X  x  (X)  X  x x  13023  x  x  x  (X)  X (Fl6)  X  x  13053  x  x  x  X  h  X  079  x x  h  81  A  b  C  13087  x  x  x  x  13119  x  x  x  x  13147  x  E  D  x  S  M  x  x  K  x  K  x  x  L  W  x  x  x  x  x  x  h  h  x  175 13179  13213  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  h  B:221 231 13247  x  13281  X  X  13311  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  x  X  X  x  13343  x X  X  X  x  X  x  X  x  x  x  X  X  x  x  X  X B«353  371 13375  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  82  A  13^07  1343?  x  13467 13499  x  13529 13561  X  13591  x  13621  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  E  x  G  x  M  x  x  K  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  x  W  x  x  x  x  X  I,  x  x  X  c  K  x  X  x  D  C  x  13651  1368I  b  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  83  A  13711  X  b  X  C  X  D  E  G  M  K  X  K  W  L  c  X  X  731 13745  x  x  x  x  13775  X  X  X  X  x  x  13841  (x)  13873  X  13907  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  Fl6  x  X  X  x  X  781 13811  x  X  F9  X  929 13937 X 13969 X 14001  x  X  X  * x  X x  9^5  X x  x x  x  x  x x  x x  x  84  "A  14033  x  ' b  x  G  x  D  E  G  x  x  M  x  K  K  L  x  W_  x  x  055 14065  x  x  x  x  x  x  079 1409?  14127  x  x  14157  x  x  x  x x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  Bi14162 14187  x  14219  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  (241 ) X 14251  x  x  14283  x  x  x  x  14315  x  x  x  x  x  (X)  x  x  X  x  (x)  x  327  x  x  r  r  x  x  x  x x  x  x  r  x  x  x  85  A  143^5  X  b  X  C  X  D  E  G  M  353  *  K  X  K  L  c  X  X  359  14375  x  14403  x  x  W  359  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  x  x  14495  x  x  x  x  x  x  I  14527  14561 14597  X  x x  x x  X  X  x x  x  X  x  x  x 609  14627  613 x  X  x x  X  X  589  X  x x  x x  601  r r  X B«613  x  x 64^  86  A  14661  14691  b  C  x  x  x  x  x  14721  D  x  x  E  x  x  x  C-  x  x  M  x  x  x  x  K  K  L  V/  x  x  x  x  x  x  c  r  x  x  735 14751  14783  X  X  X  x  x  x  14813  x  x  x  i  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  X  x  (x)  x  831 14843  x  14873 14905  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  923 14935  x  x  x  861 x  x  x  x  x  x  F9  F9  x  x  x  950  x  87  A  14969  X  b  X  C  X  D  E  X  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  X  15061  x  x  15091  x  x  15117  x  x  X  15147  x  x  X  15183  x  x  x  15241  x  W  X  X  x  X  x  X  X  x  x  X  X  x  039 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  F9  x x F 9  X  X  x  L  x  X  045  15211  c  x  029  15035  K  X  973 14999  K  M  X  X  88  A  b  C  15275 x x  D  E  x  x  G  K  M  x  x  x  K  L  c  x  x  J  x  287 15305 X X  317  15337 x X  X  15367 x X  x  15397 x X  X  15425 X X  x  x  x  X  15497 x x  x  547 x  x  X  x  X  x  X  x  x  x  519  15527 x 15557  X  x  15459  x  x  x  X  X  X  X  x  X  x  X  x  553  x  X  X  x  x  X  X  x  x  X  x  (x)  x  (x)  x x  569 581  89  b  A  15593  C  x  15623  x  X  D  M  E  X  x  X  X  X  X  K  K  c  X  X  X  X  X  L  W  X  X  X  X  X  X  645  15653 15687  X x  x  X x  X  X  x  X x  X x  x  x  x  x  X  X  X  x  (X)  X  691 15717 157^7  X  X  x  769 15779 x  x X  15793  X  15809 x  x  x  15839  x  x  x  761  x  X  x  X  X  x  x  X  X  B  90  A  x  15869  15899  b  C  x  x  X  D  E  G  X  X  x  x  x  15959  x  x  x  15993  x  x  x  X  I6O89  x  x  K  x  001  (x)  X  W  L  C  x  x  X  X  X  X  X  16029  x  K  X  15927  16057  M  x  x  x  (X)  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  105 16129  16151  I6158  x  X X  X  X  X  X  x  x  X  X  91  3.3.  Evaluation of the i n i t i a l  3.3.1. F r e q u e n c y  Before  we  scripts should  i n the placing of  attempt  with bear  frequently  to calculate  each  other  i n mind than  an  one.  of initials  (e.g.,  chart  The f i r s t  this  four  frequency  will  simply  factor  listed  markings  initials,  initials might  never  more  manuscripts,  at fairly  regular inserting  s u c h a s o c c a s i o n a l l y shown by L and  (e.g.,  of paragraph  chart  divisions  Thus, there  free of  p. 6 5 ) .  To  clusothers  initials  indicate  i n the manuscripts  d i v i d e t h e number o f v e r s e s  signs.  not-  come c l o s e t o t h o s e  passages  i s a new  by t h e i r  we  lead to  o m i t t i n g one i n i t i a l o r  But they  and others  the  of their  scribes place  p. 69/70) o r t o l o n g  common t o K  paragraph  t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e manu-  and t h a t  here and there  additional  ters  some  D a n d C, h a v e p a r a g r a p h  intervals,  initials  on t h e b a s i s  that  others  wrong c o n c l u s i o n s . ably  systems  we  number o f  paragraph i n  C  every  33 v e r s e s  (14292 v e r s e s ,  434 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  D  every  33 v e r s e s  (15234 v e r s e s ,  460 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  b  every  35 v e r s e s  (14052 v e r s e s ,  403 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  A  every  35 v e r s e s  (16122 v e r s e s ,  457 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  L  every  39 v e r s e s  (15590 v e r s e s ,  402 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  W  every  39 v e r s e s  (16028 v e r s e s ,  411 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  G  every  43 v e r s e s  (15966 v e r s e s ,  369 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  M  every  44 v e r s e s  ( 9142 v e r s e s ,  206 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  E  every  46 v e r s e s  (16118 v e r s e s ,  347 p a r a g r a p h  signs)  92  K°~ every 48 v e r s e s (15712 v e r s e s , 327 paragraph K  c  signs)  every 50 v e r s e s (15410 v e r s e s , 310 paragraph s i g n s )  P f e i f f e r ' s t e x t w i t h i t s 16164  c l o s e t o the average fer' s c r i t i c a l  62  v e r s e s has a paragraph  i m a t e l y every 32 v e r s e s (501 paragraphs)  approx-  and thus comes  frequency i n C and D.  Although  Pfeif-  remarks c o n c e r n i n g the v a r i o u s manuscripts  (Barlaam, p. 408) might  suggest t h a t he f o l l o w e d E more than  any o t h e r s o u r c e , h i s s e l e c t i o n o f paragraph d i v i s i o n s proves h i s own  b X  words.  dis-  His r e f e r e n c e i n t h i s matter i s the  p r a c t i c e o f D, C and A ( p r o b a b l y B as w e l l , more so than b ) . It  i s o n l y i n a few cases t h a t he abandons t h i s  procedure  and f o l l o w s the paragraph markings o f o t h e r manuscripts his  own  c o n c e p t i o n o f what i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the  Thus he begins a new c o u p l e t i n 2196, graph a t 3177  or  narrative.  paragraph on the second v e r s e o f a  2914,  8602 and 9220, and i n s e r t s a p a r a -  (with EG),  3993 (with E ) , 10419  (with  EGK),  15035 ( w i t h bK) and 15793 (with EGKL). P f e i f f e r was mainly A, D, and C. laam manuscripts  c e r t a i n l y w e l l advised i n following A comparison  w i t h the age o f the Bar-  (see pp. 19-21) shows t h a t the younger ones  tend t o p l a c e t h e i r i n i t i a l s  l e s s f r e q u e n t l y and, more  61 Kttpke's e d i t i o n (K) c o n s i s t s o f 16060 v e r s e s and 332 paragraphs. I f these paragraphs c o r r e s p o n d to i n i t i a l s i n K i s d o u b t f u l , however, and w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r . 62 The f i g u r e s c o n c e r n i n g the number o f v e r s e s are mostly approximated. Even w i t h s l i g h t adjustments the overa l l p i c t u r e would h a r d l y change. a  93  important,  less regularly.  texts represent has  a more a u t h e n t i c system o f i n i t i a l s  undergone c o n s i d e r a b l e  stage.  We can assume t h a t t h e o l d e r  changes and omissions  Consequently, the a b s o l u t e  which  a t a younge  number o f i n i t i a l s i n  which a younger manuscript (Y) agrees w i t h  an o l d e r one (X)  might not be very i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e i r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n c e Y might have omitted  a great number o f i t s source X.  However, i f we c a l c u l a t e the percentage t h a t these initials tials  c o n s t i t u t e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e t o t a l number o f i n i -  contained  i n Y (as w e l l as X ) , then the r e l a t i o n s h i p  would become more To  common  obvious.  c l a r i f y t h i s f u r t h e r , l e t us l o o k a t 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 with D ( t h i r t e e n t h century). w i t h D.  has 284 i n i t i a l s  i n common  T h i s c o n s t i t u t e s o n l y 61.5% o f a l l the D - i n i t i a l s ,  a r a t h e r low percentage. K  K  century),  But we have t o keep i n mind t h a t  has o n l y two t h i r 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 t h e second percentage f i g u r e which cates t h a t these 2 84 common i n i t i a l s • • • • c the i n i t i a l s  indi-  c o n s t i t u t e 9 6% o f a l l c  e x i s t i n g i n K , very few o f K 's i n i t i a l s do  not have a c o u n t e r p a r t  i n D.  T h i s would suggest t h a t K  e i t h e r d e r i v e s from D o r t h a t they have a common  source.  For the sake o f b r e v i t y we w r i t e down t h e agreement o f K 's i n i t i a l s w i t h those  o f D simply as K : c  96% - D - 61.5%  Furthermore, we can o b v i o u s l y compare two manuscripts o n l y  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 t e x t t r a n s m i s s i o n due t o e x t r i n s i c causes  (straight  vertical lines  the c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n i t i a l s  i n our c h a r t ) we exclude  o f t h e o t h e r manuscript  count, so t h e percentage f i g u r e  w i l l not change.  other hand, when one manuscript has d e l i b e r a t e l y certain  passages  or inherited  from the On t h e  l e f t out  such c u t s from i t s source  (waved l i n e s i n our c h a r t ) whereas t h e o t h e r manuscript shows the f u l l . t e x t we i n c l u d e the l a t t e r ' s c o r r e s p o n d i n g initials  into  the count; t h u s , the d i s s i m i l a r i t y o f the two  manuscripts i s r e f l e c t e d  i n the percentage f i g u r e  as w e l l .  3.3.2. Manuscripts A, b, C, D.  As mentioned b e f o r e , A. b, C and D show a h i g h degree o f congruence i n t h e i r i n i t i a l s . c a t e t h i s f a c t very A  The s t a t i s t i c a l f i g u r e s  indi-  clearly. 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%-K -92%  60%  -K -91%  61%  K -94.5%  61.5%-K -96%  71%  72%  -L-83.5%  72.5%-L-90%  C  -L-80.5%  C  C  (59% -K -81.5%  59% -K -82.5%  58 . 5%-K -8 3 . 5%  61%  62.5%-G-79%  59.5%-G-78%  a  -G-75.5%  a  a  C  72%  -L-87%  59% -K -86.5%) a  61.5%-G-81%  95  A 59%  b  -M-75%  52.5%-E-69%  C  60.5%-M-81%  56%  51%  51.5%-E-71%  -E-70%  D  -M-81.5%  60.5%-M-82.5% 51.5%-E-72.5%  The s t r o n g a f f i n i t y t h a t A, b, C and D show i n t h e i r ing  of i n i t i a l s  plac-  s e t s them a p a r t from the o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s .  T h e i r next c l o s e s t manuscripts W, L and K  C  have a c o n s i d e r -  a b l y lower percentage o f agreement with any one o f the f o u r , and the l a s t t h r e e manuscripts G, M and E even much l e s s s o . Does t h a t mean t h a t the f i r s t f o u r manuscripts belong t o one g e n e a l o g i c a l branch o r even t h a t they c o p i e d from one another? In  The percentage f i g u r e s do not g i v e a c l e a r answer.  any c a s e , t h e r e a r e no two manuscripts which have a n o t i -  c e a b l y h i g h e r agreement w i t h each o t h e r which would t h a t one i s a d i r e c t o f f s h o o t o f t h e o t h e r . the g r e a t e s t congruence  suggest  C and D have  i n t h i s group but i t i s o n l y  s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than t h a t o f t h e o t h e r combinations. In  our s e a r c h f o r a c l o s e r grouping w i t h i n t h i s  we should now look f o r i n d i v i d u a l cases o f p a r a l l e l tials.  group ini-  We s h a l l d i s r e g a r d a l l the o t h e r manuscripts f o r  t h a t purpose  and l i m i t o u r s e l v e s t o those t e x t  common t o A, b, C and D. the p l a c i n g o f i n i t i a l s other two?  passages  Are there s t r i k i n g deviations i n i n two manuscripts a g a i n s t the  D has 3 i n common w i t h C (3603, 8975, 15717),  3 i n common with A (3883, 4207, 11317) and one w i t h M 1 2 5 1 7 ) . C has one i n common w i t h b (4829) and two w i t h A (1897, 9945).  The g r e a t e s t congruence  e x i s t s between A and b which  96  i n c o n t r a s t t o the o t h e r s c o n t a i n both A u t o r r e d e n (11735 11870 and 12247 - 12288), and i t i s only t h e r e t h a t they have f i v e i n i t i a l s scripts. ing  i n common a g a i n s t the other two manu-  Furthermore, i s t h e r e evidence f o r a c l o s e r group-  o f t h r e e manuscripts a g a i n s t one?  A, b and C have  common i n i t i a l s a g a i n s t D only i n 5 cases (2649, 2693, 3511, 4705, 11581).  A, b and D stand a g a i n s t C i n 4 cases (691,  887, 2569, 8911), but s i n c e C omits a l e n g t h y passage (9949 - 10047 and 10083 - 10251) t h e r e a r e an a d d i t i o n a l 9 cases o f common i n i t i a l s  i n AbD.  I t i s remarkable, though,  t h a t the grouping CD p l u s e i t h e r A o r b appear i n many more i n s t a n c e s :  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 e v i d e n c e , one would t e n t a t i v e l y group CD and  Ab t o g e t h e r and. assume t h a t C and D have the most au-  t h e n t i c i n i t i a l s but t h a t they a r e 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 w i t h the o t h e r branch i n order t o a s s e s s which paragraph s i g n can be t r u s t e d . the  C and D, moreover, share  o m i s s i o n o f the author's e x c u r s e s .  On t h e o t h e r hand,  each o f the two has"major gaps i n i t s t e x t which a r e not  "  ?  97  shared by the o t h e r one, 4213  C as mentioned  above and D from  - 4396 (the s c r i b e probably skipped a l e a f o f h i s  source). from CD,  A and b, although i n major r e s p e c t s d i f f e r e n t cannot be d i r e c t l y dependent on each o t h e r , e i t h e r ,  Otherwise, i t would be s u r p r i s i n g t h a t they have no common initials for  d i f f e r i n g from the o t h e r two manuscripts  those i n the author's e x c u r s e ) .  t h a t b was  P f e i f f e r had  a l t e r n a t e l y w r i t t e n by two  t h a t the f i r s t  s c r i b e was  scribes.  He  (except noticed suggests  f o l l o w i n g B and the second  one  another source c l o s e r to A (Barlaam, p. 408). A c c o r d i n g t o P f e i f f e r , manuscript b was p a r t 1_  u n t i l page 3 8  w r i t t e n as  (7332), f i r s t  v  follows: scribe  (between page  37 and 38 a whole q u i r e o f 12 l e a v e s i s m i s s i n g ) p a r t 2_ page 39 t o 6 4 part 3  page 65 t o 7 7  v  (10765), second  V  (12944), f i r s t  p a r t 4 page 78 t o 9 0  v  (14893),  p a r t 5_ page 91 to 9 7  v  (16039), f i r s t  scribe scribe  second  scribe scribe ( f i n a l leaf i s  missing). F. Sohns adopts t h i s t h e o r y i n p r i n c i p l e but m o d i f i e s i t somewhat.  A c c o r d i n g to him, the second source " d i s c o v e r e d "  by the second s c r i b e was  A.  A and B t o g e t h e r were used as  source by both s c r i b e s between 7941  and 14608, f o r the  both s c r i b e s again c o p i e d o n l y from B, Lassigkeit."^  rest,  " w a h r s c h e i n l i c h aus  3  F. Sohns, Das H a n d s c h r i f t e n v e r h a l t n i s , p. 37-38. Stthns claims e r r o n e o u s l y t h a t v e r s e s 7332 t o 7941 are miss i n g , i n s t e a d o f 5239 to 7167. Sflhns does not g i v e any reasons f o r choosing 14608 as a t u r n i n g p o i n t . 6 3  98  P f e i f f e r ' s assumption t h a t each o f the two s c r i b e s  fol-  lowed a d i f f e r e n t source i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y and should be r e j e c t e d on the b a s i s o f e x t r i n s i c evidence a l o n e . make sense o n l y  I t would  i f each s c r i b e w i t h i n a s c r i p t o r i u m were i n  charge o f one o r s e v e r a l q u i r e s which were t o be w r i t t e n simultaneously  i n order  to speed up the copying p r o c e s s .  In  manuscript b, however, there a r e only•two cases ( a t t h e t r a n s i t i o n from p a r t one t o two and three  t o f o u r ) where a  change i n h a n d w r i t i n g c o i n c i d e s w i t h a new q u i r e . atures  The s i g n -  (Kustoden) a r e p e r f e c t l y l e g i b l e on t h e lower margin  of the l a s t page i n each q u i r e , so we can t e l l t h a t a new q u i r e begins w i t h page 13, 25, 37, 39 (the m i s s i n g  leaves,  probably more than 12, a r e not counted i n the modern p a g i nation;  5 1 , 6 6 , 78 and 9 0 .  sometimes d i f f i c u l t f i l m reading,  The change i n h a n d w r i t i n g i s  to recognize  but,  judging  by our m i c r o -  Pfeiffer's division i s correct.  s c r i b e w r i t e s h i s c u r s i v a more evenly  The f i r s t  and w i t h i n h i s  pre-  drawn s e t s o f l i n e s , whereas the second one u s u a l l y exceeds them or completely f o r g e t s about them and g e n e r a l l y shows more i r r e g u l a r i t i e s • i n h i s w r i t i n g and i n t h e number o f l i n e s t h a t he f i t s lines).  i n t o one column (from 29 l i n e s t o 4-0  T h i s l a t t e r circumstance would make i t very  diffi-  c u l t f o r a s c r i b e t o keep t r a c k o f t h e number o f w r i t t e n verses  and c a l c u l a t e the remaining space so t h a t h i s p a r t  would p e r f e c t l y match the b e g i n n i n g o f the next  quire.  At one i n s t a n c e , however, a t the t r a n s i t i o n from p a r t  99  one  t o two, a p e c u l i a r gap i n the t e x t occurs which  very w e l l be i n t e r p r e t e d eously w r i t t e n  quires.  could  as "mismatching" o f two s i m u l t a n On page 3 8  v a  the t e x t  continues  normally u n t i l 7 27 7 on the bottom l i n e but then, w i t h the first  l i n e o f the r i g h t column, the s c r i b e a b r u p t l y  to 7301 without even completing the rhyme.  jumps  D i d he a t t h i s  p o i n t c a l c u l a t e the r e m a i n i n g space and attempt t o f i t h i s verse m a t e r i a l  i n t o i t by c o n v e n i e n t l y  e s s a r y number o f v e r s e s ?  I f s o , he s l i g h t l y  i t and r a n out o f h i s shortened t e x t the  bottom.  filled  c u t t i n g out the nec-  Instead o f l e a v i n g  miscalculated  (7332) two l i n e s above  some blank space the s c r i b e  i t w i t h two random v e r s e s t h a t he had skipped b e f o r e :  7293 - 94.  Such a m u t i l a t i o n  o f the t e x t seems t o be d e l i -  b e r a t e , d i f f e r e n t from simple "human e r r o r s , " e.g., t h e omission o f a c o u p l e t quire  a t the b e g i n n i n g o f a new page o r  (such as 11037 - 38 a t the b e g i n n i n g o f page 6 6  where the same s c r i b e  r  inb  continues).  While i t i s l i k e l y t h a t i n t h i s one mentioned case t h e second s c r i b e o f b began h i s copying work b e f o r e the f i r s t s c r i b e had f i n i s h e d h i s p a r t , i t does not mean a t a l l t h a t they n e c e s s a r i l y  followed  two d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s .  manuscript may have been chopped up i n t o s e v e r a l g i v e n t o the two s c r i b e s .  The s o u r c e parts  I f t h e t e x t handed down by t h e  second s c r i b e was taken from A o r a c l o s e l y r e l a t e d manus c r i p t and the r e s t from B, t h e r e should be a difference  i n the agreement o f i n i t i a l s .  noticeable  We c a l c u l a t e d the  100  agreement o f b with the o t h e r manuscripts  f o r each o f these  f i v e p a r t s i n d i v i d u a l l y and c o u l d not a s c e r t a i n a major change i n i t s r e l a t i o n t o A o r any o t h e r manuscript than those f l u c t u a t i o n s due t o the d i f f e r e n t compared p a r t s . the testimony  other  l e n g t h o f the  I t i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t we no l o n g e r have  o f B, a l l t h a t remains a r e the notes i n  P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus.  Thus we s h a l l never know w i t h abso-  l u t e c e r t a i n t y i f b was i n f a c t c o p i e d from B by the f i r s t s c r i b e ; but t h e r e i s room f o r doubt. of B t h a t P f e i f f e r has passed  Among the few i n i t i a l s  on t o us t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l  t h a t do not conform t o t h e p a t t e r n o f b but agree w i t h manuscripts 12111  other  ( E , G o r K ) o r stand a l o n e , e.g., a t 7237, a  and 12573 i n those passages w r i t t e n by s c r i b e I . B  and b do have a c l o s e a f f i n i t y  (their parallel i n i t i a l s at  V2933, 4443 and 14613 being one o f many i n d i c a t i o n s ) , but it  i s not l i k e l y t h a t b i s a d i r e c t copy from B, not even i n  parts. and  A l a t e r look a t common and d i v e r g e n t t e x t  omissions  some t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s should c o n f i r m t h i s a s s e r t i o n . I t  i s more l i k e l y t h a t B and b were dependent on a common source *Bb, b probably  through  intermediaries.  have been r e l a t e d t o A as the h i g h percentage t i a l s and t h e ' p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e author's  *Bb must  o f common  excurses  ini-  suggest.  Thus we assume t h a t "Bb and A on t h e one s i d e and CD on the o t h e r s i d e r e p r e s e n t two o l d branches o f t h e Barlaam t e x t tradition.  ?  101  3.3.3. Manuscripts  The  L and W  Bonn and -the Vienna codexes L and W both date from  f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y and paragraph  show a s i m i l a r frequency  d i v i s i o n s , every  in their  39 v e r s e s on the average.  than t h a t , they seem t o have l i t t l e  the  Other  i n common, b e i n g of  d i f f e r e n t provenance (L from M i d d l e - F r a n c o n i a n W from the famous l i b r a r y a t Ambras / T y r o l and  territory, of  d i f f e r e n t i n t r i n s i c value. Since the o l d e s t manuscripts  C and D and, by e x t e n s i o n ,  A and b are r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e t o g e t h e r i n t h e i r agreement i t i s d i f f i c u l t , younger t e x t t o one  paragraph  i f not i m p o s s i b l e , t o a s s i g n any  o f them j u s t by l o o k i n g a t the  s t a t i s t i c a l figures.  Going  d i s c o v e r s a remarkable the younger manuscripts  through  overall  the c h a r t f o r AbCD one  l i k e n e s s i n the correspondance w i t h any  of  of the f o u r above mentioned.  Judging by the s t a t i s t i c s a l o n e , 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  i n D (89.5% w i t h C, 87.5%  correspond w i t h p a r a l l e l ones  w i t h b and  86.5%  w i t h A)\  L, on  the o t h e r hand, has. a h i g h e r congruence f i g u r e w i t h C: (87% w i t h D,  83.5%  w i t h b, 80.5%  with A).  The  90%  agreement  w i t h the o t h e r manuscripts  i s much lower, f o r W between 6 8%  with GM and  f o r L between 65%  57% w i t h E and  5 3% f o r E, t h e r e f o r e , these manuscripts  f o r GM  have no  and  importance  f o r L and W i n t h i s r e g a r d . A comparison of W and L makes i t e v i d e n t t h a t the  two  102  have a h i g h degree o f a f f i n i t y .  This  a b l e f o r L w h e r e 84% o f i t s i n i t i a l s those  i n W (L:  i s especially noticeare congruent  84% - W - 8 2 % ) , t h e r e b y  nearly equalling  the 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 A and b.  L h a s a somewhat e r r a t i c method  initials,  f r e q u e n t l y they  manuscript. W alone  of setting i t s  are not concurrent  show common p a r a g r a p h m a r k i n g s :  w i t h any o t h e r  2175, 2567, 5703,  w i t h manuscripts  other  t h a n AbCD  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 first  those o f  However, t h e r e a r e a few c a s e s i n w h i c h L and  8707, 9379, and t o g e t h e r (mainly  with  parallels  h a l f o f t h e t e x t , whereas l a t e r ,  p r a c t i c e o f C. 8869 a n d 8895  The t w o p a r a l l e l  occur  i n the  L f o l l o w s more t h e  initials  o f C and L i n  ( d i v e r g e n t f r o m t h e AbCD p a t t e r n )  a turning-point.  only  seem t o mark  Indeed, the percentage f i g u r e s  corrobor-  ate our impression.  Up t o 8 8 5 0 , L shows a n a g r e e m e n t o f  92.5%  s y s t e m w i t h W a n d 8 8 . 5 % w i t h C.  i n i t si n i t i a l  After  t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t w i t h C i n c r e a s e s up t o 9 1 . 5 % , w h i l e w i t h W d r o p s s h a r p l y t o 76%. w h i c h does n o t a f f e c t script.  This  i s a very  unusual  text  i n C a s w e l l a s i n L i n t h e s e c o n d h a l f w h i c h may account f o r the strong s t a t i s t i c a l  omissions partly  concurrence o f t h e two.  T h u s , we a r e l e d t o assume  for  change  L ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a n y o t h e r manu-  M o r e o v e r , t h e c h a r t shows p a r a l l e l  a f t e r using a source  that  that the scribe of L  c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o W ( o r even W  more t h a n t h e f i r s t  itself)  h a l f o f h i s copy changed t o another  103  source more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o C. he f o l l o w e d ent  I t i s also possible  that  one s i n g l e manuscript based on the two d i f f e r -  sources.  We b e l i e v e t h a t he c o u l d not have worked con-  c u r r e n t l y 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  on the *W manuscript and l a t e r more on *C.  more  H i s many s c r i b a l  e r r o r s and t e x t d i s t o r t i o n s o f which a glance a t Sfihns's apparatus g i v e s a s u f f i c i e n t rather inept. a very p l e a s a n t The  The best textura  impression  make him appear as  one can say o f him i s t h a t he wrote script.  p o s i t i o n o f W i n the t e x t t r a d i t i o n cannot be  a s c e r t a i n e d by c o n s u l t i n g the i n i t i a l  system a l o n e .  It  c o u l d d e r i v e from D o r a r e l a t e d manuscript s i n c e 9 out o f 10 i n i t i a l s  might have been taken from t h a t s o u r c e .  ever, u n l i k e D and most other W has preserved sions  manuscripts (except  How-  ABbE),  the t e x t o f one o f t h e author's two d i g r e s -  ( t h e "Schimpfrede", 12247 - 289).  Yet W does agree  with D and most other manuscripts (again except AbBE) i n the o m i s s i o n o f the f i r s t d i g r e s s i o n ( t h e "Damenpreis", 11735  - 870).  Does W r e p r e s e n t  an a n c i e n t  branch  differ-  ent from t h e ones t h a t we have t e n t a t i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d so far,  o r i s i t dependent through v a r i o u s  stages on a common  source w i t h D, a source t h a t must have presented the f u l l text?  We s h a l l have t o leave  t h i s question  open a t t h i s  p o i n t and r e f e r i t t o a l a t e r study o f t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s and text  omissions.  104  3.3.4. Manuscripts G, M, and E  L i k e W, the Gotha codex G and t h e l a r g e London fragment M have been d i s r e g a r d e d by P f e i f f e r ' s t e x t e d i t i o n and by any d e t a i l e d manuscript  study so f a r .  Their inclusion into a  new e d i t i o n seems t i m e l y s i n c e they o f f e r i n t e r e s t i n g p e r 64 spectives.  Although M c o n t a i n s o n l y s l i g h t l y more than  h a l f o f the e n t i r e verse m a t e r i a l o f Barlaam, i t s t h r e e sect i o n s cover r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r t s o f the b e g i n n i n g , the middle  and the end o f the n a r r a t i v e .  F o r t h i s r e a s o n we have  i n c o r p o r a t e d i t i n t o our s t a t i s t i c s . Of a l l m a n u s c r i p t s , G and M show by f a r the h i g h e s t agreement i n t h e i r paragraph initial  There i s not one  i n M t h a t does not have i t s c o u n t e r p a r t i n G (10 0%  congruence), of  division.  and the common i n i t i a l s  G's number o f comparable i n i t i a l s .  w i t h M account  f o r 9 8%  This nearly t o t a l  congruence would suggest t h a t one t e x t might have been c o p i e d d i r e c t l y from the o t h e r , and the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s as to  which one was the source.  Both manuscripts  date  from  approximately the same p e r i o d , and we t h e r e f o r e have t o look for  i n t e r n a l evidence.  G has a t o t a l o f f o u r i n i t i a l s  which  M does not share (#4043, 6031, 7123, 14001) but which See Worstbrock's remark i n AfdA 77 (1966), 114: "Wenn schon e i n e A u s s t a t t u n g des Neudrucks durch z u s a t z l i c h e M a t e r i a l i e n z u r T e x t k r i t i k erwllnscht war, h a t t e n z u e r s t d i e Gothaer Hs. und d i e grossen Londoner Fragmente d i e Ehre verdient." 6 4  105  are i n agreement with most of the other manuscripts.  There-  fore i t i s appropriate  para-  to assume t h a t M omitted  these  graphs r a t h e r than to t h i n k t h a t G i n s e r t e d them on i t s We  surmise t h a t M i s a copy of G; however, at t h i s  we  cannot r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t G and M are two  f a i t h f u l c o p i e s of one The  manuscript  own.  point, very  (*G).  Munich codex E o f f e r s the youngest complete Barlaam  v e r s i o n t h a t we  know.  W r i t t e n i n 1459,  l e c t a l forms as w e l l as i t s Bastarda  i t s Bavarian  dia-  s c r i p t g i v e i t an  appearance very d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of the much o l d e r manus c r i p t s G and  M of Middle German provenance.  The  s c r i b e 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 t h e r e are paragraph markings d i f f e r e n t  from  all  the o t h e r manuscripts.  But  i n many more cases  E shows  a b a s i c agreement w i t h the p r a c t i c e of G and M as demons t r a t e d by some s t a t i s t i c a l f i g u r e s : 84%  -  G  -  79.5%  72%  - CD  -  51%  The  ; ;  80.5%  -  M  -  67%  -  W  -  a f f i n i t y o f G, M and  tem which we one  and  has  ;  57%.  E i s p a r t i c u l a r l y recognizable i n  our c h a r t s i n c e the three d i f f e r AbCD p a t t e r n .  79%  G or r a t h e r *G has  i n many i n s t a n c e s from a l t e r e d the i n i t i a l  b e l i e v e d t o be tantamount t o the i n t r o d u c e d or omitted  graph d i v i s i o n s .  5  ;  para-  show a d i f f e r e n t  t r e n d of s e t t i n g i t s paragraph marks from the very n i n g , but a change takes  sys-  "authentic"  a great number of  The ' G-group does not  the  p l a c e o n l y a f t e r the f i r s t  beginquarter  106  of  the t e x t .  Before 3000 t h e r e are o n l y 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 i n c r e a s e s and a f t e r t h a t i t o c c u r s very f r e q u e n t l y .  T h i s g r a d u a l break with the  tradition  makes i t i m p o s s i b l e t o t e l l by a mere study of the  initial  agreement which ( i f any) of the o l d e r manuscripts known t o us might have been used as source. ses the congruence  w i t h ACD  In the f i r s t  i s about  90% f o r G, somewhat l e s s 'for E.  4000 v e r -  e q u a l l y h i g h , around  A f t e r t h a t the agreement  f i g u r e drops s h a r p l y , g i v i n g G an o v e r a l l agreement of  81%  - D  -  61.5%;  78%  - C - 59%;  78.5%  75.5%  - A - 61%;  76% - W - 68%;  56.5%  K  (The f i g u r e s f o r E see above".)  c  - 6 7%.  71% - L -  factor  - b -  62%;  65%;  The manuscripts o f the *G-group do not share any o f those i n i t i a l s stream"  of D, C or A which d e v i a t e from the "main-  (the consensus  of DC and Ab), thus t h e r e i s no  i n d i c a t i o n here o f a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the one than the o t h e r .  Among the paragraphs  f e r ' s apparatus we  rather  i n B given i n P f e i f -  f i n d a few c o i n c i d i n g w i t h one or a l l  manuscripts of the *G-group: 10373, 10501, 12573.  4443, 5631,  5825, 5973, 7237,  T h i s would suggest e i t h e r t h a t  the  s c r i b e of B used a manuscript b e l o n g i n g t o the *G-group b e s i d e s the one he f o l l o w e d mainly  (*Bb,  see p. 100), o r  even t h a t B o r i g i n a t e d the d e l i b e r a t e m o d i f i c a t i o n of the old  initial  system to some e x t e n t .  At t h i s s t a g e , we  can-  not be c e r t a i n i f the "G-group d e r i v e s from B or any o t h e r  107  manuscript  o r i f i t r e p r e s e n t s an independent,  original  branch o f t e x t t r a n s m i s s i o n .  3.3.5. The K - manuscripts  (K , K , a  b  K ) C  As mentioned above (p. 10-12, 20-21), t h e o n l y one o f the three K-manuscripts  still  a v a i l a b l e f o r s c r u t i n y i s the  c B e r l i n codex K o f t h e f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y . few  c K has r e l a t i v e l y  i n i t i a l s but t h e ones p r e s e r v e d a r e w e l l i n agreement  w i t h the o l d e s t m a n u s c r i p t s , foremost w i t h D, as o u t l i n e d c on p. 92.  Here a r e the percentage  f i g u r e s 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%.  T h i s h i g h percentage  o f congruence w i t h D as w e l l as p a r c a l l e l t e x t omissions make i t very l i k e l y t h a t K stands i n the t r a d i t i o n o f D. There i s no n o t i c e a b l e a f f i n i t y c . a between K  and the "G-group, nor w i t h K .  I f we assume t h a t the paragraphs (K) f a i t h f u l l y correspond t o paragraph  i n Kopke's e d i t i o n d i v i s i o n s i n the  f i r s t Kflnigsberg codex K , our s t a t i s t i c s do not g i v e a a  c l e a r p i c t u r e of i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to other manuscripts. I t s agreement w i t h D i s , r e l a t i v e l y  speaking, the h i g h e s t ,  but not a t a l l comparable t o the c l o s e n e s s o f K contrast to K , K  has a number o f i n i t i a l s  and D.  In  i n common w i t h  108 GM and a l s o WL but not enough to warrant a c l o s e r 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 i m p o s s i b l e t h a t K different i n i t i a l  a  c o u l d have shown a r a t h e r  system, due e i t h e r t o the i n t e n t i o n o r  c a r e l e s s n e s s o f i t s s c r i b e o r t o a contaminated we f e e l j u s t i f i e d the i n i t i a l s  in K .  mann ever c l a i m e d at a l l .  i n doubting  t h a t Kttpke's paragraphs r e f l e c t  N e i t h e r he nor h i s c o l l a b o r a t o r Lach-  they d i d ; they do not mention t h i s  KSpke, who c o n s u l t e d K  .  source,  .  and K° i n a d d i t i o n t o K ,  b  a  c  c e r t a i n l y d i d not use K  f o r h i s paragraphs, the low agree-  ment f i g u r e speaks a g a i n s t i t .  Furthermore, i n one i n s t a n c e  where two l e a v e s a r e m i s s i n g i n K , KSpke f i l l e d a c c o r d i n g t o K° a f t e r comparing i t with K . ^ b  KSpke does not f o l l o w the i n i t i a l s o f K  (1910-2132):  passage tials, and  correspond  i n the t e x t  However,  i n this  particular  he l e a v e s out f o u r o f K 's n i n e  s e t t i n g paragraphs o n l y a t 1815,  2131.  aspect  1837,  ini-  1937,  1981,  These l o n g paragraph u n i t s o f up t o 150  verses  n e a r l y p e r f e c t l y t o 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 a t 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  f i n d i n g them  KSpke f o l l o w e d the paragraphs o f  KSpke, p. 408: "Der Text i s t nach C [ i . e . , K°] mit V e r g l e i c h u n g von B [ i . e . ; K* ] gegeben, und d i e Schreibung der von A [i.e.) K ] g l e i c h gemacht." 3  a  109  more s u i t a b l e f o r the n a r r a t i v e . Is  t h e r e any  f u r t h e r evidence  a s s o c i a t e d with the *G-group?  K  to  and  a l t e r a t i o n s abound.  have no i n f o r m a t i o n on i t s i n i t i a l  look f o r t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s p r o v i d e d  i n order to support  our t h e o r y .  our favour  b  i s that K  i n three cases  and  the omission  section missing E has  i n M),  The  system, we  by Kflpke's apparatus s t r o n g e s t evidence  of a c o u p l e t and M i s s i n g are  i n one  6157-58 (with GEM),  and  the o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s ) .  t a n t even i s the a d d i t i o n a l c o u p l e t i n K (section missing  i n M)  r e a d i n g i n common.  i n which K  b  and  b  and  the  More impor-. GE a f t e r 94-00  the  representa-  s a y i n g to Nachor:  your k i n d .  their  "Nobody e l s e but d e c e i t f u l  What c o u l d  \  people such \ ^WJU~v^  be more g u i l e f u l ? "  9399  an d i z leben s i c h  9400  die  mit v a l s c h e r trtlge  GEK :  als  du und  G:  waz  mochte g o u c l i c h e r 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 g o d l y " )  b  regu-  In the d i s p u t a t i o n between Nachor as i n -  people would choose your C h r i s t i a n l i f e - s t y l e , you and  GE,  13631-32  t i v e s of o t h e r r e l i g i o n s , the Chaldean p r i e s t s end  as  instance  E have a b l a t a n t mis-  v o l u n t a r y spokesman f o r the C h r i s t i a n s and  speech by  in share  3721-22 (with  changed the o r d e r of v e r s e s , G has  l a r t e x t w i t h CD and  have  manuscripts of the *G-group  the a d d i t i o n of a c o u p l e t .  (with M;  might have been  b  seems to have been a codex  b  r e c e n t i o r i n which t e x t omissions Since we  that K  ergebent lebent  d i e genozen d i n  110  T h u s , we  may  conclude  the  *G-group, p r o b a b l y  one  step  the  KSpke  the  "G-manuscripts,  over the is  of  a  So f a r we tion  textual  And  who  have  initials;  where  i n agreement w i t h those  to study  likely  t o have  the text  t h a t KSpke  of K  Going  t h a t i n many c a s e s  a r e most  the wording  to  been  has  of  taken  establish division  variants"of  shown more  t h a n he has done  accuracy  i n preserving  .  textual  variants  h a v e made i t a p r i n c i p l e  at the  beginning  yet, there  i n order  i s a difference  or rather different  When we  now  look  of a paragraph  our p r o v i s i o n a l  due  readings  where  textual  to the fact  h i m s e l f o r by t h e r u b r i c a t o r . i n cases  readings first  beginning  or contradict  posi-  a  back on t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  i s t o blame:  only the  to achieve  manuscripts.  at the very  support  seem t o f a l l  to study  s i g n s and d i s r e g a r d a l l t e x t u a l  o f the Barlaam variants  readings  t o G.  to  paragraph  i f they  scribe  suggest  t h e e x c e p t i o n o f K^)  grouping  belonged  on t h e b a s i s o f i t s paragraph  a  and hope  of paragraph  (with  they  divisions  Spurious  we  have  t o E or M than  has paragraphs  We  transcribing  3.4.  we  of K  edition  textual  closer  must  u  T h i s means t h a t o u r a p p r o a c h  not viable.  the  see  .  position  1  now,  edition  from  KSpke s in  further  that K  c a n be  at and  grouping  method. that mis-  caused  by  I t i s sometimes  there are blatantly  the clear  nonsen-  Ill  s i c a l forms o f d i s t o r t i o n s o f names, t h e 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 t h e t e x t , e x e c u t e d a wrong (Initialenfehler). of  initial  We found s e v e r a l examples f o r t h i s t y p e  m i s t a k e , such as " A l o f e r n u s " i n s t e a d o f O l o f e r n u s ( i n b, 2387), "Doboam" i n s t e a d o f Roboam ( i n b, 2311),  i n s t e a d o f A r a c h i s ( i n A, 7 7 5 9 ) E o l u s ( i n E, 10229).  6 6  "Brachis"  or "Polus" instead of  I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t such s t r i k i n g m i s -  t a k e s would n o t l i k e l y be t a k e n o v e r i n t o a dependent copy and t h e r e f o r e t h e s e c a s e s h a r d l y e v e r shed l i g h t on t h e 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, t h e change o f an i n i t i a l  can modify t h e sense o f t h e p h r a s e w i t h o u t making i t meaningless.  I t must be remembered t h a t , because o f t h e i r  o r n a m e n t a t i o n , some i n i t i a l s  l o o k v e r y much a l i k e a l t h o u g h  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 t h e change c o u l d  have been caused by t h e m i s r e a d i n g o f t h e s c r i b e o r by t h e carelessness of the r u b r i c a t o r .  I n such c a s e s i t i s impro-  p e r t o l a b e l them as " f a l s e i n i t i a l s "  (Initiale  rifehler)  s i n c e t h e o r i g i n a l ' r e a d i n g i s undetermined. The b e g i n n i n g o f t h e p a r a g r a p h a t 19 81 p r o v i d e s a good example.  I n t h e p r e c e d i n g p a s s a g e , Barlaam p r a i s e s t h e  C h r i s t i a n God and t h e t r i n i t y and c o n t r a s t s them w i t h t h e pagan i d o l s . 66  The new s e c t i o n c o n t i n u e s t h e p r a i s e .  There i s an o c c a s i o n a l c o n f u s i o n between t h e names of t h e two c o u n s e l l o r s " B a r a c h i a s " and " A r a c h i s " i n o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s , e s p e c i a l l y i n L.  112  c P f e i f f e r reads w i t h manuscript  K  • :  "Einen got v x l l o b e s a -  men/geloube i c h , einen i n d r i n namen . . . " codex L shows the same v a r i a n t without o t h e r manuscripts "Minen got"  read "Disen got"  : AbGp, "Ainen got"  does not make sense  Bonn  an i n i t i a l .  : C, "Dinen  : E.  i s t h a t o f DW,  The  The  got"  :  DW,  only v e r s i o n t h a t  s i n c e Josaphat  a heathen at t h a t p o i n t o f the d i a l o g u e .  The  is s t i l l  The most  satis-  f y i n g form i s indeed "Einen got", u n d e r l i n i n g the c o n t r a s t between the one  almighty God  and the many powerless c  however, o n l y the more r e c e n t manuscripts port this version.  E, K  I t seems as i f the i n i t i a l  idols;  and L supin,D  had  a c t u a l l y been a l t e r e d , but i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o d i s c o v e r which one might have been the o r i g i n a l c a p i t a l T h i s g i v e s room f o r s p e c u l a t i o n .  letter.  W either followed D — o u r  s t a t i s t i c a l study showed t h a t W c o u l d p r o b a b l y 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 c o u l d have made  the same mistake  independently  from D.  C c o u l d have  found  t h i s form i n i t s source and have t r i e d t o c o r r e c t i t by a l t e r i n g the "Dinen"  i n t o "Disen."  On the o t h e r hand,  "Disen" might r e p r e s e n t the o r i g i n a l r e a d i n g d i s t o r t e d "Dinen" by DW.  The  t h i r d v e r s i o n "Minen got" i s p e r f e c t l y  p o s s i b l e and c o u l d be the o r i g i n a l r e a d i n g a l s o . manuscripts  into  The  four  p r e s e n t i n g i t are r e l a t e d i n p a i r s , fragment p  b e l o n g i n g t o the *G-group and b coming f o r t h from a source c l o s e t o A (see above). these two  Was  t h e r e any  i n t e r a c t i o n between  groups o r do we have independent  attempts  to  113  c o r r e c t an o b v i o u s l y f a u l t y v a r i a n t  "Dinen?"  These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a p t l y demonstrate  the  difficul-  t i e s i n e v a l u a t i n g such d i v e r g e n t f o r m s . i n o r d e r to d e t e r mine which one might be the a u t h e n t i c v e r s i o n , i f we there was  o n l y one.  The  assume  e d i t o r , i n such a case, w i l l most  l i k e l y r e s o r t to h i s t a s t e , j u s t as B e d i e r had  suggested,  u n l e s s the L a t i n t e x t g i v e s s t r o n g support f o r one  theory.  Here, i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , the L a t i n v e r s i o n , as p r e s e n t e d by Migne's P a t r o T o g i a T a t i n a , t.73, p. 464-, f u l l y P f e i f f e r ' s choice: multos  justifies  "Neque enim ex eorum numero sum  hos e t p e t u l a n t e s deos c o l u n t  . . .  qui  verum unum 67  Deum agnosco e t c o n f i t e o r q u i i n t r i b u s p e r s o n i s . . ." F o r t u n a t e l y , such cases are r a r e .  One  s i n g l e common v a r i -  ant of t h a t k i n d cannot be regarded as evidence f o r a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a n u s c r i p t s :  i t needs a more f r e -  quent o c c u r r e n c e o r cases where t h e r e are a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r ent words o r phrases  a t the b e g i n n i n g o f a new  which c o u l d not be a s c r i b e d t o an i n a t t e n t i v e  paragraph rubricator.  T h i s t h i r d t y p e , the p r o p e r t e x t u a l v a r i a n t , i s p r o b a b l y the f i n a l r e s u l t of a copying process i n which e r r o r s o f r u b r i c a t i o n were t e n t a t i v e l y amended a t a l a t e r s t a g e . Thus they stand as a d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n o f t h e i r own  and  are  67 For a more d e 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 G r e e k — w o u l d not s u f f i c e and the p r e s e r v e d L a t i n manuscripts of the " v u l g a t e " v e r s i o n o f Barlaam s h o u l d be c o n s u l t e d . Sonet l i s t s 62 such manus c r i p t s (Le Roman de BuJ, I , 74-88); whether R u d o l f ' s source i s among them i s unknown.  114  u s u a l l y conducive t o r e c o g n i z i n g c l o s e r groupings o f manuscripts . The comparison  o f t h e v a r i o u s paragraph b e g i n n i n g s i n  the Barlaam-manuscripts  y i e l d s no s u r p r i s e s ; i t confirms  mainly two c l e a r groupings which were shown a l r e a d y by our s t a t i s t i c a l survey:  a) the *G-group (GEM) and b) the c l o s e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between W and L. 68 a) 1455 P f . GEM 4325 P f . GEM  E r hate daz wol e r v a r n Barlaam h a t t e wol e r v a r n Noch w i l i c h d i r ktinden; Doch . . . L Aber w i l i c h . . . ( i n i t i a l s i n GEMLW), t e x t missing i n D  712 3 P f . GEM  Nach d i r r e l e r e wart  getan  Nu d i z wart a l s u s getan (no i n i t i a l  i n M)  7287 ACKK° Noch l a d i c h des durch got gezemen GEM  Doch l a . . .; So l a . . . D  BWL  Nu l a . . . (no paragraph); no t e x t i n b  750 3 P f .  14315  b)  A l s e r des boten rede vernam  GM  Da Zardan d i e b o t s c h a f t vernam; Zardan  Pf.  A l s u s - n a h e t im der t o t  GEM  Hiemit nahete  165 P f . WL  . . . ]  im'. . .  H i e v o r i n d e r gnaden z i t D i e i n d e r gnaden z i t  68 P f e i f f e r ' s text (Pf.) represents the v a r i a n t s o f a l l the o t h e r unmentioned m a n u s c r i p t s . The s p e l l i n g i s unified.  115  431 P f .  3541  Do vuogte  sich  . ..  WL  Nu fugete ez s i c h  . ..  Pf.  Ouch h a t uns b i s p e l gegeben; Doch h a t . . . b  WL  Nu h a t uns . . .; I c h han uns g e l e u c h n i z . . .E  39 91 P f . WL  Dar an raerke minen r a t Heran merke . . .  84 7 7 GEMAb Noch waer min r a t a l s o getan; Doch . . . D WL In  Nu wer . . .; Joch  . . . K; Ouch . . . K  the second h a l f o f the t e x t , t h e r e are no f u r t h e r com-  mon v a r i a n t s i n the paragraph beginnings o f W and L.  This  would c o n f i r m o u r f i n d i n g s i n the study o f i n i t i a l s ,  namely  t h a t L changes i t s source a f t e r approximately the f i r s t 8850 v e r s e s and f o l l o w s C o r a common s o u r c e .  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  beginnings,  and paragraph  L and C do not show any s t r i k i n g v a r i a n t s from t h e r e o n . At 160 29, t h e s c r i b e o f L must have misread t h e l i n e " I n k r i e c h i s c h man d i z maere s c h r e i p " and changed i t i n t o " Z Q k r i c h i n man." W:  An even g r e a t e r m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n occurs i n  " E i n k r i e c h s c h e n man d i s s c h r e i p " and i n E: " A i n  k r i e c h e d i t z maere s c h r a i p . "  However t h e r e i s no f u r t h e r  evidence f o r t h e above mentioned p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t W and D might belong t o one group. On the o t h e r hand, the theory t h a t K  and D are c l o s e -  l y r e l a t e d t o one another i s supported by the paragraph a t 1009  where D, K° and K read "Do was b i im . . ." i n s t e a d  116  of  "Nu was  . . ."as  are 8477 as mentioned  a l l t h e o t h e r s do. above (D, K and K  Two  f u r t h e r examples  have s l i g h t l y  dif-  f e r e n t forms from t h e 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 r e a d "An a l s u s getanes l e b e n " i n s t e a d o f " I n a l s u s . . ." l i k e t h e o t h e r manuc 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 b o t h K and K (which c o u l d not be a s s e s s e d on t h e b a s i s o f i t s i n i t i a l s ) are d e r i v e d from a m a n u s c r i p t v e r y c l o s e t o D, but p r o b a b l y not D i t s e l f .  D shows a few p a r t i c u l a r m i s r e a d i n g s  are no found i n K  o r K:  which  10 39 "Der s p r a c h " i n s t e a d o f "Er  s p r a c h " ; 7287 "So l a d i c h des durch got gezemen" i n s t e a d o f "Noch l a . . ." i n K and K , c  or  9129  "Doch" i n GEM  and "Nu"  " S i t v r i d e wart g e v e s t e n t d o r t " ( s h a r e d by  i n s t e a d of "Mit v r i d e wart  in  BWL;  b)  ..."  The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e two major m a n u s c r i p t s C and D i s as y e t t h e l e a s t c l a r i f i e d .  The s t u d y o f t h e i r i n i t i a l s  showed g r e a t l i k e n e s s , however t h e comparison  of t h e i r para-  graph b e g i n n i n g s d i d not p r o v i d e us w i t h any f u r t h e r c l u e s . When we now  proceed t o a n a l y s e t h e Barlaam-fragments  in  t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e complete m a n u s c r i p t s , we hope t o g a i n more m a t e r i a l whereby we might be a b l e t o a s s e s s more a c c u r a t e l y t h e i r r a n k w i t h i n t h e framework o f the t e x t dition .  tra-  117  4.  The s m a l l e r fragments  4.1. I n t r o d u c t o r y  remarks  The f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r takes i n t o account a l l a v a i l a b l e s m a l l e r Barlaam fragments and attempts t o a s s e s s t h e i r importance f o r a r e l i a b l e new t e x t e d i t i o n .  A considerable  amount o f c o n f u s i o n i s n o t i c e a b l e i n t h i s m a t t e r .  As men-  t i o n e d b e f o r e , P f e i f f e r used only very few fragments f o r h i s e d i t i o n and Sflhns's t h e s i s added t h e r fragments, a l b e i t  i n f o r m a t i o n on s i x f u r -  some o f i t from second hand.  Since  then, a number o f f u r t h e r Barlaam fragments have been  dis-  covered and some have d i s a p p e a r e d ; even s i n c e the l a s t and so f a r o n l y l i s t  o f fragments a f t e r P f e i f f e r and S6hns,  t h a t o f Worstbrock i n 1966 (see c h a p t e r 1.2), t h r e e fragments p, q, and r have been made known.  further  Worstbrock  j u s t l y c o r r e c t s the e r r o r s c o n t a i n e d i n H. Rupp's Nachwort to the r e p r i n t e d P f e i f f e r e d i t i o n , but h i s own i n d i c a t i o n s are not c o m p l e t e l y f r e e o f m i s t a k e s .  Worstbrock does not  update P f e i f f e r ' s and Sflhns's i n f o r m a t i o n and he does not d e a l w i t h the i n t r i n s i c v a l u e o f the fragments he l i s t s . V a r i o u s f i g u r e s f o r the o v e r a l l number o f manuscripts and fragments have been suggested; Worstbrock c l a i m s : der T a t l a s s e n s i c h mindestens  45 Textzeugen  For our purpose, such f i g u r e s are i r r e l e v a n t .  "In  nachweisen." What we are  concerned about i s t o l e a r n which fragments have p r e s e r v e d an independent v e r s i o n o f the Barlaam t e x t and c o u l d be con-  118  suited for a re-edition. f i r s t which fragments  and have to be c o n s i d e r e d as  The next step i s t o assess how  the  r e l a t e t o each o t h e r , t o the major manuscripts s c r i p t groupings  out  are "matched," are p a r t o f the same,  otherwise l o s t manuscript text witness.  That means we have t o f i n d  one  fragments  and manu-  and which of them deserves s p e c i a l a t t e n -  t i o n i n view o f a t e x t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .  During t h i s  cess we g a t h e r m a t e r i a l c o n c e r n i n g not o n l y the  pro-  fragment  under study but a l s o h a v i n g a b e a r i n g on o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s . T h i s evidence i s needed f o r a c r i t i c a l look back upon the t e n t a t i v e r e s u l t s gained i n c h a p t e r t h r e e and hence f o r a f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n of the i n i t i a l method a p p l i e d t h e r e . An attempt  t o group manuscripts  on the b a s i s o f t e x -  t u a l v a r i a n t s i s c o n s t a n t l y c o n f r o n t e d w i t h the problem s e l e c t i o n and subjectivity.  of  c r e d i b i l i t y and thus open t o the r e p r o a c h o f T h i s i s sometimes u n a v o i d a b l e , 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 o f common v a r i a n t s o r the omission o f o t h e r s cannot be expected i n t h i s For convenience's  framework.  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 o f  v a r i o u s manuscripts  showing p a r a l l e l r e a d i n g s has been d i s -  regarded, a b b r e v i a t i o n s are s p e l l e d out and o b s o l e t e l e t t e r s (the  two  d i f f e r e n t forms of - s - , - r - , and -z-) o r  c a l marks modernized  or g i v e n up.  r e p r e s e n t s the consensus  Whenever P f e i f f e r ' s  of a l l manuscripts  stand alone i n t h e i r p l a c e .  diacrititext  the s i g l e Pf can  119  4.2.  Matching  fragments  4.2.1. Fragments d and q  The  Z u r i c h fragment d i s among the few t h a t P f e i f f e r  for  his edition.  Bruchstucken gut und  He  ranked  i t above the o t h e r s ("Von  wusste i c h k e i n e s auszuzeichnen  alt ist."  Bar1aam, p. 409), without  son always f o l l o w i n g i t s r e a d i n g . of  These two  the t h i r t e e n t h century c o n t a i n 242  and 11331  seven i n i t i a l s tions:  a u s s e r d,  das  f o r that reavellum leaves 11084  columns o f 29 t o  a l t e r n a t i n g i n r e d and b l u e .  i n d agree w i t h those i n CDb  d d o e s not have a paragraph  den  v e r s e s (10967 -  - 11454), n e a t l y w r i t t e n i n two  31 l i n e s w i t h i n i t i a l s  used  a t 11345  w i t h two  The excep-  as a l l the  others do and a t 1140 7 the r u b r i c a t o r s e t the m a r g i n a l t i a l I one  l i n e too low:  komin / Ich han uon  ini-  ICh b i n durch daz her zuo d i r  d i r a i n t a i l uirnomin.  The  scribe  had  c l e a r l y meant i t t o be drawn i n f r o n t o f the f i r s t ICh the c a p i t a l f o l l o w - u p l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s .  T h e r e f o r e , the  r u b r i c a t o r ' s s l i p c o u l d have e a s i l y been r e c o g n i z e d c o r r e c t e d by s c r i b e s copying from t h i s The few  as  and  manuscript.  t e x t i n d i s r e l i a b l e , indeed, t h e r e are o n l y a  cases i n which d does not show a meaningful  as 11009:  Do g i b o t der k u n i c sa / Daz  k'nappin s t r i t ,  variant,  s i c h schiede  i n s t e a d of "des' kamphes s t r i t , " o r at  the s i n g u l a r form i n s t e a d o f the c o r r e c t p l u r a l : m a i s t e r nam  e r do / Die s c h i e d i n dan mit im  unvro.  such  des 11033  Sinen  120  P f e i f f e r claims e r r o n e o u s l y i n h i s apparatus  t h a t verses  10972 (275,32) and 11030 (277,10) are m i s s i n g ; however, t h e r e are no t e x t omissions  a t a l l i n d.  SShns, who d e a l t with the p o s i t i o n o f d i n r e l a t i o n t o the o t h e r manuscripts,  a s s o c i a t e d i t c o r r e c t l y w i t h the  DK K -group ( o b v i o u s l y g i v i n g up h i s i n i t i a l a  c  cL  claim that  C  t h i s Reihe c o n s i s t s o f A as w e l l as DK K ). He supported his is  statement invalid  by f o u r t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s , the l a s t o f which  (11408 "von d i r e i n t e i l " i s read not o n l y i n  d and DK K , but a l s o CGWLb. a  P f e i f f e r f o l l o w s A and E which  c  read " e i n t e i l von d i r . " ) .  I t seems adequate, t h e r e f o r e , t o  o f f e r our own b r i e f s e l e c t i o n o f common readings i n o r d e r to  e s t a b l i s h the a f f i n i t y o f d w i t h the DK K -group.  109 76  Pf:  ( e i n r i c h e daz niemer  zergat/)  unde an ende vreude h a t d:  daz anegande vroude h a t ; und anegende .  10992  . . DK K a  C  P f : got l o b t e s o l h e r guete K d: c  got l o b t e r s i n e r g l i e t i ; guete  11001  got l o b t e s i n e r  DK E a  P f : Swenne e r gen im k e r t e Ld:  Swenne e r s i c h g e i n im k.; S. e. gen im sich kerte DK K° a  11336  P f : so d i s i u veste wart e r k a n t ; d i s i u hochDK K d: a  c  gezit W so diu foste wart irkant  121  11348  P f : daz der kttnec b e l i b e DK K bd a  daz d e r k u n i c b e l i b e v r o  C  11369  alvro  Pf  und waz Nachor i n haete getan; u. w. i n N. . . . EGb  DK K d a  C  und was N. im h e t t e getan  C  und was N. hete getan  Pf  11371  ir  DK K d a  C  s i c i r saelde i r ere  i r saelde i r sige i r ere  In c o n c l u s i o n , one c o u l d agree w i t h SShns' statement t h a t d as w e l l as D K K a  C  o r i g i n a t e d from a common s o u r c e ,  although o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s  c o u l d be suggested.  b l e t h a t d shares a common v a r i a n t alone w i t h K  I t i s notai n two  instances: 11028  Pf dK  11431  C  Pf  . . . daz tuon ouch i c h . . , daz tuon i c h (und ander hfivesche l i u t e d i e den goten machen I  d:  guot//)  . . .  I die hohgezit  d i e dem l i u t e machin; den l u t e n machen K  I t seems t h a t K  is- p r o b a b l y even more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o  d than D and K , a l t h o u g h i t c o u l d not have descended a  it  i n a direct line.  from  T h e i r 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 b a s i s o f these few v e r s e s impossible. In 1972, a t t e n t i o n was drawn t o two f o r m e r l y unknown Barlaam fragments  kept i n the f e d e r a l a r c h i v e s  (Staatsarchiv)  122  Schaffhausen/Switzerland.  P. Ochsenbein d e s c r i b e d them  m i n u t e l y , i n c l u d e d two f a c s i m i l e samples, and attempted t o compare t h e i r v e r s i o n t o t h a t o f the o t h e r manuscripts (see p. 23, f o o t n o t e 38). We  concern o u r s e l v e s here w i t h q, the f i r s t  one of  these two fragments, c o n s i s t i n g o f two p a r t l y damaged v e l l u m l e a v e s which c o n t a i n most of the t e x t between 6017  and  6137  and on the o t h e r l e a f 6 3 85 to 6 415 and 6475 t o 6504, a l t o gether about 180 v e r s e s (some o f them cut i n h a l f ) .  Con-  t r a r y t o Ochsenbein's assumption t h a t q i s an independent witness o f the Barlaam t e x t t r a d i t i o n , we  could  establish  t h a t q a c t u a l l y i s a p a r t o f the same otherwise l o s t manu69 s c r i p t t o which the Z u r i c h fragment d belonged.  A compar-  i s o n of the f a c s i m i l e sample o f q w i t h a photocopy o f d proved t h a t the arrangement  of the t e x t , the measurements o f  the columns, the h a n d w r i t i n g and the e x e c u t i o n o f are i d e n t i c a l .  initials  Furthermore, both fragments show the same  alemannic d i a l e c t f e a t u r e s  (".  . . im  ttstlichen  hochaleman-  n i s c h e n Raum entstanden," Ochsenbein, p. 323) and a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n to o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s . P. Ochsenbein's  statement t h a t a r e l i a b l e grouping  (Eiriordnung) of t h i s fragment i s not p o s s i b l e cannot be upheld. 69  H i s s c e p t i c i s m towards the r i g i d , y e t q u e s t i o n a b l e . . . . . Dr. Ochsenbein k i n d l y confirmed our f i n d i n g s i n a l e t t e r o f May 14, 1973.  123  stemma o f SfcVhns i s commendable, however i n t h i s  particular  case, e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r matching q w i t h d and thus h a v i n g a l a r g e r b a s i s o f comparison, we can p o s i t i v e l y conclude t h a t q belongs t o the D K K a  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 o f t h i s a f f i l i a t i o n , but the f o l l o w -  ing  t h r e e common v a r i a n t s s h o u l d s u f f i c e i n support o f o u r  theory. 6051  ACLW: DK K q: a  C  GMn: 6112  Pf: DK q: a  do wart e r guotes der  Pf: DK K q: a  c  richir  sus wart e r g . r . ; a l s o wart e r . .  .  E  d i c h s i h e so wol gehorsam s i n d i c h s i h e so gar g. s.; d i c h .  6125  wart g u o t i s  richer  . . K  s i h e und gar  C  sist  i n s i n e r wunne groz  sist  i n s i n e n wunen groz  Ochsenbein mentions  two s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l r e a d i n g s i n  q and C which i n h i s view make a l l attempts at grouping q In 6 0 9 1 C and q use the verb d u l t e n i n s t e a d o f  futile.  l i d e n , and i n 6116 they both a v o i d the r e p e t i t i o n o f got through i t s r e l a t i v e 11  pronoun:  . . . ze gote w i l l e c l i c h e n muot / daz e r d i n ende mache  guot."  We h o l d t h a t t h i s l a t t e r example c o u l d v e r y w e l l be  an independent, spontaneous uscripts.  smoothing  o f s t y l e i n both man-  Such a l t e r a t i o n s occur here and t h e r e , the oppo-  s i t e appears e.g. i n 6 04-5 where only q has a r e p e a t e d noun der  sweher w i t h i n two v e r s e s and a l l o t h e r manuscripts use  124  the  personal pronoun  noticed  that  anywhere several  else  be  first  example,  d u l t e n does  not  liden,  however,  i n a l lmanuscripts  (5318,  8221,  both  as  to the  arbeit  terms  i n very  i n rhymed p o s i t i o n  treated  As  expression arbeit  i n Barlaam,  times  author uses appears  the  instead.  synonym t o  at  similar 3486  liden  i n the  15248 sense  occur  is  used  12447).  phrases,  and  we  dulden  and of  The  seems  "to  to  suffer, 70  to  bear."  shows t h a t the  The  dialectographical  the  two  thirteenth  over the liden  in A  replaced  muoste  by  C and  pendently preference  q  and  other passages. not  called  and  h  one  We  at  liden  c o u l d have  from  that  fluctuating  became p r e d o m i n a n t .  fluctuation  6091  words c o - e x i s t e d  c e n t u r y and  o t h e r was  s t u d y by  i n German  found  dialects  preference of the  another  T h u s , we  substituted due  i n accordance affinity  Smet  for a while until  rat.  i n q u e s t i o n by  de  by  scribe's  w i t h the  author's  these  dq w i t h t h e two  parallels  that  at  dialectal usage  DK  K  i n  group  between q  C.  G i l b e r t de S m e t , " D i e A u s d r i l c k e A l t deutschen,"' Wirkendes Wort 5 (1954),  this  dulten inde-  to the  of  finally  dulten rat i s  suggest  liden  one  example o f  12035, where muoste  another  The  the  G.  fur leiden 69-79":  im  i s and  1.2 5  4.2.2. Fragments e and 1  At a p e r f u n c t o r y g l a n c e i t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t e and 1 should be p a r t o f one otherwise l o s t manuscript. leaves o f the Nuremberg fragment  The  two  1 c o n t a i n the t e x t i n a  c o n t i n u o u s l y w r i t t e n form whereas i n the Munich fragment e one verse i s a s s i g n e d to each l i n e .  Furthermore, the  c a t i o n s as t o age and s i z e o f the fragments what:  indi-  d i f f e r some-  e i s dated from "Middle o f the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y "  to " f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y " (see c h a p t e r 2.2.), and i t i s desc r i b e d as "Grossoktav" as w e l l as " s m a l l q u a r t o ; " 1, on the other hand, i s w r i t t e n a t the end o f the t h i r t e e n t h o r b e g i n n i n g o f the f o u r t e e n t h century and i s i n o c t a v o , 71 a c c o r d i n g t o F. P f e i f f e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n . e d i t i o n P f e i f f e r used fragment s c r i p t , fragment his edition.  1 was  For h i s Barlaam  e o n l y i n form o f a t r a n -  sent t o him a f t e r the appearance  of  So P f e i f f e r never compared both fragments i n  the o r i g i n a l o r commented on t h e i r p o s s i b l e c o n n e c t i o n . The same h o l d s t r u e f o r Sfihns who  does not go  substantially  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 t o d i f f e r e n t s i z e s as b e f i t t i n g purpose.  the  However, i n both e and 1 the c a r e f u l l y drawn s e t  of l i n e s f o r the two columns o f each page has a h e i g h t o f 71 F. P f e i f f e r , "Bruchstdck aus Barlaam und Josaphat von Rudolf von Ems," A n z e i g e r f u r Kunde der deutschen V o r z e i t (1854), 108-109.  126  14.5  cm,  a width of 4.4  cm,  the f r e e space  between the columns i s of 0.6  i n the  middle  cm and a l l l i n e s are 0.45  cm  72 apart.  Both fragments show the same h a n d w r i t i n g  with  some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s such as the c a p i t a l S, D and N and have the same a b b r e v i a t i o n s .  The Alemannic  forms are mainly the same as much as one a s h o r t sample (e has  a l t o g e t h e r o n l y 138  both s c r i b e s vary i n t h e i r s p e l l i n g ) . s u a l t o f i n d a manuscript  from  such  v e r s e s , moreover  I t i s c e r t a i n l y unuout  l a t e r changes to w r i t i n g  verse l i n e s , but i t does not seem t o be i m p o s s i b l e .  s m a l l format to  can t e l l  where the s c r i b e s t a r t s  w r i t i n g h i s t e x t c o n t i n u o u s l y and in  dialectal  o f the v e l l u m makes i t d i f f i c u l t  f i t a whole verse i n t o one  The  for a scribe  l i n e o f each column.  In  ment e> which has p r e s e r v e d o n l y the major p a r t o f the  fragepi-  logue, a s p e c i a l e f f o r t seems t o have been made, and y e t i n ' one  i n s t a n c e a v e r s e (16 057)  l i n e s as w e l l .  Possibly  has t o be spread over  only the e p i l o g u e was  two  written i n  verses t o s e t i t o f f from the n a r r a t i v e p a r t o f the work, but t h e r e i s no p r o o f f o r such an assumption. The Nuremberg fragment 1 with i t s t e x t between 436 8 • c and 4612  agrees  m  f i v e of i t s s i x i n i t i a l s w i t h K.  (D having a t e x t omission u n t i l  and  A  4396) and d i v e r g e s t o a  s t r o n g e r degree from those i n o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s .  Pfeiffer  had n o t i c e d a l r e a d y t h a t the t e x t o f 1 resembles  mostly t h a t  of  D.  Sflhns took t h i s theory up and 72  supported i t by f o u r . . A l l measurements are taken from the m i c r o f i l m copy.  127  common v a r i a n t s ,  one o f them i n c o r r e c t :  i r s l a f inphiengen ( i n s t e a d can  o f Pf:  45 85 mit vreuden  mit vreuden s l a f  be found i n GEM as w e l l as DK K . a  . . .)  He o v e r s t r a i n s the  c  argument however by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t D K K a  C  might have been  d i r e c t l y c o p i e d from 1; the o p p o s i t e case ("oder umgekehrt .  . .," Sohns, p. 41) does not make any sense a t a l l s i n c e  K K a  C  are younger than 1 by a t l e a s t a hundred y e a r s .  - The  f o l l o w i n g examples s h o u l d p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r the  c l o s e a f f i n i t y between 1 and DK K : a  Pf  4465  4556  Pf  und  mttgen l e i d e r doch n i h t komen  G  omission of l e i d e r  Pf  mit  ir'gezierde  trtigelich  DK K°l  mit  i r geheizen  trugelich  a  4560 a  Pf DK 1 C  W 4595  Swer s i c h u f s i s l a f e n Swer s i c h u f s l a f e n  leit  leit  Swer s i c h s i s. 1.; Swer s i c h s l a f e n  Pf  den  l a t s i l i g e n i n d e r not  DK 1  den  l a t l i g e n i n d e r not  C  In these l a s t two c a s e s , KSpke's t e x t and  bekleit  i r l i p i r leben wart b e c l e i t  DK K l  4585  l i p i r muot wurden  G  DK K l a  ir  c  agrees w i t h  he does not g i v e any i n f o r m a t i o n i n h i s  a different  reading i n K .  I t i s possible,  KSpke t a c i t l y c o r r e c t e d K 's v e r s i o n i n h i s 449 2, only 1 and D share a common r e a d i n g : Pf:  d i e d i r r e welte minne b o t  leit L  Pfeiffer's  apparatus o f though, t h a t edition.  128  ID:  d i e d i r r e wunne b o t ; d i e d i r r e welte wunne bot K K A.  These v a r i a n t s would support the view t h a t there might have been a common source f o r K K  on the one hand  connected w i t h dq) and another one f o r ID. they a l l belong t o one branch other manuscripts.  (possibly-  In any case,  definitely different  from the  A does not share any o f the o t h e r common  v a r i a n t s o f t h i s group i n the above quoted t h e r e f o r e not be counted.  In the paragraph  passage and can b e f o r e 4 4-9 2,  both e x p r e s s i o n s " d i e welt minnen" (4445) and "der welte wunne" (4451) occur:  t h u s , the agreement o f A and K K a  c  in  449 2 c o u l d be a c c i d e n t a l o r due t o c o n t a m i n a t i o n . Going back t o Sfihns' s u g g e s t i o n t h a t D and 1 might have been c o p i e d from one another, the f o l l o w i n g counter-arguments must be r a i s e d : and  4396 i n which 1 seems t o have c o n t a i n e d the t e x t (1  begins a t 4368). c o p i e d from 1. of  D has a t e x t omission between 4213  On the o t h e r hand, D has not l i k e l y  The gap i n D which l e a v e s out the p a r a b l e s  the P r o d i g a l Son and the Good Shepherd and jumps  the middle  been  from  o f Barlaam's speech  i n t o Josaphat's  response  have been caused by a c c i d e n t .  The most l i k e l y  explanation  i s t h a t the s c r i b e o f D a c c i d e n t a l l y turned two pages.  must  The  m i s s i n g amount o f 184 verses would i n d i c a t e t h a t the source of D was w r i t t e n i n two columns o f 46 v e r s e s , which i s o b v i o u s l y not the case with 1 ( i t s verse 4396 being i n the middle  o f a page).  Once the p o s i t i o n o f 1 has been e s t a b l i s h e d we can look  129  at the much s h o r t e r fragment e which i s , as s t a t e d b e f o r e , p a r t o f the same manuscript as 1. i n h i g h esteem by P f e i f f e r and one  Fragment e has  Stihns s i n c e i t i s the  to mark the a c r o s t i c RVODOLF (16151-157) by  capitals.  been h e l d only  rubricized  Sunns d e c l a r e s h i m s e l f unable to group t h i s  fragment on grounds o f i t s a l l e g e d l a c k o f evidence. f a c t , a comparison w i t h D i s i m p o s s i b l e o f D have been l o s t , the same holds The  initials  as the l a s t leaves  t r u e f o r b and  i n e c o i n c i d e completely  initial  f o r g e t t i n g i t s e x e c u t i o n ) , but K  the a c r o s t i c .  A:  16049  in K  to  does not mark  Furthermore, there are some common  and mistakes i n e and  M.  wxth those  (even to the extent o f a s s i g n i n g a marginal 16 0 29 and  In  readings  i n K K , as f o l l o w s : a  c  d i e k r i e c h i s c h kunnen v e r s t a n ; d.: k.  kunden  verstan E K K e: a  C  CGWL: CGW:  16050  K K e: a  c  d i e c r i e c s c h e kunnen wol  verstan  d i e k r i e c h i s c h kunnen s i c h  verstan  waer ez i n kriecheschem  gelan  wer  (see  ez c r i e c h i s c h gelan  Ktfpke s 1  apparatus) A:  ...  i n k r i e c h s c h e r rede g.; h i e t ez  der  h e r r e n i t getan E 16064  Pf K K e a  16148  C  GWK  C  K e  do g e v i e l d i u g e s c h i h t do v i e l d. g.  (see Kopke s apparatus) 1  wunschet mir und  i u daz wir;  ...  . daz  ir E  wunschit mir und  daz w i r ; w.  i u unde mir A  of  130  1616 0  AEGWK :  h i l f uns daz w i r von schame r o t ; daz w i r n i h t von  K e: The  l a s t two  hilf  . . . C  uns daz von schame r o t  s c r i b a l e r r o r s c o u l d p o s s i b l y be found i n  K  a  as w e l l and have been t a c i t l y c o r r e c t e d i n Kttpke's e d i t i o n . Fragment e shows two own  (the most important:  l e r e ) , j u s t as K  a  or K  c  o r t h r e e minor v a r i a n t s o f i t s 16071  do  (K  c  "an suozer rede" i n s t e a d o f l e a v e s out  16055-56),  but the s t r o n g o v e r a l l agreement between e and K K beyond any doubt.  I t must be remembered t h a t K  is  i s a very  c  l a t e manuscript w i t h numerous c u t s , thus the a f f i n i t y i s the more s t r i k i n g . In  c o n c l u s i o n we m a i n t a i n t h a t the fragment  of the two  p a r t s e and 1 belonged t o a r e l i a b l e  consisting manuscript  of the D K K ° -branch, s i m i l a r to dq, and s h o u l d be c o n s u l t e d a  whenever a r e a d i n g i n D i s i n doubt  4-. 2 . 3 . Fragments m and  The s o - c a l l e d  F2  'Gdttweig fragment'  ently to a misunderstanding. first  or non-existent.  (m) owes i t s name appar-  I t was  d e s c r i b e d f o r the  time by the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y A u s t r i a n  germanist  Joseph Diemer, d i r e c t o r o f the U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y i n Vienna, who  began h i s a r t i c l e w i t h the somewhat ambiguous words:  "Zwei P e r g a m e n t b l a t t e r i n F o l i o aus dem  Ende des 13.  Jahr-  hunderts, deren M i t t h e i l u n g i c h der zuvorkommenden Gute  \  131  des hochwlirdigen Herrn  B i b l i o t h e k a r s and S u b p r i o r s  B e 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  des  Reichardt  73 verdanke."  Stihns who  d e s c r i p t i o n concluded  based h i s study o f m on Diemer's  from the above quoted word " M i t -  t h e i l u n g " t h a t t h i s fragment was  actually  monastery o f GBttweig (Sfihns, p. 4-).  l o c a t e d i n the  S i n c e then  fragment  m i s known and r e f e r r e d t o as the "Gttttweig fragment." However, w i t h i n the past two  c e n t u r i e s t h e r e have never been  any Barlaam fragments i n the m o n a s t e r i a l l i b r a r y a t Gttttweig and i t might be assumed t h a t P. R e i c h a r d t a c q u i r e d  these  two  leaves from a p r i v a t e owner and forwarded them ( " m i t t e i l e n " ) 74 . to J . Diemer. - U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e i r whereabouts are unknown s i n c e then. I t would seem a f r u i t l e s s endeavour t o a n a l y s e a l o s t fragment on the mere b a s i s 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 Diemer's d e s c r i p t i o n and  o f the o l d e s t known manuscripts  and  c a t a l o g u e o f v a r i a n t s i s very  extensive b) we  d i s c o v e r e d a matching fragment to m which broadens  the b a s i s f o r our a n a l y s i s and c r i t e r i a such as h a n d w r i t i n g ,  allows us to take outward e x e c u t i o n of i n i t i a l s  into  73 J . Diemer, " K l e i n e B e i t r a g e  . . .," p. 6 50.  74 We are much o b l i g e d t o 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 o f the O s t e r r e i c h i s c h e N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k i n Vienna f o r t h e i r k i n d . information.  132  c o n s i d e r a t i o n as w e l l . of  the same otherwise  T h i s o t h e r fragment c o n t a i n i n g p a r t s l o s t manuscript  i s p r e s e n t l y kept at  the 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 , Worstbrock lists  i t as No.  2.  The  four features proving that m  F2 belong to the same manuscript  are  a) both fragments c o n s i s t of v e l l u m f o l i o l e a v e s and of  the l a t e t h i r t e e n t h  and  date  century,  b) t h e i r pages c o n t a i n t h r e e columns o f 5 8 l i n e s  each,  a l t o g e t h e r 174- verses per page, a very h i g h number, c) t h e i r marked d i a l e c t a l forms are the same ( T y r o l i a n , a c c o r d i n g t o Diemer who  lists  the p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s o f  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 o t h e r manus c r i p t s , foremost  to  C.  Taking m and F2 t o g e t h e r now, i s a t our d i s p o s a l : ants  (3107-3448 and  extant i n F2  a t o t a l amount o f 1210  more than h a l f o n l y i n Diemer's 6203-6548) but the remaining  (411-758 on the f i r s t  522  verses variverses  complete l e a f , and  on  'the second one w i t h 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 a t the paragraphs of m and to  the o t h e r manuscripts  grouping:  g i v e s the f i r s t  F2 i n comparison c l u e as t o t h e i r  m and F2 show the same p a t t e r n as AbCD, y e t ,  more p r e c i s e l y , F2 shows the same l a r g e i n i t i a l s and i n shape as C (we not d i f f e r e n t i a t e ) . sagen . . .")  i n length  cannot judge f o r m s i n c e Diemer d i d The  I initial  at 5497 ("Ich  horte  i s nine l i n e s h i g h both i n F2 and C and  at  133  5 30 7 ("Josaphat sprach both  (the upper two  . . .")  l i n e s are cut o f f i n F2 but one  e a s i l y c a l c u l a t e the i n i t i a l ' s o t h e r manuscripts  i t i s f i v e l i n e s high i n  f u l l height).  which p l a c e l a r g e i n i t i a l s  The  can  three  at these same  spots are L and W and t o a much l e s s e r extent G where the r u b r i c a t o r f o r g o t the e x e c u t i o n of the m a r g i n a l I a t 549 7. T h e r e f o r e , one has  to study the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f mF2  C i n the f i r s t p l a c e b e f o r e widening The  c l o s e n e s s o f m and C was  the  scope.  p o i n t e d out a l r e a d y by  S5hns (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 , pp.  41-43).  e i g h t examples given by him t o prove mC's a g a i n s t the o t h e r manuscripts 82,27 ( not 82,17  with  two  Of the  common stand  are i n c o r r e c t , however:  as Sfihns m i s t a k e n l y w r i t e s ) reads h o h i s t  i n A as w e l l as i n mC  and 164,14 reads  l e r e i n a l l manuscripts  except D K K ° . a  d i r volgen und The  diner  f o l l o w i n g common  v a r i a n t s o f m and C are a few out o f many, the s i g l e m w i l l be a p p l i e d a l s o f o r F2 from 439/440  the two  hereon.  v e r s e s are i n t e r c h a n g e d i n Cm  (WL  completely d i f f e r e n t , see Stthns' Anhang) 590  711  742  Pf  ob er so r e i n e t s i n e n s i n  mC  ob e r so r a i n e w i l h i e s i n  Pf  nu h i l f  mC  nu h i l f i c h a l r g e r n e s t  Pf  (daz e r der genaden gotes/) gar  mC.  o m i s s i o n o f gar  ich d i r alrgernest  vergaz..  read  134  3448  P f : nu mac n i h t geschehen daz mC:  5392  todes p o r t e gat / der enge s t i c verwahsen mC:  stat  p l u r a l forms gant / starrt, d i e engen s t i g e  P f : zeinem huse hat gegeben mC:  6366  . ..  P f : man v e r t d i e w i t e n s t r a z e gar / d i u gen des  - 94  6312  nu kan n i h t  ze ainem huze i s t gegaeben  P f : guote bruoder dar i r b r o t mC:  guote. bruoder ander b r o t ; gute b r e d i g a e r e i r b . WL  65 39  P f : doch nach dem tage . . . ; da nach tage  . . . mC  In some i n s t a n c e s a common r e a d i n g o f mC i s shared by WL, i n o t h e r cases i t i s s i m i l a r but not q u i t e 477  Pf mCWL  682  Pf  identical:  e r dachte h e l f e n im durch got e r gedahte h i l f  ime dur got  i c h w i l d i r alsam e i n kneht I  . . . I iemer  dienen  5272  mC  i c h w i l d i r h e l f e n a l s a i n knaeht  WL  i c h w i l d i r dienen . . .  DKAG  den iemer mere s t a e t e n h o r t ; d. i . s t r e t e n h o r t E  MmC L 6494  Pf mCWL  den iemer maere waerenden h o r t den ymer werndin s t e d i n h o r t ; W omits s t e d i n von der g e s i h t e e r sere e r s c h r a c von d e r g e s c h i h t  . ..  The great l i k e n e s s o f m and C makes i t q u i t e  possible  135  t h a t one-is the d i r e c t copy o f the o t h e r , but s i n c e they both date from the same p e r i o d , the i n t e r n a l evidence alone w i l l have to d e c i d e . fragment"  In the t e x t covered by the "Gttttweig  two b i b l e q u o t a t i o n s o c c u r a f t e r 3204 and 6206  which the s c r i b e has l e f t f i r s t  i n their Latin  original  b e f o r e t r a n s l a t i n g them (the L a t i n words are i n c l u d e d Diemer i n h i s l i s t  of v a r i a n t s ) .  Based on t h i s  by  evidence,  S5hns concludes t h a t C must have been c o p i e d from m as i t a l l e g e d l y does.not have the L a t i n v e r s i o n . a reason f o r t h i s o m i s s i o n :  11  .  . .viel wahrscheinlicher  w i r d b e i der F l u c h t i g k e i t und dem gemacht i s t ,  He even suggests  L e i c h t s i n n e , mit dem  dass s e i n S c h r e i b e r d i e s e l a t e i n i s c h e n  i n s e i n e r Vorlage m sehr unntitz gefunden,  C  Citate  ja vielleicht  n i c h t einmal v e r s t a n d e n und deshalb weggelassen (Stihns, p. 4 2 ) . Unknown t o Stthns, manuscript  habe"  C does have  both L a t i n q u o t a t i o n s i n t h e i r e n t i r e l e n g t h , j u s t as  m,  o n l y P f e i f f e r d i d not b o t h e r to remark on i t i n h i s apparatus.  Thus, Stthns's argument f o r a d i r e c t dependence o f  C from m  collapses.  A f t e r s i f t i n g through the t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s o f m and comparing  them t o C and the o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s , two  t i v e statements  can be  posi-  upheld:  a) m cannot have been c o p i e d from C, but b) C c o u l d have been c o p i e d from In r e g a r d t o a) C has  m.  s e v e r a l r e a d i n g s o f i t s own  which m  does not share, where m agrees with the o t h e r manuscripts  136  (represented 429  CD:  464  C:  488  CE:  by P f e i f f e r s T  t e x t ) , such  as  i n manegem hohem s t e i n ; i n m. vor der wunden a r b e i t ; von a l s u s h a s t h i e funden;  5256  C:  ob  5329  C:  a i n r e i c h e r man  i c h s e i n ane  der w.  a.  mPf  mPf  alsus hie hast f .  waere; bat  holen s t a i n  obe  i c h ez ane  c h r i s t ; a. r . m.  w.  mPf mPf  der bat  c.  mPf 5384  C: Wm:  5428  C: mPf:  5430  C:  6474 and In r e g a r d  danne man  tuo d i e enge / durch . . . d r i n g e n  danne man  d i e enge j  dan  und  im v i i c h l a i n e b e z z e r t  und  k l e i n e b. s.  und  im s e i n l i e h t ;  6482  C:  daz man  d i e e.  Pf  s e i n muot  m. und  ime  daz  lieht  z_e naehst; i n s t e a d o f ze l i c h e :  mPf mPf  t o b) C i s so c l o s e t o m t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o  the  common v a r i a n t s c i t e d above they share a l s o some obvious mistakes and 3405/3406  6208  Pf:  gaps:  Pf:  . . . k l a g e n / . . . getragen  mC:  ...  (gotes gttenlicher gewalt/) von  mC:  klagen / . . . begraben (impure rime)  den himeIn i s t g e z a l t  i n t h e i r t r a n s l a t i o n o f the p r e c e d i n g L a t i n quotation  "celi  enarrant gloriam  d e i " omit  himeln 642 3  Pf:  dem  neven wart er h e i n l i c h  m:  dem  wart do e r v i e l h.;  dem  wart er do v. h.  C  137  6537  Pf:  und g i e m i t i n v i i balde  mC:  omit g i e  Furthermore,  we p o i n t e d out t h a t m and C have  i d e n t i c a l i n i t i a l s , with one e x c e p t i o n : initial  strikingly  a t 691 m has an  t o g e t h e r w i t h AbDEGLW which C has l e f t  out.  In t h i s  c o n t e x t , t h i s would speak a l s o i n f a v o u r o f C b e i n g dependent on m. L a s t l y , t h e r e a r e o n l y f i v e cases i n which m shows a r e a d i n g s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from C and the o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s : 589  CPf:  der v i n d e t ez man l a t i n d r i n ;  3304  CPf:  so der l i p m i t der s e l e  m: 5214  6394  . . mit sele  . ..  CPf:  w i r miiezen un  Gkm:  w i r miiezen unz han wol bewart  CPf:  unde e i n vreuden  m: 6433  .  erstat  CPf: m:  han wol bewart  r i c h e r ruom  unde an f r o i d e r i c h e r r . daz i c h m i t gotes  rate  daz i c h mich g o t t e s r a t e .  Do these f i v e d i v e r g e n t r e a d i n g s i n m and C r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t C was c o p i e d from m?  The t h i r d  example  (5214) alone i s not s t r o n g enough t o prove o r d i s p r o v e a grouping s i n c e the s y n t a c t i c p o s i t i o n o f adverbs wol i s h i g h l y f l u c t u a t i n g i n a l l manuscripts  such as  o f the time.  The remaining v a r i a n t s are q u i t e c l e a r l y s c r i b a l  errors,  misreadings which any a l e r t s c r i b e copying from t h a t manu-  138  s c r i p t c o u l d have e a s i l y c o r r e c t e d . o p i n i o n the evidence i s c o n v i n c i n g t h a t C was  indeed  c o p i e d from m;  r i g h t i n s p i t e of h i s f a u l t y  together  i n our  enough f o r the  Sunns  theory  1  claim  i s proven  arguments.  In c o n c l u s i o n i t should be "Gottweig fragment" m and  Therefore,  s t r e s s e d again t h a t  the B e r l i n fragment F2  taken  deserve the g r e a t e s t a t t e n t i o n f o r a new  edition.  I t i s c l e a r t h a t m cannot be  the  considered  critical the  archetype from which a l l manuscripts c o u l d be t r a c e d , i t s t e x t omissions speak a g a i n s t i t .  But m i s c e r t a i n l y  one  o f the t h r e e o l d e s t , i f not the o l d e s t t e x t w i t n e s s o f Rudolf's it  Barlaam, o l d e r and more r e l i a b l e than C.  Moreover,  sheds some l i g h t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between C and  which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d t h a t the two  leaves  i n chapter  of the  five.  I t seems p o s s i b l e  "Gttttweig fragment" are  hidden somewhere i n A u s t r i a n a r c h i v e s and w i l l be i n the f u t u r e .  Then we  still unearthed  would g a i n a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n  on those p a r t s where up to now collation.  LW  we  had  to r e l y on Diemer's  on  139  4.3.  S i n g l e fragments  4.3.1. Fragment  The Wurzburg  h  fragment h, c o n s i s t i n g of e i g h t l e a v e s i n  q u a r t o , i s about as l o n g as m and F2 combined.  I t covers a  major p a r t o f the t e x t between 10933 and 13214, w i t h seven leaves m i s s i n g :  f o u r a f t e r l e a f two  11852), one a f t e r l e a f f o u r  ( l e a v i n g out 11237-  ( l e a v i n g out 12148-12307)  and two a f t e r l e a f s i x ( l e a v i n g out 12604-12909). some l e a v e s are s l i g h t l y damaged or have been c u t , so t h a t a t o t a l o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1150 served.  Moreover,  partially  v e r s e s are p r e -  Stthns'slist of v a r i a n t s i s i n c l u d e d i n the Anhang o f  the r e p r i n t e d Barlaam e d i t i o n , pp. 501-502.  The  first  75 mention o f fragment h was made by K a r l Roth 76 l a t e r by Eduard Reuss.  and a few y e a r s  P f e i f f e r does not seem t o have  known t h i s fragment a l t h o u g h he r e f e r s to Roth f o r fragment e (Barlaam, p. 408). In h i s t h e s i s Stthns devoted a s h o r t paragraph to h c l a i m i n g t h a t h i s a d i r e c t copy from A and t h a t , they d i f f e r ,  "...  wherever  dann hat A gewfihnlich d i e r i c h t i g e Les-  a r t , d i e von h f l d c h t i g und f a l s c h a b g e s c h r i e b e n i s t . " His c o n c l u s i o n as to the v a l u e of h i s very n e g a t i v e : i s t daher b e i etwaigen T e x t f e s t s t e l l u n g e n ebensowenig 7 5  Jhdts. 7 6  K. Roth, Deutsche P r e d i g t e n des X I I . ( L e i p z i g , 1839), p. 6. E. Reuss, ZfdA 3 (1843), 446.  und  "h Werth  XIII.  140  beizulegen  wie  b"  (Sflhns, p. 40).  In the  evidence produced  by Stthns to support h i s a s s e r t i o n s , he managed not misread P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus f r e q u e n t l y , but he dicted himself blatantly: p. had  501)  he  i n h i s own  variants  i n d i c a t e d c o r r e c t l y t h a t verse  i n i t i a l l y been l e f t  out by the  only  even (see  to  contraBarlaam,  277,10 (11030)  s c r i b e o f h but a f t e r -  wards been i n s e r t e d i n the bottom l i n e o f the same column -probably, we  may  add,  w i t h an o m i s s i o n s i g n i n accordance  w i t h the s c r i b a l p r a c t i c e of the time ( s i n c e the margin of the page i s cut o f f , we parentheses).  its  i n A, the  i s mis-  l a t t e r could  Wurzburg fragment g i v e s p r o o f o f a c a r e f u l s c r i b e :  c l e a n and  regular handwriting, i t s i n i t i a l s the m e t i c u l o u s l y  indented  drawn s e t  l i n e s produce a remarkable c o n t r a s t t o manuscript A. i s reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t h was would make i t one  w r i t t e n before  1300  o f the o l d e s t t e x t documents we  t h i r t y recognizable  initials  of  There which  have.  agree w i t h those i n A  C (29), b (29), and mostly w i t h D (30). preserved  not  hI  over t h r e e or f o u r l i n e s and  Its  in  relation-  t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r verse  s i n c e i t i s extant  be dependent on The  110 30 i s put  However, i n h i s paragraph on the  s h i p o f h, S6*hns claims s i n g i n h and  cannot t e l l , but  Both h and  (28),  D have  the o l d paragraph p a t t e r n e q u a l l y f a i t h f u l l y ,  as the t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s show, they are not Stihns was  r i g h t i n p o i n t i n g out  between A and h, even though he was  but,  closely related.  the s t r o n g l e d t o wrong  affinity conclu-  141  sions.  The f o l l o w i n g l i s t  o f major common readings i n A and  h s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t t o prove 13081-32 10979  omitted i n Ah  P f : da l e b e t d i u gots Ah:  10984  essentia  e i n also v r o l i c h i z  leben  P f : d e r gar v e r v l u o c h t e n d i e t e Ah:  11861  da l e b e t gots  essentia  P f : e i n a l s o v r e u d e r i c h e z leben Ah:  11084  their relationship:  b:  d e r gar v i r w o r h t e n  diete  daz z e i g t e i c h gerne baz mShtich;  das z a i g t e  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 o n l y by AhbE [ B ^ h c a r r i e s t h e t e x t from 11853 on) 11986  Pf  b e h i e l t e r l u t e r a l s e i n glas  Ah  b i h i e l t e r a l s e i n l u t e r glas  12035  Pf  d u l t e n ; Ah:  12073  Pf  twanc s i nach dem geheize han; . . . wan Cb  Ah  twanc s i nach dem geheize an.  I t cannot  l i d e n (see a l s o p. 124)  be concluded  from these common readings  h was c o p i e d from A, as Stthns p r o c l a i m e d .  In a number o f  p l a c e s A p r e s e n t s a v e r s i o n o f i t s own where h agrees the o t h e r manuscripts  and P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n .  11003  hPf  daz e r b e l i b e s i g e l o s ; d. e r wurde s. A  11198  hPf  swenn e r d i n r e i n e z herze  A  swenn e r d i n herze r e i n e  siht siht  that  with  •1.4 2.  11230  hPf A  12054  A  12452  got an d i r begunnen h a t  d. g. an d i r gegangen h a t  hPf  12080  des  des  ktineges  d. k. k. von p e r s i a  hPf  din l i e h t i u  A  d. 1. varwe  hPf A  k i n t von S y r i a ; . . . a s s y r i a C  jugent  b e h a l t e n gote und siinden b a r b e h a l t e n und s. b.; b e h a l t e n r e i n e und s. b DK K a  G  These examples b e i n g only  a few out o f many, t h e r e can  be no doubt t h a t A o f f e r s a much l e s s r e l i a b l e t e x t than h and  that i t p r e s e n t s a l a t e r and p o s s i b l y  stage. apart and  Fragment h c o n t a i n s from 12090:  12538:  hardly  contaminated  any s c r i b a l  errors,  daz muoz iemer mich; i n s t e a d o f :  the o m i s s i o n o f w o l t e .  In c o n c l u s i o n ,  we b e l i e v e t h a t A and h r e p r e s e n t  i n d i v i d u a l branch o r subgrouping o f the Barlaam t e x t d i t i o n , c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t from the D K K a  version.  muet, ,  c  an tra-  group o r any o t h e r  The Wurzburg fragment would f u l l y  deserve the  a t t e n t i o n o f a new Barlaam e d i t o r , but r e g r e t t a b l y i t i s A and not h t h a t has p r e s e r v e d the t e x t i n i t s e n t i r e length.  4.3.2. Fragment i  The  B e r l i n fragment i c o n s i s t s o f two v e l l u m l e a v e s i n  quarto w i t h two columns o f 4 6 l i n e s p e r page.  The t e x t  p r e s e r v e d extends from 4607 t o 4790 and 4975 t o 5158 (one l e a f i s m i s s i n g i n between). the manuscript  i s very neat and the t e x t i s l e g i b l e i n  nearly a l l parts. tury  The outward appearance o f  S6"hns dates  i t as o f the t h i r t e e n t h cen  (Stthns, p. 3), but t h e catalogue o f the P r e u s s i s c h e  S t a a t s b i b l i o t h e k i s more c r e d i b l e i n a s s i g n i n g i t t o t h e 77 fourteenth century. and maintains of  S5hns p l a c e s I m  h i s "Reihe CLBE"  t h a t i i s most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o L. A l l  the f i v e examples c i t e d by him as common r e a d i n g s o f i L  alone a r e not o n l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t but can a l s o be found i n other  manuscripts. Before s c r e e n i n g the t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s , the paragraph  d i v i s i o n s i n i should be c o n s i d e r e d .  Out o f i t s e i g h t  i n i t i a l s , t h e r e are t h r e e d i f f e r e n t from the AbCD p a t t e r n : at  49 87, i has a common i n i t i a l w i t h L, a t 5009 w i t h GEMLW  and a t 5143 w i t h GEMk.  Furthermore, i has c a p i t u l u m s i g n s  i n the margins a t 4707, 4756, 4775, 5041 and 5105 which have no e q u i v a l e n t i n any o t h e r manuscripts paragraph marginal 77  (there i s a  a t 4775 i n AK and a t 5041 i n E, however).  These  s i g n s occur a t the b e g i n n i n g o f a p a r a b l e ( i n  H. Degering, Kurzes V e r z e i c h n i s d e r Germanischen H a n d s c h r i f t e n der P r e u s s i s c h e n S t a a t s b i b l i o t h e k , v o l . I (Graz 1970), p. 95.  •+775 the T a l e o f the Man 5041  and h i s Three F r i e n d s , and i n  the T a l e o f the King f o r One  Y e a r ) , and they mark the  b e g i n n i n g and the end of the t y p o l o g i c a l exegesis o f the p a r a b l e of the Man  and the U n i c o r n at 4 70 7 and  marginal s i g n a t 510 5 stands  47 5 5 (the  at the p i v o t a l verse w i t h i n  the p a r a b l e and i s t h e r e f o r e somewhat d i f f e r e n t ) .  These  parables (exempla) are i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the d i d a c t i c  dialogue  between master and p u p i l and are not u s u a l l y marked by tials  i n most m a n u s c r i p t s ,  e s p e c i a l l y AbCD.  ini-  So these mar-  g i n a l s i g n s i n i c o u l d c a l l f o r the a t t e n t i o n of a c o p y i s t or  a p u b l i c r e a d e r who  tales.  sought  only a f t e r these  edifying  To what extent the Barlaam p a r a b l e s p r e s e r v e d i n  v a r i o u s exempla manuscripts  ( B i s p e l h a n d s c h r i f t e n , see p.  26)  show r e a d i n g s s i m i l a r t o i should be compared i n d e t a i l * , the U n i c o r n v e r s i o n s o f fragments f and g suggest  a possible  r e l a t i o n s h i p with i . The belonged  comparison of i n i t i a l s t o the GEM  had  left  group o r t o L.  I t s t e x t , however,  shows a much s t r o n g e r congruence w i t h GEM 4612  Pf:  do e r was  open whether i  than w i t h  i n sorgen v l u h t ; do e r a l s o  do e r sus was  an s. v  •  3  do e r sus was  GM Pf: EMfgi: 4756  Pf:  was  E  xn  4697  LW.  ein  k l e i n e honicseimes  ein  lutzel h •  3  ein  do sprach der guote  gan  weninc h. Josaphat  G  in  145  d. sp. d i e r e i n e J . ; d. sp. der r e i n e J . GEMDK der d r i e r vriunde nam  Pf  4776  der nam  CGEMfi  GEMi The  s i c h d. v. an  s i e zogen i n v. s.  common v a r i a n t s w i t h L and a l s o w i t h W are o f a  l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t n a t u r e , p a r a l l e l s such 4620  an  s i e sluogen i n v i i sere  Pf  5126  sich  iLW:  as  bournes; boumelines Pf  4675  iL:  an s i n e n grozen noeten;  i n s i n e n g. n.  4716  iW:  v e r t a g e t ; v e r z a g e t L; betaget  Pf  Pf  Moreover, L and W do not share any o f the above c i t e d v a r i a n t s o f i and GEM own:  but have numerous r e a d i n g s o f  e.g., 5045; vremeder l i u t e ; a g a i n s t P f :  at 4745-56 the o r d e r o f v e r s e s i s i n v e r t e d and are o m i t t e d .  In LW,  vremeder s i t e , 4772-73  F i n a l l y , j u d g i n g by the number o f m i s s i n g  verses between l e a f one and two, text.  their  i cannot have o m i t t e d  however, as w e l l as ABb  and p r o b a b l y C f o u r  verses between 4883 and 4886 are m i s s i n g . theory o f a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p  any  Thus, Sflhns  between i and L cannot  be  upheld. Fragment i g i v e s p r o o f o f how more r e l i a b l e manuscripts continuous  the wording p r e s e r v e d by  has been watered down through  copying p r o c e s s .  More e a s i l y understood  r e p l a c e o l d e r ones or r a t h e r unusual  ones, e.g.,  the  phrases  the  r o a r i n g o f the U n i c o r n s i n l i i e j e n (4608) i s changed i n i  14 6  i n t o s i n don ( l i k e w i s e i n G: of  s i n stimme), a t 5074, i n s t e a d  i n e i n vremedez e i n l a n t , i reads i n e i n v e r r e vremedes  l a n t , and a t 5134, i n s t e a d o f 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 a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r a t e x t r e c o n s t i t u t i o n  other  than those i n common w i t h GE and more so w i t h M.  4.3.3. Fragment k  Fragment k c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e v e l l u m l e a v e s , one l e a f i s m i s s i n g between the second 5129  and t h i r d l e a f .  Its text  covers  t o 5448 and 5609 t o 5768; i t i s w r i t t e n i n two columns  w i t h 40 l i n e s each.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s fragment i s i n  very poor c o n d i t i o n , s e v e r a l pages a r e h a r d l y l e g i b l e due to  chemical s t a i n s and two pages have been reduced  by a v e r t i c a l c u t . variants  S5hns used a t r a n s c r i p t  i n size  for his l i s t of  (Barlaam, Anhang) but does not attempt  t o group k:  "k i s t i n Folge s e i n e r zu geririgen Ausdehnung unbestimmbar" (Stthns, p. In proves  41).  the case o f k, a look a t the paragraph  divisions  advantageous s i n c e even a t p l a c e s where the words  can no l o n g e r be d e c i p h e r e d , the p o s i t i o n o f 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, n o t a b l y a t 5143 (as w e l l as i ) , 5381, 5631 (as  w e l l as BLn), and 5663 (as w e l l as B ) . A comparison o f k's t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s w i t h the o t h e r  147  manuscripts confirms the f i r s t  impression that there i s a  constant agreement w i t h the v e r s i o n s o f GEM. 5142  5174  Pf:  die  GMk:  di  Pf: GEMk:  5213  Pf: GEMk:  5305  Pf: GMk:  5665  Pf: GEMk:  5677  Pf: GEMk:  im s i b r a h t e n  . ..  s i im b r a c h t e n ; d i e sy b r a c h t e n • • • E  uns den burgaeren g i t von den b. g. dar han w i r e i n e lange v a r t dez han w i r . . . daz er  d i r ewicliche g i t  daz d i r  e w i c l i c k e g.  daz wort h a t e r v i i s c h i e r e vernomen daz wort h e t e r s c h i e r e vernomen daz i c h  h i e von vernam n i h t e  daz i c h  vernam h i e von n i c h t e  W i t h i n the GEM-group, k i s most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o th< "Gotha m a n u s c r i p t " G as shown by s e v e r a l common v a r i a n t s w i t h i t a l o n e , such as 5183  5273  5286  Pf:  und iemer l e i t l i c h  kG:  und i e m e r l i c h ungemach  Pf:  bi  gotes d u r f t i g e n hant  kG:  di  gotes d. h.  Pf:  d i r r e broeden welte  kG:  d i r r e snoeden w. g.; d i r r e  C: 5645  Pf:  d i s e r werlde b r o d e r  ungemach  gelt ploden . . . E  gelt  da kumber a r b e i t jamer zorn; d. k. a r b e i t und zorn WL  148  5764  kG:  da kuraer lamer a r b a i t  Pf:  s i n v a t e r mahelt im e i n wip  k:  zorn  s. v. v r e y e t im . .  s. v. v r i g e t e im . . .  Both k and G were w r i t t e n i n the f o u r t e e n t h 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 d i v e r g e n t r e a d i n g s o f i t s own 5292  k:  swaz man durch  i n den a l t e n g i t ; i n s t e a d o f :  armen 5624  k:  und swaz man i r zu warhait  giht; instead of:  richeit 56 5 8  k:  m i t worten wol erkennen; i n s t e a d o f :  werken  On the o t h e r hand, k c o u l d have been d e r i v e d from G, but the b a s i s f o r such d e f i n i t e grouping  i s not l a r g e enough.  4.3.4. Fragment n  T h i s v e l l u m fragment o f the f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y , the "Peters burg fragment," was d e s c r i b e d by the c u r a t o r o f the former 78 I m p e r i a l L i b r a r y a t S t . P e t e r s b u r g , S. M i n z l o f f .  It  c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e l e a v e s i n quarto and each page c o n t a i n s two columns w i t h 2 8 l i n e s each on which the t e x t i s w r i t t e n c o n t i n u o u s l y w i t h p e r i o d s s e p a r a t i n g one verse from another. 78  One l e a f has l o s t two t h i r d s o f i t s i n n e r column  S. M i n z l o f f , Die 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 k a i s e r l i c h tt'ffe n t ' l i ch en B i b l i o t h e k zu 'St.' P e t e r s b u r g ( P e t e r s b u r g , 1853), p. 34 was u n a v a i l a b l e 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' i n f o r m a t i o n as t o the  preserved t e x t 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. First leaf:  2670-2756.  I  r  a  (2670-90) and I  v  b  (2734-56)  have r e t a i n e d o n l y one t h i r d o f the f u l l second l e a f :  5555-5645.  third leaf:  5999-6084.  The  width,  paragraph d i v i s i o n s are sometimes marked by a l i n e a w i t h  i n i t i a l s o f two l i n e s h e i g h t  (2729 and 5631) o r they a r e  merely i n d i c a t e d by a paragraph s i g n and an i n i t i a l the l i n e  (2693, 5615, 6031, 6061), probably  different  within  set o f f i n a  colour.  M i n z l o f f and Stihns were unable t o group t h i s  fragment  u s i n g P f e i f f e r ' s and Kfipke's e d i t i o n s , but t h e r e are nevert h e l e s s , some group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o be found f i r s t h i n t i s g i v e n by the i n i t i a l only i n GEMkLB.  a t 5631 which  i n n.  The  occurs  The t e x t o f fragment n shows p r i m a r i l y a  number o f omissions  o f i t s own ( e . g . , 6025-26, me 6034,  g u l t e 60 81, and o t h e r s ) , as w e l l as d i v e r g e n t r e a d i n g s not shared by o t h e r s  (e.g., hole i n s t e a d o f loche 5555, r i c h e i t  instead o f schohheit  5617).  However, t h e r e i s d e f i n i t e l y  a much s t r o n g e r agreement with the GEM-branch than with any o t h e r manuscript 26 8 3  ADEKW: n: K L:  5590  as the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a n t s show:  a l s e i n prophete h a t enbart;  e r b a r t BbC  ( t e x t c u t o f f ) a t g_e (. . . ) ; g e o f f e n b a r t  b  o f f e n b a r t ; (no t e x t f o r M)  Pf:  und i n der hoehsten armuot swebent  G  150  GMBn:  und i n d e r g r o s t e n armuot swebent; i n g r o s s e r a.  5623  E  P f : den dunket g a r d i u welt e i n n i h t ;  5623-24  omitted LW GEMn: Pf:  6037  EMn: Pf:  6038  GEMCn:  o m i s s i o n o f gar; e i n wicht n bi_ grozen s c h r i n e n l i g e n v o l dy grozen s c h r i n e 1. v.; s_o grozen  . . .G  swaz e r d a r inne hate h o i omission o f e r  There are a l s o s e v e r a l cases i n which n a p p a r e n t l y shares a r e a d i n g w i t h B, i n a d d i t i o n to the common  initial  at 5631. 5631  P f : d e r ktinic v r a g e t i n viirbaz; o m i s s i o n o f in  5638  nBC  P f : da r i c h e i t armuot i n n i h t l a t nB:  do r i c h e i t armut n i c h t e n l a t ; inlat  6020  Pf: ABn:  6065  . . . nit  L  min zunge h a t m i r n i h t v e r j e h e n myn zunge h a t des n i c h t v.  Pf:  du v o l g e s t minem r a t e  nG:  du e n v o l g e s t m. r . ; dune v o l g e s t m. r .  ABM  To draw p o s i t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s from these common r e a d ings would be unwise s i n c e 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 t e x t  parallels  between n and B c o u l d be o f a g e n e a l o g i c a l nature o r merely accidental.  The f i r s t  possibility  cannot  t o t a l l y be  151  brushed a s i d e , as the congruence  of i n i t i a l s  t h a t B might have been i n f l u e n c e d i n some way branch  (see c h a p t e r 3.3.4.).  fragment  indicated  by the  GEM-  In any event, n i s a s m a l l  o f no importance whatsoever  most l i k e l y  had  f o r a text  revision,  a very l a t e o f f s h o o t of the GEM-branch.  4.3.5. Fragment p  T h i s fragment which  c o n s i s t s o n l y o f the remnants o f one  damaged v e l l u m l e a f was owner G. E i s .  d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l by i t s p r e s e n t  The f o l l o w i n g remarks are based on h i s t e x t  t r a n s c r i p t i o n c o v e r i n g the passage have t o take i s s u e w i t h E i s ' s f i n a l  from 1933  t o 1992.  paragraph i n which  We he  f o l l o w s the stemma and the v a r i a n t s g i v e n by SiJhns and groups h i s fragment t o g e t h e r w i t h B and E, but mainly w i t h  A c l o s e look a t the one and o n l y v a r i a n t on which E i s based h i s a s s e r t i o n shows how ated i n t h i s f i e l d : malen f a l l t  "Von  mistakes have been p e r p e t u -  den unterscheidenden Gruppenmerk-  eins i n die erhaltene P a r t i e :  i n 51,11  [=1991]  l e s e n (nach SShns, S. 36) d i e meisten H a n d s c h r i f t e n u n z a l h a f t , 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 w i t h E i s who  quotes  correct-  l y but w i t h SShns whose i n f o r m a t i o n on B — a s w e l l as on o t h e r manuscript except L — i s 7 9  G. E i s , GRM  49  taken e n t i r e l y out o f  (1968), 448-450.  any  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 d e s t r o y e d  seven years b e f o r e Stthns' s t h e s i s appeared).  P f e i f f e r ' s text  reads 1991 (51,11) s i n k r a f t u n z a l h a f t unvurbraht and P f e i f f e r annotates u n z e l l i c h DKEb.  f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r verse:  There i s no mention o f B.  complete i n f o r m a t i o n should be, however:  51.11  The c o r r e c t and  u n z a l h a f t ACLW;  u n z a l l i c h DGK ; u n z e l l i c h Ep; s i n k r a f t unz (lberdaht b (on the margin);  no t e x t i n K M. a  There i s no t e x t u a l evidence  a t a l l t h a t fragment p  should belong t o the S t r a s s b u r g manuscript  B.  However,  t h e r e a r e i n d i c a t i o n s i n the t e x t t h a t i t can be a s s i g n e d to the GEM group. 1960  Pf  h e i l i c eine r e i n e  EGK°p 1975  h e i l i c und r e i n e  Pf  d i e hoerent  EGp 1981  S i e horent  Pf  . .. . . .; s i e e n h o r i n t  Einen got . . .  GAbp  Minen got . . ." Ainen got . . . }  E (see  above, p. .112) I t was argued b e f o r e t h a t K  b  must have belonged  GEM-group, a l b e i t as a codex r e c e n t i o r .  t o the  I n the t e x t passage  covered by p, t h e r e i s one o u t s t a n d i n g common v a r i a n t between K 19 36  and p which would f u r t h e r c o n f i r m t h i s  b  P f : daz mileze d i r ze h e i l e ergan; p: K : b  [  ] daz was wol getan  h e r r e das was wol getan  theory.  zuo guote  Bb  ( f i r s t word c u t o f f )  15 3-  Consequently, we the  suggest t h a t K  manuscript of which  b  might have descended  from  fragment p has p r e s e r v e d a t i n y  s e c t i o n , o r t h a t , at l e a s t , they both belonged to the same subgrouping o f the GEM-branch o f t e x t  tradition.  4.3.6. Fragment r  The second o f the two  r e c e n t l y d i s c o v e r e d "Schaffhausen  fragments" i s l e s s s p e c t a c u l a r than the f i r s t  one  (q): i t  i s a younger document o f the f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , i t has s u f f e r e d more p h y s i c a l damage, and i t p r e s e n t s more concerning i t s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the manuscript Its  two  problems  tradition.  l e a v e s c o v e r the t e x t between 14192-14314 and  14559-14680 which we  c o n s u l t e d i n a t r a n s c r i p t made by  80 P. Ochsenbe.in.  Ochsenbein's  P f e i f f e r and SShns) f a i l s ,  attempt  t o group r (based on  but r a t h e r than o f f e r an  arbi-  t r a r y s o l u t i o n , he l e a v e s t h i s q u e s t i o n open and p r e s e n t s the  c o n t r a d i c t o r y common v a r i a n t s  (which would r e q u i r e a  number o f r e c t i f i c a t i o n s and a d d i t i o n s , n o n e t h e l e s s ) . The paragraph d i v i s i o n s ing  i n r are i n d i c a t i v e o f a group-  o n l y i n s o f a r as they are d i f f e r e n t from GEM  from LW.  In t h r e e i n s t a n c e s j  r omits a c o u p l e t :  as w e l l as 14201-202  and 14307-308, both times t o g e t h e r w i t h K , and 14583-584 80 For f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on r , see P. Ochsenbein, "Zwei neue Bruchstucke zum Barlaam und Josaphat des R u d o l f von Ems," ZfdA 101 (1972), 322-326. C  154  t o g e t h e r w i t h b (none o f which i s g i v e n by P f e i f f e r ) . mentioned b e f o r e , K  abounds i n t e x t omissions  throughout  the e n t i r e work, and even here, i n the passage under K  C  As  study,  has two more cuts (14199-200 and 14311-312) which r does  not share.  c a c K belongs, as suggested b e f o r e , t o group DK K .  T h i s shows c l e a r l y i n our passage as w e l l :  DK K a  G  change the  order o f v e r s e s i n 14577-578, and i n 14577 they read landes krone  iuwers  i n s t e a d o f des r i c h e s krone as do a l l the  others, including r .  Thus, t h e r e i s l i t t l e r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e  i n a group a f f i n i t y between r and K ° .  A common r e a d i n g i n  both such as 14284  P f : von sinem  z w i v e l s c h i e r e e r l o s t ; K°r omit  schiere 14632  P f : des landes krone und ouch das l a n t ; K A r omit ouch  must consequently be d i s m i s s e d as a c c i d e n t a l .  Likewise,  p a r a l l e l omissions o f a c o u p l e t do not n e c e s s a r i l y  prove  the interdependence  i n ques-  tion.  o f the two o r more manuscripts  They a r e sometimes t r i g g e r e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y by t h e  nature o f the t e x t . i t s e l f :  a couplet w r i t t e n i n verse  l i n e s w i t h a rhyme i d e n t i c a l o r v e r y s i m i l a r t o the preceding one i s more l i k e l y t o be o v e r l o o k e d by a s c r i b e  than  any o t h e r , and a l s o the r h e t o r i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f c e r t a i n key-words can e a s i l y produce part.  a mental  s l i p on the s c r i b e ' s  These reasons c o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the common  verse omissions i n r and K  c  as w e l l as b.  155  On the o t h e r hand, t h e r e a r e a l s o some n o t i c e a b l e t e x t p a r a l l e l s between r and b, a p a r t from the common omission. 14572  14290  14234  Pf  gen s i n e n hulden  rb  gegen ime missetan  Pf  do du der welte wlirde kunt  rb  daz du d e r w e r l t e i e w. k.  Pf  d i u v o r h t e d i e s i n sunde im bot  rb  d. v. d i e ime s i n slinde b o t  missetan  Moreover, owing t o P f e i f f e r ' s apparatus we know t h a t B, the destroyed S t r a s b o u r g manuscript  c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o b, shared  some v a r i a n t s w i t h r a t 14236  P f : wan owe mir armen we ErB  14311  Pf  owe m i r armen und owei du hast mir versuenet g o t ; d. h. mir gesilenet g.  14312  AbCWL  rB:  du h a s t mich g i s u e n i t got  Pf:  des lone e r d i r  rB:  dez lone d i r  On the b a s i s o f t h i s sparse evidence i t seems p o s s i b l e fragment r was remotely a f f i l i a t e d w i t h Bb, but on both s i d e s there a r e a l s o s e v e r a l p a r t i c u l a r  deviations.  that  156  4.3.7. F l " B a s e l  fragment"  T h i s s i n g l e octavo v e l l u m l e a f p r e s e n t s the t e x t from 3903 to 4062 i n c a r e f u l l y w r i t t e n double columns  o f 40 v e r s e s .  On the margin, the r u b r i c a t o r added ornamental designs i n t o which the i n i t i a l s a t 3915, woven.  3941, 4013  and 4043 are i n t e r -  A. G e s s l e r i n h i s b r i e f n o t i c e o f t h i s  fragment  dated i t from the end o f the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y and c l a i m e d 81 t h a t i t agreed mostly w i t h the v a r i a n t s o f B. the examples  g i v e n by him cannot support t h i s  However, statement.  I t i s remarkable t h a t F l does not s u b d i v i d e the passage between 3941 and 4013  (the end of a l e n g t h y speech by Bar-  laam and h i s d i s c i p l e ' s response and next q u e s t i o n ) , where ACD  have two paragraphs.  T h i s b r i n g s the B a s e l fragment i n  l i n e w i t h G, the F u l d a fragment  ( F 8 ) , and a l s o w i t h b (the  t e x t o f M begins a g a i n w i t h 3996).  In i t s t e x t u a l  variants,  F l g i v e s p r o o f o f b e i n g c l o s e t o the GEM-group. Pf: nach a l l e r unser g u o t t a t 3909 GEF8F1: 3917  CDWL: GEKK°BbFl: Pf:  3950  GEK F8Fl: b  nach unser a l l e r diu boteliche diu gotliche  g.  lere lere  und l e i d e z z i l  . . .  und l e i d e z ende  I t i s not p o s s i b l e t o determine the p l a c e o f F l w i t h i n the GEM—branch more p r e c i s e l y because M and F8 do not have 81 AfdA XIV  A. G e s s l e r , "Bruchstlick e i n e r Barlaamhandschr i f t , " (1888) , 147.  157  a concurrent text with F l .  But the B a s e l fragment seems t o  be c l o s e r t o the l a t t e r ones, e s p e c i a l l y F8, than t o the Gotha manuscript  G which has a few v a r i a n t s of i t s own:  3910  FlF8Pf:  gedienet; v i r d i n e t  G  3912  FlF8Pf:  daz du  3929  FlF8Pf:  mit s t a e t e ; mit v l i z e  G  40.30  FlMPf:  er  G  4052  FlF8MPf:  . . . s o l t ; must  nennet; der nennet  G  . . . i e niuwe; o m i s s i o n of  I f the b a s e l fragment F l i s c o r r e c t l y dated as o f b e f o r e 1300,  i t i s one  of the e a r l i e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f  the GEM-branch.  4.3.8. F3  The f i r s t o f these two reduced  v e l l u m l e a v e s has  t o one h a l f by a v e r t i c a l c u t , thus the t e x t  between 11209  and 11289  i s incomplete.  sage covered by F3 extends to  i t s o u t e r column  12914.  from 11169  The  t o t a l text  t o 11330  and  12753  Each column c o n t a i n s 40 v e r s e s w i t h i n i t i a l s  i n over t h r e e l i n e s a t 11223  and  initials  (due t o the v e r t i c a l cut we a t 11257  and  11287).  The  11191  do not know i f F3  had  fragment i s dated as of  the (probably l a t e ) t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y by Degering's logue  set  12895 o r , 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 a t and 11317  pas-  cata-  (see f o o t n o t e 77). F3 shows a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h number o f e r r o r s and  read-  158  ings  of  11184  11208  i t s own,  such  as  Pf  do  k e r t e i c h mine m e i s t e r s c h a f t  F3  do  hatte ich  Pf  in  buoze  F3  im  buoze  11255-56  Pf:  sich  lichem F3:  (.  schieden gotes  degene  / mit  bruoder-  segene  . .)  zu lebene  /  (.  . .)  gotes  degene  (rest  cut o f f ) 12821-822 a r e r e v e r s e d i n Of  the  two  verse omissions occurring  12787-88), the  first  rearranges  sequence  the  Throughout and  E,  begins  and  11210  on  by  their Pf  Pf  i s shared of  the  there are  i t s second  GEF3 11215  F3,  one  again at 12351),  convincing  F3.  du  also  bist  zeiget  a  which  then  readings with (the text  variants  their  ein alter  of  K  and  verses.  with M  although these by  (11325-26  by  congruent  leaf  omission und  also  following  number t h a n  daz  i n F3  may  G  in M be  more  quality. man  daz d i r demdete  / durch  sine  reine  gtiete -216  DKK^GEF3  und  z.  11313  Pf  daz  e r da  GEF3  daz  er davor  12779  m i t demtlete vor  / d i r sine  r.  g.  seiten l i e doch  Pf  er  i s t swie  du  F3  er  i s t s w e r e man  seiten l i e  machest machet  i n ; .  .  . a l s du  i n ; swie  man  A  159  GEMF10 ACDKW  12789  F3  e i n vihe gehoert ez s i h t ez gat e i n v i e daz h o r e t  iz sihet i z stat  GEMF10  e i n toubez hor; e i n tumraes hor  Pf  12854  daz s i t z e t daz s t a t  GMWF3 F i n a l l y , a t 12765, we f i n d an i n t e r e s t i n g v a r i a n t i n F3:  Ey dem du d i c h e r g i s t ; i n s t e a d o f  ACDEKW:  D i n got dem du d i c h e r g i s t ( i n i t i a l s  i n AbCDK L). c  T h i s m i s r e a d i n g c o u l d have o r i g i n a t e d from a r u b r i c a t o r ' s mistake whereby t h e l o g i c a l l y c o r r e c t form D i n g o t was a l t e r e d i n t o E i n got as i n G o r i n t o Eyn got as i n M. l a t t e r form seems t o be t h e base f o r t h e c o r r u p t  This  reading i n  F3 . Thus, we assume t h a t F3 belongs t o t h e GEM group b u t , due t o t h e s m a l l extent o f t h e fragment, a more p r e c i s e grouping i s not p o s s i b l e .  4.3.9. F6 " B r e s l a u  fragment"  These two v e l l u m leaves  contain  t h e Barlaam t e x t from 8477  to 8804, b u t s i n c e the second l e a f was c u t down i n s i z e , i t s top v e r s e s a r e m i s s i n g 8765-69).  (8644-48,  P. P i e t s c h d e s c r i b e d  8684-88, 8725-29, and  t h i s fragment and gave i t s  v a r i a n t s from P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n but he d i d n o t attempt t o  16 0  assess  i t s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the manuscript  tradition.  F6 does not s e t paragraphs a t any unusual p l a c e s and yet i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t the passage c o n t a i n i n g the long speech o f Avenier subdivided is left  to h i s son Josaphat  (8571 t o 8693) i s not  (whereas ACD have three paragraphs),  i n one coherent  b l o c k j u s t as i n GEM.  but t h a t i t W and L have  no s u b d i v i s i o n i n t h i s passage, e i t h e r , but t h e i r o t h e r tials  do not agree with those  i n F6.  ini-  G and M, on t h e 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 a l s o E w i t h the one e x c e p t i o n a t 8 561. The  s c r i b e o f the B r e s l a u fragment i s presumably r e s -  p o n s i b l e f o r a few s l i p s o f the pen, e.g. , 8522  the r e p e t i t i o n o f the rhyme-word sere i n s t e a d o f mere  8505  the impure rhyme werde ( i n s t e a d o f werbe) / s t e r b e  8711  and 8712 a r e c o n t r a c t e d (daz e i n i e g l i c h k i n t ze s i n e s v a t e r l e r e  Pf:  i n t o one v e r s e : geste/)  * unde muter e r e ; i n s t e a d o f  ze s i n e s v a t e r l e r e / v a t e r und muoter e r e . In a number o f cases  F6 has common v a r i a n t s w i t h GEM as  the f o l l o w i n g s e l e c t i o n shows: 8579  P f : den r e i n e n Josaphaten GEMF6:  8586  s i n e n sun Iosaphaten  P f : so denken aber vurbaz GMF6:  so denke w i r aber v.; so gedenken w i r a. v. E  P. P i e t s c h , "Fragment e i n e r H s f t . von BuJ," (1881), 163-164. 8 2  13  ZfdPh  161  8637  Pf:  s i e s i n t m i r a l l e noch gelegen  GEF6:  s i s i n t noch under g a r g e l e g n ; g a r i s omitted i n M  8704  Pf:  vttr d i e welt v u r guot vlir l i p  GMF6 :  vor a l l e d i w e l t v o r gut un l i p ; gut und 1.  8721  . . . welt  E  . P f : min s e l e m i r v i i l i e b e r i s t GEMBbF6:  omission o f v i i  I t i s obvious t h a t F6 i s an o f f s h o o t o f the GEM-branch. In one r e a d i n g , though, i t d i f f e r s from the o t h e r manuscripts of this 8562  Pf:  group:  ( d i z gebet e r h o r t e got /) im e r z e i g t e gotes gebot/ ( e i n e n v r e u d e r i c h e n t r o s t )  GEMK : b  F6:  im e r z e i g e t e s i n gebot im e r z e i g t e got s i n gebot  A p p a r e n t l y , the s c r i b e o f F6 found the GEM v e r s i o n  (replac-  i n g the r e p e t i t i o u s got by s i n ) i n h i s s o u r c e , b u t he r e i t e r a t e d got a c c i d e n t a l l y o r on purpose without d e l e t i n g s i n , thus a l t e r i n g the grammatical c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the phrase.  T h i s composite  form, however, does not c o n t r a d i c t  our assumption t h a t F6, through i t s paragraph d i v i s i o n s , i t s v a r i a n t s , i t s middle German d i a l e c t and i t s age ( f o u r t e e n t h century) i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o manuscript G.  16 2  4.3.10. F7  " F r e i b u r g fragment"  F7 c o n s i s t s o f a v e l l u m double from 1081  to 1216  and  2043 to 2178.  most p a r t s , only page l The handwritten it  l e a f c o n t a i n i n g the t e x t  v  and  2  V  I t i s quite legible i n  show some d i s c o l o u r i n g .  catalogue n o t i c e by R i c h a r d Newald  dates  from the t h i r t e e n t h century whereas Worstbrock l i s t s i t  as t h i r t e e n t h t o f o u r t e e n t h century. seems more l i k e l y  The  latter  j u d g i n g by i n t e r n a l evidence  indication  alone.  F7  gives p r o o f o f a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e number o f v a r i a n t s from the o t h e r manuscripts. must be s c r i b a l 2129  Pf:  In some i n s t a n c e s these v a r i a n t s  errors:  daz mit des  ungelouben naht / r e h t geloube wart  bedaht -130  F7:  ...  2149  Pf:  d r i v a l t e n mit der g e s i h t ; d r i v a l t i k a i t  2171  Pf:  (die drie patriarchen sint  ungelouben c r a f t / . . . wart bedaht  /)  ...  F7  huetaere  gewalteclich F7:  . . . / huetet er gewaltecliche  In some c a s e s , a look a t the L a t i n source might h e l p to decide whether a meaningful  but i s o l a t e d v a r i a n t i n F7  could p o s s i b l y be c o n s i d e r e d a u t h e n t i c i n s p i t e o f the mony o f most o t h e r manuscripts  o r whether i t i s j u s t  out o f v a r i o u s d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s .  On t h r e e  w i t h i n our passage, t h i s seems a reasonable a) In the b r i e f medical  testione  occasions approach:  e x p l a n a t i o n on the r o o t s o f s i c k n e s s  163  (1192-1202), l i n e 1200  reads i n most manuscripts  Pf:  und i r materje e r s t e r b e n ; as opposed t o  WF7:  und i r nature e r s t e r b e n ; das i r nature mus  (b jumbles  like  verderben  up the l i n e s , the above quoted i s 1199).  b  The  term m a t e r i a , however, occurs at t h i s p a r t i c u l a r spot i n the L a t i n t e x t and can t h e r e f o r e be regarded as a u t h e n t i c : "illi  has humanas c a l a m i t a t e s esse responderunt quae ex  c o r r u p t a e m a t e r i a . . ." (Migne, t . 73, p. b) 1117  Pf:  i c h wolde gerne vlir d i u t o r  bLF7:  i c h wolde gerne vur daz t o r  458),  The L a t i n t e x t suggests the p l u r a l form as a u t h e n t i c : "etenim g e s t i t animus ea quae e x t r a has ianuas sunt perspicere c) 1094  . . ." (Migne, p.  457).  Pf:  hant d i c h beswaeret  F7:  Beswerent d i c h  die hie s i n t  . . .  Only i n this case, the Freiburg'fragment i s supported by the L a t i n t e x t which shows a p r e s e n t t e n s e : moeror q u i t e o b s i d e t . . ." (Migne, p.  "quisnam s i t h i e 457).  These samples s h o u l d make c l e a r t h a t F7, i n s p i t e o f i t s g i v e n age and i t s numerous d e v i a t i o n s from  Pfeiffer's  t e x t , i s by no means c l o s e r t o what might be c o n s i d e r e d the "authentic"  version.  The few paragraph markings i n F7 do not show any n o t i c e a b l e group AbCD which, and  2089.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s but seem t o agree more w i t h  differently  from G and E, s e t paragraphs  at  2051  The d i v e r g e n t readings are m a n i f o l d and c o n t r a -  161+  d i c t o r y i n F7.  However, t h e r e i s one important  variant i n  F7 and b which g i v e s a l e a d : 2175  P f : Jacob zwelf sline do gebar / von den daz  -77  g e s l a h t e g a r / kam d e r i s r a h e l s c h e n d i e t bF7:  Jacob zwelf sline do gewan / von den daz g e s l e h t e kan / d e r i s r a h e l s c h e n d i e t , (b omits 2177-78)  T h i s speaks very s t r o n g l y f o r a g e n e a l o g i c a l a f f i n i t y between F7 and b o f which, t h e r e a r e f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s , such as the v a r i a n t s a t 1200 and 1117 (see above). To what e x t e n t the d e s t r o y e d  S t r a s b o u r g manuscript  B might  have shared these p a r a l l e l s can no l o n g e r be determined. But t h e r e i s evidence common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  t h a t Bb as w e l l as WL have some  A l l f o u r manuscripts  c o u p l e t 2177/78 and a l s o 1209/10.  omit the  For the l a t t e r  omission,  we do not have any i n f o r m a t i o n on B, and WL l e a v e out t h e p r e c e d i n g c o u p l e t 120 7/0 8, t o o . F7 does not share any o f these o m i s s i o n s , b u t i n a few common readings  one c o u l d d e t e c t some wider r e l a t i o n s h i p  between F7 and LW a l o n g with bB. 1111/12 1192  bLF7 Pf AWF7  3113  Pf  erden I  .  .  . werde  der smaehen s i e c h e i t  ungemach  der smehen s i e c h e n ungemach macht e r im s a e i n b i l d e ; o m i s s i o n  of sa  i n F7bL The  p i c t u r e does not become e n t i r e l y c l e a r .  The only  16 5  c o n c l u s i o n we can draw i s t h a t the F r e i b u r g fragment was p a r t o f a manuscript b e l o n g i n g t o the same branch o r subgrouping as b, p r o b a b l y B, and i n a wider sense WL.  Assum-  i n g some form o f dependence, Bb and WL c o u l d have been d e r i v e d from a source r e l a t e d t o F7.  That source would have  had the gaps common t o WL and Bb where F7 has the f u l l The F r e i b u r g fragment does not o f f e r any v a l u a b l e tives to Pfeiffer's  text.  alterna-  text.  4.3.11. F8 " F u l d a fragment" and F16 "Prague  fragment"  The F u l d a fragment c o n s i s t e d o f a v e l l u m double l e a f which was c u t i n t o 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 r e a s s e m b l i n g i t and thus r e s t o r i n g 83 some o f i t s t e x t .  In h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the fragment, he  gives i t s measurements and main v a r i a n t s but r e f r a i n s grouping i t .  Schrttder c o n c l u d e s :  from  "Das b r u c h s t u c k h a t  keinen t e x t k r i t i s c h e n wert und kaum t e x t g e s c h i c h t l i c h e s interesse.  es mag nur a l s w e i t e r e s zeugnis f u r d i e grosse  v e r b r e i t u n g des werkes dienen . . .:  es m6gen gut 40  h a n d s c h r i f t e n und fragmente bekannt s e i n .  e i n fragment,  das wie das unsere 36 z e i l e n auf der s p a l t e h a t , i s t , i c h sehe, n i c h t d a r u n t e r . "  soviel  T h i s l a s t statement, however,  i s not c o r r e c t , Schr5der must have o v e r l o o k e d an a r t i c l e by 83 E. Schrttder, " F u l d a e r Bruchstuck von Rudolfs von Ems Barlaam," ZfdA 54 (1913), 23-24.  16 6  V. E. Mourek i n which the author p r e s e n t e d a Barlaam ment kept i n the former Bohemian Museum i n Prague sigle:  frag-  (our  F16).  Both fragments, F8 and F16, show many s i m i l a r i t i e s : they are w r i t t e n i n two  columns o f 36 l i n e s w i t h n e a r l y  the same measurements (width: what l o n g e r than F16:  11 cm;  F8 seems t o be some-  20 cm i n s t e a d of 17) and the hand-  w r i t i n g and r u b r i c a t i o n p r e s e n t a very s i m i l a r Both fragments  picture.  date from the f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y .  d i a l e c t a l provenance  Their  i s hardly d i f f e r e n t , either:  F8 i s ,  a c c o r d i n g to Schrtider, "oberdeutsch, alemannisch," but he admits t h a t i t does have Middle German forms as w e l l . mentions  He  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 c o u l d have  named s e v e r a l o t h e r s , e.g., monophthong u f o r Upper German i u and lie i n buzen f o r btiezen or s t e t e ruwe f o r s t a e t i u riuwe, - I d - f o r Upper German - I t - i n forms l i k e The Prague  fragment  werlde.  F16 on the o t h e r hand shows Middle  German forms more c o n s i s t e n t l y , but has p r e s e r v e d a number o f Upper German forms as w e l l . Consequently, i t i s d i f f i c u l t Fulda and the Prague  t o d e c i d e whether the  fragment b e l o n g t o the same otherwise  l o s t manuscript o r not, the very l i m i t e d t e x t sample prov i d e d by F8 makes a comparison by photocopy  nearly  impos-  84 V. E. Mourek, "Prager bruchstlick e i n e r pergamenthands c h r i f t des Barlaam und Josaphat 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 der Ktiriigl. Bflhm. Ges. der W i s s e n s c h a f t e n , (1893), 1-16.  167  sible.  I t seems, though, t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s between the  two outweigh t h e i r common f e a t u r e s :  the d i f f e r e n t h e i g h t o f  the column, F16 h a v i n g a second v e r t i c a l l i n e t o s e p a r a t e the c a p i t a l s at the b e g i n n i n g o f a v e r s e (perhaps b l e a c h e d out i n F 8 ? ) , and some s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s i n h a n d w r i t i n g (e.g., the c a p i t a l D) and d i a l e c t forms.  Thus, i t seems  d o u b t f u l t h a t F8 and F16 were p a r t s o f the same m a n u s c r i p t . However, they must have been w r i t t e n at approximately the same time and not f a r from each o t h e r ( a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s ) , and they belong t o the same branch o f t e x t t r a d i t i o n , namely t h a t o f  GEM.  The F u l d a fragment c o v e r i n g v e r y s p o r a d i c a l l y the passage from 3894 t o 4181  cannot always be compared w i t h the  London manuscript M, which has a gap u n t i l p a r t l y o v e r l a p s w i t h the B a s e l fragment F l .  3995, but F8 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 t o name the l o n g s e c t i o n s without paragraph markers and 4013  i n GF8F1 between  and a g a i n between 406 7 and 4175  3941  i n GEMF8 ( F l ends  w i t h 40 61) and t o r e c a l l the two t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s g i v e n b e f o r e (see p. 156):  3909 nach unser a l l e r g u t t a t ,  and  39 50 und l e i d e z ende. The Prague  fragment F16, which c o n s i s t s o f l e s s than  h a l f a l e a f and one double l e a f , c o n t a i n s the t e x t between 6483-6554, 12969-13112 and 13691-13834.  I t pro-  v i d e s a l o n g t e x t passage, a speech by Josaphat (1299 313112), without any paragraph d i v i s i o n s , j u s t as G and M  168  do.  Moreover,the  r u b r i c a t o r i n G and F16 f o r g o t the mar-  g i n a l i n i t i a l J a t 12993. 13681 mon  and 13811, which  i s subdivided  paragraphs, i s l e f t  GM have only  i n one p i e c e  one i n i t i a l  and GM a t 13781).  L i k e w i s e , the passage  between  i n AbCDL by t h r e e  com-  i n F16, whereas E and  i n t h i s whole s e c t i o n (E a t  Thus, i n i t s paragraph p a t t e r n ,  13731  F16  appears t o be i n l i n e w i t h the'GEM-group, j u s t as the fragment  Fulda  was.  This  i s a l s o documented by the f o l l o w i n g  variants:  6506  Pf:  wan  12994  Pf:  s i n n e l o s e r Theoda; v i i s i n n e l o s e r t . F16GEM  13029  Pf:  d i n e r gote werdekeit  K F16: b  du so kumberliche; s i t du s. k. F16GEM  mit s i n e r gute w e r d e k e i t ; go'te M; gotlichen  130 32  Pf:  d i e l i u t e twungen . . .; d i l u t e t r u g e n . . .  13089  Pf: GMF16:  Pf: GMF16:  F16GM  der stleze der gewaere K r i s t der suze und der gewere c r i s t ; . c.  13097  Pf:  von gotes k r e f t e n s p r i c h e t sus von gotes worten  The F u l d a  s p r i c h e t sus; von  des  E  der u n h e i l der andern h e i l ; der a i n unhail  GEMF16:  . . geware  E  sp. a l s u s 13754  G  . . .  C  d i r r e h e i l der andern and the Prague  unheil  fragment  deserve  little  169  a t t e n t i o n i n themselves;  they both show s i g n s o f how the  t e x t a t 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 gradually loses i t s precision.  B l a t a n t mistakes  form  are r a r e ,  e.g., 13695-696  swer umbe g e l t gevangen wart / ( i n s t e a d o f : l a c ) daz g e l t e r balde v u r i n wac  but s l i g h t a l t e r a t i o n s and omissions  occur f r e q u e n t l y .  F8  and F16 enhance the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e Barlaam t e x t as r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e GEM-group must have been w i d e l y spread i n Middle Germany i n t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y .  4.3.12. F9  The ""Gottingen. fragment"  These two v e l l u m l e a v e s o f a l a t e t h i r t e e n t h century manus c r i p t c o n t a i n the Barlaam t e x t between 13811-13946 and 14903-15038.  I t i s w r i t t e n i n two columns w i t h 34 l i n e s  each and q u i t e l e g i b l e , w i t h one faded passage on page 1 . Its i n i t i a l s  a t 13811 and 13907 (thus not s u b d i v i d i n g t h e  s e c t i o n p r e s e n t i n g A v e n i e r ' s l e t t e r t o h i s s o n ) , as w e l l as 14905, 923, 973, 999, c o i n c i d e e n t i r e l y w i t h those i n G and M.  The t e x t i n F9 i s w r i t t e n w i t h g r e a t c a r e , t h e r e are  no obvious  s c r i b a l e r r o r s and h a r d l y any d e v i a t i o n s from  P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n o t h e r than: 13876  P f : min herze e i n k l e i n e e r l i u h t e t i s t GMBF9:  m. h. e. k. e n t l u h t e t i s t ; m. h. e i n l u t z e l erlaucht i s t  E  170  13927  Pf:  s i n e r guete l o b e t i n do / s i n munt s i n herze.  -28 GMLWF9:  Pf:  also  (daz d e r v e r h e r t e t adamas d i r vorgeweichet  GEMbF9 14938  Pf GMF9  von d i r geweichet und  suezer k r i s t ; suezer  n i h t m i t dem r e h t e n  r . g.  GMWbF9  b i einem armen a l d e n man  GEMF9 Pf  15015  crist  . . . mit  sus t r u o c e r dan s i n h a e r i n k l e i t sus t r u o c dan s. h . k. ze gote s c h r e i e r a l l e er  F9:  AB  E  b i einem a l t e n armen man  Pf  gewichen  gant  Pf  14973  / . . . / )  daz s i n i h t m i t r e h t e n gant; dem  14959  also  S i n e r guete l o b e t e r i n do / s. m. s. h. sprach  13944  e r sprach  DK K° a  ze g o t s c r e i e r z a l l e r st.  s t u n t ; z. g. r i e f  s t u n t ; zu a l l e r  GMb  There can be no doubt t h a t t h e Gttttingen fragment belongs ser  extent w i t h E ( a l s o WLBb show o c c a s i o n a l agreement w i t h  F9). two  t o one branch w i t h G and M and t o a n o t i c e a b l y l e s -  F9 c o u l d not have depended on e i t h e r G o r M.  G has  d i v e r g e n t r e a d i n g s o f i t s own where F9 and M agree  the o t h e r  with  manuscripts:  13 854  MF9Pf:  unde im r e h t e r volge j a c h ; r e h t e r w a r h e i t  13884  MF9Pf:  d i e min l i p gevrumet h a t ; begangen  G  G  171  On the o t h e r hand, the London manuscript M l e a v e s out 149 34-937 where F9 and G have the f u l l t e x t , thus r u l i n g out  the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t F9 might have been c o p i e d from i t .  The o p p o s i t e , however, t h a t G or even more so M might have descended from F9 o r a very c l o s e l y r e l a t e d m a n u s c r i p t , seems r a t h e r l i k e l y , although the evidence t o prove such a s u g g e s t i o n i s f a r too s l i m .  T h i s would a l s o be i n a c c o r d -  ance w i t h the f a c t t h a t 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"  T h i s fragment c o n s i s t s o f o n l y one and a h a l f l e a v e s i n q u a r t o , the v e r s o o f which i s so b a d l y d e s t r o y e d t h a t i t i s not  worth photocopying.  Stammler l i s t s  The d e s c r i p t i o n by  Wolfgang  a number o f v a r i a n t s on which we have t o 85  r e l y f o r the v e r s o p a r t s .  Stammler dates the fragment as  of  the second h a l f o f the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , but the form  of  some l e t t e r s seems t o p o i n t t o a l a t e r p e r i o d , presum-  ably a f t e r 1300. 11006, 1 the  V  The t e x t covered by F10 i s : l  11091-132;  t e x t o f the f i r s t  2  r  12643-726, 2  V  r  10965-  12727-810.  l e a f o v e r l a p s w i t h the Z u r i c h  Thus, frag-  ment d and the Wurzburg fragment h, the second l e a f w i t h F3; M can be compared only f o r the t e x t o f the second  leaf.  Stammler concludes from h i s c o l l a t i o n o f v a r i a n t s : 85 W. Stammler, "BruchstUcke 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 zur Gesch. d. d t . Sprache u. L i t . 43 (1918), 554-55.  172  "Die h a n d s c h r i f t  s t e h t mit i h r e n l e s a r t e n k e i n e r der  bekannten nahe, sondern s t e l l t o f f e n b a r zweig der u b e r l i e f e r u n g und  dar.  e i n e n besonderen  E i n e r e i h e k l e i n e r besserungen  anderungen z e i g t e einen s p a t e r e n s e l b s t a n d i g e n  b e i t e r an." rection.  Stammler's assumption p o i n t s  {iberar-  i n the r i g h t d i -  The h i t h e r t o unknown branch o f t e x t t r a d i t i o n t o  which F10 belongs i s the one r e p r e s e n t e d mainly by Q and M, to a l e s s e r degree by E, and by a number o f fragments. One i n d i c a t i o n o f t h i s a f f i n i t y  i s given  by the p a r a -  graph s i g n i n F10 at 10999 which i t shares o n l y w i t h G and W (W shows a d i f f e r e n t i n i t i a l p a t t e r n comparable t e x t and can t h e r e f o r e following textual variants 10965  Pf:  i n the r e s t o f the  be d i s r e g a r d e d ) .  support our theory  mit d i e n e s t l i c h e m  The  sufficiently:  werde / . . . u f der  erde -966  GF10:  mit d i n s t l i c h e n werden / . . . u f der erden  109 86  Pf: GEdFlO:  10996  Pf: GEdFlO:  11104  Pf: F10:  l a c h t e s i n , h e r z unde muot l a c h e t e herze und mut der warheit i e v e r k e r t e der d i w a r h e i t i  daz i c h d i c h wise uf daz leben daz i c h wise uf d. 1.; daz d i c h wise uf d. 1.  11124  Pf: GF10:  verkerte  G  w i r f durch den guoten got von d i r o m i s s i o n o f guoten  17 3  11127  Pf: GEF10:  12681  Pf:  GF10: 1274-7  Pf:  unz an dines  b i z an d. 1. z. do s i e gesazen an den r a t ; s i e gesazen  do gesazen an d. r . ; d i gesazen du v e r v l u o c h t e r greys  GF10: 12789  Pf: GEMF3F10: It  libes z i l  . . . M  a l t e unwis; . . . a l t e r  E  der v e r v l u c h t e r a l d e r u. e i n v i h e gehoert ez s i h t ez g a t . . . i z stat  (see p. 159).  f o l l o w s t h a t the Hannover fragment F10 i s p a r t o f  the GEM-group and stands c l o s e s t t o the Gotha manuscript G.  I t i s too s m a l l and too badly  value  for a critical  damaged t o be o f any  text reconstitution.  4.3.14. F l l " O e t t i n g e n fragment'-'  T h i s vellum  fragment o f the f o u r t e e n t h  a double l e a f i n q u a r t o .  century  consists of  The t e x t has become s c a r c e l y  l e g i b l e i n l a r g e p a r t s ; i t i s w r i t t e n i n two columns o f 32 l i n e s each and covers the t e x t between 6285-6412 and 66706796. and  Its initials  are p l a c e d a t 6297, 6329, 6361, 6397  6697, 6733 which a l r e a d y  s i b l e group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : GEM plus K (which c o u l d mean:  g i v e s a h i n t as t o i t s posa t 669 7, o n l y  manuscripts  K ) s e t a paragraph. b  A comparison o f the t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s t h a t F l l shares  174  with o t h e r manuscripts 6287  Pf: GEMF11 :  6295  Pf: EF11:  p o i n t s i n t o the same d i r e c t i o n :  r e h t e leben daz i s t daz  leben  r . 1. daz i s t leben so s o l daz t o t ouch h e i z e n n i h t so s o l der t o t doch h. n.; so s o l daz t . doch h.n. GM  6301  Pf:  so w i r t  des  l i b e s ende erkant  GF18F11:  so w i r t  des ende e r k a n t ; s. w.  daz ende e.  ME 6347  Pf: GEMFll:  6348  Pf: GMF11:  6357  • Pf:  unser koch i s t gotes  segen  unser koch i s t der g. sunne tou h i t z e  s.  regen  s. t . h i t z e unde regen swie v i i i r der e i n e hat  GEMFll: swie v i i der e i n e hat 6765  Pf:  i n broeder m e n s c h l i c h e r maht; i n b r o d e r m. m.  EF11: 676 8  Pf: GMF11:  M  i n b l o d e r m. m. ; i n snoder m. do v r a g e t e r i n aber  G  sa  o m i s s i o n o f i n ; do sprach e r und aber sa  The  m.  fragt i n  E  O e t t i n g e n fragment F l l can be c o n s i d e r e d a f u r t h e  member o f the GEM-group.  I t has a few minor t e x t u a l  diffe  ences w i t h e i t h e r G, M, o r E, but because o f i t s l a r g e deletions  i t cannot be determined  more p r e c i s e l y .  175  4.3.15. F13  "London  fragment"  Together w i t h the l a r g e r incomplete London manuscript one  M,  l e a f o f another v e l l u m manuscript u n r e l a t e d t o the  one has been p r e s e r v e d .  first  T h i s l e a f has l o s t t h r e e l i n e s i n  the middle o f each column due t o i t s b e i n g cut i n h a l f , but o t h e r than t h a t the t e x t between 5174 preserved.  and  5 29 5 i s w e l l  John Koch i n h i s a r t i c l e on both London f r a g -  86 ments  seems t o be more f a s c i n a t e d by t h i s s m a l l p i e c e  than by M, probably because  o f i t s age  (he dates i t from  the middle o f the t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y ) .  On the o t h e r hand,  Koch s t a t e s r i g h t l y t h a t i t s v a r i a n t s are o f l i t t l e  inter-  e s t , so he contents h i m s e l f w i t h g i v i n g a mere t r a n s c r i p t o f the t e x t .  I n i t , he a c c i d e n t a l l y l e a v e s out one v e r s e :  5 210 frumet dc v o r h i n w i r t gesant / ( i n daz gedende lones lant). A fragment  o f such g r e a t age would deserve  a t t e n t i o n s i n c e i t might promise o r i g i n a l one. are unfounded.  particular  a v e r s i o n c l o s e r t o the  However, i n the case o f F13 any such hopes The v a r i a n t s which F13 o f f e r s as opposed  to the o t h e r t e x t w i t n e s s e s seem d e t e r i o r a t i o n s than improvements.  There are two  clumsy  rather  a d d i t i o n a l verses  by which a s c r i b e i n t e n d e d t o b r i d g e the abrupt change o f speaker a f t e r 5272: "Barlaam  der sprach do / Der f r a g e waz  er v i i f r o . "  86 Koch, 78-89 "Fragmente R.v.E. . 87-89. . .," ZfdPh 13 J .(1881), . On von F13 i n p a r t iBarlaam c u l a r pp.  176  The t r u e i n d i c a t i o n f o r the change i n speaker comes  after  5276 i n a l l m a n u s c r i p t s , however ("sprach des h e r r e n l e r e r do"); i n F13 t h i s phrase has become redundant additional scribe's verses.  a f t e r the  F u r t h e r examples o f a dete-  r i o r a t i o n i n the t e x t o f F13 a r e 5175 von den werden w i r e r s l a g e n ; i n s t e a d o f geslagen as r e q u i r e d by the context ("beaten,"  Pf  not " s l a i n " )  5225 ( d i e l e b e n t a l s a i n tube t u o t /) a l s s i e a i n h e r besezzen h a t ; i n s t e a d o f e i n a r P f 5 249 s i n t e i n wol i n s o l h e r n o t ; i n s t e a d o f eine w i l e The  three i n i t i a l s  Pf.  i n F13 at 5189, 5223 and 5265 are i n  l i n e with a l l manuscripts except GEM which l e a v e out 5189. Only t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a n t s can be compared w i t h o t h e r manuscripts : 5196  AbCWLi DKK GEMF13 C  5272  wie d i s i u w e l t s o l zergan w. d. w e l t muoz zergan  ADKK GF13 C  den•iemer mere s t a e t e n h o r t  MCm  den iemer maere waerenden h o r t (see p. 134)  5275  ADKK CGEMWLkmF13  C  daz almuosen dest daz guot daz almuosen i s t daz guot  The p i c t u r e i s not c l e a r a t a l l .  F13 c o u l d be r e l a t e d  t o v i r t u a l l y any manuscript o r g r o u p i n g , i t s 112 v e r s e s simply do not c o n t a i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r any t h e o r y .  177  4.3.16. F18 " B e r l i n  fragment"  The two quarto leaves o f t h i s f o u r t e e n t h century are i n a very poor s t a t e :  not o n l y was t h e lower h a l f o f  both l e a v e s c u t o f f f o r bookbinding and  2  r  fragment  purposes,  have become v i r t u a l l y i l l e g i b l e  but pages l  v  i n p a r t due t o the  i m p r i n t o f another s t r i p o f the same otherwise  l o s t manu-  s c r i p t , w i t h which our fragment had been a f f i x e d t o the i n s i d e cover o f a volume.  S i n c e P. S t r a u c h gave a d e t a i l e d  d e s c r i p t i o n o f i t s p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and o f the t e x t p r e 87 served,  i t may s u f f i c e t o say t h a t t h e two l e a v e s would  have covered 5881 t o 5992 and 6215 t o 6326.  Due t o the  damage s u s t a i n e d by F18, not even h a l f o f the t e x t materi a l has s u r v i v e d and even l e s s i s s t i l l  legible.  S t r a u c h remarks j u s t l y t h a t F18 shows l i t t l e d e v i a t i o n from P f e i f f e r ' s t e x t and indeed, n e a r l y a l l o f the v a r i a n t s l i s t e d by him are n e g l i g i b l e . 6 301 ACDKK°LW: GF11F18:  The o n l y e x c e p t i o n i s a t  so w i r t des l i b e s ende erkant so w i r t des ende e r k a n t ; s. w. daz ende  Furthermore,  F18 shows an i n i t i a l  a t 59 7 3 t o g e t h e r  w i t h GEMB, whereas ACDKK LW s e t t h e i r i n i t i a l C  has no t e x t ) . and  a t 59 6 5 (b  Based on t h i s evidence, the common  paragraph  the common v a r i a n t , we can assume t h a t F18 probably  belonged  t o the GEM-group, probably more c l o s e l y t o manu-  P. S t r a u c h , "Fragment aus Rudolfs Barlaam," (1910), 354-356. 8 7  52  EM  ZfdA  178  s c r i p t G and the O e t t i n g e n fragment F l l . c o u l d be r a i s e d :  One o b j e c t i o n c o u l d  Strauch n o t i c e d t h a t the m i s s i n g  leaf  between the two o f F18 c o u l d have c o n t a i n e d o n l y 222 v e r s e s (5993 t o 6214) i n s t e a d o f 224 ( e i g h t columns w i t h 28 verses each), and he concludes  t h a t F18 must have l e f t out 6159-60,  j u s t as ABC d i d (Strauch e r r o n e o u s l y adds E as w e l l ) . ever, s i n c e GEMK  b  How-  omit the p r e c e d i n g c o u p l e t 6157-58, we can  assume t h a t the B e r l i n fragment F18 would have shared  this  omission.  5.  Conclusion  5.1.  F i n a l grouping o f manuscripts  based  on t e x t and  rubrication  Having  s t u d i e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the l a r g e r manuscripts on  the b a s i s o f t h e i r r u b r i c a t i o n and t h a t o f the s m a l l e r f r a g ments u s i n g a more t e x t u a l approach, sum  we s h a l l now attempt t o  up our r e s u l t s , v e r i f y them by t a k i n g i n t o account  mon t e x t omissions  throughout  v a l u e o f t h e " i n i t i a l method."  the work, and d i s c u s s the A p a r a l l e l t e x t o m i s s i o n can  indeed be h i g h l y i n d i c a t i v e o f a manuscript  relationship,  but i t i s not the u l t i m a t e c r i t e r i o n o f manuscript It  can be caused,  initial,  com-  grouping.  j u s t as a common r e a d i n g o r a common  i n d e p e n d e n t l y by a sometimes p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  c a b l e e r r o r o f the s c r i b e (see above, s e c t i o n 4.3.6.). one has t o note whether p a r a l l e l t e x t omissions  occur  expliThus,  179  r e p e a t e d l y and how  they r e l a t e t o data gained by  other  methods. The  first  grouping which can be e s t a b l i s h e d without  doubt i s t h a t o f D K K . a  12243/44 and  c  In three i n s t a n c e s , at 2817/18,  13487/88, these manuscripts  l e a v e out a c o u p l e t  (mentioned n e i t h e r by P f e i f f e r nor by Stthns). a f t e r 376  DK  K  any  Furthermore,  l e a v e out a v e r s e and read d i f f e r e n t l y  as  follows: (umb  daz iemer wernde guot/) Daz  d i r d i n l e b e n gevromidet  hat/ Daz  d i r unlange i n vroden s t a t .  P f e i f f e r f o l l o w s the o t h e r manuscripts daz iemer wert und h i h t  which read:  zergat/  daz d i r d i n l e b n gevremdet h a t . A s i m i l a r case a t 14577/78 was  c i t e d a l r e a d y (see p.  As f a r as the r e v e r s a l o f 1602 3/24  in K  and K  154).  i s con-  cerned, D can no l o n g e r be compared, i t ends at 15743. does not share any  omissions  with other manuscripts,  D and  presents a very r e l i a b l e , e a r l y t e x t v e r s i o n w i t h o n l y major omission o f i t s own  (4213-4396, see p. 128)  one  and  three r e v e r s e d c o u p l e t s i n a s h o r t sequence a t 13563/64, 13571/72, 13593/94.  In these i n s t a n c e s , K  a  and K° have the  "normal" t e x t , t h a t o f the consensus o f m a n u s c r i p t s , f o r e they cannot have been d e r i v e d from D. source of K since K  a  a  has  there-  A l s o , the  must have c o n t a i n e d the author's d i g r e s s i o n s , cut out o n l y p a r t s o f the c o u r t l y p r a i s e o f  180  l a d i e s , whereas i t i s a l t o g e t h e r m i s s i n g i n DK . C  especially K  have a number o f i n d i v i d u a l t e x t  K  and  a  omissions  which do not i n d i c a t e any o t h e r a f f i l i a t i o n .  The o n l y  fragments  are dq and e l  (see  t h a t we  4.2.1 The  found r e l a t e d t o t h i s group  and 4.2.2) .  study o f 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 o f m a n u s c r i p t s , i t i s t r u e . the p o s i t i o n o f K  a  As f a r as  i s concerned, the f a u l t l i e s w i t h the  u n r e l i a b l e 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 . ence o f i n i t i a l s  However, the h i g h congru-  between D and K  indicated a close  t i o n s h i p between those two m a n u s c r i p t s .  As we  rela-  extended  our scope and took i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n d i v e r g e n t r e a d i n g s at p l a c e s o f r u b r i c a t i o n , we right direction as w e l l as K  found cases which p o i n t e d i n the  (see pp. 115-16), which suggested t h a t  belong t o one group t o g e t h e r w i t h D, but  they c o u l d not have been c o p i e d from D S6hns had c l a i m e d "that one s c h r i f t e n r e i h e ) was BCLE-class.  c l a s s o f manuscripts  should belong t o D K K a  C  (Hand-  nor  c o n c l u s i v e evidence t h a t A  (as t o K , b  see pp. 109-10).  not show any c o n s i s t e n t agreement w i t h any o t h e r than the Wurzburg fragment left  that  as opposed t o the  However, n e i t h e r the study o f i n i t i a l s y i e l d e d any  a  itself.  c o n s t i t u t e d by ADK  t e x t u a l comparisons  K  manuscript  h (see 4.3.1).  out a verse o r a c o u p l e t on i t s own  A does  A has  here and t h e r e ,  but o n l y the f o l l o w i n g omissions and r e v e r s a l s are shared  181  by o t h e r manuscripts  and appear t o be s i g n i f i c a n t :  4 215/16 o m i t t e d i n ALW.  These v e r s e s have t h e same rhyme  words as t h e p r e c e d i n g c o u p l e t . 4883-86 omitted i n ABbLW; C has a m i s s i n g l e a f here on which f o u r v e r s e s must have a l s o been l e f t out. verses a r e p l a i n l y redundant.  These  4885/86 repeat the  rhyme words o f 4881/82. 6159/60 o m i t t e d i n ABC (b has m i s s i n g l e a v e s ) . ing  The preced-  passage leads t o a r h e t o r i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f  key-words and a double left  rhyme a t 6157/58 which i s  out by GEMK . b  6863/64 r e v e r s e d i n ACGLW, with C h a v i n g a s l i g h t l y  differ-  ent r e a d i n g . All  these examples would range A on the s i d e o f Bb, LW and  C r a t h e r than, o f One  DK K°. a  r a t h e r - i n t e r e s t i n g omission s h o u l d be mentioned here.  A leaves out v e r s e s 7863-66, a g a i n r e p e t i t i o u s i n contents and rhyme, whereas L omits  7 86 2-6 5.  see t h a t codex C had i n i t i a l l y  I t i s intriguing to  l e f t out the same v e r s e s as  A, but t h a t they were l a t e r added on the margin.  Were they  added by the same s c r i b e o r h i s c o r r e c t o r a t the time o f the manuscript  p r o d u c t i o n , o r were they f i l l e d  a b l y l a t e r date?  i n at a consider-  And c o u l d the f a u l t y v e r s i o n , i n the  meantime, have been c o p i e d by o t h e r manuscripts?  A t a few  p l a c e s C does indeed show c o r r e c t i o n s and a d d i t i o n s o f a l a t e r stage, which p a r t l y c o i n c i d e w i t h gaps i n o t h e r manu-  18 2  scripts.of  F i r s t l y , C had l e f t out t h e f i r s t  two  paragraphs  the p r o l o g u e ; the o v e r l y l a r g e and i l l u m i n a t e d i n i t i a l a t  63 proves t h a t t h i s i s where the s c r i b e s t a r t e d h i s work. The m i s s i n g s e c t i o n  (with the o m i s s i o n o f 33-36) was  later  added on the i n n e r c o v e r , a c c o r d i n g t o P f e i f f e r "von anderer n i c h t v i e l s p a e t e r e r Hand"  (Barlaam, p. 407).  There i s no  p a r a l l e l f o r t h i s o m i s s i o n i n any o t h e r manuscript.  On t h e  o t h e r hand the H e i d e l b e r g codex b has o m i t t e d v e r s e s 32 3740, 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  t h i s case, j u s t as i n the above c i t e d common o m i s s i o n s , the gap i n Cb c o u l d a l s o be e x p l a i n e d as independent error:  scribal  3235/36 have the same rhyme words as 3239/40, and  so the s c r i b e ' s eye c o u l d have e a s i l y s l i p p e d down f o u r l i n e s and taken up the t e x t from t h e r e .  But i t would seem  u n l i k e l y t h a t t h i s type o f s c r i b a l e r r o r s h o u l d have o c c u r r e d r e p e a t e d l y o n l y i n some manuscripts and not i n others.  I t i s more c o n v i n c i n g t o assume t h a t C and ABbLW  might have drawn some o f these omissions from a common source o r , f o r that, matter, t h a t they do not show t i o u s verses f i l l e d  repeti-  i n by l a t e r s c r i b e s which the o t h e r  manuscripts c o n t a i n ( t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i s a d m i s s i b l e especially  a t 4883-86 and 6159-60, see above). The  i n f o r m a t i o n which we gained from the study o f the  above mentioned  manuscripts i s too c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o e s t a -  b l i s h a stemmatic  relationship.  I t seems t h a t not o n l y C  183  but a l s o o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s were l a t e r c o r r e c t e d from o t h e r sources and To quote two end  t h a t t h i s c o n t a m i n a t i o n cannot be more examples:  C has  l e f t out 9 2 75/76 a t  the  o f a p a r a g r a p h ; i n W l i n e 9276 i s i n i t i a l l y o m i t t e d  l a t e r added a t the bottom of the page. out  disentangled.  L i k e w i s e A has  2542; W a l s o d i d so o r i g i n a l l y , but has  s i n g v e r s e at the bottom a g a i n . interdependence?  We  and left  added the mis-  Coincidence or a s i g n of  b e l i e v e t h a t the v e r s i o n s o f A, b,  L, and W have absorbed some i n t e r f e r e n c e and  C,  that, i n spite  o f t h e i r l o o s e 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  i s t o o c l o s e t o C t o be c o n s i d e r e d conglomeration.  The  " G f l t t w e i g fragment" m  a key  element f o r t h i s  p r o b l e m o f dependence c o u l d not  be  s o l v e d by the comparison o f i n i t i a l s , e i t h e r , which showed o n l y t h e same b a s i c p a r a g r a p h p a t t e r n i n AbCD. B e f o r e abandoning t h i s group a l t o g e t h e r , we attempt a c o n c l u s i v e assessment o f WL i s o n o f the r u b r i c a t i o n had  and Bb.  shall  The  compar-  a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t L and  W  have a s t r o n g s i m i l a r i t y i n the f i r s t h a l f o f the work, but that afterwards and  t h i s s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ceases  L f o l l o w s the p a t t e r n of C.  parallel initials turning point.  We  i n CL a t 8869 and  T a k i n g now  considered  entirely  the  8895 t o be a  two  likely  common t e x t o m i s s i o n s i n t o  a c c o u n t , our t e n t a t i v e judgment appears f u l l y There are p a r a l l e l o m i s s i o n s i n LW  corroborated.  a t 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 ( a l s o i n A ) , 4772/73, 7616/17 ( a l s o i n B ) , 8320 (W leaves out a l s o 8321, L r e v e r ses 8321/22) and 87 21.  Furthermore,  there are s e v e r a l coup-  l e t s w i t h r e v e r s e d l i n e s , i n one case, a t 1709/10, t o g e t h e r w i t h Bb. The verses.  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 W and L show the l a s t n o t i c e a b l e p a r a l l e l a t 9195/  96, where both r e v e r s e the o r d e r o f l i n e s . t h i s p o i n t , t h a t L and C share the same t e x t  I t i s only  after  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. of  Furthermore,  i t i s only i n t h i s second p a r t  the work, t h a t L c o n t a i n s some o f the L a t i n b i b l e  quota-  t i o n s which C has p r e s e r v e d a f t e r 13065, whereas i t s L a t i n verses i n the f i r s t h a l f o f the t e x t  (between 2449 and  3785, a t 6191, 6207, and 6930) do not occur i n L. The q u e s t i o n was r a i s e d e a r l i e r  (see p. 10 3) whether  W might have u l t i m a t e l y been d e r i v e d from D, as the agreement between t h e i r i n i t i a l s W and C.  i s s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than t h a t o f  A look a t t h e i r t e x t o m i s s i o n s , however, r u l e s  t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y out.  W and L share common t e x t  omissions  w i t h ABb and C ( a l l o f which occur i n the f i r s t h a l f , see above), but none with the DK K -group. a  c  As we p o i n t e d out  e a r l i e r , C does not always r e p r e s e n t the o l d paragraph p a t t e r n as c a r e f u l l y as D and s e t s i n i t i a l s A l s o , the major t e x t omissions  o f i t s own.  i n the second h a l f o f C,  185  where W has the f u l l  t e x t , would account f o r the lower  agreement f i g u r e between C and W. On  the b a s i s o f a t e x t u a l comparison, we can now d e f i n -  i t e l y r e j e c t Sfihns's c l a i m t h a t the H e i d e l b e r g a l t e r n a t e l y copied  from B and A.  codex b was  The study o f t h e r u b r i c a -  t i o n i n b and o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a l t e r n a t i o n of the two s c r i b e s and the v a r i o u s  gatherings  o f the codex  suggested t h a t b does not f o l l o w two d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s , b u t r a t h e r t h a t B and b o r i g i n a t e d from one source which was l o o s e l y r e l a t e d t o A (see p. 100). T h i s p r e l i m i n a r y ment has t o be m o d i f i e d w i t h i n the f i r s t  t o some e x t e n t .  5000 verses  that  B and b a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d ,  but not dependent on each o t h e r where b has the f u l l t e x t ) .  I t appears  state-  (e.g., B leaves  out 1697/98  T h e i r common omissions c o n s i s t  o f 733-36, 1369, 2064, 2971, 4157-60, 4411/12, 4752/53, 4774/75.  There a r e a l s o s e v e r a l p a r a l l e l  cases o f r e v e r s e d  l i n e s , the l a s t such r e v e r s a l o c c u r r i n g i n B and b a t 5289/90.  Hereafter,  the p a r a l l e l i s m between the two manu-  s c r i p t s ceases completely and both have omissions o f t h e i r own.  Codex b continues  entirely  i t s r e g u l a r paragraph  p a t t e r n i n agreement w i t h t h a t o f ACD, whereas B seems t o j o i n the GEM-group i n a number o f common i n i t i a l s . in  the f i n a l  150 0 verses  However,  o f the work, t h e p a r a l l e l i s m  between B and b i s r e - e s t a b l i s h e d ( r e c o g n i z e d  c o r r e c t l y by  Sfihns, p. 37). A g a i n , they have a common i n i t i a l  differ-  ent from a l l o t h e r manuscripts a t 14613, they r e v e r s e two  186  l i n e s at 14821/22 and omit o t h e r s a t 15371/72, 15481/82 (double rhyme, a l s o omitted i n L K K ) , 15729/34 and a  b  The most p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s  change i n the  t i o n s h i p between B and b i s to assume t h a t the S t r a s s b u r g manuscript  15985/86. rela-  lost  B (and not the H e i d e l b e r g codex b)  might have drawn i t s middle p a r t from a d i f f e r e n t source, a source t h a t o b v i o u s l y had some o f the r u b r i c a t i o n o f the GEM-group.  A g r e a t handicap  i n f u r t h e r p u r s u i n g t h i s hypo-  t h e s i s i s the f a c t t h a t f o r a l l i n f o r m a t i o n on B we  are com-  p l e t e l y dependent on P f e i f f e r ' s sketchy and not very able  reli-  apparatus. I t seems h a r d l y necessary t o compile f u r t h e r  i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a t h i r d manuscript  evidence  group, which  we  c a l l e d a f t e r i t s t h r e e s u r v i v i n g c o d i c e s the GEM-group. number o f fragments  had t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s group,  w e l l as the second Koenigsberg manuscript through K6pke's few v a r i a n t s . p. 109), K  b  shows important  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s group, GEM  and a l s o one  K, b  p l e t e London manuscript  as  known t o us  As mentioned b e f o r e (see  c r i t e r i a by which i t can be s e v e r a l v e r s e omissions w i t h  a d d i t i o n a l c o u p l e t a f t e r 9400 w i t h  ( s e c t i o n m i s s i n g i n M).  A  While  EG  i t i s c l e a r t h a t the incom-  M and the Gotha codex G are much  more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d w i t h each o t h e r than w i t h E (e.g., G and M omit paragraph  12933-62), i t s h o u l d be s t r e s s e d  E does indeed belong t o t h i s group, extent.  This a f f i n i t y  that  a l b e i t to a l e s s e r  i s suggested by the agreement of i t s  187  initials  as w e l l as s e v e r a l cases of d i v e r g e n t readings at  r u b r i c a t e d paragraphs  (see p. 114).  E was  written consid-  e r a b l y l a t e r than G and M and i t s s c r i b e t r e a t e d 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, i n t o i t and adding o c c a s i o n a l paragraph Apart from some t e x t cuts o f i t s own  titles.  (e.g., 7729-58 and  15466-75) E shares the f o l l o w i n g omissions w i t h o t h e r manuscripts, It  3895 with b, 9176-78 w i t h C, and  16089-90 w i t h  CL.  seems t h a t E or i t s source c o u l d have a l s o used a manu-  s c r i p t r e l a t e d to the C-group.  Besides these omissions  would have d e r i v e d from t h i s source the t e x t o f the author's  E  two  d i g r e s s i o n s which are otherwise not documented i n  the GM-group (with the e x c e p t i o n o f the Schimpfrede a c c o r d i n g t o Kttpke, p. 416).  E has  in  not correspond e n t i r e l y with those i n C.  The  but they  are m i s s i n g i n the e a r l i e r passages,  dicit  Thus, t h e r e c o u l d  have been no d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e of C and E. p r o o f o f an amalgamation of two  L a t i n quo-  13250 "Vivo ego  dominus nolo mortem p e c c a t o r i s e t c . "  they  a f t e r 2449, where C  Moreover, E c o n t a i n s one out i n CL:  do  only L a t i n  verses i n E occur towards the end, a f t e r verse 1306 5;  t a t i o n which i s l e f t  b  a l s o p r e s e r v e d some o f  the L a t i n q u o t a t i o n s which appear o n l y i n CmL,  and m abound i n them.  K,  And  yet E gives  d i f f e r e n t text versions,  t h a t of the GM-group which p r e v a i l s and t h a t o f the C-group. In  view o f the n e a r l y t o t a l agreement i n the  d i v i s i o n s of G and M,  the p o s s i b i l i t y  t h a t one  paragraph  manuscript  188  might have been c o p i e d from the o t h e r had t o be l e f t (see pp. 104-05).  open  G c o u l d not have descended from M, s i n c e  the l a t t e r has s e v e r a l 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 o t h e r hand,  cannot have been c o p i e d from G e i t h e r , f o r the f o l l o w i n g reason alone: "Gottweig  the Latin b i b l e q u o t a t i o n which C and the  fragment" m i n s e r t a f t e r 6206 ( " c e l i  g l o r i a m d e i e t opera manuum ejus annunciant appears  a l s o i n M b u t not i n G.  firmamentum")  I t i s the only L a t i n verse  i n M; none o f the o t h e r s which we encountered L have been p r e s e r v e d i n M. from C o r m, otherwise  enarrant  i n Cm, E, o r  C e r t a i n l y M cannot  be d e r i v e d  i t would have c o p i e d t h e i r  faulty  omission o f himeln a t 6208, i n the German t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h i s L a t i n q u o t a t i o n (see p. 136).  Consequently  both M and  G can merely be d e r i v e d from one s o u r c e . T h i s b r i n g s us t o a f i n a l p o i n t .  We n o t i c e d t h a t G  shares a common omission w i t h A a t 119 7 (a redundant p l e t w i t h word r e p e t i t i o n ) ,  cou-  and t h a t i t r e v e r s e d the o r d e r  of v e r s e s a t 6863-6.4 t o g e t h e r w i t h ACLW and a t 16141-42 t o g e t h e r w i t h ABEW (CL have o m i t t e d the p a r a g r a p h ) .  M, i n  s p i t e o f i t s c l o s e a f f i n i t y t o G, does not c o i n c i d e w i t h i t i n the f i r s t two i n s t a n c e s and has no t e x t f o r the l a s t one. With r e s p e c t t o these common r e a d i n g s , t o the L a t i n  quota-  t i o n i n M, t o E's o c c a s i o n a l p a r a l l e l s w i t h bCLW and t o i t s L a t i n v e r s e s , s h o u l d we r e g a r d the GEM-group as a sub-group-  189  ing within  the l a r g e r conglomerate group r e p r e s e n t e d by  manuscripts such as C, m, A, B, b, L and W? be r a t h e r c o n s i d e r e d o r i g i n a l readings?  Or should GEM  an independent "branch" with i t s own I f we r i g i d l y adopted the f i r s t  we would have t o account f o r the p r e s e r v a t i o n which i s omitted i n ABbLW (and most l i k e l y these v e r s e s appear i n D K K a  C  position,  o f 4883-86  i n C), whereas  as w e l l as i n GEM (see p.  181).  I f we adopted t h e o t h e r p o s i t i o n , we would have t o assume an a r c h e t y p a l  source o f the GEM-group, which would have con-  t a i n e d the L a t i n q u o t a t i o n s as w e l l as the two a u t h o r i a l digressions.  The few p a r a l l e l t e x t omissions i n GEM and  manuscripts o f the "C-group would have t o be e x p l a i n e d as coincidental scribe's  errors.  L e t us, a t t h i s p o i n t , r e c a l l B e d i e r ' s warning, t h a t , the  f u r t h e r back an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o a t e x t t r a d i t i o n i s  pushed, the more i t becomes mere s p e c u l a t i o n . our  study, we found manuscripts GEM plus  Throughout  a number o f f r a g -  ments t o be a group c l e a r l y d i s t i n c t from a l l the o t h e r s , not only by a d i f f e r e n t r u b r i c a t i o n p a t t e r n s i d e r as o f a more r e c e n t criteria,  (which we con-  s t a g e ) , but a l s o by t e x t u a l  common v a r i a n t s , o m i s s i o n s , and a d d i t i o n s .  It  would serve no purpose t o draw a stemma t h a t pretended t o t r a c e the g e n e a l o g i c a l  r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a l l manuscripts  back t o an archetype.  The image o f a t r e e with l a r g e r and  s m a l l e r branches would, i n our view, be a mirage than a u s e f u l model.  rather  A f t e r a l l , we know only very few  190  s u r v i v i n g manuscripts and we  out o f a probably  f a r g r e a t e r number,  do not always know them i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l  T h e r e f o r e , whether GEM  form.  and t h e i r r e l a t e d fragments u l t i m a t e l y  go back t o an a n c i e n t t e x t v e r s i o n e q u i v a l e n t t o t h a t o f the "D-  o r the *C-group, o r whether t h e i r source i s a l r e a d y the  product o f a mixture o f these two blished.  groups,  In any case, i t i s an important  cannot  be e s t a -  group i n i t s own  r i g h t w i t h i n the Barlaam t e x t t r a d i t i o n and s h o u l d be  given  credit accordingly. In  our attempts  laam manuscripts way  f o r a new  t o group and assess a l l e x i s t i n g  and fragments,  t e x t e d i t i o n , we  Bar-  i n o r d e r t o h e l p pave the found the method o f t a b u -  l a t i n g and comparing the p o s i t i o n and r e a d i n g o f a l l r u b r i c a t e d paragraphs  very u s e f u l .  As shown i n the  c a s e s , t h i s method has i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . centage  individual  Sometimes the p e r -  v a l u e s d i d not c o n s t i t u t e c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n o f a  manuscript's determine  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  a genealogical relationship.  But which o t h e r  methodical' approach i n t h i s f i e l d i s f r e e o f a m b i g u i t i e s ? On the o t h e r hand, adopting i t as one o f s e v e r a l methods, it  draws a t t e n t i o n t o p a r a l l e l s between m a n u s c r i p t s , i t  i n d i c a t e s when a manuscript  changes i t s paragraph  and thus p o s s i b l y i t s source, and i t can channel, or  pattern support,  c o n t r a d i c t r e s u l t s gained by a comparison o f t e x t u a l  variants.  Moreover, i t p r o v i d e s d a t a which can hence be  used i n s t r u c t u r a l s t u d i e s .  We  h o l d t h a t an i n q u i r y  into  191  the manuscript  r e l a t i o n s h i p of a medieval  work,  which  ignores the transmission of i t s r u b r i c a t i o n , i s incomplete. 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  c o u l d be e f f i c i e n t l y mechanical  agreement  o r g a n i z e d i n order t o save time, t h e  w o r k 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  computerized.  N a t u r a l l y t h e f i g u r e s w o u l d h a v e t o be  interpreted, but the basis f o r a d i v i s i o n into become b r o a d e r  a n d more s o l i d .  areas, i n which be  a positive  be  A n d t h a t means a l s o : . t h e  judgment cannot  v e n t u r e d , w o u l d be more c l e a r l y F i n a l l y , what p r i n c i p l e s d e r i v e d from our study?  groups would  a n d s h o u l d n o t be  defined.  f o r a new B a r l a a m  e d i t i o n can  We h a v e 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 c o d e x D a s a Leithandsehrift. obvious  Wherever D has a t e x t o m i s s i o n o r an  mistake, the reading of the manuscripts  and f r a g -  m e n t s b e l o n g i n g t o i t s g r o u p ( d q , e l , K , a n d Kttpke's t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g K ) s h o u l d be g i v e n p r i o r i t y a  necessary  f o r the  emendations; t h e i r d i f f e r e n t d i a l e c t a l  w o u l d h a v e t o be a d a p t e d  t o those  i n D.  g r o u p a s a w h o l e h a s a gap o r an o b v i o u s  edi-  forms  O n l y when t h e misreading  would  t h e m a i n 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 g r o u p s be  used,  n a m e l y C ( a n d m) on t h e o n e s i d e , a n d G ( o r M) o n t h e other.  I d e a l l y t h e v a r i a n t s o f C a n d G w o u l d 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 the page, w h i l e the readings o f the o t h e r manuscripts  c o u l d be p r i n t e d i n an  appendix.  19 2  The passages  c o n t a i n i n g the author's d i g r e s s i o n s would have  to be f i l l e d  i n a c c o r d i n g to the t e x t i n A and  One  b.  o f the advantages i n f o l l o w i n g D would be t h a t D  gives a r e l i a b l e , e a r l y v e r s i o n of Rudolf's Barlaam  i n the  author's own  best  Alemannic  d i a l e c t ; another, t h a t D has  p r e s e r v e d the e a r l y paragraph  pattern.  The  g r e a t e s t weak-  nesses o f P f e i f f e r ' s e d i t i o n a r e , i n our o p i n i o n , h i s inconsistent text selection  (with undue c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n  to E) and the i n a c c u r a t e and sometimes c o n f u s i n g m a t e r i a l i n the apparatus.  I f these shortcomings  are  successfully  avoided, H. Rupp's s c e p t i c a l remark t h a t a new  Barlaam  t i o n might not be a b l e to improve much on P f e i f f e r ' s  edi-  (Bar-  laam, p. 512), would consequently be proven wrong.  5.2.  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 Barlaam  und  Josaphat  Judging by the number o f i t s p r e s e r v e d m a n u s c r i p t s , von Ems's Barlaam  Rudolf  und Josaphat must have gained a c o n s i d e r -  able p o p u l a r i t y throughout  the German speaking  between the t h i r t e e n t h and f i f t e e n t h c e n t u r y .  territories This  impres-  s i o n becomes the more c o n v i n c i n g by c o n t r a s t w i t h the o t h e r Middle High German Barlaam  two  v e r s i o n s w r i t t e n i n the  t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , the so — c a l l e d Laubacher  Barlaam  by  bishop Otto o f F r e i s i n g , o f which j u s t one manuscript i s  193  preserved,  and  the  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 only'm  two  spreading  short  fragments.  of Rudolf's  An  B a r l a a m v e r s i o n on  m a n u s c r i p t t r a d i t i o n meets w i t h rare exception direct  t h a t the  information  origin;  this  C—written  by  attempt to o u t l i n e  as  grave o b s t a c l e s .  of i t s It is a  manuscripts themselves give  to the  occurs only  d a t e and  i n the  the  cases of  a s c r i b e Chunrat i n  E — w r i t t e n i n 1459  the b a s i s  place  of  any their  manuscripts  1284  f o r V e i t von E g l o f f s t e i n  P . — t h e i l l u m i n a t e d m a n u s c r i p t o f 1469 , p r o d u c e d i n a t e l i e r of Diebolt For a l l other  articles,  L a u b e r i n Hagenau  m a n u s c r i p t s and  dary i n f o r m a t i o n  as p r o v i d e d  f r a g m e n t s we by  d e f i n i t i o n of a t e x t .  In the  such probing  into dialectal  questionable  r e s u l t s , due  catalogue  the  shortness  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the  native the  d i a l e c t of the  copy) c o u l d not  be  secon-  descriptions on  our  own  dialect  yield  inconsistent spelling  of the  sample.  the  analysis  target  s t u d i e d w i t h i n the  of  Furthermore,  d i a l e c t of the  s c r i b e , and  and  fragments,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s could  some s u b t l e r a s p e c t s o f s u c h a l i n g u i s t i c the  d e p e n d on  case of s h o r t e r  to the  the  (Alsace).  or even, i n s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s ,  m o s t s c r i b e s and  the  (e.g.,  source,  the  d i a l e c t of  framework o f  this  outline. 88 studien  See A d o l f P e r d i s c h , Der L a u b a c h e r B a r l a a m : z u e i n e r A u s g a b e ( M a r b u r g ^ 1904) .  89 See J . K l a p p e r " B a r l a a m und V e r f a s s e r l e x i k o n , I , 171.  Josaphat,"  m  Vor-  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 laam und J o s a p h a t  was w r i t t e n a b o u t 1 2 2 5 , 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 R h i n e Ministeriale  Bar-  o f t h e Lords o f Montforir.  valley  as a  One m a j o r a i d i n  d e t e r m i n i n g when t h e w o r k 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 Cappel near Z u r i c h and i t s a b b o t 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  source  (Barlaam,  likely  144-149 a n d 1 6 0 5 7 - 1 6 0 7 4 ) .  9 0  I t i s most  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 L a k e C o n s t a n c e , i f we j u d g e b y t h e l i t e r a r y p a t r o n s whom h e m e n t i o n s e a r l i e r P e r guote  Gerhard  and i n h i s Barlaam.  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  in his  "Rudolfs  begrenzt, seine Auftrag91  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 T h e r e a r e no m a n u s c r i p t s  to  this  early period.  left  Heimat."  t h a t c o u l d be a s c r i b e 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 ( s e e p p . 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 92 Hohenems a t a l a t e r s t a g e . to  a Barlaam  text tradition  a n d was t r a n s f e r r e d t o  The o n l y r e m a i n i n g i n this  area, although dating  f r o m 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 9  0  witnesses  matching  See X. v . E r t z d o r f f , R u d o l f v o n Ems, p p . 80-89.  91 H. B r a c k e r t , R u d o l f v o n Ems, p. 29. 92 See E d w a r d S c h r 5 d e r , " R u d o l f v o n Ems u n d s e i n L i t t e r a t u r k r e i s , " Z f d A 67 (1930 ) , 2 1 1 : . . . u n s e r R u d o l f hat damit n i c h t s zu t u n . " 11  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 a n d q.  expect t h a t l i t e r a r y works a t t h a t time would along the upper  Rhine  valley with i t s close  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 .  manuscript D which belongs  this point.  greater Alemannic two  the second  Swabia are a, the  F17,  the  above  Schaffhausen  ( m i s s i n g ) S t u t t g a r t fragment  frag-  a l l of  H o w e v e r , as i n d i c a t e d i n c h a p t e r  these m a n u s c r i p t s have n o t , o r not 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 f r o m dq o r In this 1  but  f e a t u r e s would  a r e a i n c l u d i n g A l s a c e and  the f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . 5.1,  w i t h dq  O t h e r , y o u n g e r documents o f t h e  Hohenems c o d e x A,  ment r a n d t h e  propagated  Freiburg  t o t h e same g r o u p  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  mentioned  can  interrelations  The  does n o t show t h e i r m a r k e d S w i s s - A l e m a n n i c illustrate  be  We  c o n t e x t , t h e two  (Nuremberg),  a problem.  K.  which  D. fragments  e ( i n Munich)  and  i n our o p i n i o n b e l o n g t o g e t h e r , pose  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  that  93 the d i a l e c t  i s "alamannisch  (schweizerisch)."  a s s e r t i o n i s probably provoked  This  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 ( R o t h s u g g e s t s o f t h e f i f t e e n t h underneath  the f i n a l  verses:  "Wer  dys b u c h f i n d e t ,  s o l es Hans v o n W i n t e r t u r w y d e r g e b e n . " f e a t u r e s o f t h e s e 138  century)  The  der  dialectal  v e r s e s , h o w e v e r , show some u n m i s -  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 : the Umlaut i s not 93 K. R o t h , D e u t s c h e P r e d i g t e n , p. x x i i .  196  indicated the  i n words such as v r o l i c h e , h o r e n , l u g e ,  U p p e r German d i p h t h o n g ae i s n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  a n d 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 det).  The  fragment On  truge, from  position  e,  (er  same f e a t u r e s c a n be f o u n d i n t h e N u r e m b e r g  1 w h i c h Stthns c l a s s i f i e d  the o t h e r hand, t h i s  fragment  c o r r e c t l y a s M i d d l e German. 1, j u s t a s e,  a l s o a few m i n o r A l e m a n n i c t r a c e s , e.g.,  contains  t h e grapheme ch.  for  k w i t h i n t h e word  one  c a s e i n 1, t h e r e i s a p p a r e n t l y e v e n a r e m n a n t o f t h e  Old  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 v o w e l s , was  (dunchet, bechant, gechundet).  full  final  4598  unde d i s e m 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 friend There  k e p t on i n A l e m a n n i c  dialects:  t h a t he r e c e i v e d f r a g m e n t  (Wilhelm Wackernagel)  i n Basel  1 from  a  (see f o o t n o t e 71).  i s n o t i n f o r m a t i o n on i t s f o r m e r o w n e r s ,  m i g h t assume t h a t 1 was  In  but  one  kept i n the Alemannic-Swiss area.  C o u l d i t h a v e 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 w h i c h was of  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  t h e town o f W i n t e r t h u r (between  b e f o r e i t was a n s w e r may  c u t up a n d i t s p a r t s d i s p e r s e d ?  be, b o t h f r a g m e n t s , e and  M i d d l e German f o r m s .  would  account f o r t h i s  The  Hans  Z u r i c h and t h e R h i n e ) , Whatever the  1, g i v e p r o o f o f  e a r l y t r a n s i t i o n from the Alemannic d i a l e c t ing  "buch"  to the  an  prevail-  close relationship to D  influence.  By t h e s e c o n d 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 B a r l a a m had a p p a r e n t l y s p r e a d n o t o n l y t o t h e  North-West,  197  but  a l s o eastwards i n t o the  c o d e x C,  w r i t t e n by  p r e c e d e d by  a B a v a r i a n s c r i b e i n 1284,  the  B e r l i n f r a g m e n t m and  u s u a l l y d o w n g r a d e d by  because of scribe  i t s several  o d e r s c h o b e i n , was  guten Texten bald  Nichts  xxii).  gence, but  rather  gut  detracts  and  aventiure  the not  love  of the  stamp o f a c l e r i c a l  mild  . . . Wenn  the  es  den  alten  Predigten,  text  scribe  omissions Chunrat  a s i g n of n e g l i ele-  saint's legend, everything  that  even the  epilogue  a l s o the  nature:  flippant  digrescourtly refer-  author addresses  the  description of G r e e k gods  These c u t s  censor; moreover, the  L a t i n b i b l e quotations  edifying  (16105-09), the  explicit  10333-54).  out  b r i e f mention of  ungodly conduct of  1 0 0 4 7 , 1 0 0 8 3 - 2 5 1 and  called i t s  are  G u o t e G e r h a r d where t h e  p u b l i c , and  witness.  anderte,  What i s l e f t  ladies, his rather  i n the  literary  of the  by  the  scholars  (Deutsche  f r o m i t s o t h e r w i s e r e l i g i o u s and  ence t o the  and  "Er  however, t h a t  of v i g i l a n c e .  ( s c h i m p h r e d e ) and  bear  so wUrden w i r von  i n h i s source, are  author's praise of  sions  already  which i s a  dunkte  mehr h a b e n "  ments f o r e i g n t o a t y p i c a l  love  408),  whether t h e y were i n t r o d u c e d existed  the  ihm ...  I t seems t o u s ,  or already  F2  century  Roth's v e r d i c t :  Chunrat  i n C,  nineteenth  " f a h r l a s s i g " ( B a r l a a m , p.  A l l e machten, wie  p.  Munich  was  text omissions; P f e i f f e r  r e p r o a c h c o m p a r e d t o K. strich  The  a manuscript i n T y r o l i a n d i a l e c t of which  " G t t t t w e i g " and C was  Bavarian region.  i n the  bear  his pagan  (9949the  preservation  text could  also  point  198  to a monastic  sphere.  H e l m and  Ziesemer  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 v o n author  quote a passage  Hesler i n which  encourages the r e c i t e r t o s k i p the  g r a p h i f he  the  following  para^  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 .  It  w o u l d e v e n 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 m i g h t h a v e w r i t t e n or authorized a v e r s i o n f o r a monastic ( s i n c e "von  K a p e l l e d e r a b b e t und  audience  a l d i u samenunge"  encour95  aged h i s w o r k ) , Rudolf's  as w e l l as one  for a courtly  Barlaam i s otherwise  very  circle.  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 f r a g m e n t s k,  F l l ("Oettingen  t i o n e d M u n i c h c o d e x E,  and  t h e a b o v e men-  a l l d e r i v e d f r o m t h e GM-group.  i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the s l i g h t l y bishop  fragment"),  later  e a r l i e r B a r l a a m poem by  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  character  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 Nevertheless, the early Bavarian c o n s t i t u t e a dead end showed b e f o r e , t h e y Middle  Franconian  thermore, they  documents M and  area.  C do  not  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  e x e r t e d a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on  manuscript  L i n i t s second h a l f .  common s o u r c e .  the f o u r t e e n t h century, manuscripts spread west, i n t o the Rhenish  We  of t h i s  Furdescend-  assume t h a t "Bavarian  r e g i o n s , and  we  the  a r e l o o s e l y r e l a t e d t o ABbW, p e r h a p s  i n g u l t i m a t e l y f r o m one  had  It  that  by  line"  their  94 K. H e l m and W. Z i e s e m e r , D i e L i t e r a t u r D e u t s c h e n R i t t e r o r d e n s ( G i e s s e n , 19 5 1 ) , p. 29. 95 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 pp. 88-89.  des possibility  199  t e x t v e r s i o n s merged w i t h o t h e r s .  Where t h i s i n f l u x  took  p l a c e ( i f as f a r south as S t r a s s b u r g where B and a were preserved) and through which channels, we Manuscript W,  do not know.  f o r m e r l y o f the famous Ambras l i b r a r y , d i d  not o r i g i n a t e t h e r e , but d i s p l a y s Middle German c h a r a c t e r istics,  j u s t as the Wurzburg fragment  h, which might have  used the same source as A. Approximately Barlaam,  a hundred  years a f t e r the c o m p o s i t i o n o f  the mainstream o f i t s t e x t t r a d i t i o n had moved  northwards  i n t o the Middle German r e g i o n s .  l i n g u i s t i c a r e a s , heterogeneous  as they may  These v a r i o u s be, share c e r -  t a i n o v e r a l l d i a l e c t a l f e a t u r e s , which s e t them a p a r t from the Upper German a r e a s , e.g., the t r e n d towards monophthongi s a t i o n , the l a c k i n g o f Umlaut, the l e s s e r impact o f the High German Sound S h i f t . area f o r our purpose  Regarding t h i s Middle German  as one  l a r g e u n i t , i t appears  the number o f Barlaam manuscripts and fragments  that  originating  from t h e r e i s about equal o r even s u p e r i o r t o those known of  Upper German o r i g i n . In  the West, codex L must have been w r i t t e n a t t h a t  p e r i o d ; i t s l a t e r owners up t o the e i g h t e e n t h century were the l o r d s o f Blankenheim  i n the E i f f e l .  Two  f u r t h e r manu-  s c r i p t s o f which o n l y p a r t s have been p r e s e r v e d show Middle-Franconian features.  One  i s the b r i e f  fragment  F10, kept at Hannover, which Stammler d e f i n e s as Middle  200  German, p e r h a p s M i d d l e F r a n c o n i a n ( s e e p. one  The  other  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 9 Ltineburg. is  172)-  r e d i s c o v e r e d i n a monastery  near  6 ' W h e t h e r i t was  a c t u a l l y w r i t t e n there or not  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 e v e n i n  r e g i o n s w h e r e t h e v e r n a c u l a r was  Low  German, p o e t i c  texts  o f M i d d l e German d i a l e c t w e r e c o p i e d a n d u n d e r s t o o d a t that time. M o s t 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 f o r m o f f r a g m e n t s o n l y , do n o t come  from the Western p a r t s of the t e r r i t o r y but r a t h e r  from  C e n t r a l Germany ( n o r t h o f t h e M a i n R i v e r ) and f r o m t h e Northeastern boundaries of the Hohenstaufen best preserved representative of t h i s  empire.  The  category i s manuscript  G, f o r m e r l y k e p t a t G o t h a , 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 the o l d e s t m a n u s c r i p t o f i t s group which the o t h e r s descended, B a s e l ) o r F9  (now  fragments  from  s u c h as F l (now  in  i n Gfittingen) have p r o b a b l y preceded  G.  I t i s r e m a r k a b l e t h a t b y f a r t h e g r e a t e s t number o f M i d d l e German B a r l a a m t e x t s b e l o n g t o t h e GEM-group, n a m e l y i , p, F l , F 3 , F 6 , F 8 , F 9 , F 1 0 ( ? ) , F16 One  and  F18.  o f the reasons t h a t might account f o r the  o f s o many M i d d l e German m a n u s c r i p t s i s t h e  existence  popularity  which Rudolf's Barlaam apparently enjoyed w i t h i n the 9 6  See J . K o c h , Z f d P h 13  n,  ( 1 8 8 1 ) , 80.  Order  201  o f Teutonic Knights i n the easternmost p a r t s o f 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, E l b i n g , Osterode, and two at Marienburg.  97  ,a b Of t h i s h e r i t a g e , ¥r and K survived u n t i l the end o f the  Second World War at Konigsberg, and only K°—which by v i r t u e o f 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 p e r i s h e d o r  were dispersed a f t e r the order was incorporated i n t o P r u s s i a ;  probably  one o r another o f the above mentioned .Middle German fragments might have 98 belonged t o such a manuscript. The esteem i n which Rudolf's Barlaam must have been h e l d among the i n f l u e n t i a l c i r c l e s o f the Teutonic Order i s e a s i l y understood.  Since the  order's mission was t o carry on the i d e a l s o f the e a r l i e r Crusades, subjugate the pagan population o f Eastern Europe, and convert them t o the C h r i s t i a n f a i t h , there was a s t r o n g need t o strengthen the m o t i v a t i o n w i t h i n i t s own ranks.  R e l i g i o u s l i t e r a t u r e , at the same time entertainment  (miracles and s a i n t s ' legends) and i n s t r u c t i o n , played an important r o l e i n that respect. Lectures and r e c i t a t i o n s from s u i t a b l e works were 97 See K. Helm and W. Ziesemer, p. 34.  98 The o f f i c i a l w r i t t e n language o f the Teutonic Order was Middle German, see G. Ehrisrrann, Geschichte der deutschen L i t e r a t u r b i s zum Ausgang des / l l t t e l a l t e r s (Munich, 1935), I I , 2.2., 67^7  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 , s u c h as communal m e a l s , and t h e l i b r a r i e s w e r e 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 men  community  of  ( 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 a n d w a r r i o r ) , overcoming heathen b e l i e f s a p p e a l e d t o them.  b u t a l s o t h e theme  a n d ways o f l i f e w o u l d  The p a s s a g e  of  have  i n which Josaphat's  activity  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 p a g a n c o u n t r y i s d e s cribed  (13467-13755),  reflects  very w e l l the i d e a l i z e d  which the Teutonic Order b e l i e v e d w h i c h was  d e p i c t e d i n i t s own  itself  to play,  role  and  chronicles.  Another f a c t o r , which could also account f o r the e x i s tence of Barlaam manuscripts w i t h i n the Teutonic Order o f Knights, i s a p o l i t i c a l  one.  known t o h a v e b e e n c l o s e l y  Rudolf i n h i s l a t e r years i s  associated with the  Hohenstaufen  p a r t y a n d w i t h K o n r a d I V 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 his Weltchronik.  Since the Hohenstaufen  rulers,  from the  days o f F r e d e r i c k I I o n , were t h e g r e a t e s t b e n e f a c t o r s o f the Teutonic Order, Rudolf's p o s i t i o n at the court 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.  that the Koenigsberg manuscript K  a  i s so c l o s e l y  The  would fact  related  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 d q , d e s p i t e t h e  differ-  e n c e i n t i m e and p l a c e , w o u l d 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 Z w e i t e (19 2 7; r p t . D U s s e l d o r f , 1 9 6 3 ) , p p . 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  t o the  there.  signs  O r d e r and  copied  of a long copying  deteriorated.  K  has  b  p o s s i b l e t h a t the  5088 and  has  with K  The  derived  readings  from the  o f the  with K  at  c  b  we  at  8341). of the  Barlaam manuscript  S o u t h e r n German a r e a  It is in  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 ,  or  reintroduced  m a r i l y from the Middle  names h i m s e l f on  first  E g l o f s t a i n p f l e g e r zue L V I I I I j a r der  A decade l a t e r ,  E,  as  mentioned  With self-assurance,  page:  "Das  Vochburg mir  p u e c h hab schreibn  i n 1469,  the  a t e l i e r of  produced the  w r i t t e n manuscript of Rudolf's  ich Veit lassen  Barlaam.  Diebolt  l a s t known h a n d W h i l e we  unable to study  i t s t e x t , i t i s obvious t h a t the  was  the  were emphasis  p i c t o r i a l s i d e ; the manuscript i s  i l l u s t r a t e d with The  he  gepurt X p i . "  L a u b e r i n Hagenau ( A l s a c e )  e n t i r e l y on  pri-  f o r a nobleman i n N o r t h e r n  Egloffstein. the  lived  w i t h E w h i c h drew i t s t e x t  German GM-group.  w r i t t e n i n 1459  B a v a r i a , V e i t von  composition  again.  on  w h e t h e r i t was  drawings.  GEM-  of a verse  Bavarian  richly  i t is  a common o m i s s i o n  the  dem  GEM-group, and  as much as  e s t a b l i s h e d whether Rudolf's  yn  text greatly  Order (K ,  not  von  o t h e r h a n d , shows  o f t h e D K - g r o u p and  f i n a l major offshoots  was  the  Teutonic  t r a d i t i o n occur i n the  before,  on  p r o c e s s by w h i c h t h e  group m i n g l e d w i t h i n the know o f i t ,  K°,  directly  138  full-page  c o m m e r c i a l and  yet  water-colour  sometimes h i g h l y  artistic  204  production of codices cular clientele.  s u c h as t h i s  one  presupposes a  D i e b o l t Lauber's advertisements  t o a more t r a d i t i o n a l l y  literature.  become b i s h o p  (who,  von  of Strassburg  Or l e n s b y  At about the o s o p h y and through  i n 1439  list  and  copies  von  same p e r i o d , t h e  t h e o l d German  Ems,  summed up by  this  had }  as  P a r z i v a l and  interest  Iwein.  in classical  phil-  a w a k e n i n g i n S o u t h e r n Germany and  scholars.  follows:  steht die a l t e mittelhochdeutsche  The  library  s w i f t change i n l i t e r a r y  B u r d a c h as  "um  und  taste vor  L i t t e r a t u r auch  Sudwesten, im E l s a s s , i n Baden, i n der P f a l z b e i A d e l 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  s c h e n a l t e r d a n a c h , i s t s i e d o r t b e r e i t s von durch  der  Litteratur  im und  Men-  modernen,  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  I t a l i e n s bestimrnten  lord  died i n 1478) -^0  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  w h i c h was  to h i s  of such works  i n f l u e n c e of I t a l i a n poets  ("Palatina") r e f l e c t s  1440  Rudolf  l i t e r a t u r e was  the  still  a c c o r d i n g t o Konrad Burdach,  Lauber p r a i s e d h i s i l l u s t r a t e d Wilhelm  and  In a n o t i c e which Lauber addressed  "hertzog Ruprecht"  appealed  o r i e n t e d a r i s t o c r a c y who  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  parti-  z u r i i c k g e d r a n g t and  und ver-  ^ K. B u r d a c h , " D i e 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 die 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 der P a l a t i n a , " C e n t r a l b l a t t f u r Bib1iothekswesen, 5 (1888), 126. X  See R u d o l f K a u t z s c h , " D i e b o l t L a u b e r 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  dunkelt"  (loc. cit.).  Furthermore  the p o e t i c a t t r a c t i o n which  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 m e t r e h a d h e l d f o r more t h a n two hundred  years had f i n a l l y  repetition.  waned by f o r c e o f s t e r e o t y p e d  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 .  For the Barlaam,  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 served i n B e r l i n  s u c h an a n o n y -  century i s pre-  (Staatsbibliothek Preussischer  Kultur-  b e s i t z , MS. Germ. F o l . 1 2 5 9 ) . Another very obvious reason f o r the abrupt ending o f the  Barlaam manuscript t r a d i t i o n  ing  o f book p r i n t i n g .  lies  i n the rapid  spread-  A s f a r as we know, R u d o l f v o n Ems' s  w o r k 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 h a n d ,  o n l y seven years 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 Lauber manuscript  (1469) t h e f i r s t  v e r s i o n o f the Barlaam appeared  i n Augsburg  story  incunabulum  (independent o f Rudolf's t e x t )  under the t i t l e :  g a r l o b l i c h unnd h e y l s a m  o f a prose  "HIE v a h e t a n n e y n  christglaubigen  cronica.  S a g e n d v o n 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 . w i e d e r w a r d b e k e r e t v o n eynem h e y l i g e n v a t t e r a y n s i d e l n genant Barlaam." shortly  A second p r i n t i n g  followed  thereafter.  While 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 the  unnd  into  oblivion,  Barlaam 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 parables stayed  alive  i n Germany a s 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  centuries.  New t r a n s l a t i o n s  from l a t e r ,  abridged Latin  206  versions were p u b l i s h e d , probably i n connection with the Counter Reformation, around l 6 0 0 .  But t h i s subject d i d 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 s e v e r a l Baroque Barlaam dramas were w r i t t e n and produced by, among o t h e r s , Lope de Vega.  Performances  o f various Barlaam plays by J e s u i t seminaries o r schools are a l s o documented i n Germany u n t i l the middle o f the seventeenth  century, but  these  t e x t s were u s u a l l y i n L a t i n . In the German vernacular no f u r t h e r adaptations o f the Barlaam and Josaphat s t o r y seem t o have e x i s t e d i n the l a t e seventeenth and  eighteenth 102  c e n t u r i e s , w i t h the exception, perhaps, o f a rhymed Jewish-German v e r s i o n . I t was not u n t i l the e a r l y nineteenth century p h i l o l o g i s t s and t h e i r f o r e runners Bodmer and Gottsched rediscovered the Middle High German Barlaam und Josaphat, that i n t e r e s t i n t h i s work and i t s author was r e v i v e d .  For  a short time, t h i s rediscovery produced n e a r l y euphoric r e a c t i o n s from some 101 l i t e r a r y scholars.  J  Rudolf von Ems was h e l d i n such great esteem that  he was widely c r e d i t e d w i t h the c r e a t i o n o f the Hibelungenlied.  Such  extreme p r a i s e could not f a i l t o draw adverse c r i t i q u e on the work i t s e l f and f u r t h e r i t s subsequent downgrading as "epigonal."  This may  partly  102 We were able to consult fragments o f 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. B a t t s . 'This i n t e r e s t i n g v e r s i o n does not seem to have drawn i t s m a t e r i a l , mainly parables, from the known C h r i s t i a n sources and can therefore be disregarded i n t h i s context; see a l s o H. P e r i , pp. 23^-35. See e.g., K. Roth, Deutsche P r e d i g t c n , p.  6.  207  e x p l a i n why,  a f t e r i t s e d i t i o n s i n the f i r s t h a l f o f the  century, so l i t t l e research has been done on i t .  nineteenth  A b e t t e r founded and  more balanced judgment on Barlaam und Josaphat, as mentioned before, would n e c e s s i t a t e a new, t o contribute to t h i s  r e l i a b l e t e x t e d i t i o n . Our study has attempted  aim.  208  L i s t o f Works  Cited  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 Practice." J o u r n a l o f E n g l i s h and G e r m a n i c P h i l o l o g y , 62 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 6 9 7 - 7 0 2 . Bedier, Joseph. " L a 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. Reflexions sur l ' a r t d ' e d i t e r l e s anciens t e x t e s . " R o m a n i a , 54 ( 1 9 2 8 ) , 161-96 and 3 2 1 - 5 6 . Bodmer, J o h a n n J . C h r i e m h i l d e n R a c h e 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 S c h w a b i s c h e n Z e i t p u n c t e , samt F r a g m e n t e n aus dem G e d i c h t e v o n den N i b e T u n g e n 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. U n t e r s u c h u n g e n 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 E s c h e n b a c h . Germanische S t u d i e n , 2 3 8 / 2 3 9 . Hamburg and L u b e c k : M a t t h i e s e n , 1970/71.  de B o o r , H e l m u t . Die htifische L i t e r a t u r : Vorbereitung, B l O t e , A u s k l a n g , 1170-1250. Geschichte der deutschen L i t e r a t u r , v o l . I I . 6th ed. Munich: C. H. B e c k , 1964. B r a c k e r t , Helmut.. R u d o l f v o n Ems: D i c h t u n g und Heidelberg: C. W i n t e r , 1968.  Geschichte.  Burdach, Konrad. " D i e 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 altdeutschen H a n d s c h r i f t e n der P a l a t i n a . " Centralb 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 v o n 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. Dain, Alphonse. Lettres,  Les m a n u s c r i t s . 1964.  2nd  ed. P a r i s :  Belles-  Diemer, Joseph. " K l e i n e B e i t r a g e zur a l t e r e n deutschen S p r a c h e und L i t e r a t u r . XI. B r u c h s t t i c k e von Barl a a m und J o s a p h a t des R u d o l p h v o n 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 , Vienna. Philosophisch-Historische Classe. XI ( 1 8 5 3 ) , 650-53 . D o c e n , B e r n h a r d J . R e v i e w 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 ) , 1 1 0 - 3 8 . Ehrismann, Gustav. Geschichte der deutschen L i t e r a t u r b i s zum A u s g a n g des M i t t e l a l t e r s . 2. Teil: Die 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. B e c k , 1959. I I , 2.  209  E i s , Gerhard. " E i n n e u e s F r a g m e n t v o n R u d o l f s v o n Ems Barlaam und J o s a p h a t . " German i s c h - r o m a n i s che M o n a t s s c h r T f t , 49 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 4 4 8 - 5 0 . Erben,  von  Johannes. "Zu R u d o l f s B a r l a a m u n d 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 , e d . J . E r b e n a n d E. T h u r n h e r . "Innsbrucker 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.  E r t z d o r f f , Xenja. R u d o l f v o n Ems: U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zum h t t f i s c h e n Roman i m 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 B a r l a a m G e r m a n i a , 30 ( 1 8 8 5 ) , 1 0 2 - 0 3 .  und J o s a p h a t . "  Gessler, Albert. "Bruchstucke e i n e r Barlaamhandschrift." Anzeiger f u r deutsches Altertum.und deutsche L i t e r a t u r , 14 ( 1 8 8 8 ) , 1 4 7 . von  d e r H a g e n , F r i e d r i c h H. a n d B u s c h i n g , J o h a n n 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 Deuts c h e n P o e s i e "von d e n a l t e s t e r i Z e i t e n b i s i n das sechzehnte Jahrhundert. Berlin: 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 . 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 . Giessener B e i t r a g e z u r d e 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 , 1 9 5 1 . 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 of P a r z i v a l . " S e m i n a r , 10 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 8 7 100. . Kantorowicz, Ernst. K a i s e r F r i e d r i c h der Zweite. rpt. DUsseldorf: H e l m u t K t t p p e r , 196 3.  192 7;  Kautzsch, Rudolf. " D i e b o l t L a u b e r 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. Klapper, Joseph. "Barlaam und J o s a p h a t . " D i e deutsche 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. " F r a g m e n t e v o n R u d o l f s v o n Ems B a r l a a m u n d 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 L o n d o n . " 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 ( 1 8 8 1 ) , 78-89. K 6 p k e , F r i e d r i c h K., e d . B a r l a a m u n d J o s a p h a t v o n R u d o l f von M o n t f o r t . 2nd e d . L e i p z i g : G e b h a r d t , 1838.  210  Lachmann, K a r l , von Aue.  ed. Iwein. E i n e E r z a h l u n g von Hartmann 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 Bruder Jacob und W i l h e l m Grimm m i t K a r l Lachmann. Jena: Frommann, 19 27. Linke, Hansjurgen. Epische S t r u k t u r e n i n der Dichtung H a r t m a n n s v o n Aue: Untersuchungen zur FormkrTtik, 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 . T e u b n e r , 1960. Migne, Jacques latina.  19 27;  4 t h ed. L e i p z i g :  P'. P a t r o l o g i a e cursus completus. Paris: G a m i e r 1844-80.  B.  G.  Series  M o u r e k , V a c l a v E. "Prager Bruchstlick e i n e r Pergamenthands c h r i f t des B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t v o n R u d o l f v o n Ems." S i t z u n g s b e r i c h t e der K t i n T g l i c h Bflhmischen G e s e l l s c h a f t der Wissenschaften. Classe fUr Philos o p h i e , G e s c h i c h t e u n d P h i l o l o g i e , J a h r g a n g 189 3. P r a g u e , 1 8 9 4 , pp. 1-16. Nagler, Charlotte. " S t u d i e n z u B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t R u d o l f v o n 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 . Philologie.  Studien zur Geschichte der Berlin: E. S c h m i d t , 19 7 1 .  von  deutschen  Ochsenbein, P e t e r . " Z w e i n e u e B r u c h s t u c k e zum B a r l a a m J o s a p h a t des R u d o l f v o n Ems." Z e i t s c h r i f t filr d e u t s c h e s A l t e r t u r n u n d 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: e i n e r Ausgabe. Marburg: Elwert,  und  V o r s t u d i e n zu 1904.  P e r i , Hiram. Der R e l i g i o n s d i s p u t der Barlaam-Legende: Ein Motiv abendlandischer Dichtung. A c t a Salmant 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 . X I V , 3. U n i v e r s i d a d de S a l a m a n c a , 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 v o n R u d o l f v o n Ems. M i t e i n e m A n h a n g aus F r a n z S t t h n s , 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 v o n Ems 'Barlaam,' e i n e m N a c h w o r t und e i n e m R e g i s t e r v o n H e i n z Rupp. Deutsche Neudrucke. Reihe: T e x t e des M i t t e l a l t e r s . 1843; rpt. Berlin: de G r u y t e r , 1965. P f e i f f e r , Franz. " B r u c h s t u c k e aus B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t v o n R u d o l f v o n Ems." A n z e i g e r fur~Kunde der deutschen V o r z e i t . N.F. 2 ( 1 8 5 4 ) , 1 0 8 - 0 9 .  211  Pietsch, Paul. "Fragment e i n e r H a n d s c h r i f t von und J o s a p h a t . " Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r deutsche 13 ( 1 8 8 1 ) , 1 6 3 - 6 1 + .  Barlaam Philologie  Piper, Paul. Httfische Epik. 3. T e i l . Nachahmer Wolframs und G o t f r i d s . K l e m e r e E p e n und C h r o n i k e n . Deutsche N a t i o n a l - L i t e r a t u r , ed. J . Ktirschner. 4. Bd., 1. Abtlg. Stuttgart: U n i o n , n.d. Re u s s ,  E d u a r d W. "Beitrage zur deutschen 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.  Roth, K a r l , ed. D e u t s c h e P r e d i g t e n des X I I . und X I I I . Jahrhundertes. 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. Leipzig: G. B a s s e , 1839 . Rupp, H e i n z . " R u d o l f v o n Ems u n d K o n r a d v o n W u r z b u r g . " P e r D e u t s c h u n t e r r i c h t , 1 7 , No. 2 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 5-17. Rupp, H e i n z . " R u d o l f s v o n Ems B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t . " Dienendes Wort: F e s t g a b e f l l r E r ns t B e n d e r . Ed. Walter Franke. Karlsruhe: G. B r a u n , 19 59, pp. 1 1 - 3 7 . Schanze, H e i n z . " B e o b a c h t u n g e n zum G e b r a u c h d e r D r e i s s i g e r i n i t i a l e n i n der Willehalm H a n d s c h r i f t G (cod. sang. 857)." 'Wolfram-Studien. Ed. Werner Schrttder.Berlin: E r i c h S c h m i d t , 1 9 7 0 , pp. 1 7 0 - 8 7 . S c h i r o c k , Bernd. "Der A u f b a u P i s s . F r e i b u r g , 19 72.  von Wolframs  Parzival."  S c h n e l l , R u d i g e r . . R u d o l f v o n Ems: Studien zur inneren E i n h e i t s e i n e s Gesamtwerkes. Bern: F r a n c k e , 19 69. Schrttder, Edward. " F u l d a e r B r u c h s t u c k v o n R u d o l f s v o n 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. Schrttder, 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, U t e . P i e B a r l a a m p a r a b e l n i m Cod. V i n d . 2 7 0 5 : Studien zur Verfasserschaft k l e m e r e r mittelhochdeutscher Gedichte. I s t i t u t o U n i v e r s i t a r i o Orientale di Napoli. Quaderni d e l l a S e z i o n e Germ a n i c a 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 . deutschen."  " P i e AusdrUcke f l i r l e i d e n i m . A l t h o c h W i r k e n d e s W o r t , 5 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 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 v o n Ems ' B a r l a a m . D i s s . E r l a n g e n , 1878. Erlangen: J u n g e , 1878. T  S o n e t , J e a n , S. J . Le_ Roman de B a r l a a m 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 manuscrite l a t i n e et francaise. 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. Paris: 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 Texte a l s Aufgabe." Festschrift fur Jost Trier. E d s . W. F o e r s t e and K. H. B o c k . Cologne: B o h l a u , 1 9 6 4 , pp. 240-67. Stammler, Wolfgang. "BruchstUcke e i n e r Barlaamhandschrift." 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 S p r a c h e und L i t e r a t u r , 43 ( 1 9 1 8 ) , 5 5 4 - 5 5 . Strauch, Philipp. "Fragmente von W o l f r a m s W i l l e h a l m und Rudolfs Barlaam." Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r deutsches 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 L a n g u a g e 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. P o p e . 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 , 1 9 6 9 , pp. 3 5 1 - 6 9 . 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 Chans o n de R o l a n d : An H i s t o r i c a l R e v i e w . " Studies i n Medieval French presented to A l f r e d E l w e r t . Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 19 61*7 p p . 7 6-89. W i s b e y , Roy. "Zum B a r l a a m u n d J o s a p h a t R u d o l f s v o n Ems." Zeitschrift 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) , 2 9 3 - 3 0 1 . Worstbrock, Franz J . Review o f the 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 v o n R u d o l f v o n 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 v o n Ems B a r l a a m und J o s a p h a t z w i s c h e n L e g e n d e und Roman." P r o b l e m e 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. E d s . P. F. Ganz and W. Schro"der. Berlin: Erich S c h m i d t , 1972.  213  i Geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of R u d o l f v o n 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 the 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] u n d mittelniederdeutscher [-1600] Z e i t , " c o n t a i n e d i n Herrn. Paul,' Mi11elhochdeu't sche Grammatik, 18th ed. (Tubingen, 1960) .  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099942/manifest

Comment

Related Items