Reading in Medieval St. Gall (Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology)

, , , , , , , , , , , , <s>). The graphs and , on the other hand, are found when the immediately preceding word ends in a lenes/voiced sound, which in Notker’s language includes only the sonorants (e.g., vowels, nasals and liquids). Although the alternation affects only German words, it can be caused by the preceding sound of both Latin and German words. The graphs , / are also found to alternate within the guidelines prescribed above, but the alternation is far less consistent. appears after sonorants and non-sonorants; the allographs and usually appear only after sonorants. An additional alternation related to Notker’s 14 Braune, Althochdeutsche Grammatik, §103 and Anm. 3, Josef Schatz, Althochdeutsche Grammatik (G¨ottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1927), §148, Adolf Holtzmann, Altdeutsche Grammatik, 1 (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1870), p. 341, and Herbert Penzl, “Zur Erkl¨arung von Notkers Anlautgesetz,” ZfdA 86 (1955/56), pp. 197–200.

288

Spelling for reading

“Anlautgesetz” is the occasional shift of (< Gmc. /d/) > /nasal.15 Some classic examples of the “Anlautgesetz” are: Ter brˆuoder u´ nde des prˆuoder; tes k´olde u´ nde demo g´olde; ´ein bilde, misseliches p´ıldes; u´ mbegˆat, uˆ fkˆat; ih f´ahe, tu v´ahest, ku´ıssero u´ nde u´ ngu´ıssero.16 It is usually assumed that, because the alternation cannot be described in terms of orthographic environments, but only in terms of phonological environments – whether or not a voiced or voiceless sound precedes it – it must reflect a phonological alternation of positional variants.17 Hence, one can speak of a complementary distribution of (/) = () word initially. The next question, naturally, is what phonetic and phonemic realities do these graphs represent: are they phonemes or allophones; do they represent a fortis = lenis opposition or a voiced stop = voiceless stop opposition; are the “underlying” graphs , , , (/) or , , ()? Scholars in the nineteenth century, before the birth of structural linguistics, concerned themselves only with the latter two questions. Jacob Grimm first described the “Anlautgesetz” in his Deutsche Grammatik and later in his Geschichte der deutschen Sprache.18 Grimm concluded that the original sounds must be /b, d, g/, since /t/ < Gmc. /d/ does not alternate. But the occurrence of /p, t, k/ after a pause (sentence initially and within a sentence) was problematic. This usage seemed to imply that /p, t, k/ were the normal values, which appeared so when left in an isolated position, but which were “softened” when placed in a voiced environment. Either explanation seemed possible, and each was supported by scholars for various reasons until the end of the nineteenth century.19 Whether the sounds in question were voiced and voiceless stops, or fortis and lenis sounds did not pose any problems for the early philologists. This point was provoked by the numerous dialect studies that appeared at the end of the nineteenth century. Andreas Heusler, in a study of the Basel city dialect, showed that the modern dialect did not have voiced stops, only voiceless fortis and lenis.20 He further pointed out that when two voiceless sounds appear together, they are articulated with an intensity stronger than that of the 15 This alternation is generally referred to as “Jellinek’s Rule,” after M. H. Jellinek, “Zu Notkers Anlautgesetz,” ZfdA 41 (1896), pp. 84–87. Sehrt and Starck rejected Jellinek’s rule and adopted Braune’s theory that the occurrences of for (
289

Reading in Medieval St. Gall

voiceless lenis but weaker than that of the voiceless fortis. Heusler suggested that this sound, which was halfway between fortis and lenis and which he called “neutral,” is that which Notker spells , and which alternates with the voiceless lenis according to the “Anlautgesetz.” Krantzmeyer supported the theory that the original sounds were voiceless lenis, and argued that only voiceless lenis could turn into fortis; voiced lenis > voiceless fortis was impossible.21 Baesecke pointed out that /b, d, g/ must be voiceless lenis in Notker’s dialect because all /b, d, g/ occurring after them appear as /p, t, k/. Hence, they must be distinguished from the voiced sounds – vowels and sonorants – after which /b, d, g/ occur.22 Twentieth-century structuralist linguists were more concerned with the phonemic rather than the phonetic reality of the alternation, in other words, whether the alternating graphs represent phonemes or allophones. The first linguist to tackle this problem was Herbert Penzl, who pointed out a fundamental paradox involved in the “Anlautgesetz”: Notker seems to have distinguished relatively unimportant allophonic contrasts, while at the same time ignoring important phonemic contrasts. So, for example, Notker uses the graph for both /f/ and /pf/ word initially, and the graph can stand for both /s/ and /ts/ (< Gmc. /t/).23 Penzl solved the problem by maintaining that Notker’s Latin–German bilingualism influenced his understanding of phonetics to such an extent that he ceased to be a na¨ıve speaker. Because of his familiarity with two phonemic systems, Notker was sensitive to the fact that the graphs / he wrote in German were not voiced as the / he wrote in Latin, but also not identical to the

he wrote in both Latin and German. Their phonetic reality lay somewhere in between. Having realized the difference, Notker understood that the variant forms he heard were environmentally determined and he indicated the fact through his “Anlautgesetz.”24 Penzl compared Notker’s “Anlautgesetz” to modern Swiss dialects, in which an alternation of fortis and lenis allophones word-initially occurs only in stressed morphemes and close juncture (between syllables, contraction of prefixes, and assimilation of “form words,” e.g. “wie pist” < “wie du bist”). It does not usually occur between words. He concluded that in Notker’s system the alternation was not based on factors such as stress and type of juncture, and that Notker must have generalized.25 W. Moulton disagreed with Penzl’s hypothesis based on the theory of Notker’s bilingualism. He suggested that Notker probably spoke Latin with a “dreadful” 21 Cf. ibid., p. 366. 22 Georg Baesecke, Einf¨uhrung in das Althochdeutsche (Munich: Beck, 1918), §59. 23 Penzl, “Zu Notkers Anlautgesetz,” p. 205. That Notker did not distinguish the phonemes /pf/ and /ts/ with different graphs could be explained by the fact that corresponding graphs were not available in the Latin alphabet. 24 Ibid., pp. 207–209. 25 “Die Regelm¨aßigkeit seines Anlautswechsels an sich zeigt, daß Notker verallgemeinert und schematisiert haben muß. Es lag in seiner Art zu regeln und zu normalisieren” (ibid., p. 209).

290

Spelling for reading

Swiss accent and that it was unlikely that he was acquainted with two distinct phonemic systems.26 Instead, Moulton argued that the graphic opposition , , / =

, was used elsewhere in Notker’s language to symbolize a phonological opposition lenis = fortis, i.e., /b/, /d/, /g/ /v/ and /p/, /t/, /k/ /f/ represent phonemes in word medial and final position. Notker simply adopted the same graphic opposition in word-initial position, even though here it was not phonemically relevant.27 Moulton claims that Notker behaved like a taxonomic phonemist, and when he applied the “Anlautgesetz,” he was writing in “surface forms.”28 In those syntagmatic positions where the opposition lenis = fortis was operative (following voiced sounds) Notker wrote for lenis phonemes and for fortis phonemes. In syntagmatic positions where the opposition lenis = fortis was suspended (after voiceless sounds and after a pause) he wrote .29 Had Notker behaved like a generative phonologist, he would have written in these positions.30 Moulton further notes that a writing system which symbolizes surface forms is not so rare, and he refers to examples from MHG, in which Auslautverh¨artung is commonly represented orthographically, e.g., greber “graves” but grap “grave,” reder “wheels” but rat “wheel,” tage “days” but tac “day.”31 A more recent study of the “Anlautgesetz” by Stephan Clausing takes a new approach to the problem. Clausing attempts to prove that Notker’s law was not an isolated dialect occurrence, but that it represents a widespread manifestation of allophonic variants present in the /b d g/ series during the OHG period.32 The presence of these variants is clearly recorded in Bavarian and Alemannic documents from the ninth up until the twelfth centuries. Clausing argues that the shift of /b/, /d/, /g/ > /p/, /t/, /k/ occurring in the Second Sound Shift was not yet complete in the OHG period. Because the sounds remained in an unstable state, environmentally conditioned allophones were present, and it was these allophones that showed up in Notker’s “Anlautgesetz.”33 What the exact phonetic values of the sounds involved in the “Anlautgesetz” were, and whether Notker was acting as a taxonomic phonemicist, a generative phonologist or simply had a good, bilingually trained ear, is still open to debate. In the remainder of this chapter I hope to shed some light on the “Anlautgesetz” and Notker’s spelling in general by approaching the problem from a different 26 William G. Moulton, “Notker’s ‘Anlautgesetz’,” in Irmengard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr (eds.), Linguistic Method: Essays in Honor of Herbert Penzel (The Hague: Mouton, 1979), p. 243. 27 Ibid., p. 243. 28 Ibid., p. 247. 29 Ibid., p. 250. 30 Ibid., p. 247. 31 Ibid., p. 248. 32 Clausing, “Notker’s Anlautgesetz,” p. 377. 33 Ibid., p. 372. One criticism of Clausing’s theory, of course, is that /t/ < Gmc. /d/ alternates only following nasals (cf. Jellinek’s law), and that it is /d/ < Gmc. /θ/ which is included in the “Anlautgesetz.” Clausing solves the dilemma by suggesting that the coexistence of the two dentals confused native speakers, and that they, like Notker, simply substituted the wrong dental.

291

Reading in Medieval St. Gall

angle, namely, that of text reception as defined by the framework of medieval linguistics, the ars grammatica and its subdivision lectio. In other words, how does the “Anlautgesetz” reflect the methodological and prescriptive practices of medieval orthographia and what was its pragmatic function for classroom reading? In previous chapters I have demonstrated that Notker did not work in a vacuum, but that he was a member of and trained within the context of Latin written and spoken culture. Other graphic aspects of his texts such as punctuation and accentuation are rooted in medieval grammatical practices and represent commentary aimed at facilitating lexical access, comprehension and correct oral performance. If OHG was to be read in class and studied, it, like the Latin text it accompanied, needed to meet the basic prerequisites of grammatica. Variations in spelling, like those for the word “brother” listed above, would have appeared haphazard, unsystematic and ungrammatical to a litteratus like Notker, and been confusing to readers and obstructed the reading process. Notker attempted to solve the problem by regulating the spelling in his texts in order to ensure orthographical consistency and oral fluency. In the case of the word “brother,” Notker fixed the vowel of the stem and that of the ending <er>. For the initial stop, however, he opted for a phonologically shallow orthography and retained both

and depending upon the preceding sound. Thus in Notker’s texts we find temo brˆuoder but t´es prˆuoders. In some ways, Notker’s orthography is contradictory: on the one hand, normalized forms facilitate lexical recognition of words for the reader and make writing easier for the scribe; on the other hand, phonologically shallow forms such as those reflected by the “Anlautgesetz” facilitate pronunciation and aural comprehension. At the same time, however, the lack of morphophonemic variation could obscure lexical access, slow down reading, and make writing more difficult. As Moulton pointed out, sometimes Notker wrote “surface forms” as in the case of the “Anlautgesetz,” but other times he wrote underlying forms. Why did Notker not opt for one principle or the other? Why did he restrict his “phonic” spelling to stops, and then only in word-initial position? Why is there in Notker’s spelling no consistent “Auslautgesetz,” like that found in Middle High German texts? Word-final stops were almost certainly devoiced, since within the context of the “Anlautgesetz” they cause the initial stop of the following word to be pronounced as a fortis. Wordfinal devoicing is only sporadically found in Notker’s texts, and is probably due to scribal interference.34 The only alternation between word-final and word-internal 34 For example the forms ch´at (Ni 171, 9) k´olt (Nb II, 77, 3), f´elt (Nb I, 35, 27), uu´alt (Nb II, 76, 2). Many of the forms listed in the Notker-Wortschatz, however, are interlinear additions in the Psalter, written perhaps by Ekkehard IV, e.g., tagh (Np 271, 26), nort (Np 165, 5) and ert-pˆıboth (Np 111, 23), sit (for sˆıd; II, 393, 11) (ed. Edward Sehrt and Wolfram Legner [Halle/S.: Niemeyer, 1955]). Cf. Moulton, “Notker’s ‘Anlautgesetz’,” pp. 244–247. In a few cases we find a voiced form where we would expect a voiceless one, perhaps due to overcompensation, e.g., chˆıd (NkA 288, 20; NkB 30, 14).

292

Spelling for reading

spelling that is found with any consistency is , which appears word internally as , for example, sg. hant “hand” but pl. hende “hands” and sg. bant “band” but pl. bande “bands.”35 We will probably never be able to answer all of these questions with any certainty. For one thing, they take up the problem from a modern perspective and expect a level of regularity and linguistic sophistication that was likely foreign to the Middle Ages. We might, however, come closer to understanding Notker’s approach to spelling by looking at the Latin model and the medieval attitudes toward orthography, phonology and pronunciation, with which he was familiar.

cl a ssi ca l a n d m e d i eva l o r t h o g r a p h i a a n d pron un ciat ion Classical grammarians were aware of the discrepancies between written usage (consuetudo) or spelling and the actual spoken language. They comment on the fact that Latin words are pronounced differently from the way they are spelled and that spelling can vary because of pronunciation, and they suggest various solutions to the problem. In book one of his Institutio oratoria, Quintilian stresses the importance of correct pronunciation and the teacher’s role in correcting pupils: Quod est igitur huius doctoris officium? In primis vitia si qua sunt oris emendet, ut expressa sint verba, ut suis quaeque litterae sonis enuntientur. Quarundam enim vel exilitate vel pinguitudine nimia laboramus, quasdam velut acriores parum efficimus et aliis non dissimilibus sed quasi hebetioribus permutamus. [So what is the instructor’s duty? In the first place he must correct any faults of enunciation, so that words are clearly pronounced and the proper sound is given to each letter. There are some letters which we have a bad tendency to make too thin or too full; others we stifle as too harsh, and replace by similar but duller-sounding ones.]36

Letters should not be pronounced too “thinly,” “fully,” or “harshly.” In some cases assimilation takes place, and speakers change the phonetic realization of a letter (its potestas) by making it “smoother” when it is combined with another sound. In the seventh chapter, Quintilian discusses only a few problematic points of orthography, which confuse orators when reading from texts.37 Most of them involve assimilation; for example, he explains that immunis is spelled with two <m> graphs, although it is well known that the first syllable is derived from the preposition in; in- is changed to im- because of the initial sound of the second syllable. In other cases, he argues that although assimilation takes place in speech, in writing 35 Braune, Ahd. Grammatik, §163, fn. 5 36 Quintilian, The Orator’s Education, ed. Russell, 1.11, 4. 37 Ibid., 1.7. Quintilian states that a comprehensive study of orthography is beneath the profession of even the grammarian. He is writing for native speakers and assumes that they will know most of the rules.

293

Reading in Medieval St. Gall

the spelling of the original morphemes must be retained.38 In his example, Quintilian notes that in speech [b] is changed to [p] in the word obtinuit because of its environment; when writing, however, one retains the letter .39 Elsewhere he notes a similar affinity between the letters and and and , and points out that their spelling within words or at the beginning of words can vary.40 Because orthography often submits to custom and has been altered to reflect spoken language, Quintilian concludes that it is best to spell as one speaks, as much as this is possible: Iudicium autem suum grammaticus interponat his omnibus; nam hoc valere plurimum debet. Ego, nisi quod consuetudo optinuerit, sic scribendum quidque iudico quomodo sonat. Hic enim est usus litterarum ut custodiant voces et velut depositum reddant legentibus. Itaque id exprimere debent quod dicturi sumus. [In all this, the grammaticus must apply his own judgement; this is what should have most weight. For my own part, I hold that (except where usage prevails) we should write everything just as it sounds. The use of letters is to keep safe sounds entrusted to them, as it were, and to restore them faithfully to readers. They ought therefore to represent what we are going to say.]41

Letters represent sounds and not words; thus one should record sounds as closely as possible. The one exception Quintilian notes, however, is consuetudo – custom. It is unclear how much leeway the grammarian actually had, and which, if any forms were not regulated by written usage. In his treatise on orthography, Velius Longus points out that spelling is often different from pronunciation.42 He believes that one should write the forms authorized by the ancients, but that one should perform texts as one speaks. His example concerns the pronunciation of superlatives and the variation in spelling of certain words with or : [E]t concedamus talia nomina per u scribere iis qui antiquorum voluntates sequuntur, ne tamen sic enuntient, quo modo scribunt. [And we might permit such nouns to be written with u by those who follow the ancients’ fashion; nevertheless, they are not pronounced according to the way they are written.]43 38 “Quaeri solet, in scribendo praepositiones sonum quem iunctae efficiunt an quem separatae observare conveniat, ut cum dico ‘optinuit’ (secundam enim B litteram ratio poscit, aures magis audiunt P)” (ibid., 1.7, 7). 39 Ibid., 1.7, 7. 40 Ibid., 1.4, 15–16. 41 Ibid., 1.7, 30–31. 42 On the evidence of grammars from the second century, in particular Velius Longus, see Roger Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1982), pp. 54–56. 43 Velius Longus, De orthographia, ed. Keil, GL 7, p. 50; translated by Mark Amsler, “History of Linguistics, ‘Standard Latin’, and Pedagogy,” in Vivien Law (ed.), History of Linguistic Thought in the Early Middle Ages (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1993), p. 54.

294

Spelling for reading

In the collocations illu(m) ego and omniu(m) optimum, he points out that one rarely pronounces the final <m>.44 Roger Wright suggests that Velius’ orthographia is specifically not intended to prescribe pronunciation, because he and his public spoke their own language naturally (and not according to Classical Latin spelling). It was writing that had to be taught and learned.45 The same can be said for Isidore, writing in the late sixth and seventh centuries.46 In his Etymologiae, he states that orthography teaches one how to write. The spelling of a word provides it with meaning that can be ambiguous in spoken language. In his De ecclesiasicis oficiis, Isidore devotes an entire section to the proper manner of reading aloud the word of God. In it he discusses the care for proper audibility, accurate intonation and appropriate pauses. How the written words themselves are to be pronounced is not addressed.47 Problems arise when it comes to writing. Certain words may be pronounced the same, but in writing they must be distinguished. In his Etymologiae, he provides as an example the heterographic homophones ad and at. He infers that although the two forms may be pronounced identically, ad is a preposition and at is a conjunction.48 In some cases, when spelling a word, related sounds can be interchanged. Significantly for Notker’s “Anlautgesetz,” he points out that the letters and

and and are often thus interchangeable.49 Grammarians discussed rules for correct spelling and exceptions at length under the rubric of orthographia.50 Rarely if ever did they, however, deal with the phonetic reality of the letters or describe what spoken pronunciation should be.51 Traditionally, orthographia was a methodological division of grammatica with a focus on correct spelling, under the rubric of emendatio. Reading aloud was covered under 44 ed. Keil, GL 7, p. 54, 4–6. The discrepancy between spelling and pronunciation regarding such cases of course continued into the Middle Ages. Malcom Parkes has argued that in early medieval manuscripts the final <m> in words is often abbreviated with the common mark of abbreviation, thus leaving the interpretation open to the reader. The practice is also found in other words that could be assimilated. Thus a form like clocaret (with the mark of abbreviation over the first ) leaves open the question as to whether or not one should expand the abbreviation conlocaret, or assimilate to collocaret (Parkes, “Reading, Copying and Interpreting,” p. 98). 45 Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain, p. 56. 46 Ibid., pp. 82–89. 47 “De lectoribus,” II, 11, ed. Lawson, pp. 70–71. 48 Etymologiarum, ed. Lindsay, I, 27.12. 49 “Interdum autem aliae litterae in locum aliarum litterarum rite ponuntur. B et P litteris quaedam cognatio est . nam pro byrrum dicimus pyrrhum; C et G quandam cognationem . namdum dicimus centum et trecentes.- postea dicimus quadrigentos . G ponentes pro C” (ibid., I, xxvii, 4). I cite the text as it is preserved on p. 120 of St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 124 as an anonymous excerpt under the title “Incipit de orthographia.” The hand looks to be from the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century. The last page has the “adnexique globum” probatio pennae written by a practised late ninth-century hand, with the same phrase in a student’s hand written above it. 50 See the various texts devoted to orthographia in volume 7 of Keil’s Grammatici latini, e.g., Terentius Scaurus, Velius Longus, Caper, Agroecius, Cassiodorus, Bede and Alcuin. 51 Priscian’s Institutiones is an exception and will be further discussed below.

295

Reading in Medieval St. Gall

lectio, but there was no separate subdivision for the pronunciation of letters.52 The division of lectio that was designated pronuntiatio covered not the vocal realization of graphemes, but the tone and pitch of the voice depending upon the character speaking in the text which was being read. In this respect it overlapped in many ways with the fifth canon of rhetoric called pronuntiatio or “delivery.” The lector was expected to create an oral likeness of the written text by giving each speaker represented in it an appropriate voice. Shifts in discourse between the poet’s voice and the voices of secondary narrators and speakers invented for the narrative were indicated with changes in pitch, intonation and rate of speech.53 For example, when reading aloud a direct quotation by a child, the lector would raise his voice and when reading the words of an old man, he would lower it and perhaps speak more slowly. As Wright argues, there was no such thing as “received pronunciation” for Latin before the Carolingian period, and written texts were pronounced in practice according to the local vernaculars, which in Romance areas by the early Middle Ages had become quite distinct from the written form of the language.54 In his own treatise, De arte rhetorica, Notker covers pronuntiatio in a section that in the preserved manuscripts also includes numerous contextual OHG glosses.55 The section begins with the definition of pronuntiatio taken from Cicero’s De inventione. The information that follows is based on Cicero’s Orator, Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria, and Martianus Capella: Pronuntiatio est. Ex rerum et uerborum dignitate vocis et corporis moderatio. Possumus hæc uerba sic interpretari. Pronuntiatio. Das est t´ıu ger´ertida dero stimmo i´och tis lˆıchamin nˆach tero g´eriste dero uu´orto u´ nde dero dingo. Item quidem pronuntiatio? Kerertada. Kebˆarda. Kehaba. Keuuirftigi Kez´ami. sint-s´ami. zuchtigi. Item pronuntiare dicimus . ferrenan sagan .i. præuenire uerba gestu corporis . et qualitate vocis. Quid est gestus? Aut parauˆıuchunga . anterunga . uuerbida. Et quid est moderatio? scafunga m´ezunga metelscaft. [Pronuntiatio is the control of the voice and body in a manner suitable to the dignity of the things (being spoken about) and the words (used to express them). We can interpret these words in the following manner. Pronuntiatio. That is the proper control/combination of the voice and of the body according to the dignity of the words and of the things. And how do we translate pronuntiatio? “Control/combination,” “gesture,” “facial expression,” “proper gesticulation,” “fitting behaviour,” “proper behavior,” “serious composure.” And 52 Irvine, Textual Culture, p. 328. 53 Ibid., p. 73. 54 Wright, Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain, p. 54. F. Brittain points out that in the first century Augustus’ pronunciation is said to have distressed grammarians, and Hadrian in the second century is said to have spoken Latin with a thick Spanish accent. St. Jerome writes that “Latinitas ipsa et regionibus quotidie variatur et tempore” (Latin in Church [Cambridge: University Press, 1934], p. 8). 55 NkS 177, 21–181, 18. See also the plate of Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, MS C.121, f. 70r, in NkS 186.

296

Spelling for reading

we call pronuntiare “to speak from a distance,” that is to anticipate the words by means of gesture of the body and quality of the voice. What is gestus? “Gesture,” “movement,” “imitation/presentation,” “movement.” And what is moderatio? “Moderation,” “appropriate measure,” “being in the middle.”]56

In this section several OHG synonyms for terms such as pronunciatio, gestus and modulatio are provided, some of which are difficult to define precisely, since they occur only in this context. Tax has argued that the treatise was composed by Notker in Latin, and that the OHG translations of terms and example sentences were added at a later date, perhaps based on a student’s notes taken during Notker’s lectures, in which the schoolmaster explained the text in more detail.57 That the section on pronunciation was given extensive commentary may very well be due to the fact that Notker placed a great deal of importance on correct delivery, both in public speaking as well as for reading in general. a lc ui n ’s s pe l l i n g ref orm Pronouncing written Latin according to the usage of spoken language was problematic in connection with the Carolingian reforms. Just as the written texts needed to be fixed to establish orthodoxy, so too these texts needed to be vocalized correctly and consistently in order to avoid ambiguity. Roger Wright has argued that this was one of Alcuin’s primary goals in writing his De orthographia. A nativeGermanic speaker, Alcuin had learned to pronounce Latin as it was written. While working on his reforms, he was living at Tours and became aware of the discrepancies between his own spelling pronunciation and the pronunciation of the native Romance-speakers around him. In an attempt to introduce consistency, he worked out a system of rules that brought reading pronunciation into line with traditional spelling.58 An important criterion was ease of pronunciation. The principle was simple and based on how Alcuin himself had learned the languge. Basically, it 56 NkS 177, 21–179, 5. See Cicero, De inventione, I, vii.9, ed. Hubbell, p. 20; ibid., Orator, xvii, ed. Hubbell, pp. 344–350; C. Marius Victorinus, Explanationum in rhetorica M. Tullii Ciceronis libri duo, ed. Halm, p. 178, 9–14; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, XI, 3, 14, ed. Russell, p. 90 and XI, 3, 61, p. 116; Martianus Capella, De nuptiis, §540–543, ed. Willis, pp. 190–191. See also NkSL, pp. 111–112. 57 Tax, “Kritisches zu einigen Artes-Schriften Notkers,” pp. 161–163. Tax suggests that the student in question may even have been Ekkehard IV (ibid., p. 176). See also Ernst Hellgardt, “Notkers des Deutschen Brief,” p. 191. 58 “Carolingian Medieval Latin was thus not the mere refurbishing of a system of conservative pronunciation that had miraculously survived the previous millennium unscathed, but a conscious, progressive, revolutionary and demanding innovation. This new pronunciation applied at the time only to reading aloud, for all the liturgy was to consist of fixed written texts; and it was based on the simple principle of pronouncing one specific sound for each written letter. This is what happens universally now in the reading aloud of Latin, as if the traditional orthography were some kind of phonetic script” (Wright, “Late Latin,” p. 345).

297

Reading in Medieval St. Gall

involved pronouncing one specific sound for each written letter.59 In most cases this new “phonic pronunciation” was based on the written form of Latin fixed in classical and late classical texts. Here spelling often reflected assimilation processes that had taken place earlier. For example the verb disfero was usually written differo. Alcuin opted for the assimilated (mutata) form because it reflected ease of pronunciation (euphoniae causa) instead of reverting back to the etymological spelling that would have retained morphemic invariance.60 Developments in the spoken language that had taken place after the fixing of these texts, which were especially numerous in Romance areas, were excluded. In effect, by instituting a spelling pronunciation based on archaic written forms, Alcuin would have made understanding Latin texts that were read out loud more difficult for Romance-speakers who were not trained in Classical Latin. Just how widely Alcuin’s pronunciation reforms were adopted is unclear. Wright argues that by 850 the reading-pronunciation set forth by him and his colleagues had become standard practice in at least some of the more serious and progressive cultural centres, including Fulda. It is possible that the new pronunciation was coming to be used in other contexts as well.61 In the eastern parts of the Frankish kingdom, Latin had always been distinct from German and, just as in Anglo-Saxon England, been pronounced phonically, probably with a slight native accent.62 The new pronunciation guidelines would simply have reinforced an already existing practice. In his treatise De orthographia, Alcuin united orthographia with lectio. He sought to not only standardize the traditional grammatical methodology, but to extend it to cover both parts of grammatica as it was traditionally defined, namely, scientia recte loquendi et scribendi.63 Notker’s spelling system is in some ways similar to Alcuin’s, but the principles are inverted. Alcuin fixed the written language and prescribed that its vocalization be done phonically; in effect, he distinguished the written from spoken the language. To a large extent, Notker based his spelling on spoken language, since no fixed

59 Alcuin writes in his Dialogus de rhetorica: “[verba sint] pressim et aequabiliter et leniter et clare pronuntiata, ut suis quaeque litterae sonis enuntientur” (ed. Halm, p. 546). 60 Alcuin, De orthographia, 101, ed. Bruni, p. 11. 61 Wright, “Late Latin,” p. 146. See also idem, “Speaking, Reading and Writing Late Latin and Early Romance,” Neophilologus 60 (1976), pp. 176–189; idem, “How Latin Came to Be a Foreign Language for All,” A Sociophilological Study of Late Latin (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), pp. 3–17, esp. pp. 14– 15, and idem, “Review article of ‘Viva voce ’,” and the arguments provided there, pp. 60–64. See, however, McKitterick’s criticism regarding the extent of Alcuin’s role and the eventual repercussions of his treatise in Carolingians and the Written Word, pp. 11–12, and eadem, “Latin and Romance,” p. 132. 62 Wright suggests that some Germans, in fact, may have been taught the Anglo-Saxon pronunciation of Latin by Insular missionaries (Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain, p. 107). 63 Ibid., p. 112.

298

Spelling for reading

consuetudo was available to him. Yet, once he fixed the written form of German, he too prescribed that it be read phonically. Had Notker spelled only morphologically and not included aspects like the “Anlautgesetz,” the vocalized German text would not have sounded German, but would have been corruptus. Whereas Alcuin based his practice on written tradition, Notker created a tradition for German orthographia that served the bilingual needs of lectio at St. Gall. An important component of the Carolingian reforms was to have correctly spelled texts (since these in turn formed the basis for the pronunciation). Because of the discrepancies between the way in which Latin was pronounced and the way in which it was written, spelling errors in manuscripts from the western Frankish kingdoms were not uncommon and needed to be emended. St. Gall manuscripts dating from the ninth and tenth centuries, especially those destined for liturgical use or for readings in the chapter house, were often corrected and brought into line with spelling guidelines. Many of the corrections may be eleventh-century, and perhaps even stem from the hand of Ekkehard IV.64 In addition to adding rhetorical punctuation and occasional accentuation on especially difficult words, the corrector changed spelling where it did not follow established orthographic norms. Often the changes in spelling facilitate pronunciation: adferre > afferre, adscissci > asscissci, adtestante > attestante, inmergendum > immergendum, inrisiones > irrisiones, adprobandi > approbandi, sumsisse > sumpsisse, temtationibus > temptationibus, etc. In other cases, assimilation is reversed in order to minimize morphemic variance: ammodum > admodum, ammouent > admouent, et orrendum > et horrendum, susscribere > subscribere. In some cases the incorrect spelling that is emended involves the series of stops , for example, erupescimus > erubescimus and repellium > rebellium, rustigano > rusticano, audiam > aut iam, plasphemant > blasphemant, et crescat > egrescat, uagare > uacare, a murgam > a murcam, tuae > duae, uagare > uacare, contempandum > condemnandum, cui lipet > cui libet, scribtorum > scriptorum and the name palach > balach. Sometimes the corrected form is wrong according to the rules of usage, and may reflect vernacular interference: for example, ita pietate > ita bietate (where the

is transformed into a ) and conversely, once the initial of baptista > paptista. Errors such as these could be traced to the exemplars, but might also reflect the scribes’ native German – that “dreadful Swiss accent.”65 64 The corrections appear in St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MSS 103, 105, 140, 159, 164, 168, 174, 177, 183, 206, 556 and 578 (among others). The corrector, in addition to changing spelling, also adds accent marks and word separation to facilitate reading. Some of the manuscripts also contain Latin and OHG glosses. In the case of lexical glosses and some of the accents, Ekkehard’s hand is in some cases clearly recognizable. Accentuation and punctuation in some of these manuscripts is discussed above, chapter five, pp. 236–238. 65 In the case of some corrections such as parauit > parabit and satiaueris > satiaberis, the error may indeed have been in the exemplar.

299

Reading in Medieval St. Gall

n ot k e r’s g e r ma n spellin g Notker, in addition to being a teacher at St. Gall, may also have been active in the scriptorium, where he busied himself with matters such as supervising the copying of manuscripts and the correction of faulty texts.66 In this capacity he may have become familiar with orthographic treatises by classical and medieval authors.67 Knowledge of the guidelines in these texts, in addition to his own experience with Latin, would have made him aware of the fact that in Latin assimilation was possible and could be reflected in writing. In other words, he realized that spelling was neither completely phonetic nor completely morphophonemic (in pre-structuralist terms, that it did not always reflect word formation and etymology). Notker probably taught his pupils to read Latin phonically and encouraged them to pronounce each written letter with its appropriate sound, which at times may have been influenced by their native tongue. He could also have followed this same principle when teaching his pupils to read German. Each letter represented one sound that in combination served to reactivate the memory of words deferred in writing. When devising an orthographic system for German, Notker followed Quintilian’s advice by making the letters best represent what he heard the sounds to be and how he wanted them to be vocalized once again. Notker was probably aware of the affinities between the graphemes and , since they are discussed by the grammarians. Quintilian, Isidore, Cassiodorus, Bede and Alcuin all point out that the pairs

, and can be confused in spelling, presumably because they are often pronounced the same in spoken language. In his Institutiones, Priscian even provides a description of their manner and point of articulation. In his section on litterae, he divides Latin letters into three groups: vowels (a, e, i, o, u), and consonants, which are further divided into two groups: “semivowels” (f, l, m, n, r, s and x) and “mutes” (b, c, d, g, h, k, p, q, and t).68 Three mutes c, p and t, can also be aspirated in Greek. Priscian explains that , and are “medial” sounds that stand between aspirated , and and the unaspirated “light” (leves) letters , and

. I cite 66 See above, chapter two, pp. 66–67. 67 Alcuin’s De orthographia is preserved on pp. 62–91 in St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 249, dating from the first quarter of the ninth century. The author is not given, nor is the copy introduced with a title of any kind. The same manuscript preserves Bede’s De orthographia (pp. 1–41), the Ars Capri De orthographia (pp. 42–49), Agroetius, De orthographia, (pp. 49–59), and excerpts from Terence Scaurus’ De orthographia (pp. 91–92). See Scherrer, Verzeichniss, p. 92, and Alcuin, De orthographia, ed. Bruni, p. xxxiv. St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, MS 877, cited above, pp. 74 and 285, was certainly known to Notker and may even contain interlinear glossing by him. The manuscript contains several grammatical and orthographic works, including Victorinus’ grammar, parts of Donatus’ grammar, the anonymous compilation “Interrogatio de litteris,” which draws from Donatus, Augustine, Jerome, and Isidore, Sergius’ “De littera,” and Honorius’ “Incipit de finalibus literis bonorum grammaticorum” (Scherrer, Verzeichniss, pp. 305–306). 68 Priscian, Institutiones grammaticae, I.8–10, GL 2, p. 9.

300

Spelling for reading

the text as it appears in a copy from Tegernsee, now Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 18375, f. 10r, with interlinear glossing (ca. 1020) enclosed within round parentheses: Inter sine aspiratione et (c) cum aspiratione (.i. ch.) est (media) . inter (et cognata in sono) quoque et est (est media) et inter

(quia ponitur in loco est media) et siue est . sunt igitur hae tres . hoc est . . . mediae . quæ nec pænitus carent aspiratione (quantum adpronuntiatur quia aspere sonant) nec eam plenam possident (.s. nec penitus carere aspiratione nec penitus habere) . hoc autem ostendit etiam ipsius palati pulsus (tactus) et linguae uel labrorum (.s. pulsus) consimilis (.s. fit) quidem (.s. pulsus uel sonus) in ternis (.i. tribus) . (in)

et uel et et rursus et et (inter .s. tribus consimilis sonus fit) . similiter in (ternis . in tribus) et et . sed in leuibus (.i. in et uel

simplicibus) exterior fit pulsus (sonus) . in asperis interior . in mediis inter utrumque (.i. . . ) supra dictorum locum (interiorem et exteriorem clementorum uel locorum) . quod facile dinoscitur si adtendamus (.s. speciamus . consideramus) in supra dictis (.s. tribus) motibus ora mirabili naturae lege modulantibus uoces . tanta autem est cognatio earum (affinitas .s. litterarum) . quod inuicem inueniuntur pro se positae in quibusdam dictionibus. [Between without aspiration and (c) with aspiration (ch) there is (a media), and likewise between (and related sounds) and there is (a media) and between