TheThe ‘ ‘Electronic Electronic Hêliand Hêliand Project’Project’: : theoretical and practical updatestheoretical and practical updates

Verona, 4th March 2010

Speaker: Marina BuzzoniTechnical Support: Francesca Anzalone, Filippo Caburlotto, Damiano Bolzoni

This paper aims toThis paper aims to

• provide an overview of the often disregarded differences amongst the witnesses of the Hêliand (a ninth-century Old Saxon alliterative reworking of the Gospel).

• show how, as against a printed edition which offers us a static text, an electronic edition presents the text in a variety of forms.

• critically consider the process and progress of manuscript digitization within the ‘Electronic Hêliand Project’.

The manuscript traditionThe manuscript traditionThe text of the Saxon poem has been The text of the Saxon poem has been preserved in two major manuscripts:preserved in two major manuscripts: MM (= Munich, first half of the 9th century, (= Munich, first half of the 9th century, http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00026305/images/index.html))

CC (= Cotton, second half of the 10th century).(= Cotton, second half of the 10th century).

Fragments of the poem have Fragments of the poem have survived in four other witnesses:survived in four other witnesses: VV (= Vatican fragment, ll. 1279-1358);(= Vatican fragment, ll. 1279-1358); PP (= Prague fragment, ll. 958b-1006a);(= Prague fragment, ll. 958b-1006a); S S (= Straubing fragment, ll. 351-722, (= Straubing fragment, ll. 351-722, http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00003953/images/index.html

);); LL (= the newly discovered Leipzig fragment, found in April 2006, (= the newly discovered Leipzig fragment, found in April 2006,

ll. 5823-70a).ll. 5823-70a).

Stemma codicumStemma codicum(based on Taeger 1984: XXIV)(based on Taeger 1984: XXIV)

O

|

A

*CM

*CP/L? *MS

P/L? M S

C

V

Witnesses and textual ‘mouvance’Witnesses and textual ‘mouvance’

• From the linguistic point of view:

- the syntax of C seems to reflect an earlier stage in the development of Old Saxon.

• From the theological point of view:

- M conveys an over-orthodox religious message;

- C (copied in England) seems to be less concerned with

conveying such a message.

Linguistic featuresLinguistic features• Doubly filled complementizer: l. 298bDoubly filled complementizer: l. 298b

C:C: He afs He afsôôf f that thatthat that siu habda barn undar iru siu habda barn undar iru

M: He afsHe afsôôf f thatthat siu habda barn undar iru siu habda barn undar iru• Lack of pronoun in anaphoric or expletive contexts: ll. 92b-93Lack of pronoun in anaphoric or expletive contexts: ll. 92b-93

C:C: gern uuas he suîđo, / that he ø thurh ferhtan hugi fremmean gern uuas he suîđo, / that he ø thurh ferhtan hugi fremmean môstimôsti

M:M: gern uuas he suîđo, / that he gern uuas he suîđo, / that he it it thurh ferhtan hugi frummean thurh ferhtan hugi frummean môstimôsti

• Case attraction in the relative clauses: ll. 267b-268Case attraction in the relative clauses: ll. 267b-268

C:C: Endi ni kumid, / thes uuîdon rîkeas giuuand, Endi ni kumid, / thes uuîdon rîkeas giuuand, thesthes he he giuualdan scalgiuualdan scal

M: M: Neo endi ni kumidNeo endi ni kumid, , / / thes uuîdon rîkeas thes uuîdon rîkeas thethe he giuualdan scal he giuualdan scal

Codicological and paratextual Codicological and paratextual elementselements

The differences amongst the witnesses are of crucial The differences amongst the witnesses are of crucial importance in order to understand the specific use importance in order to understand the specific use (and possibly re-use) of the text during the Middle (and possibly re-use) of the text during the Middle Ages.Ages.

M:M: Neums, stresses, corrections Neums, stresses, corrections

• Heliand, Ms. M, f. 5r; ll. 6-15; 288-302

• Heliand, Ms. M, f. 5r; ll. 21-24; 309b-314

Ms L Ms P (IX secmed)

L: scauuon SL 32 14 scauuade (respexit; Lublin Psalms; cf. anscaua : intende, forsca : despiciat)

L: scone P 85 15 sconi (pudendi decoris, Prudenzio, Psycom.; Karlsruhe, Badische Landsbibl., St. Peter perg. 87)

L: t<e> skir S 108 9 scirion (salt)(sales agrigentinos; Isidoro, Etym. XIV, VI, 34; Strassburg, Universitaetsbibl., burnt ms.)

P: gitalas S 106 30 tálhéd(pernicitas; Isidoro, Etym. XII, I, 29; Strassburg, Universitaetsbibl., burnt ms.)

GlossesGlosses(cf. Maria Rita Digilio, (cf. Maria Rita Digilio, Thesaurus dei saxonica minoraThesaurus dei saxonica minora, Artemide 2008), Artemide 2008)

(f. 3) (f. 3) Annunciation of the Virgin MaryAnnunciation of the Virgin Mary(f. 4v) (f. 4v) VisitationVisitation(f. 5) (f. 5) Birth of ChristBirth of Christ(f. 6v) (f. 6v) Angels and the ShepherdsAngels and the Shepherds(f. 7) (f. 7) Massacre of the InnocentsMassacre of the Innocents(f. 8v) (f. 8v) Presentation in the TemplePresentation in the Temple(f. 9)(f. 9) Adoration of the MagiAdoration of the Magi(f. 10v)(f. 10v) Baptism of Christ by John the BaptistBaptism of Christ by John the Baptist

C:C: Illuminations Illuminations

C:C: Pictures and analogues Pictures and analoguesNativityNativity

Cotton Caligula A.vii Liverpool ivory Benedictional of S. Aethelwold (c. 950) (c. 975-80)

C:C: Pictures and analogues Pictures and analoguesAnnunciationAnnunciation

Cotton Caligula A.vii Benedictional of S. Aethelwold

stresses neums corrections glosses illuminations

Hypotheses

on the use

M Liturgical use

C (different from M)

Book as an object

V ? Liturgical use (?)

S

P Didactic use (in Eastfalic

monastic schools?)

L =

The electronic edition and its ‘added value’The electronic edition and its ‘added value’

• The peculiarities linked to the actual use of the manuscripts within the Middle Ages deserve proper consideration while editing the text.

• A traditional paper edition risks hiding the communicative power of each witness.

• A traditional linear apparatus risks hiding “complex” linguistic and textual features, mainly because of its word-oriented (rather than sentence-oriented or text-oriented) structure.

Cotton Caligula A.vii, ll. 5764-5782

http://http://venus.unive.itvenus.unive.it//mbuzzonimbuzzoni//heliand.htmlheliand.html

Encoding paratextual featuresEncoding paratextual features

Early choice (then dropped)

<scribeapp> (scribal apparatus)<histapp> (historical apparatus)

Encoding paratextual featuresEncoding paratextual features

Glosses

<choice><orig rend=‘interlinear’>

<w>gitalas</w></orig><orig …>

<w>lungras</w></orig>

</choice>

Encoding paratextual featuresEncoding paratextual features

Corrections I

Ex1. im`o´

<w>im<add hand=“corrector” place=“supralinear”>o</add>

</w>

Encoding paratextual featuresEncoding paratextual features

Corrections II

Ex2a. uuelde (e a)

<w><choice>

<he : facs>uueld<del hand=“corrector” rend=“subpunction”>e</del> <add hand=“corrector” place=“supralinear”>a</add></he : facs> <he : dipl>uuelda</he : dipl>

</choice></w>

Problem: the two forms (uuelde and uuelda) are both morphologically well-formed, while this encoding seems to suggest a prevalence of the second form over the first.

Thank youThank you!!