Textzeugenhinweis

A

A1 - Vorau, Stiftsarchiv des Augustiner-Chorherrenstiftes, StAV-Ms 276a (früher XI)

Sections of the Vorau manuscript are subject to intensive editing by later medieval hands. For fols. 1r-18v there are frequent modernising corrections and glosses in a gothic cursive hand dating from around 1400. For this section only, there is also systematic correction of the clitic negative particle ne and the verb prefix re- to en and er- respectively. For fols. 28v-31r (20. Severus) there are further later interventions, including erasures, which modernise conventional spellings and occasionally disrupt originally sound readings.

These non-contemporary additions and modifications are described in notes on the transcriptions, but are not accepted into the transcribed text.

Punctuation marks have a variable appearance in this manuscript, with rhyme points sometimes struck through by semi-vertical lines. As it is not clear if this combination is intended to represent a punctus elevatus, the transcription records only a rhyme point in these instances. Punctus elevatus is transcribed where it is clearly represented in the manuscript.

M – München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 37

The scribe of cgm 37 writes a diacritic resembling a circumflex over vowels and semivowels.

  • Over vowels it can mark vowel length, umlaut, or a diphthong, although it does not do so consistently; the scribe also writes it over single vowels that are unmutated and short, e.g. du mâht = maht, 2 sg. pres. ind. < mugen
  • Written over final -w it has the function of a ligature –we.
  • Written over a or o, it possibly represents ligature æ- or œ in words where the sounds æ-, ä- or e are to be expected phonologically.

The diacritic has nevertheless been transcribed as a circumflex in all cases for the following reasons:

  • It is not possible to make a clear optical distinction between the diacritic in its presumed ligature function and its other functions.
  • In certain word classes, such as the preterite indicative and past participle of Rückumlaut verbs, and the genitive and dative singular of feminine i-stem nouns, the diacritic may plausibly mark either a ligature or a long vowel; for example, it could be either hœrte or hôrte, pret., der nœte or nôte, gen./dat. sg., depending on the assumptions we are prepared to make about the progress of analogical levelling in MHG morphology. To decide in favour of one form rather than the other in the transcription would impose a particular interpretation of language change to the exclusion of alternative hypotheses.

The positioning of the diacritic is moreover not consistent. Sometimes it is written directly above the letter it modifies, sometimes to the left, at other times to the right. Especially in words such as pîr, wîrn, wîrp, wîrssage, it is conceivable that wherever the diacritic is placed to the left of i, it is in fact intended to modify the preceding letter, giving ligatures pe-, we- and the diphthongal spellings pei, wein, weip, weissage etc.
On the other hand, it must be noted that the scribe also writes the diacritic to the left of i in words where the diphthong ei is phonologically impossible, e.g. hîz (= hiez < heizen), vîhen (= viehen, dat. pl.). Because of the ambivalence, the transcription continues to assign the diacritic to the vowel i, although it should be borne in mind that “conservative” monopthongal spellings such as pî and wîp may actually be allographs of the “modern” diphthongal spellings pei and weip that the scribe also uses.

The only regular exceptions to the policy of transcribing a circumflex are the following:

  • After final -w it is treated as ligature -we, e.g. vrowe. In the adjective that the scribe writes as hîlig, it is treated as ligature he- so as to give the correct form heilig.

For the mid-section of this manuscript (fols. 39r-85r) initial majuscules are partially or fully obscured on the facsimile of a number of recto pages. These majuscules have been verified independently and are present in the transcription.

W – Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 15.2 Aug. 2°

This manuscript is notable for its frequent use of a non-standard superscript mark similar, but not identical, to superscript e. This is represented online as superscript e, but coded distinctly in the TEI.

a3 – Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Ms. fragm. K 3: F 53

The transcription of this fragment is occasionally supported by readings in Otto Grüters, ‘Düsseldorfer Bruchstücke einer illustrierten Handschrift der Kaiserchronik’, ZfdA 72 (1935), 181-192. Grüters identifies substantially more text than is clearly legible now. Only readings which can be verified with relative certainty are included in the transcription. In cases of poor legibility, readings are included where our interpretation corresponds with that of Grüters.

a4α – Freiburg i.Br., Universitätsbibliothek, Hs. 447

This transcription relies partly on Matthias Lexer, ‘Bruchstücke der Kaiserchronik’, ZfdA 14 (1869), 503-525. Lexer was able to recognise more text on the original document than is now clearly legible. His readings are incorporated in our transcription where some visual evidence remains to support them. Where text is now illegible, it is marked as such, but Lexer’s readings are given in notes on the transcription. The corrections to Lexer’s transcription in Edward Schröder, ‘Alte Bruchstücke der Kaiserchronik’, ZfdA 26 (1882), 224-240 (p. 239) are taken into account.

a4β – Mainz, Wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek, Hs. I 127

The fragment consists of offsets of text on the boards of a codex, and its transcription is produced with reference to mirror-image facsimiles. These are displayed alongside images representing the fragment’s original format, and the transcription for each individual page is associated with both of these images.

a4γ - ehemals Mainz, Privatbesitz, ohne Signatur

Since this fragment is lost, the transcription is based on Gotthelf Fischer, ‘Über einige Denkmäler alt-deutscher Dichtkunst’, in Beschreibung typographischer Seltenheiten und merkwürdiger Handschriften nebst Beyträgen zur Erfindungsgeschichte der Buchdruckerkunst, Vierte Lieferung, Nuremberg 1803, pp. 109-140. The limitations of the text provided by Fischer render it impossible, in this instance, to provide a text fully aligned with our editorial principles.

Since Fischer reproduces only extracts of the fragment (‘einige Proben’ (p. 122)) it cannot be fully represented here. It should also be noted that the layout of the transcription necessarily does not represent the original form of the text. Fischer’s transcription reproduces some text from at least three folios, which, however, remain unlabelled. Thus page references in our transcription do not correspond to any original foliation, nor can pages be divided accurately into recto and verso sides. Verses also remain separated, since Fischer omits to record original line breaks, although text was certainly written continuously (cf. related fragments a4α and a4β).

In addition, Fischer’s text contains a great number of probable errors – the most common of which are noted by Schröder in his edition (Kaiserchronik eines Regensburger Geistlichen, p. 17). As a rule, suspected errors have not been corrected speculatively, but likely original readings are suggested in notes on the transcription in line with Schröder’s observations. Exceptionally, and in view of the consistent convention in the related fragments a4α and a4β, de-ligature has been introduced into the transcription as the highly probable original form where Fischer transcribes d followed directly by n or r.

a5β – Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Cod. FB 1519/V

The transcription of this fragment was produced with reference to Oswald Zingerle, ‘Ein Bruchstück der Kaiserchronik’, ZfdA 32 (1888), 57-60. Zingerle was able to identify slightly more text on the original document than is clearly legible now. Only readings which can be established with relative certainty are included in the transcription.

a7 – Klagenfurt, Kärntner Landesarchiv, Cod. GV 6/26

Fols. 1r and 2v of this fragment are extremely damaged. Substantially more text than is now legible was identified by Joseph Diemer in 1851 (cf. ‘Kleine Beiträge zur altdeutschen Sprache und Literatur, I. Bruchstücke der Kaiserchronik’, Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 6 (1851), 29-342) – considerably less by Edward Schröder in 1882 (cf. ‘Alte bruchstücke der Kaiserchronik’, ZfdA 26 (1882), 224-240). For these pages, the transcription records only text which remains identifiable with a reasonable level of certainty. In cases of poor legibility, text is recorded when our interpretation corresponds with Diemer’s readings and/or with Schröder’s corrections to Diemer’s transcription.

a8 – ehemals Kremsier, Fürsterzbischöfliches Archiv, Bruchst. 1

As this fragment is now lost, its transription is based on Franz Hobich, ‘Bruchstück der Kaiserchronik aus Kremsier’, ZfdA 42 (1898), 271-276. It has been possible to represent the original form of the text only to a limited extent.

Hobich notes that the fragment comprises one page, each side divided into two columns, however he omits to mark these divisions in his transcription, and the figure of 34 lines per column cited in his description of the fragment does not correspond to the number of line breaks he actually records. It has therefore not been possible to attribute text accurately to recto and verso sides, or a and b columns – hence the page reference fol. 1r/v. The original line breaks are, however, reinstated.

It should be noted, moreover, that potentially erroneous readings could not be eliminated in this instance, although notes on the transcription provide commentary where necessary. The nature of certain diacritics recorded by Hobich could also not be established from their representation in print. Finally, the exclusive use of round-s in Hobich’s text suggests long-s may have been standardised. Its original use cannot be established.

a11 – Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Hs. 22067

In cases of poor legiblity, this transcription is supported by readings in Edward Schröder, ‘Alte Bruchstücke der Kaiserchronik’, ZfdA 26 (1882), 224-240, (pp. 239f.), which contains corrections to an earlier transcription by Karl Bartsch (cf. ‘Bruchstücke zweier Handschriften der Kaiserchronik I’, Germania 25 (1880), 98-105).

a12β – ehemals Schwaz, Konventbibliothek des Franziskanerklosters, ohne Signatur

Since this fragment is lost, its transcription is based on Gerold Bickel, ‘Schwazer Bruchstück der Kaiserchronik’, ZfdA 26 (1882), 85f. It should be noted that readings could not be checked or verified. Original line breaks and rhyme points, as noted and described by Bickel, have been restored in the text.

a13 – Solothurn, Zentralbibliothek, Fragm. aus B I 279

This fragment is substantially damaged. In cases of poor legibility, the transcription is supported by readings in Ian Holt, ‘Drei Fragmente in der Zentralbibliothek Solothurn Kaiserchronik A, Evangelienharmonie Leben Jesu, Albrecht: Jüngerer Titurel’, ZfdA 141 (2012), 478-485 (p. 480).

a14 – Straßburg, National- und Universitätsbibliothek, ms. 2215

Comments on this transcription make occasional reference to Karl August Barack, ‘Bruchstücke zweier Handschriften der Kaiserchronik II’, Germania 25 (1880), 103-105.

a15 – Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 13006

Comments on this transcription make occasional reference to Edward Schröder, ‘Alte Bruchstücke der Kaiserchronik’, ZfdA 26 (1882), 224-240.

B

B1 – Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 2779

The scribe of this manuscript uses a diacritical mark over u and v with a somewhat variable appearance. While this mark can resemble a grave accent or vertical stroke in individual instances, it has ultimately been classified as a more or less hastily executed circumflex and transcribed accordingly in all cases.

VB – Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 2693

Page references in the edition relate to the older, red foliation of the manuscript, which predates the addition in the 15th century of a list of contents, now bound separately (Wien Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 2922). The numbers in pencil, which take into account those additional pages, are recorded as alternative references (‘Abweichende Blattzählung (ÖNB)’) to the left of each page.

b1 – Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. N I 3, Nr. 89

The fragment is substantially damaged in places. Only text which can be identified with reasonable certainty is recorded, however, reference is made in comments on the transcription to the readings provided in the archival description by Gustav Binz – cf. Handschriftenarchiv der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Basel, UB, Fragm. III.89 [heute : N I 3 Nr. 89], descr. by Gustav Binz, Basel 1936, 8 leaves.

b3 – Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich (Ossolinski-Nationalbibliothek Breslau), MS. 6243/III

A number of lines which are now illegible in this fragment are identified by Richard Maria Werner in ‘Bruchstücke mhd. Dichtungen aus polnischen Bibliotheken I’, ZfdA 34 (1890), 242-263 (pp. 252-263). In these cases, Werner’s readings are provided in notes on the transcription. It should be noted that these readings do not align with our transcription principles in that s and ſ are not distinguished.

The transription and facsimiles in this edition restore the original orientation of pieces of this fragment as – for the Kaiserchronik section – strips of the same double page. The numbering visible on the fragment, and the numbering used by Werner, are thus abandoned in favour of that established in the later description of the whole fragment by Ralf Plate in Die Überlieferung der ‘Christherre-Chronik’ (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2005).

b6β – München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 5249(70 a

In cases of poor legibility, the transription makes occasional reference to Karl Roth, Bruchstücke aus der Kaiserchronik und dem jüngeren Titurel (Landshut: 1843), pp. XIIf., 14–23, 26–30.

b10 - Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Ser. nova 215

The page references in the edition diverge from the numbering visible on the fragment, where the longitundinal strip which follows fol. 1 is labelled 1*. These numbers are retained as alternative references (‘Abweichende Blattzählung (ÖNB)’) to the left of each page. The default numbering, which labels the aforementioned strip fol. 2, and the following page fol. 3, is in line with the approach of Menhardt and Mazal/Unterkirchner, who also give the page range as 1ra-3vb (cf. Hermann Menhardt, Verzeichnis der altdeutschen literarischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, III (Berlin: 1961), p. 1445, and Otto Mazal and Franz Unterkirchner, Katalog der abendländischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. “Series nova” (Neuerwerbungen), Teil 1: Cod. Ser. n. 1-1600 (Vienna: 1965), pp. 65f.).

x2 – ehemals Gnesen, Priesterseminar, Ink. F 181

As this fragment is now lost, the transcription is based on Klaus Klein, ‘Ein unbeachtetes Kaiserchronik-Fragment in Gnesen’, in Fata Libellorum. Festschrift für Franzjosef Pensel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Rudolf Bentzinger and Ulrich-Dieter Oppitz (Göppingen: 1999), pp. 95-100. It also takes into account the description and copy of the fragment by Niewöhner, which is the basis for Klein’s publication (cf. Handschriftenarchiv der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Gnesen, Bibliothek d. Priesterseminars, [Inc.] F 181 [verschollen], descr. by Heinrich Niewöhner, Gniezno1912, 2+4 leaves). It should be noted that probable transcription errors by Niewöhner could not be checked or corrected, and where his transcription is illegible no text can be supplied. These instances are discussed in notes on the transcription. Niewöhner, and hence Klein, do not distinguish s and ſ – the original use of the latter cannot be determined.

C

Z – Schloss Zeil, Fürstl. Waldburg zu Zeil und Trauchburgsches Gesamtarchiv (Leutkirch), ZAMs 30

The Zeil manuscript contains the notes and corrections of a modern editor (or editors) in pencil and ink. These interventions have been described in notes on the transcriptions where they impinge on the text. Modern corrections are never accepted.

Co - Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln, Best. 7010 (W) 353

The less favourable quality of the available images of this manuscript means that there are a greater number of cases where readings remain uncertain. As a rule the most likely reading is given, accompanied by an explanatory note. In cases of severe doubt, text is rendered as illegible and suggested readings confined to a note.

Fols. 58r-68r are written by a second hand with a tendency to fill the ends of certain lines with a series of dashes. The occurrence of these marks, but not their number, is recorded in the transcriptions and represented by an em rule (–).

Throughout the manuscript, crosses appear periodically in the margins, the function of which is as yet undetermined. Their occurrence is currently recorded in notes on the transcription.

c1 - Gotha, Thüringisches Staatsarchiv, Rittergut Brüheim Nr. 481

Fols. 1r and 2v of this fragment are badly damaged with very little text remaining legible. Franzjosef Pensel was able to recognise slightly more text on the original document (cf. •‘Neue Bruchstücke aus dem Anhang I der Kaiserchronik’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 92 (1970), 340-348), and, where this is the case, the transcription relies on his readings. All such instances are clearly marked with notes in the transcription.

c2 – Innsbruck, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Tirol, Fragm. 64

The fragment, which consists of two strips from the same double page, is substantially damaged in places. In these instances, Schönbach was able to recognise somewhat more text in 1889 than is currently legible, and the transcription thus occasionally relies on his readings (cf. Anton E. Schönbach, ‘Altdeutsche Funde aus Innsbruck’, ZfdA 33 (1889), 339-394 (pp. 380-383). All such cases are clearly marked in the transcription.

The transcription and facsimiles restore the original orientation of the two pieces of this fragment and introduce standard foliation (1r-2v) in place of the numbering visible on the fragment, which – in line with Schönbach’s transription – labels the strips 1 and 2, and the columns a-f.

c4 – Stuttgart, Landeskirchliches Archiv, Pfarrarchiv Trochtelfingen, Nr. 263

The fragment consists of two longitudinal strips affixed to the covers of a codex. As the text on the strip attached to the front cover is upside down, the facsimile associated with the transcription of this section is rotated through 180 degrees.

c6 – ehemals Hannover, Privatbesitz, ohne Signatur

Since the fragment is now lost, this transcription is based on the copy made by Daniel Eberhard Baring and reproduced in Clavis Diplomatica, Specimina veterum scripturarum tradens […] (Hannover: 1754), plate 23. The text is presented in two columns with no foliation and no further indications of the original format of the fragment. These two columns are presented as constituting a single page in the transcription for want of any evidence to the contrary. Readings appear dubious in several cases, but cannot be checked or corrected. They are thus retained and annotated where appropriate.