German Kinship Terms (750-1500): Documentation and Analysis 9783110882186, 9783110120233

Table of contents :
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Kinship, society and language
1.2. Kinship terms in German
1.3. Scope and method of the present study
2. A SYNCHRONIC VIEW
2.0. Kinship terms in Wolfram von Eschenbach
2.1. Superordinate terms
2.2. Non-collateral terms
2.3. niftel and neve
2.4. Four collateral terms
2.5. Synopsis
3. A CONTRASTIVE APPROACH
3.0. Latin-German glosses and glossaries
3.1. Earlier medieval glosses
3.2. Later medieval glossaries
3.3. Some post-medieval equivalences
4. A DIACHRONIC VIEW
4.0. Preamble
4.1. mâc and vriunt
4.2. niftel and neve
4.3. muome, base, œheim, veter
4.4. Synopsis
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1. Chronological interpretation
5.2. Regional variation
5.3. Other variation
5.4. Methodological reflections
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
6.1. Texts cited
6.2. Secondary references
SUMMARY
SUBJECT INDEX

Citation preview

William Jervis Jones German Kinship Terms (750-1500)

W G DE

Studia Linguistica Germanica

Herausgegeben von Stefan Sonderegger

27

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1990

William Jervis Jones

German Kinship Terms (750-1500) Documentation and Analysis

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1990

gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier (alterungsbeständig — pH 7, neutral)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-PuUication

Data

Jones, William Jervis, 1941German kinship terms, 750-1500 : documentation and analysis / William Jervis Jones. p. cm, - (Studia linguistica germanica ; 27) Includes bibliograhical references. ISBN 0-89925-573-6 (U.S.) 1. German language-Old High German, 750-1500-Lexicology. 2. German language-Middle High German, 1050-1500-Lexicology. 3. German language-Old High German, 750-1050-Semantics. 4. German language-Middle High German, 1050-1500-Semantics. 5. Kinship-Terminology. I. Title. II. Series. PF3961.J66 1990 437'.01-dc20

CIP-Titelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Jones, William Jervis: German Kinship terms (750 - 1500); documentation and analysis / William Jervis Jones. — Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1990 (Studia linguistica Germanica ; 27) ISBN 3-11-012023-2 NE: GT

© Copyright 1990 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1000 Berlin 30. — Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Ubersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany Druck: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin

οΐη 7τερ φύλλων γενεή, τοίη δϊ και ανδρών. φύλλα τα μεν τ' άνεμος χαμάδις χεει, άλλα δε θ' ΰλη τηλεθόωσα φύει, έαρος δ' επιγίγνεται ώρη· rt ) ο Α \ < \ ί / f J \ / ως ανορων γενεη η μεν ψυει η ο απολήγει. Homer, Iliad, V I , 146-49

PREFACE

A study of this kind owes much, perhaps most, to the resonance of a scholarly environment. Remarkably, such resonances are still to be heard, despite the political, financial and administrative noise that has now so destructively invaded the grove of British academe. I pay tribute, therefore, firstly to the traditions of enquiry within which I feel myself to be working, the tangible and less tangible values derived from teachers, colleagues, and pupils over many years; and then secondly to a number of scholars who have given more specific help and support in the course of my work. At several stages, I was able to draw on expert advice generously given by Dr Leslie Seiffert (University of Oxford), who has been studying the kinship terms of medieval German for some years in a variety of contexts. I have noted particular cases of indebtedness along the way. My work has further benefited from information and opinions given by three of my former pupils, Dr Felicity J. Rash (Westfield College, University of London), Miss Susan J. Baxter (Westfield College, University of London), and Dr Jonathan West (Trinity College Dublin, and the University of Newcastle upon Tyne). Among other colleagues who have given me valued advice and support at various times, I would mention Dr Rosemary N. Combridge (Queen Mary College, University of London), Dr John L. Flood (Institute of Germanic Studies, University of London), Dr J. A. Hall (Westfield College, University of London), Dr Timothy R. Jackson (Trinity College Dublin), Dr Eva Leitzke (University of Munich), Mr Timothy McFarland (University College London), Dr David R. McLintock (University of London), Dr Dagmar Neuendorff (University of Oulu, Finland), Dr Kurt Ostberg (University of London), Mr W. James Simpson (Westfield College, University of London), Herr Alfred Wollmann (Universities of Munich and Eichstätt), and Dr David N. Yeandle (King's College London). I wish to thank Professor Dr Oskar Reichmann (Universität Heidelberg) for valuable information on entries in the Frühneuhochdeutschea Wörterbuch, also Professor Dr Klaus Grubmüller (Westfälische WilhelmsUniversität Münster) and Dr Hans-Jürgen Stahl (Universität Würzburg) for providing me with advance copies of sections from the new edition of the Vocabularius Ex quo. To Professor Dr Heinz Wenzel (Berlin) and

VIII

Preface

Professor Dr Stefan Sonderegger (Zürich) I am much indebted for their acceptance of my work into the series Studio, Linguistica Germanica. I am grateful to the staff of many libraries, in particular the Caroline Skeel Library, Westfield College (Librarian: Mr Brian Murphy), and the Institute of Germanic Studies, University of London (Librarian: Mr William Abbey). Typesetting the work by means of T^X, I received much support from the staff of the Computer Unit, Westfield College. The diagrams were drawn by Mr Jules Greenwall, using Harvard Graphics. Some years ago, the study was financially assisted by a grant from the British Academy, gratitude for which I here belatedly record. There is another context, which has long fostered this work. To my own family, immediate and extended, there is much that is owing, much that must be remembered. And so I dedicate this book to my own kin: those who are still with me, those whom I have lost, and those whom I have yet to meet. William J. Jones Westfield College, University of London July 1989

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

1

1.1. Kinship, society and language

1

1.2. Kinship terms in German

7

1.3. Scope and method of the present study 2. A SYNCHRONIC VIEW

13 15

2.0. Kinship terms in Wolfram von Eschenbach

15

2.1. Superordinate terms

17

2.1.1. mac (17) — 2.1.2. vriunt (19) 2.2. Non-collateral terms

20

2.3. nißel and neve

21

2.3.1. nißel (21) — 2.3.2. neve (22) 2.4. Four collateral terms

27

2.4.1. muome (27) — 2.4.2. base (31) 2.4.3. aeheim (33) — 2.4.4. veter (34) 2.5. Synopsis 3. A CONTRASTIVE APPROACH

42 45

3.0. Latin-German glosses and glossaries

45

3.1. Earlier medieval glosses

46

3.2. Later medieval glossaries

61

3.2.1. Superordinate terms (62) — 3.2.2. Ancestral terms (65) 3.2.3. Step-terms (66) — 3.2.4. Affinal terms (67) 3.2.5. nepos and neptis (68) — 3.2.6. Other collateral terms (69) 3.2.7. Summary (72) 3.3. Some post-medieval equivalences

73

X

Contents

4. A DIACHRONIC VIEW

77

4.0. Preamble

77

4.1. mac and vriunt

80

4.1.1. mac (83) — 4.1.2. vriunt (92) 4.1.3. Summary (105) 4.2. ηiftel and neve

106

4.2.1. niftel (107) — 4.2.2. neve (118) 4.3. muome, base, ceheim, veter

131

4.3.1. muome (132) — 4.3.2. base (139) 4.3.3. ceheim (147) — 4.3.4. veter (162) 4.4. Synopsis

174

5. CONCLUSIONS

181

5.1. Chronological interpretation

181

5.2. Regional variation

198

5.2.1. mac (199) — 5.2.2. niftel and neve (201) 5.2.3. muome, base, aeheim, veter (205) 5.3. Other variation

212

5.4. Methodological reflections

214

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

6.1. Texts cited

219

6.2. Secondary references

249

SUMMARY

273

SUBJECT INDEX

277

LIST OF DIAGRAMS

2.1.

neve in Parzival

25

2.2.

Terramer and Matusales

31

2.3.

Kaylet's relatives (A)

36

2.4.

Kaylet's relatives (B)

38

2.5.

Kaylet's relatives (C)

38

2.6.

Kingrisin and Kingrimursel (A)

41

2.7.

Kingrisin and Kingrimursel (B)

41

2.8.

Genealogical structures in Parzival (A)

44

2.9.

Genealogical structures in Parzival (B)

after 44

2.10.

Genealogical structures in Willehalm

after 44

4.1.

niftel and veter in Der Pleier, Meleranz

109

4.2.

Synopsis of niftel

117

4.3.

Multiple reference in Pontus und Sidonia (version B)

128

4.4.

Synopsis of neve

4.5.

Synopsis of muome

138

4.6.

Synopsis of base

145

4.7.

Abraham and Bathuel (biblical relationships)

150

4.8.

mume and ohem in Heinrich von Freiberg, Tristan

154

after 128

4.9.

Relationships in Alpharts Tod

158

4.10.

Relationships in Thüring von Ringoltingen, Melusine

159

4.11.

Synopsis of ceheim

161

4.12.

Relationships in versions of the Rosengarten

169

4.13.

Conjectural relationships in Biterolf

171

4.14.

Synopsis of veter

173

4.15.

Synopsis: niftel, neve, muome, base, ceheim, veter

5.1.

Extension to cousins

after 180 189

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Kinship, society and language

On kinship terminologies there has developed a remarkable and extensive scholarly literature pertaining to a range of languages, past and present. The systems themselves vary greatly, and linguists as well as anthropologists have approached them from a multiplicity of different angles. 1 The Proto-Indo-European kinship set with all its ramifications and uncertainties has engaged the attention of many scholars, with major contributions extending from Berthold Delbrück (1890) to Oswald Szemerenyi (1977), 2 but ever since the pioneering work of Lewis H. Morgan (1871) horizons have broadened to embrace many languages far removed from the IndoEuropean group, notably in Asia and North America, and later Africa and Australasia, 3 with methodological deepening and enrichment, as systems came to light which contravened and relativised traditional Eurocentric expectations. 4 The impulses here were seldom purely linguistic. Kinship terminologies lay at an interface between language studies and social anthropology, constituting 'a social and semantic field' (Maranda 1974: 12). For many, indeed (as still Nogle 1974: 26), linguistics was 'a discipline within anthropology', the means of breaking a verbal code which could be expected to give access to the essential socio-cultural patterns. Words thus became 'the royal road to the unlocking of kinship systems' (Fox 1967: 240). This downgrading of the linguistic discipline is perhaps strongest in the work of B. Malinowski, who for his part remained sceptical of the role linguists could play. 'Words grow out of life, and kinship words are nothing else but counters or labels for social relations' (Malinowski 1930: 28f.). Perceptions such as these carried risks for both disciplines — for anthropologists, because a terminology can never be expected to reflect every 1

For an overview, see Bohannan 1963: 54ff., Hammel ed. 1965, and Schneider 1972. For a select subject bibliography, see for example Luong 1984: 311fF.

2

For a searching review of Szemerenyi, see FHedrich 1980.

ο 4

For a re-evaluation of Morgan's work, see Eggan 1972. On the methodology of kinship studies see Nogle 1974, Barnard-Good 1984.

2

1. Introduction

facet of kinship (Fox 1967: 243); and for linguists, because language as a system must be accorded its own history, its own inertia and momentum. At many points, in consequence, the 'reflectionist' assumption — that a kinship terminology mirrors objective social reality — can be sampled in various degrees of dilution. As early as 1909, A. L. Kroeber had warned that 'to connect the institutions and the terms causally can rarely be anything but hazardous' (27). In a later, more conciliatory article, he reflected on 'the once-prevalent abuse of seeing in kinship systems chiefly instruments for reconstructing systems of social structure', and cited instead the analogy of dress and the human body: 'One normally expects a considerable degree of fit; but it would be dogmatic and futile to say that body conformation "determines" dress, or that dress "reflects" the body' (Kroeber 1936: 339). Reviewing the situation in 1929, Robert H. Lowie felt that the correlation between social custom and nomenclature was 'far from perfect, but fairly high', adding that 'there will always be residual phenomena resisting interpretation on any but linguistic lines' (89). Caveats and reservations of this kind are carried through into later studies. In 1941, A. R. Radcliffe-Brown judiciously described the nomenclature as 'an intrinsic part of a kinship system, just as it is also, of course, an intrinsic part of language' (61). He added that the relations between the nomenclature and the rest of the system were 'relations within an ordered whole'. Claude Levi-Strauss argued in 1945 that kinship does not find its sole expression in a nomenclature; that the systeme des appellations will be found to map irregularly, not onto objective reality, but onto an equally arbitrary systeme des attitudes; and that both systems are amenable to structuralist analysis. Ward H. Goodenough, for his part, regarded as axiomatic 'some kind of functional relationship between social roles and the terminology of social classification' (1956: 120). 5 Similarly, Robert McKinley (1971) has moved beyond both the reflectionist and the autonomist positions, by referring to this inherent reciprocity: 'society acts on terminology, and terminology acts back on society' (245). We may thus expect kinship nomenclatures at times to be conditioned (either as synchronic systems or in their diachronic development) by extralinguistic factors, at other times to work and develop autonomously, at others again to condition thought and perception — operating neither entirely passively, nor in vacuo, but sometimes also as agents. Hitherto, the primary function that has been recognised here is 'a general function of ordering and classifying the various kin relationships' (228). For Leslie White (1939: 567), this classificatory function seems to have stood alone: Ά kinship term is a mechanism whose function is the classification 5

See also Service 1960: 75; Gates 1971: 2; Oppitz 1975: 108f.

Kinship, society and language

3

of relatives'. A related simplificatory function was highlighted by Marc Swartz (1960: 393): for him, kinship words condition behaviour, and 'this not only simplifies the individual's relations with his relatives but also tends to homogenize behavior throughout the society'. The move to a dynamic, instrumental view of kinship terms is perhaps strongest with Maurice Bloch (1971: 80): 'Kinship terms do not denote kinship roles; rather they are part of the process of defining a role relation between speaker and hearer [...]'. Lawrence Elwayne Nogle (1974: 49) asserted two functions, classification and role-designation. But for perhaps the fullest, as well as the most rhetorical, of statements we must go back to Μ. E. Opler's exhortations (1937: 210): Let us grant that kinship terms are significant labels often. Let us agree that they become overlaid with meaning and feeling tones for the relationships they imply. Let us admit that they are often the symbols and reminders of duty and specific obligation. Let us point out that among some people verbal classifications which reflect relationship and obligations may loom most important and may be worked out with rare completeness. But above all let us recognize that terminology is but one way of many, α way in which recognized social relationships may be represented. Most scholars, certainly, have taken kinship as 'a cultural rather t h a n a biological fact' (Malinowski 1930: 24), implying not only raw genealogy but also networks of fostering, adoption, godparenthood, fictive and presumptive kinship, role-playing, and a host of metaphorical extensions (Wallace-Atkins 1960: 58fF.; Barnard-Good 1984: 37ff.). At times, indeed, the genealogical component has appeared swamped or displaced, with some scholars seriously questioning its relevance to kinship systems (cf. Hammel ed. 1965: 3; Maranda 1974), and others just as staunchly defending it (Lounsbury 1964a: 381; Schefller-Lounsbury 1971: 71). 6 Terminologically, the difference of viewpoint has led some (for example Lowie 1929, Barnard-Good 1984: 37ff.) to write of 'relationship terminologies' rather than of kinship. But in linguistic work, genealogical connexions offer a valuable and relatively objective point of reference, which it would be a pity to lose, so that, whilst recognising the interplay of other networks, linguists have tended to remain genealogists. 7 6

For an intermediate position, see for instance Swartz 1960.

7

See the comment of Hammel (ed. 1965: 7): 'So far, genealogically based analyses of kinship terminologies have provided the clearest and most elegant solutions'. Lounsbury (1969: 26) would 'take the genealogical criteria as essential for the primary senses, as well as for all of the non-metaphoric expanded senses'. Casson (1975a: 229) focuses rather on the 'social meaning' communicated by the actual use

1. Introduction

4

Whether we adopt the wider or the narrower definition of kinship, there is a distinction to be made between psychological reality, as perceived by the individual member of the society, and social-structural reality, as it appears to the external observer (Nogle 1974: 40ff.; cf. also Duby 1973:267f.). In accounting for the objective data, analysts have gravitated towards the latter concern, but it seems that functionally the former deserves greater emphasis, elusive though the subject may be in the field.8 Viewed objectively or subjectively, a kinship terminology is highly selective in what it reflects and what it does not: 'every kinship nomenclature embodies only a part of the actually existing biological structure [...] it seizes upon certain elements of the biological organisation and ignores others in constructing a socially experienced world' (Davis-Warner 1937: 298). Even the largest and richest of known kinship sets (which run to some 35 terms in certain Amerindian languages, as against approximately 21 in modern English) can only sparsely populate the multidimensional matrices formed by the interaction of biological-genealogical criteria. Since Kroeber (1909) we have been taught to look for an extensive range of circumstances which may, or may not, be reflected as dimensions in a terminology: the lineal/collateral and consanguineal/affinal distinctions; relative and absolute sex of Ego and Alter; position of Alter in the ascending, descending, or equivalent generation; relative seniority within the generation, or outside it; sex of connecting relative; whether connecting relative is alive or dead; relative age of Ego and Alter. 9 Heuristically, fieldworkers are advised, for example, to watch for the possible reciprocity or part-reciprocity of the terms; to allow for metaphorical as well as literal usage; to consider the possibility of two or more different but co-existent genealogical links; and to distinguish between a term's use for reference, and for address — the former being traditionally preferred by linguistic analysts for its apparent objectivity and precision, though functionally the of kin terms. The problem of delimiting intrinsic linguistic information, as against extraneous situational data, in this field is referred to by Kuznecov (1974: 6f.) in his contrastive typological study of kinship terms in English, Danish, French and Spanish. 8

Wallace and Atkins (1960) examined some analytical problems within the componential approach and concluded (79) that in kinship 'the degree of psychological reality achieved in ethnographic reporting is not only uneven but on the average probably rather low'. They commented: Ά problem for research [...] must be to develop techniques for stating and identifying those definitions which are most proximate to psychological reality' (78).

9

See further Nogle 1974: 19. Greenberg (1966: 110) assumed universality for only three of Kroeber's categories, namely generation, the consanguineal/affinal distinction, and sex of relative; see also Sprengel 1977.

Kinship, society and language

5

latter may be more prominent and significant in day-to-day behaviour, and arguably also more prone to experimentation and change. 10 These widespread (though only in part demonstrably universal) categories, dimensions and domains interact to form matrices which map in many distinctive ways onto the terms of a given kinship set. Typologies abound. At the simplest level of analysis, which has also proved problematic, Davis and Warner (1937: 301f.) identified 'isolating' terminologies in which each relative is designated by a distinct term, and 'classificatory' terminologies in which a single term spans a range of major categories. With finer differentiation, a typology of kinship terminologies has achieved currency, based partly on the terminological differentiation of siblings, parents' siblings, and cousins (parallel and cross), and of patrilateral and matrilateral kin, and partly on the presence or absence of skewing (the use of the same term across two adjacent generations, in a way that is asymmetrical with respect to side). 11 These typologies have in turn been considered in the context of social structures, social and linguistic evolution, and the historical-genetic relationships holding between societies and between their languages. The prospects are intriguing, the methodological problems daunting. Lewis H. Morgan's use of kinship terms as clues to the earlier state of the system has been under attack since the early years of this century. 'Conjectural history' of this kind was the object of a stern critique by RadclifFe-Brown (1952: 49ff.). As Bush commented (1970: 82): Ά reconstruction of the history of a kinship term is precarious in itself, but even more perilous is the attempt to deduce the former existence of social institutions from 10

See also Hogbin 1963: 50; Barnard-Good 1984: 40; Luong 1984: 291ff. Taboo factors may also operate here (Lowie 1929), with kinship terms providing a useful strategy for avoiding the use of personal names. On the 'etiquette of address', see Kipp 1984: 914, who comments that 'a person's choice of either personal name, teknonym, or kinship term reflects a gradient of increasing respect. One uses kin terms in address even more imperatively than in reference'. Cf. also Murdock 1949: 98: 'Terms of reference are normally more specific in their application than terms of address. [...] Furthermore, terms of address tend to reveal more duplication and overlapping than do terms of reference. [...] For these reasons, terms of reference are much more useful in kinship analysis [...]'. Luong 1984: 295, on the other hand, finds t h e distinction 'of highly questionable analytical value' in his own studies of Vietnamese kinship terms. Methodologically, Barnard and Good (1984: 39ff.) observe that terms of reference and address may differ 'both in the genealogical range over which they are applied, and in their assignation of terms to particular relatives'. On the theory of address, with some reference to kin terms, see Braun 1988.

11

Lowie (1929) distinguished four types, generational, lineal, bifurcate merging, and bifurcate collateral. For further details, see for example Greenberg 1966: 107ff.; Dyen-Aberle 1974: 429ff. (glossary of terms); Barnard-Good 1984: 61ff.

6

1. Introduction

kinship designations'. Friedrich (1966: 31f.) observed more hopefully that, although 'there is no perfect fit between social experience and language', nevertheless 'fundamental changes in any basic social institution should be reflected within a generation or two by correspondingly fundamental changes in the semantic system'. The causality is far from strict (see Eggan 1937: 49), and although the phenomenon of the time-lag is generally recognised (Bush 1970: 83; Dole 1972: 157), its duration is impossible to predict. Edmonson (1957: 408fF.) was no doubt right to conclude that 'various systems change at markedly different rates'. Exploring specifically linguistic causes of lexical change in this field, Gates (1971: 2) usefully identified three possibilities: contact with other languages (including semantic loans), structural pressures within the system of kinship terminology, and structural pressures within the language as a whole (for instance, compounding tendencies). It remains to note that, in linguistics proper, much pioneering work in componential and generative theory and notation, for example, has proceeded (sometimes with inconclusive or even contradictory results), using kinship terminologies as an accommodating and apparently convenient, but in reality quite complex, basis. 12 In this spirit, Greenberg devoted a substantial section of his classic paper (1966) to the formal semantic universale of kinship terminology. Semantic universale arguably imply cultural universale, which may themselves be hotly debatable. 1 3 Disconcertingly, too, the very power of componential and generative analyses can lead to further ambiguity, as witnessed by John Lyons's observation (1977: 333) that notably in kinship studies 'several equally plausible analyses' may emerge. Thus, if universality is a problem, so too is (even relative) psychological reality. At the same time, there have been positive gains 12

Malinowski (1930: 19) was already contemptuous of 'the bastard algebra of kinship'. For a spirited critique of kinship studies, see Keesing 1972. Kronenfeld 1976: 915 assessed more positively the potential contribution of kinship terminology to general semantics. See also the comments of Seiffert 1974: 349. In a seminal article, Romney and D'Andrade (1964) examined the cognitive psychological basis for the application of componential theory to kin terms. Another early classic paper using a componential approach was Goodenough 1956. Leech (1974: 247ff.) offered a predicational-componential analysis of basic English kin terms, and suggested how rules of implication might be used 'in deriving the socially institutionalized superstructure of kinship from a core of biologically founded relations'. As a bridge between the universal and culturally relative aspects of kinship semantics, Leech proposed various rules of implication. Some concise proposals for a generative approach to American kinship terms were made by Bock 1968. Casson (1975b: 326) emphasised the value of componential analysis for generative work. For an automated formal approach, see Kronenfeld 1976.

13

Leech (1974: 262) favours here the adoption of a 'weak universalist' position.

Kinship terms in German

7

from more formal approaches to the question, with generalisations captured, notationally and conceptually, which would otherwise have eluded the analyst. 14

1.2.

Kinship terms in German

The enquirer into medieval and post-medieval German kinship terms has been only indirectly served by this activity. Social historians have on the whole had other, better, means of tracing kinship structures and perceptions in medieval and early modern German society, and for their part linguists have tended not to see pressing reasons here for evading the ethnocentric fallacy by adopting a radically new approach and a sophisticated kinship algebra. Thanks to the common Indo-European word stock and, more particularly in later periods, the shared Classical heritage, they have probably felt that they were dealing in medieval German with lexical kinship structures not far removed in kind from those familiar to us in the languages of modern Europe. This may be illusory; certainly, distinctions need to be observed, basic textual documentation provided, and interpretations ventured, and in these respects historians of the German language have some distance to go. For Old High German and Middle High German kinship terms we still await a full and satisfactory treatment, and, despite some notable work, the urgency mounts amidst the seemingly chaotic changes of the late medieval and early modern periods. A brief review of the state of the question may serve to define both the range and the limitations of existing work on German kinship terms. Among the earliest in the field was Wilhelm Deecke (1870), whose rather popularising monograph is now of general interest only. Lewis H. Morgan, in his monumental work on Systems of Consanguinity, appears to have been disturbingly misinformed on some historical aspects of the German terms (1871: 33f.). An informal outline of the history of German kin terms is given in an unsigned article (Christian Meyer?) of 1891. The broadest survey of German terms to date is probably still that of Wilhelm Schoof (1900), who traces the lexemes from Indo-European through the medieval and early modern periods to the late 19th-century dialects. Generally, however, Schoof's article is not sufficiently thorough, and it stands in 14

An outline of the formal analysis of kinship terms is contained in Nogle 1974: 20f.; for a practical application of componential, generative, and other formal approaches, see 6Off. For discussion of appropriate notations and their theoretical basis, see also Hammel 1965 and Lamb 1965.

8

1. Introduction

need of much revision. Inevitably, some of the Indo-European etymologies and the Germanic assumptions axe now questionable. The medieval period is thinly documented; the post-medieval period receives better coverage, with the author relying partly on Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch. Schoof's dialectal information provides a useful historical record, though the survey is somewhat wide-meshed, and his sources are mainly secondhand; there are no maps. Overall, the work makes several unsubstantiated ad hoc assumptions regarding the causality of change.15 Over the years, there have been occasional attempts to place German kinship terms in an interlingual context. A comparison of German and Latin terms was used by Leo Weisgerber (1953: 59fF.) in support of his theory of language 'als Kraft geistigen Gestaltens'. Building on rather unsafe lexical foundations, Munro Edmonson (1957) examined some 31 European and American kinship systems, including that of modern German, with passing reference to medieval German. In a dissertation of 1956, Robert Thomas Anderson attempted to reconstruct in broad historical outline the evolution of kinship patterns and terminologies in a range of European languages, using a minimum of textual documentation for German. The conclusions reached will be considered in section 5.1, by which time a good deal of evidence will have been found to amplify, qualify, and in some respects contradict, Anderson's findings. Work done in this field by German dialectologists has been fragmentary, though in parts distinguished. In his dissertation on the dialect of Basel in the Late Middle Ages (1953), Ernst Erhard Müller devoted a valuable chapter to 'Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen' (178fF.). From archival material of the period 1420-1644, Müller was able to document closely for this location the evolving senses of several kinship terms, including mac, vriunt, muome, base, oeheim and veter. His findings point up the need for similar studies in other centres of the period, with the aim of extending our knowledge of the geographical distribution of kinship reference patterns. From the modern end, too, dialectological coverage is sparse. The northwestern margin of the High German area was mapped by Winand Roukens in a study of Dutch word-geography (1937: II, maps 63 Tante, 64 Muhme, 65 Onkel). In a lexical study of 1939, Alois Kreller mapped and briefly discussed a few kinship terms as used in the former German-speaking enclave of the Schönhengst, which was evacuated in 1945. Claus-Jürgen Hutterer reported in 1963 on forms of Muhme and Vetter in German dialects of Central Hungary (199, 206; see also map 35 for Großmutter 15

Can we be certain, for example, that 'Ersatzgebrauch' (the reciprocal use of the identical kinship term) was a specifically Germanic feature? And what can we know of 'die Gemütlichkeit altgermanischen Familienlebens' (259)?

Kinship terms in German

9

and Großvater). Johannes Weidlein cited and discussed some kin terms (1963-64) in 'Donauschwäbisch'. The published volumes of the Deutscher Wortatlas contain only a few modern dialect maps which bear upon our subject (VI, maps 1-6 Schwiegervater, -mutter, -söhn, -tochter, XXI, maps 3-4 Großvater, -mutter). They have received detailed treatment in Friedhelm Debus (1958a and 1958b), largely from the synchronic standpoint of modern dialect geography, though attention is also given to the principles which underlie the historical replacement of the older, opaque simplexes with new, motivated compounds. 1 6 Devoted also to affinal terms is a section of Gilbert A. R. de Smet's essay (1986: 72-79) with maps based upon Early New High German lexicographical sources. The Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz offers a more comprehensive set of maps, covering local equivalents for 'uncle', 'aunt', 'nephew', 'niece', 'cousin of either sex', and others (SDS IV, 131fF.) with some commentary. Regionally specific, too, is Oskar Grunow's dissertation of 1966, which traces the history of a wide range of kin terms and their reflexes in modern Bavaro-Austrian dialects. The work brings together a quantity of historical documentation from secondary lexical sources, but offers little that is new from primary texts. As we shall see, Grunow's reliance on the standard dictionaries leads him to make premature assumptions about the chronology and the sequence of semantic changes in this field. The interest of the dissertation lies less in the etymological and historical sections than in the portions dealing with word-geography, for which Grunow used important material from the Dialektatlas Österreichs und seiner Nachbarländer. Data on specific terms can be gleaned from the fuller dialect dictionaries, for instance the Schweizerisches Idiotikon, the Schwäbisches Wörterbuch (Fischer-Pfleiderer 1904-39), and the Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Osterreich (Kranzmayer et al. 1963-). Of particular value to the language historian is Robert Bjerke's contractive study of older German and Norwegian kinship terms (1969). Bjerke's approach is essentially synchronic-systemic, though 'the sparseness of the material discourages the application of a strict componential analysis' (1). On the German side, the study is based upon 564 of the 13th-century deeds in Friedrich Wilhelm's Corpus der altdeutschen Originalurkunden. Excerption of these provided Bjerke with loci for no less than 16

A more recent commentator has pointed out the historical inadequacy of Debus's study, and argued that modern maps of the DWA-type cannot be reliably interpreted in a retrospective sense: 'Das Kartenbild erlaubt eine Diagnose auf einem fortgeschrittenen Stand der Entwicklung, mehr im Hinblick auf das Kommende als auf das Gewesene. [...] Daraus ergibt sich, daS die Wortgeschichte eigentlich nur vorwärtsschreitend erhellt werden kann, daß von historischen Zuständen selbst auszugehen ist' (Müller 1979: 122).

1. Introduction

10

60 different terms, 14 of them single occurrences in this corpus. From these Bjerke concludes that 'the language of the documents illustrates a system and its terminology in flux' (54); he finds the German system more complex and fluid than the Norwegian. The German material is itself surprisingly elusive. Discussion of some key terms, for example, is hampered by lack of data: thus, muome occurs only three times in Bjerke's documents, base and ane not at all, and although öheim is found on 16 occasions, its sense is determinable only in one, Middle Low Prankish, deed. The choice of legal, rather than poetic, documentation was made partly for reasons of objectivity, because one might expect 'honesty and descriptive accuracy' (1) in such material. 17 Be that as it may, record linkage is always a problem, and a knowledge of the underlying relationships generally hard to come by. Bjerke's use of the Isenburg-Frey tag genealogical tables introduces the risk of circularity if, as is quite possible during this early period, they occasionally draw their information on the less well-known families from these same legal documents. We may sometimes feel uneasy, too, about the use of surnames or other circumstantial evidence to establish relationships (16), or to infer male or female linkage. Bjerke advances the hypothesis, and repeats it with increasing vigour as the work progresses, that relative age was relevant to the selection of certain terms (for example, that oheim denoted an older male relative and neve a younger one); but in fact we lack the chronological data which alone could prove or disprove this contention (52, 54, 64), and we shall later be bringing forward evidence for an early reciprocal use of each of these terms, which would run counter to Bjerke's suggestion.18 The tantalising sparseness of hard semantic data in his corpus means, on the one hand, that an overall system or diasystem of legal usage can only in part be reconstructed, and, on the other, that regional variation within High German scarcely emerges at all, particularly as the High German sources themselves are predominantly Upper German in provenance. These reservations aside, Bjerke's study is to be welcomed as an original and incisive modern contribution to the subject. It seems to have been in fact the first major attempt since Benecke-Müller-Zarncke, Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch, Lexer, and the Deutsches Rechtswörterbuch to adduce new primary material from the medieval texts in this field. With some adjustments, Bjerke's method could quite profitably be extended to the remaining 3,000 German deeds from the 13th century in Friedrich Wilhelm's collection, as well as to documents of the 14th and 15th centuries. 17

18

Cf. also Blochwitz 1965: 11. The observation is also found, without explicit data, in Petzsch 1913: 47, with reference to correspondence between princes in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Kinship terms in German

11

With regard to the Corpus, the deficit is now being remedied by the appearance of the Wörterbuch der mittelhochdeutschen Urkundensprache, the earlier parts of which became available when the present work was close to publication. Linguists as well as historians will look forward keenly to the completion of this important project. There is some selective reference to kinship in Werner Hoffmann's discerning study of Middle High German semantics (1974: 46ff.). Drawing on em unpublished paper by Gerd Vossmerbäumer (1971), Gerd Fritz gave brief attention in 1974 to kinship terms in a volume designed primarily for the learner. Embedded in Oswald Szemerenyi's magisterial and comprehensive survey (1977) is material of direct relevance to medieval German, but much of it derivative. An important work is that of Ernst Erhard Müller (1979) (reviewed, for example, by Erben in 1981 and Helmig in 1982; see also Hildebrandt 1984: 366), which ranges more widely than his earlier dissertation. T h e product of many years of collecting, Miiller's thoughtful and revealing study focuses primarily on Großvater, -mutter, Enkel, Schwiegervater, -mutter, -söhn, -tochter, and their regional equivalents, which are examined with copious data from the medieval and early modern periods. There is some passing attention also to collateral terms. Relying largely on legal texts, Müller is able to document, and in some cases to map, the extent of regionally restricted terminological sub-systems, giving 'eine ausgeprägte landschaftliche Variantik mit beträchtlichen Unterschieden' (15). With good reason, Müller urges extreme caution in the evaluation of lexical and literary attestations in historical word-geography (147f.). But it might be added that legal sources, too, have their attendant risks: legal 'Fachsprache' can be expected by turns to archaise, to apply overspecific designations, to employ one polysemous word in a specific sense, and to avoid another if there is danger of ambiguity. Only in the total picture, in the accumulation and confrontation of data of all kinds, can the historical word-geographer hope to negotiate such pitfalls. Miiller's relatively informal and very readable study is to be welcomed, not least as a valuable contribution to this end. The article by Karl Bertau (1983: 190-240) on kinship in Wolfram's Parzival came to hand only after the relevant portions of the present study were substantially written. Bertau's study is of literary and sociological interest, and offers some challenging generalisations about behavioural aspects of the (Edipal triangle, siblings, the avunculate, and patterns of fostering. It is based upon a close examination of the kinship terminology, which we shall later find to be somewhat inaccurate and lacking in rigour — with implications for the validity of Bertau's statistics, for certain portions of his genealogical tree (236f.), and for his lexico-semantic

12

1. Introduction

generalisations. The article confines itself to the evidence of Parzival and, occasionally, Titurel, and there is no attempt to draw in the copious lexical material of Willehalm, nor to plaice Wolfram's usage in its contemporary context. Analogous in overall approach, though more detailed and accurate in content, is the monograph of Elisabeth Schmid (1986), which sets Wolfram's kinship structures in the context of other French and German Grail romances, and on this basis offers a kind of literary anthropology. There is some illuminating comment on the terminology, but the work is not intended primarily as a linguistic study, and it draws, in fact, a number of somewhat insecure conclusions about Wolfram's kinship terms, details of which will emerge in section 2, below. The standard historical dictionaries present us with a situation that is all too familiar. Helpful documentation — though for our purposes sometimes rather late — is available in some of the relevant entries in Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch. For certain terms, copious examples from early legal sources are to hand in the Deutsches Rechtswörterbuch. For the Middle High German period generally, the failings of our standard dictionaries (Benecke-Müller-Zarncke and Lexer), now more than a century old, are acutely to be felt. 19 Graver still, until recently, was the absence of an Early New High German dictionary. Under the editorship of Robert R. Anderson, Ulrich Goebel and Oskar Reichmann, the Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch promises to provide an altogether firmer basis for work in this field. Material from it was of some assistance during the later stages of the present investigation.20 Past lexicographical deficiencies have had repercussions in a study of German kin terms by German Ruiperez (1984). Ruiperez attempts to trace, onomasiologically and semasiologically, the German terms for 'aunt', 'uncle', 'niece', 'nephew' and 'grandchild' from the 10th to the 20th century. The evidence is taken ('aus arbeitsökonomischen Erwägungen' (14)) from dictionaries — the standard dictionaries of Old High German and Middle High German, various dictionaries and glossaries of the Early New High German period, and a selection of more recent historical and synchronic lexica, including Frisch, Adelung and Grimm. Reliance on these works proves to have been a false economy. There was apparently no fresh excerption of new texts, and sources for the period before 1500 are especially thin. The consequences for Ruiperez's chronology can only be described as disastrous. Thus, for Muhme, Ruiperez (47) attests 19

On the state of Middle High German lexicography, see Menge 1985: 1149f. For interesting new initiatives, see Gärtner 1986, Bachofer 1987, Bachofer (ed.) 1988. For a report on this major initiative, see Reichmann 1987.

Scope a n d method

13

the sense 'mother's sister's daughter' from 1522, and 'father's brother's daughter' f r o m 1739. Our own excerptions will show t h a t these senses can be attested f r o m ca. 1400 a n d ca. 1450 respectively, and that in addition the sense 'mother's brother's daughter' is documented from the 14th century, if not earlier. Ruiperez dates Oheim in the sense 'father's b r o t h e r ' f r o m the mid 17th century, using the example from Andreas Gryphius in Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch (74); according to our sources this sense is present already in the 14th century, and perhaps earlier. Generally, Ruiperez's work has more t h a n its share of inaccuracies and oversights. On the transference of French tante, oncle, niece and neveu, for example, there is no reference to Richard Brunt's important work on FrancoGerman loans of the period (Brunt 1983: 390f., 398,474f.). All of this h a s a cumulative effect when Ruiperez presents 'verschiedene Synopsen, [...] die eine präzise semantische Entwicklung jedes Lexems mit einer annähernden Genauigkeit von etwa +/— 50 J a h r e n veranschaulichen' (145). T h e Germ a n system was not, as Ruiperez claims, 'bis zur Mitte des 16. Jh. eindeutig ambilateral' (146); as we shall clearly see later, 'side' was already being neutralised from the 14th and 15th centuries, or earlier. Again, t h e extension of consanguineal terms to affinal relatives in the collateral line is not primarily a 19th-century development (139f.), but can be demonstrated much earlier. In turn, t h e chronological imprecision of Ruiperez's work must cast serious doubt on his (in any case somewhat speculative) attempts in P a r t II t o correlate these structural developments with socioeconomic change. 2 1

1.3.

Scope a n d m e t h o d of t h e present study

T h e need remains for a study of medieval and early modern German kinship terms t h a t is at once wide-ranging and thorough-going. It must be admitted t h a t t h e subject is one of unusual intricacy, but overall the impression is of a patchwork still far from complete. A full modern study of the subject, proceeding from a fresh excerption of texts, would ideally offer a more reliable assessment of the meaning of individual occurrences, together with clearer insight into semantic structures and the mechanisms of change. W i t h this, we could hope to discover answers, or more exact answers, to a range of questions. By what stages, for example, did t h e inherited kinship set develop towards polysemy? W h a t types of semantic shift predominate? Can causal chains be identified? W h a t differences 21

The work has been briefly and too leniently reviewed by Kristina Franke (1989).

14

1. Introduction

existed between dialects, and how closely do they match the dialect differences of the 19th and 20th centimes? Did the poets of the Classical Middle High German period foster a 'cultivated' kinship terminology which was in some ways neater and more closely defined than that of their predecessors or successors, or even of their humbler contemporaries (cf. Hoffmann 1974: 46f.)? How far did this literary model hold prescriptive sway over the ensuing centuries of social and linguistic evolution? How close is the correlation between linguistic and social change in the later Middle Ages? How strong was the continuum of medieval religious usage, or the regulative effect of legal terminology (cf. Blochwitz 1965: 30f.; Erben 1972: 380f.), or the influence of the Latin kinship model from Old High German times through into the Age of Humanism? Can we, in fact, posit two or more contemporaneous systems, for instance a folk taxonomy of fuzzy sets, and a more rigid system of oppositions, which could be triggered by situational (for example, legal) conditions, or by means of contextual signals? And what other pragmatic considerations governed the selection of kin terms? The fullest lexical documentation will eventually be required, to bring these and other interdisciplinary questions to a focus, and to secure results which will be of interest and value to historians and literary specialists, as well as linguists. As a contribution to this field of study, we adopt here a triple approach: (1) an examination of a chronologically central system, namely the synchronic, indeed idiolectal, kinship set of Wolfram von Eschenbach (eaxly 13th century); (2) a contrastive study of the confrontation between Latin and German kinship terms in medieval glosses and glossaries, both early and late; (3) a diachronic (and in part diatopic) exploration of selected terms, from earliest times to 1500 and in some cases beyond, based on more than 280 source texts. In this way, the strictly text-internal evidence of Wolfram's usage (section 2) and the specialised data of the glosses and glossaries (section 3) will be drawn together within the larger context of chronological, and in some aspects regional, variation (section 4). Conclusions, with suggestions for further research, will be offered in section 5.

2. A SYNCHRONIC VIEW

2.0.

Kinship terms in Wolfram von Eschenbach

In this section, we explore a system that is the reflex of a single poetic mind, as documented in the poems of Wolfram von Eschenbach, which belong to the early years of the 13th century, and (with the exception of the Titurel fragments) have come down to us in a sound textual tradition of early date. 1 Underlying Wolfram's narrative works is a set of genealogical structures of remarkable extent, elaborated with great care across the entire span of his oeuvre, and serving a range of artistic purposes. 2 Parzival, in particular, is dominated by the hero's very extensive matrilateral and patrilateral kindred, and by two other major structures. Our procedure will test all, and call into question several, of the kinship links hitherto assumed to exist in Wolfram's works, with implications for the literary critic; but it will also transpire that the linguistic evidence to be elicited by a close reading of these texts is itself of cardinal importance 1

The principal manuscripts of Parzival and Willehalm take us back to the second quarter or third of the 13th century. On the dating of Parzival D, see now Schneider 1987 and the facsimile edition by Schirok.

2

The study of Elisabeth Schmid (1986) became available after this section was substantially completed, but reference is made to it as necessary below. T h e work, which spans French and German Grail romances, is primarily of literary and sociological interest, but contains a helpful list of kinship terms in Wolfram's Parzival and Titurel with some discussion, together with a genealogical table (174f.) t h a t is clearer and more extensive than any yet seen. Its few drafting errors appear now to have been corrected in some copies of this edition. T h e table makes a number of assumptions which, though not improbable, cannot be unambiguously demonstrated from the texts. A similar objection can be made to the list of terms (179ff.), which assumes uniformly for muome, base, aeheim and veter their primary senses, even when these cannot be confirmed textually. For the linguist, at least, a more sceptical approach is desirable. And whilst the author is able to demonstrate t h a t Wolfram's kinship system is 'matrilateral ausgeprägt' (189), her semantic assessment of niftel and neve is not entirely even-handed, and is therefore in need of some modification. Similar reservations may be felt about her claims (1980: 39) that neve and veter can serve in Middle High German to distinguish between maternal and paternal relatives, and that the terms for 'Onkel' and 'Neffe' were interchangeable.

16

2. Synchronic view

in this corner of Middle High German semantics. The conventions used in the presentation of the material are largely self-explanatory. 3 Empirically, the historical semanticist reconstructs past synchronic systems by deducing specific referential use from context, and then by clustering these 'senses' to chart sense-spectra and ultimately the overall 'lexical meaning' for the words in question. It should perhaps be emphasised here that identification of sense in context is being used as a heuristic device to this end; no analogous underlying psycholinguistic perception is necessarily to be assumed. Thus, the statement that muome in P. 140,22 has the sense 'mother's sister' carries of itself no implication that the poet necessarily had so precise a meaning in mind when using the term. Only later, by summation of all the loci for the word (or word-field) within the corpus, can the range of lexical meaning be determined. With Wolfram, the linguist is favoured by a fortunate conjunction of circumstances. The poet freely employs a relatively large set of terms, which overwhelmingly denote consanguineal relationships lying within three generations of Ego. 4 Our semantic interpretation of these loci is aided by the richness of Wolfram's genealogical weft, and by his tendency to concatenate the more elementary terms, either in order to fill vacant slots in the system (for example muomen sun) or to create transparent synonyms for existing terms (muoter sweater, sweater suon). Generally, he weaves into his texts a helpful degree of redundancy and self-corroboration by re-stating certain links in a variety of ways. 5 Textually, too, we are on 3

In this section and later, the sequence cf. ... normally introduces evidence as to the exact nature of the genealogical link, which is typically separate from the a t t e s t s tion itself, and often requires the conflation of data from several parts of the text. Relationships are stated in the form Ego Alter. Titles of Wolfram's works are abbreviated as necessary to P. (Parzival), W. (Willehalm), and T. (Titurel).

4

The terms erbe and ganerbe are sometimes considered with kinship terms, but in view of their marginal status in this regard they have been ignored in what follows.

5

Krawutschke (1978: 133) notes a similar tendency in the Prose Lancelot and interprets it as 'terminologische Unsicherheit oder vielleicht auch Unbefangenheit'; but the feature is a widespread one and is partly rooted in the desire for stylistic variety. On the analytic and periphrastic modes of reference, see Müller 1979: 78 and 115, note 34. Examples from Wolfram's work include the following: iur sweater suon (P. 726,10); bruoder tohter (W. 80,10); siner tohier man (P. 66,9); der Baligans tohter man [nam G] (W. 428,9); siner (etc.) muomen su(o)n (P. 39,13; 51,5; 64,22; 74,28; 80,25); der was muomen sun Vivians [siner mvmen -γ] (W. 381,8); »r mannes muomen suon (P. 48,3); miner (etc.) muomen hint (P. 48,13; 65,25; 249,23); miner muomen man (P. 50,2); siner muoter muomen tohter (P. 328,22); Art-uses basen jun (P. 145,11); miner basen sun (W. 255,9); diner basen tohter (W. 350,3); miner basen bruoder suon (P. 406,15); Josweizes basen tohter sun (W. 389,14); miner kinde aeheimes sun (W. 349,11); mines vetern sun (P. 412,6).

mac and vriunt

17

firm ground: in Parzival and Willehalm there are few cruces that affect the reading of kinship words, and most of these are obvious misreadings (occasionally vater for veter, or swester for sweher), although in Titurel the position is significantly worse.

2.1.

Superordinate terms

We begin at the highest level of generality, with the superordinate terms of the field. The outermost orbits of Wolfram's kinship system are occupied by the term mäc, which appears at times to shade into vriunt. Each will be considered in turn, with some passing attention to a third term, aippe.

2.1.1.

mäc

In Parzival, mac is used in particular of the following relationships, in all of which Alter is male: Gawan Artus 'mother's brother' (651,1, cf. 66,9ff.); Vridebrant =>· Isenhart 'first cousin' (?) (see 2.4.3, below) (58,10); Kaylet => Galoes 'mother's sister's son' (?) (see 2.4.1, below) (91,25); Kingrimursel =>· Kingrisin (either 'father's brother' or 'father's brother's son', see section 2.4.4, below) (324,11; 419,27); Vergulaht Kingrimursel (either 'father's brother's son' or 'father's father's brother's son', see section 2.4.4, below) (412,21). More remotely, mac denotes the following relationships and is thus at least as extensive as neve: Gawan Galoes and Gahmuret (586,14) (perhaps also Ither and Ilinot; for Galoes and Gahmuret, the sense is 'mother's father's father's brother's son's son's son'); Gawan => Parzival (586,14; 680,19; 758,11) ('mother's father's father's brother's son's son's son's son'); Gawan =>· Feirefiz (758,11) ('mother's father's father's brother's son's son's son's son'). On other occasions, the exact relationship is left open (e.g. 51,4; 156,3). In Titurel the rather problematic linkage between Schoette and Mahaude

18

2. Synchronic view

(see section 2.4.1) has the important consequence of drawing Schionatulander and Gahmuret together as mage (T. 75,3; 88,3 liebester mach G, naihsier I), the relationship probably being that of first cousins (cf. also nahe(n) gemage T. 95,2). Mac is applied in Willehalm to the sister's son (68,1, cf. 69,19), probably also (see 2.4.4) to the veter, the has en sun (254,17ff., cf. 255,7fF.), and the father's neve (254,25-28, cf. 346,26). At W. 389,14ff. Josweiz is described as the mäc of Ehmereiz, who is Josweiz's base η tohter sun. By implication, Wolfram excludes brothers from the term's field of reference: min mage ode min bruoier (P. 364,7). 6 In Willehalm, indeed, fathers as well as brothers are specified independently of mage (269,9; 285,If.; 293,6; 299,7ff.), likewise sons (260,4; 373,13), and children of both sexes (263,5; 441,23). Gyburc's formulation Du vater und ander mine mage (217,1; ander a, om. β) is not necessarily a counterexample, since pleonastic ander is very well attested from Old High German onwards.7 By an interesting semantic extension in P. 520,3, Malcreatiure is described as der würze unt der sterne mac. Just as Wolfram's kinship structures and the corresponding terminology form a continuum which extends upwards to the Divine, so here the tenuously human Malcreatiure and his sister Cundrie are in turn explicitly related to the seemingly inert, but in reality potent, world of the inanimate. Yet nowhere in Wolfram's poems is mac demonstrably used to denote human relationships other than those of blood; whatever the possibilities for metaphorical extension of mac, the affinal relatives stand apart. 8 At W. 455,13, in fact, Willehalm expressly denies that Charles (his sister's husband's father) is his mac, adding that dehein sin sippe an mir lac, and similarly Gyburc uses the phrase mine ® Cf. also mage und bruoder (P. 701,22); al mine mage und mine bruoder (W. 453,17). 7

Examples in Bruder Hermann, Iolande ed. Meier, 91-94; Behaghel 1923-32: I, 450; TWibner 1939-57 s.v.; Nellmann 1973: 117 and note 162. The pleonasm did not always commend itself to copyists; see, for example, the variants to Hartmann, Iwein 4817 and 8142, Gottfried, Tristan ed. Marold-Schröder, 18990, and Wolfram, Willehalm 231,9; 267,27; 318,30; 335,1; Parzival 652,19 ors unt ander kleit [Phandelose G]. Collocation with m&ge is not uncommon, e.g. Kudrun 1543,3 ze anndern seinen magen; Gesamtabenteuer II, 422, 432f. wip unt kint [...] und ander riefte mage. More obscure in meaning is the expression ander fiant (e.g. Walther 124,6); see with caution Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch I, 310; also section 4.1.2, below.

8

Gandiluz is described, together with the other pages, as Gawan's m&c (P. 430,6; cf. also 432,27), but it would be rash to suppose that Wolfram is here thinking of the very distant link which passes from Gawan to Gandiluz via Parzival, Condwiramurs and Gurnemanz, still less of the textually somewhat insecure link through Gandin, Schoette and Mahaude, which can be deduced only from Titurel. In P. 430 and 432, Wolfram may equally well have had in mind some closer, unstated relationship between Gawan and Gandiluz.

mac and vriunt

19

mage to refer specifically to her own, rather than Willehalm's, kin (254,17; 255,3). 9

2.1.2.

vriunt

As far as Wolfram is concerned, the word vriunt lies still on the margin of our subject. Commonly denoting 'lover', 10 friunt is also regularly used in Parzival between persons unrelated (Parzival => Iwanet 158,18; the narrator =i- Parzival 144,4), 11 and between persons unaware of their kinship (Ither =>• Parzival 146,13; 147,1). Parzival and Gawan exchange the term in Book VI (331,25; 332,9), though it is not clear whether at this stage they know that they are relatives. In Book XIV the narrator imputes to Parzival (who by now knows that he is Gawan's neve, cf. 689,24) the motive of fighting fur friunies not on Gawan's behalf (706,23). The general sense 'friend' emerges clearly from 90,3 (Kaylet to Hardiz: daz ir mich zeinem friwende nemt) and from the formula friunt und vient (339,8), 12 whilst in P. 765,28f. ( F e i r e f i z Anschevin \ was da ze guoten friunden komn) the grouping evidently comprises Feirefiz's kinsfolk, and others unrelated to him. The grey region between kinship and friendship is explored further in Willehalm. Rennewart is regularly the vriunt of the margrave, who is in fact his brother-in-law though neither is aware of the relationship (e.g. 200,26; 225,10; 269,20). Gyburc herself addresses her brother in this way (292,3), already half-suspecting that he is uz ir gealehte erborn (291,28f.). More general uses are also found (e.g. 268,1). Overall there is no basis for assuming a lexical shift or extension to 'kinsman' in Wolfram's works. 9

That the term sippe was not invariably thus restricted is suggested by W . 12,9ff.: si ware η im [Terr&mer] sippe [gesipp 7 ] al getiefte, | Willelm der lobes riche \ und Tybalt, Arabeln man (the relationship being in each case that of son-in-law). Also relevant, on the other hand, is the speech of Bernart von Brubant (W. 260,14ff.): die andern sibene, ir ieslich | von arde mine mage sint; | der ahte ist für war min hint — which, if it is not simply pleonastic, suggests that mäcschaft was already becoming a more nebulous concept, extending beyond the art and therefore requiring more precise definition in line 15.

10

e.g. P. 26,25; 27,14; 28,3; 99,30; W. 9,18 (mannes VKaWoE, wilhelmes W); 93,22; 102,11; T. 59,1; Songs 1,3, etc.; also friuntschaft 'love relationship' P. 271,5; 811,8.

11

Cf. also P. 338,8. T. 132,4 is analogous if we reject the G-variant fröde and accept the textual conjecture friunde which is derived from the Jüngerer Titurel (Heinzle 1972: 182). On narratorial vriunt, see Grimm 1866b: 268 (footnote) and Nellmann 1973: 149; close contemporary examples include Gottfried, Tristan 4977, and Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, Lanzelet 3142, 3374 and 4256.

12

This antithesis is more frequent in Willehalm, e.g. 104,28; 109,12f.; 236,7f.; 273,30; 319,29; 365,13f.; 391,8; 421,4.

20

2. Synchronic view

2.2.

Non-collateral terms

Of Wolfram's kinship terms, we pass rapidly over the following designations for relatives within the nuclear family: wip, man, muoter, vaier, swester, bruoder, tohter, sun, hint.13 Whatever semantic complexities these primary kin terms exhibit in other respects, they were not found to raise problems of genealogical interpretation within his work. Vater is occasionally broadened to 'father-in-law' (Gyburc => Heimrich, W. 278,15). An extended sense is also apparent with sun: Terramer regards both Halzebier (Terramer's neve, 341,4) and Synagun (Halzebier's swester sun, 294,23f.) as liebehalp min sun (347,30). Unproblematic, too, are the words connoting bereavement: wit(e)we, applied specifically only to Orgeluse (P. 673,1) and Herzeloyde (T. 35,1), and weise, which both Condwiramurs (P. 194,19) and Sigune (T. 61,4) apply to themselves, though weise is more typically used metaphorically (P. 167,9; 335,8; 782,17; W. 102,27) with either negative or (strikingly) positive value. Next, we turn to the designations for the grandparents. As a masculine noun, an(e) is used to denote Gandin by his grandchildren Feirefiz (P. 56,6), Vergulaht (420,8) and Parzival (498,26f.); in addition, Titurel is Herzeloyde's an (P. 501,23), and, by an ingenious genealogical linkage that emerges only in the later poem Titurel, Gurnemanz is presented as Schionatulander's ane (T. 41,2). In four of these cases the sense is 'father's father', whilst in P. 420,8 it is 'mother's father'. There is a parallel feminine use: Arnive is ane both to Itonje (P. 710,19) and to Gawan (P. 763,5; 764,9); similarly Irmenschaxt is Alyze's an in W. 157,26 (cf. 156,9). This gives us the constant sense 'mother's mother'. All these links are firmly corroborated elsewhere in the respective works. The reciprocal term eninkel does not occur in Wolfram's works, nor is there any trace of East Prankish and Hessian diechter.1* Absent, also, are three of the Middle High German terms denoting relatives by marriage: eidem 'son-in-law', snu(o)r 'daughter-in-law', and swiger 'mother-in-law'.15 Only two affinal terms are occasionally found, 13

For a reasonably full list of loci, see Bertau 1983: 194fF.

14

On the distribution of eninkel, see Müller 1979: 80ff. and 85, map 9; on the extent of diechter from the 14th century, see Müller 1979: 86ff., 88, map 10, and 115, note 50; also Erben 1981: 177f. It is possible that Wolfram avoided both designations because his own dialect lay close to the eninkel/diechter boundary.

15

For eidem, Wolfram uses the combination einer tohter man (P. 66,9) and the periphrasis der Baligans tohter man [nam G] (W. 428,9); on this, see Müller 1979:

niftel and neve

21

namely sweher and swager. As Condwiramurs's father (P. 211,1), Tampenteire becomes Parzival's sweher (P. 222,15), whilst Lot is described as sweher to Orgeluse (P. 728,7) and hypothetical^ to Gramoflanz (P. 609,12). The senses 'wife's brother' and its reciprocal 'sister's husband' co-exist in swager, the former attested at P. 134,6f. (Orilus => Erec) and P. 819,10 (Feirefiz =Φ> Anfortas), and the latter at P. 675,7 (Artus =>· Lot) and P. 821,10 (Anfortas =Φ· Feirefiz). Again the relationships are easily confirmed elsewhere in the work, and similarly unproblematic is the use of the two words in Willehalm.16 Step-relationships axe not well represented in Wolfram's terminology: stiefsun W. 75,3; 206,29 (Willehalm =φ> Ehmereiz). The reason is probably to be found, not in any semantic deficiency, but in the small number of multiple marriages which had issue on both occasions.

2.3.

niftel and neve

We now examine a pair of semantically complex words, niftel and neve, which already show considerable diversity of reference in Wolfram's works.

2.3.1.

niftel

For niftel, three (or perhaps four) senses axe in play. Willehalm addresses his sister's daughter Alyze (cf. 157,12ff.) as niftel in W. 156,6, 156,12 and 159,17, and the term similarly functions as a reciprocal of oeheim in P. 712,5, 714,9, 716,1, 716,16, 726,13 and 727,1, where it refers to the relationship Artus Itonje. In W. 418,llff., niftel is used with the eight knights uz Willehalms geslehte as Ego, and Alyze as Alter. Seven of these relationships cannot be specified, but one of the number is Bertram, who is the son of Bernart of Brabant, Willehalm's brother (cf. 236,25fF.); for him, therefore, niftel would have the sense 'father's sister's daughter'. 1 7 126ff. Müller appears to be suggesting (133) that Wolfram's non-use of eidem and anur may reflect an awareness on his part that these words were not current in the Alemannic-based Middle High German poetic language. 16

17

sweher: W. 11,13; 11,30; 175,22 [sweater LC]; 183,2; 238,5; 249,16; 250,2; 251,5 [swesier G]; 261,6; 297,13; 407,9; swager: W. 176,22; 211,7 (address). I am grateful to Miss Susan Baxter (Westfield College, University of London) for her help with this passage, and for her vigilance generally in this chapter.

22

2. Synchronic view

In P. 285,21 (Segramors => Ginover), the exact sense is unclear. 18 In five further occurrences (P. 141,25; 255,21; 441,15; 442,2; 804,26), the sense is 'mother's sister's daughter' (cf. 476,12ff. and 477,Iff.), with reference exclusively to Sigune and her uniquely close relationship to Parzival. On one occasion, however, niftel denotes an extremely distant relationship: Itonje is Feirefiz's great-great-great-grandparents' great-great granddaughter, so that niftel (785,3) denotes a third cousin once removed.

2.3.2.

neve

With neve, we encounter one of the most frequent, and least closely defined, of Wolfram's kinship terms. The sense 'sister's son' emerges from W. 70,29, 71,21 and 89,3 (Willehalm => Vivianz, cf. 69,19). For the other seven occurrences in Willehalm, the sense is unconfirmed (45,30; 151,23; 258,5; 294,23; 341,4 (address); 346,26; 432,6), but there is clearly some diversity or range of sense: Halzebier is neve, not only to Terramer (341,4), but also to the latter's daughter Gyburc (258,5), 19 whilst Halzebier's swester sun Synagun is likewise neve to Gyburc (294,23f.). 20 Occasionally in Parzival the word denotes an otherwise unsubstantiated relationship: Clamide

Grigorz (210,8);

Virgilius => Clinschor (656,18, which Hatto renders as 'maternal nephew' (translation, 440)); Artus =>• Jofreit fiz Iicel (673,21; Hatto translates as 'nephew' in his text (336), and lists Jofreit as Arthur's 'maternal kinsman' in the glossary (443)). Without further corroboration, Bertau assumes the sense 'sister's son' in the first, and probably also the second and third cases (1983: 203f.). In P. 765,17f., an ambiguous pronominal reference makes it unclear whether Feirefiz is being styled as neve to Ginover or to Itonje. The first alternative 1

19

20

ft

•

Specific linkages have occasionally been proposed. Hatto (translation, 446) assumes that Segramors is related to Ginover through his mother. Bertau (1983: 212) concludes that the sense here is probably 'mother's sister's daughter'. Passage renders these respectively as 'nephew' and 'cousin' (347). Gibbs and Johnson translate both as 'nephew' (132 and 170). I find no ground for W. Schroder's description of Synagun as the uncle of Purrel's fourteen sons (1969: 161); according to 432,6 Synagun is their neve, which has been variously interpreted as 'uncle' (Gibbs-Johnson 211) and 'nephew' (Passage 245), but is semantically much less determinate.

niftel and neve

23

would furnish the only evidence of a non-consanguineal neve in the entire work; the second (adopted by Bertau 1983: 206 and Schmid 1986: 184) has arguably greater piquancy in this description of an embrace between newly discovered relatives, and, moreover, Itonje's kinship to Feirefiz would then readily explain why Ginover should accord her precedence in kissing the visitor. Elsewhere, the sense of neve is scarcely in doubt. As 'sister's son' (reciprocating oeheim), neve is applied to the following linkages: Trevrizent => Parzival (477,28; 480,20; 486,22; 488,21; 492,23; 494,1; 497,21; 500,3; 500,26); Artus =*• Gawan (650,16; 671,7; 672,2; 672,23; 677,6; 677,8; 717,19; 719,5; 727,23); Brandelidelin =*• Gramoflanz (727,2; 727,7) (cf. 726,10); Kaylet

Killirjacac (86,14) (cf. 86,23).

In P. 359,16 and 360,2 the term denotes the brother's son (Poydiconjunz =>• Meljanz, cf. 348,27). In 585,29f. we have the sense 'mother's brother's son' (Gawan => Ilinot, cf. 383,4f.), 21 but more frequently, through the female line, neve carries the sense 'mother's sister's son', reciprocating nifiel in the case of Sigune => Parzival (141,14; 254,20; 441,19). If we assume the sense 'mother's sister' for muome at 48,4 and 50,2 (see section 2.4.1), then neve is self-reciprocal as 'mother's sister's son' for Kaylet Gahmuret (40,12; 50,22; 51,1) and for Gahmuret =>· Kaylet (58,29, erroneously interpreted by Müller-Römheld 1958: 135 as 'Oheim'; 59,17). 2 2 On the same assumption, neve would further denote the mother's sister's daughter's son at 46,9 (Gahmuret =>· Killirjacac), since the latter (as we shall see in section 2.4.4) is Kaylet's sister's son. The relational span of neve in Parzival seems, in fact, to know no bounds other than those of consanguinity and the entire kinship structure of the work. 23 Artus's neve Gahmuret (769,2) is four generations distant from their common ancestor, giving us for neve the sense 'father's father's brother's son's son's son'. If we take base (145,11) (variants wasin C , mumen n) as 'paternal aunt', the relationship Gahmuret =>· Ither, denoted by neve in 498,13, is no less distant, namely 'father's 21

Ilinot is certainly not Gawan's father's sister's son, as stated by Bertau 1983: 205.

22

Bertau's ascription of 40,12, 50,22 and 51,1 to the Gahmuret =>• Kaylet relationship is again mistaken (1983: 204), since in each case the reverse relationship is denoted.

23

It is not clear why Bertau (1983: 207) classifies neve in 498,13 (Gahmuret => Ither) as 'neve für einen Nicht-Blutsverwandten', particularly in view of Bertau's own counter-arguments here and elsewhere. Nor is Hilgers's explanation of neve convincing (1983: 68).

24

2. Synchronic view

father's father's brother's daughter's son'. An additional degree of kinship is present in the cases of Artus => Parzival (708,2; 717,29; 755,28) and Artus =>• Feirefiz (762,5; 774,17), where the sense is 'father's father's brother's son's son's son's son'. The limit in this work is reached with the use of neve to celebrate the distant, but keenly felt, family link between Gawan and Parzival, who are respectively four and five generations removed from their common progenitors, Mazadan and Terdelaschoye. Thus we have neve 'father's father's father's father's brother's son's daughter's son' for Parzival =>• Gawan (689,22; 693,7; 701,7; 701,11; 701,17), and neve 'mother's father's father's brother's son's son's son's son' for Gawan => Parzival (689,24; 708,16; 758,7; 759,2; 759,26). There is a counterpart in the link between Gawan and Feirefiz: Gawan =Φ· Feirefiz (760,8f.); Feirefiz => Gawan (785,5). The use of neve here forms a parallel with that of niftel for the Feirefiz Itonje relationship (see above). The full semantic reference of neve in Parzival is summarised in Diagram 2.1, which takes account of all except the four unsubstantiated cases mentioned above. In this seven-generation structure, as we have seen, some ten different senses are attested, two of them dependent upon the assumption of muome as 'mother's sister' or base as 'father's sister'. With all the relationships shown, Alter lies within two generations of Ego. In one or two cases, the neve is of the preceding generation, in two cases he is of the same generation, in four or five instances he is one generation younger, and in one instance he is two generations younger. Ego is male in 59 out of 65 examples of the term. In three out of the ten relationships denoted, no female linkage (other than that of the common progenitrix) is present. The term is applicable to parallel and cross cousins on the mother's side, but there is a lack of symmetry whereby in Wolfram's work neve is not used for the father's brother's son, nor for the father's sister's son; instead, we find mins vetem sun (P. 220,9: veteren G, veter D), and miner basen sun (W. 255,9). 2 4 In the upper portions of the structure there is a strong bias towards patrilineal connexion, but this merely reflects a similar bias at this level in the overall genealogical structure of the work, and is not to be taken as showing a patrilineal bias in the more distant extensions of the term itself. The predominance of the sense 'sister's son', in terms both of actual occurrences and of the different relationships so denoted, is again thematically conditioned, but more distant links are also well represented. The power of the word to proclaim more distant, but intensely valid, rela-

24

I am grateful to Dr L. Seiffert for calling my attention to this important feature. Historically, the above senses emerge in sources from the later 13th century (for 'father's sister's son') and the 15th century (for 'father's brother's son') (see section 4.2.2, below).

25

ntftel and neve

»>

r<

φ

β *Η (β Λ,

φ

·

sυ> e

c

Ό

(Ν s
φ

26

2. Synchronic view

tionships may well have been an attraction for Wolfram. One may also surmise in some of these attestations a privileged or royal use, whereby Artus, for example, reckons Gahmuret, Parzival and Feirefiz among his neven; perhaps relevant, too, is the case of Poydiconjunz and Meljanz. This regal use, if generally operative, would have lent powerful impetus to the patrilateral extension of the term, alongside its continuing matrilateral use. Nowhere in these texts do we register semantic overlap between neve, aeheim and veter. On our evidence, which stems from Willehalm as well as Parzival, neve opposes both terms, not just veter and its secondary vetern sun, as Elisabeth Schmid asserts (1986: 182). Nor, taking the evidence in its entirety, is neve applied preferentially either to maternal or to paternal kinsmen: four of the eight relationships firmly identified pass through the father or brother, and the remaining four through the mother or sister. This distribution, and the partial absence of female linkage, must lead us to modify the general finding of Elisabeth Schmid (1986: 182f.) that ntfiel and neve are matrilaterally biased, denoting overwhelmingly a relationship through the mother or the sister. This is true of the term as applied to the closer relationships ('brother's son', 'sister's son', 'mother's brother's son' and 'mother's sister's son'), but taken as a whole Wolfram's use is more balanced. (In this respect, as we shall see later when we come to view the diachronic data, Wolfram's position is transitional between an older, maternally- or sororially-linked, use of neve, and a more recent use of the term with ambilateral reference.) Schmid's argument here depends on her interesting, but on this evidence unwarranted, dichotomy between ntftel, neve as applied (1) to the closer relatives, where matrilaterality is indeed more frequent in the data from Parzival, and (2) to more distant links which she subsumes under the rubric 'die terminologische Neffenschaft', and which (though she does not indicate this) in fact comprise more patrilateral examples than matrilateral ones. Instead of dichotomising without real linguistic justification, we do better to posit a semantic continuum extending outwards from the more central to the more distant uses of the term. Within the closer relationships, maternal and sororial linkage appears to predominate in accord, as we shall see, with tradition; but beyond this, the multiplicity of extended uses does not encourage us to think, with Schmid, that the more distant applications carried with them any residual implication of matrilaterality.25 25

Linguistically, it is hard to see the basis for speculative statements such as the following: 'Wolfram ordnet eine Reihe von weitläufigen Verwandten der Klasse der Seitenverwandten mütterlicherseits zu, indem er auf sie den Terminus neve, niftel anwendet' (Schmid 1986: 183). '[...] Ither wird Gahmurets neve genannt. Wenn wir den Terminus an dieser Stelle beim Wort nehmen, ist Ither Gahmurets Schwestersohn oder sein Mutterschwestersohn [...]' (186). 'Wenn wir ihn [den Terminus neve

muome

27

Clearly, despite occasional attempts to do so in the past, neve cannot be used as a basis for establishing the precise degree of relationship between any of the characters in Wolfram's works, and for this we must have recourse to other sources of information. In so doing, however, we may reflect upon Wolfram's technical control, which is such that, despite the semantic breadth of neve, the exact relationship can be established by other means in all but five out of the many occurrences of the word in Parzival. In Willehalm, its incidence is lower and its sense determinable in only one out of the eight cases, a sign of the less thorough-going genealogical structuring of that work.

2.4.

Four collateral terms

Semantically more definable terrain is reached with muome, base, and veter, which will at first be considered singly.

2.4.1.

oeheim

muome

Probably for thematic reasons, the word muome is much favoured in Parzival and Titurel, with respectively 25 and six occurrences as against only three in Willehalm.26 One salient feature is its use in compound expressions such as muomen su(o)n (P. 39,13), muomen hint (48,13), muomen man (50,2) and even siner muoter muomen tohter (328,22), the last example demonstrating at the least that for Wolfram the term meant something more precise than simply 'female relative'. In his works, nine different interpersonal relationships are denoted by muome, and with five of these the sense 'mother's sister' is independently authenticated. Thus in Willehalm, Gyburc is described at 82,30 and at 380,3 as the muome of Poydjus, who is Terramer's tohter sun (444,2), whilst Myle (Willehalm's swester hint, 14,21) is muomen sun to Vivianz (381,8), whose mother was another of Heimrich von Narbon's daughters (48,5; variant 'sisters' (498,13f.)] dagegen wörtlich nehmen, dann hätte Wolfram aus der Sicht Parzivals die Liebe zwischen seinem Vaterschwestersohn und seiner Vaterschwester verhindert, und zugleich trüge die Liebe zwischen zwei für Parzival negativ besetzten Verwandten inzestuösen Charakter' (193). More cautiously worded, and more convincing, is the concluding summary (259f.). 26

On the term as a possible narrative signal, see Harroff 1974: 46 and elsewhere.

2. Synchronic view

28

in manuscripts WoE). In Parzival, three unambiguous relationships axe denoted: Sigune

Herzeloyde (140,22; 252,15); 27

Parzival => Sigune's mother Schoysiane (249,23; 805,9); 28 Parzival =*> Repanse de Schoye (500,27; 807,2; 814,24; 816,25; 818,6; 818,12). With obtrusive insistence in the first two Books, Gahmuret's mother Schoette is described as Kaylet's muome (50,2; 51,5; 64,22; 84,12; 89,27; 92,7), and conversely Kaylet's mother is presented as Gahmuret's muome (48,4; 48,13; 65,25; 74,28; 80,25; 90,15). 29 The simplest explanation here is that the two ladies were sisters, thus confirming muome in its primary sense; but the relationship is not clarified elsewhere, and a more remote link, for example that between cousins, is also possible. Bertau's procedure (1983: 209f.) (evidently shared by Elisabeth Schmid 1986: 174f. and 180f.) is to extrapolate from the five authenticated loci of muome in the sense 'mother's sister' and assume that the same sense is valid in the more obscure cases; but this is, strictly, a petitio principii. Corroborative evidence is absent in two further instances, namely in P. 328,22 (Belacane =>· Ekuba's mother) 30 and in P. 673,2 (Gawan => Gaherjet's mother). Despite Bertau's assumptions, therefore, some doubt attaches to four of the relationships denoted by muome in Parzival. At best, we can say that text-internally there is nothing to contradict the sense 'mother's sister'. Passing to Titurel, we encounter a textual problem of a different order. That Gahmuret and Schionatulander are close blood-relatives, is evident from strophe 95: 27

This is supported by further evidence in Titurel 30,2; 32,1; 109,3; 131,3; and similarly in 106,3 (manuscript G). In the last example, manuscript Μ (ca. 1300) appears to describe Sigune as Gahmuret's mSmen. The same relationship (i.e. 'wife's sister's daughter') is denoted in Μ by the diminutive mvmelin in address in T . 103,4; manuscript G (13th century, perhaps the first half) has here the form mSmel.

28

Bertau (1983: 210) mistakenly assumes that in 249,23 muomen tionship Sigune =Φ· Herzeloyde.

29

In 39,13 the word could be taken as referring to either relationship. Bertau (1983: 209f.) opts for the former; in my view the latter possibility (accepted by Schmid 1986: 180) is more attractive. Bertau's interpretation of most of the other loci listed here is inaccurate. In the first series, he wrongly interprets muome in 51,5, 64,22 and 89,27 as referring to the relationship Gahmuret =Φ· Kaylet's mother, and in 92,7 to Galoes => Kaylet's mother. In the second series, the loci 48,4, 48,13, 65,25, 74,28 and 80,25 are all misclassified under the rubric Kaylet Schoette.

30

There is minor textual confusion here:

iohter.

muoter is lacking

refers to the rela-

in d, whilst G reads

muon-

muome

29

sit wir sin so nähe gemäge und bede ein verch von ordenlicher sippe, näher dan von der muoter diu da wuohs uz stelehafter rippe. Yet the details of this important bond are unclear. In strophe 55, manuscript G contains a reference to Gahmuret as Schionatulander's mömen sun, whilst the early 16th-century manuscript Η carries the variant ohaym. To the latter, surprisingly, Lachmann gave precedence, reading sinen ceheim Gahmuret against the older manuscript. Now, the G-variant is corroborated in strophe 126, where Swete (Schoette, Gahmuret's mother, cf. P. 92,24f.) is described as Schionatulander's mime, his mother being Mahaude. There being no equivalent strophe in the shorter Η manuscript, Lachmann here followed G, printing sin muome Schoette. By this eclectic procedure we are forced to read either ceheim (55) or muome (126), if not both, in a vaguer sense 'male (resp. female) relative'. It would have been more consistent to follow G in both cases, and regard ohaym (strophe 55 in H) as a late and unauthentic accretion, either in the specific sense 'mother's sister's son' (if we may regard Mahaute and Schoette as sisters), or in some more generalised sense, for which, as we shall see, there is ample documentation by 1500. 3 1 We unfortunately lack further evidence, from any of Wolfram's works, for the relationship between Mahaude and Schoette. To take the G-variant möme in the sense 'mother's sister' would make them sisters. 32 In his commentary on the work (1972), Heinzle, who would prefer to take both

31

Basing herself on the Lachmann edition, Elisabeth Schmid (1986: 179) glosses ceheim from T . 55,2 in the sense 'Mutterbruder', which is certainly at variance with the text, and with her own diagram (174f.), in which Gahmuret is presented as Schionatulander's mother's sister's son.

32

This is the view of W. Schröder 1982: 80 and 109. The reading receives slight extraneous support from Albrecht, Jüngerer Titrtrel 953,4, where Gamuret and Tschinotulander are the sons of two sisters; equally, Tschinotulander is Kaylet's rehien mSmen kint (1062,4). Cf. the genealogical table in the Schröder-Hollandt edition of Willehalm and Titurel, which makes Mahaute and Schoette sisters; see also, for example, Richey 1960: 41; Richey 1961: 185; Bertau 1983: 236f.; Wynn 1984: 318; Schmid 1986: 174f. As a side-effect of this late linkage in Wolfram's work, Ehkunat becomes the uncle of Flurdamurs, whose husband, Kingrisin, he was reported as having killed in P. 503,16fF. Whether Wolfram already had this connexion in mind during the composition of Parzival must, however, remain doubtful. Thus Harms's statement 'Ehkunaht ist über Flurdamurs, Kingrisins Frau, mit Kingrisin verwandt' (1963: 146, note 89) rests not only upon a textual crux, but also upon a retrospective view of the earlier work from the critically dubious vantage point of the later one. For a similar assumption concerning Ehkunaht and Clauditte, see Schultheiß 1937: 36.

30

2. Synchronic view

mo'men sun and aeheim in the loose sense 'male relative', reports on two long-standing objections to the sororial linkage: (1) If Schoette is Schionatulander's mother's sister, how can she have vil seelden unde minne uf in gerbet (Τ. 126)? 33 (2) On the same assumption, is not the marriage between Parzival and Liaze, alluded to at the end of Book III of Parzival, a 'Mißverhältnis' involving a great-aunt and a great-nephew? 34 As Bertau has rightly reminded us (1983: 229f.), neither of these objections can be sustained. In strophe 126 Wolfram is referring collectively to three sources of inherited s&lde and minne (Gurzgri, Mahaude and Schoette), so that some licence of expression may be conceded, to say nothing of a possible implication that at death an aged relative might pass on qualities to his younger cognates. The assumption that qualities may be 'inherited' from a collateral line is no less plausible here than in Trevrizent's famous assertion (P. 499,13) von Ither du bist erborn, or in Parzival's own words to Feirefiz, that at Joflanze wir vinden uns em rehten art \ liut von den wir sin erborn (P. 754,18f.), or in the statement that Gyburc is erborn of her mage (W. 462,25). Such passages underline Wolfram's deviation from a strictly agnatic conception of the family in favour of a more 'horizontal' view, and remind us not to approach his attitudes to heredity from the premises of modern genetic theory (cf. also Bertau 1983: 193 and 230). As to the supposed mesalliance between Parzival and Liaze, no such possibility exists. Examination of the family tree (Diagram 2.8) shows that to read möme (T. 55 and 126) as 'mother's sister' would make Liaze, at closest, Parzival's grandmother's sister's husband's sister, which is chronologically plausible in a literary milieu where women are portrayed as sometimes marrying young and having large families, and, in view of the affinal linkage, does not infringe upon medieval endogamic constraints in the secular context, whatever the niceties of Canon Law in this regard. Far, therefore, from following Heinzle in reproving Wolfram for a genealogical error, we may uphold the received text of the G-tradition as being in this respect internally consistent, and as containing nothing to counteract the weight of evidence favouring 'mother's sister' for the meaning of Classical Middle High German muome.

33

Cf. Hägen 1906: 236, who assumes textual corruption here.

34

Cf. Lucae 1880: 155; Martin, commentary t o T . 126,4 (like Lucae, he regards Schoette a n d M a h a u d e as sisters, see c o m m e n t a r y to P. 92,24); Weber 1928: 43f.; Springer in Loomis 1959: 242f.

base 2.4.2.

31

base

In Wolfram's works, base appears only nine times, designating seven relationships, in three of which the sense 'father's sister' can be independently ascertained. In W . 255,9 Gyburc describes Fausabre as miner basen sun\ he is later referred to as her father Terramer's swester sun (371,9, with the negligible variant dochter for swester in (L) 73). A more complex case occurs in W. 350,3, where Terramer, addressing Josweiz, refers to Gyburc as diner basen [wasen KaK] iohter; the link is re-stated at 389,14f., when Gyburc's child Ehmereiz (cf. 75,21) is presented as Josweizes basen tohter sun. We have previously been informed that Josweiz is the son of Matusales (349,7), who is the ceheim of Terramer's children (349,11). In this set of occurrences, therefore, the senses of base and ceheim are interdependent, as Diagram 2.2 shows. If the former signifies 'father's sister', then the latter must mean 'mother's brother', and vice versa. These assumptions are made in the index to the Gibbs-Johnson translation (300), since Matusales is here listed as Terramer's brother-in-law. 35

Terramer

Δ

0

oeheiml

Matusales

"Δ J o s w e i z

Gyburcv

Ehmereiz

base

Δ

DIAGRAM 2.2: Terramer and Matusales

In P. 499,3, where Lammire is described as Parzival's base, the precise sense is again indeterminate. Werner Schröder (1982: 72) evidently takes base here to mean 'father's sister' (similarly Bertau 1983: 213 and Schmid 1986: 180); at all events, the interpretation ' m a t e r n a l aunt' is excluded 35

Cf. also W. Schröder (ed.), 643. Passage (in his translation of Willehalm, 363) describes Matusales as a brother (not a brother-in-law) of Terramer (with a reference to section 349); but for this problematic suggestion to be acceptable, ceheim (349,11) must be read as 'father's brother', whilst base (350,3; 389,14) is precluded from meaning 'father's sister' but is otherwise undefined. Further explanation would presumably be needed for the fact that Matusales is white (386).

32

2. Synchronic view

since Herzeloyde's father Frimutel had only five children (823,12), whose names are well established. The sense 'paternal aunt' for base is beyond doubt in P. 429,23 (Gandiluz Liaze), for Gandiluz is fiz Gurzgri (429,20) and the latter, like Liaze, was a child of Gurnemanz (178,15). Semantically lucid, too, is Gawan's jocular reference to himself as miner basen bruoder suon (P. 406,15). 36 Two other relationships denoted by base in Parzival, namely Herzeloy de =>· Rischoyde (84,10; 88,20) and Artus Ither's mother (145,11) (variants wasin GM, mumen n), are unconfirmed, and here again, strictly speaking, the sense 'father's sister' must remain in doubt. 37 It casts an interesting light on Wolfram's procedure that, for all his insistence on other, thematically far less important, relationships (for example that between Gahmuret and Kaylet), he never at any point corroborated the reference at 145,11, which constitutes the only fully explicit statement of Ither's place in the genealogy of the work, with all that it entails for Parzival's 36

Examples of circuitous, and in part self-cancelling, kinship references occur elsewhere in Middle High German texts, though they rarely attain the complexity of Wolfram's conceit. Cf. Neidhart 37,26ff.: de τ deheiner gunde ich baz \ (wizzel daz!) I miner lieben muoter zeiner snüere; Pseudo-Neidhart 175,3: siner lieben swiger hint] 228,46: iuwers vaters wip; Hugo von Trimberg, Renner 1639: Miner sweater bruoder ir vater ist; Rudolf von Ems, Barlaam und Josaphat 138,34: dines vaier kint du bist; Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 1760,2: sins vater kint; Johann von Würzburg, Wilhelm 3921: kain mSter barn; 3925: kainr nvSter kint; 13110: mins vaters fruht; Hans von Bühel, Diocletians Leben 1975: myns votier tochter; Reinbot von Durne, Der Heilige Georg 567: muoter barn; Stricker, Daniel 2050: min vater was miner muoter man, \ der zweier sun bin ouch ich; Göttweiger Trojanerkrieg 16028: Α in mütter barn; Kudrun 997,4: mein muter eto[r] tochter; Wolfdietrich (A) 324,1: ich bin ouch mins vater sun. See also J. Grimm 1866a: III, 268f.; Wallner 1939: 160-62; Zupitza's note to Virginal 185,11. Perhaps the most familiar example outside Wolfram is that of Heinrich von Veldeke (Minnesangs Frühling 64,8f.): so ne gesorge ich nimmer sint \ umbe mines anen dochterkint; but anen is here Lachmann's conjecture, both manuscripts (B and C) having sunes which Wallner (following Lachmann) dismisses as 'ein ganz abwegiger Gedanke'. The point is worth reconsidering, because a conservative reading would yield the sense 'Now I no longer have any fears that I will not produce offspring', which is in the context quite a natural idea. Examples are found in other literatures, cf. Sir Perceval of Galles- 506: I ame myn awnn modirs childe; 1094: His dame sonne, he said, he hight.

37

Manuscript G*1 is 14th-century Ripuarian (ed. Hartl, LII) and η is 15th-century Alsatian (Hartl XLV). The assumption that base here denotes 'father's sister' is made in both cases by Hatto in the glossary to his translation, by Werner Schröder 1982: 103 and 57 respectively, by Bertau 1983: 191 and 213f., and by Elisabeth Schmid 1986: 174f. In the Jüngerer Titurel (strophes 1058-61), Herzeloyde's father is a brother to Kaylet's queen Richaude, which indicates that Albrecht at least read Wolfram's base in the sense 'father's sister'. Bartsch in his edition (1870-71) showed Ither (diagram at the end of vol. Ill) as Arthur's father's sister's son; in his list (III, 310) he described him as Arthur's 'Basensohn'.

ceheim

33

spiritual progress. 38 One is tempted to draw the conclusion that for Wolfram the meaning of base was stable and exact enough for the one reference to suffice, for the discerning listeners at least. 39

2.4.3.

ceheim

Wolfram's use of the word ceheim is reassuringly stable, for in all but three of the 33 occurrences in Parzival and Willehalm the sense 'mother's brother' is demonstrably valid. Willehalm himself is repeatedly (49,19; 49,26; 65,7; 65,22 (address); 66,21 (address)) designated as ceheim to Vivianz, his swester sun (67,4). Willehalm and his brother Buove (cf. 6,23f.) are in addition ceheime (148,27; 155,19; 155,29; 157,10 (address)) to Alyze, who is the daughter of King Loys (cf. 154,If.) and of their sister (cf. 122,14ff.; 129,21; 157,13f.). The description of Rennewart as Poydjus's ceheim (282,26) mirrors that of Poydjus in the preceding lines (282,19) as Rennewart's swester sun. We have already considered under base one of the two dubious cases in Willehalm (349,11); see Diagram 2.2. For lack of corroboration, an open verdict must also be passed on ceheim in 221,13 (Tybalt =>• Marsilje). The 22 examples of oeheim in Parzival relate to nine different linkages, eight of which leave no room for doubt: Gawan ^ Artus (298,23; 383,9; 421,14; 524,16; 610,13; 667,19; 759,24; cf. 66,9ff.); Parzival 455,19ff.); Parzival

Anfortas (479,11; 479,25; 489,29; 491,30; 501,1; 795,29; cf. Trevrizent (488,4; 799,1; cf. 476,12f.);

Gramoflanz => Brandelidelin (682,9; 721,5; 724,8; cf. 726,10); Itonje =>· Artus (712,1; cf. Gawan =>· Artus, above); Antikonie =>• Gahmuret (406,5); Vergulaht => Gahmuret (420,11); Vergulaht

Galoes (420,11).

In the last three cases, the sense can be determined from 410,22fF., where Vergulaht is stated to be a son of a daughter of Gandin. In the one re38

The relationship between Ither and Lammire (499,Iff.) is sometimes given genealogical status, but there is no basis in the text for assuming marriage here.

39

On Ither, see Harroff 1974: 43ff., but also Green's review 1976: 955. The relationship is recalled, for example, in manuscript W of Wigamur, which describes Yther as Artus's pasen sun (4776f.).

2. Synchronic view

34

maining occurrence (P. 28,23), an ambiguous pronominal reference makes the example difficult to classify. 40 Overwhelmingly, then, the evidence points in favour of the sense 'mother's brother', and obvious too is the numerical predominance (but differing textual distribution) of references to the two relationships Parzival =i> Anfortas and Gawan => Artus. Terminologically the avunculate is strongly signalled in Wolfram's work, and in each of the two structurally parallel cases the oeheim is a key figure in the genealogical network. 41

2.4.4.

veter

The word veter occurs eight times in Wolfram's Willehalm and 14 times in Parzival.42 In three of the Willehalm examples, the sense 'father's brother' is clear: Gyburc Arofel (brother of Terramer, cf. 9,22) (76,15); Terramer's sons =>· Arofel (30,15; 345,15). More problematic is veter in the following passage, which is spoken by Gyburc (255,7ff.): und Arofel von Persia, und Fausabre von Alamansura, min veter [vater GL] und miner basen sun. Passage (147) here translates veter ω 'cousin', and punctuates to make both veter and miner basen sun refer to Fausabre (cf. also Werner Schröder 1969: 150). This tautology disappears if we take veter as appositional to Arofel, and basen sun as appositional to Fausabre, which would again give veter the sense 'father's brother', exactly matching the usage in 76,15. In the four remaining cases from Willehalm the term veter is applied to the indeterminate relationship Terramer Baligan (108,12 [vater B5ILKC7]; 221,16 [vater GBHKC]; 338,23 [vater WE]; 340,25 [vater β, 40

41 42

The passage reads: dö suohte mich von über mer | der Schotte η künec [i.e. Vridebrant] mit einem her: | der was sins aeheimes suon. Most commentators interpret sins as referring to Isenhart (ed. Bartsch, 36; Martin 1900-03: 40; Mohr 1979a: 190*; Hatto, translation, 27; Bertau 1983: 197 and 210; Schmid 1986: 163 and 180), even though the grammatical antecedent is twenty lines distant. In the Mustard-Passage translation, on the other hand, the references are reversed: 'my friend [Isenhart] was his [Vridebrant's] maternal uncle's son'. Either way, the precise sense of oeheim remains unconfirmed. On the implications of this, see Schmid 1986: 171ff. Manuscript Η of Titurel (early 16th century) contains (30,1) the diminutive vSterlin in the sense 'father's brother's daughter' for Sigune Condwiramurs.

veter

35

om. L13]), for which Passage assumes the sense 'uncle' (328) (similarly Gibbs-Johnson 170). 43 Only four of the 14 occurrences of the word in Parzival are entirely unproblematic. In P. 186,24, Condwiramurs is stated to be Kyot's and Manpfilyot's bruoder kint, so that veter (190,9) must mean 'paternal uncle'. Similarly, Kyot's daughter Sigune (cf. 805,12) is described as Condwiramurs's vetem tohter (805,4). That for Wolfram veter could also mean 'father's half-brother' is shown by its use with reference to the link Loherangrin => Feirefiz (805,29). Sigune, in her first meeting with Parzival, states: disen ritter [Schionatulander] unt den vetem din \ ze tjostiern sluoc Orilus (141,8f.). The sense 'father's brother' is again affirmed, because Orilus has already boasted to his wife (134,24ff.) that he has killed Galoes, fil li roy Gandin (and hence Parzival's father's brother). The variant vater in manuscript D (like the instances of vater cited above from Willehalm) is patently erroneous, since Gahmuret was slain, not by Orilus, but by Ipomidon (106,7ff.). More obscure are the following three linkages, for which no corroboration is available: Clamide

Mabonagrin's father (220,9) ; 44

Kaylet =Φ Schiltunc (48,18); 45 Killirjacac

Gaschier (47,10). 46

In all three cases, and without supporting evidence, Bertau assumes the meaning 'father's brother' (1983: 211 and 224). The last relationship (Killirjacac => Gaschier) deserves further scrutiny, since the information given in the Hartl edition is internally inconsistent and goes some distance beyond Wolfram's text. The genealogical table in the Hartl edition, followed in the Mustard-Passage translation, links the characters as in Diagram 2.3. But in the same edition, the Verzeichnis der Eigennamen describes Gaschier as an 'Oheim' of Killirjacac and as 'Kaylets Schwestersohn' (430), two mutually incompatible linkages which, moreover, are both at odds with Haxtl's own diagram. The idea that Gaschier is Kaylet's sister's son occurs already in the Bartsch edition of 1870-71 (III, 309) and in Bell 43

If veter has here the sense 'father's brother', then Baligan is Chanabeus's brother, which receives external confirmation from the Chanton de Roland (ed. Stengel, 3311f.) and from Pfaffe Konrad, Rolandslied 8129.

44

Bartsch (ed.) assumes here that Mabonagrin is 'Clamide's Vettersohn'.

45

Hartl (ed., 454) assumes the sense 'Vetter', Mohr (1979a: 190*) the sense 'Oheim'; Hatto more guardedly presents Schiltunc as Kaylet's 'paternal kinsman' (translation, 446); Elisabeth Schmid lists this example under 'veter = Vaterbruder' (1986: 179).

46

Busse (1979: 117) regarded these loosely as 'Vettern'.

2. Synchronic view

36

6 A

Gaschier

Kaylet

Δ

Killirjacac DIAGRAM 2.3: Kaylet's relatives (A)

1922: 144; it is reflected still in some recent scholarship. 47 Textually, its basis is not secure, since it rests on two difficult passages, the first of which is P. 31,20ff.: 20 21 22 23 24 25

wir haben Gaschiere gevangen einen graven [Killirjacac] abe: der biutet uns vil groze habe. der ist Kayletes swester suon: swaz uns der nu mac getuon, daz muoz ie dirre gelten.

The Bartsch edition (at 31,24) plausibly identifies der (24) as Kaylet, and further chooses to regard dirre (25) as Killirjacac rather than Gaschier. Martin in his commentary (1900-03: 43) equates der (22) with Kaylet (which is scarcely defensible, the natural antecedent surely being either Gaschier or Killirjacac), then der (23) with Killirjacac, and der (24) again with Kaylet, which is more reasonable. For kinship information, the central ambiguity lies in der (23), which may refer either to Killirjacac, as Martin states (cf. also Etzler 1950: 57; Green 1982: 50), or alternatively to Gaschier (cf. W. Schröder 1982: 42). Rather less problematic is the pronominal linkage in P. 46,20ff.: 47

Green (1980: 110) describes Gaschier as one of Kaylet's nephews; in his glossary, Hatto (translation, 441) lists Gaschier as a 'maternal nephew of Kaylet'; W. Schröder (1982: 41f.) describes Gaschier as 'Neffe des Kaylet'.

veter 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

37

Gaschier der Oriman in dar brühte: er was kurtoys, sin vater was ein Franzoys, er was Kayletes swester barn: in wibes dienster was gevam: er hiez Killirjacac, aller manne schcene er widerwac.

We have here again the options of taking er (21, 23) as Gaschier or Killirjacac (either of whom is then Kayletes swester barn), or (as in Möhr 1979a: 190*) of regarding er (21) and sin (22) as Killirjacac, but er (23) as the French father (so that Killirjacac becomes the grandson of Kaylet's sister). This last option can be disposed of immediately. That Killirjacac was indeed Kaylet's sister's son is evident from Kaylet's words in 86,14ff. (taken in conjunction with 73,18fF., where Morholt's capture of Killirjacac is described): 14 15 16 17 18 19

Morholt, der minen neven stal, von dem sol er ledic sin, mac min her Brandelidelin ledic sin von diner hant. wir sin noch anders beide phant, ich unt miner swester suon: [...]

Thus we are left with two options: the evidence of 31,23 and 46,23 either makes Gaschier Kaylet's sister's son, as in Diagram 2.4 (so that veter in 47,10 would refer to the mother's sister's son, a sense only attested elsewhere from the 15th century), or, on an arguably more natural reading of 46,20ff. in particular, merely provides further support for the already well-founded relationship between Killirjacac and Kaylet as sister's son and maternal uncle respectively. 48 In the latter case, all that can be gleaned from the text concerning Gaschier's position is that Killirjacac's father (like Gaschier) was a Frenchman (46,22), and that Killirjacac regards Gaschier as his veter (47,10), leaving the precise relationship in doubt. To read veter hypothetically here as 'paternal uncle' would give us the grouping shown in Diagram 2.5. 49 An equally difficult case arises with a group of seven occurrences of veter centring upon Vergulaht, Antikonie and Kingrimursel. Vergulaht is 48

It is symptomatic of the ambiguity that in his name list (1982) W. Schröder inadvertently ascribes 46,23 on one occasion to Gaschier (41f.) and on another to Killirjacac (67).

49

The latter (C) is Bertau's reading (1983: 236f.), shared by Elisabeth Schmid (1986: 164 and 174f.).

2. Synchronic view

A Γ

Kaylet

0

Δ

Killirjacac

Δ

Gaschier

DIAGRAM 2.4: Kaylet's relatives (B)

Δ veter

-Λ

Gaschier

Kaylet

Δ

Killirjacac

DIAGRAM 2.5: Kaylet's relatives (C)

veter

39

first named in P. 400,5, and is identified in 402,19 as King of Ascalun. His sister (cf. 402,21; 403,23; 405,10) is named as Antikonie in 404,23. The Landgrave Kingrimursel is referred to by Vergulaht (412,6) as mins vetern sun; likewise, in 413,25, Antikonie embraces Kingrimursel, ir vetern sun, and this relationship is re-stated three times in similar terms (413,29; 422,21; 426,24). The deceased king, Vergulaht's father, for whose death Gawan is wrongly blamed (407,12ff.; 413,12ff.; 417,2f.), and whose name is Kingrisin (420,7), is twice referred to as Kingrimursel's veter (419,29; 420,3). Combining these references, we obtain the structure shown in Diagram 2.6. This set of relationships finds support in Weber 1928: 43f., who states that Vergulaht and Kingrimursel are 'Vettern'. Hatto (translation, 443, 447) agrees, making Kingrimursel and Kingrisin respectively brother's son and father's brother (cf. also Bertau 1972-73: II, 986; Ebenbauer 1981: 66; Bertau 1983: 211; Schmid 1986: 174f.), and making Vergulaht a cousin of Kingrimursel. Using 419,29 and 420,3, we can at once dismiss the notion contained in Hartl's genealogical tree and the Verzeichnis (439), and repeated in the Mustard-Passage translation (441, 444), and again in W. Schroder 1982: 67f., that Kingrimursel and Kingrisin were brothers. The true relationship, on the other hand, seems impossible to determine. To read veter consistently in the sense 'father's brother' would make Kingrimursel and Vergulaht the sons of brothers, as tentatively indicated by the broken line in the diagram. Restricting ourselves to the textual evidence, however, we cannot exclude the possibility that veter here denotes a more distant relationship. The major difficulty arises when we compare Diagram 2.6 with the information which Wolfram has provided two Books earlier. In section 321, the as yet unnamed Kingrimursel accuses Gawan of treacherously killing minen herren (321,10); the phrase is repeated several times, for example in 321,15 and 324,11, and the relationship is later alluded to by Liddamus (419,27). In reply to Beacurs's offer to fight in Gawan's stead, Kingrimursel replies (in Lachmann's text): 10 11 12 13 14

ine trage gein im decheinen haz. er was min herre und min mäc, durch den ich hebe disen bac. unser vätr gebruoder hiezen, die nihts ein ander liezen. (324,10-14)

[Lachmann's apparatus: veter gg, vatere G.

= bruoder Ggg.]

2. Synchronic view

40

Leitzmann's text runs as follows: 10 11 12 13 14

ich entrage gein im deheinen haz: er was min herre und min mac, durch den ich hebe disen bac. unser veter gebruoder hiezen, die nihtes ein ander liezen.

In line 13, the readings vätr, veter must clearly be interpreted as 'patres' (cf. Hatto, translation, 169: 'Our fathers were brothers'). 50 To read veter here as 'father's brother' or 'male relative' would make this line a singularly pointless and redundant piece of information. If we take er (11) as clearly referring to Kingrisin, there emerges the structure shown in Diagram 2.7. The latter diagram is compatible with the data which we extracted from Book VIII only if we there read veter in two new senses, namely 'great-uncle' (which we would have to assume in 412,6, 413,25, 413,29, 422,21, 426,24) and 'first cousin' (419,29, 420,3), or, indeed, if we posit in all seven occurrences the broader sense 'male relative (linked wholly in the male line?)'. 51 Conversely, Diagram 2.6, which we proposed on the basis of Book VIII alone, could be squared with Book VI if we were to take unser (324,13) as subsuming Kingrimursel and Vergulaht (cf. Bertau 1983: 202); but the difficulty here is that, to link unser with Vergulaht as a part-antecedent in this passage, the best we could do would probably be to convert the preterite was (324,11) to present tense, and take er (11) as referring to Vergulaht. Most scholars will be unwilling to tamper in this way with the relatively secure text of Parzival. Even more drastic surgery is needed before we can accept the statement of Harms (1963: 147) that Kingrimursel and Vergulaht are brothers; for this to be true, virtually all the occurrences of veter in Book VIII, as instanced above, would have to be converted to water — to say nothing of residual problems in Book VI. In short, we face the realistic alternatives, either (1) that for Wolfram veter was already capable of multiple reference to some degree (a possibility to be tested later against external data), or (2) that his use of veter remained semantically precise and constant, and either (2a) that by a flaw in his genealogical calculations in Book VIII he inadvertently placed Kingrisin and his children one generation earlier than he had previously 50

A strong plural in the sense 'patrui* would, on current evidence, be isolated in Middle High German, the earliest known example of the strong declension of this noun dating from 1533 (Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch s.v. Vetter, citing Fierabras). See also Moser-Stopp-Besch 1987: III, 260-62.

51

I am grateful to Dr L. Seiffert for this suggestion.

veter

veter

I veter

'•AK i n g r i s i n

veter

Δ

Kingrimursel

Vergulaht

Antikonie

DIAGRAM 2.6: Kingrisin and Kingrimursel (A)

Κ

1

Δ

Δ

Kingrisin

Kingrimursel

Vergulaht

Antikonie

DIAGRAM 2.7: Kingrisin and Kingrimursel ( B )

2. Synchronic view

42

envisaged, or (2b) that we must emend the received text. Alternative 2a would present us with the only genealogical discrepancy in Parzival which has come to light in the present study. Perhaps arising out of a discontinuity in his work, it would be of interest to scholars who see an important 'Arbeitspause' between Books VI and VII, though it is of course not dependent upon this assumption.

2.5.

Synopsis

Wolfram's chronologically central kinship system is characterised by its size (some 24 items), by its genealogical range, and by some notable absences (eninkel, diechter, eidem, snuor, swiger), but above all by stable and discrete patterns of reference. The nuclear set evinces some traditional transferences and extensions only. The loci for muome and base widely corroborate, and nowhere contradict, the senses 'mother's sister' and 'father's sister' respectively. For oeheim, the sense 'mother's brother' is overwhelmingly recognisable, and there axe no indications of other senses. Veter is fully authenticated as 'father's brother' in seven out of 22 cases, and no other sense is determinable in Wolfram's works. In seven of the residual cases for veter, there is simply no internal corroboration for the relationship. The remaining eight cases are dogged by textual ambiguities and the possibility of a small miscalculation on Wolfram's part. Allowing for this possibility, the sense 'father's brother' is at least not excluded in any of the eight cases; in a sole instance the sense 'mother's sister's son', though possible as an alternative reading, is far from secure. Niftel and neve span the widest range of consanguineal relationships outside the nuclear family, but in a way that is complementary to the other terms, with which they nowhere overlap semantically in precise and verifiable reference. The presence of a female linking relative does not seem to have been a precondition for the use of neue, taking the material as a whole. For all six collateral terms, Ego is predominantly male, as one might expect from the abundance of male characters in Wolfram's works. Scrutiny of the textual examples shows that the terms axe used mainly for reference, but also sometimes for purposes of address in the case of niftel, neve, muome and oeheim.52 Wolfram does not use base and veter for 52

Thus, niftel P. 141,25 'mother's sister's daughter'; P. 712,5, W. 156,6 'sister's daughter'; neve P. 477,28 'sister's son'; 141,14 'mother's sister's son'; and for more distant relationships701,7, 708,2, 758,7; muome T. 131,3; oeheim P. 488,4, 795,29, W. 65,22, 66,21, 157,10.

Synopsis

43

address, 53 nor is neve so used in the senses 'brother's son' and 'mother's brother's son', though the deficiencies here may be fortuitous. The characters' use of the other terms in address (particularly aeheim), on the other hand, is thematically of the utmost significance. For all consanguineal links, the superordinate is very clearly mäc, used by both males and females as Ego. Since there axe contrasting terms for 'father', 'father's brother' and 'mother's brother', anthropologists would classify this terminology as the bifurcate collateral type, 54 which has an analogue, for example, in Latin matertera, amita, avunculus and patruus.55 Surveying a corpus of data not paralleled in the history of the language, our investigation has necessarily given particular attention to some uncertainties, and they remind us that the genealogy of Wolfram's characters can have no claim to be an exact science. The poet has not created an entirely closed, self-authenticating network. There axe loose ends in Parzival, and more in Willehalm. To the literary critic, the loss in exactitude is perhaps compensated by a gain in realism. Above all, the incidence of obscurities should not be allowed to mask the preponderance of exactly delineated structures, nor to detract from the assurance and care with which the poet deploys his terminology — a precision not present, or perhaps not semantically possible, in Old French texts of the period. 56 A strict reading of Wolfram's work, and the deliberate exclusion of much external supporting evidence, has led us to cast varying shades of doubt on a dozen or so of his interpersonal linkages. Even with these constraints, a solid and unusually extensive system remains. Details axe appended in Diagrams 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10.

53

For a textu&lly doubtful instance of vSterlin in this function, see 2.4.4.

54

On this classification, see Barnard-Good 1984: 61. The modern German terminology would be considered 'lineal'. Pursuing an alternative method of classification, one would conclude from the apparent use of a unitary term for 'male cousin' in contrast with 'brother' (and for 'female cousin' in contrast with 'sister') that Wolfram's system is of the 'Eskimo' type.

55

Examining kinship terms in the Romance languages, Tappolet concludes (1895: 92) that the set of four terms was upheld in legal usage, but collapsed to two terms in popular speech. Sex of the connecting relative in terms for the parents' siblings is distinctive also, for example, in some Slavic languages. On αρςα, hala, dayi, diaza in a Turkish village, see Casson 1975a: 229f.

56

See Farnsworth 1913: 4fF., Bezzola 1970: 90ff., Schmid 1986: 178. R. H. Bloch (1983: 208) observes 'a certain (purposeful?) textual inconsistency' in genealogical aspects of French Arthurian romances.

2. Synchronic view

44

St Elisabeth of Thuringia, who is elsewhere described as her mum (113)). There is a similar feminine use in Virginal (h) 344,2: vriunt, du zarte muome min. It is clear that by the Late Middle Ages vriunt had entered into consanguineal and even affinal use, not only as a legal term, but across a range of text types, whilst still firmly retaining its older, non-familial, meanings. 57 The late medieval verbal coinage vriunden 'to address as a vriunV suggests still a certain semantic focus (examples from the 1440s in Müller 1953: 180, also Müller 1979: 75 and 113, note 22), but unease with what was by then a perhaps awkwardly polysemous term emerges from some 14th- and 15th-century manuscripts of Hartmann's Iwein, where the noun is occasionally replaced with geselle (2742 J, 4279 D, 4850 a, 7027 b), and geverte (7739 D). 56

57

For many further examples, see Deutsches Rechtswörterbuch

s.v. Freund I.

On Gottesfreund in its specialised religious sense, mainly in Upper German from the 14th century, see Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch s.v.

mac and vriunt

105

In the 15th and 16th centuries, the semantic range of vriunt appears at its greatest. We have already seen it frequently glossing affinis, cognatus and consangwineus (also frundschafft for affinitas, cognatio, and consangwinitas) (section 3.2.1). The development of the derivative closely matches that of the simplex. Thus we encounter consanguineal fruntschafft, früntschaf(f)t in a Basel document of the 1420s (Müller 1953: 180), and in an Alemannic legal text of 1439 ( Weisthümer I, 14, Hofrodel von Altdorf): wer den des selben toten lichnam vatter aller neckst von früntschaft zu gehoerr. Likewise, freuntschaf(f)t answers to cognatio in some late 15th-century editions of the First Printed Bible (Genesis 12,1) (e.g. Pflanzmann's and Zainer's prints). 58 A Middle Bavarian treatise of the late 15th century speaks of Dy erst person des pluecz vnd frewntschaft (.Püechel von der regel der heyligen ee 209). Some versions of Bruder Berthold's Rechtssumme have vriuntschaft alongside (or instead of) magenschaft, e.g. II, 902fF. (E102): an der lineen der magenschaft A, an der linien der magenschaft C, but an der sipp der frevntschafft Β (represented by manuscript M4, Bavarian/Swabian, dated 1423). 59 By the 16th century, magschafft is sometimes being reserved for affinal bonds, in contrast with Freundschafft des Gebluets (Haltaus 1758: 1296 s.v. Magschaft: Wenn zu denselben kein Erbe im zehenden Grad der Freundschaft des Gebluets, oder im sechsten Grad der Magschafft mit Sipschafft vnd Freundschafft verwandt, vorhanden were).60

4.1.3.

Summary: mac and vriunt

Both mac and vriunt are richly attested in our corpus, with mac in particular forming the basis for a number of compounds. Mac is applicable 58

Vriunt is used for propinquus in Luther's Bible (1545): WEnn dein Bruder armet/ vnd verkeufft dir seine Habe/ vnd sein nehester Freund kompt zu jm/ ers iSse (Leviticus 25,25).

59

Cf. also III, 1600,1 (Ml): magenschafft vnd frivnUchafft M3 (East Swabian, dated 1458), magenschafft [...] vnd freüntschafft in version C (manuscript M13, Middle Bavarian, dated 1454).

verdas

Cf. also the compound blSt Freündschafft for consanguinitas in Dasypodius, Dictionarium (1536: 324 r ). On Freundschaft in this period and beyond, with particular reference to the sense 'summa cognatorum', see Götze 1910 (who does not, however, explore the use of the word in the High Middle Ages); see also the contexts and compounds relating to Freund in Diefenbach-Wiilcker 1885: 594, Dietz 1870-72: I, 71 Iff., the few examples in Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch, and the rich material in Deutsches Rechtswörterbuch s.v. Freund, Freundschaft and other compounds. Of interest too is Phillpotts 1913: 168ff., footnotes.

4. Diachronic view

106

to both male and female relatives, ranging in legal texts from the siblings to the paternal and maternal relatives at the seventh remove, if not further. Poetic texts attest mäc within a more modest range, from the brother to the third cousin once removed, but again with representation of maternal and paternal kinsfolk, and of relationships through the sister or brother. Collocations with geborn from the late 12th century onwards increasingly suggest that mac may have been intermittently extensible to non-consanguineal (affinal?) links, but firm evidence for this is not available until the 15th century. Baptismal sponsorship is also occasionally involved at this late stage. Though mac persisted to the close of our period, its later history is one of steady decline. With vriunt, the primary meaning remains 'friend' throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. Whilst the selection of mac is generally governed by perceived genealogical fact, vriunt implies a set of behavioural expectations. In certain examples from the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, a contrast with mac is sharply made. From the early textual tradition of the Nibelungenlied, on the other hand, there axe signs of random variation between mac and vriunt. There is some positive evidence that the word could connote consanguineal linkage on either side from the 1230s, at first especially in legal contexts, and normally in collocation with adjectives such as geborn. By the late 14th century (if not earlier) the term could refer to individuals within a range of kinsfolk, male and occasionally female, from the closest blood-relatives and the spouse, down to the seventh remove, and perhaps beyond. But at no stage in our history of vriunt does consanguinity emerge as the defining feature.

4.2.

niftel and neve

The Indo-European origins of Proto-Germanic *nefo(d) (m.) and *nefti (f.) are disputed. 61 Germanic descendants include Old Norse nefi, nipt, Old Saxon nevo, Middle Low German neve, nichte, Old English nefa, nift, and Old Frisian neva, nift.62 The terms niftel and neve already exhibit considerable semantic diversity, in Old High German glosses (section 3.1) 61

62

On Indo-European *ni-pot 'Nichtschutz, vaterlose Waise', see Leumann 1888. FalkTorp (1909: 292) assume the primary sense 'nicht Herr, Unmündiger'. Mezger (1960: 302) interprets Indo-European *ne-pot(i) as 'wer einen Gatten nicht hat'. See also Schulze 1966: 69ff. On Old English nefa 'sister's son, brother's son, son's son', also on nift 'brother's or sister's daughter' and nefena 'son's daughter', see Lancaster 1958: 235f.

niftel

107

and in Classical Middle High German times as represented by Wolfram's system (section 2.3). 63 Our aim in this section will be to identify and catalogue exact referential functions for these terms in other sources of our period. In view of the multiplicity of senses which will emerge, some general observations axe necessary at this stage. Once a kinship term such as niftel or neve has attained a certain degree of polysemy, it clearly becomes both inelegant and unrealistic to envisage its lexical meaning as a closed set of precise references, and a kind of semantic inversion occurs, making it easier to define the term, and conceptualise its content, by an exclusive approach (e.g. 'male consanguineal relative, excluding the following ...'). 64 It is open to the linguist to form an estimate of the historical point at which this inversion may be deemed to have occurred. Moreover, as a word of this kind outgrows a small group of fixed references, we would expect semantic change to be increasingly facilitated, and the pace of development to become exponential. A further set of tasks must therefore be to define the pace and the extremes of that development, to indicate some of the constraints which normally apply to the use of the term, and to show the degree to which users still remain attached to the older or more central meaning(s). Relevant, too, is the impact of this semantic expansion on the use of other, semantically adjacent, terms, in this case particularly muome, base, oeheim and veter, which are themselves examined later. 4.2.1.

niftel

We discovered earlier that niftel matches neptis, nepta and cognata in medieval glosses and glossaries (sections 3.1 and 3.2.5), and comes to bear in Wolfram's works the senses 'sister's daughter', 'mother's sister's daughter', and 'third cousin once removed' (possibly also 'father's sister's daughter') (section 2.3.1). Adding to this the testimony of other medieval texts, both earlier and later, we can now catalogue the following senses: • niftel [1]

'mother's sister' (?) (last quarter of the 12th century)

An uncertain example of this sense occurs in Frau Ava, Vom Leben Jesu 168 (Maurer, Die religiösen Dichtungen II, 468f.), where Mary, 'sister' (more correctly 'mother', see Kienast 1940: 87) of James and daughter of Isaac (Ysacchar), is described as des hailandes niftel. The relationship is 63

64

O n historical aspects of niftel, see E r b e n 1977: 109ff. On the inelegance of defining by summation, see also Wallace-Atkins 1960: 58.

108

4. Diachronie view

not otherwise stated internally; applying the genealogy of the 13th-century Vita beaie virginis Marie et Salvatoris rhythmica 3764ff., we may surmise that this is Mary Cleophae, Jesus's mother's sister (cf. John 19,25). • niftel [2] tury)

'father's father's brother's son's daughter' (early 13th cen-

Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois 9884 (niftelen B, niftlun CL, nuftels k), 10314 (niftlun C, niftlen L, nyftel S), 10458 (niftel(le)n BE, niftel ACMSk) (cf. 9869ff.). • niftel [3]

'sister's daughter' (first half of the 13th century)

Nibelungenlied 1298,1; 1330,1 (cf. 1298,3). Klage 1705 (cf. 1650f.). Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.1). Prose Lancelot II, 187,Iff. ( n y f f t e l ) . Ebernand von Erfurt, Heinrich und Kunegunde 3577ff. Berthold von Holle, Demantin 2133 (der niftelen min) (cf. 319). Ulrich Füetrer, Buch der Abenteuer (Gralepen), strophe 1904 (cf. 52-55). Hartmann von Aue, Erec 638, 1419 (cf. 1344fF.). In the Pleier's Meieranz (manuscript dated 1480), niftel denotes at 11546, 11648, 12710 and 12712 (address) the 'sister's daughter' (cf. 10965), though once müemel is used for the same relationship (12750). Elsewhere in this text, niftel is synonymous with vetern kint (as Diagram 4.1 shows), though the sense of veter itself remains unclear (see also Kern 1981: 126). A diminutive formation niftelin in the sense 'sister's daughter' is attested in Elisabeth 5376 (cf. 5389ff.). • niftel [4]

'mother's sister's daughter'

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.1). Walther von Rheinau, Marienleben 2900f. (diu alte nüftel din | Elyzabeth) (Mary Elizabeth), 2957 ( n ü f t e l l i n ) (Mary Elizabeth), 2971 (nüftel, variant nüftelin S) (Elizabeth Mary) (the relationship is specified 7522ff.). Heinrich von Neustadt, Apollonius 19373 ( n y f t e A), 19401 (cf. 19270fF.). Ulrich Füetrer, Buch der Abenteuer (Gralepen), strophe 1161, 1165 (both in address) (nif(f)tel, variant niftl c) (cf. 53f.) (for this relationship Ulrich also uses muemen 1167).

109

niftel

Δ-

Tydom ie

Ö

veter

veter

7345

12087

ΓΔ

niftel 7 6 0 6

Ö Dulceflor

niftel 11822

DIAGRAM 4.1: niftel and veter in Der Pleier, Meieranz

• niftel [5]

'father's sister's daughter' (?)

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.1). • niftel [6] daughter'

'father's father's father's father's brother's son's daughter's

Wolfram von £schenbach (see 2.3.1). • niftel [7]

'brother's daughter' (late 13th century)

Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 12422 (niftel) (address), 12775 (nuftel) (address) (cf. 3746f., 12377) (also niftellin as address in this sense 12577 and 12599). Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, Lanzelet 1658 (cf. 1535fF.). Wisse-Colin, Parzifal 618,32ff. (niftel). Konrad von Würzburg, Schwanritter 397 (cf. 378ff.). Väterbuch (ed. Reissenberger) 32299 (niftelen) (cf. 32273ff.). Ulrich von Etzenbach, Alexander 11803 (Mardochei Hester, cf. Vulgate, Esther 2,7 and 2,15). Albrecht, Jüngerer Titxirel, manuscripts D (Bavaro-Austrian, dated 1457) and Ε (Central German, 15th century) 1059,4 (nyffteln for bruier kint). Elisabeth von Nassau-Saarbrücken, Roman von der Königin Sibille (Rhine Prankish, 1455-72) 150, 154, 155 (nyfftel). Ulrich Füetrer, Prosaroman von Lanzelot 57.

4. Diachronic view

110

Thüring von Ringoltingen, Melusine 73,27; 73,31 (address); 74,37 (nif(f)tel). • niftel [8] tury)

'mother's mother's brother's son's daughter' (late 13th cen-

Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 13579ff.). • niftel [9]

13587 (diu nahste niftel) (cf. 10052f. and

'mother's brother's wife' (?) (late 13th century)

Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 1785: Fröwe liebu nuftel min (said by the King of France) (cf. 156fF.); also nuftellin (address) 1825. This may be regarded as an early example of affinal extension, unless the two axe separately related, or unless it is a case of regal address, of a kind that has been posited for neve (see section 4.2.2, below). • niftel [10]

'father's sister' (ca. 1300)

Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 2493,4 (in address, Artus speaking to Accedille) ( n i f t e l ) (cf. 2483f., 2487). • niftel [11]

'mother's brother's daughter' (1466)

First German Printed Bible, Genesis 29,10 ( = consobrina, Jacob => Rachel), emended from Zainer's edition (ca. 1475) onwards to seyner muter br&der tochter. • niftel [12]

'daughter's daughter' (1479)

Heinrich von dem Tiirlin, Krone 21031 (cf. 21034, 21730). What appears to be a generalised sense is attested from manuscript D (early 13th century) of Priester Wernher, Maria, page 184, line 3646 (Mary as diu niftel Dauit), with another phrase substituted in A (third quarter of the 13th century). 65 Other probable examples of the sense 65

Benecke-Müller-Zarncke interpreted this example as 'enkelin' (1854-66: II, 1, 332), presumably in an extended sense. With still more licence, Mary is invoked as Tohter dauidis in Heinrich's Litanei 219 (12th-century manuscript G). Cf. also the invocation of Mary as Fijn edel David» nichte in a South Brabant manuscript of the second half of the 14th century (Verwijs-Verdam 1885-1929: IV, 2379f.).

niftel

111

'female relative' include: Sachsenspiegel I, 27,1 (ed. Eckhardt, 95) (er naesten nichtclen); Sächsisches Weichbildrecht I, 133f. (Der frouwen nehiste nyftil = Uxoris proximiores cognatae); gloss to art. XXIII (284) (die nyftil, die der frouwen ader der jungfrouwen zugehorit von wibis halben; unde daz heisen wir die nehiste gespynne); Buch der Makkabäer 12757f. (des kunges nahe niftel). We again glimpse the generalised sense (here in parallel with neve) in Thomasin von Zerclaere, Der welsche Gast, ed. Rückert 10081, ed. von Kries 10733: zom ist niftel der trunkenkeit (neve in the (mid 13th-century?) redaction S**, nene D) (see also ed. Rückert 9895ff., ed. von Kries 10550ff. (variant swester b, Low Alemannic, end of the 14th century)); in a strophe attributed in the Kleine Heidelberger Liederhandschrift to Reinmar der Fiedler (see Walther von der Vogelweide, ed. Lachmann-Kuhn, 212f.): Got welle sone welle, doch so singet der von Seven \ noch baz dan ieman in der werlte. fraget nifteln unde neven; in Berthold von Regensburg, Predigten I, 444,Uff.: Er siht weder an nifteln noch an neven; in the Mariengrüße (Kalocsaer Codex) 91f.: waz noch nifteln unde neven | lebt mit jämer hie von Even; and in Michel Beheim, Gedichte 99,98f.: brüder und swester, dar zu kind, | neven und niffteln, wie dy sind. Niftel is often found in descriptions of the Annunciation, to denote the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth (Luke 1,36: cognata for Mary =>· Elizabeth). 66 Scripturally, only a remote relationship can be deduced, as in the cautious commentary of Bede, In Lucas Evangelium Expositio: Si quem vero movet quomodo beatas Maria: cognatam dicat Elisabeth, cum heec de domo David, ilia de filiabus Aaron originem duxerit, animadvertat proavos earum liberie invicem nuptum traditis utramque tribum potuisse conjungere (Migne, Patrologia, Series Latina 92,319). 67 During the High Middle Ages, however, the two are traditionally assumed to have been first cousins, as for example in the Latin Vita beate virginis Marie et Salvatoris rhythmica (first half of the 13th century), ed. Vögtlin, lines 3764ff. (Schönbach 1874: 531f.), and, following this, in Wernher der Schweizer's Marienleben, where the mothers of Mary and Elizabeth (Anna and Ismeria (Ysmaria) respectively) are geschwestran (1631ff.). 68 We cannot, of course, be certain that other writers will necessarily have had this particular relationship in mind when using the term, and that they are not 66

67

68

Cf. Gothic niföo (f.) for Greek συ~ηινής. For a vernacular description of Elizabeth as being von Aarones gesltehte, see Frau Ava, Johanne» 2,6 (Maurer, Die religiösen Dichtungen I, 382f.). See also the Vita lancti Servatii l,10ff. in Heinrich von Veldeke, Servatius, ed. Frings-Schieb, 7. The view is still held by Geiler von Kaysersberg (Schmeller 182737: I, 1599).

112

4. Diachronic view

instead using niftel with more general reference. In the selection of niftel, Elizabeth's considerable and well documented seniority does not seem to have played a role; from first to last, the niftel may be older or younger in this case. Examples of niftel in references to the Annunciation include the following: Adelbrecht, Johannes Baptista (Maurer, Die religiösen Dichtungen II, 334f.) (Mary =>· Elizabeth). Speculum Ecclesiae 12,27 (Elizabeth Mary) ( n i f t i l ) . Priester Wernher, Maria, page 129 (A 2313, D 2641) (Mary Elizabeth). Konrad von Fußesbrunnen, Kindheit Jesu 312 (Elizabeth => Mary) in manuscripts L and B, also in manuscripts L and C at 368 for Elizabeth Mary, and at 307 in C only for Mary Elizabeth (L and Β having mvmen, muome for this relationship at 364, as does L alone (mSmen) at 307). Priester Konrad (Altdeutsche Predigten III, 31,20) (13th century) ( n i f t e l for Mary Elizabeth). German additions to Vienna manuscript 2739* (after 1250) (Haupt 1879: 360) (Mary Elizabeth). Walther von Rheinau, Marienleben (Swiss manuscripts from the 13th century onwards) has nüftel and nüftel(l)in for Mary => Elizabeth and Elizabeth => Mary (see above, under 'mother's sister's daughter'). Gundacker von Judenburg, Christi Hort 315 (Bavaro-Austrian manuscript, late 13th century) (Mary Elizabeth). Evangeliar (Vienna manuscript 2741) (Upper German, ca. 1300) (Vollmer, Neue Texte 35) has niftel for Mary =>· Elizabeth; cf. also nichteke in the related early 15th-century Low German manuscript Hamburg Convent 13 (ibid.). Matthias von Beheim, Evangelienbuch (dated 1343), Luke 1,36 (ed. Bechstein, 116) (Mary Elizabeth) (ntftele). Hermann von Fritzlar (Deutsche Mystiker, ed. Pfeiffer, I, 80,32; 112,13; 196,40) (all Mary Elizabeth) (niftelen). St. Georgener Prediger (14th-century manuscripts) 302,14 (Mary Elizabeth) ( n i f t l e n ) . Altdeutsche Predigten I, 150,39 and 151,2 (14th-century Leipzig manuscript 760) (Mary =>· Elizabeth) (niftelen). Schauspiel von der Kindheit Jesu 388 and 399 (manuscript Swabian, 14th century) (Mone, Schauspiele I, 157) nuftel for Elizabeth => Mary (in address); but in 365 (referentially) and 377 (address) (Mone, Schauspiele I, 156) mum for Mary Elizabeth. Elsässische Legenda Aurea ('Leithandschrift', Lower Alsatian, dated 1362)

niflel

113

has niflel for Mary => Elizabeth (I, 251), but mumen for cognate (Mary => Elizabeth) in manuscript S t l (Alsatian, mid 15th century) (II, 160). Codex Teplensis (late 14th century) (Jelinek 1911 s.v. niflel) (Mary =>• Elizabeth). Ulrich von Etzenbach, Wilhelm von Wenden 3217 (15th-century manuscripts) (Mary =Φ> Elizabeth). Künzelsauer Fronleichnamspiel 1453, 1469 (Mary =>• Elizabeth) (nefftel).69 In contrast to this, we find muome for Mary Elizabeth and later the reverse, sometimes in variation or reciprocity with niflel. The early example from Konrad von Fußesbrunnen (above) is interesting but problematic. Manuscripts L (South Bavarian/South Tirol (?), second quarter of the 13th century) and Β (East Middle Bavarian, beginning of the 14th century) agree on niflel for Elizabeth => Mary (312), answered by muome for the converse relationship (364). There are three main interpretative possibilities. Is there an assumption that Elizabeth was Mary's mother's sister? Or is muome merely signalling Elizabeth's seniority in an otherwise unspecified relationship? Or has muome already attained for these scribes or their archetypes sufficient generality to bring it into reciprocity with niflel 'first cousin? female relative?'? In contrast, manuscript C (West Swabian or East Alemannic, beginning or second quarter of the 14th century) uses niflel both ways. Though close to L, C is probably to be regarded in general as a poorer representative of redaction *CL (see edition, pages 32 and 36), so that we may be disposed to regard the muome/niflel contrast as older. Its semantic value here must remain undecided. Other examples of muome for this enigmatic biblical relationship date from about 1300. Just as with niflel, so here with muome, Mary is more often attested as Ego than as Alter. Manuscripts of Bruder Philipp der Kartäuser, Marienleben have muom(e), muomen referentially for Mary =>· Elizabeth (1678, 1731, 1736, 1742, 4203), but similarly nifteln (1796, 4883); niftel is also used in address (1749) and referentially (4181) for Elizabeth => Mary; manuscript J (Bavarian, first quarter of the 14th century) of this text has niflel in more extended use for the relationship John the Baptist =>· Mary, referentially (9880) and in address (9884) (variant mume at 9880 in G, Bavarian, second quarter of the 14th c.); on the latter relationship, cf. also 4256f.: sant Johans des toufers muoter \ was Marien muomen tohter. In Heinrich's Litanei 646 (12th-century manuscript G), dine mumin refers more simply to the (unstated) relationship 69

Manuscript Ρ of Bruder Hans, Marienlieder (Lower Rhine, shortly after 1400) has nickte for Mary =>• Elizabeth (1888, 1916).

114

4. Diachronic view

John the Baptist Mary. Mume is conversely used in Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 2555,2f. (earliest manuscripts about 1300) to denote the relationship Christ => Elizabeth; but again this link is not defined in the work. Perhaps in like manner, John the Baptist is described as Kristi mumen sun in Hermann von Fritzlax, Deutsche Mystiker (ed. Pfeiffer) I, 145,18. The Middle Low Frankish Göttweiher Codex B25 (formerly 426) (dated 1373) has mune referentially and in address for Mary =>· Elizabeth, lines 155, 162, 171 (Heinzel 1874). Other examples in this connexion include: mum(um) for Mary =>· Elizabeth in the Geißlerlieder (Hübner 1931:194fF., lines 23 and 43) (manuscript from Reutlingen, mid 14th century); mum(en) for Mary => Elizabeth and its converse in the late 14th-century Alemannic manuscripts of Der Salden Hort (675, 937, 953, 1953-66; in address reciprocally 1961, 1966); mume for Mary => Elizabeth in texts B2 (Rheinhessen, before 1421) and Ν (Neckartal, dated 1465) of Die Erlösung 2639 (ed. Bartsch), 2781 (ed. Maurer); mum for Mary => Elizabeth in Heinrich von St. Gallen, Marienleben (manuscripts from the mid 15th century onwards) 162f.; also 173 in address for Elizabeth =>· Mary, and referentially 173 for both together (Dy zwu lieben mumen); Elizabeth dein mume in the Evangelien der guten Meister von Prag 11 (manuscript East Frankish, ca. 1477); mume in address (line 1480) alongside referential nefftel (1453, 1469) for Mary => Elizabeth in the Frankish/Alemannic Künzelsauer Fronleichnamspiel (manuscript dated 1479); müem(en) for Mary => Elizabeth in the late 15th-century Middle Bavarian Püechel von der regel der heyligen ee 495 and 499; mum(en) for Mary =>• Elizabeth in Marquard vom Stein, Der Ritter vom Turn (printed Basel, 1493) 201,17, 202,12, 203,6; mum for Mary =>· Elizabeth in the late 15th-century manuscripts of Michel Beheim (Gedichte, 117a,42 and 291,162). It is further symptomatic of the regression of niftel, and the broadening of muome, that in the tradition of the First German Printed Bible niftel for cognata in Luke 1,36 is replaced by mum from Pflanzmann's and Zainer's editions onwards. 70 70

See further the examples in Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch s.v. Muhme. Luther, Vom Schern Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (1543) (WA 53, 629) suggests that Elizabeth is Mary's mother's sister; he uses Mume and gefreundtin. Luther further speculates: Und ist Elisabeth jhre Mume und des HErm grosse Mume, So were Maria mit Johanne dem Teuffer geschultster kind, Und Er ein naher Vetter

niftel

115

Comparing the two terms with regard to this relationship, we register a relatively high incidence of niftel in the 12th-14th centuries, and a challenge from muome which makes itself felt mainly during the 14th and 15th centuries. The transition is neatly exemplified in the 14th-century East Central German manuscript of the Buch der Makkabäer, where Mariamne is both niftel Hyrcani (13407) and Hyrcani mume (14027) ( = neptem in Petrus Comestor, Historie, scholastica ed. Migne, 1532). There are other signs, too, that niftel was then passing into desuetude. Like some other kinship terms, niftel was subject to misreading or replacement in various late medieval textual traditions; sometimes a more general, and sometimes a more precise, formula are substituted. In Hartmann's Iwein, niftel gives way to sweat' at 5692 in Jaflr, to frewntjn at 6873 in 1, and to swester at 7750 in Jcdflr. Whilst the Credaction of the Nibelungenlied retains niftel(n) in 1330,1 ( = C 1357) (where the 15th-century Bavarian manuscript a has swester chint), the C-redaction replaces the word in 1298,1 ( = C 1325) with a reciprocal formulation (Div frowe mit ir Sheim), which is also favoured by a. Niftel is subject to misreading in Nibelungenlied 1298,1 ( i n f f e l , infeln in manuscripts b (East Swabian, perhaps Augsburg, 15th century) and d (Austrian, 16th century)), and again as ynfel in Biterolf 11551 (manuscript Austrian, 16th century). Manuscript X (South Bavarian, second half of the 14th century) of Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel omits niftel at 5157,2 for the apparently distant relationship Artus =>· Sigune. The phrase attributed to Frauenlob, ich clage die niftel und den mag (V *67,6), is represented in F (probably Nürnberg, third quarter of the 15th century) by [...] die freunde vnd die mag and in t (Mainz, ca. 1470) by [...] üch mum en vnde mag. According to the Pfeiffer edition of Berthold von Regensburg, Predigten I, 444,llf. the Brussels manuscript a (Swabian, beginning of the 15th century, see Richter 1969) has frund for ntfteln and mac for neven. The Alsatian manuscript k of Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois (first half of the 15th century) frequently reads mume, mume against niftel(e) of the B-text (2683, 2723, 2730, 3177; but nuftels 9884 in k). Manuscript Μ of Wigamur (Central German (?), ca. 1300) has niftel against m i m e in S timers Herrn Jhesu Christi im dritten gelied (630). The personal basis for this view is made plain: Jch wil die gantze Freundschaft setzen nach meiner Jdea oder begriff, Wers besser macht, der habe danck (629). St James the Great and St John the Evangelist are further, in Luther's view, to be regarded as Vettern des HERRN. Exceptionally, the Schweizerisches Idiotikon (IV, 1648if.) attests from Zwingli the phrase Die jungfrow Maria und ir bas Elisabeth. Compare, however, the citation from Geiler von Kaysersberg in Schmeller 1827-37: I, 1599: Maria und Elisabeth seind zweyer schwester tSchter gewesen und geschwisterkind miteinander und Mumen und nit Basen.

116

4. Diachronic view

(mid 14th-century Bavarian) (5116) in address to denote the reciprocal of baten sun (5036f.); the kin term is entirely absent from Wigamur W (Bavarian/Swabian, end of the 15th century). Manuscript Ρ (Rhine Prankish, ca. 1430) of the Prose Lancelot has nehste nyfftel for cousine germaine in the French text Q (II, 227,9), whilst the 16th-century Bavarian version a has nechste freunndinn; at II, 229,5, moreover, version a has Baße for nyfftel P, nifftel F, cousine Q; and at II, 304,9 version a uses Bäßlin for nyfftel P, nefftel s. As we have just seen, mum is used to replace niftel in the tradition of the First German Printed Bible from Pflanzmann and Zainer onwards (Luke 1,36 = cognata); the Zainer edition (ca. 1475) also replaces nif(f)tel with freundin in Ruth 1,15 ( = cognata) and with muter bruder tochter in Genesis 29,10 ( = consobrina). Several interpretations of these variants are possible in respect of niftel: obsolescence, restricted regional, stylistic or social currency, semantic shifting, or semantic imprecision — but at all events the substitutions collectively reveal an underlying instability. 71 Cumulatively, and taken with the shift from niftel to muome for Mary Elizabeth, they axe indicators of an obsolescence in the case of niftel which is certainly confirmed by later language history, and which tallies with the evidence from the late medieval glossaries (section 3.2.5). Derivatives of niftel are recorded from various periods. Cases of diminutive (hypocoristic?) niftelin arise from the late 13th century. On the feminine derivative form neffin, see section 3.2.5. A 15th-century GermanItalian glossary (Brenner 1892: 409) contains the entry die nefftin, lanieua (manuscripts MW, Nürnberg, 1423-24) with the variant muom in Ρ (Central German). The collective plural noun genifteln is found in Hartmann von Aue, Erec 9738. 72 The derivative nyftelschaft occurs in close variation with irs pluecz vnd frewntschaft in a Middle Bavarian treatise of the late 15th century (Püechel von der regel der heyligen ee 205), the sense being clearly 'kinship'. As early as 1300, nuftilschaft, nivftilschaft are being used in a transferred sense: aine nuftilschaft vnde hainlichi zain andir dur die gelichi dez lebinnes (St. Georgener Prediger 211,8 in manuscript G, ca. 1300; also 221,14 in G) (cf. in addition 210,23: gaischlich leben und hymelsch leben sind reht niftlen). Our documentation reveals, in conclusion, that niftel WEIS current in a general sense from the early 13th century. By the middle of the 13th cen71

On evaluating such emendations, see Vorkampff-Laue 1906, who wisely allowed for some random variation and discounted isolated cases (8), but attached importance to the collective testimony of more regular substitutions.

72

Ruiperez (1984: 72) defines this as if it were a verb.

117

niftel

Γ

ο ο 111

ο

öi

r
Gawan). Kudrun 216,2 (cf. 1112,3); 254,1, 256,3 (cf. 206,1) (neue). 7 6 Biterolf 718, 787 (address) (cf. 671); 7774 (address), 8123, 8979, 9004, 11315 (cf. 8995) (neue(n)). Other senses are found from an early date: •

neve [4]

'mother's brother' (end of the 12th century)

Konrad, Rolandslied 3866 (Roland => the Emperor), though the sense 'sister's son' predominates here (see above). Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois 10114 (cf. 8716fF.). Eilhart, Tristrant 649 (address) (neff H, nebe D) and 2235 (ne/e H; 2238 nebin D) (15th-century manuscripts) for the relationship Tristrant =Φ· Marke (cf. 636); in the same text 'mother's brother' is also signified by ohein, whilst ne/en H, nebin D denotes the 'sister's son' in 645 (see above); in 1905 nebin (for Isalde => Morolt) is conjectural, manuscripts Η and D having respectively öhem and ohm. Tristan als Mönch (?) 1523 (Tristan =>· Marke). 7 7 Prose Tristrant 986 (ne/en) (Tristrant => Marke, cf. 275). 75

For this relationship, the Alemannic manuscript Zürich A 121 (dated 1551) has feteren in its heading (Bachmann-Singer, 365).

76

T7

According to Kudrun 515,4 and 516,1, Wate is nevf to King Hetele; but from 206,1 and 1112,2fF. it can be deduced that they have a sister in common, Horant's mother. Perhaps this rests on an authorial oversight or a textual corruption; but the integrity of the example could be upheld if we were to invoke the possibility of a regal use of neve, which could conceivably have been extended even to a (half-?)brother. This relationship is internally unconfirmed. T h e text also has ne/e 1585 (address) and 1669 (referentially) for Marke Tristan, and cehein ( : mein) [ohen S] 2085 for Tristan =>· Marke.

4. Diachronic view

122

Ulrich Füetrer, Buch der Abenteuer (Gralepen), strophe 1885 (nefen) (cf. 52-54). • neve [5] 'father's mother's brother' (early 13th century (?) or late 15th century) Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois 11491 (possible example only; see below). Ulrich Füetrer, Buch der Abenteuer (Gralepen), strophe 2320 (neff) (cf. 52-55 and 2313). • neve [6]

'sister's son's son' (?) (early 13th century)

Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois 11500 (address) (possible example only; see below). • neve [7]

'mother's mother's brother' (early 13th century)

Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois 1866 (cf. 1013ff., 1036ff., 1305, 1317) (variants ohayms M, hsren 1). Johann von Würzburg, Wilhelm 18273 (cf. 14109ff.). • neve [8] 'brother's son' Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). Rudolf von Ems, Weltchronik 4038 (address) (cf. 3910); but elsewhere 'sister's son' (27086, cf. 25434 and 25441). Ulrich von Türheim, Rennewart 28735 (address) (cf. 9810ff., 24766f., 25108). Herbort von Fritzlar, Lied von Troja 118ff., 289 (nefen) (cf. 125fF.). Väterbuch (ed. Reissenberger) 32724 (neven) (cf. 32720). Virginal (h) 387,11 (cf. 387,3). Alpharts Tod 46,2; 50,2; 52,2 (cf. 62,4). Pontus und Sidonia (B) 55,20 (neve), 205,16 (address) (neffe) (cf. 45, 53, 205f.). 78

78

Cf. also Middle Dutch soete neve 'brother's son' in address, Van den Vos 1435 (cf. 176) (Verwijs-Verdam 1885-1929: IV, 2369f.).

Reinaerde

neve •

neve [9]

123

'mother's sister's son'

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). Prose Lancelot I, 95,32f. ( n e f e ) (ambiguous example; see the note under 'father's brother's son', below). Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 775,2 (mage E, 15th-century Central German) (cf. 953,4). Pleier, Meleranz 2599, 2605 (address), 2615 (address), 2665 (address) (cf. 127ff.). • neve [10]

'mother's brother's son'

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). Ulrich von Türheim, Rennewart 1410 (die neven collectively 'mother's brother's son' and 'father's sister's son'), 23352 (address for 'mother's brother's son') (cf. 228f. and 1557) (Baldewin =>· Rennewart). Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, Lanzelet 6953 (cf. 4958f., 6888ff., 6945). Biterolf 9983 (neue) (cf. 9922f.). • neve [11]

'mother's sister's daughter's son' (?)

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). This case is dependent upon the supposition that muome = 'mother's sister'. • neve [12]

'mother's father's father's brother's son's son's son's son'

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). •

neve [13]

'father's father's brother's son's son's son'

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). • neve [14]

'father's father's brother's son's son's son's son'

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). • neve [15]

'father's father's father's brother's daughter's son' (?)

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). This case is dependent upon the supposition that base = 'father's sister'.

124

4. Diachronic view

• neve [16] son'

'father's father's father's father's brother's son's daughter's

Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.3.2). • neve [17] tury)

'father's sister's daughter's son' (1259 (?) or late 13th cen-

Bjerke 1969: 30f., adducing external evidence in respect of a Cologne deed of 1259 ( Corpus der altdeutschen Originalurkunden, no. 47). Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 13581 (address) and 13731 (address) (cf. 13579ff.). •

neve [18]

'father's sister's son' (late 13th century)

Neve in this sense is not yet attested in Wolfram's usage, and the examples below are the first sign that this term has become extended to a key relationship on the father's side, the paternal cross cousin. Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 2361, 2374, 2553 (address) (cf. 2393fF.) (for this relationship base η sun 310). Ulrich von Türheim, Rennewart 1410 (collectively with 'mother's brother's son') (cf. 228f. and 1557). Kudrun 419,1 (cf. 414,3f.); 1181,1 (cf. 573-75 and 1112,2f.) (neue). •

neve [19]

'father's mother's brother's son' (late 13th century)

Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 6107 (address) (cf. 158fF., 2054fF., 5933fF.). •

neve [20]

'father's sister's son's son' (late 13th century)

Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 6111 (address) (the reciprocal of the preceding entry). •

neve [21]

'mother's mother's brother's son's son' (late 13th century)

Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 13718 (cf. 13579ff.). •

neve [22]

'father's brother' (ca. 1300)

Ulrich von Türheim, Rennewart 28631 (cf. 9810ff., 24766f., 25108).

125

neve •

neve [23]

'father's father's sister's son' (ca. 1300)

Ulrich von Türheim, Rennewart 1557, 9810ff.). •

neve [24]

'mother's father's sister's son' (ca. 1300)

Ulrich von Türheim, Rennewart •

neve [25]

26452, 26470, 26628, 26813 (cf. 1039f.,

28987 (cf. 1039f., 1557, 24672).

'sister's husband's brother' (?) (ca. 1430)

Krawutschke (1978: 135) notes that in the Prose Lancelot the Duke of Clarenze, whose brother has married Arthur's sister, is neve to Arthur and Gawan (I, 545,18f., cf. I, 306,21, 429,27 and 547,27f.). This example of affinally-extended (regal) use is not conclusive, since there exists the possibility of some other genealogical link. • neve [26] 'father's brother's son' (ca. 1430 (?) or second half of the 15th century) There is a delightfully ambiguous example early in the Prose Lancelot I, 93,16 (address, Lancelot =>· Lionel, cf. 95,32f.). The two are the sons of two brothers and two sisters, so that nefe may be here denoting either the paternal or the maternal parallel cousin. Later we find for Lancelot =>· Bohort (Lionel's brother) the phrase nekster nefe (II, 345,4, with the variant naher gesipter freünndt in the 16th-century Bavarian version a). Further examples: Ulrich Füetrer, Prosaroman von Lanzelot 88, 92 (nefen), 136 ( n e f e n ) , 214 (neff in address) (cf. Iff.); Pontus und Sidonia (B) 49,9 (neffen); 58,6 (neve); 61,25 (neven); 90,11 ( n e f f e n s ) (cf. 45, 53, 205f.). •

neve [27]

'mother's father's brother' (15th century)

Virginal (h) 901,8 (cf. 155,7ff.; 157,1; 159,2f.; 181,Iff.; 194,4, etc.). •

neve [28]

'brother's daughter's son' (1455-72)

Elisabeth von Nassau-Saarbrücken, Roman von der Königin (neffe in address).

Sibille

154

4. Diachronic view

126

• neve [29] 'mother's mother's sister's son's son's son' (second half of the 15th century) Heinrich von Veldeke, Servatius 253 (Jesus • neve [30] tury)

Servatius, cf. 216ff.).

'father's brother's son's son' (second half of the 15th cen-

Ulrich Füetrer, Prosaroman von Lanzelot 239 (nefen) (cf. Iff.), with the word denoting also 'father's brother's son' and 'husband's brother's son' in this text. •

neve [31]

'husband's brother's son' (second half of the 15th century)

Ulrich Füetrer, Prosaroman von Lanzelot 248 (cf. Iff.). •

neve [32]

'husband's sister's son' (1479)

Heinrich von dem Türlin, Krone 12471f. (cf. 12882). •

neve [33]

'son's son's son' (16th century)

Albrecht von Halberstadt XXX, 226 (neben) (cf. 227ff.). An interesting combination is found in the textual tradition of Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois. For neve (1136) (Artus Gawan) we may choose to assume the traditional sense 'sister's son', though this is apparently uncorroborated in the text itself; manuscript S (Bavaro-Austrian on an Alemannic basis, late löth century) substitutes öheim here, whilst Μ (Bavaro-Austrian with Central German elements, second half of the 15th century) avoids the term by re-formulation. But in 10114 (cf. 8716ff.) neve explicitly denotes the 'mother's brother', with öhaim as a variant in S; the entire passage is missing in M. In the earliest period of this textual tradition therefore (early 13th century), there axe signs that neve is partially self-reciprocal; yet two centuries later, an Upper German scribe appears to be avoiding neve, and countenancing cekeim, in both senses, 'mother's brother' and 'sister's son'. The regional implications will be considered in section 5.2. Alongside this there is evidence of further, in this case upward, extension, dating from the earliest witnesses. For the link Gwigalois => Joram ('mother's mother's brother', cf. 1013ff. and 5815ff.) we find both ceheim (5818, variants oheim AM, ome B, ome 1, Shain C, öhem k) and neve (1866, cf. also 1036ff.), with substitutions in Μ (ohayms) and 1 (West

neve

127

Central German, late 15th century) (hsren). Assuming the traditional relationship between Artus and Gawan, we may tentatively consider the further senses 'father's mother's brother' for neve (11491) (Gwigalois => Artus), and 'sister's son's son' (11500); in 11491 (but not 11500) it is the 14th-century Swabian manuscript C which re-formulates, whilst M, which apparently preserves neve at 11491, has Gwigalois addressing Artus some lines later as Her ohaym (11504). If Wirnt and his scribes regarded Gawan as Arthur's sister's son, then it emerges that both neve and ceheirn are upwardly extensible in the oldest extant manuscripts of this text, but that some exponents of the later tradition preferred ceheim in such applications. As well as engaging semantically with aeheim, neve extended its reference within the set of paternal kinsfolk. Encroachment upon the referential terrain of veter is first evident from Ulrich von Türheim, Rennewart, which (as indicated above) has neve part-reciprocally for 'brother's son' and 'father's brother', alongside other uses of the term, and with an otherwise stable pattern of usage in this text for veter, base and ceheim in their 'Classical' meanings (for details, see below). Even where the precise sense of neve is indeterminate, its relationship to other kinship terms can be illuminating. That it overlapped semantically with ceheim from the end of the 12th century is shown by the examples tinder 'mother's brother' (above), and later in the Nibelungenlied, where the connexion Wolfhart => Hildebrant is conveyed in close succession by neve (2300,4) (used referentially) and ceheim (2301,1) (used in address) (cf. Hoffmann 1974: 47). Can it be that in this solemn moment the address use called forth the more precise (and respectful?) term? In the former example, we find neve emended to Sheim in Ih. 79 The same emendatory procedure can be illustrated from the Sigenot·, though the sense is not explicit, the 14th-century Alemannic manuscript L (for the Alterer Sigenot) has neven 64,9, and the conservative text s 1 (Alsace, ca. 1450) (for the Jüngerer Sigenot) has nefen 64,5 — both cases giving way to aehein in the later tradition. In Morant und Galie, neve(n) (932ff., 1117fF., 1131, etc.) is used for the unspecified link Morant Fuquinet and Elinant, whilst for the opposite link we find omen at 4478, also at 1900 in manuscript A (15th century); here the early 15th-century manuscript C, and even the older fragments Μ (ca. 1400), have η even, neuen, which is therefore partly self-reciprocal in C. The Prose Lancelot uses neve to reciprocate öhem (the latter for Symeu => Joseph of Arimathea) in I, 617,11 and 17, 7d

The Swabian manuscript I bears the date 1323, but according to Becker (1977: 147) it must be placed ca. 1300. Its copy h is from the Tirol, ca. 1450-55 (see Becker 155).

128

4. Diachronic view

and to reciprocate öhe(i)m (Lambagus =*> Phariens) in I, 81,9 and 26, but in I, 548,1 and 9 neve (in address) more remarkably denotes the öheims sun and the mumen sun. Further equivalences are neve in address (Kaylet =Φ· Tschinotulander) for siner rehten mumen kint in Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 1062-63, and neve for vettern pam (manuscript vertern) in Pleier, Garel 14566 (cf. 13679). From the close of our period, Ulrich Füetrer, Buch der Abenteuer (Gralepen) has both neff and Shaim for 'mother's brother' (as above, and in section 4.3.3); elsewhere in this text nef(f) is used interchangeably with Shaim (strophes 596f., 1854, 1869) and with mage (441, 1797). Version Β of Pontus und. Sidonia has neve and vetter, each being used in the senses 'brother's son' and 'father's brother's son' (see above, and section 4.3.4); in the same text, moreover, aeheim is found in the latter sense, and two others, giving us overall the structure represented in Diagram 4.3.

mother's brother

father's brother

father's brother's son

brother's son

DIAGRAM 4.3: Multiple reference i

Pontus und Sidonia (version B )

Against this background of increased generality, we occasionally find instances of deliberate contextual restriction in our 15th-century sources. To denote the 'brother's son', explicit limitation is employed in Ulrich Füetrer, Buch der Abenteuer (Gralepen), strophe 2277 (wann er von naher sippe was sein neff), and in Pontus und Sidonia (B) 64,11 (sin nester neve); cf. also 192,10 (vwer nehster neffe). The father's brother's son (and/or the mother's sister's son) is styled nehster nefe in the Prose Lancelot II, 345,4. As with niftel, there axe occasional signs that neve was in fact used in the general sense 'male relative' (though perhaps with certain implicit limitations) from the late 12th century onward. The following loci are relevant:

Κ

λ

Δ Ο

Α

neve

Ö

Κ

Α

Δ

neve?

ό

1

neve>

neve

L·^.

neveiL

Δ

iL neve

neveik

neve

neve A

A

A neve

5

neve j

ö A neve

neve

A

neve

DIAGRAM 4.4: Synopsis of neve

A

neve

A

neve

κ neve

EGO

ό

η

nevei

Δ A neve

A

A

A

neve?

neve?

neve?

Γ neve

neve?

A

~

6

I 1ι

neve

neve

neve

neve

Ο 1

neve?

A

1

A

A

A

A

neve

A

neve

A

A A

neve

129

neve

König Rother 3415ff. 80 Konrad von Würzburg, Goldene Schmiede 956f. (din sun ist worden unser mac I den gap uns din geburt ze η even). Cato, Zwettler Verdeutschung (14th century) (Neuwirth 1887) 36f.: Vnd dine vrivnt mine | Habe dinen neven lieb (= cognatos)·, later manuscripts (ed. Zatocil) have the following variants: magen A, Swabian, 15th century (95), freunde F, 15th century (116), dy dyr angheboren syn and dy deyne neesten syn Η (15th century) (142). Prose Lancelot I, 617,22 (Lancelot and Symeu are related very distantly through Joseph of Arimathea). Konrad Fleck, Flore und Blanscheflur 3684 (with the significant addition unser neve vtl nahe). Mariengrüße (Kalocsaer Codex) 91f. (waz noch nifteln unde neven \ lebt mit jamer hie von Even). First German Printed Bible, Numbers 10,29, Judges 1,16, John 18,26. (In all three cases, the word stands for cognatus and is replaced by freund, frevmdt from the Zainer edition onwards.) The broad generality of the term is also strongly suggested in the Passional 592,9ff. (Von sante Martino): ritter was er und also | hete in die werlt an sich do I genumen zeime neven.81 There are similar indications in the strophe attributed to Reinmar der Fiedler (see niftel, section 4.2.1). In the 13th-century redaction of Heinrich der Glichezaere's Reinhart Fuchs (Heidelberg manuscript, cod. pal. 341,14th century, ed. Reissenberger and ed. Diiwel), the animals typically address one another as neve (1676; cf. also 1659ff., where sippebluot is invoked); elsewhere in this text we find the abstract derivative neveschaft (327). 82 Generality is again evident in a play from the second half of the 15th century, where Mary and Joseph address one another as newe and mume (Hessisches Weihnachtsspiel 155 and 159), Joseph being of Dauids geschlechte (75), and Mary presumably being, like her kinswoman Elizabeth, de filtabus Aaron (Luke 1,5). 83 For a 80

There is evidence of partial self-reciprocal use already in König Rother 3431 (ad-

dress: trui neve min) and 3440 (for Lüppolt =Φ· Wolfrät and vice versa). 81

On neve in rhyme, see Brunner 1981: 289ff. On the phrase nu zu ο, des der neve si, see Wernher der G a r t e n e r e , Helmbrecht 426; Ottokar, Österreichische Reimchronik

4666, 61668, 72361. For a legal explanation, see Pfannmüller 1917. Of idiomatic interest too i s t h e line f r o m Seifrid 82

A«

ne//'. See also Ruberg 1988.

Settling

3, 244: die Beier

sprechent:

'sich

üf,

C f . Joseph fili David in M a t t h e w 1,20; Joseph fili regis David in t h e early 13thcentury V i t a beate virginis Marie et Salvatoris rhythmica 1677.

130

4. Diachronic view

similar example of nefe and mueme in verse, see Der Mönch von Salzburg, Die geistlichen Lieder G 22, strophes 1 and 2 (manuscripts Bavaro-Austrian, 15th century). Like niftel, neve is increasingly prone to replacement in scribal practice, and some cases have already been detailed above. A tendency to substitute frewnd(t) for neve is apparent in manuscript 1 (Upper Bavaria or Tirol, dated 1468) of Hartmann's Iwein (2457, 7600, 7610, 7723); at 2457 we find the further substitution mag already in the early 14th-century Lower Austrian J-text. The Middle Prankish manuscript Β (dated 1323) of Ulrich von Türheim, Tristan has the periphrasis siner swester sun 3445. From the second half of the 14th century, the South Bavarian manuscript X of Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel shows replacement of neve (in address) with mag (Artus => Tschinotulander) (4624,4), though in 4621,1 neve (again in address) is retained. The 15th-century (Bavarian?) manuscript Η of Wolfdietrich (Β) has okem as a variant for neve at 488,3; the term is lacking in Κ (Augsburg, dated 1516). Version a (Bavarian, 1539-76) of the Prose Lancelot frequently has vetter in contrast to neve, nefe of the 15thcentury Rhine Prankish manuscript P, where the French version Q has cousins, e.g. II, 220,17 and 221,12; at II, 308,7, ne/e in Ρ is paralleled by Blutsver&anndter and Lieber vetter vnnd freunndt in a. We referred above to the replacement of neve in the tradition of the First German Printed Bible. Virginal (h) 733,12 has neve in address (variant vetter in the 15thcentury (Bavarian?) fragment E) for Hildebrant Wolfhart, as frequently in this text; occasionally neve is used for Wolfhart =>• Hildebrant, as in 615,12 (address), 692,11 (address) and 896,7.

Our findings with regard to neve may be summarised as follows. Referentially, neve was widely applicable already in the 12th century, with some four senses surfacing by the year 1200. In this respect, it appears to be developing in advance of niftel, which exhibits only a single specific sense by this date, but the apparent time-differential may well be attributable to the difference in overall frequency; textually, semantic developments are captured earlier in the case of the commoner term. Wolfram's usage contributes eight or nine further senses for neve, some of which are paralleled elsewhere, and a few of which axe of a remoteness unique in our corpus. By 1300, some 24 senses in all are attested for neve (against 10 for niftel). Approximately 33 senses for neve and 12 for niftel have emerged by the close of our period, nearly all of them lying within two generations of Ego, and predominantly within generations ±1. In the senses of neve in specific reference prior to Wolfram, the maternal and sororial relatives are overwhelmingly represented; there is one dubious case of 'father's mother's

muome

131

brother'. Wolfram himself occupies a transitional position, using neve to denote maternal and paternal relatives in roughly equal measure, though with some asymmetry, and with the possibility of honorific or regal use, as mentioned in section 2.3.2, and in 4.2.1 with niftel. After Wolfram our material shows a fuller unfolding of paternal relationships, though (perhaps in response to a strong literary convention) the most frequently-attested sense throughout the Middle Ages remains 'sister's son'. In a few examples of early and later date, a broad, generalised sense can be detected. Very occasionally, neve was applicable to affines. There are signs in 14th- and 15th-century texts that copyists avoided neve in favour of mag, freund, oeheim and vetter, probably because, like niftel, it was becoming obsolete in certain regions.84 We will be returning to the regional aspect in section 5.2.2. Finally, for both niftel and neve, we note the capacity of our material to document a multiplicity of senses during the period before IS00, despite our decision to rely on manuscript datings, rather than necessarily attributing our loci to the originals. It will be helpful to bear this capacity in mind as we now turn to other terms, for which early evidence of semantic diversity is largely lacking. The contrasting case of niftel and neve shows that silence to be a significant one.

4.3.

muome, base, oeheim, veter

The four terms muome, base, ceheim and veter form in early medieval glosses, in Wolfram's work, and elsewhere, a symmetrical structure in which the distinctive features are sex of Alter and sex of connecting relative.85 The later glossaries and vocabularies (3.2) have already provided us with some signs of instability and semantic neutralisation during the later Middle Ages, and in this section the progression can be more fully charted.

84

For examples of neve after 1500, see (with caution) Ruiperez 1984: 53ff., and for Bavarian Schmeller 1827-37: I, 1730. Kluge-Mitzka 1963: 505 note the absence of Neffe from the 16th century onwards in Bavarian, Swabian and Swiss dialects. See also section 3.2, above.

85

On the parallel set in Old English, see Lancaster 1958: 235.

4. Diachronic view

132 4.3.1.

•

muome

muome [1]

'mother's sister' (late Old High German)

For muome, which was probably in origin a hypocoristic form of muoter, the sense 'mother's sister' is discernible from late Old High German onwards, in glosses for matertera (3.1), and in the following cases: Notker, Martianus Capella, page 5, lines 3f.: τηύοπια, Amor (filius Veneris, page 3, line 13) =Φ· Gratia (soror Veneris, page 5, lines If.). Wolfram von Eschenbach (see 2.4.1). Marien Himmelfahrt 396, 443 (cf. 251f., 394, 910) (mtime(n), for the relationship St John the Evangelist =Φ· Mary). 8 6 Rudolf von Ems, Weltchronik 4962; the offspring of Lot's incestuous union with his daughters are brothers to one another by reason of Lot's pa86

The Klagenfurter Gebete (12th century) (Maurer, Die religiösen Dichtungen II, 324f.) make St John the Evangelist the mSmen [svne?] of Christ. In Frau Ava, Vom Leben Jesu 54 (Maurer II, 418f.), there is reference to iacobü [...] Christes mSmen sun. Externally, the view that St John the Evangelist, St James and Jesus were the sons of sisters is supported by the genealogy of the Vita beate Virginia Marie et Salvatoris rhythmica (early 13th century) (Schönbach 1874: 531f. and ed. Vögtlin); cf. also Petrus Comestor, Hisioria scholastica 38 (ed. Migne, Patrologia, Series latino 198, 1559) and a comment of Hermann von Fritzlar, Deutsche Mystiker I, 145,20f. Seen in this context, a number of other, internally unconfirmed, loci can be regarded as potential cases of muome 'mother's sister'. The mid 14th-century Heimelein von Konstanz, page 124, strophe 45 has a reference to Johannes, gotes muomen barn, \ Swangelist genennet·, see also the late 14th-century Alemannic manuscript of Der Speiden Hort, where St John the Evangelist is Jesus's mumen sun (5633) (on this relationship, see Adrian's notes, pages 101 and 219). Conversely, a 14th-century East Central German manuscript (Leipzig 760) (Altdeutsche Predigten I, 154,40 and 259,21) makes Mary the mSme of St John the Evangelist. In the Füssener Marienklage, strophe 9 (page 17), m&me is used by John in addressing Mary, reciprocating her use of neue, strophe 8, with marginal variant freind by Hand III (see ed., 9). Of possible relevance, too, are the lines from Hugo von Trimberg, Renner 3175ff.: Wenne der zweifboten fünf sint | Unser» kernen muomen kint; cf. the Vita beate virginis Marie et Salvatoris rhythmica, lines 3764ff.: ex his apostolis cognati \ Erant quinque Jesu Christi. A case apart is the simultaneous use of muome and muoter for John =Φ· Mary in the Marienklage, with the latter term denoting an adoptive relationship, for example in the Lichtenthaler Marienklage (Bavaro-Austrian manuscript, late 13th- or 14th-century) 55: Lieweu mum und muter mein, and in the Erlauer Marienklage (Bavaro-Austrian manuscript, first half of the 15th century) 170: Maria, miter unde mime mein, also mime 259, reciprocating freunt 80, 108 (address), and neve 267 (address); at 159ff. Mary addresses John as fili nove, I fili novo federe \ matris et matertere. The biblical basis of this relationship is given in John 19,26f. We find also neben (: sweben) for Jesus =>· John in Central German (Wachinger 1973: 211).

muome

133

ternity, and at the same time mumin hint 'mother's sister's children' with respect to one another. 87 Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 1424,1; 4443,1; 5237,4 (mimen, variant mumen X ) (cf. 652fF., 676f.); also 1854,4 the diminutive m&nel A, m&mel X . Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, Lanzelet 6231 (cf. 2495, 4958f.). Lohengrin

732 (muomen

sun) (cf. 729).

Elisabeth 5366 (mume) (cf. 5389fF.). Heinrich von Neustadt, Apollonius 19266, 19270fF., 19357

(müme(nj).

Wenzel-Bibel (Jelinek 1911 s.v. mume) (mumen translating materterae in

Leviticus 20,19). Basel document of 1420-33 (Müller 1953: 187f.) (mümen). Prose Lancelot I, 130,17 (cf. I, l,lff.). Ebernand von Erfurt, Heinrich und Kunegunde 3591, 3596 (cf. 3576fF.). Pleier, Meleranz 12600f. (cf. 127fF.). Albrecht von Halberstadt VI, 90 mume for matertera in Ovid, Metamorphoses I I , 746.

•

[muome] [la] 'wife's sister's daughter' (m$mel first half of the 13th

century? mümen, mimelin

ca. 1 3 0 0 )

On m%mel in this sense in manuscript G of Wolfram's Titurel (perhaps first half of the 13th century), and mimen, mtimelin in Μ (ca. 1300), see section 2.4.1. Cf. also m&mel in Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 781,4 (Gamuret Sigune). As far as the simplex is concerned, Wolfram's usage as attested in manuscripts of Parzival and Willehalm gives as yet no hint of change. Only from the end of the 13th century are there definite signs that the meaning of muome itself has developed further. We have already examined under niftel (4.2.1) the use of muome in Konrad von Fußesbrunnen, Kindheit Jesu, Bavaro-Austrian manuscripts L (first half of the 13th century) and Β (beginning of the 14th century) for the undefined relationship Mary =>· Elizabeth; it is not clear whether the term is here being used in a specific or in a general sense, though the former is not precluded. Otherwise, according to our sources, the new senses surface in the following order:

87

For a riddle based upon this set of relationships, see Grenzmann 1978: 221. See also Wilmanns 1870: 169 and 180, and in Old English The Riddles of the Exeter Book (ed. Tupper) no. 47, pages 36f. and 179f.

4. Diachronic view

134 •

muome [2]

'father's father's sister's daughter's daughter' (?) (1262)

This case is both problematic and regionally peripheral. Relying on external information, Bjerke (1969: 33f.) cites müne in two Middle Frankish deeds of 1262 and 1264, Corpus der altdeutschen Originalurkunden nos. 59 and 79, in the sense 'second cousin' ('father's father's sister's daughter's daughter'). There is no internal documentary support for this sense. •

muome [3]

'mother's mother' (1290 (?) or 1479)

Another difficult, but more centred, case arises from a Regensburg deed of 1290, Corpus der altdeutschen Originalurkunden no. 1304, in which Bishop Heinrich of Regensburg refers to each of two brothers, Konrad and Heinrich von Hohenfels, as his Shaim, and to their mother, Kunegund, as his m%m. He can scarcely be using both terms in their traditional senses. If ceheim is being employed in its 'Classical' sense, then muome must here mean 'mother's mother'; if muome has remained stable, then oeheim refers to the 'mother's sister's son'. There is the third possibility that both terms may have shifted. In its reference to Alter, therefore, muome has ascended one generation, or ceheim has descended by the same amount; or both axe being applied more freely. The sense 'mother's mother' is later firmly documented in Heinrich von dem Türlin, Krone 13179f., 13577 (cf. 12882, 13180f.) (manuscript Ρ dated 1479). 88 •

muome [4]

'mother's brother's daughter' (1336)

Wisse-Colin, Parzifal (LVI) (cf. 616,15f., 838,39). •

muome [5]

'sister's daughter' (second half of the 14th century)

This sense is of importance as being the part-reciprocal of the oldest recorded German sense 'mother's sister'. For the diminutives mumel (ca. 1300), mümli (ca. 1448) and müemel (1480) in this sense, see below. Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 795,4 ( m u m as address for Sigune =Φ· Herzeloude in manuscript X, South Bavarian, second half of the 14th century, for archetypal mumel). Berthold von Holle, Demantin 1356 (cf. 319). Pontus und Sidonia (A) (King of Scotland =*· Genefe). 88

Elisabeth Schmid (1986: 223f.) sees this use of the term as stemming from Heinrich himself, and offers a literary interpretation on this basis. To the linguist, at least, the lateness of the textual tradition suggests a more guarded approach to this pair of late 15th-century attestations.

muome •

muome [6]

135

'mother's mother's sister's daughter' (1382)

In the manuscript (dated 1382) of Wernher der Schweizer's Marienleben (6235), the phrase mumen sun denotes the relationship Jesus John the Baptist (or its converse). From lines 1631-43 it is clear that the poet h a d in mind the traditional relationship of Mary and Elizabeth as parallel first cousins, which gives us the sense 'mother's mother's sister's daughter' for mume.

•

muome [7]

'brother's daughter' (1391)

Letter from Erzherzogin Beatrix of Austria to Landgraf Balthasar von Thüringen (Vienna, 1391) (Steinhausen, Deutsche Privatbriefe I, 18, no. 19) (unser lieben mumen). Letter from Herzog Wilhelm von Sachsen to his brother Kurfürst Friedrich von Sachsen (Coburg, 1446) (Steinhausen, I, 44f., no. 58) (muhmen). Virginal (h) 160,3; 203,7 (address); 423,7 (cf. 159,2f.; 194,4; 266,4; 281,12f.; 352,9). Letter from Markgraf Albrecht von Brandenburg to King Christian of Denmark (1465) (Steinhausen, I, 71f., no. 94) (cf. I, 70f., no. 93) (m&men). Letter from Kurfürst Albrecht von Brandenburg to Markgraf Johann (Ansbach, 1471) (Steinhausen, I, 97, no. 133) (mumen); Albrecht addresses his brother's daughter as Liebe mume (126, no. 176), but also as tochter (97, no. 134). Dietrichs erste Ausfahrt, strophes 284 (mumen), 326 (mume in address), 408 (mumlein in address) (cf. 317 and 538). 89

•

muome [8]

'mother's sister's daughter' (ca. 1400)

This sense co-occurs with 'mother's sister' in the late 14th- or early 15thcentury manuscript of Heinrich von Neustadt, Apollonius von Tyrland 19357f. (cf. 19270ff.). It is found also in Ulrich Füetrer, Buch der Abenteuer (Gralepen), strophe 1167 (m&emen) (cf. 53f.), the same relationship being denoted in 1161 and 1165 by nif(f)tel.

89

· For later examples of this sense, and others, see Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch s.v. Muhme. See also Schweizerisches Idiotikon IV, 230f.; Schoof 1900: 244fF.; Ruiperez1984: 43ff.

4. Diachronic view

136 •

muome [9]

'father's sister' (15th century)

From the 15th century, glossaries indicate im extension to the 'father's sister' (glossing amita (3.2.6); see also Schottelius 1663: 1366). 90 This is corroborated by Wilhalm von Orlens (base manuscript East Swabian, 15th century), which has mumellin 1253 (address) (variants müme min L, müm min C), also mum 1269 (address), 1294 (address) (avoided in L), and mumen 1360 (avoided in C) for 'father's sister' (cf. 1239ff.). •

muome [10]

'father's brother's daughter' (1446-53)

This further patrilateral extension is attested for müm in a Basel document of 1446-53 (Müller 1953: 189). •

muome [11]

'father's father's sister' (?) (15th century)

In Elsbet Stagel's Leben der Schwestern zu Töß (15th-century manuscripts) 113, mum is used in respect of the relationship Elisabeth (daughter of King Andreas III of Hungary) =Φ· St Elisabeth of Thuringia, the latter being in fact a daughter of the former Elisabeth's great-grandfather Andreas II, though we cannot infer from the text itself that Elsbet knew the precise relationship; elsewhere (101) she denotes it with frund. •

muome [12]

'female relative' (15th century)

During the 15th century, the forms mome, mum are found glossing cognata, cf. Diefenbach 1857: 130b (later also Dasypodius 1536: 144 r Cognata Ein verwante baß odder mume). The equivalence mum — cognata in some editions of the First German Printed Bible (Ruth 1,15, Luke 1,36) has already been noted. Mume is used by Joseph to address Mary in the late 15th-century Hessisches Weihnachtsspiel 155 and 159, reciprocating newe, the consanguineal relationship being (as we have seen in 4.2.2) distant and undefined; for a similar use of mueme and nefe in verse, see Der Mönch von Salzburg, Die geistlichen Lieder G 22, strophes 1 and 2 (manuscripts Bavaro-Austrian, 15th century). 9 1 Affinal applications sire evident in 15th-century private correspondence. The Duchess Elisabeth of Bavaria, writing from Cologne in 1433, addresses 90

91

As a parallel, moeye is recorded for Kleve (1477) in Gerard van der Schueren, Teuthonista (ed. Verdam, 237) in the senses 'mother's sister', 'father's sister' and 'first cousin'. Mome (for French ante) reciprocates nefe in the Prose Lancelot III, 96,14 (the 16th-century Bavarian version a instead having Baße).

muome

137

Duke Wilhelm of Bavaria as vetter, and refers to his wife as mum, mumen (Steinhausen, Deutsche Privatbriefe I, 36, no. 44); there is a similar case on page 42, no. 54 (1442). The affineil sense is indicated here for one of the terms, if the parties are not otherwise related. 92 Of interest as a possible popular idiom is the following passage from Johannes Tauler, Predigten 376,3f.: La din ruschen, din mengelen, din wirrewarren sin; das bevilch diner mumen und blip bi dir selber. Diminutive formation was much favoured. Müemel appears in the Pleier, Meleranz (manuscript dated 1480) 12750 for 'sister's daughter' (cf. 10965); Müller (1979: 77) records also mümli (ca. 1448) from Basel in this sense. In the early tradition of Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel (ca. 1300), mfimel at least is already polysemous, denoting not only 'sister's daughter', 93 but also 'wife's sister's daughter', 94 and 'mother's sister'. 9 5 For mvmel, mvmelin 'wife's sister's daughter' in manuscripts G and Μ respectively of Wolfram's Titurel, see earlier in this section. 96 Müemel (with variants mumeltn A, mumeli C) is found in address mode in Ulrich von dem Tiirlin, Willehalm 267,15 (the Empress Arabel), the sense being unclear (cf. also müemeli in the Alemannic version of this text, edited as Arabel by W. Schröder, 1844). The general sense '(younger?) female relative' is apparent for muomel in Hugo von Langenstein, Martina (manuscript Alemannic, ca. 1350): Ein gespil vnd ein muomel \ Der kivschin gottes engel (213,22f., page 536). A Bavarian legal text of 1406 employs the diminutive mumbling(en), apparently in the general sense 'kinswoman (on the mother's side?)' (Monumenta Boica IX, 240). Mümlin is attested from an Augsburg chronicle (dated 1426) (Die Chroniken der schwäbischen Städte: Augsburg I, 321). M&mellin is found in address for 'father's sister' in the 15th-century Wilhalm von Orlens, likewise mumiein for 'brother's daughter' in Dietrichs erste Ausfahrt (manuscript BavaroAustrian, second half of the 15th century) (see above). 97

92

The principle of affinal extension is here applied even to sweater ('sister-in-law' in Steinhausen I, 40, no. 49 (1439), and 45, no. 58 (1446)).

93

Jüngerer

94

Gamuret = > Sigune, 781,4.

Titurel 795,4 as address ( m i m X); 1151,4.

95

1854,4: mSmel A, m&mel X; mvemeη

96

The sense 'Schwägerin' is cited by Lexer 1872-78: I, 2239, with a reference to the Monumenta Zollerana III, 309 (document dated 1354); but inspection of the passage did not confirm Lexer's semantic interpretation.

BD, mimen

Ε.

97

For further examples of müm(b)l(e)in, mümel, see Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch s.v. Mühmlein. A compound grotemome, grote m i m e is attested in Low German (examples of 1350-90 and 1416 in Müller 1979: 58f.).

138

4. Diachronic view

» ε ο 3 Ε

K >

« ε ο

Kl·

φ Ε ο

« — Ε® ο φ

Ε ο 3

φ—

ε :3ε εε

®3

φ

Π κ >

Φ

ε ε Ο Φ 3 k ι εε

ε γ Ο

Ξ I —ο> Φ

ο 3

Ε

03 'En Λ

Ό

Ο

α cn iö

Ό I-

Γ< Φ φ

r^l·

εECL· Hildebrant ('father's brother', cf. 398, 652, 659f.). In C 1741, fetter is also used for the link Hildebrant =>· Wolfhart (here 'brother's son'), which in redaction A is denoted by neve (198,2). The 14th-century Thuringian manuscript of version Ρ uses veter 684 (address), veteren 725, vetir 729 (address) for the relationship Wolfhart =>• Hildebrant, which is here unspecified, and equally wetere 235 in address for Wolfhart =Φ· Ilsan (Hildebrant's brother, 138 and 583ff.). In manuscripts sh (15th century) (305,4), Shin is used in address for Hildebrant Wolfhart. The 15th-century manuscript of redaction D (D 3 ) consistently uses oheim for Wolfhart =i- Hildebrant, for which the sense 'mother's brother' is confirmed by D 81,5f. In addition, D 207,1 (address), 276,2, 478,1 (address) and 498,3 (address) have oheim in the sense 'sister's son' for Hildebrant =>· Wolfhart. Redaction F (13thand 14th-century fragments) employs vette' (II, 15,2) for the link Alphart (Wolfhart's brother in III, 3) =>• Hildebrant, and in addition vetere (V, 14,3) for Wolfhart Ilsan, who (at least according to A 104,4, 141,3, 144,4, C 782, D 95,4 and Ρ 138, 583ff.) is a brother to Hildebrant and (D 125,4) to Wolfhart's mother. Finally, C 658 has fetter in address for Ilsan =Φ· Wolfhart. 1 3 8 The complex and fragmentary evidence is presented in Diagram 4.12 and can be summarised as follows: Rosengarten C, taken in isolation, has a self-reciprocal veter 'father's brother' + 'brother's son', partly in variation with oeheim 'father's brother'; Rosengarten D provides standard loci for oeheim 'mother's brother' and for its reciprocal 'sister's son'; Rosengarten F and Ρ (if we were to impute to them the relationships defined in D) would have veter 'mother's brother'; if we were instead to 138

We note in passing that in Rosengarten (D) 81ff. bruoder is unambiguously used for the sister's husband, an extension which must encourage us to treat all such references with some caution.

170

4. Diachronic view

use the linkages defined in C, veter would simply have the older sense 'father's brother'. We have already detected the loss of patrilateral-matrilateral distinction in the late medieval glossaries (3.2.6) and in Schottelius's practice (3.3), as well as in the generalised use of öchem and vetter in Thüring von Ringoltingen, Melusine (Diagram 4.10, above). 139 Veter appears several times in Biterolf (early 16th-century manuscript). At no point can the sense be determined on internal evidence, but the case is of interest in three ways: (1) The phrases der lieben vettern tochter mein 5575, der vettern sun sein 6008, like basen sun 2108, meiner basen kindt 9921, meiner pasen kind 12529, and seiner mummen kinde 12841, suggest that — whether for this manuscript or its antecedents — these three terms at least were not automatically extendable to Alter's children but still retained some precision of reference. (2) Vetter appears in address (Wicnant Hildebrant, 10324) in what seems to be a linguistically conservative text. (3) Vetter is used in 12932 for Wolfwin Hildebrant; but Wolfwin and Hildebrant are both oheim to Wolfhart (9355; 7889), and in 8995ff. Hildebrant is Wolfhart's mother's brother. The kin terms of this text are otherwise semantically traditional and stable, and we axe led to conjecture that the text may be tacitly citing here two Wolfharts, father and son, as in the case of the two Elses. This suggestion would give us the structure detailed in Diagram 4.13, which contains no violation of the old equations veter 'father's brother' and oeheim 'mother's brother'. An occurrence of vetem in manuscript a (dated 1441) of version Β of Herzog Ernst (550) suggests the underlying sense 'relatives in general'; manuscript b has an alternative reading here. Other 14th- and 15thcentury textual substitutions occasionally bear witness to scribal unease with this term. In Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 4574,2, veter is replaced in manuscript X (South Bavarian, second half of the 14th century) by neve for the indeterminate relationship Segremors =>• Didones. Vetter occurs in the First German Printed Bible for patruus at Leviticus 25,49, I. Samuel 10,14fF., and Esther 8,1 (for which the sense 'father's brother' is confirmed in 2,15); but in the second and third of these passages it is replaced with 139

Cf. also Gueintz 1666 in Grimm Deutsches Wörterbuch s.v. Vetter. For Kleve (1477) Gerard van der Schueren, Teuthonisia records vedder in the senses vader broeder and moeder broeder, and adds: rechte neven of veddere, twyer broedere kyndere of twyer suster kyndere, consobrini (ed. Verdam, 422).

171

veter

Hildebrant ? Wolf win

.

—Λ

·

Q

oheim Vetter

•Ά'

? Wolfwin IIA

°he,m

^

Wolfhart

DIAGRAM 4.13: Conjectural relationships in Biterolf

vatter(s) bruder from Zainer's edition (ca. 1475) onward, presumably because the word was felt to be semantically inappropriate or imprecise, or else was absent from the printer's Augsburg dialect. 140 It is worth noting, however, that, as with oeheim and other terms, a degree of precision could equally be restored by the use of limiting adjectives, as in Pontus und Sidonia (B) 176,22f. (nehsier vetter), or in Thüring von Ringoltingen, Melusine 61,24 (rechter vetter) ('father's brother', cf. 57). The Prose Lancelot employs myn nehsten vettern (II, 195,25) for mi cousin germain in the French version Q. Quite frequently, as we have seen, a by-form etter is attested in Alemannic sources. For an early example, see Corpus der altdeutschen Originalurkunden, no. 361 (Schaphausen, 1278) (Bjerke 1969: 136); see also Schweizerisches Idiotikon I, 586f., where ätter, etter 'Oheim, Vetter' are regarded as a parallel formation on the analogy of atte, ätti 'Vater'. 1 4 1 From 15th-century Basel documents, Müller (1953: 182f.) still records a surprisingly high incidence of the form etter for 'father's brother' and 'father's brother's son' (from the 1420s), and for 'brother's son' from 1453-54. It seems that this by-form was earlier current in urban usage, but later became a lower-prestige rural form. 1 4 2 Combinations of the type vetemsun (for patruelis) are attested already in the earlier medieval glosses (3.1), and they reappear, for example, in 140

141 142

The Low German Bible tradition diverges internally at Leviticus 25,49 and I. Samuel 10,14ff., the Cologne Bible of ca. 1478 using oem(e), whilst the Lübeck (1494) and Halberstadt (1522) Bibles apparently prefer ved(d)er. For examples of Vetter in Swiss German, see Schweizerisches Idiotikon I, 1133f. See also Müller 1979: 76 and 114, note 28a. Etter is still well documented, for example, in Magister Johannes Eberhard, Baurodel und Jahrzeitbuch der St.-Oawalds Kirche in Zug (1478-97) 60, 150 (for 'brother's eon'), 333, etc., though vetter is also used (e.g. 24).

172

4. Diachronic view

Rudolf von Ems, Weltchronik 25476 (veter sun for Saul Abner); according to the Vulgate, I. Samuel 14,49ff., Abner was patruelis to Saul ('father's brother's son'?). 1 4 3 A diminutive, answering to patruelis (Isaiah 5,1), occurs in Claus Crane's East Central German Prophetenübersetzung (manuscript 1360-90): das lijt minis vettirlinis.144 A feminine derivative vetrin is found for patruelis in early editions of the First German Printed Bible (Exodus 6,20), becoming emended to eine Shams tochter from Koberger's edition (1483) onwards; the early 15th-century manuscript W has here vettern tochter. On the diminutive viterlin for the relationship 'father's brother's daughter' (Sigune =>• Condwiramurs) in the early 16th-century manuscript Η of Wolfram's Titurel, see section 2.4.4, above. Unusually, veter appears to have been extended to 'godparent' in version Β of Bruder Berthold, Rechtssumme II, 1156 (G39): all die daz chind tauffen vnd firment vnd es haltent zu der tauff vnd zu der firmung, die sind des chindes vettern (following manuscript M4, Bavarian/Swabian, dated 1423), but this is not uniformly reflected in the tradition; the variants in more closely-related manuscripts include töten, gottn, geuate 'n, gaistlichn vatter, and in other versions geistleich v&ter A, gaistlich väter C. According to our data, we conclude that veter is semantically fluid from the last quarter of the 13th century, becoming at this stage partially selfreciprocal, even in individual texts, as 'brother's son' alongside 'father's brother'. This fluidity may, or may not, be directly anticipated in the older glosses, and in Wolfram. Address use in the senses 'father's brother' and 'brother's son' is attested from the 14th century, but is generally rare until the 15th century.145 An extension to maternal kinsmen emerges 14 ®

For a possible female counterpart Sines vetern tochter man, see Herbort von Fritzlar, Lied von Troja 17519ff., though here the immediate constituents are more likely to be veter and tohter man. On the latter, see section 2.2.

144

Veierlin is also found as a diminutive of voter, for example in a Bavarian deed of 1296, Corpus der altdeutschen Originalurkunden, no. 2500 (on the relationship here, see Spindler 1967-75: II, Tafel I, 1104f.); further examples in Rudolf von Ems, Willehalm 13492 (vetterlin in address), Göttweiger Trojanerkrieg 23106 (vetterlin in address), and Kudrun 386,4 (liebes Vaterlein).

145

See also the semantically indeterminate cases in Ulrich von dem Türlin, Willehalm 191,Iff., in Das Lied vom Grafen von Savoyen (15th century) (Erben, Ostmitteldeutsche Chrestomathie 86), in a Nürnberg chronicle of 1462 (Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte: Nürnberg IV, 269), in Marquard vom Stein, Der Ritter vom Turn 196,4f., and in Heinrich Wittenweiler's Ring (Alemannic manuscript, 140010), where veter in address reciprocates neve: Vil lieber veiter mein (8259); meim nefen (8173). Virginal (h) twice has veter (608,11 and 691,7, both in address) for Wolfhart ^ Hildebrant — for which more frequently neve (e.g. 615,12); but in Ε vetter is also used by Hildebrant to address Wolfhart (733,12).

veter

173

ο

r O

>

Φ*

φ >

|—Ο

υ Ρ φ >

EQO

Α Ο α CO

]

-φ S < —

β

>

> >

3

C

«(β >

Κ >

Lo

β

>

Pi

ο
base, our earliest (and rather dubious) example occurring in version a of the Prose Lancelot (dated 1539-76), which may itself be a re-translation from the French, rather than a re-working of the older German version. Occasional misreadings of niftel suggest that the word was becoming locally obsolete in the 15th century. For male counterparts, we have the substitution veter > neve in manuscript X (second half of the 14th century) of Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel 4574,2, and vetter as a textual variant for neve is recorded in the 15th-century manuscript Ε of Virginal (h), but in general this interchange is rare. We return later to the question of textual substitution, in considering the regional aspect. A highly suggestive asymmetry emerges when we distinguish between the use of the six terms for reference, and in personally addressing Alter. In the Nibelungenlied, 'mother's brother' is denoted by aeheim in both modes and by neve referentially, though not in address. The need for a respectful stance in address may have been a factor here. With the patrilateral terms base and veter, on the other hand, there are signs of avoidance. Wolfram, we found, had examples of address use for niftel, neve, muome (rarely), and ceheim, but not for base and veter. In the diachronic data, there are examples of has and fetter, vetter only from the 14th century onwards as a form of address. This distribution suggests that there may previously have been some reluctance to address one's father's sister as base and one's father's brother as veter. Even later, the address use seems to be favoured rather less with these (hitherto more authoritative?) relationships than with the (more indulgent?) muome and aeheim. In the earlier part of our period, base and veter may well have lacked the positive emotive connotations needed for address use, unless perhaps rendered more intimate by diminutive suffixation, as occurs frequently in address, but notably in the formations baselin, biselin (late 13th century) (4.3.2), mimel (ca. 1300) (4.3.1), and viterlin (early 16th century) (2.4.4). In the last case, the morphological development ran the risk of homonymic clash with veterlin 'dear father', which is not infrequently found. We axe witnessing overall the semantic interpenetration of two sets (niftel, neve φ muome, base, ceheim, veter), as each moves to a condition of increased semantic generality, though with a chronological gap between the two developments. Thus, neve and niftel have attained a degree of generality by 1200, so that collocations of the type *niftels sun, *neven

186

5. Conclusions

hint axe even at this stage superfluous, and were not in fact found; with the other four terms, such combinations are still regularly encountered in the 15th century. For muome, base, oeheim and veter, the evidence of manuscripts and early prints suggests, not a swift and decisive onset of random or generalised application, but rather a more lengthy process of semantic development with some discernible stages, and with many signs of conservatism. Several kinds of change can be detected. They aire presented here in the order of their appearance in our source texts, this being the best approximation we can offer to the chronology of the underlying developments. (1) Among the earliest of the attested extensions is that whereby children adopt the term used by their parents for a given Alter. This is demonstrable in only one text, from the early 13th century, with oeheim standing for 'mother's mother's brother'. 7 (2) From the last quarter of the 13th century onwards, there are signs of radical change, as each of the four terms comes also to denote its partreciprocal: thus we have veter 'brother's son' by 1275, oeheim 'sister's son' by the late 13th or early 14th century (and self-reciprocal already in the 1290s in an unspecified sense); in each case, the new sense is found alongside the old, in unitary texts. 8 The feminine terms are recorded only later in reciprocal use: muome 'sister's daughter' from the second half of the 14th century, and base 'brother's daughter' by the late 14th century. The phenomenon of polarity-shifting or address inversion is attested elsewhere. Murdock (1949: 104f.) observes: 'Polarity is occasionally ignored [...] in avuncular relationships, as where a maternal uncle and his sisters' children refer to one another by the same term. It is most commonly ignored, however, in the terms used by relatives two generations removed; grandparents and grandchildren in many societies refer to one another by identical terms'. 9 Ruiperez (1984: 119ff.) attributes it to confu7

8

Analogous developments for muome, base and veter were not found. Following the loss of laterality, veter is recorded from the 15th century as 'mother's father's brother', and muome dubiously from the same century as 'father's father's sister'. Ruiperez (1984: 105) posits a broad overall development from Germanic 'Bireferenzialität' to a subsequent 'Monoreferenzialität', and would see extensions of this kind as survivals from a system in which, for a given person as Alter, certain collateral terms were usable interchangeably by Ego and by Ego's parents. The move to monoreferentiality would then in some cases imply a diachronic generation-shift in lexical meaning. The hypothesis is an interesting one, but needs to be tested further in a range of Germanic and Indo-European languages. A possible, but problematic, forerunner in this development is the isolated 10th-

century gloss fratruelis fetiro. 9

See also Kroeber 1909: 80f.; Bell 1922: 78.

Chronological interpretation

187

sion between Ego and Alter. With reference to veter, Schoof (1900: 229f.) ascribes it to a supposed 'germanischer Ersatzgebrauch' and to 'das nahe Verhältnis [...], welches in germanischer Zeit zwischen Vaterbruder und Bruderkindern bestand' (see also 233f. and 259). Knobloch (1977: 123) places it in a wider, mimetic or echoistic, context. The origin and social meaning of address inversion has recently been considered within a theory of address by Friederike Braun (1988). Braun cites examples from many Indo-European, Hamito-Semitic, Uralian, Caucasian and Papuan languages. For German, she observes that address inversion 'mostly was of the basic type, senior relatives reciprocating "their own" kin term to the junior' (271), sometimes with recourse to diminutive formations. Braun underlines the 'strikingly illogical character' of address inversion, and considers eight hypotheses as to its origin and evolution (278ff.)· Understandably, she is dismissive of the reincarnation hypothesis as a possible factor in German; she questions Ruiperez's view that confusion between the parties may have been a factor; and, talcing up Ernst Erhard Müller's view of reciprocation as part of a general process of decay, she poses the question of primacy: was address inversion the result of such decay, or its cause? Perhaps most typically, for Braun, address inversion appears to be rooted in child-adult interaction. Fax from signalling equality, its social meaning subtly mingles, in varying proportions, the functions of affectionate intimacy and authoritative stance (293). Generally, 'because of these special functions, inversion does not reach high frequency and can easily remain unnoticed' (309). It might be added here that, in medieval German, relatively high frequencies are attained, probably with long-term systemic consequences. The part-reciprocal use of muome, base, ceheim and veter was probably encouraged by the prevalence of such reciprocity already in the more general pair niftel and neve. Methodologically, the so-called 'antwortendes Prinzip' is a powerful explanatory tool, and for this reason must be used with caxe. It is of course particularly helpful in dealing with the very old formal relationship between the designations for grandparents and grandchildren in German (Müller 1979: 78fF.). Its applicability in the present case is less straightforward. As a regular principle, it will obviously be possible only where the sexes of Ego and Alter match; the reciprocal principle cannot, for instance, guide a man's muome in choosing a term to denote her sister's son (see also Braun 1988: 271). We can speak, therefore, only of partial reciprocation (see Helmig 1982: 283). If we invoke the principle at all, we must be prepared to see it as spreading outwards from a core of usage between persons of like sex. For veter, our texts show reciprocal use be-

188

5. Conclusions

tween males, namely the father's brother and the brother's son, from the last decades of the 13th century. Thus, with male persons as Ego, veter is recorded for the brother's son from 1275, followed by aeheim for the sister's son from about 1300, base for the brother's daughter from the late 14th century, and muome for the sister's daughter from the 15th century. With female Ego, muome 'sister's daughter' is attested from the second half of the 14th century; but we have no cases in which, for a female Ego, base is employed for 'brother's daughter', nor aeheim for 'sister's son', nor veter for 'brother's son'. The tardiness or absence of the female analogues probably results from the predominance of male characters in our material, but a systemic explanation is not excluded. It might still be, for instance, that reciprocal use was at first a male custom. Whatever the circumstances of its inception, this partial switching of the polarities between Alter and Ego convulsed the system from the late 13th century onwards. It removed any possibility that relative age might be relevant to the selection of these terms under normal conditions of use. Whilst the older system had been in this regard a respecter of generations, its successors were emphatically not. 10 The new development subtly undermined also the distinctiveness of side, since the linking relative, as seen from Ego's standpoint, is now no longer the mother or father, but the sister or brother. If laterality had to be maintained, then, in place of the retrospective view of two distinct kindreds in marital alliance, a forwardlooking, divergent view from a sibling base would be implied; and there is no evidence that this ever established itself in German kinship usage. The evidence currently before us suggests that the part-reciprocal use of muome, base, aeheim and veter WEIS not part of a general collapse of semantic categories at this early stage, but had its specific cause in (1) systemic predisposition, namely the prevalence of reciprocity with other kin terms, and (2) certain (as yet unidentified) social and interpersonal functions attaching to these collateral relationships. Surveying the radical effects, one might well regard the adoption of reciprocity as itself the prime destabilising factor which then triggered further changes in the later medieval period.

The evidence is such as to render somewhat problematic Petzsch's contention (1913: 47) that, in 14th- and 15th-century private correspondence between princes and counts, recipients who were younger or of the same age were styled Vetter, whilst those who were older were often called Oheim. For a counter-example, see the Silesian deed of 1341 which is cited in Helene Bindewald, Deutsche Texte aus schlesischeη Kanzleien 25: Herczogen Heinrich vom Sagan dem eldirn, vnsem üben vettirn, vnde H^czogen Heinrich, syme sone, vnsem liben Ömen.

Chronological interpretation

I·

r< r-O

190

5. Conclusions

(3) From late in the 13th century, evidence begins to accumulate for a set of 'downward' extensions, in which a given Ego employs the same term for Alter and for Alter's children (or Alter's sibling's children) of like sex. Interestingly, the earliest recorded cases (stage I in Diagram 5.1) have the linkage via the sibling, and are exclusively on the maternal side. Thus about 1300 we have signs of oeheirn (in the forefront of the evidence for this development, as for others) being used with reference to the 'mother's sister's son', though its sense is still predominantly 'mother's brother'. A similar extension of muome to 'mother's brother's daughter' dates from 1336. No such extensions axe recorded on the father's side for base (as 'father's brother's daughter'), nor as yet for veter (as 'father's sister's son'). At what appears from our textual evidence to have been a later stage (labelled as II in the diagram) the direct application to Alter's children (minus the sibling link) is exemplified in muome 'mother's sister's daughter' (ca. 1400), and oeheim and veter 'father's brother's son' (15th century); examples are lacking for base. Before 1400 in our material, therefore, these extensions are seen to be impinging only upon those first cousins on the mother's side whose sex differs from that of their connecting parent. The effect is to designate as muome the daughter of an ceheim (and to designate as ceheim the son of a muome) — but not as yet, apparently, to apply either title to both parent and child. In texts after 1400, this small set is augmented in our data by extension to most of the other cousins. Now, at last, my father's brother and his son may each be my veter, and my mother's sister and her daughter my muome. In addition, veter is available for my father's and mother's sister's son, and (alongside oeheim) for my father's brother's son. In all this, it is of course hard to judge whether or not the gaps are merely fortuitous, but it is, none the less, noteworthy that (leaving aside the possibility of analytical formations) our material has only neve for 'mother's brother's son', and only (somewhat dubiously) nifiel for 'father's sister's daughter', whilst quite regularly offering two or even three designations for the other cousins. 11 (4) Collapse of the bifurcate pattern, with neutralisation of the contrast between male and female parental linkage, seems in general to have come rather late, 1 2 though not as late as Blochwitz (1965: 20f.) and 11

On 'father's brother's daughter', see the 15th- and 16th-century examples under muome (4.3.1) and v&terlin (2.4.4), above. For further extensions, with neutralisation of side, see below.

12

I have not been able to locate Schoof's one apparent Old High German example of veter in the sense 'mother's brother' (from 'M. HI.'), and on present evidence I would be inclined to regard this as a later medieval development in German (Schoof 1900: 230).

Chronological interpretation

191

Ruiperez (1984: 122) suggest. Glossaries are sensitive to it only from the 15th century, having muome for amita, base for matertera, occasionally also aeheim for patruus, and veter for avunculus (see section 3.2.6). Certain transitions are already mirrored in late 13th- and 14th-century texts, with oeheim the first to be visibly affected. Thus, oeheim is found in variation with veter for 'father's brother' in Rosengarten (C) (14th century). (Eheim for 'father's brother' may ascend to the late 13th (Hester *BS) or even the 12th century (Altdeutsche Genesis), though the evidence in this case is not reliable. Conversely, veter is used for 'mother's brother' from about 1430. A 14th-century Swabian document already shows t h a t veter and base were no longer laterally specific, and likewise a set of South Tirol deeds (1331) has m&men and has en concurrently by different hands for substantially the same relationship. But firm textual evidence for base 'mother's sister' and muome 'father's sister' dates from the 15th century; and even then, insistence on the old distinction is sporadically found, for example in Das rote Buch von Rottweil (155) cited by Fischer-Pfleiderer 1904-39: IV, 1804: Vettern und Basen von dem Vatter oder Oeheim oder Mumen von der Muter. Against this background, the internally uncorroborated 12th-century occurrences of oheim with the possible sense 'father's brother' in the Altdeutsche Genesis must appear very isolated, and even the possible late 13th-century placement of redaction *BS of Hester becomes a matter for careful reconsideration. To this qualified extent, and if we assume a cut-off point for Middle High German at 1350, Weisgerber (1962: 69) may have been justified in stating that Middle High German 'scheidet noch scharf zwischen dem vetere, dem Vaterbruder, und dem oheim, dem Mutterbruder'. More questionable is Weisgerber's attempt to link the emergence of a unitary concept 'mother's brother' + 'father's brother' with the later importation of French oncle and tante. The chronological gap between the two developments is closing as a result of recent work, but still remains considerable, leading us here to favour an autochthonous German development for this neutralisation. By the late 13th century there was adequate internal causality. Sex of connecting relative was relevant to the selection of no other kin term, niftel and neve having developed patrilateral as well as matrilateral reference by about 1200. In addition, the matrilateral terms muome and oeheim carried positive emotive and even honorific associations, which probably assisted their extension by courtesy into the patrilateral field. Externally, historians may wish to explain the development with reference to social factors such as a weakening of strictly agnatic perceptions and preferences in the populace at large, amidst the upheavals of the Late Middle Ages. Ruiperez (1984: 136f.) attaches importance here to the shift from the extended family to the nuclear family, and cites also a 'Französisierung

192

5. Conclusions

der deutschen Familie' (140) which is demonstrable too late to be accommodated within our chronology for the linguistic development. For medieval German, Krawutschke (1978: 131) has taken the lexical evidence of the Prose Lancelot as indicating fundamental changes in medieval family structure. Chronologically this is persuasive, and further work in this direction would be welcome. Goody (1983: 22f.), in part following Anderson (1956), places the development in a European context, with bilaterality developing first in vernacular Latin during the Roman Empire, spreading through the Romance languages, reaching England with the Norman Conquest, and establishing itself in Germany only in later times. In North Germanic languages, on the other hand, the bifurcate pattern was upheld by the use of analytical formations.13 For German itself, the neutralisation of side carried with it an onomasiological redundancy which appears to have been variously resolved: perhaps in some cases by new semantic or affective differentiation of the formerly contrastive pairs muome/base and oeheim/veter, and by the emergence of regional preferences for one or other of the terms. (5) The 15th-century sources testify to further extension from the bases so far established. Thus, muome is being used in new senses on the paternal side by the middle of the century, from 'father's sister' to 'father's brother's daughter'; likewise cekeim has extended in paternal reference from 'father's brother' to 'father's brother's son' by about 1420. Reaching out to the maternal kinsmen, veter has become applicable to the 'mother's sister's son' by the mid 15th century, and already in the 1420s to 'mother's sister's daughter's son'. With muome, extension upwards in generation on either side gives us the senses 'mother's mother' (1479, if not already 1290) and perhaps also 'father's father's sister'. (6) Late 15th-century texts reveal also an interchange of the partreciprocal senses established under (2). The sex of the connecting sibling is now irrelevant, so that we also find muome 'brother's daughter' (already from 1391), beßelin 'sister's daughter', oeheim 'brother's son', and veter 'sister's son'. (7) Sporadically from the 13th century onwards, but more fully from the 15th century, and typically (though not exclusively) in diminutive form (mümel, mSmel, mumelin, mßmelin, ömel, nuft ellin), the terms become applicable to affinal relatives. Examples, however, axe scarce, and it is clear that at the end of the 15th century the six terms still functioned primarily with consanguineal reference and only with occasional and somewhat 13

For Icelandic, see Merrill 1964: 867ff.; for Norwegian, see Bjerke 1969: 55ff.; for Swedish, see Boholm 1983: 64ff.

Chronological interpretation

193

cautious extension to affines. 14 The move from consanguineal to affinal reference might have been expected to occur more freely than this, and it is significant that it does not. 15 The linguistic evidence clearly shows a reluctance to equate the two systems terminologically, despite the phonological uncertainty and lexical isolation of some of the older affinal terms. Only at a late stage, for example in 15th-century private letters, is there regular evidence of affinal extension. Nuclear terms show the transference more readily.16 (8) Full generality of reference is hard to detect, but there are some indications for muome from the 14th century, and for the other terms from the 15th century. Given the massive accretion of senses by that period, and the degree of fuzziness within and between the sets, it would be hard to imagine otherwise. It is indicative too that multiple senses for individual terms within single texts axe attested quite frequently in our material from the late 13th and 14th centuries, and increasingly from the 15th. 17 Precision, where needed, was attainable by adjectival or other collocation, by co-citation of several mutually-defining terms, or by the use of analytical formations, the history of which would form an important adjunct to this study. 18 The suppletive use of compounds and derivatives, when simplexes become ineffective, is a broad theme in German language history. 14

15

For data from modern dialects, see Debus 1958a: 102f. See also Ruiperez 1984:122ff. and 137ff. As Lorraine Lancaster observed (1958: 248), 'in a bilateral system, a man's affinal kin are the consanguineal kin of his child'. In a number of aspects of Canon Law, moreover, consanguineals and affinals were treated on a par, by reason of the unitaa carnis (see Plöchl 1960-69: II, 321ff.). For example sun 'daughter's husband' and vater 'wife's father' (both in address) in Rudolf von E m s , Barlaam und Josaphat, page 151, and sweater 'brother's wife' in Steinhausen, Deutsche Privatbriefe I, 71, no. 94 (1465).

17

Mai und Beaflor (manuscript late 13th or 14th century) already has oeheim in address for 'mother's brother' and for 'sister's son'. Equally, Rabenschlacht has oeheim in both senses, and Heinrich von Neustadt, Apollonius has muome for 'mother's sister' and 'mother's sister's daughter'. In the second half of the 15th century, Ulrich Füetrer, Prosaroman von Lanzelot has neve for 'father's brother's son', 'father's brother's son's son' and 'husband's brother's son'; Elisabeth von NassauSaarbrücken employs veter for 'father's brother', 'mother's brother' and 'mother's father's brother'; Pontus und Sidonia (A) and ( B ) have respectively four and three senses for veter and oeheim.

18

On this type, see Bell 1922: 96f.; Blochwitz 1965: 27ff. Questionable from our present material, however, is Blochwitz's overall view (29) that unitary terms are 'familiär', whilst periphrastic expressions chiefly fulfil the requirements of legal usage. Formations of the kind abound in German texts, from Wolfram onwards. T h e 14th-century tradition of Ulrich von dem Türlin, Willehalm has a number of such examples: Willehalmes basen sun 36,24; zweier muomen barn [m-Smembarn A] 94,8; muomen

194

5. Conclusions

In the present case, compounds and combinations offered a therapeutic corrective, the fluctuating value of which could probably be explored statistically. In the above chronological analysis, our material and our method have led us to set dates for developments which are in some respects later, and in some earlier, than those proposed elsewhere in the scholarly literature. Schoof (1900), as we have seen, anchored some of the changes in the Germanic period. Anderson (1956) posited two periods of major change. In his view, from about 1100, under the influence of feudalism, nevo and nift (previously 'grandchild') became used reciprocally for 'sibling's child' and 'parent's sibling', whilst the other four terms muome, base, ceheim and veter ceased to be applied with strict bifurcate-collateral reference to the parents' siblings, but persisted as an alternative set with blurring of generational differences, so that by Middle High German times, for instance, veter denoted any paternally-related male collateral except the brother, ceheim any such maternally-related collateral, and so on. Anderson then argues that in more recent times, notably the 17th century, the four terms were re-defined in accordance with the French pattern, giving Muhme 'tante', Oheim 'oncle', Base 'cousine' and Vetter 'cousin'. This rather too simple and linear scheme runs counter to much of the complex and multi-layered evidence we have brought to light. In particular, it sets the collateral extension of muome, base, ceheim and veter somewhat earlier than our findings suggest, and places the loss of laterality considerably later. 1 9 Grunow (1966: 296ff., 304, 314) saw the transition from Old High German to Middle High German as the real watershed in a process of 'semasiologische Verwässerung', and linked the collapse of the bifurcate system and the progressively less strict use of kinship terms directly with social upheaval in the Early Middle Ages. If this indeed is the case, then the time-lag is in many respects uncomfortably long, and the causality correspondingly weak. Finally, Ruiperez (1984), working from a restricted data base, believed the system to have been stable to about 1550, with

iohter 94,13; miner sweater hint 294,8. Cf. also sinre baaen sun in Fritsche Closener, Chronik (1362) (Die Chroniken der oberrheinischen Städte: Straßburg I, 31); examples in the Urkundenbuch der Vögte von Weida, Gera und Plauen II, 452 (no. 527, dated 1411: swesterson), 483 (no. 560, dated 1412: unsers vettern tochtter), and 651 (no. N89, dated 1366: tochterson); eines bruoder tohter in Das Buch von Hester 332; and des künigs brSdersun in Wigamur W 2893. The extreme case is probably that from Seifried Helbling 8,508f.: des alten Hadmäres en \ was unser anen basen veter. See also Bjerke 1969: 34f. 19

Similar reservations apply to Goody's account (1983: 264f.).

Chronological interpretation

195

major (linguistically and socially conditioned) re-structuring thereafter (141f.). Our evidence has enabled us to see that major linguistic changes were in train already in the 13th century, continuing through the 14th and 15th centuries. Because of the weight which we have deliberately attached to manuscript testimony rather than to the lost originals, the datings for innovations throughout represent cautious termini ante quos, which further excerption might succeed in pushing back in time, particularly if it were to concentrate on suitable witnesses from the 13th century. For this reason, the above survey is offered merely as a first interpretation of the data, and as a set of working hypotheses. Our provisional assessment places the period of most active semantic development in the 12th and 13th centuries for niftel and neve, and in the later 13th and the 14th centuries for muome, base, ceheim and veter. Our main findings are fivefold: (1) niftel and neve appear to have become extended from maternal and sororial to paternal and fraternal relationships about 1200, with further diversification to follow; (2) according to our data for muome, base, ceheim and veter, the operation of a reciprocal principle can be detected from the late 13th century onwards; (3) abandonment of the four-term bifurcate structure is decisively attested only from the 14th and 15th centuries; (4) other consanguineal extensions are found from the early 13th century onwards; (5) affinal extension remains uncommon until the 15th century. All this rests on the lower datings for innovations, which are derived from extant manuscripts and prints. Let us explore for a moment the effects, if we had chosen to regard these witnesses as on all occasions accurately reflecting the lexical usage of their originals. The procedure is in itself hardly permissible, except as a way of defining the limits of the question and of testing the elasticity of the data. We find that, in this 'best' case, the focus shifts to the 13th century, with foreshortening of the time-scale. Muome in the extended sense 'mother's mother' would then be attributable to the first quarter of the century in Heinrich von dem Türlin's Krone. The neutralisation of laterality would be signalled by ceheim for 'father's brother' in Hester (original 1254-60?), if not already in what would otherwise appear as an isolated and internally unconfirmed pair of examples from the 12th-century Millstätter Genesis and Wiener Genesis. Evidence for neutralisation in the case of muome, base and veter would remain thin well beyond 1300, with firm examples in the 15th century only. Reciprocation

196

5. Conclusions

would be heralded by muome 'sister's daughter' in the Jüngerer Titurel (1260-75), veter 'brother's son' (deed of 1275), ceheim 'sister's son' in Mai und Beaflor (original 1270-80?) and in the Rabenschlacht (original ca. 1280?), and base 'brother's daughter' in Der Speiden Hort (ca. 1300). Overall, then, this re-interpretation would only marginally affect our date for the onset of reciprocation, and for neutralisation of side with muome, base and veter, but in the case of ceheim would shift the loss of laterality back into the late 13th (or even the 12th) century. This neutralisation is a particular issue towards which further excerption might be directed. Any clustering of dates is at first blush attractive, but methodologically we have argued that its basis here is insecure. And there are other problems, too. The adoption of early dates for loss of laterality would throw into (perhaps uncomfortable) relief the remarkable stability and precision of Wolfram's terminology; and the glosses and glossaries would be seen as responding very tardily indeed to these changes. We would further need to disregard other evidence, for example the symmetrical kinship sets cited in the 13th-century Augsburg and Straßburg statutes (4.1.1 and 4.1.2), and the important testimony of Hugo von Trimberg (4.3.2) that the distinction between muome and base had not been lost in the late 13th century. Either way, a rigid extremism is inappropriate: there is probably a middle way to be traced, between tangible witnesses and their elusive originals, and little doubt that with more extensive reading a somewhat tighter chronological bracketing will be achieved. Whatever the dating of these developments, and however strong the persistence of 'core' meanings for some of the eight terms on which we have concentrated, the close of our period has presented us with a picture which it is hard to describe otherwise than in terms of decay and confusion — even though the motivations underlying the semantic extension of kinship terms may often be of a positive kind. The progressive loss of distinctive features in this nomenclature can occasionally be seen as an irritant, reflected in the words of the users themselves.20 Countervailing forces, such as the prescriptive example of the Middle High German Classical poets, were powerless to arrest the process. Hartmann was sparing in his deployment of kinship terms, but even the few he used fell prey to some emendation in what we can discern of the later textual history of his work. Wolfram and Gottfried are textually much more stable, but in neither case is their kinship usage respected in what we know of the work of their literary heirs. Gottfried's classically rigorous distinction between neve 'sister's son' and ceheim 'mother's brother' is blurred in 20

Müller's examples are interesting here, as are a number of comments from the 16th and 17th centuries, as captured by the standard historical dictionaries.

Chronological interpretation

197

Heinrich von Freiberg's Tristan, in Tristan ah Mönch, and in the Prose Tristrant. Wolfram's regular bifurcate application of mttome, base, ceheim and veter to the parents' siblings appears to have been observed in Ulrich von Türheim's Rennewart, as also in Rudolf von Ems's Willehalm, in so far as they use these terms, but it is disregarded to a greater or lesser degree even in the best manuscripts of Der Pleier, the Jüngerer Titurel, and Wisse-Colin, to say nothing of the prose adaptation of Willehalm in Zürich C. 28, the 15th-century verse Wilhalm von Orlens, and (for all their surface archaism) the works of Ulrich Füetrer. More pliant still was the tradition of the Heldenepik, as far as it can be traced in what has survived of the Rabenschlacht, Rosengarten, Alpharts Tod, Virginal, Ortnit, and others.21 Even the traditions of religious language bowed to the new terminological order, or disorder, as we have seen in attestations for the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth, in versions of Esther, and in the variants of the First German Printed Bible. The realities of everyday kinship designation were patently stronger. The seemingly chaotic aftermath endured and was augmented in the 15th and early 16th centuries, from which point two lines of development can be identified. In the emergent standard, the six traditional terms either pass into obsolescence, or live on and are differently and more narrowly re-defined; and the vacated semantic 'space', reduced in complexity by the collapse of the bifurcate pattern, becomes filled by importation from Low German or from'French. Was the importation therapeutically motivated? Was it simply part of a linguistic fashion, fostered by translations from the French? Or was it primarily the reflex of a supposed 'Französisierung der deutschen Familie' (Ruiperez 1984: 124f. and 140)? In general, there is much detail here which must be supplied by further research, drawing not merely on lexica, but also more particularly on the lexically very rich texts of the 16th and later centuries — which were to witness not only the re-structuring and re-labelling of the collateral field, but also from the later 16th century the adoption into standard German of clearly-motivated affinal compounds like Schwiegervater (see Müller 1979). During all this time, the dialectal strata plunge underground, with isolated outcrops, with constant seepage from the standard, and with a re-exposure in the 19th and early 20th centuries which, unfortunately, was never properly recorded and examined in older rural dialects. Despite its late manuscript tradition, Biierolf is an exception here. It has no determinate examples of base and ceheim in 'post-Classical' senses. The occurrence of phrases such as vettern sun 6008, baten kindt 9920f., pasen kind 12529, and mSmmen kinde 12841, suggests that in Hans Ried's 'Vorlage' the terms were still employed with respect to differences in generation, and were not automatically extensible.

5. Conclusions

198 5.2.

Regional variation

To gain insight into regional variation during historical periods is more difficult than into questions of chronology. In the latter case, the lexical features under study can be regarded as lying somewhere along a linear continuum, bounded by the dates of the original and of the surviving manuscript. The problem is scalar, and finite. Localisation, on the other hand, is a matter of selection from a mosaic of connected or overlapping geographical possibilities, whether we axe focusing upon the original, the witness, or any of the intermediate links in the chain of transmission. Pure dialect, moreover, is not generally to be assumed; mixture is probably the norm. And to complicate the situation further, the data of modern wordgeography show that we must allow for much diversity, even within the broad dialect regions; some features will be very local indeed.22 A more tentative summary therefore lies ahead. Our starting point is again the kinship system of Wolfram von Eschenbach, which in diachronic perspective offered us sure ground. Regionally, the ground already appears to tilt somewhat, because the complete 13th-century manuscripts of Parzival and Willehalm on which our standard editions are based emanate entirely from Upper German regions extraneous to Wolfram's homeland.23 They need not therefore necessarily be entirely representative, either of Wolfram's lexis, or of their own local dialect usage. Our confidence in these sources is, however, strengthened by two observations. Firstly, comparisons between 13th-century manuscripts show that, in the domain of kinship at least, lexical variation between textual witnesses of these works is minimal. 24 Either there was minimal interregional variation in 13thcentury Upper German kinship terminology, or the authority of the original carried the day. Secondly, there is no contravention of Wolfram's use of muome,

base, ceheim and veter in well-attested contemporaneous

22

See the comment of Ising (1968: 97): 'in der Dialektforschung hat sich die Vorstellung von geschlossenen Sprachräumen mehr und mehr verflüchtigt'. On the contribution of linguistic geography to language history, see Hildebrandt 1984.

23

See Becker 1977: 78ff., who localises as follows: Parzival D ('Bodenseeraum' or Switzerland) = Willehalm G (East Alemannic, 1250 or earlier, see W. Schröder, ed. XXIII); Parzival G (Upper Rhine, Alsace), G * and G m (Bavarian), G n (Alemannic). Schneider (1987: I, 138ff.) considers the possible localisation of Parzival D in the South Tirol; on Parzival G, see Schneider I, 153f. Willehalm Β (East Swabian with Central German features) is now to be dated 1320-30; see Schneider I, 256. The following sporadic cases were registered in section 2 for Willehalm: sweher > sweater

C L G (2.2); boaen > waien

(and in Parzival DG) (2.4.4).

K a K (2.4.2); veter > voter

BCEGHKLW51/?7

Regional variation

199

works such as Hartmann's Gregorius, the Nibelungenlied, and Gottfried's Tristan.2* Assuming, therefore, a measure of interregional agreement in the courtly poetic language, if not more widely, we can now consider in what ways different regions deviate from this 'Classical' system. Our source material consists of the more secure manuscripts and prints, patterns of scribal emendation, the transmission of glossaries, and anecdotal information of various kinds, to which we add data from the modern dialects. These will take us Some little way towards the ultimate goal, which must be the detection of regionally specific systems, signs of local innovation and obsolescence, interregional diffusion, competition, and combination. In the kinship field, Müller (1979) has already presented us with two contrasting paradigms: though paired in the standard language, the terms Großvater and Enkel stem from two differing late medieval regional systems; and for affinals, designations of the type Schwiegervater were adopted from West Central German and parts of Low German, passing into East Central German and into the standard language. With these possibilities in mind, and forearmed with the chronological conclusions of the preceding section, we focus on three main issues: (1) the obsolescence of mac; (2) the changing status of niftel and neve; (3) the varying use of muome, base, ceheim and veter. 5.2.1.

mac

Formulaic usage is inherently conservative, often protecting lexemes which have individually become obsolescent. It is therefore no surprise that formula« of the type mac und vriunt are strongly represented in West Central German and Bavarian sources down to the close of our period, with some East Central German and Alemannic examples. The phrase mage unde man shows a similar distribution. Lexically, however, the frequency of mac is already somewhat reduced in the 15th century. For Alemannic there are clear signs of recession: mac and particularly compounds such as voter- and muotermic may still be found in 15th-century Alemannic, but Müller discovered that mäc was rare 25

The following instances are relevant: Hartmann, Gregorius: base 'father's sister', aeheim 'mother's brother'; Erec: veter 9722 (sense undefined); Nibelungenlied: ceheim 'mother's brother', muome 1539,3 (sense undefined), base 2314,3 (sense undefined); Gottfried, Tristan: ceheim 'mother's brother'. Of close contemporary texts, only Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wtgalois demonstrably deviates from this norm, with a relatively modest extension of aeheim to 'mother's mother's brother'.

200

5. Conclusions

in his legal sources from Basel even before 1500, and was totally lacking thereafter (see section 4.1.1). Earlier, and more generally, the changed status of mac can be faintly detected in the evidence of scribal emendation. Mac is sometimes itself used as a replacement for other kin terms during the 14th century (where it appears in Middle Bavarian, South Bavarian, and East Central German manuscripts), and perhaps occasionally still in the 15th century (Swabian and Central German manuscripts). The evidence cited in section 4 may be summarised as follows. Hartmann von Aue, Iwein J (Lower Austrian, first quarter of the 14th century): neve] mag 2457; Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel X (South Bavarian, second half of the 14th century): oheim] mach 1019,4; neve] mag 4624,4; Β (East Central German copy of a Bavarian version, 14th century): oheim] mac 1019,4; Ε (Central German, 15th century): neven] mage 775,2; Berthold von Regensburg, manuscript a (Swabian, beginning of the 15th century): neven] mag I, 444,1 If. and II, 458. Although we cannot automatically equate the known manuscripts with their lost antecedent redactions, these cases may be seen as together affording some tenuous evidence for the status of mac in active usage in the periods and regions concerned. Noticeable, however, against this background, is the regionally widespread substitution of vriunt for mac from the late 14th century. Reinbot von Durne, Der heilige Georg Ζ (North-East Swiss, 14th century) and w (Bavaro-Austrian, first half of the 15th century): mage 1406 misread or avoided; Strieker, Verserzählungen Β (Innsbruck, 1392-93): mige(n)] frewdn, frevmdn, frewnd I, 19, lines 192-93, and I, 53, line 73; but mage(n) retained elsewhere, e.g. I, 54, line 100 in rhyme; Hugo von Trimberg, Renner F (Rhine Prankish, 15th century) and U (Rhine Frankish/Middle Prankish, beginning of the 15th century): mac 15306 misread or omitted; Liber ordinis rerum: mac] frunt in M a i (Rhine Prankish, 1414) and in LI (East Central German, 1466); Berthold, Rechtssumme II, 902ff., redaction Β, manuscript M4 (Bavarian/Swabian, 1423): magenschaft] frevntschafft; Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois Μ (Bavaro-Austrian with Central German elements, second half of the 15th century): mage] frevnt 5173; Pfianzmann and Zainer, Bible (Augsburg, ca. 1473 and ca. 1475): möge] geborner frind, freund R u t h 2,1.

Regional variation

201

From these few indices, we may provisionally regard the year 1400 as a turning-point in the history of mac, to be followed by a protracted decline. Before this date, mac is itself a favoured substitute in several regions; after 1400 it is in turn sporadically replaced by some Central and Upper German scribes. Evidence from the tradition of the Vocabularius Ex quo (section 3.2, above) indicates that in the 15th century the decline of mäc and micschaft, and the concomitant shift to vriunt(schaft), were more advanced in Upper German. 5.2.2.

ntftel and neve

A contrast between 14th- and 15th-century practice emerges again when we consider the case of ntftel. In references to the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth, ntftel is well attested in 14th-century manuscripts from West and East Central German, Alsatian, Swabian and BavaroAustrian, with some competition already from muome in Bavaro-Austrian, Swabian and Alemannic. By the 15th century, muome is normal for this relationship, our sole contrary 15th-century examples being from the Central German manuscript of Ulrich von Etzenbach, Wilhelm von Wenden, and the form nefftel from the Frankish/ Alemannic text of the Künzelsauer Fronleichnamspiel (1479).

In other connexions, ntftel is still found late in the 15th century, in Alemannic (Thüring von Ringoltingen) and Bavaro-Austrian (Ulrich Füetrer), as well as in Central German of rather earlier date (nyfftel in the Prose Lancelot P, Rhine Frankish), ntftel in Ebernand von Erfurt, Heinrich und Kunegunde (manuscript Thuringian, 1425-50), and nyfftel in the translation of Elisabeth von Nassau-Saarbrücken (Rhine Frankish, 1455-72). Exceptionally, we have the form nyffteln as a substitute for textually older bruder hint in manuscripts D (Bavaro-Austrian, dated 1457) and Ε (Central German, 15th century) of Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel (1059,4); perhaps the variant was already present in *DE, which is itself of uncertain date and provenance. Very frequently, on the other hand, it is niftel which undergoes textual replacement, from 1300 onwards, in some regions apparently earlier than others. Early cases were found in manuscripts of the following date and region: Lower Austrian 1300-25 South Bavarian 1350-1400 Swabian 1400 onwards Alsatian 1400-50 Upper Saxon ca. 1410-15 Bavarian/Bohemian 1415

202

5. Conclusions (?) Nürnberg 1450-75 (?) Mainz ca. 1470 North Bavarian 1477.

The examples themselves are as follows: Hartmann von Aue, Iwein J (Lower Austrian, 1300-25): niftel] sweat', sweater 5692, 7750; Bruder Philipp der Kartäuser, Marienleben G (Bavarian, second quarter of the 14th century): niftel (J)] mume 9880; Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel X (South Bavarian, 1350-1400): niftel omitted 5157,2; Berthold von Regensburg, manuscript a (Swabian, beginning of the 15th century): nifteln] frund I, 444, l l f . and II, 458; Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois k (Alsatian, 1400-50): niftel(e)] mume, mume, mume 2683, 2723, 2730, 3177; Hartmann von Aue, Iwein a (Upper Saxon, ca. 1410-15): niftel] sweet' 5692; Hartmann von Aue, Iwein f (Bavarian/Bohemian, 1415): niftel] sweat', awester 5692, 7750; Thomasin von Zerclaere, Der welsche Gast b (Bavarian, 1400-35?): niftel] aweater ed. Riickert 9895fF., ed. von Kries 10550fF.; Nibelungenlied a (Bavarian, 15th century): niftel] aweater chint 1330,1; Hartmann von Aue, Iwein 1 (Bavaro-Austrian, 15th century): niftel] aweater 7750; Frauenlob, manuscript F (Nürnberg (?) 1450-75): niftel] freunde (?) V *67,6; Frauenlob, manuscript t (Mainz (?) ca. 1470): niftel] mumen (?) V *67,6; Hartmann von Aue, Iwein r (Swabian, ca. 1476-78): niftel] sweat', swester 5692, 7750; Pflanzmann, Bible (Augsburg, ca. 1473): niftel] mum Luke 1,36; Zainer, Bible (Augsburg, ca. 1475): nif(f)tel] muter bruder tochter, freundin Genesis 29,10, Ruth 1,15; Hartmann von Aue, Iwein c (North Bavarian, 1477): niftel] sweater 7750; Hartmann von Aue, Iwein d (Austrian, 1504-16): niftel] aweater 7750; Proae Lancelot, version a (Bavarian, 16th century): nyfftel (?)] nechate freunndinn, Baße, Bäßlin II, 227,9, 229,5, 304,9. Consonant with these findings are those cases where (locally obsolescent?) niftel was misread by copyists in Nibelungenlied b (East Swabian/Augsburg, ca. 1436-40) and d (Austrian, early 16th century) (1298,1), with a further instance in Biterolf (same manuscript) (11551). From the tradition

Regional variation

203

of the Vocabularius Ex quo (lemma N99), we have the translation eyn mistel for neptis in manuscript B5 (Bohemian, dated 1416). There is comparable evidence for neve. Textually, the word is firmly enough attested in Alsatian, Swabian, Bavaro-Austrian, East Central German and (particularly) West Central German manuscripts during the 15th century. 26 More striking, however, is the incidence of scribal manipulation, which in some ways shadows that observed for niftel. Rarely, neve itself appears as a replacement, in lieu of (presumably archetypal) veter (Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel X (South Bavarian, 1350-1400) 4574,2). Tracing the replacement of neve with other terms, however, we find the following pattern in extant manuscripts: Lower Austrian 1300-25 Swabian ca. 1300 onwards Middle Frankish 1323 and shortly before 1400 South Bavarian 1350-1400 Central German 1400-1500 (?) Alemannic 1489. Hartmann von Aue, Iwein J (Lower Austrian, 1300-25): neve] mag 2457; Nibelungenlied I (Swabian, ca. 1300): neve] Sheim 2300,4; Ulrich von Türheim, Tristan Β (Middle Frankish, dated 1323): neve] sweater sun 3445; Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois C (Swabian, 14th century): neve avoided 11491; Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel X (South Bavarian, 1350-1400): neve] mag 4624,4; Prose Lancelot, version w (Middle Frankish, end of the 14th century): neve (?)] oyhern III, 663,1; Berthold von Regensburg, manuscript a (Swabian, beginning of the 15th century): neven] mag I, 444,llf. and II, 458; Füssener Marienklage, strophe 8: freind as marginal variant for neue, in Hand III (date uncertain); Mai und Beaflor Β (Bavaro-Austrian, 15th century): neve] ohaim 110,20; Virginal (h), manuscript Ε (Bavarian (?) 15th century): neve] vetter 733,12; Wolfdietrich (Β), manuscript Η (Bavarian (?) 15th century): neven] ohem 488,3; 26

Müller (1979: 114, note 31) observes the absence of niftel and neve in western Alemannic from the late 14th century. This is confirmed by the dearth of examples in the Schweizerisches Idiotikon. For cases of nef in Alemannic from the 16th century onwards, see IV, 677. For an isolated case from the 1470s, see Das Buch vom Heiligen Karl (Deutsche Volksbücher, ed. Bachmann-Singer, 20).

204

5. Conclusions

Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel Ε (Central German, 15th century): neve] mage 775,2, Sheim 5021,2; Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel D (Bavaro-Austrian, 1457): neve] Sheim 5021,2; Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois Μ (Bavaro-Austrian on Central German basis, 1450-1500): neve(n)] ohayms and omission 1136, 1866; H a r t m a n n von Aue, /wein 1 (Upper Bavaxia or Tirol, 1468): neve] frewnd(t) 2457, 7600, 7610, 7723; Zainer, Bible (Augsburg, ca. 1475): neve (etc.)] freund, freund, frewndt, ichweiter sun, schwSster sun Numbers 10,29, Judges 1,16, John 18,26, Tobit 7,2, Colossians 4,10; Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois 1 (West Central German (?) late 15th century): neven] hsren 1866; Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wigalois S (Bavarian on Alemaxmic basis, late 15th century): neve] öheim, öhaim 1136, 10114; Stricker, Daniel d (Alemannic, 1489): neve] vetter 6221; Prose Lancelot a (Bavarian, 16th century): nefe (?)] vetter, fre&nndt, Blütsverßanndter, naher gesipter freunndt II, 220,17, 221,12, 308,7, 345,4; Petri, New Testament (Basel, 1523): neve] schwester sun, vetter. T h e conjectural element will be obvious here. Assumed datings and localisations of manuscripts and prints are being attached to emendations that are detectable only from a comparison of the extant texts with their putative originals or with the textual transmission as a whole — emendations which may indeed be the work of the last scribe, b u t could equally well have been inherited from a possibly remote antecedent. We must remind ourselves, also, t h a t dialectal factors axe far from being the only reason for substitutions a n d omissions of this kind. Rather surprisingly, in view of the scope for error, it emerges t h a t we are not being confronted with purely random effects. T h e scribal flight from niftel a n d neve is relatively common, when compared with similar emendation of mac, vriunt, muome, base, ceheim and veter. Chronologically, the 14th and 15th centuries appear to be in contrast, mac being a favoured substitute for neve before 1400, and other terms thereafter, presumably as mac itself fell into gradual disfavour, or at least passed into passive competence and archaising literary registers. Most notably, there is a degree of correspondence between niflel and neve in the chronological-regional tabulations. Both substitutions are reflected in the Middle Bavarian (Lower Austrian) Iwein J (early 14th century), and there are signs that niftel and neve were avoided in South Bavarian from the second half of that century (Albrecht, Jüngerer Titurel X). Swabian shows the substitution

Regional variation

205

early for neve (ca. 1300), and a century later for niftel. Apart from the case of Middle Frankish, where neve is occasionally replaced from 1323 onwards, Central German and Alemannic examples of the replacement are to hand only from the 15th century. The parallelism is close enough for us to regard the two cases as mutually supporting; the distribution itself is chronologically and geographically plausible. If we accept this evidence, we have the curious but not implausible contrast, that the semantic proliferation of niftel and neve up to 1300 and even beyond was followed by a gradual geographical shrinkage during the 14th and 15th centuries. W h a t is certain is that, during this time, scribes are revealing in non-random fashion their unease with niftel and neve, and on the positive side their preferences for kin terms such as mac, muome, base, oeheim, veter and the analytical formations — preferences which themselves varied chronologically, and probably also locally. These conclusions are supported by data from the textual traditions of the Liber ordinis re rum and the Vocabularius Ex quo (section 3.2), where in the 15th century neve, nebe were, broadly speaking, accepted or inserted in Central and Low German witnesses, but absent by accident or design in Upper German, whilst niftel enjoyed some status in Central German but gave way to nichte(ke) and similar forms in Low German, and was again absent in Upper German. The dynamics of this distribution would imply that neve won its way into the emergent standard language on a Central/Low German combination, against the preferences of Upper German; and that niftel failed to do so because its active currency was merely Central German, and even there by no means secure. No one region, therefore, was the guarantor of success.

5.2.3.

muome, base, osheim, veter

Our material for the semantic development of muome, base, ceheim and veter does not exhibit a regional focus. Either, as seems likely, there are still too many gaps in our early coverage, or these semantic developments were polygenetic in nature and regionally non-specific. 27 Orthographic and phonological aspects are not the primary concern of this study, but it may be of interest to record the following major regional variations. For base, by-forms with to- were noted, namely in a 9th-c. South Rhine Frankish gloss uuaaa (?), in Oxford J u n . 83 (Middle Frankish, 13th c.), in Berlin Ms. lat. 4° 674 (Central German, 13th c.), in a Würzburg manuscript of 1333, in Willehalm Ka (Hessen? 1334), in Parzival G μ (Ripuarian, 14th c.), in 14th-century Eisenach, in the Zips (1370) (Deutsches Rechtswörterbuch s.v. Base), in lemma G108 of the Vocabularius

206

5. Conclusions

Thus, the 'upward' extension of oeheim to 'mother's mother's brother' is found in early 13th-century Bavaro-Austrian (Wirnt von Grafenberg, Wig alow), but without secure parallel. Early cases of the 'downward' extension of oeheim and muome axe likewise sporadic and inconclusive. By the 15th century, veter in the sense 'father's brother's son' appears equally at home in Rhine Frankish (Prose Lancelot manuscript P, Pontus und Sidonia (version B)), Basel (Miiller's material), and Bavaro-Austrian (Jakob Unrest). The advent of reciprocation is best attested for oeheim: the Lower Austrian text of the Rabenschlacht has oeheim 'sister's son' ca. 1300, the East Central German Kreuzfahrt Ludwigs des Frommen by the early 14th century, the South Tirol by 1330, and an Alemannic text of Schondoch by the first half of the 15th century. For Alemannic, veter for 'brother's son' is already attested in a deed of 1275, and base 'brother's daughter' in the late 14th-century text of Der Salden Hort. From South Bavarian, muome for 'sister's daughter' surfaces in the second half of the 14th century, in manuscript X of Albrecht, Jüngerer Ttturel. By 1400 most regions appear to have this feature, in some degree at least. Neutralisation of the matrilateral-patrilateral distinction is similarly first documented for oeheim, dubiously already in 12th-century BavaroAustrian (Altdeutsche Genesis), and certainly in the 14th-century East Central German text of Hester·, from the 15th century there are examples in Rhine Frankish and Upper German. The neutralisation is attested for base and veter in 14th-century Swabian. Close contemporary scribes use muome and base synonymously in the South Tirol (1331). Base (and variants) as 'mother's sister' are first recorded in Rhine Frankish manuscripts of the Liber ordinis rerum and the Vocabularius Ex quo, dated respectively 1414 and 1418, then from 1448 in Basel, in Alemannic of the 1470s as 'mother's sister', and in 15th-century Bavaro-Austrian glossaries. These also have muome for 'father's sister', a development confirmed in the Ex quo, manuscript M19 (West Middle Bavarian, 1419), in Willehalm Κ (= K2) (Trier, 1437), in 15th-century Rhine Frankish, and in Kleve (1477). Intermittently from Bavaro-Austrian we have the contrasting forms pas(e), from 15th-century Basel the form besi, from 15th-century Zürich and Zug bas, and from the 14th-century Aargau the diminutives pesli, pesel. (Bheim appears in Alemannic sources typically, t h o u g h n o t e x c l u s i v e l y , a s ohein,

(15th c.); regional f o r m s include Shain,

Shan

( 1 3 t h c . ) , öhein,

ohain,

Sehen,

öchin

öhem (Swabian), and öhein,

öchen,

öhem,

Schern (Alsatian). In Bavaro-Austrian, typical forms are oheim, Shaim (12th-13th

c . ) , ohaim,

oehaim

( 1 4 t h c . ) , a n d oheim,

öheim,

Sheim,

ohaim,

Shaim,

ohaym,

Shaym, oecham (15th c.). In Central German, oheim and ohem occur regularly from the 13th to the 15th century. For vetter, the most noteworthy regional variant is etter (e.g. Schaffhausen, 1278; Basel and Zug, 15th c.). In Hessian, we have vetder (1417) and wittern (1459) (Hessische Urkunden IV, 49 and 181).

Regional variation

207

15th-century East Swabian text of Wilhalm von Orlens. Veter 'mother's brother' is found in Basel (1426?-33) and Rhine Prankish (1455-72). By the end of the 15th century, side seems to have been neutralised in all the main regions, in some form or other. Early indices for these important developments are therefore sporadic. No one regional radiant can as yet be identified, and a polygenetic origin is just as likely on this evidence. The fuller documentation of the 14th and 15th centuries for reciprocation and for neutralisation of side shows widespread regional involvement. At the same time, there are hints that the four terms did not enjoy co-equal regional currency during the late medieval period. Indications vary by place and time, with different regions seeming to neutralise the distinction in opposing ways. In the Liber ordinis rerum, the time-honoured equation of mumme for materiera gives way to wase in Rhine Prankish (1414) and pass in Bavaro-Austrian witnesses (1450-1500). In manuscripts of the Vocabularius Ex quo, for 'mother's sister', we found Rhine Prankish base, wase and Bavaro-Austrian pas in contrast with Low Hessian mome and Alemannic mum, with some uncertainty or overlap in Swabian. The state of the system in a portion at least of Alemannic about 1400-10 may partly be glimpsed in Heinrich Wittenweiler's Ring, which still has mag, freunt, niftel, nef(en), muomen, öhein, öhain, ohaim, ökaim and veiter — but perhaps significantly not base.29 Redactioi^ Β of Bruder Berthold, Rechtssumme (as in manuscript M4, Bavarian with Swabian admixture, 1423) evidently favours pasen over stemmatically anterior mümen (II, 650). There are some sporadic signs of the avoidance of mum(en) 'father's sister' in Wilhalm von Orlens, manuscripts L 1294 (East Swabian, 1467) and C 1360 (High Alemannic, 1477). But in Basel (1448) a spontaneous best (for 'mother's sister') is apparently corrected to müme, mümli, and likewise the 15th-century Alsatian manuscript η of Wolfram's Parzival shows mumen for basen (145,11). Base is generally rare in late medieval private correspondence (see Steinhausen, Deutsche Privatbriefe), the usual term in reference and address here being muome\ exceptionally, from Zürich (1483), we have the phrase die sin bas und im verwandt ist (Steinhausen I, 390, no. 574). In 16th-century Low Alemannic, Geiler von Kaysersberg is very clear that Mume may be applied to the mother's sister's daughter, but not Base, which he regards as denoting the mother's or father's sister (Schmeller 1827-37:1, 1599; see section 4.2.1, above). On the male side, from Augsburg (ca. 1475), there is Zainer's emendation of 28

There is a similar omission from a 14th-century Alemannic manuscript of Johannes Tauler (see 4.3.2).

208

5. Conclusions

vetter to vatter(a) br&der. Vetter of the 15th-century East Swabian A-text of Wilhalm von Orlens (1049) appears to have been emended to the plural fründe in L (East Swabian, 1467) and to freunde in D (Augsburg print of 1491) — but later again from Basel (1523) we note the Petri-glossator's positive choice of vetter as an equivalent for Lutheran N&ff. The scribal replacement of niftel and neve with muome, base, osheim and veter (as noted in section 5.2.2, above) offers negative evidence for the decline of the first two terms, but equally serves as a positive indicator for the status of the remaining four. In this way muome and its variants are indicated for parts of Bavarian (1325-50), for Alsace (1400-50) and for Augsburg (ca. 1475); ceheirn and its variants for Swabian (ca. 1300) and for parts of 15th-century Bavarian; and vet(t)er for parts of 15thand 16th-century Alemannic. If version a of the Prose Lancelot is to be seen as a re-working of the older High German version, rather than as an independent re-translation, then we can register the emendations niftel > Baße, Bäßlin, and neve > vetter (but also vettern > Bruders Söhnen) in this 16th-century Bavarian manuscript. Since laterality had only fairly recently become generally neutralised, we should not expect too sharp a regional picture. Impressionistically, some generalisations may, however, be helpful, using data from the late 14th to the early 16th centuries.29 (Eheim and veter are then widespread in regional usage, and no clear separation is discernible. For muome and base, on the other hand, the following tendencies emerge: (1) West Central German. Typical forms are mune in Middle Prankish, and mume, mome in Hessian, contrasting with base, wase in other parts of Rhine Prankish. (2) East Central German. Apart from Thuringian was(s)e,30 the form mume is solidly attested, for example in Plauen and Gera, 31 Dresden,32 Breslau 33 and Danzig. 34 (3) Swabian-Alemannic. For Swabian and Alsatian, muome appears dominant, though there is some use of base.35 Basel sources suggest that 29

Our basis here is the material of sections 3.2.6, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and the present section, to which a few further examples will be attached.

30

Johannes Rothe, Düringische

Chronik 36, 616.

31

Urkundenbuch der Vögte von Weida, Gera und Planen II, 130f., 231.

32

Boer (ed.), Da» älteste Stadtbuch von Dresden 30. Bindewald, Deutsche

34

41

Texte aus schlesischen Kanzleien

Deutsches Rechtswörterbuch

I, 152.

s.v. Freundin.

For muome, see Steinhausen, Deutsche Privatbriefe II, 51 (Söflingen), and Die Chroniken der schwäbischen Städte, Augsburg I, 321, II, 201.

Regional variation

209

an older, recessive base is being overlaid with a more prestigious (imported?) muome, and the latter is again found in the Aargau; 36 Zürich texts have both terms. 37 Further south (Zug, Graubünden), bos and bäsy appear normal. (4) Bavaro- Austrian. Both base and mume occur in North Bavarian, 38 and in the South Tirol (1331). Elsewhere, pas is strongly attested (particularly in the west?), but with indications also for muom, which is probably Austrian. 39 Further reading of 15th- and 16th-century texts will supply additional detail here. Our first impression is of an unusually fragmented dialect situation, with all the major regions showing division or vacillation. Base is most strongly indicated in Rhine Frankish (excluding Hessian), in Thuringian (as wast), in parts of Bavaro-Austrian, and in High Alemannia Muome appears to have an even less cohesive basis, in the North-West of the High German area, in East Central German, in Low Alemannic and northern Switzerland, and in (eastern?) parts of Bavaro-Austrian. The material is not yet sufficient for us to venture to relate it systematically to the regional distribution of the four terms in early 20th-century dialects — particularly as, in mapping these features, the semantic aspects would also need to be considered. Yet such evidence ω we have for the dialect situation round 1900 points to the establishment of sharp regional restrictions, presumably in some cases from the 15th century onwards. Schoof (1900) reported the currency of Veiicr-forms in his own day as extending in Central German over Thuringia, Leipzig, Siegerland, Wittgenstein, Westerwald, Oberhessen and Odenwald, and in Upper German across Alsace, Swabia, Switzerland, Carinthia, Tirol, Bavaria and Austria (236f.). 40 His OÄetm-Gebiet' was much more restricted, comprising Siegerland, Cologne and Düren in Central German (whence also Siebenbürgen), and in Upper German only Switzerland (237). 41 This stands in stark contrast to our 14th- and 15th-century material, in which reflexes of aeheim still flourish widely in Central and Upper German. 36 37

Die Urkunden des Klosterarchivs Gnadenthal 41. Chronik der Stadt Zürich 45; Schweizerisches Idiotikon IV, 1646ff.

38

Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte, Nürnberg III, 295, IV, 204, V, 627, 706; Steinbausen, Deutsche Privatbriefe II, 40.

39

See, for example, Moser 1977: II, 23, no. 25 (Habeburg chancery, 1493) (muemen).

40

From Switzerland, Schoof also noted ätter (Bern, Freiburg, Wallis), etter (Graubünden), attro, ältere (Piemont) and ettro (Wallis, Graubünden) for 'uncle' and 'cousin' (238).

41

For discussion and a m a p of oom, eum, etc. in the extreme north-west of High German, see Roukens 1937: I, 328ff. and II, m a p 65.

210

5. Conclusions

Schoof found forms of the VTase-type across much of Central German (Westerwald, Sayn-Wittgenstein, Siegerland, Oberhessen, Thuringia as far as the Unterharz, Henneberg and Lusatia); Base-forms in Cologne, Nassau and the Odenwald; and 2?aj-forms in Alsace, Swabia, Switzerland, Bavaria and Salzburg (246f.). He defined the 'Muhme-GebieV as including (in Central German) Kurhessen, Lahngau, Wetterau, (North) Thuringia, Mansfeld, Düren, the Eifel, extraneously the Ungarisches Bergland and Siebenbürgen, and (in Upper German) Switzerland, Bavaria, Austria, Vienna, Carinthia, Luserna, XIII Gemeinden and Gottschee. Schoof further remarked that Tante and Onkel were not yet usual in rural dialect. This report was based (196ff.) on monographs and dictionaries, the solicited opinions of dialectologists, and a limited quantity of direct information. The basis is questionable, and yet there are features that invite comparison, both with the linguistic picture in the 14th and 15th centuries, and with more recent 20th-century data. 42 The Bavaro-Austrian situation, documented and mapped by Grunow (1966) on the basis of material gathered during the 1930s, will serve as illustration. 43 For 'Tante' (267ff. and map 1502), Grunow identifies a large area with muam and variants, in Upper and Lower Austria, Styria, the East Tirol, Carinthia, and much of Burgenland; the map for 'Nichte' (1501) has muam with a closely similar distribution. 44 To the west of this area, across Bavaria, the Tirol, and Salzburg province, pas-forms predominate in Grunow's data. 45 Since Schoof, then, we may suspect that there has been some recession of muam-lovms in Bavaria, if not also in parts 42

On tante, moei, meun, etc. along the north-western fringe of High German, see Roukens 1937: I, 323ff., and II, maps 63 and 64.

43

For Base and to some extent et al. 1963-: II, 400ff.

44

Grunow's line for ρ as/muam runs approximately as follows: east of Passau — Ried — St. Wolfgang — Radstadt — south of Bad Gastein — north of Heiligenblut — west and south of Matrei. There is also a significant (relict?) area with Päslein for 'Tante' (but not 'Nichte') to the north and east of Vienna. From the South Tirol, Kranzmayer et al. (1963-: II, 400ff.) report the semantic differentiation päsl 'blutsverwandte Tante' and müem 'angeheiratete Tante'.

45

An analogous division bisected the Schönhengst from north to south (see Kreller 1939: 9 and map 1), the westerly Base-forms (pös, etc.) being Bavarian, and the easterly Mu/ime-forms (mum, etc.) perhaps of Central German origin. Central Hungarian enclaves commonly have Base-forms, though forms of the Mvhme-type were recalled by the oldest generation in Hutterer's survey (1963: 199). Weidlein reported that, in Donauschwäbisch, Base/Wase-torms were dominant, with muam (etc.) in some villages (1963-64: 61ff.). The Deutscher Wortatlas (VI, maps 3 and 6) very occasionally records Moahm(e), Moam and Baal, Bosla in the affinal senses Schwiegermutter, -tochter; see also Debus 1958a: 102f. Moahm-forms for affinal relatives were found sporadically in Upper and Lower Austria and Carinthia, and

Mvhme,

there is further information in Kranzmayer

Regional variation

211

of Austria, in favour of pas-forms — which are, however, already attested from our 15th- and 16th-century sources for some parts of this region. For 'uncle', Grunow, like Schoof before him, found that OAetra-forms were as good as absent from the Bavaro-Austrian region, where Veiier-forms predominate. 4 6 This finding is at variance with our 15th-century material, which shows both ιletter and oheim still well entrenched in these areas. Even making what allowances we may for scribal conservatism in the early material, and incomplete reporting in the more recent, we conclude with the impression that lexically, if not also in other ways, the shape of German dialects at the turn of the last century owed much to comparatively recent, post-medieval, developments, which are themselves largely masked from us by the progressive ascendancy of the standard language. 47 In the case of Swiss dialects, comprehensive maps with commentary exist in the Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz.48 For 'niece' and 'nephew', analytical formations are common throughout, also various borrowings from Romance languages, and Nichte and Näffe from the standard. For much of Switzerland, the two main contrasting terms are descendants of base and veter, which are now under pressure from Tante and Onkel·, only a few relics of muome and ceheim are recorded. As a westward extension of the Bavaro-Austrian ρα.»-region, baasi and its variants appear frequently in older Swiss usage in the north and east, for 'Tante', 'Nichte', 'Cousine', and indeed for any female relative. The newer competitor, as in Bavaro-Austrian, is Tante. Similarly, vetter and variants (for Onkel', 'Neffe', 'Cousin' and sometimes more generally) are very prevalent in older usage in the north and east of Switzerland, and elsewhere in the region, giving way to more recent unggle (etc.). Jlfttoroe-forms were found, however, in Wallis, whence also for 'uncle' ett(e)ru, etter.49 In contrast, bä(ä)si and öhi, ehi are attested from Graubünden. At the beginning of

46

47 48

49

Basl(a) along an intriguingly thin band from Amberg in North Bavarian, through Western Bavarian to the Tirol and the South Tirol. See Grunow 1966: 303ff., 455, and map 1503. The situation was similar in the Schönhengst (Kreller 1939), Central Hungary (Hutterer 1963: 206), and Donauschwäbisch (Weidlein 1963-64: 61ff.), for all of which OAetm-forms are lacking, and Vetier-forms reported, albeit in some cases as recessive. Generally for BavaroAustrian, Kranzmayer et al. (1963: II, 400ff.) observe that the threefold Base/ Muhme/Base-division was still clearly visible in 1936, but has since been weakened by the increasing penetration of Tante and Nichte. See also Müller 1979: 15f. SDS IV, 1969: maps 131-32 (Onkel), 133-34 (Tante), 135-38 (Neffe, Nichte), 13942 (Cousin, Cousine), etc.; see also Hotzenköcherle 1961: 215 and maps 11-12; Hotzenköcherle 1984: 166f. and map 8. See Hotzenköcherle 1984: 164fF. on muema and ettru in Wallis, and 234 on etter in Jaun (Freiburg). For historical examples of muem from the 16th century, see

212

5. Conclusions

the century, Schoof reported a series of Oheim-forms for Switzerland: öhi, ehi (Graubünden), öchi (Piemont, Tessin), öchem, öchim, Sehen, öehin, öhen, ohen.50 If reliance can be placed upon this information, there has been some regression in recent times. Overall in Switzerland, the tendency has been to reduce the four-term system to a binary pair, but in Pomat (north of Domodossola) instances were still apparently to be found of the old semantic distinction: öhi for 'mother's brother', and eiirtt for 'father's brother' (Hotzenköcherle 1961: 215 and map 12; Hotzenköcherle 1984: 166). Looking generally at kin terms in Swiss German, one is impressed by the antiquity of occasional survivals, but more particularly by the vitality and extent of lexical developments within these dialects during and since the late medieval period. As with Bavaro-Austrian, the 20th-century map is surprisingly different from what we have been able to reconstruct of its 15th-century predecessor. For all regions, there is a bridge still to be built here, spanning the years from 1500 to 1900, and resting upon what can be found of genuinely dialectal data from this period.

5.3.

Other variation

Across the seven and a half centuries which this study embraces, vernacular literacy penetrated one sphere of activity after another. The result is a steady proliferation of text-types, culminating for us in the 15th century, which offers not only a hitherto unparalleled simultaneity of styles and functions, but also, when viewed in diachronic perspective, a summation of many traditions, older and younger, as texts of differing age are reproduced and re-worked with varying fidelity to their originals. Testing the lexical constancy of these traditions, we have found that even those texttypes supposedly most resistant to change (sacred texts, poetic works in the tradition of the Blütezeit, glossaries and vocabularies) axe clearly responding to lexico-semantic developments, and so are not to be dismissed as merely conservative. Archaism and modernity co-exist within the 15th century, as never before in German linguistic usage. Both tendencies are linguistic reality of a kind, whether regarded as products, or as potential Schweizerisches Idiotikon IV, 230f. For kin terms in the German-speaking enclaves of northern Italy, see Onesti (1979-80). 50

For older Alemannic examples of 6chin Idiotikon I, 74.

(1389) and öchem,

see

Schweizerisches

Other variation

213

shapers and models of usage. To have concentrated exclusively on practical, everyday texts of the 15th century, in the hope of there discovering the 'real' language, would seriously have warped the true picture, ignoring its essential complexities and tensions, its richness, and its potential for development. The text-specific variable manifests itself in two ways: (1) in the differing receptivity of texts to kin terms, and (2) in the varying response of texts to lexico-semantic changes within the field. (1) Occurrences in texts of the Old High German period axe relatively infrequent, and naturally for this period they arise almost entirely in response to the Latin kin terms. Before 1150, the glosses are our most valuable source. Religious texts of all periods furnish strong evidence for certain designations and relationships, but show also a tendency to transcend mundane kin-relationships, replacing them either with references to spiritual kinship or with integrative, summative paradoxes. Incidence of kin terms is high in secular literature, particularly (though unevenly) the Arthurian romance and the heroic epic. Legal texts make, of course, intensive use of kin terms, but tend to offer little internal semantic corroboration. Incidence of kin terms in 15th-century private correspondence is high among the nobility, and considerably lower in letters from the clergy and the middle class (see Steinhausen, Deutsche Privatbriefe, passim). For future work, a highly promising source will be found in largely unpublished legal records of the kind used by Müller (1953) from Basel; such archival evidence promises to offer good insights into 15th- and 16th-century local and social variation, along with glimpses of oral usage. (2) The material so fax obtained is sufficient only to allow us to register anecdotally the clustering (and, more guardedly, the absence) of a few specific features in differing text-types. Formulae such as mac und vriunt are most typically found in poetic texts. The compounds vatermäc and muotermac occur especially in legal texts. Predominantly legal, too, is the source material for consanguineal vriunt. By the 15th century, outside their residual dialect bases, ntftel and neve are tending to appeax mainly in poetic texts, presumably as survivals from older poetic traditions; they axe also found in high chancery usage even in those areas which otherwise seem to be losing the terms from more general currency.51 Muome, base, ceheim and veter are attested over a wide range of textual types, in their 'Classical' and their newer senses. Private correspondence among the 15thcentury nobility favours muome, ceheim and veter, with very infrequent 51

See, for example, chancery, 1494).

neue(n)

in Moser 1977: II, 30, no. 34, and 33, no. 35 (Habsburg

214

5. Conclusions

use of niflel, neve and base; for muome the sense 'brother's daughter' is here surprisingly common, as are various affinal uses of muome and veter. Social stratification in kinship terminology is only rarely indicated in our data, for example in the legal material from Basel, and even here the evidence can be interpreted as regional, rather than social, variation. There is no sign whatever that the upper classes clung longest to traditional 'Classical' usage, nor can we see them distinctly as innovators. That social variation existed in the kinship field during the 15th century (and even earlier) can scarcely be doubted. Having observed so much diachronic, geographical and text-specific variation in this word-field, we cannot assume a vertical homogeneity before 1500, particularly since the underlying kinship perceptions and concerns differed markedly by class. Our methodological difficulty is that of distinguishing in Early New High German between three interdependent variables — stylistic variation, social stratification, and an incipient divergence between dialect and supra-regionalism — each of which, moreover, is imperfectly recorded across its full range in surviving texts. The picture will become clearer, once we have the means of placing 15th-century kinship usage in the context of 16th- and 17thcentury practice, for which the sociolinguistic data can be expected to be altogether more plentiful.

5.4.

Methodological reflections

In this, the closing section of an intricate work, we draw out a few methodological insights and conclusions, which may be found useful as a stimulus and a guide to others, as German historical lexicography slowly comes to fill its massive remaining lacunae. The lexicographical gaps seem in some ways to have increased with the years, as the theoretical basis of our subject has developed. Among the advances in modern linguistics, there are two, in particular, that have transformed and much augmented the historical lexicographer's task. (1) The concept of lexis as a system, or as an agglomerate of diverse systems, has rightly shaken lexicographers from their traditional alphabetical atomism, and has meant that the primary task of linguistic collection, analysis and synthesis falls increasingly to a range of specialised monographs, which can take account of systemic features in ways that are harder, if not impossible, for the alphabetised historical lexicon. The latter then becomes a secondary, more remote synthesis, which can be

Methodological reflections

215

definitively achieved only once the specialised groundwork has been completed. (2) Increasingly, we have become sensitive to the multidimensional variability of language, both present and past. Whatever the period, a lexicographer must now look as far as possible for differences, not only chronological and regional, but also social, functional, stylistic and situative. For a finite corpus, the analytical demands are high when the material has to be shared so many different ways. In practice, too, historical linguists are probably always 'at the mercy of the phenomena they study' (Cruse 1986: 8). The available material is invariably biased in its makeup and distribution, with some periods, regions, social strata and stylistic registers better represented than others, so t h a t the investigator is faced with a choice. A corpus that has been carefully selected so ω to achieve balance in all its dimensions and categories must necessarily be excluding huge amounts of perhaps valuable data in some of those aspects, and may be fit only for the investigation of high-frequency systemic phenomena. A corpus, on the other hand, that is full enough to detect the less common phenomena will need to have opted for textual quantity, even at the price of equilibrium. That price has been consciously paid in the present work, from the knowledge that it is easier to move from (potentially biased) fullness to a reductive equilibrium, than to do the reverse, once d a t a have been ignored or jettisoned. In another respect, also, the corpus is unbalanced. For semantic data, our best sources in general have proved to be the poetic texts; but these stem in many cases from a lengthy textual tradition which poses problems of dating and localisation. Greater regional and chronological precision is on the whole possible with legal texts and chronicles, but semantically their yield is more meagre. Only in a subset of the data do we find a favourable conjunction of circumstances which enables time, place and sense to be accurately determined. Impressionism can therefore hardly be avoided. Its obvious corrective is a systematic enlargement of the corpus, which from the 13th and 14th centuries can be expected to furnish new semantic insights, from the 15th century a clearer view of lexis in the competing regions, and from the 16th century onward details of social stratification and stylistic diversity. 52 Proceeding from the corpus, historical lexicographers have operated two main principles: (1) the location of form in text, and (2) the deduction 52

On the formation of a corpus, see Walter Hoffmann 1984. From the late 15th century onwards, good prospects would be offered by a corpus-based, quantitative approach, as exemplified in the series Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache (Dückert et al. 1976; Müller et al. 1976).

216

5. Conclusions

of sense or meaning from context. On both counts, questions of method have arisen and been confronted in this study. (1) Textually, we have found good reason to emphasise the primacy of tangible manuscript and print witnesses, rather than of the reconstructed Urtext. Utopian though it may seem, we believe, indeed, that the only long-term basis for German historical lexicography must be a full-scale return to the manuscript and print sources — supported, of course, by the full range of secondary aids. Against this background, our own recourse to modern critical editions can only be regarded as an interim measure in what is clearly an iterative, cyclic process. Working with such editions has, with signal exceptions, confirmed the view that, whatever their merits in other respects, they are not, in the strictest sense, a linguist'stool. Their raison d'etre is, in the main, that the literary scholar may approach the authorial version as closely as possible. But the linguist, for his part, may be at least as interested in the late, isolated, idiosyncratic or apparently negligible variant, the crass dialectism, the ignorant or wilful misreading, the eloquent omission. A literary scholar's corruption is in such cases the linguist's primary data, and the plea here must be, not only for facsimile and diplomatic editions, but also for the fullest possible listing of variants in the critical apparatus. Furthermore, the approach we have advocated places equal demands on the palaeographer, to whose datings so much of German language history is still uneasily indebted, on the historical dialectologist for ever more precise localisation of manuscripts and redactions, and on the textual critic, whose continuing help is needed in deciding whether or not similarities or divergences between texts are stemmatically conditioned. Of the many approaches met with in this study, the admirable work of the Würzburger Forschergruppe (see for instance Kunze 1985, Steer 1985 and Kirchert 1986) is most intensely relevant here. (2) Contextually, too, this study has by its nature raised some acute problems. A lexicographer might expect that for a given attestation the defining context would normally consist of a few lines, a sentence, or at most a paragraph. Repeatedly, in determining the senses of kinship terms, we have had not only to decide the identities of Ego and Alter (for which data may already be some tens or hundreds of lines distant), but also to find corroboration for the nature of the genealogical relationship itself, evidence for which may be more distant still, and may require a combination of information from a number of widely separated points in the text. The need to regard an entire text as a kind of macro-context raises questions of principle. How far can the integrity of the work be taken for granted? May we assume a unity of conception or execution on the

Methodological reflections

217

part of the author or scribe, such that kinship data supplied at one point remain globally valid? And if a context of this magnitude is acceptable, indeed necessary in certain portions of the lexis, what bar is there to its further extension, beyond the single text? After all, the genealogical linkages articulated by kin terms are themselves a most potent and productive intertextual device for the medieval poet. Perhaps justifiably in this study, with declared exceptions, we have preferred to regard the unitary (artistically or scribally definable) text as the maximum permissible unit from which to define the sense of a given locus. We have found, indeed, that to exceed this limit can lead to contradictory results. A more lenient approach might admit (as we have done but sparingly, and in all cases explicitly) a variety of intertextual data: kinship information from other texts by the same author, from a parallel redaction of the same work (as with the Rosengarten), or from within a floating tradition (as in the Dietrichepik), or from other works which regularly accompany our text in manuscript transmission (for example Ulrich von dem Türlin's Arabel and Ulrich von Türheim's Rennewart, alongside Wolfram's Willehalm), or from a generally accepted canon (notably the Bible). Given the circumstances of creation, transmission, and reception, an isolationist view of the literary work must appear in the last resort unrealistic: the lexical attestation has as its ultimate context the entire linguistic productivity, factual knowledge and socio-cultural expectations of the speech community from which it springs.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

6.1.

Texts cited

ADELBRECHT, Priester. Johannes Baptista. In: Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. Natch ihren Formen besprochen und hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Band II. Tübingen 1965. pp. 328ff. [Original 12th c.; manuscript Bavarian, 1170-90.] JELFRIC. Be Hester. In: Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben. Hrsg. von Bruno Assmann. Kassel 1889. (= Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa, 3.) pp. 92-101. DER ÄLTERE SIGENOT. See SIGENOT. ALBERT VON AUGSBURG. Das Leben des Heiligen Ulrich. Hrsg. von KarlErnst Geith. Berlin, New York 1971. (= Quellen und Forschungen, N.F. 39 (163).) [Original late 12th c.; manuscript Augsburg, early 13th c.] ALBRECHT VON HALBERSTADT. Albrecht von Halberstadt und Ovid im Mittelalter, von Karl Bartsch. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1861. Reprinted Amsterdam 1965. (= Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 38.) [Original 1190-1210; text 16th c., with some earlier fragments.] ALBRECHT [VON SCHARFENBERG?]. Jüngerer Titurel, Band I (Strophe 11957). Band II (Strophe 1958-4394). Nach den ältesten und besten Handschriften kritisch hrsg. von Werner Wolf. Berlin 1955-68. (= Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 45, 55/61.) Band III/l (Strophe 4395-5417). Nach den Grundsätzen von Werner Wolf kritisch hrsg. von Kurt Nyholm. Berlin 1985. (= Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 73.) [Original 1260-75; manuscripts from ca. 1300; A (East Central German copy of a Bavarian manuscript) end of the 13th c. or beginning of the 14th c.; Β (East Central German copy of a Bavarian manuscript) 14th c.; D (Bavaro-Austrian) dated 1457; Ε (Central German) 15th c.; X (South Bavarian) second half of the 14th c.] ALPHARTS TOD. Alpharts Tod, Dietrichs Flucht, Rabenschlacht, hrsg. von Ernst Martin. Berlin 1866. 2. Auflage, Dublin, Zürich 1967. (= Deutsches Heldenbuch, 2.) [Original Alemannic, mid or later 13th c.; manuscript West Central German, second half of the 15th c.] ALTDEUTSCHE GENESIS. See MILLSTÄTTER GENESIS and WIENER GENESIS. ALTDEUTSCHE PREDIGTEN. Hrsg. von Anton Ε. Schönbach. [3 vols.] Graz 1886-91. Reprinted Darmstadt 1964. [Vol. I from 14th-c. manuscript; vol. Ill (Priester Konrad) from 13th-c. manuscript (Vienna 2648*).]

220

6. Bibliography

DAS ALTE KULMISCHE RECHT, mit einem Wörterbuche hrsg. von C. K. Leman. Berlin 1838. [Manuscript A, East Central German, mid 14th c.] VON DER ALTEN MUTTER. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 6 (1848) 497503. [Austrian manuscript, dated 1393.] ANNOLIED. Das Anno-Lied. Hrsg. von Martin Opitz MDCXXXIX. Diplomatischer Abdruck besorgt von Walther Bulst. 2. Auflage. Heidelberg 1961. ANNOLIED. In: Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. Nach ihren Formen besprochen und hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Band II. Tübingen 1965. pp. 3-45. [Original Frankish, 1077-81 or after 1106; 17th-c. print.] ARNOLD, Priester. Loblied auf den heiligen Geist (Gedicht von der Siebenzahl). In: Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. Nach ihren Formen besprochen und hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Band III. Tübingen 1970. pp. 5385. [Original Bavaro-Austrian, 12th c.; Vorau manuscript, Bavaro-Austrian, last quarter of the 12th c. (Schneider 1987:1, 37ff.).] ATHIS UND PROPHILIAS. In: Mittelhochdeutsches Übungsbuch. Hrsg. von Carl von Kraus. 2. Auflage. Heidelberg 1926. ( = Germanische Bibliothek, I, III, 2.) pp. 63fF. [Original ca. 1210 (?); manuscript Hessian, 13th c., with 14th-c. fragments Ab~e and A**.] AVA, Frau. Die Dichtungen der Frau Ava. Hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Tübingen 1966. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 66.) [Original Bavaro-Austrian, 12th c.; Vorau manuscript, Bavaro-Austrian, last quarter of the 12th c.] BACHMANN, Α., and S. SINGER (editors). Deutsche Volksbücher aus einer Zürcher Handschrift des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts. Tübingen 1889. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 185.) [Manuscript Zürich C. 28, Alemannic, 1470s; several hands, including (for most of Karl and Wilhelm, both written in 1475) the scribe Georg Hochmuott, probably from Donauwörth, chaplain in Nördlingen and Zürich. Das Buch von Hester written 1474.] BARTSCH, Karl (editor). Geistliche Dichtungen vom XII. bis XV. Jahrhundert. See ERLÖSUNG, pp. 187ff. BEDE. In Lucae Evangelium Expositio. See MIGNE (editor), Patrologia, Series Latina 92, pp. 301-634. BEHEIM, Michel. Die Gedichte [...]. [3 vols.] Hrsg. von Hans Gille und Ingeborg Spriewald. Berlin 1968-72. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 60, 64, 65/1-2.) [Originals North Württemberg, mainly 1449-66; manuscripts from the second half of the 15th c.] BEHEIM, Michel. Reimchronik. In: Quellen zur Geschichte Friedrichs des Siegreichen. Vol. 2: Michel Beheim und Eikhart Artzt. Hrsg. von C. Hofmann. München 1863. ( = Quellen und Erörterungen zur Bayerischen und Deutschen Geschichte, 3.) [Original third quarter of the 15th c.; manuscript contemporary.] BERTHOLD, Bruder. Die 'Rechtssumme' Bruder Bertholds. Eine deutsche abecedarische Bearbeitung der 'Summa Confessorum' des Johannes von Freiburg. Synoptische Edition der Fassungen Β, Α und C. Hrsg. von Georg Steer

T e x t s cited

221

[et al.]. Band 1-4. Tübingen 1987. ( = Texte und Textgeschichte. Würzburger Forschungen, 11-14.) (See also Weck 1982.) BERTHOLD VON HOLLE. Demantin. Hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Tübingen 1875. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 123.) [Original Low German/High German, 13th c.; manuscript 15th c., with 14th-c. fragments.] BERTHOLD VON REGENSBURG. Vollständige Ausgabe seiner Predigten mit Anmerkungen von Franz Pfeiffer. Mit einem Vorwort von Kurt Ruh. Band 1. Berlin 1965. Vollständige Ausgabe seiner deutschen Predigten mit Einleitungen und Anmerkungen von Franz Pfeiffer und Joseph Strobl. Mit einer Bibliographie und einem überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Beitrag von Kurt Ruh. Band 2. Berlin 1965. [Manuscripts Heidelberg Cod. palat. 24 ( = A), South Rhine Frankish, dated 1370 (vol. 1), and Heidelberg Cod. palat. 35 ( = H), 1439 (vol. 2); edition completely normalised, with conjectures, and apparatus unreliable. Manuscript a, Swabian, beginning of the 15th c. On the tradition, see Richter 1969.] BIBLE: SEPTUAGINT. The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Edited by Henry Barclay Swete. [3 vols.] Cambridge 1930-34. BIBLE: VULGATE. Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem adiuvantibus Bonifatio Fischer OSB, Iohanne Gribomont OSB, H. F. D. Sparks, W. Thiele recensuit et brevi apparatu instruxit Robertus Weber OSB. [2 vols.] Stuttgart 1969. BIBLE: VULGATE. Biblia Sacra Latina ex Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. London 1970. BIBLE: LOW GERMAN. See ISING (editor). BIBLE: NEW TESTAMENT. DAs neuw Testamet recht grüntlich teutscht [...]. Gedruckt z8m anderen mal / durch Adam Petri z8o Basel, 1523. BIBLE: LUTHER'S TRANSLATION. Biblia: Das ist: Die gantze Heilige Schrifft/ Deudsch/ Auffs new zugericht. D. Mart. Luth. [...] Wittemberg 1545. BIBLE. See also FIRST GERMAN PRINTED BIBLE. BINDEWALD, Helene (editor). Deutsche Texte aus schlesischen Kanzleien des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts auf Grund der Vorarbeiten Konrad Burdachs unter seiner und Paul Piurs Mitwirkung hrsg. von Helene Bindewald. Berlin 1935-36. ( = Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation, 9, 1-2.) BITEROLF. Biterolf und Dietlieb, hrsg. von Oskar Jänicke. Laurin und Walberan, mit Benutzung der von Franz Roth gesammelten Abschriften und Vergleichungen. Berlin 1866. Reprinted Berlin, Zürich 1963. ( = Deutsches Heldenbuch, 1.) [Biterolf: original Austrian, probably ca. 1260; manuscript Austrian, 1504-16.] BITEROLF. Biterolf und Dietleib, neu hrsg. und eingeleitet von Andre Schnyder. Bern, Stuttgart 1980. ( = Sprache und Dichtung, N.F. 31.) BOER, Elisabeth (editor). Das älteste Stadtbuch von Dresden 1404-1436. Dresden 1963. ( = Quellen und Forschungen zur sächsischen Geschichte, 1.) BRACK, Wenceslaus. Vocabularius rerum. Auguste 1495. [British Library copy, ΙΑ. 6351.]

222

6. Bibliography

BRAUNE, Wilhelm, and Ernst Α. EBBINGHAUS (editors). Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. Zusammengestellt und mit Wörterbuch versehen von Wilhelm Braune, fortgeführt von Karl Helm. 14. Auflage bearbeitet von Ernst A. Ebbinghaus. Tübingen 1962. BRAUNSCHWEIGISCHE REIMCHRONIK. In: Deutsche Chroniken und andere Geschichtsbücher des Mittelalters, hrsg. von der Gesellschaft für ältere Geschichtskunde. Band 2. Hannover 1877. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1971. ( = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scr. qui vernacula lingua usi sunt, 2.) [Original last quarter of the 13th c.; manuscripts from the late 13th c. (?)] DAS BUCH DER MAKKABÄER. Das Buch der Maccabäer in mitteldeutscher Bearbeitung. Hrsg. von Karl Helm. Tübingen 1904. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 233.) [Original Central German, first half of the 14th c.; manuscript Prussian (?), second third of the 14th c.] DAS BUCH VOM HEILIGEN KARL. See BACHMANN and SINGER (editors). DAS BUCH VOM HEILIGEN WILHELM. See BACHMANN and SINGER (editors). DAS BUCH VON HESTER, See BACHMANN and SINGER (editors). CATO. See Neuwirth 1887 and Zatocil 1952. CHANSON DE ROLAND. Das altfranzösische Rolandslied. Kritische Ausgabe besorgt von E. Stengel. Band 1. Text, Variantenapparat und vollständiges Namenverzeichnis. Leipzig 1900. CHARTULARIUM SANGALLENSE. Band III-V. Bearbeitet von Otto P. Clavadetscher. St. Gallen 1983-88. CHRONIK DER STADT ZÜRICH. Mit Fortsetzungen. Hrsg. von Johannes Dierauer. Basel 1900. ( = Quellen zur Schweizer Geschichte, 18.) [Base manuscript (no. 3), Zürich, 15th c.; no. 5, scribe from Glarus, dated 1473.] DIE CHRONIKEN DER FRÄNKISCHEN STÄDTE. Nürnberg. [5 vols.] Leipzig 1862-74. ( = Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11.) DIE CHRONIKEN DER SCHWÄBISCHEN STÄDTE. Augsburg. [9 vols.] Leipzig 1865-. Gotha 1929. ( = Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert, 4, 5, 22, 23, 25, 29, 32, 33, 34.) CLOSENER, Fritsche. Chronik (1362). In: Die Chroniken der oberrheinischen Städte. Strafiburg. [2 vols.] Leipzig 1870-71. ( = Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert, 8-9.) CODEX VINDOBONENSIS 2721. Frühmittelhochdeutsche Sammelhandschrift der Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek in Wien. 'Genesis' — 'Physiologus' — 'Exodus'. Hrsg. von Edgar Papp. Göppingen 1980. ( = Litterae, 79.) CODEX VINDOBONENSIS 2885. See SCHMID (editor). COMENIUS, J. A. Ianua aurea reserata quatuor linguarum [...] Cum quadriplici Indice, a Nathanaele Dhuez [...]. Lugd. Bat. 1640.

Texts cited

223

CORPUS DER ALTDEUTSCHEN ORIGINALURKUNDEN bis zum Jahr 1300. Hrsg. von Friedrich Wilhelm, Richard Newald, Helmut de Boor und Diether Haacke. [4 vols, with Regeaten; 5th vol. in progress.] Lahr (Baden) 1932-. CORPUS GLOSSARIORUM LATINORUM a Gustavo Loewe incohatum auspiciis Academiae Litterarum Saxonicae composuit recensuit edidit Georgius Goetz. [7 vols.] Lipsiae, Berolini 1889-1923. Reprinted Amsterdam 1965. CRANC, Claus. Die Prophetenübersetzung. Hrsg. von Waither Ziesemer. Halle (Saale) 1930. ( = Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Sonderreihe, 1.) [Original East Central German, first half of the 14th c.; manuscript 1360-90.] DASYPODIUS, Petrus. Dictionarium latinogermanicum. Mit einer Einführung von Gilbert de Smet. Hildesheim, New York 1974. ( = Documenta Linguistica, Reihe I.) [Printed Straßburg, 1536.] DEUTSCHSPIEGEL. Deutschenspiegel und Augsburger Sachsenspiegel. Hrsg. von Karl August Eckhardt und Alfred Hübner. 2. neubearbeitete Ausgabe. Hannover 1933. ( = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Fontes iuris germanici antiqui, N.S. 3.) [Original probably Augsburg, ca. 1260.] DIEMER, Joseph (editor). Deutsche Gedichte des XI. und XII. Jahrhunderts. Aufgefunden im regulierten Chorherrenstifte zu Vorau in der Steiermark [...]. Wien 1849. DIETRICHS ERSTE AUSFAHRT. Hrsg. von Franz Stark. Stuttgart 1860. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 52.) [Manuscript BavaroAustrian, second half of the 15th c.] EBERHARD, Johannes. Baurodel und Jahrzeitbuch der St.-Oswalds Kirche in Zug. Mit einer Tafel. Hrsg. von P. Rudolf Henggeler O.S.B. Basel 1951. (= Quellen zur Schweizer Geschichte, 2, 4.) [Written 1478-97.] EBERNAND VON ERFURT. Heinrich und Kunegunde. Zum ersten Male nach der einzigen Handschrift hrsg. von Reinhold Bechstein. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1860. (= Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 39.) [Original ca. 1220; manuscript Thuringian, second quarter of the 15th c.] EILHART VON OBERG. Eilhart von Oberge. Hrsg. von Franz Lichtenstein. Strassburg, London 1877. ( = Quellen und Forschungen, 19.) EILHART VON OBERG. Tristrant. ßdition diplomatique des manuscrits et traduction en fran^ais moderne avec introduction, notes et index par Danielle Buschinger. Preface de Jean Fourquet. Göppingen 1976. (= Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 202.) [Original late 12th c.; manuscript D, East Central German, 1433; manuscript Η, Swabian, 1460-75 (?); 12th- and 13th-c. fragments.] EISENACHER RECHTSBUCH. Bearbeitet von Peter Rondi. Weimar 1950. ( = Germanenrechte, N.F., Abteilung Stadtrechtsbücher, 3.) [Original late 14th c.] ELISABETH. Das Leben der Heiligen Elisabeth vom Verfasser der Erlösung, hrsg. von Max Rieger. Stuttgart 1868. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 90.) [Original ca. 1300; manuscripts 14th c.; 'Leithandschrift' A, probably Marburg, beginning of the 14th c.]

224

6. Bibliography

ELISABETH VON NASSAU-SAARBRÜCKEN. Der Roman von der Königin Sibille in drei Prosafaesungen des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts. Mit Benutzung der nachgelassenen Materialien von Fritz Burg hrsg. von Hermann Tiemann. Hamburg 1977. ( = Veröffentlichungen aus der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, 10.) [Original 1430-56; manuscript Rhine Frankish, 1455-72.] DIE 'ELSÄSSISCHE LEGENDA AUREA'. Band 1: Das Normalcorpus. Hrsg. von Ulla Williams und Werner Williams-Krapp. Tübingen 1980. Band 2: Das Sondergut. Hrsg. von Konrad Kunze. Tübingen 1983. ( = Texte und Textgeschichte. Würzburger Forschungen, 3 and 10.) [Original first half of the 14th c.; manuscripts West Central German and Alemannic, from the mid 14th c. onwards; 'Leithandschrift' 1362.] ENIKEL, Jans. Jansen Enikels Werke, hrsg. von Philipp Strauch. 1. Abteilung: Die Weltchronik. Hannover, Leipzig 1891-1900. ( = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Deutsche Chroniken, 3, 1-2.) [Original Austrian, 1277-90 approx.; manuscripts 1 and 2, Bavaro-Austrian, 14th c.] ERBEN, Johannes (editor). Ostmitteldeutsche Chrestomathie. Proben der frühen Schreib- und Druckersprache des mitteldeutschen Ostens. Berlin 1961. ( = Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für deutsche Sprache und Literatur, 24.) ERLAUER MARIENKLAGE. See ERLAUER SPIELE, pp. 147-67. ERLAUER SPIELE. Sechs altdeutsche Mysterien, nach einer Handschrift des XV. Jahrhunderts, zum erstenmale hrsg. und erläutert von Karl Ferd. Kummer. Wien 1882. [Original South Bavarian; manuscript first half of the 15th c.] DIE ERLOSUNG. Mit einer Auswahl geistlicher Dichtungen hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1858. ( = Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 37.) [Based on manuscript Ν, Neckartal, dated 1465.] DIE ERLÖSUNG. Eine geistliche Dichtung des 14. Jahrhunderts. Auf Grund der sämtlichen Handschriften zum erstenmal kritisch hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Leipzig 1934. ( = Deutsche Literatur. Sammlung literarischer Kunst- und Kulturdenkmäler in Entwicklungsreihen. Reihe: Geistliche Dichtung des Mittelalters, 6.) [Original Rhine Frankish, beginning of the 14th c.; manuscript P, Mainz/Trier region, beginning of the 14th c.; Büdingen fragments, Wetterau, first half of the 14th c.; Berlin fragments ( B i ) , Mainz region, dated 1337; B2, Rheinhessen, before 1421; N, Neckartal, dated 1465; other manuscripts 15th and 16th cs.] EUTROPIUS FLAVIUS. Eutropi Breviarium ab urbe condita recognovit Franciscus Ruehl. Lipsiae 1919. DIE EVANGELIEN DER GUTEN MEISTER VON PRAG. Unter Mitarbeit von Wulf-Otto Dreessen hrsg. von Christoph Gerhardt. München 1970. ( = Altdeutsche Texte in kritischen Ausgaben, 3.) [Original 15th c. (?); manuscript East Frankish, ca. 1477.] F I R S T GERMAN PRINTED BIBLE. Die erste deutsche Bibel, hrsg. von W. Kurrelmeyer. Tübingen 1904-15. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 234, 238, 243, 246, 249, 251, 254, 258, 259, 266.)

Texts cited

225

FISCHART, Johann. Geschichtklitterung (Gargantua), hrsg. von A. Aisleben. Synoptischer Abdruck der Bearbeitungen von 1575,1582,1590. Halle a.S. 1891. ( = Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke, 2.) FLECK, Konrad. Flore und Blanscheflur, eine Erzählung, hrsg. von Emil Sommer. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1846. ( = Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 12.) [Original Alemannic, ca. 1220; manuscripts Alsatian, 15th c., with fragments from the first half of the 13th c.] FRAUENLOB (Heinrich von Meißen). Marienieich, [hrsg.] von Ludwig Pfannmüller. Straßburg 1913. ( = Quellen und Forschungen, 120.) [Manuscript East Central German.] FRAUENLOB (Heinrich von Meißen). Leiche, Sangsprüche, Lieder. [2 Teile.] Auf Grund der Vorarbeiten von Helmuth Thomas hrsg. von Karl Stackmann und Karl Bertau. Göttingen 1981. [Originals Central German, ca. 1300; manuscripts from the 14th c.] FREIDANK. Fridankes Bescheidenheit, von Η. Ε. Bezzenberger. Halle 1872. [Original Alemannic, second quarter of the 13th c.; manuscripts 13th and 14th cs.] FREISINGER RECHTSBUCH. Bearbeitet von Hans-Kurt Claußen. Weimar 1941. ( = Germanenrechte, N.F M Abteilung Stadtrechtsbücher.) FRENCH, Walter Hoyt, and Charles Brockway HALE (editors). Middle English Metrical Romances. [2 vols.] New York 1964. FREUDENLEERE, Der. Der Wiener Meerfahrt. In: Hans Lambel (editor), Erzählungen und Schwänke. Leipzig 1872. pp. 211-36. ( = Deutsche Classiker des Mittelalters, 12.) [Original East Central German, late 13th c.] FRIEDRICH VON SCHWABEN aus der Stuttgarter Handschrift, hrsg. von Max Hermann Jellinek. Berlin 1904. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 1.) [Original Alemannic, 14th c.; manuscript Swabian, dated 1478.] FRISCH, Johann Leonhard. Teutsch-Lateinisches WSrterbuch [...]. Berlin 1741. FÜETRER, Ulrich. Bayerische Chronik. Hrsg. von Reinhold Spiller. München 1909. Reprinted Aalen 1969. ( = Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, N.F. 2, Abteilung 2.) [Original Bavarian, 1478-81; manuscript Ρ, before 1487; Τ, dated 1490; others 16th and 17th cs.] FÜETRER, Ulrich. Die Gralepen in Ulrich Füetrers Bearbeitung (Buch der Abenteuer) [...]. Hrsg. von Kurt Nyholm. Berlin 1964. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 57.) [Original Bavarian, 1473-78; manuscripts ca. 1490.] FÜETRER, Ulrich. Merlin und Seifrid de Ardemont von Albrecht von Scharfenberg in der Bearbeitung Ulrich Füetrers. Hrsg. von Friedrich Panzer. Tübingen 1902. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 227.) [Original Bavarian, 1473-84; manuscripts Bavaro-Austrian, late 15th c. onwards; base manuscript (cgm 1) Middle Bavarian, late 15th c.] FÜETRER, Ulrich. Persibein. Aus dem Buch der Abenteuer. Hrsg. von Renate Münz. Tübingen 1964. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 62.) [Original Bavarian, 1478-84.]

226

6. Bibliography

F Ü E T R E R , Ulrich. Poytislier aus dem Buch der Abenteuer. Hrsg. von Friederike Weber. Tübingen 1960. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 52.) [Original Bavarian, 1478-84.] F Ü E T R E R , Ulrich. Ulrich Füeterers Prosaroman von Lanzelot nach der Donaueschinger Handschrift hrsg. von Arthur Peter. Tübingen 1885. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 175.) [Original Bavarian, ca. 1467; this manuscript ( F 1 ) Bavarian, 15th c.] F Ü E T R E R , Ulrich. Seifrid de Ardemont. See F Ü E T R E R , Ulrich. Merlin. FÜSSENER MARIENKLAGE UND OSTERSPIEL. Das Füssener Osterspiel und die Füssener Marienklage. Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg (ehemals: Harburg) Cod. II, 1, 4°, 62. In Abbildung hrsg. von Dietrich Schmidtke. Mit einer literaturwissenschaftlichen Einführung von Ursula Hennig. Göppingen 1983. ( = Litterae, 69.) [Manuscript East Swabian, late 14th c.] GAGLIARDI, Ernst (editor). Dokumente zur Geschichte des Bürgermeisters Hans Waldmann. Gesammelt und hrsg. von Ernst Gagliardi. [2 vols.] Basel 1911-13. ( = Quellen zur Schweizer Geschichte, N.F. 2, 1-2.) GEDICHT VON DER KÖNIGIN HESTER. Hrsg. von Karl Schröder. In: Karl Bartsch (editor), Germanistische Studien. Supplement zur Germania, 1. Wien 1872. pp. 247-315. Reprinted Hildesheim, New York 1977. [Original East Central German, 1254-60; manuscript Β 14th c.] [See also HESTER.] GEISSLERLIEDER. See Hübner 1931. GENESIS. See MILLSTÄTTER GENESIS, OLD ENGLISH GENESIS and WIENER GENESIS. GESAMTABENTEUER. Gesammtabenteuer. Hundert altdeutsche Erzählungen: [...] hrsg. von Friedrich von der Hagen. [3 vols.] Stuttgart, Tübingen 1850. GESTA ROMANORUM. Das ist Der Roemer Tat. Hrsg. von Adelbert Keller. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1841. ( = Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen NationalLiteratur, 23.) [Originals 14th c.; manuscript Munich cgm 54 also 14th c.] G Ö T T W E I G E R TROJANERKRIEG. Der Göttweiger Trojanerkrieg. Hrsg. von Alfred Koppitz. Berlin 1926. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 29.) [Original Alemannic, 1270-1300; manuscript Alemannic, end of the 14th c.] G Ö T T W E I H E R HANDSCHRIFT. See Heinzel 1874. GOLIUS, Theophilus. Onomasticon Latinogermanicum. Cum praefatione Johannis Sturmii. [Strafiburg 1579.] Mit einem Vorwort von Gilbert de Smet. Hildesheim, New York 1972. ( = Documenta Linguistica, Reihe I.) G O T T F R I E D VON STRASSBURG. Tristan und Isold. Hrsg. von Friedrich Ranke. Text. 9. Auflage. Zürich, Berlin 1965. G O T T F R I E D VON STRASSBURG. Tristan, hrsg. von Karl Marold. 3. Abdruck, mit einem durch F. Rankes Kollationen erweiterten und verbesserten Apparat besorgt und mit einem Nachwort versehen von Werner Schröder. Berlin 1969. [Manuscript Μ, Alsatian (?), or Bavarian/East Alemannic (?) (see Klein 1988: 161fF.), second quarter of the 13th c.; H, Rhine Frankish, last quarter of the 13th c. (Schneider 1987:1, 244).]

Texts cited

227

GRAF RUDOLF. Hrsg. von Peter F. Ganz. Berlin 1964. ( = Philologische Studien und Quellen, 19.) [Original Centrai German, 1170-90 approx.; manuscripts Central German, late 12th c. (or beginning of the 13th c. according to Schneider 1987:1, 116f.).] GRAZER MARIENLEBEN. Hrsg. von Anton Schönbach. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 17 (1874) 519-60. [Original Bavaro-Austrian, after 1280; manuscript Bavaro-Austrian, beginning of the 14th c.] GREENE, Richard Leighton (editor). The Early English Carols. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. Oxford 1977. DER GROSSE SEELENTROST. Ein niederdeutsches Erbauungsbuch des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts, hrsg. von Margarete Schmitt. Köln, Graz 1959. (= Niederdeutsche Studien, 5.) [Manuscript Κ, 15th c.] GUNDACKER VON JUDENBURG. Christi Hort aus der Wiener Handschrift hrsg. von J. Jaksche. Berlin 1910. (= Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 18.) [Original Austrian, late 13th c.; manuscript Bavaro-Austrian, end of the 13th c. (Schneider 1987: I, 214).] HADRIANUS JUNIUS. Nomenclator omnium rerum. [Antwerpen 1567.] Reprinted Hildesheim, New York 1976. (= Documenta Linguistica, Reihe I.) HATZLERIN, Klara. Liederbuch der Clara Hätzlerin. Aus der Handschrift des Böhmischen Museums zu Prag hrsg. und mit Einleitung und Wörterbuch versehen von Carl Haltaus. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1840. (= Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 8.) Reprinted: Mit einem Nachwort von Hanns Fischer. Berlin 1966. (= Deutsche Neudrucke.) [Manuscript Augsburg, dated 1471.] HANS, Bruder. Bruder Hansens Marienlieder. Hrsg. von Michael S. Batts. Tübingen 1963. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 58.) [Original Cologne/Kleve, ca. 1400; manuscript Ρ, Lower Rhine, shortly after 1400; Pa, Low German, 15th c.] HANS EBRAN VON WILDENBERG. Des Ritters Hans Ebran von Wildenberg Chronik von den Fürsten aus Bayern. Hrsg. von Friedrich Roth. München 1905. Reprinted Aalen 1969. (= Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, N.F. 2, Abteilung 1.) [Original 15th c.; manuscript W, ca. 1500; H, ca. 1560.] HANS VON BÜHEL. Dyocletianus Leben, hrsg. von Adelbert Keller. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1841. (= Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 22.) [Original Alemannic, 1412; manuscript Alemannic, 15th c.] HARTMANN VON AUE. Der arme Heinrich. Abbildungen und Materialien zur gesamten handschriftlichen Uberlieferung. Hrsg. von Ulrich Müller. Göppingen 1971. (= Litterae, 3.) [Manuscripts from the 14th c., with earlier fragments.] HARTMANN VON AUE. Erec. Hrsg. von Albert Leitzmann. 4. Auflage. Tübingen 1967. (= Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 39.) [Manuscript Austrian, 1504-16, with earlier fragments.]

228

6. Bibliography

HARTMANN VON AUE. Gregorius. Hrsg. von Hermann Paul. 10. Auflage, besorgt von Ludwig Wolff. Tübingen 1963. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 2.) [Manuscripts from the early 13th c.; see Dittmann 1966 and Klein 1988: 156fF.] HARTMANN VON AUE. Iwein. Eine Erzählung. Hrsg. von G. F. Benecke und K. Lachmann. Neu bearbeitet von Ludwig Wolff. 7. Ausgabe. Berlin 1968. [Manuscript A, Rhine Prankish, second third of the 13th c. or earlier; B, Swabian, first third (or second quarter) of the 13th c.; D, Bohemian, first half of the 14th c.; E, Lower Austrian, ca. 1300; J, Lower Austrian, first quarter of the 14th c.; a, Upper Saxon, ca. 1410-15; b, West Central German, mid 15th c.; c, North Bavarian, 1477; d, Austrian, 1504-16; f, Bavarian or Bohemian, 1415; 1, Upper Bavarian or Tirol, 1468; p, West Central German, first half of the 15th c.; r, Swabian, ca. 1476-78; u, Swabian, 1521. See Becker 1977: 54ff., Schneider 1987: I, 148, Klein 1988: 148ff.] HARTMANN VON AUE. Die Klage. Das (zweite) Büchlein aus dem Ambraser Heldenbuch hrsg. von Herta Zutt. Berlin 1968. [Manuscript Austrian, 1504-16.] HEINRICH. Litanei. In: Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. Nach ihren Formen besprochen und hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Band III. Tübingen 1970. pp. 124-251. [Original Austrian, ca. 1160; manuscripts 12th century.] HEINRICH DER GLICHEZ^RE. See REINHART FUCHS. HEINRICH DER TEICHNER. Die Gedichte Heinrichs des Teichners. [3 vols.] Hrsg. von Heinrich Niewöhner. Berlin 1953-56. (= Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 44,46, 48.) [Original Austrian, 1350-65 (?); manuscript A, Middle Bavarian (Vienna?), 1360-70; B, Vienna, 1370-90; E, Augsburg, ca. 1368; G, Konstanz (?), dated 1433.] HEINRICH VON FREIBERG. Tristan. Hrsg. von Reinhold Bechstein. Leipzig 1877. (= Deutsche Dichtungen des Mittelalters, 5.) HEINRICH VON FREIBERG. Tristan, i d i t e avec introduction et index par Danielle Buschinger. Göppingen 1982. ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 270.) [Original East Central German, 1285-90 approx.; manuscript F (Central German) dated 1343, 0 (Rhine Frankish) and Ε (Swabian) 15th c.; 14th-c. fragments.] HEINRICH VON MÜGELN. Die kleineren Dichtungen Heinrichs von Mügeln. Erste Abteilung: Die Spruchsammlung des Göttinger Cod. philos. 21. [3 Teilbände.] Berlin 1959. (= Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 50-52.) [Original East Central German, second half of the 14th c.; manuscript g dated 1463.] HEINRICH VON MÜNCHEN. Hester. [Hrsg.] von C. Schröder. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, Jahrgang 27, Band 50 (1872) 311-18. [Original Bavarian, first half of the 14th c.; manuscripts from the second half of the 14th c. and the 15th c.; this edition based on the Dresden copy m. 78-81 of the Bavarian manuscript Munich cgm 7377.] HEINRICH VON MÜNCHEN. Die Exzerpte aus Wolframs 'Willehalm' in der 'Weltchronik' Heinrichs von München, hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Berlin, New

Texts cited

229

York 1981. ( = Texte und Untersuchungen zur 'Willehalm'-Rezeption, 2.) [Original Bavarian, first half of the 14th c.; manuscripts Bavarian, 14th c.] HEINRICH VON NEUSTADT. 'Apollonius von Tyrland' nach der Gothaer Handschrift. In: Die Werke Heinrichs von Neustadt. Hrsg. von S. Singer. Berlin 1906. 2. Auflage, Dublin, Zürich 1967. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 7.) [Original Lower Austrian, early 14th c.; Gotha manuscript Bavarian, late 14th or early 15th c.] HEINRICH VON ST. GALLEN. Das 'Marienleben' des Heinrich von St. Gallen. Text und Untersuchung. Mit einem Verzeichnis deutschsprachiger Prosamarienleben bis etwa 1520, von Hardo Hilg. München, Zürich 1981. ( = Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 75.) [Original Alemannic, ca. 1410-20 (?); manuscripts Bavarian and Swabian, from ca. 1440 onwards; 'Leithandschrift' Mg, dated 1469.] HEINRICH VON DEM TÜRLIN. Diu Cröne. Zum ersten Male hrsg. von G. H. F. Scholl. Stuttgart 1852. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 27.) Reprinted Amsterdam 1966. [Original Bavaro-Austrian, 1210-30 approx.; manuscript Ρ 1479; V (incomplete) Middle Bavarian, first quarter of the 14th c.] HEINRICH VON VELDEKE. Henric van Veldeken. Eneide. [3 vols.] Hrsg. von Gabriele Schieb und Theodor Frings. Berlin 1964-70. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 58, 59, 62.) [Original before 1190; manuscripts from 1210-20 onwards, with 12th-c. fragments.] HEINRICH VON VELDEKE. Die epischen Werke des Henric van Veldeken, 1: Sente Servas. Sanctus Servatius. Kritisch hrsg. von Theodor Frings und Gabriele Schieb. Mit einer Karte. Halle (Saale) 1956. [Original late 12th c.; manuscript Limburg, second half of the 15th c., with fragments ca. 1200.] HEINRICH WITTENWEILER. See WITTENWEILER, Heinrich. HEINZELEIN VON KONSTANZ, von Franz Pfeiffer. Leipzig 1852. [Original first half of the 14th c.; manuscripts Würzburg and Straßburg (?), ca. 1350.] HELIAND. Hrsg. von Eduard Sievers. Halle 1878. (— Germanistische Handbibliothek, 4.) HERBORT VON FRITZLAR. Herbort's von Fritslär liet von Troye, hrsg. von Ge. Karl Frommann. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1837. Reprinted Amsterdam 1966. ( = Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 5.) [Original Central German, 1190-1217; manuscript written in Würzburg, 1333; fragments ca. 1300.] HERMANN, Bruder. Bruder Hermanns Leben der Gräfin Iolande von Vianden, mit Einleitung und Anmerkungen hrsg. von John Meier. Breslau 1889. ( = Germanistische Abhandlungen, 7.) [Original Luxemburg, second half of the 13th c.; known only from a copy (1655) of a West Moselle Frankish manuscript.] HERMANN VON FRITZLAR. In: Deutsche Mystiker des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts, hrsg. von Franz Pfeiffer. [2 vols.] Leipzig 1845-57. Reprinted Aalen

230

6. Bibliography

1962. [Original Hessian, 1343-49; manuscript Central German (Hessian), 14th c.; Alemannic/Swabian fragment ca. 1400.] HERMANN VON SACHSENHEIM. Hrsg. von Ernst Martin. Tübingen 1878. (= Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 137.) HERMANN VON SACHSENHEIM. Die Mörin. Nach der Wiener Handschrift ÖNB 2946 hrsg. und kommentiert von Horst Dieter Schlosser. Wiesbaden 1974. ( = Deutsche Klassiker des Mittelalters, N.F. 3.) [Original Swabian, mid 15th c.; manuscript A, North-East Alemannic/South-East Swabian, second half of the 15th c.] HERZOG ERNST. Hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Wien 1869. [Version A: 12th c.; Central German manuscripts from the late 12th c. onwards. Version B: 13th c.; Central German and Upper German manuscripts from 1441 onwards. Version Kl: 14th c. (?), manuscript Central German, end of the 14th c. Version D: original Central German, second half of the 13th c.; Central German manuscripts from the beginning of the 15th c., with 14th-c. Upper German fragments. Version F: Augsburg, 15th c.; manuscripts Upper German, second half of the 15th c.; Augsburg and Straßburg prints from 1477; Version G: 14th c.; earliest manuscript East Central German, 1472.] HERZOG ERNST (D). In: Deutsche Gedichte des Mittelalters. Hrsg. von Friedrich Heinrich von der Hagen und Johann Gustav Büsching. Band I. Berlin 1808. HERZOG ERNST. Eine Übersicht über die verschiedenen Textfassungen und deren Überlieferung. Hrsg. von Hans-Joachim Behr. Göppingen 1979. (= Litterae, 62.) HESSISCHE URKUNDEN. Aus dem Großherzoglich Hessischen Haus- und Staatsarchive zum Erstenmale hrsg. von Ludwig Baur. [5 vols.] Darmstadt 186073. Reprinted in 6 vols., Aalen 1979. HESSISCHES WEIHNACHTSSPIEL. Ein Weihnachtsspiel aus einer Handschrift des XV. Jahrhunderts [...] zum erstenmale hrsg. von K. W. Piderit. Parchim 1869. [Original 15th c.; manuscript Upper Hessian, late 15th c.] HESTER. Eine poetische Paraphrase des Buches Esther aus dem Ordensland Preußen. Edition und Kommentar [von] Manfred Caliebe. Marburg 1985. (= Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens, 21.) [Original 125460; manuscript Β, 14th c.; S, ca. 1400; both East Central German; prose version in Jörg Stuler's Historienbuch, 1479.] HIERONYMUS. See JEROME, Saint. HISTORIENBIBEL. Die deutschen Historienbibeln des Mittelalters nach vierzig Handschriften zum ersten Male hrsg. von J. F. L. Theodor Merzdorf. [2 vols.] Tübingen 1870. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 100-01.) [Manuscript Ο, dated 1468.] HISTORIEN DER ALDEN E, hrsg. von Wilhelm Gerhard. Leipzig 1927. (= Bibliothek des Literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 271.) [Original first half of the 14th c.; manuscript (West?) Central German, mid 14th c.]

Texts cited

231

HRABANUS MAURUS. Commentariorum in Genesim Libri Quatuor (Anno 819). See MIGNE (editor), Patrologia, Series Latina 107, pp. 439-670. HRABANUS MAURUS. Opera Omnia. See MIGNE (editor), Patrologia, Series Latina 109. HUGO VON LANGENSTEIN. Martina. Hrsg. durch Adelbert von Keller. Stuttgart 1856. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 38.) [Original Alemannic, late 13th c.; manuscript Alemannic, ca. 1350.] HUGO VON TRIMBERG. Der Renner, hrsg. von Gustav Ehrismann. [4 vols.] Tübingen 1908-11. Mit einem Nachwort und Ergänzungen von Günther Schweikle. Reprinted Berlin 1970. [Original East Frankish, 1290-1300; manuscripts from the mid 14th c.] I N T E R R O G A T E SANCTI ANSHELMI. Mitteldeutsche Reimfassung der Interrogate Sancti Anshelmi nach der Dessauer Hs. Cod. 24,8°. Hrsg. von Drahoslava Cepkova. Mit einem Vorwort von Gabriele Schieb. Berlin 1982. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 72.) [Original West Central German; manuscript East Central German, mid or late 15th c.] ISIDORE.- Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri XX. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit W. M. Lindsay. [2 vols.] Oxonii 1911. ISING, Gerhard (editor). Die niederdeutschen Bibelfrühdrucke. Kölner Bibeln (um 1478), Lübecker Bibel (1494), Halberstädter Bibel (1522). [6 vols.] Berlin 1961-76. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 54/1-6.) JEROME, Saint. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Pars 1: Opera exegetica, 7. Commentariorum in Matheum Libri IV. Turnholti 1969. ( = Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, 77.) JOHAN ÜZ DEM VIRGIERE. Eine spätmhd. Ritterdichtung nach flämischer Quelle nebst dem Faksimileabdruck des flämischen Volksbuches Joncker Jan wt den Vergiere. Hrsg. und eingeleitet von Robert Priebsch. Heidelberg 1931. ( = Germanische Bibliothek, 32.) [Original Rheinhessisch, 14th c.; manuscript Rhine Frankish, mid 15th c.] JOHANN VON WÜRZBURG. Wilhelm von Österreich aus der Gothaer Handschrift, hrsg. von Ernst Regel. Berlin 1906. 2. Auflage, Dublin, Zürich 1970. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 3.) [Original Frankish, 1314; Gotha manuscript Bavarian, first half of the 14th c.; other manuscripts 14th and 15th cs.] JORDANES. Iordanis Romana et Getica recensuit Theodorus Mommsen. Berolini 1882. ( = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. antiqu., 5.) JOSEPHUS, with an English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray [et al.]. [9 vols.] Cambridge (Maes.), London 1958-65. DER JÜNGERE SIGENOT. See SIGENOT. VON DEM JUNGESTEN TAGE. A Middle High German Poem of the Thirteenth Century. Edited with Introduction and Notes by L. A. Willoughby. London 1918. [Original Low Alemannic, second half of the 13th c.; manuscripts from the 13th c. onwards.]

232

6. Bibliography

JUSTINIAN. Imperatoris Iustiniani Institutionum Libri Quattuor. With Introductions, Commentary, and Excursus by J. B. Moyle. 5th edition. Oxford 1912. KAEMMERER, Walter (editor). See URKUNDENBUCH DER STADT DÜREN. KAISERCHRONIK. In: Deutsche Chroniken und andere Geschichtsbücher des Mittelalters, hrsg. von der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde. Band 1. Berolini 1964. (= Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scr. qui vernacula lingua usi sunt, 1.) [Original mid 12th c.; manuscripts from the mid 12th c.] KLAGE. Diu Klage, mit den Lesarten sämtlicher Handschriften. Hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Leipzig 1875. Reprinted Darmstadt 1964. KLAGE. Der Nibelunge Noth und die Klage. Nach der ältesten Überlieferung [...] hrsg. von Karl Lachmann. Berlin, Leipzig 1927. [Original Bavaro-Austrian, early 13th c.; manuscripts from the second quarter of the 13th c.] KLAGE. See also DER NIBELUNGE LIET. KLAGENFURTER GEBETE. In: Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. Nach ihren Formen besprochen und hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Band II. Tübingen 1965. pp. 323ff. [Original South German, mid 12th c.; manuscript second third of the 12th c.] KLARA HÄTZLERIN. See HÄTZLERIN, Klara. KÖNIG ROTHER. Hrsg. von Κ. von Bahder. Halle 1884. (= Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke, 6.) [Original 12th c.; manuscript West Central German, first quarter of the 13th c. (Schneider 1987: I, 113), with Upper German fragments from the end of the 12th c. onwards.] KONRAD, Pfaffe. Das Rolandslied des Pfaffen Konrad, hrsg. von Carl Wesle. Bonn 1928. (= Rheinische Beiträge, 15.) [Original Bavarian, ca. 1170 (?); manuscripts from the late 12th c. onwards.] KONRAD VON FUSSESBRUNNEN. Die Kindheit Jesu. Hrsg. von Karl Kochendörffer. Strassburg 1881. (= Quellen und Forschungen, 43.) KONRAD VON FUSSESBRUNNEN. Die Kindheit Jesu. Kritische Ausgabe von Hans Fromm und Klaus Grubmüller. Berlin, New York 1973. [Original Austrian, late 12th c.; manuscript A, East Middle Bavarian, mid 13th c. (or third quarter of the 13th c. according to Schneider 1987: I, 176f.); Β ('Leithandschrift'), East Middle Bavarian, beginning of the 14th c.; C, West Swabian/East Alemannic (see Hoffmann 1988: 90), beginning or second quarter of the 14th c.; on manuscript L, South Bavarian/South Tirol (?), first half of the 13th c., see Ohmann 1929, Schneider 1987: I, 136ff., and Schirok in his facsimile edition of Wolfram, Parzival D.] KONRAD VON FUSSESBRUNNEN. Die Kindheit Jesu. Ausgewählte Abbildungen zur gesamten handschriftlichen Überlieferung. Hrsg. von Hans Fromm, Kurt Gärtner, Klaus Grubmüller, Konrad Kunze. Göppingen 1977. (= Litterae, 42.) KONRAD VON HEIMESFURT. Mariae Himmelfahrt. Hrsg. von Franz Pfeiffer. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 8 (1851) 156-200. [Original ca. 1225; manu-

Texts cited

233

script A, East Alemannic, beginning or second quarter of the 14th c. (see Hoffmann 1988: 90); B, Alsatian, mid 15th c.; C, South Bavarian, ca. 1340; fragments from the 13th c.] KONRAD VON HELMSDORF. Der Spiegel des menschlichen Heils aus der St. Gallener Handschrift hrsg. von Axel Lindqvist. Berlin 1924. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 31.) [Original Swiss, first half of the 14th c. (?); manuscript North Alemannic/Swabian, first half of the 15th c.] KONRAD VON WÜRZBURG. Engelhard. Hrsg. von Paul Gereke. Halle a.S. 1912. [Original ca. 1260; print of 1573.] KONRAD VON WÜRZBURG. Ein schöne Historia von Engelhart auss Burgunt. Der 'Engelhard' Konrads von Würzburg in Abbildung des Frankfurter Drucks von 1573. Mit einer bibliographischen Notiz zu Kilian Han, hrsg. von Hans-Hugo Steinhoff. Göppingen 1987. ( = Litterae, 107.) KONRAD VON WÜRZBURG. Goldene Schmiede, [hrsg.] von Wilhelm Grimm. Berlin 1840. [Original ca. 1270; manuscripts from the first half of the 14th c. onwards, with fragments from the late 13th c.] KONRAD VON WÜRZBURG. Partonopier und Meliur. Turnei von Nantheiz. — Sant Nicolaus. — Lieder und Sprüche [...], hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Wien 1871. [Partonopier: original probably 1277; manuscript Bavaro-Austrian, dated 1471, with a late 13th-c. fragment.] KONRAD VON WÜRZBURG. Der Schwanritter. In: Kleinere Dichtungen. Hrsg. von Edward Schröder. II. Berlin 1925. [Original 1250s (?); manuscript Rhine Frankish, second half of the 14th c.] KONRAD VON WÜRZBURG. Der Trojanische Krieg. Nach den Vorarbeiten K. Frommanns und F. Roths zum ersten Mal hrsg. durch Adelbert von Keller. [2 vols.] Stuttgart 1858. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 94.) Reprinted Amsterdam 1965. [Original 1280s (?); manuscripts 14th c. and later; fragments from the 13th c.] KOTTANNERIN, Helene. Die Denkwürdigkeiten der Helene Kottannerin (14391440). Hrsg. von Karl Mollay. Wien 1971. ( = Wiener Neudrucke, 2.) [BavaroAustrian, shortly after 1442.] KRAUS, Carl (editor). Deutsche Gedichte des zwölften Jahrhunderts. Halle 1894. KREUZFAHRT LUDWIGS DES FROMMEN. See LUDWIGS DES FROMMEN KREUZFAHRT. KUDRUN. Hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. 5. Auflage, überarbeitet und neu eingeleitet von Karl Stackmann. Wiesbaden 1965. [Original Bavaro-Austrian, 1230-50 (?); manuscript Austrian, 1504-16.] KUDRUN. Die Handschrift. Hrsg. von Franz H. Bäuml. Berlin 1969. DAS KÜNZELSAUER FRONLEICHNAMSPIEL, hrsg. von Peter K. Liebenow. Berlin 1969. ( = Ausgaben deutscher Literatur des XV. bis XVIII. Jahrhunderts, Reihe Drama, II.) [Original Frankish/Alemannic, second half of the 15th c.; manuscript dated 1479.]

234

6. Bibliography

LAMPRECHT, Pfaffe. Lamprechts Alexander. Nach den drei Texten mit dem Fragment des Alberic von Besan;on und den lateinischen Quellen hrsg. und erklärt von Karl Kinzel. Halle a. S. 1884. ( = Germanische Handbibliothek, 6.) [Original Moselle Frankish, 1150s (?); Vorau manuscript, Bavaro-Austrian, last quarter of the 12th c.; Basler Hs., 15th c.; Straßburg-Molsheimer Hs., Moselle Frankish, before 1187.] LAMPRECHT, Pfaffe. Tobias. In: Neue Funde aus dem zwölften Jahrhundert, hrsg. von Hermann Degering. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 41 (1916) 513-53. [Original Moselle Frankish, before 1150 (?); manuscript Cologne (?), late 12th c.] LANCELOT. Roman en prose du XHIe siecle. £klition critique avec introduction et notes par Alexandre Micha. [9 vols.] Paris, Geneve 1978-83. ( = Textes Litteraires Frangais, 247, 249, 262, 278, 283, 286, 288, 307, 315.) LIBER ORDINIS RERUM. 'Liber ordinis rerum' (Esse-essencia-Glossar). Band 1: Einleitung, Text. Band 2: Apparat, Wortregister. Hrsg. von Peter Schmitt. Tübingen 1983. ( = Texte und Textgeschichte. Würzburger Forschungen, 5/1-2.) LICHTENTHALER MARIENKLAGE. In: ΜΟΝΕ, Schauspiele I, 31-37. [Manuscript Bavaro-Austrian, late 13th or 14th c.] LOBGESANG AUF MARIA. See Jeitteles 1886. [Manuscript Central German (?), 15th c.] LOHENGRIN. Edition und Untersuchungen, [von] Thomas Cramer. München 1971. [Original Bavarian, 1283-89 (?); manuscripts from the beginning of the 14th c.; fragments perhaps late 13th c.] LOW GERMAN BIBLES. See ISING (editor). LUDWIGS DES FROMMEN KREUZFAHRT. Des Landgrafen Ludwig's des Frommen Kreuzfahrt [...]. Aus der einzigen Handschrift, durch Friedrich Heinrich von der Hagen. Leipzig 1854. See also Kinzel-Röhricht 1877. LUDWIGS DES FROMMEN KREUZFAHRT. Deutsche Chroniken und andere Geschichtsbücher des Mittelalters. Hrsg. von der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde. Band 4, 2. Abteilung: Die Kreuzfahrt des Landgrafen Ludwigs des Frommen von Thüringen. Hrsg. von Hans Naumann. Berlin 1923. ( = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scr. qui vernacula lingua usi sunt, 4, 2.) Reprinted München 1980. [Original East Central German, 1301-05; manuscript beginning of the 14th c.] LUTHER, Martin. Vom Schern Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi. 1543. In: Martin Luther, Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Band 53. Weimar 1920. pp. 573-648. LUTHER, Martin. Biblia. See BIBLE: LUTHER'S TRANSLATION. MAALER, Josua. Die Teütsch spraach. Dictionarium Germanicolatinum novum. [Zürich 1561.] Mit einer Einführung von Gilbert de Smet. Hildesheim, New York 1971. ( = Documenta Linguistica, Reihe I.) MAI UND BEAFLOR. Eine Erzählung aus dem dreizehnten Jahrhundert. Erster Druck. Leipzig 1848. ( = Dichtungen des deutschen Mittelalters, 7.) [Original

Texts cited

235

Bavarian, ca. 1270-80; manuscript A, Bavaro-Austrian, 13th-14th c.; B, BavaroAustrian, 15th c.] MARIENGRÜSSE [from the Kalocsaer Codex]. Hrsg. von Franz Pfeiffer, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 8 (1851) 274-98. [Original 13th c.] MARIEN HIMMELFAHRT. [Hrsg. von F. Weigand.] Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 5 (1845) 515-64. [Original from the region of Mainz, 1258-69; Gießen manuscript 876 (Hessian, second half of the 13th c.).] MARQUARD VOM STEIN. Der Ritter vom Turn. Kritisch hrsg. von Ruth Harvey. Berlin 1988. ( = Texte des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 32.) [Originell Alemannic (Mömpelgart), second half of the 15th c.; edition based on Basel print, 1493.] MASSMANN, Η. F. (editor). Deutsche Gedichte des zwoelften Jahrhunderts und der naechstverwandten Zeit. 1. Theil: Die Strassburg-Molsheimische Handschrift [...]. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1837. ( = Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 3, 1.) MATTHIAS VON BEHEIM. Des Matthias von Beheim Evangelienbuch in mitteldeutscher Sprache. 1343. Hrsg. von Reinhold Bechstein. Leipzig 1867. [East Central German compiler; Leipzig manuscript East Central German, dated 1343.] MEININGER REIMBIBEL. See VOLLMER (editor), Neue Texte. [Original first half of the 14th c. (?); manuscript Thuringian, ca. 1400.] MEISSNER, Der junge. Sangsprüche, Minnelieder, Meisterlieder. Hrsg. von Günter Peperkorn. München 1982. ( = Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 79.) [Original Central German, second half of the 13th c.; manuscripts from the 14th c.; manuscript t, ca. 1460.] MENTEL-BIBEL. See FIRST GERMAN PRINTED BIBLE. MEYER, N., and E. F. MOOYER (editors). Altdeutsche Dichtungen. Aus der Handschrift hrsg. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1833. MIGNE, J.-P. (editor). Patrologiae cursus completus [...]. Series Latina. Paris 1844ff. MILLSTÄTTER GENESIS. Genesis und Exodus nach der Milstäter Handschrift, hrsg. von Joseph Diemer. [2 vols.] Wien 1862. [Original Bavaro-Austrian, l l t h c.; manuscript second half of the 12th c. or even later (Schneider 1987: I, 85ff.).] MILLSTÄTTER GENESIS. Millstätter Genesis und Physiologus Handschrift. Vollständige Facsimileausgabe der Sammelhandschrift 6/19 des Geschichtsvereines für Kärnten im Kärntner Landesarchiv, Klagenfurt. Einführung und kodikologische Beschreibung von A. Kracher. Graz 1967. ( = Codices selecti, 10.) DES MINNESANGS FRÜHLING. Unter Benutzung der Ausgaben von Karl Lachmann und Moriz Haupt, Friedrich Vogt und Carl von Kraus bearbeitet von Hugo Moser und Helmut Tervooren. 36. Auflage. Stuttgart 1977. MITTELHOCHDEUTSCHE MINNEREDEN. I. Die Heidelberger Handschriften 344, 358, 376 und 393. Hrsg. von Kurt Matthaei. [...] 2. Auflage mit einem

236

6. Bibliography

Nachwort von Ingeborg Glier in Band II. II. Die Heidelberger Handschriften 313 und 355. Die Berliner Handschrift Ms. germ. fol. 922. Auf Grund der Vorarbeiten von Wilhelm Brauns hrsg. von Gerhard Thiele. 2. Auflage. [2 vols.] Dublin, Zürich 1967. [1st edition Berlin 1913 and 1938.] ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 24, 41.) DER MÖNCH VON SALZBURG. Die geistlichen Lieder des Mönchs von Salzburg. Hrsg. von Franz Viktor Spechtler. Berlin, New York 1972. (= Quellen und Forschungen, N.F. 51 (175).) [Original Austrian, 14th c.; manuscripts A and Β, (Middle) Bavarian, 15th c.] ΜΟΝΕ, Franz J. (editor). Schauspiele des Mittelalters. Aus Handschriften hrsg. und erklärt [...]. [2 vols.] Karlsruhe 1846. MONUMENTA BOICA. Edidit Acad. Scientiar. Maximilianea. Monachii 1763ff. MONUMENTA WITTELSBACENSIA. Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte des Hauses Wittelsbach. Hrsg. von Franz Michael Wittmann. [2 Abteilungen.] München 1857-61. Reprinted Aalen 1969. (= Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, Alte Folge, 5-6.) MONUMENTA ZOLLERANA. Urkunden-Buch zur Geschichte des Hauses Hohenzollern. Hrsg. von Rudolph Freiherrn von Stillfried und Traugott Maercker. Berlin 1852-61. MORANT UND GALIE. Hrsg. von Theodor Frings und Elisabeth Linke. Berlin 1976. (= Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 69.) [Original Ripuarian, 1220-30 or earlier; manuscripts Middle Frankish, 15th c., with fragments ca. 1400.] MÜHLHÄUSER REICHSRECHTSBUCH. Das Mühlhäuser Reichsrechtsbuch aus dem Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts. Deutschlands ältestes Rechtsbuch nach den altmitteldeutschen Handschriften hrsg., eingeleitet und übersetzt von Herbert Meyer. 2. Ausgabe. Weimar 1934. [Manuscript Ν, 13th c.] MÖLLENHOFF, Κ., and W. SCHERER (editors). Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa aus dem VIII-XII Jahrhundert. 3. Ausgabe von E. Steinmeyer. [2 vols.] Berlin 1892. MUTTER, VON DER ALTEN. See ALTEN MUTTER, VON DER. NEIDHART. Die Lieder Neidharts. Hrsg. von Edmund Wießner. 2. Auflage revidiert von Hanns Fischer. Tübingen 1963. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 44.) [Originals 1210-45 (?); manuscripts from the second half of the 13th c. onwards (M).] DER NIBELUNGE LIET UND DIU KLAGE. Die Donaueschinger Handschrift 63 [Laßberg 174]. Mit einem forschungsgeschichtlichen Beitrag zu ihrer Bedeutung für Uberlieferung und Textgeschichte des Epos hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Köln, Wien 1969. ( = Deutsche Texte in Handschriften, 3.) NIBELUNGENLIED. Das Nibelungenlied. Nach der Ausgabe von Karl Bartsch hrsg. von Helmut de Boor. 21. revidierte und von Roswitha Wisniewski ergänzte Auflage. Wiesbaden 1979. ( = Deutsche Klassiker des Mittelalters.) NIBELUNGENLIED. Das Nibelungenlied. Paralleldruck der Handschriften A, Β und C nebst Lesarten der übrigen Handschriften. Hrsg. von Michael S. Batts.

Texts cited

237

Tübingen 1971. [Manuscripts: A, 'Bodenseer&um', second half of the 13th c.; B, 'Bodenseeraum'/Switzerland, second quarter or third of the 13th c.; C, 'Bodenseeraum', first half of the 13th c.; D, Bohemia/Lower Bavaria, first half of the 14th c.; I, Swabian, ca. 1300 (?) but dated 1323; N, 14th c.; a, Bavarian, 15th c.; b, East Swabian (Augsburg?), ca. 1436-42; d, Austrian, 1504-16; h, Tirol, ca. 1450-55; k, Austrian, ca. 1480-90; 1, 14th c.] NOTKER DER DEUTSCHE. Martianus Capella 'De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii'. Hrsg. von James C. King. Tübingen 1979. ( = Die Werke Notkers des deutschen, 4; Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 87.) NOTKER DER DEUTSCHE. Notker latinus. Die Quellen zu den Psalmen [...], hrsg. von Petrus W. Tax. Tübingen 1972-75. ( = Die Werke Notkers des Deutschen, 8A-10A; Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 74, 75, 80.) NOTKER DER DEUTSCHE. Die Schriften Notkers und seiner Schule, hrsg. von Paul Piper. [3 vols.] Freiburg i. B., Tübingen 1882-83. ( = Germanischer Bücherschatz.) NOTKER DER DEUTSCHE. Notkers des Deutschen Werke. Nach den Handschriften neu hrsg. von E. H. Sehrt und Taylor Starck. Band III, 1-3. Der Psalter. Halle/Saale 1952-55. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 40.) ÖSTERREICHISCHE CHRONIK von den 95 Herrschaften. Hrsg. von Joseph Seemüller. Hannover, Leipzig 1909. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1974. ( = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scr. qui vernacula lingua usi sunt, 6.) (Deutsche Chroniken, 6.) [Original late 14th c.; manuscript dated 1456.] OLD ENGLISH GENESIS. A. N. Doane (editor), Genesis A: a New Edition. Madison, Wisconsin 1978. OLD ENGLISH OROSIUS. The Old English Orosius, edited by Janet Bately. London 1980. ( = Early English Text Society.) OPPENHEIMER STADTBUCH. See Franck 1859. ORTNIT. Ortnit und die Wolfdietriche, nach Müllenhoffs Vorarbeiten hrsg. von Arthur Amelung und Oskar Jänicke. Berlin 1871. Dublin, Zürich 1968. ( = Deutsches Heldenbuch, 3.) [Original of *AW first half of the 13th c.; manuscript W, dated 1358; A, Austrian, 1504-16; other manuscripts 15th c.] OTFRID. Otfrids Evangelienbuch, hrsg. und erklärt von Oskar Erdmann. Halle a.S. 1882. ( = Germanistische Handbibliothek, 5.) OTTOKAR. Ottokars Osterreichische Reimchronik. Nach den Abschriften Franz Lichtensteins hrsg. von Joseph Seemüller. Hannover 1890-93. 2. Ausgabe Dublin, Zürich 1974. [Original Austrian, early 14th c.; manuscripts 15th c., with 14th-c. fragments.] OVID. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. [Band 1-2.] Erklärt von Moritz Haupt. Berlin 1903. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1966. PANTALEON. A Text Edition of the Pantaleon Legend According to Codex Sangallensis 589, by Joseph Bryant Carroll. Ph.D. Diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1976. [Manuscript Alemannic, second half of the 15th c.]

238

6. Bibliography

PASSIONAL. Das Passional. Eine Legenden-Sammlung des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts. Zum ersten Male hrsg. und mit einem Glossar versehen von Karl Köpke. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1852. ( = Bibliothek der gesammten deutschen National-Literatur, 32.) [Original 1280-1300 (or earlier?); manuscripts from ca. 1300.] PETRI, Adam. See BIBLE: NEW TESTAMENT. PETRUS COMESTOR. Historia Scholastica. See MIGNE (editor), Patrologia, Series Latina 198, pp. 1054-1722. PHILIPP DER KARTÄUSER, Bruder. Bruder Philipps des Garthausers Marienleben. Zum ersten Male hrsg. von Heinr. Rückert. Quedlinburg, Leipzig 1853. ( = Bibliothek der deutschen National-Literatur, 34.) [Original ca. 1316, written in Austria; manuscript Ρ, Bavarian/Frankish (?), shortly after 1300; J, Bavarian, first quarter of the 14th c. (base manuscript for Rückert's edition); G, Bavarian, second quarter of the 14th c.; H, West Central German/Ripuarian, end of the 15th c. or later (?).] PILATUS. See MASSMANN, Deutsche Gedichte. [See also Weinhold 1877.] [Original West Central German, late 12th c.; manuscript 1190-1200 (?).] PL. See MIGNE (editor). PLEIER, Der. Garel von dem blSnden Tal. Hrsg. von Wolfgang Herles. Wien 1981. ( = Wiener Arbeiten zur germanischen Altertumskunde und Philologie, 17.) [Original Austrian, 1250-80; manuscript 15th c.] PLEIER, Der. Meieranz. Hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Stuttgart 1861. Reprinted: Mit einem Nachwort von Alexander Hildebrand. Hildesheim, New York 1974. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 60.) [Original Austrian, 1250-80; manuscript Swabian (?), dated 1480.] PLEIER, Der. Tandareis und Flordibel. Ein höfischer Roman von dem Pleiaere. Hrsg. von Ferdinand Khull. Graz 1885. [Original Austrian, 1250-80; manuscripts 15th c.] PONTUS UND SIDONIA. Augspurg 1483. [British Library, IB. 6275; titlepage missing. Version A, translated by Eleonore of Austria.] PONTUS UND SIDONIA in der Verdeutschung eines Ungenannten aus dem 15. Jahrhundert. Kritisch hrsg. von Karin Schneider. Berlin 1961. (= Texte des späten Mittelalters, 14.) [Version B.] [Manuscript Μ, Rhine Prankish with Moselle Frankish admixture, second half of the 15th c.] PROSE LANCELOT. Lancelot nach der Heidelberger Pergamenthandschrift Pal. Germ. 147. [Band] I. Hrsg. von Reinhold Kluge. Berlin 1948. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 42.) PROSE LANCELOT. Lancelot nach der Kölner Papierhandschrift W. f° 46* Blankenheim und der Heidelberger Pergamenthandschrift Pal. Germ. 147. [Band] II. Hrsg. von Reinhold Kluge. Berlin 1963. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 47.) PROSE LANCELOT. Lancelot nach der Heidelberger Pergamenthandschrift Pal. Germ. 147. [Band] III. Hrsg. von Reinhold Kluge. Berlin 1974. ( = Deutsche

Texts cited

239

Texte des Mittelalters, 63.) [Original of PI before 1250 (?); PII late 13th or early 14th c. (?); A and M, 13th-c. fragments; w, Middle Prankish, end of the 14th c.; k, Ripuarian, 15th c.; P, Rhine Prankish, ca. 1430; a, Bavarian redaction or re-translation, 1539-76; s, Swabian, 16th c. On the history of German texts and redactions, see in particular Ruberg 1965, SteinhoiF 1968, SteinhofF 1974, Buschinger 1986.] PROSE TRISTRANT. Tristrant und Isalde. Prosaroman. Nach dem ältesten Druck aus Augsburg vom Jahre 1484 [...] hrsg. von Alois Brandstetter. Tübingen 1966. EIN PÜECHEL VON DER REGEL DER HEYLIGEN EE. [Hrsg.] von Michael Dallapiazza. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 112 (1983) 261-92. [Manuscript Middle Bavarian, late 15th c.] RABENSCHLACHT. See ALPHARTS TOD. [Original late 13th c.; base manuscript R, Lower Austrian, late 13th or early 14th c.; W, Austrian, dated 1358; A, Austrian, 1504-16.] RAUCH, Adrianus (editor). Rerum austriacarum scriptores [...]. [3 vols.] Vindobonae 1794. RECHT DER STADT WIEN. See RAUCH (editor). DIE RECHTSQUELLEN DES KANTONS BERN. Teil 2: Rechte der Landschaft. Band 3: Das Statutarrecht der Landschaft Saanen (bis 1798). Bearbeitet und hrsg. von Hermann Rennefahrt. Aarau 1942. Band 6: Das Recht der Ämter Interlaken und Unterseen. Bearbeitet und hrsg. von Margret Graf-Fuchs. Aarau 1957. ( = Sammlung Schweizerischer Rechtsquellen, Abteilung 2.) REINBOT VON DURNE. Der Heilige Georg. Nach sämtlichen Handschriften hrsg. von Carl von Kraus. Heidelberg 1907. ( = Germanische Bibliothek, 1.) [Original Bavarian, 1230s; manuscripts from the 14th c.; manuscript W, BavaroAustrian, dated 1376; Z, North-East Switzerland, 14th c.; w, Bavaro-Austrian, first half of the 15th c.] REINFRID VON BRAUNSCHWEIG, hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Tübingen 1871. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 109.) [Original Swiss, after 1291; manuscript 14th c.] REINHART FUCHS. Hrsg. von Karl Reissenberger. 2. Auflage, Halle a.S. 1908. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 7.) REINHART FUCHS. Das mittelhochdeutsche Gedicht vom Fuchs Reinhart, nach den Casseler Bruchstücken und der Heidelberger Hs. Cod. pal. germ. 341. Hrsg. von Georg Baesecke. 2. Auflage, besorgt von Ingeborg Schröbler. Halle (Saale) 1952. [Original Alsatian, late 12th c. (?); manuscript Ρ, Central German, first third of the 14th c.] REINHART FUCHS. Der Reinhart Fuchs des Elsässers Heinrich [...] hrsg. von Klaus Düwel. Tübingen 1984. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 96.) [Original Alsatian, late 12th c.; manuscript S, Alsatian, beginning of the 13th c.; Ρ and K, Central German with Bavarian elements, 1320-30.]

240

6. Bibliography

REINMAR VON ZWETER. Die Gedichte Reinmars von Zweter. Hrsg. von Gustav Roethe. Mit einer Notenbeilage. Leipzig 1887. [Original mid 12th c.; manuscript C, early 14th c.] RERUM AUSTRIACARUM SCRIPTORES. See RAUCH (editor). T H E RIDDLES O F T H E E X E T E R BOOK, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary by Frederick Tupper Jr. Boston 1910. ROSSLER, Emil Franz (editor). Das alt prager Stadtrecht aus dem XIV. Jahrhunderte, nach den vorhandenen Handschriften zum ersten Mal hrsg. und erläutert [...]. Mit einer Vorrede von Jacob Grimm. Prag 1845. ( = Deutsche Rechtsdenkmäler aus Böhmen und Mähren, 1.) ROSSLER, Emil Franz (editor). Die Stadtrechte von Brünn aus dem XIII. u. XIV. Jahrhundert, nach bisher ungedruckten Handschriften hrsg. und erläutert. Prag 1852. ROSENGARTEN. Der Rosengarte, [hrsg.] von Wilhelm Grimm. Göttingen 1836. [Version C, in somewhat normalised spelling.] ROSENGARTEN. Die Gedichte vom Rosengarten zu Worms, hrsg. von Georg Holz. Halle a.S. 1893. [Version A based on 14th- and 15th-c. manuscripts; Version C based on 14th-c. manuscript; Version D based on 15th-c. manuscripts; Version F based on 13th- and 14th-c. fragments; A and D presented in normalised spelling.] ROSENGARTEN (Ρ). Der Rosengarte. Hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Germania 4 (1859) 1-33. [Manuscript Thuringian, 14th c.; this text partly normalised.] DAS R O T E BUCH DER STADT ULM. Hrsg. von Carl Mollwo. Stuttgart 1905. ( = Württembergische Geschichtsquellen, 8.) [Composite manuscript, 14th- and 15th-c. hands.] ROTHE, Johannes. Düringische Chronik. Hrsg. von R. von Liliencron. Jena 1859. ( = Thüringische Geschichtsquellen, 3.) [Original Thuringian, first half of the 15th c.; manuscripts from the second half of the 15th c.] DIE R O T T W E I L E R HOFGERICHTSORDNUNG (um 1430). In Abbildungen aus der Handschrift HB VI 110 der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart hrsg. und transkribiert von Wolfgang Irtenkauf. Göppingen 1981. ( = Litterae, 74.) [Manuscript Swabian, ca. 1430.] RUDOLF VON EMS. Alexander. Ein höfischer Versroman des 13. Jahrhunderts. Zum ersten Male hrsg. von Victor Junk. Leipzig 1928-29. Reprinted Darmstadt 1970. ( = Bibliothek des Literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 272, 274.) [Original mid 13th c.; manuscript Μ, Low Alemannic/Central German, 15th c.; B, Alsatian, 15th c.; earlier fragment.] RUDOLF VON EMS. Barlaam und Josaphat. Hrsg. von fVanz Pfeiffer. Leipzig 1843. ( = Dichtungen des deutschen Mittelalters, 3.) Mit einem Anhang aus FVanz Söhns, Das Handschriftenverhältnis in Rudolfs von Ems 'Barlaam', einem Nachwort und einem Register von Heinz Rupp. Berlin 1965. ( = Deutsche Neudrucke, Reihe: Texte des Mittelalters.) [Original Alemannic, 1225-30 (?); manuscript C, Styrian, dated 1284 (Schneider 1987: I, 215f.); others 13th-15th es.]

Texts cited

241

RUDOLF VON EMS. Rudolfs von Ems Weltchronik aus der Wernigeroder Handschrift, hrsg. von Gustav Ehrismann. Berlin 1915. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1967. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 20.) [Original 1250-54; Wernigerode manuscript, Alemannic, ca. 1300; manuscript Ρ, Alemannic, first half of the 14th c.; ρ, Swabian, dated 1367.] RUDOLF VON EMS. Willehalm von Orlens, hrsg. aus dem Wasserburger Codex der Fürstlich Fürstenbergischen Hofbibliothek in Donaueschingen, von Victor Junk. Berlin 1905. 2. Auflage, Dublin, Zürich 1967. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 2.) [Original 1235-40; this manuscript Alemannic, late 13th c.] RUPRECHT VON FREYSING. Das Stadt- und das Landsrechtsbuch Ruprechts von Freysing. Nach fünf Münchner Handschriften. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Schwabenspiegels, von G. Lud. v. Maurer. Stuttgart, Tübingen 1839. SACHSENSPIEGEL. Die Dresdener Bilderhandschrift des Sachsenspiegels. Hrsg. von Karl von Amira. [2 vols.] Leipzig 1902-26. SACHSENSPIEGEL. Der Sachsenspiegel (Landrecht) nach der ältesten Leipziger Handschrift hrsg. von Julius Weiske. Neubearbeitet von R. Hildebrand. 11. Auflage. Leipzig 1929. SACHSENSPIEGEL. Landrecht. Hrsg. von Karl August Eckhardt. 2. neubearbeitete Ausgabe. Göttingen, Berlin, Frankfurt 1955. ( = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Fontes iuris germanici antiqui, N.S., I, 1.) SACHSENSPIEGEL. Hrsg. von Karl August Eckhardt. Landrecht in hochdeutscher Übertragung. Hannover 1967. [Original 1220s.] DAS SÄCHSISCHE WEICHBILDRECHT. Das saechsische Weichbildrecht. Jus municipale saxonicum. Hrsg. von A. von Daniels und Fr. von Gruben. Band 1: Weltchronik und Weichbildrecht in XXXVI Artikeln mit der Glosse. Berlin 1858. DER SAELDEN HORT. Alemannisches Gedicht vom Leben Jesu, Johannes des Täufers und der Magdalena. Aus der Wiener und Karlsruher Handschrift hrsg. von Heinrich Adrian. Berlin 1927. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 26.) [Original Alemannic, ca. 1300; manuscript W, Alemannic, end of the 14th c.; Κ, 15th c.] SANCT BRANDAN. Ein lateinischer und drei deutsche Texte. Hrsg. von Carl Schröder. Erlangen 1871. [Manuscript 14th c.] SANKT GEORGENER PREDIGER. Der sogenannte St. Georgener Prediger aus der Freiburger und der Karlsruher Handschrift, hrsg. von Karl Rieder. Berlin 1908. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 10.) [Original second half of the 13th c.; manuscripts 14th c.; text based on A, Alemannic, dated 1387; G, South Baden (?), ca. 1300 (see Schneider 1987: I, 249f.).] SCHAUSPIEL VON DER KINDHEIT JESU. [St Gall manuscript 966, Swabian, 14th c.] See ΜΟΝΕ, Schauspiele I. SCHILTER, Jo. Institutionum Jurispublici Romano-Germanici Tomi Duo [...]. Argentorati 1697.

242

6. Bibliography

SCHMID, Ursula (editor). Codex Vindobonensis 2885, bearbeitet von Ursula Schmid. Bern, München 1985. ( = Bibliotheca Germanica, 26. Deutsche Sammelhandschriften des späten Mittelalters.) [Manuscript written in Innsbruck, 1393.] SCHONDOCH. Schondochs 'Königin von Frankreich'. Untersuchungen zur handschriftlichen Uberlieferung und kritischer Text, von J u t t a Strippel. Göppingen 1978. ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 252.) [Original Alemannic, end of the 14th c.; manuscript A ('Leithandschrift') Alemannic, 1400-50; other manuscripts 15th c.] SCHOTTELIUS, Justus Georg. Ausffihrliche Arbeit von der Teutschen HaubtSprache [...]. Braunschweig 1663. Hrsg. von Wolfgang Hecht. Tübingen 1967. ( = Deutsche Neudrucke, Reihe: Barock, 11.) SCHUEREN, Gerard van der. Teuthonista of Duytschlender. In eene nieuwe bewerking vanwege de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde uitgegeven door J. Verdam. Leiden 1896. [Original Kleve, 1477.] SCHWABENSPIEGEL. Der Schwabenspiegel oder schwäbisches Land- und Lehen-Rechtbuch, nach einer Handschrift vom Jahr 1287, hrsg. von F. L. A. Freiherrn von Lassberg. Mit einer Vorrede von A. L. Reyscher. Tübingen 1840. Reprinted Aalen 1961. [Original East Prankish (?), 1275-80 (?); manuscripts from the late 13th c. onwards.] SCHWABENSPIEGEL. Der Schwabenspiegel in der ältesten Gestalt [...] hrsg. von Wilhelm Wackernagel, 1. Theil: Landrecht. Zürich, Frauenfeld 1840. SCHWABENSPIEGEL. Kurzform. I: Landrecht. II: Lehnrecht. Hrsg. von Karl August Eckhardt. Hannover 1960. 2. neubearbeitete Ausgabe, Hannover 1974. ( = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Fontes iuris germanici antiqui, N.S. 4, 1-2.) SEELENTROST, DER GROSSE. See DER GROSSE SEELENTROST. SEIFRIED HELBLING. Hrsg. und erklärt von Joseph Seemüller. Halle a. S. 1886. [Original Bavaro-Austrian, late 13th c.; manuscript b, Bavaro-Austrian, 16th c.] SEPTUAGINT. See BIBLE: SEPTUAGINT. DER ÄLTERE SIGENOT. Dietrichs Abenteuer von Albrecht von Kemenaten, nebst den Bruchstücken von Dietrich und Wenzelan, hrsg. von Julius Zupitza. Berlin 1870. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1968. ( = Deutsches. Heldenbuch, 5.) [Sigenot: pp. 205-15.] [Original 13th c.; manuscript L, Alemannic, 14th c.] DER JÜNGERE SIGENOT. Nach sämtlichen Handschriften und Drucken hrsg. von A. Clemens Schoener. Heidelberg 1928. ( = Germanische Bibliothek, III, 6.) [Original ca. 1350 (Der jüngere Sigenot); manuscript s 1 Alsatian, ca. 1450.] SIR PERCEVAL OF GALLES. See FRENCH and HALE, II, 529-603. SPECULUM ECCLESIAE. Eine frühmittelhochdeutsche Predigtsammlung (Cgm. 39). Mit sprachlicher Einleitung neu hrsg. von Gert Mellbourn. Lund, Kopenhagen 1944. [Original Alemannic or Bavarian, 1130-60 approx.; manu-

Texts cited

243

script Bavaro-Austrian (or West Bavarian/Swabian?), 1170-1200 (see Schneider 1987:1, 44ff.).] DAS STADTBUCH VON AUGSBURG. Das Stadtbuch von Augsburg, insbesondere dais Stadtrecht vom Jahre 1276, nach der Originalhandschrift zum ersten Male hrsg. und erläutert von Christian Meyer. Augsburg 1872. DAS STADTRECHTSBUCH VON SILLEIN. Einleitung, Edition und Glossar von lipo Tapani Piirainen. Berlin, New York 1972. ( = Quellen und Forschungen, N.F. 46 (170).) [Original and manuscript Slovakian, dated 1378.] STAGEL, Elsbet. Das Leben der Schwestern zu Töß [...]. Hrsg. von Ferdinand Vetter. Berlin 1906. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 6.) [Original Alemannic, ca. 1336; manuscripts 15th c.] STEINHAUSEN, Georg (editor). Deutsche Privatbriefe des Mittelalters. Band 1: Fürsten und Magnaten, Edle und Ritter. Berlin 1899. Band 2: Geistliche — Bürger, I. Berlin 1907. ( = Denkmäler der deutschen Kulturgeschichte, Abteilung 1, Band 1-2.) STEINHOWEL, Heinrich. Steinhöwels Äsop. Hrsg. von Hermann Osterley. Tübingen 1873. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 117.) [Printed Ulm, 1474.] STIELER, Kaspar. Der Teutschen Sprache Stammbaum und Fortwachs/ oder Teutscher Sprachschatz [...]. Nürnberg 1691. STRICKER, Der. Daniel von dem Blühenden Tal. Hrsg. von Michael Resler. Tübingen 1983. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 92.) [Original early 13th c.; manuscripts 15th c.; base manuscript h, Swabian, dated 1464.] STRICKER, Der. Karl der Grosse. Hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. Mit einem Nachwort von Dieter Kartschoke. Berlin 1965. [Original Upper Frankish/Bavarian, 122050; manuscripts from the 13th c. onwards.] STRICKER, Der. Des Strickers Pfaffe Amis, hrsg. von K. Kamihara. Göppingen 1978. ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 233.) [Original mid 13th c. (?); manuscript R, Bavaro-Austrian, 13th-14th es.] STRICKER, Der. Verserzählungen. I. Hrsg. von Hanns Fischer. 3., revidierte Auflage besorgt von Johannes Janota. Tübingen 1973. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 53.) [Original mid 13th c.; base manuscript Α, ca. 1260-90; Β, Innsbruck, dated 1392-93; Η, ca. 1320-30.] STULER, Jörg. Historienbuch. See HESTER (ed. Caliebe). [Manuscript East Frankish/Bavarian (?), dated 1479.] SUETONIUS. C. Suetonii Tranquilli De Vita Caesarum Libri VIII. Recensuit Maximiiianus Ihm. Lipsiae 1907. SUMMARIUM HEINRICI. Band 1: Textkritische Ausgabe der ersten Fassung, Buch I-X. Hrsg. von Reiner Hildebrandt. Berlin, New York 1974. ( = Quellen und Forschungen, N.F. 61 (185).) Band 2: Textkritische Ausgabe der zweiten Fassung Buch I-VI sowie des Buches XI in Kurz- und Langfassung. Hrsg. von Reiner Hildebrandt. Berlin, New York 1982. ( = Quellen und Forschungen, N.F.

244

6. Bibliography

78 (202).) [Original West Central German, 1007-22; manuscripts from the 11th c. onwards.] VON DEM JUNGESTEN TAGE. See JUNGESTEN TAGE, VON DEM. TATIAN. Lateinisch und altdeutsch mit ausführlichem Glossar, hrsg. von Eduard Sievers. 2. Auflage, Halle 1892. Reprinted Paderborn 1960. TAULER, Johannes. Die Predigten Taulers aus der Engelberger und der Freiburger Handschrift sowie aus Schmidts Abschriften der ehemaligen Str&ßburger Handschriften hrsg. von Ferdinand Vetter. Berlin 1910. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 11.) [Originals Straßburg, ca. 1340-61 (if genuine); manuscript Ε, Alemannic, dated 1359; F also probably mid 14th c.; Straßburg A,91, second half of the 14th c., A,89, 14th c., and A,88, beginning of the 15th c.] THOMASIN VON ZERCLjERE. Der Wilsche Gast des Thomasin von Zirclaria. Hrsg. von Heinrich Rückert. Mit einer Einleitung und einem Register von Friedrich Neumann. Berlin 1965. [Original Friulian, early 13th c.; manuscripts from the second half of the 13th c. onwards; manuscript A, Austrian, 1250 onwards (Schneider 1987: I, 175).] THOMASIN VON ZERCLJ5RE. Thomasin von Zerclaere. Der welsche Gast, hrsg. von Κ. W. von Kries. [4 vols.] Göppingen 1984-85. ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 425,1-IV.) THÜRING VON RINGOLTINGEN. Melusine. Nach den Handschriften kritisch hrsg. von Karin Schneider. Berlin 1958. ( = Texte des späten Mittelalters, 9.) [Original Alemannic, mid 15th c.; manuscript Ο, Alemannic, end of the 15th c.] TRIERER CAPITULARE. See BRAUNE and EBBINGHAUS (editors), pp. 45-46. TRISTAN ALS MÖNCH. Untersuchungen und kritische Edition, hrsg. von Betty C. Bushey. Göppingen 1974. ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 119.) [Original Alemannic or South Frankish, first half of the 13th c.; manuscript R, Alsatian, 15th c.] ULRICH VON ETZENBACH. Ulrich von Eschenbach, Alexander, hrsg. von Wendelin Toischer. Tübingen 1888. ( = Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 183.) [Original Bohemian, ca. 1271-86; manuscript a, 15th c.; Η and other manuscripts, 14th c.] ULRICH VON ETZENBACH. Wilhelm von Wenden. Kritisch hrsg. von HansFriedrich Rosenfeld. Berlin 1957. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 49.) [Original Bohemian, ca. 1287-97; manuscript Η, Central German, 15th c.; D, Moselle Frankish, dated 1422.] ULRICH VON TÜRHEIM. Rennewart. Aus der Berliner und Heidelberger Handschrift hrsg. von Alfred Hübner. Berlin 1938. Reprinted Berlin, Zürich 1964. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 39.) [Original 1240-50; 13th-c. fragments; manuscript Β, ca. 1300; Η, probably Bamberg, beginning of the 14th c.] ULRICH VON TÜRHEIM. Tristan: a Critical Edition [...] by Thomas Alvin Kerth. Ph.D. Diss. Yale 1977.

Texts cited

245

ULRICH VON TÜRHEIM. Tristan. Hrsg. von Thomas Kerth. Tübingen 1979. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 89.) [Original ca. 1235; manuscript Μ, Alemannic, second quarter of the 13th c.; Η, Alemannic (with Central German colouring), end of the 13th c.; B, Middle Frankish, dated 1323; N, Ripuarian, 14th c.; R, Alsatian, 15th c.] ULRICH VON DEM TÜRLIN. Willehalm. Ein Rittergedicht aus der zweiten Hälfte des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts von Meister Ulrich von dem Türlin. Hrsg. von S. Singer. Prag 1893. ( = Bibliothek der mittelhochdeutschen Litteratur in Boehmen, 4.) [Original Austrian, mid 13th c. (?); manuscripts from the 14th and 15th cs.] ULRICH VON DEM TÜRLIN. Eine alemannische Bearbeitung der 'Arabel' Ulrichs von dem Türlin, hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Berlin, New York 1981. ( = Texte und Untersuchungen zur 'Willehalm'-Rezeption, 1.) [Manuscript Alemannic, 14th c.] ULRICH VON ZATZIKHOVEN. Lanzelet. Eine Erzählung. Hrsg. von Κ. A. Hahn, mit einem Nachwort und einer Bibliographie von Frederick Norman. Berlin 1965. [Original Alemannic, 1190s (?); manuscript W, Alemannic (Swabian?), 13th c. or beginning of the 14th c.; P, Alemannic (perhaps Alsatian), dated 1420; early 13th- and 14th-c. fragments; see Hannink 1914: 3ff., 28, Combridge 1963: 205, and Kantola 1982: 6ff.] UNREST, Jakob. Osterreichische Chronik. Hrsg. von Karl Grossmann. Weimar 1957. ( = Monumenta Germania« Historica, Scr. rer. germanicarum, N.S., XI.) [Original and manuscript Austrian, second half of the 15th c.] DIE URKUNDEN DER BRIXNER HOCHSTIFTSARCHIVE 1295-1336. Unter Mitwirkung von Bertha Richter-Santifaller hrsg. von Leo Santifaller und Heinrich Appelt. [2 parts.] Leipzig 1941-43. ( = Brixner Urkunden, 2, 1-2.) DIE URKUNDEN DES KLOSTERARCHIVS GNADENTHAL. Bearbeitet von Peter Kläui. Aarau 1950. ( = Aargauer Urkunden, 12.) DIE URKUNDEN DES STADTARCHIVS RHEINFELDEN. Mit Unterstützung der Stadt Rheinfelden hrsg. von Friedrich Emil Welti. Aarau 1933. ( = Aargauer Urkunden, 3.) URKUNDENBUCH DER STADT DÜREN 748-1500. Hrsg. von Walter Kaemmerer. [3 vols.] Düren 1971-78. ( = Beiträge zur Geschichte des Dürener Landes, 12-14.) URKUNDENBUCH DER VÖGTE VON WEIDA, GERA UND PLAUEN, sowie ihrer Hausklöster Mildenfurth, Cronschwitz, Weida und z. h. Kreuz bei Saalburg. Band 2: 1357-1427. Hrsg. von Berthold Schmidt. Jena 1892. ( = Thüringische Geschichtsquellen, N.F. 2, 2.) DAS VÄTERBUCH aus der Leipziger, Hildesheimer und Strassburger Handschrift. Hrsg. von Karl Reissenberger. 2. Auflage. Dublin, Zürich 1967. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 22.) [1st edition Berlin 1914.] [Manuscript A, East Central German, 14th c.; lines 30605-39348 from manuscript Κ, Central/Low German, late 14th c.]

246

6. Bibliography

VINDOBONENSIS 2721. See CODEX VINDOBONENSIS 2721. VINDOBONENSIS 2885. See SCHMID (editor). VIRGINAL. Dietrichs Abenteuer von Albrecht von Kemenaten, nebst den Bruchstücken von Dietrich und Wenzelan, hrsg. von Julius Zupitza. Berlin 1870. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1968. ( = Deutsches Heldenbuch, 5.) [ Virginal: pp. 1200.] [Original in part Alemannic, 13th c.; complete manuscripts 15th c., with some fragments from ca. 1300.] VITA BEATE VIRGINIS MARIE ET SALVATORIS RHYTHMICA, hrsg. von A. Vögtlin. Tübingen 1888. (= Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 180.) [Original first half of the 13th c.] VOCABULARIUS EX QUO. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Ausgabe. Gemeinsam mit Klaus Grubmüller hrsg. von Bernhard Schnell, Hans-Jürgen Stahl, Erltraud Auer und Reinhard Pawis. [Band 1-3.] Tübingen 1988-. (= Texte und Textgeschichte. Würzburger Forschungen, 22-24.) VOCABULARIUS TEUTONICO-LATINUS. Mit einer Einleitung von Klaus Grubmüller. Hildesheim, New York 1976. ( = Documenta Linguistica, Reihe I.) ['Rusticanus terminorum'. Facsimile of the Nürnberg print of 1482.] VOLLMER, Hans (editor). Neue Texte zur Bibelverdeutschung des Mittelalters. Mit zwei Bildtafeln und einem Anhang: Perikopen-Schlüssel für zehn HeiligenMessen in deutschen Quellen. Hrsg. in Gemeinschaft mit Arthur Thomas Hatto [et al.], von Hans Vollmer. Potsdam 1936. ( = Bibel und deutsche Kultur. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Bibel-Archivs in Hamburg, 6.) VORAUER MARIENLOB. In: Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. Nach ihren Formen besprochen und hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Band I. Tübingen 1964. pp. 352-55. [Original early 12th c.; Vorau manuscript, BavaroAustrian, last quarter of the 12th c.] VORAUER SÜNDENKLAGE. In: Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. Nach ihren Formen besprochen und hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer. Band III. Tübingen 1970. pp. 95-123. [Original 12th century; Vorau manuscript, Bavaro-Austrian, last quarter of the 12th c.] VAN DEN VOS REIN AERDE. Critisch uitgegeven door J. W. Muller. Leiden 1944. ( = Leidsche Drukken en Herdrukken, Groote Reeks, 1.) VULGATE. See BIBLE: VULGATE. VULGATE VERSION. The Vulgate Version of The Arthurian Romances. Edited from Manuscripts in the British Museum. By H. Oskar Sommer. [7 vols.] Washington 1909-13. See also LANCELOT. WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE. Hrsg. und erklärt von W. Wilmanns. 4. Auflage, besorgt von Victor Michels. [2 vols.] Halle a. S. 1916-24. ( = Germanistische Handbibliothek, I, 1.) WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE. Die Gedichte. Hrsg. von Karl Lachmann. 13., aufgrund der 10. von Carl von Kraus bearbeiteten Ausgabe neu hrsg. von Hugo Kuhn. Berlin 1965.

Texts cited

247

WALTHER VON RHEINAU. Das Marienleben Walthers von Rheinau, [hrsg.] von Edit Perjus. 2. vermehrte Auflage. Abo 1949. ( = Acta Academiae Aboensis, Humaniora, XVII, 1.) [Original Swiss, ca. 1300; manuscript Ρ, ca. 1300; C, 13th c. or first half of the 14th c.; Ζ, mid 14th c. or later; S, Swiss, dated 1388.] WEIHNACHTSSPIEL. See HESSISCHES WEIHNACHTSSPIEL. WEISTHÜMER, gesammelt von Jacob Grimm [...]. [7 vols.] Göttingen 1840-78. Reprinted Berlin 1957. WERNHER, Priester. Maria. Bruchstücke und Umarbeitungen. Hrsg. von Carl Wesle. 2. Auflage besorgt durch Hans Fromm. Tübingen 1969. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 26.) [Original Upper German, 1172; manuscript D, Austrian, early 13th c.; A, Austrian, 1250-75 according to Schneider 1987: I, 176.] WERNHER DER G A R T E N ^ R E . Die Märe vom Helmbrecht. Hrsg. von Friedrich Panzer. 6. Auflage besorgt von Kurt Ruh. Tübingen 1960. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 11.) [Original Austrian, late 13th c.; manuscripts 15th and 16th cs.] WERNHER D E R SCHWEIZER. Das Marienleben des Schweizers Wemher, aus der Heidelberger Handschrift. Hrsg. von Max Päpke, zu Ende geführt von Arthur Hübner. Berlin 1920. 2. Auflage, Dublin, Zürich 1967. ( = Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters, 27.) [Original Swiss, 14th c.; manuscript dated 1382.] WIENER GENESIS. Die altdeutsche Genesis. Nach der Wiener Handschrift. Hrsg. von Viktor Dollmayr. Halle (Saale) 1932. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 31.) WIENER GENESIS. Die frühmittelhochdeutsche Wiener Genesis. Kritische Ausgabe mit einem einleitenden Kommentar zur Uberlieferung, von Kathryn Smits. Berlin 1972. ( = Philologische Studien und Quellen, 59.) [Original BavaroAustrian, l l t h c.; manuscript second half of the 12th c. (Schneider 1987:1,41ff., Hellgardt 1988: 65).] WIGAMUR. Manuscript W, in: Deutsche Gedichte des Mittelalters. Hrsg. von Friedrich Heinrich von der Hagen und Johann Gustav Büsching. Band 1. Berlin 1808. pp. 4ff. WIGAMUR. Manuscript Μ, hrsg. von F. Keinz, 'Wigamur. Münchener Bruchstücke', Germania 27 (1882) 289-330. WIGAMUR. ßdite avec Introduction et Index par Danielle Buschinger. Göppingen 1987. ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 320.) [On this edition, see Scholz 1989.] [Original East Frankish/Swabian (?), mid 13th c. (?); manuscript M, Central German (?), ca. 1300; S, Bavarian, mid 14th c.; W, Bavarian/Swabian, end of the 15th c.] WILHALM VON ORLENS. Eine Reimpaarerzählung aus dem 15. Jahrhundert. Kritisch hrsg. von Rosmarie Leiderer. Berlin 1969. ( = Texte des späten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 21.) [Manuscript A (basis for text), East Swabian, 15th c.; L, East Swabian, dated 1467; C, High Alemannic, dated 1477; D, Augsburg print, 1491.]

248

6. Bibliography

WINSBECKISCHE GEDICHTE, nebst Tirol und Fridebrant. Hrsg. von Albert Leitzmann. 3. Auflage von Ingo Reilfenstein. Tübingen 1962. [Original Frankish, 1210-20 (?); manuscripts from the early 14th c.] WIRNT VON GRAFENBERG. Wigalois, der Ritter mit dem Rade, hrsg. von J. M. N. Kapteyn. Band 1: Text. Bonn 1926. (= Rheinische Beiträge, 9.) [Original Bavarian, early 13th c.; manuscripts: A, Tirol (Kapteyn) or Bavarian/Swabian (Schneider 1987: I, 84f.), early 13th c.; B, Thuringian, copied by Low German scribe, 1372; C, Swabian, 14th c.; k, Alsatian, first half of the 15th c.; 1, West Central German, late 15th c.; M, Bavaro-Austrian with Central German elements, second half of the 15th c.; S, Bavaro-Austrian on Alemannic basis, late 15th c. See also Neumann 1964 and Hilgers 1971.] WISSE, Claus, and COLIN, Philipp. Parzifal (1331-1336). Eine Ergänzung der Dichtung Wolframs von Eschenbach, zum ersten Male hrsg. von Karl Schorbach. Strassburg 1888. Reprinted Berlin, New York 1974. (= Elsässische Literaturdenkmäler aus dem XIV-XVII. Jahrhundert, 5.) ['Originalhandschrift' dated 1336.] WITTENWEILER, Heinrich. Heinrich Wittenwilers Ring. Nach der Meininger Handschrift hrsg. von Edmund Wießner. Leipzig 1931. ( = Deutsche Literatur. Sammlung literarischer Kunst- und Kulturdenkmäler in Entwicklungsreihen. Reihe: Realistik des Spätmittelalters, 3.) [Original Alemannic, ca. 1400; manuscript Alemannic, ca. 1400-10.] WOLFDIETRICH A. Ortnit und die Wolfdietriche. Nach Müllenhoffs Vorarbeiten hrsg. von Arthur Amelung und Oskar Jänicke. Berlin 1871. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1968. (= Deutsches Heldenbuch, 3.) pp. 79-163. [Original 13th c. (?); manuscript Austrian, 1504-16.] WOLFDIETRICH Β. Ortnit und die Wolfdietriche. Nach Müllenhoffs Vorarbeiten hrsg. von Arthur Amelung und Oskar Jänicke. Berlin 1871. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1968. ( = Deutsches Heldenbuch, 3.) pp. 165-301. [Original 13th c. (?); manuscript Η, Bavarian (?), 15th c.; other manuscripts 15th and early 16th cs.] WOLFDIETRICH D. Ortnit und die Wolfdietriche. Nach Müllenhoffs Vorarbeiten hrsg. von Arthur Amelung und Oskar Jänicke. Berlin 1873. Reprinted Dublin, Zürich 1968. (= Deutsches Heldenbuch, 4.) [Original 13th c. (?); manuscripts 15th c.] WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Parzival und Titurel. Hrsg. von Karl Bartsch. [3 vols.] Leipzig 1870-71. (= Deutsche Classiker des Mittelalters, 911.) 4. Auflage bearbeitet von Marta Marti. Leipzig 1927-32. WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. 6. Ausgabe von Karl Lachmann. Berlin, Leipzig 1926. WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. [Hrsg.] von Karl Lachmann. 7. Ausgabe [...] von E. Hartl. Berlin 1952. WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Parzival in Auswahl, hrsg. von Eduard Hartl. Berlin 1951. ( = Altdeutsche Übungstexte, 12.) [Some variants cited from this edition.]

Secondary references

249

WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Hrsg. von Albert Leitzmann. 5.-7. Auflagen. [5 Hefte.] Tübingen 1961-65. ( = Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 12-16.) WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Wolframs von Eschenbach Parzival und Titurel, hrsg. von Ernst Martin [...]. 2. Teil: Kommentar. Halle an der Saale 1903. Reprinted Darmstadt 1976. WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Parzival. Translated by Helen Μ. Mustard and Charles Ε. Passage. New York 1961. ( = Vintage Books V-188.) WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Parzival. Translated by A. T. Hatto. Harmondsworth 1980. ( = Penguin Classics.) WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Parzival (Handschrift D). Abbildung des 'Parzival'-Teils von Codex St. Gallen 857 sowie des (heutigen) Berliner Fragments L (mgf 1021) der 'Kindheit Jesu' Konrads von Fußesbrunnen aus dem St. Galler Codex. Hrsg. von Bernd Schirok. Göppingen 1989. ( = Litterae, 110.) WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Titurel. Abbildung sämtlicher Handschriften mit einem Anhang zur Uberlieferung des Textes im 'Jüngeren Titurel', hrsg. von Joachim Heinzle. Göppingen 1973. ( = Litterae, 26.) See also Heinzle 1972. WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Willehalm. Nach der gesamten Überlieferung kritisch hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Berlin, New York 1978. See also Schanze 1966. WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. The Middle High German Poem of Willehalm by Wolfram von Eschenbach. Translated into English Prose by Charles E. Passage. New York 1977. WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Willehalm. Translated by Marion E. Gibbs and Sidney M. Johnson. Harmondsworth 1984. ( = Penguin Classics.) WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH. Willehalm. Titurel. Text, Nacherzählung, Anmerkungen und Worterklärungen, von Walter Johannes Schröder und Gisela Hollandt. Darmstadt 1971. WÜRTTEMBERGISCHES URKUNDENBUCH. Hrsg. vom Königlichen Staatsarchiv in Stuttgart. [11 vols.] Stuttgart 1849-1913. Reprinted Aalen 1972-78. ZAINER-BIBEL. See FIRST GERMAN PRINTED BIBLE. ZWICKAUER RECHTSBUCH. Unter Mitarbeit von Hans Planitz bearbeitet von Günther Ullrich. Weimar 1941. ( = Germanenrechte, N.F., Abteilung Stadtrechtsbücher.)

6.2.

Secondary references

AMIRA, Karl von. 1874. Erbenfolge und Verwandtschafts-Gliederung nach den alt-niederdeutschen Rechten. München 1874.

250

6. Bibliography

ANDERSON, Elizabeth Ann. 1985. The Patterning of Relationships in the Middle High German Prose Lancelot. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh 1985. ANDERSON, Elizabeth Ann. 1986. 'Väter und Söhne im "Prosa-Lancelot".' In: Wolfram-Studien, IX. Schweinfurter 'Lancelot'-Kolloquium 1984. Hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Berlin 1986. pp. 213-27. ANDERSON, Robert R., Ulrich GOEBEL, and Oskar REICHMANN (editors). 1986-. Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Berlin, New York 1986-. ANDERSON, Robert Thomas. 1956. Changing Kinship in Europe. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley 1956. BACHOFER, Wolfgang. 1987. 'Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch in der Diskussion. Bericht über das Symposion in Hamburg vom 14.-16. Oktober 1985.' Lexicographica 3 (1987) 243-45. BACHOFER, Wolfgang (editor). 1988. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch in der Diskussion. Symposion zur mittelhochdeutschen Lexikographie, Hamburg, Oktober 1985. Tübingen 1988. BÄCHTOLD-STÄUBLI, Hanns (editor). 1927-42. Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens. Hrsg. unter besonderer Mitwirkung Von E. HoffmannKrayer und Mitarbeit zahlreicher Fachgenossen von Hanns Bächtold-Stäubli. [10 vols.] Berlin, Leipzig 1927-42. BAHDER, Karl von. 1925. Zur Wortwahl in der frühneuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache. Heidelberg 1925. ( = Germanische Bibliothek, 2, 19.) BARNARD, Alan, and Anthony GOOD. 1984. Research Practices in the Study of Kinship. London 1984. ( = ASA Research Methods in Social Anthropology, 2-) BARTSCH, Karl. 1859. 'Zur Räthsellitteratur.' Germania 4 (1859) 308-15. BARTSCH, Karl. 1865. Untersuchungen über das Nibelungenlied. Wien 1865. Reprinted Osnabrück 1968. BECKER, Peter Jörg. 1977. Handschriften und Drucke mittelhochdeutscher Epen [...]. Wiesbaden 1977. BEHAGHEL, Otto. 1923-32. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Heidelberg 1923-32. (= Germanische Bibliothek, I, 10.) BELL, Clair Hayden. 1922. 'The Sister's Son in the Medieval German Epic. A Study in the Survival of Matriliny.' University of California Publications in Modern Philology 10 (1922) 67-182. BENECKE, Georg Friedrich, Wilhelm MÜLLER, and Friedrich ZARNCKE. 1854-66. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch, mit Benutzung des Nachlasses von Georg Friedrich Benecke ausgearbeitet von Wilhelm Müller [und Friedrich Zarncke]. [3 vols.] Leipzig 1854-66. Reprinted Hildesheim 1963. BERGMANN, Rolf. 1973. Verzeichnis der idthochdeutschen und altsächsischen Glossenhandschriften. Mit Bibliographie der Glossenedition, der Handschriftenbeschreibungen und der Dialektbestimmungen. Berlin, New York 1973. ( = Arbeiten zur FYühmittelalterforschung, 6.)

Secondary references

251

BERTAU, Karl. 1972-73. Deutsche Literatur im europäischen Mittelalter. [2 vols.] München 1972-73. BERTAU, Karl. 1983. Wolfram von Eschenbach. Neun Versuche über Subjektivität und Ursprünglichkeit in der Geschichte. München 1983. BESCH, Werner. 1967. Sprachlandschaften und Sprachausgleich im 15. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Erforschung der spätmittelhochdeutschen Schreibdialekte und zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache. München 1967. ( = Bibliotheca Germanica, 11.) BEZZOLA, Reto R. 1970. 'Les Neveux.' In: Melanges de langue et de litterature du Moyen Äge et de la Renaissance. Offerts a Jean Frappier par ses collegues, ses eleves et ses amis. [2 vols.] Geneve 1970. pp. 89-114. BJERKE, Robert. 1969. A Contrastive Study of Old German and Old Norwegian Kinship Terms. Baltimore 1969. ( = Part II, Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics, 35, 1 (January 1969); Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 22 of the International Journal of American Linguistics.) BLOCH, Marc. 1939. La Societe feodale. Paris 1939. BLOCH, Maurice. 1971. 'The Moral and Tactical Meaning of Kinship Terms.' Man, N.S. 6 (1971) 79-87. BLOCH, R. Howard. 1983. Etymologies and Genealogies. A Literary Anthropology of the French Middle Ages. Chicago, London 1983. BLOCHWITZ, Werner. 1965. Präzisierungstendenzen der altgaskognischen Urkundensprache im Begriffsfeld 'Verwandtschaft'. Vorgelegt am 27. Juni 1964 von Kurt Baldinger. Heidelberg 1965. ( = Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Jahrgang 1965, 2. Abhandlung.) BLÜMEL, Rudolf. 1929. Oheim.' Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 53 (1929) 55-58. BMZ. See BENECKE-MÜLLER-ZARNCKE. BOCK, Philip K. 1968. 'Some Generative Rules for American Kinship Terminology.' Anthropological Linguistics 10 (1968) 1-6. BOHANNAN, Paul. 1963. Social Anthropology. New York 1963. BOHANNAN, Paul, and John MIDDLETON (editors). 1968. Kinship and Social Organization. New York 1968. BOHOLM, Asa. 1983. Swedish Kinship. An Exploration into Cultural Processes of Belonging and Continuity. Göteborg 1983. ( = Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 5.) BOK, Vaclav, and Kurt GÄRTNER. 1989. 'Ein neues Fragment von Philipps "Marienleben" in Brünn.' Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 111 (1989) 81-92. BONATH, Gesa. 1970-. Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des Parzival Wolframs von Eschenbach. Lübeck, Hamburg 1970-. ( = Germanische Studien, 238239.)

252

6. Bibliography

BOSWORTH, Joseph, and T. Northcote TOLLER. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. London 1898. Reprinted 1973. BOUCHARD, Constance B. 1981. 'Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.' Speculum 56 (1981) 268-87. BRAUN, Friederike. 1988. Terms of Address. Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam 1988. ( = Contributions to the Sociology of Language, 50.) BREMER, Ernst. 1986. 'Ein spätmittelalterlicher Werktyp auf dem Wege zum Frühdruck: Der "Vocabularius optimus" im Umkreis frühhumanistischer Schriftkultur Augsburgs.' In: HILDEBRANDT and KNOOP (editors) 1986: 164-78. BRENNER, Oskar. 1892. 'Ein altes italienisch-deutsches Sprachbuch.' In: Bayerns Mundarten. Beiträge zur deutschen Sprach- und Volkskunde. Hrsg. von Oskar Brenner und August Hartmann. [2 vols.] München 1892. pp. 384-444. BRUNNER, Horst. 1981. 'Genealogische Phantasien. Zu Konrads von Würzburg "Schwanritter" und "Engelhard".' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 110 (1981) 274-99. BRUNT, Richard. 1983. The Influence of the French Language on the German Vocabulary (1649-1735). Berlin, New York 1983. ( = Studia Linguistica Germanica, 18.) BUGGE, Sophus. 1888. 'Etymologische Studien ueber germanische lautverschiebung. Zweite [ - Dritte ] artikel.' Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 13 (1888) 167-87 and 311-39. BULLOUGH, D. A. 1969. 'Early Medieval Social Groupings: the Terminology of Kinship.' Past and Present 45 (1969) 3-18. BURIDANT, C., et al. 1986. La Lexicographie au Moyen Age. Lille 1986. ( = Lexique 4.) BUSCHINGER, Danielle. 1986. 'Zum Verhältnis des deutschen Prosa-Lancelot zur altfranzösischen Vorlage.' In: Wolfram-Studien, IX. Schweinfurter 'Lancelot'-Kolloquium 1984. Hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Berlin 1986. pp. 46-89. BUSH, Archie Charles. 1970. Roman Collateral Kinship Terminology. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1970. BUSSE, W. 1979. 'Verwandtschaftsstrukturen im "ParzivalV In: WolframStudien, V, hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Berlin 1979. pp. 116-34. CAMPBELL, J. K. 1964. Honour, Family and Patronage. A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community. Oxford 1964. CASSON, Ronald W. 1975a. 'The Semantics of Kin Term Usage.' American Ethnologist 2 (1975) 229-38. CASSON, Ronald W. 1975b. 'Kinship Semantics in Linguistics and Anthropology.' Linguistic Inquiry 6 (1975) 323-29.

Secondary references

253

C H A M P E A U X , E . 1933. 'Jus sanguinis. Trois fagons de calculer la parente au Moyen Age.' Revue Historique de Droit Prangais et Stranger, 4e serie, 12 (1933) 241-90. C H A R L E S - E D W A R D S , Τ . M. 1971. 'Some Celtic Kinship Terms.' Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 24 (1971) 105-22. C H A R L E S - E D W A R D S , Τ . M. 1972. 'Kinship, Status and the Origins of the Hide.' Past and Present 56 (1972) 3-33. C L E A S B Y , Richard, and Gudbrand V I G F U S S O N . 1874. An Icelandic-English Dictionary. Oxford 1874. C O E . See H E A L E Y and V E N E Z K Y 1980. C O M B R I D G E , Rosemary N. 1963. 'Das Fragment Β des Lanzelet Ulrichs von Zazikhoven.' Euphorion 57 (1963) 200-09. C O N R A D , Hermann. 1962. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. 1: Frühzeit und Mittelalter. Ein Lehrbuch. 2. Auflage. Karlsruhe 1962. C R U S E , D. A . 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge 1986. ( = Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) DAVIS, Kingsley, and W. Lloyd W A R N E R . 1937. 'Structural Analysis of Kinship.' American Anthropologist 39 (1937) 291-313. D E B U S , Friedhelm. 1958a. 'Die deutschen Bezeichnungen für die Heiratsverwandtschaft.' In: Deutsche Wortforschung in europäischen Bezügen. Untersuchungen zum Deutschen Wortatlas. Vol. 1. Gießen 1958. pp. 1-116. D E B U S , Friedhelm. 1958b. Die deutschen Bezeichnungen für die Heiratsverwandtschaft. Gießen 1958. ( = Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie, N . F . der Gießener Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie, 19.) D E B U S , Friedhelm. 1983. 'Deutsche Dialektgebiete in älterer Zeit: Probleme und Ergebnisse ihrer Rekonstruktion.' In: H S K 1.2 (1983) 930-60. D E E C K E , Wilhelm. 1870. Die Deutschen Verwandtschaftsnamen. Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung nebst vergleichenden Anmerkungen. Weimar 1870. Reprinted Wiesbaden 1970. D E L B R Ü C K , Berthold. 1890. Die indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Alterthumskunde. Abhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Leipzig 25, Phil.-hist. Classe, 11 (1890) 379-606. D E U T S C H E R W O R T A T L A S , von Waither Mitzka [und Ludwig Erich Schmitt]. [21 vols.] Gießen 1951-78. D E U T S C H E S R E C H T S W Ö R T E R B U C H (Wörterbuch der älteren deutschen Rechtssprache). 1914-. Hrsg. von der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Weimar 1914-. D I E F E N B A C H , Laurentius. 1857. Glossarium latino-germanicum mediae et infimae aetatis. Francofurti ad Moenum 1857. D I E F E N B A C H , Lorenz. 1867. Novum glossarium latino-germanicum mediae et infimae aetatis. Frankfurt am Main 1867. Reprinted Aalen 1964.

254

6. Bibliography

DIEFENBACH, Lorenz, and Emst WÜLCKER. 1885. Hoch- und niederdeutsches Wörterbuch der mittleren und neueren Zeit zur Ergänzung der vorhandenen Wörterbücher, insbesondere des der Brüder Grimm. Basel 1885. Reprinted Hildesheim 1965. DIETZ, Ph. 1870-72. Wörterbuch zu Dr. Martin Luthers deutschen Schriften. 2. Auflage. Leipzig 1870-72. Reprinted Hildesheim 1961. DITTMANN, Wolfgang. 1966. Hartmanns Gregorius. Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung, zum Aufbau und Gehalt. Berlin 1966. ( = Philologische Studien und Quellen, 32.) DOLE, Gertrude Ε. 1972. 'Developmental Sequences of Kinship Patterns.' In: REINING (editor) 1972: 134-66. DOLLMAYR, Viktor. 1920-21. 'Ein neues Doppelblatt zu Wolframs Parzival Gc.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 58 (1920-21) 222-24. DREW, Katherine Fischer. 1988. Law and Society in Early Medieval Europe. Studies in Legal History. London 1988. ( = Variorum Reprint CS271.) DUBY, Georges. 1973. Hommes et structures du Moyen Age. Recueil d'articles. Paris, La Haye 1973. DUBY, Georges, and Jacques LE GOFF. 1977. Familie et parente dans l'Occident medieval. Actes du Colloque de Paris (6-8 juin 1974) organise par Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Vie section) en collaboration avec le College de France et l'flcole Fransaise de Rome. Rome 1977. ( = Collection de l'ficole Frangaise de Rome, 30.) DUCKERT, Joachim, et al. 1976. Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache auf der lexikalischen Ebene (1470-1730). Untersucht an ausgewählten Konkurrentengruppen unter Leitung von Joachim Dückert. Berlin 1976. 2., unveränderte Auflage. Berlin 1981. ( = Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft. Bausteine zur Sprachgeschichte des Neuhochdeutschen, 56/11.) DWA. See DEUTSCHER WORTATLAS. DYEN, Isidore, and David F. ABERLE. 1974. Lexical Reconstruction. The Case of the Proto-Athapaskan Kinship System. Cambridge 1974. EBENBAUER, Alfred. 1981. 'Gawein als Gatte.' In: Die mittelalterliche Literatur in Vorträge des Symposions in St. Georgen/Längsee vom 8. bis 13. 9.1980. Unter Mitarbeit von Alexander Cella hrsg. von Peter Krämer. Wien 1981. pp. 33-66. ( = Wiener Arbeiten zur germanischen Altertumskunde und Philologie, 16.) EDMONSON, Murtro S. 1957. 'Kinship Terms and Kinship Concepts.' American Anthropologist 59 (1957) 393-433. EGGAN, Fred. 1937. 'Historical Changes in the Choctaw Kinship System.' American Anthropologist (1937) 34-52. EGGAN, Fred. 1972. 'Lewis Henry Morgan's Systems: a Ree valuation.' In: REINING (editor) 1972: 1-16.

Secondary references

255

ERBEN, Johannes. 1972. 'Zu den Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen der Luthersprache. Die sprachliche Erfassung der "Vorfahren".' In: Zeiten und Formen in Sprache und Dichtung. Festschrift für Fritz Tschirch zum 70. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von Karl-Heinz Schirmer und Bernhard Sowinski. Köln, Wien 1972. pp. 376-83. ERBEN, Johannes. 1977. 'Großvater und Enkel (Groß-/Klein-Kind), zur Bezeichnungsgeschichte der "Kindes-kinder".' In: Altgermanistische Beiträge. Jan van Dam zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, hrsg. von Friedrich Maurer und Cola Minis. Amsterdam 1977. pp. 101-13. ERBEN, Johannes. 1981. Review of MÜLLER 1979. Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum 92 (1981) 175-78. ERTZDORFF, Xenja von. 1962. 'Höfische Freundschaft.' Der Deutschunterricht 14 (1962), Heft 6, 35-51. ETZLER, Gerwin. 1950. Die Komposition des Gahmuret-Teiles von Wolframs Parzival und seine Funktion im Gesamtwerk. Diss. Kiel 1950. EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. 1932. 'The Nature of Kinship Extensions.' Man 32 (1932) 12-15. FALK, Hjalmar, and Alf TORP. 1909. Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit. 4. Auflage, Göttingen 1909. 5. Auflage, Göttingen 1979. FARBER, Bernard. 1981. Conceptions of Kinship. New York, Oxford 1981. FARNSWORTH, William Oliver. 1913. Uncle and Nephew in the Old French Chansons de Geste. A Study in the Survival of Matriarchy. New York 1913. FEIST, Sigmund. 1923. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache, mit Einschluss des Krimgotischen und sonstiger gotischer Sprachreste. 2. Auflage. Halle (Saale) 1923. FINK, Reinhard. 1943. 'Sippe und Rittertum bei Wolfram.' Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde 57 (1943), Heft 1, 12-25. FISCHER, Hermann, and W. PFLEIDERER. 1904-39. Schwäbisches Wörterbuch. Tübingen 1904-39. FLANDRIN, Jean-Louis. 1979. Families in Former Times. Kinship, Household and Sexuality. Translated by Richard Southern. Cambridge 1979. (Families: parente, maison, sexualite dans l'ancienne societe. Paris 1976.) FLECKENSTEIN, Josef. 1978. Early Medieval Germany. Amsterdam 1978. FOX, Robin. 1967. Kinship and Marriage. An Anthropological Perspective. Harmondsworth 1967. FRANCK, Wilhelm. 1859. Geschichte der ehemaligen Reichsstadt Oppenheim am Rhein. Nach urkundlichen Quellen bearbeitet von Wilhelm Franck. Darmstadt 1859. FRANKE, Kristina. 1989. Review of RUIPÜREZ 1984. Germanistik 30 (1989), no. 346. FREEMAN, J. D. 1961. O n the Concept of the Kindred.' Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 91 (1961) 192-220. Part reprinted in BOHANNANand MIDDLETON (editors) 1968: 255-72.

256

6. Bibliography

FRIEDRICH, Paul. 1966. 'The Linguistic Reflex of Social Change: from Tsarist to Soviet Russian Kinship.' In: Explorations in Sociolinguistics, ed. by Stanley Lieberson. Bloomington, The Hague 1966. ( = Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics, 44; International Journal of American Linguistics, vol. 33, no. 2 (1967), Part II.) pp. 31-57. FRIEDRICH, Paul. 1980. Review of SZEMERäNYI 1977. Language 56 (1980) 186-92. FRINGS, Theodor, and Elisabeth KARG-GASTERSTÄDT. 1968-. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch, auf Grund der von Elias von Steinmeyer hinterlassenen Sammlungen im Auftrag der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig bearbeitet und hrsg. von Elisabeth Karg-Gasterstädt und Theodor Frings. Berlin 1968-. FRITZ, Gerd. 1974. Bedeutungswandel im Deutschen. Neuere Methoden der diachronen Semantik. Tübingen 1974. ( = Germanistische Arbeitshefte, 12.) FRÜHNEUHOCHDEUTSCHES WÖRTERBUCH. See ANDERSON et al. 1986-. GÄRTNER, Kurt. 1986. ' "Caught in the Web of Words"? Ein Bericht über das "Symposion zur mittelhochdeutschen Lexikographie vom 14. bis zum 16. 10. 1985" in Hamburg.' Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 14.2 (1986) 221-29. G A L L t E , J. H. (editor). 1894. Altsaechsische Sprachdenkmäler. Leiden 1894. GALTON, Herbert. 1957. 'The Indo-European Kinship Terminology.' Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 82 (1957) 121-38. GATES, Henry Phelps. 1971. The Kinship Terminology of Homeric Greek. Baltimore 1971. (Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics, 37, 4 (1971); Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 27 of the International Journal of American Linguistics.) G i N I C O T , Leopold. 1975. Les Genealogies. Tumhout 1975. ( = Typologie des sources du moyen äge occidental, 15.) GENTRY, Francis G. 1975. Triuwe and vriunt in the Nibelungenlied. Amsterdam 1975. ( = Amsterdamer Publikationen zur Sprache und Literatur, 19.) GILLESPIE, George T. 1973. A Catalogue of Personal Names in German Heroic Literature (700-1600), Including Named Animals and Objects and Ethnic Names. Oxford 1973. GÖTZE, Alfred. 1910. 'Freundschaft.' Zeitschrift für deutsche 12 (1910) 93-108.

Wortforschung

GOLDBECK, Ingeborg. 1955. 'Die lieben Verwandten. Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen in übertragener Bedeutung.' Muttersprache 65 (1955) 401-09. GOODENOUGH, Ward H. 1956. 'Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning.' Language 32 (1956) 195-216. Reprinted in: BOHANNAN and MIDDLETON (editors) 1968: 93-124.

Secondary references

257

GOODY, Jack. 1959. 'The Mother's Brother and the Sister's Son in West Africa.' Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 89 (1959) 61-88. Reprinted in: Jack Goody, Comparative Studies in Kinship. London 1969. pp. 39-90. GOODY, Jack. 1983. The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe. Cambridge 1983. GOODY, Jack, Joan THIRSK, and E. P. THOMPSON (editors). 1976. Family and Inheritance. Rural Society in Western Europe 1200-1800. Cambridge 1976. GOTTZMANN, Carola A. 1977. 'Sippe.' Sprachwissenschaft

2 (1977) 217-58.

GRAFF, Ε. G. 1834-46. Althochdeutscher Sprachschatz oder Wörterbuch der althochdeutschen Sprache [...]. [7 Teile]. Berlin 1834-46. Reprinted Hildesheim 1963. GREEN, D. H. 1965. The Carolingian Lord. Semantic Studies on Four Old High German Words: Balder, Fro, Truhtin, Herro. Cambridge 1965. GREEN, Dennis H. 1976. Review of HARROFF 1974. Modern Language Review 71 (1976) 955. GREEN, Dennis H. 1980. 'The Art of Namedropping in Wolfram's «ParzivalV In: Wolfram-Studien, VI, hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Berlin 1980. pp. 84-150. GREEN, Dennis H. 1982. The Art of Recognition in Wolfram's Parzival. Cambridge 1982. GREENBERG, Joseph H. 1966. 'Language Universale.' In: Current Trends in Linguistics, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok. Vol. 3: Theoretical Foundations. The Hague, Paris 1966. pp. 61-112. GRENZMANN, Regina Renate. 1978. Studien zur bildhaften Sprache in der 'Goldenen Schmiede' Konrads von Würzburg. Göttingen 1978. GRIMM, Jacob. 1866a. Kleinere Schriften, 3: Abhandlungen zur Literatur und Grammatik. Berlin 1866. Reprinted Hildesheim 1965. GRIMM, Jacob. 1866b. 'Ueber den Personenwechsel in der rede.' In: GRIMM 1866a: 236-311. GRIMM, Jacob. 1922. Deutsche Rechtsaltertümer. 4. Ausgabe. [2 vols.] Leipzig 1922. GRIMM, Jacob and Wilhelm. 1854-1960. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig 18541960. New edition Leipzig 1965-. GRUBMÜLLER, Klaus. 1967. Vocabularius Ex quo. Untersuchungen zu lateinisch-deutschen Vokabularen des Spätmittelalters. München 1967. ( = Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 17.) GRUBMÜLLER, Klaus. 1968. 'Überlegungen zur Edition eines lateinisch-deutschen Vokabulars des späten Mittelalters.' In: Kolloquium über Probleme altgermanistischer Editionen. Marbach am Neckar, 26. und 27. April 1966. Referate und Diskussionsbeiträge hrsg. von Hugo Kuhn, Karl Stackmann, Dieter Wuttke. Wiesbaden 1968. pp. 42-55.

258

6. Bibliography

GRUBMÜLLER, Klaus. 1986. 'Vokabular und Wörterbuch. Zum Paradigmawechsel in der Frühgeschichte der deutschen Lexikographie.' In: HILDEBRANDT and KNOOP (editors) 1986: 148-63. GRUNOW, Oskar. 1966. Die Bezeichnungen einiger Verwandtschaftsgrade. Ihre Etymologie und ihre Wortgeographie im österreichisch-bairischen Sprachraum. Diss. Wien 1966. GUMMERE, Francis B. 1901. 'The Sister's Son.' In: An English Miscellany presented to Dr Furnivall in Honour of his Seventy-fifth Birthday. Oxford 1901. pp. 133-49. HÄGEN, Paul. 1906. 'Wolfram und Kiot.' Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 38 (1906) 1-38 and 198-237. HALTAUS, Christian Gottlob. 1758. Glossarium germanicum medii aevi maximam partem e diplomatibus multis praeterea aliis monumentis tarn editis quam ineditis. Lipsiae 1758. HAMMEL, E. A. 1965. Ά Transformational Analysis of Comanche Kinship Terminology.' In: HAMMEL (editor) 1965: 65-105. HAMMEL, Ε. A. (editor). 1965. Formal Semantic Analysis. Menasha, Wisconsin 1965. ( = American Anthropologist, Special Publication, 67, 5.) HANNINK, Oskar. 1914. Vorstudien zu einer Neuausgabe des Lanzelet von Ulrich von Zazikhoven. Diss. Göttingen 1914. HARMS, Wolfgang. 1963. Der Kampf mit dem Freund oder Verwandten in der deutschen Literatur bis um 1300. München 1963. ( = Medium Aevum, 1.) HARROFF, Stephen C. 1974. Wolfram and his Audience. Α Study of the Themes of Quest and of Recognition of Kinship Identity. Göppingen 1974. ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 120.) HAUPT, Jos. (editor). 1879. 'Biblische Bilder.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 23 (1879) 358-82. HEALEY, Antonette DiPaolo, and Richard L. VENEZKY (compilers). 1980. A Microfiche Concordance to Old English [...]. Toronto 1980. HEERS, Jacques. 1977. Family Clans in the Middle Ages. A Study of Political and Social Structures in Urban Areas. Translated by Barry Herbert. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford 1977. ( = Europe in the Middle Ages, Selected Studies, 4.) [Translated from: Le Clan familial au Moyen Age. £tude sur les structures politiques et sociales des milieux urbains. Paris 1974.] HEINZEL, Richard. 1874. 'Vier geistliche Gedichte.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 17 (1874) 1-57. [Cites the Göttweiher Codex B25 (formerly 426), Middle Low Frankish, dated 1373.} HEINZLE, Joachim. 1972. Stellenkommentar zu Wolframs Titurel. Beiträge zum Verständnis des überlieferten Textes. Tübingen 1972. ( = Hermaea. Germanistische Forschungen, N.F. 30.) HELLGARDT, Ernst. 1988. 'Die deutschsprachigen Handschriften im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert. Bestand und Charakteristik im chronologischen Abriß.' In: HONEMANN and PALMER (editors) 1988: 35-81.

Secondary references

259

HELMIG, Thomas. 1982. Review of MÜLLER 1979. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 104 (1982) 281-86. HILDEBRANDT, Reiner. 1984. 'Der Beitrag der Sprachgeographie zur Sprachgeschichtsforschung.' In: HSK 2.1 (1984) 347-72. HILDEBRANDT, Reiner, and Ulrich KNOOP (editors). 1986. Brüder-GrimmSymposion. Beiträge zu der Marburger Tagung vom Juni 1985. Berlin, New York 1986. ( = Historische Wortforschung. Untersuchungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte des Deutschen in seinen europäischen Bezügen, 1.) HILGERS, Heribert A. 1971. 'Materialien zur Überlieferung von Wirnts Wigalois.' Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 93 (1971) 228-88. HILGERS, Heribert A. 1983. Review in Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum 94 (1983) 66-71. HOFFMANN, Walter. 1984. 'Probleme der Korpusbildung in der Sprachgeschichtsschreibung und Dokumentation vorhandener Korpora.' In: HSK 2.1 (1984) 670-82. HOFFMANN, Werner. 1967. 'Die Fassung *C des Nibelungenliedes und die "Klage".' In: Festschrift Gottfried Weber, zu seinem 70. Geburtstag überreicht von Frankfurter Kollegen und Schülern. Hrsg. von Heinz Otto Burger und Klaus von See. Bad Homburg, Berlin, Zürich 1967. ( = Frankfurter Beiträge zur Germanistik, 1.) pp. 109-43. HOFFMANN, Werner. 1974. 'Semantische Aspekte des Mittelhochdeutschen.' Semasia 1 (1974) 37-64. HOFFMANN, Werner J. 1988. 'Die Überlieferung der Werke Konrads von Heimesfurt.' In: HONEMANN and PALMER (editors) 1988: 82-109. HOGBIN, H. Ian. 1963. Kinship and Marriage in a New Guinea Village. London 1963. ( = London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, 26.) HOLDER, Alfred. 1903-04. 'Mittelhochdeutsche Glossen.' Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 5 (1903-04) 1-22. HOLTHAUSEN, F. 1934. Gotisches etymologisches Wörterbuch mit Einschluss der Eigennamen und der gotischen Lehnwörter im Romanischen. Heidelberg 1934. ( = Germanische Bibliothek, IV, 8.) HONEMANN, Volker, and Nigel F. PALMER (editors). 1988. Deutsche Handschriften 1100-1400. Oxforder Kolloquium 1985. Tübingen 1988. HOTZENKÖCHERLE, Rudolf. 1961. 'Zur Raumstruktur des Schweizerdeutschen. Statik und Dynamik.' Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 28 (1961) 207-27. HOTZENKÖCHERLE, Rudolf. 1984. Die Sprachlandschaften der deutschen Schweiz. Hrsg. von Nikiaus Bigler und Robert Schläpfer unter Mitarbeit von Rolf Börlin. Aarau, Frankfurt am Main, Salzburg 1984. ( = Sprachlandschaft, 1.) HSK 1.1-2. Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Hrsg. von Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, Herbert

260

6. Bibliography

Emst Wiegand. [2 Halbbände.] Berlin, New York 1982-83. (= Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 1.1-2.) HSK 2.1-2. Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. Hrsg. von Werner Besch, Oskar Reichmann, Stefan Sonderegger. [2 Halbbände.] Berlin, New York 1984-85. ( = Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 2.1-2.) HUBNER, Arthur. 1931. Die deutschen Geisslerlieder. Studien zum geistlichen Volksliede des Mittelalters. Mit vier Tafeln. Berlin, Leipzig 1931. [Manuscript Reutlingen, mid 14th c.] HUTTERER, Claus-Jürgen. 1963. Das ungarische Mittelgebirge als Sprachraum. Historische Lautgeographie der deutschen Mundarten in Mittelungarn. Halle (Saale) 1963. ( = Mitteldeutsche Studien, 24.) ISENBURG, Wilhelm Karl, Prinz von, et al. 1953-78. Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der europäischen Staaten. [5 vols.] Marburg 1953-78. ISING, Gerhard. 1968. Zur Wortgeographie spätmittelalterlicher deutscher Schriftdialekte. Eine Darstellung auf der Grundlage der Wortwahl von Bibelübersetzungen und Glossaren. [2 vols.] Berlin 1968. JEITTELES, A. 1886. 'Lobgesang auf Maria.' Germania 31 (1886) 291-310. [Manuscript Central German (?), 15th c.] JELINEK, Franz. 1911. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch zu den deutschen Sprachdenkmälern Böhmens und der mährischen Städte Brünn, Iglau und Olmütz (XIII. bis XVI. Jahrhundert). Heidelberg 1911. KANTOLA, Markku. 1982. Studien zur Reimsprache des Lanzelet Ulrichs von Zazikhoven. Ein Beitrag zur Vorlagenfrage. Turku 1982. ( = Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, B, 157.) KEESING, Roger M. 1972. 'Simple Models of Complexity: the Lure of Kinship.' In: REINING (editor) 1972: 17-31. KERN, Peter. 1981. Die Artusromane des Pleier. Untersuchungen über den Zusammenhang von Dichtung und literarischer Situation. Berlin 1981. (= Philologische Studien und Quellen, 100.) KIENAST, Richard. 1937. 'Ava-Studien I-II.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 74 (1937) 1-36 and 277-308. KIENAST, Richard. 1940. 'Ava-Studien III.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 77 (1940) 85-104. KINZEL, K., and R. RÖHRICHT. 1877. 'Das gedieht von des landgrafen Ludwig kreuzfahrt nach spräche und komposition.' Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 8 (1877) 379-446. KIPP, Rita Smith. 1984. 'Terms for Kith and Kin.' American Anthropologist 86 (1984) 905-26. KIRCHERT, Klaus. 1986a. ' Vocabularium de significactone nominum. Zur Erforschung spätmittelalterlicher Vokabularliteratur.' In: BURIDANT et al. 1986: 47-70.

Secondary references

261

KIRCHERT, Klaus. 1986b. 'Text und Kontext. Zu den "Wörterbüchern" von Pritsche Closener und Jakob Twinger von Königshofen.' In: HILDEBRANDT and KNOOP (editors) 1986: 222-41. KLEIN, Thomas. 1988. 'Ermittlung, Darstellung und Deutung von Verbreitungstypen in der Handschriftenüberlieferung mittelhochdeutscher Epik.' In: HONEMANN and PALMER (editors) 1988: 110-67. KLUGE, Friedrich, and Waither MITZKA. 1963. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 19. Auflage. Berlin 1963. KNOBLOCH, Johann. 1977. 'Echonamen.' Beiträge zur Namenforschung 12 (1977) 121-24. KRANZMAYER, Eberhard, et al. (editors). 1963-. Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Osterreich. Hrsg. im Auftrag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften von Eberhard Kranzmayer [et al.]. Wien 1963-. KRAUSE, Konrad. 1941. 'Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen in übertragenem Sinne.' Muttersprache 56 (1941) 99-101. KRAWUTSCHKE, Peter W. 1978. Liebe, Ehe und Familie im deutschen 'Prosa-Lancelot' I. Bern, Frankfurt am Main, Las Vegas 1978. (= Europäische Hochschulschriften, I, 229.) KRELLER, Alois. 1939. Wortgeographie des Schönhengster Landes. Mit 42 Karten. Brünn, Leipzig 1939. Reprinted Nendeln, Liechtenstein 1979. ( = Arbeiten zur sprachlichen Volksforschung in den Sudetenländern, 6.) KROEBER, A. L. 1909. 'Classificatory Systems of Relationship.' Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 39 (1909) 77-84. Reprinted in: ΒΟΗ ANNAN and MIDDLETON (editors) 1968. KROEBER, A. L. 1936. 'Kinship and History.' American Anthropologist 38 (1936) 338-41. KRONENFELD, David B. 1976. 'Computer Analysis of Skewed Kinship Terminologies.' Language 52 (1976) 891-918. KUNZE, Konrad. 1975. 'Textsorte und historische Wortgeographie. Am Beispiel Pfarrer/Leutpriester (mit 6 Karten).' In: Würzburger Prosastudien II. Untersuchungen zur Literatur und Sprache des Mittelalters. Kurt Ruh zum 60. Geburtstag. München 1975. (= Medium Aevum, 31.) pp. 35-76. KUNZE, Konrad. 1985. 'Neue Ansätze zur Erfassung spätmittelalterlicher Sprachvarianz.' In: RUH (editor) 1985: 157-200. KURRELMEYER, W. 1921. Review of Friedrich Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Modern Language Notes 36 (1921) 482-90. KUZNECOV, Α. M. 1974. 'On the Typology of the Semantic Field of Kinship Terms.' Linguistics 124 (1974) 5-14. LAMB, Sydney M. 1965. 'Kinship Terminology and Linguistic Structure.' In: HAMMEL (editor) 1965: 37-64. LANCASTER, Lorraine. 1958. 'Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society.' British Journal of Sociology 9 (1958) 230-50 and 359-77.

262

6. Bibliography

LEECH, Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth 1974. LEUMANN, Ernst. 1888. 'Indogerm. nipöt, niptr "Waise".' In: Festgruss an Otto von Böhtlingk zum Doktor-Jubiläum 3. Februar 1888 von seinen Freunden. Stuttgart 1888. pp. 77-78. l£VI-STRAUSS, Claude. 1945. 'L'Analyse structurale en linguistique et en a n t h r o p o l o g i c . ' Word

1 ( 1 9 4 5 ) 33-53.

LEXER, Matthias. 1872-78. Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch. [3 vols.] Leipzig 1872-78. LEYSER, K. 1968. 'The German Aristocracy from the Ninth to the Early Twelfth Century. A Historical and Cultural Sketch.' Past and Present 41 (1968) 25-53. LEYSER, K. 1970. 'Maternal Kin in Early Medieval Germany. A Reply.' Past and Present 49 (1970) 126-34. LIERES UND WILKAU, Marianne von. 1965. Sprachformeln in der mittelhochdeutschen Lyrik bis zu Walther von der Vogelweide. München 1965. LOOMIS, Roger Sherman (editor). 1959. Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. A Collaborative History. Oxford 1959. LOUNSBURY, Floyd G. 1956. Ά Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage.' Language 32 (1956) 158-94. LOUNSBURY, Floyd G. 1964a. Ά Formal Account of the Crow- and OmahaType Kinship Terminologies.' In: Explorations in Cultural Anthropology. Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock, edited by Ward H. Goodenough. New York 1964. pp. 351-93. LOUNSBURY, Floyd G. 1964b. 'The Structural Analysis of Kinship Semantics.' In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists (Cambridge, Mass., 1962). The Hague 1964. pp. 1073-90. Reprinted in: Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, hrsg. von Horst Geckeier. Darmstadt 1978. (— Wege der Forschung, 426.) pp. 164-92. LOUNSBURY, Floyd G. 1965. 'Another View of the Trobriand Kinship Categories.' In: HAMMEL (editor) 1965: 142-85. LOUNSBURY, Floyd G. 1969. 'Language and Culture.' In: Sidney Hook (editor), Language and Philosophy. A Symposium. New York 1969. pp. 3-29. LOWIE, Robert H. 1929. 'Relationship Terms.' In: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 14th edition. London, New York 1929. Vol. 19, pp. 84-89. Reprinted in: BOHANNAN and MIDDLETON (editors) 1968: 39-59. LOYN, Henry R. 1974. 'Kinship in Anglo-Saxon England.' Anglo-Saxon England 3 (1974) 197-209. LUCAE, Karl. 1880. Review of P. Domanig, Parzival- Studien. Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum 6 (1880) 152-55. LUONG, Hy Van. 1984. ' "Brother" and "Uncle": an Analysis of Rules, Structural Contradictions, and Meaning in Vietnamese Kinship.' American Anthropologist 86 (1984) 290-315.

Secondary references

263

LYONS, John. 1977. Semantics. [2 vols.] Cambridge 1977. McKINLEY, Robert. 1971. Ά Critique of the Reflectionist Theory of Kinship Terminology: the Crow/Omaha Case.' Man, N.S. 6 (1971) 228-47. MALINOWSKI, B. 1930. 'Kinship.' Man 30 (1930) 19-29. MARANDA, Pierre. 1974. French Kinship. Structure and History. The Hague, Paris 1974. ( = Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 169.) MARTIN, Ernst. 1900-03. Wolframs von Eschenbach Parzival und Titurel. Hrsg. und erklärt von Ernst Martin. Halle an der Saale 1900-03. Teil 2: Kommentar. Reprinted Darmstadt 1976. MAYER, Hartwig. 1982. Die althochdeutschen GrifFelglossen der Handschrift Ottob. Lat. 3295 (Biblioteca Vaticana). Edition und Untersuchung. Bern, Frankfurt am Main 1982. ( = Kanadische Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 27.) MEINEKE, Birgit. 1987. Chind und barn im Hildebrandslied vor dem Hintergrund ihrer althochdeutschen Überlieferung. Göttingen 1987. ( = Studien zum Althochdeutschen, 9.) MEINHARD, Η. H. 1975. 'The Patrilineal Principle in Early Teutonic Kinship.' In: John Beattie and Godfrey Lienhardt (editors), Studies in Social Anthropology. Essays in Memory of Ε. E. Evans-Pritchard by his Former Oxford Colleagues. London 1975. pp. 1-29. MENGE, Heinz H. 1985. 'Lexikologie des Mittelhochdeutschen.' In: HSK 2.2 (1985) 1145-53. MERRILL, Robert T. 1964. 'Notes on Icelandic Kinship Terminology.' American Anthropologist 66 (1964) 867-72. MEYER, Christian [?]. 1891. 'Die deutschen Verwandtschaftsnamen.' Zeitschrift für Deutsche Kulturgeschichte, N.F. 2 (1891) 56-66. MEYER, Elard Hugo. 1865. 'Ueber Tandarois und Flordibel. Ein Artusgedicht des Pleiers.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 12 (1865) 470-514. MEZGER, Fritz. 1960. 'Oheim und Neffe.' Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, N.F. 76 (1960) 296302. MEZGER, Fritz. 1965. 'Germ, frijönd- "Verwandte".' Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, N.F. 79 (1965) 32-38. MILLER, M. 1953. 'Greek Kinship Terminology.' Journal of Hellenic 73 (1953) 46-52.

Studies

MOHR, Wolfgang. 1979a. 'König Artus und die Tafelrunde. Politische Hintergründe in Chretiens "Perceval" und Wolframs "Parzival".' In: Wolfgang Mohr, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Aufsätze. Göppingen 1979. ( = Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 275.) pp. 170*-222*.

264

6. Bibliography

MOHR, Wolfgang. 1979b. 'Willehalm.' In: Wolfgang Möhr, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Aufsätze. Göppingen 1979. (= Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 275.) pp. 266*-331*. MORGAN, Lewis H. 1871. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Washington 1871. Reprinted Oosterhout 1966. (— Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 17.) MOSER, Hans. 1977. Die Kanzlei Kaiser Maximilians I. Graphematik eines Schreibusus. Teil 1: Untersuchungen. Teil 2: Texte. Innsbruck 1977. (= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Germanistische Reihe, 5/I-II.) MOSER, Hugo, Hugo STOPP, and Werner BESCH (editors). 1987. Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen. Beiträge zur Laut- und Formenlehre. Band III: Flexion der Substantive, von Klaus-Peter Wegera. Heidelberg 1987. (= Germanische Bibliothek, Reihe 1.) MUCH, R. 1932. 'Oheim.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 69 (1932) 46-48. MULLER, Ernst Erhard. 1953. Die Basler Mundart im ausgehenden Mittelalter. Diss. Basel. Tübingen 1953. Also Bern 1953 (= Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 14). MÜLLER, Ernst Erhard. 1979. Grossvater, Enkel, Schwiegersohn. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Deutschen. Heidelberg 1979. (= Germanische Bibliothek, 3. Reihe.) MULLER, Klaus, et al. 1976. Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache auf der lexikalischen Ebene (1470-1730). Untersucht an ausgewählten Konkurrentengruppen mit Anteilen slawischer Herkunft, unter Leitung von Klaus Müller. Berlin 1976. (= Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft. Bausteine zur Sprachgeschichte des Neuhochdeutschen, 56/111.) MÜLLER-RÖMHELD, Walter. 1958. Formen und Bedeutung genealogischen Denkens in der deutschen Dichtung bis um 1200. Diss. Frankfurt am Main 1958. MURDOCK, George Peter. 1949. Social Structure. New York, London 1949. MURRAY, Alexander Callander. 1983. Germanic Kinship Structure. Studies in Law and Society in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Toronto 1983. (= Studies and Texts, 65.) NELLMANN, Eberhard. 1973. Wolframs Erzähltechnik. Untersuchungen zur Funktion des Erzählers. Wiesbaden 1973. NEUMANN, Friedrich. 1964. 'Wann verfaßte Wimt den "Wigalois"?' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 93 (1964) 31-64. NEUWIRTH, J. 1887. 'Die Zwettler Verdeutschung des Cato.' Germania 32 (N.R. 20) (1887) 78-92. [Manuscript 14th c.] NIERMEYER, J. F. 1976. Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus. Leiden 1976. NOGLE, Lawrence Elwayne. 1974. Method and Theory in the Semantics and Cognition of Kinship Terminology. The Hague, Paris 1974. (= JanuaLinguarum, Series Minor, 205.)

Secondary references

265

ÖHMANN, Emil. 1929. Zur Kindheit Jesu Konrads von Fussesbrunnen. Turku 1929. (= Annales Universitatis Aboensis, B, 8.) ONESTI, Nicoletta Francovich. 1979-80. Ί nomi di parentela nei dialetti delle isole linguistiche alemanne del Piemonte e della Valle d'Aosta.' Studi germanici 17-18 (1979-80) 5-34. OPLER, M. E. 1937. 'Apache Data Concerning the Relation of Kinship Terminology to Social Classification.' American Anthropologist 39 (1937) 201-12. OPPITZ, Michael. 1975. Notwendige Beziehungen — Abriß der strukturalen Anthropologie. Frankfurt am Main 1975. (= suhrkamp taschenbuch Wissenschaft, 101.) OSTHOFF, H. 1888. 'Etymologica I.' Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 13 (1888) 395-463. PANZER, Friedrich. 1955. Das Nibelungenlied. Entstehung und Gestalt. Stuttgart 1955. PATLAGEAN, Evelyne. 1981. Structure sociale, famille, chretiente ä Bysance. IVe-XIe sifecle. London 1981. PESCHEL, Dietmar. 1981. 'Warum hat der Vater keinen *Sohn-ter? [...] ' Acta Germanica 14 (1981) 175-94. PETSCH, Robert. 1916. 'Rätselstudien.' Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 41 (1916) 332-46. PETZSCH, Gottfried. 1913. Über Technik und Stil der mittelhochdeutschen Privatbriefe des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts. Diss. Greifswald 1913. PFANNMÜLLER, Ludwig. 1917. 'Nu zuo des der neve si!' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 15 (1917) 278-84. PHILIPPSON, Ernst Alfred. 1953. Die Genealogie der Götter in Germanischer Religion, Mythologie und Theologie. Urbana 1953. ( = Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, 37, 3.) PHILLPOTTS, Bertha Surtees. 1913. Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and after. A Study in the Sociology of the Teutonic Races. Cambridge 1913. PLANITZ, Hans, and Karl August ECKHARDT. 1961. Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Graz, Köln 1961. PLÖCHL, Willibald Μ. 1960-69. Geschichte des Kirchenrechts. [5 vols.] 2., erweiterte Auflage. Wien, München 1960-69. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Essays and Addresses. With a Foreword by Ε. Ε. Evans-Pritchard and Fred Eggan. London 1952. RASH, Felicity Jane. 1987. French and Italian Lexical Influences in Germanspeaking Switzerland (1550-1650). Ph.D. Thesis, University of London 1987. Also: Berlin, New York (in press). ( = Studia Linguistica Germanica, 25.) REICHMANN, Oskar. 1987. 'Zur Lexikographie des Frühneuhochdeutschen und zum "Frühneuhochdeutschen Wörterbuch".' In: Frühneuhochdeutsch. Zum

266

6. Bibliography

Stand der sprachwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Besorgt von Werner Besch und Klaus-Peter Wegera. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, Sonderheft, 106 (1987). pp. 178-226. REINING, Priscilla (editor). 1972. Kinship Studies in the Morgan Centennial Year. Washington 1972. REITZENSTEIN, R. 1886. 'Althochdeutsche Glossen aus Rom.' Germania 31 (1886) 331-34. REUTER, Timothy (editor and translator). 1979. The Medieval Nobility. Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford 1979. ( = Europe in the Middle Ages, Selected Studies, 14.) RICHEY, Margaret Fitzgerald. 1960. Schionatulander and Sigune. An Episode from the Story of Parzival and the Gr aal as Related by Wolfram von Eschenbach. Translated with Explanatory Framework. 2nd edition. Edinburgh, London 1960. RICHEY, Margaret Fitzgerald. 1961. 'The "Titurel" of Wolfram von Eschenbach: Structure and Character.' Modern Language Review 56 (1961) 180-93. RICHTER, Dieter. 1969. Die deutsche Überlieferung der Predigten Bertholds von Regensburg. Untersuchungen zur geistlichen Literatur des Spätmittelalters. München 1969. ( = Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 21.) RIETSCHEL, S. 1911-16. 'Sippe.' In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgelehrten hrsg. von Johannes Hoops. Straßburg 1911-16. Vol. 4, pp. 181-84. ROEDER, Fritz. 1899. Die Familie bei den Angelsachsen. Eine kultur- und litterarhistorische Studie auf Grund gleichzeitiger Quellen. Halle a. S. 1899. ( = Studien zur englischen Philologie, 4.) ROMNEY, A. Kimball, and Roy Goodwin D'ANDRADE. 1964. 'Cognitive Aspects of English Kin Terms.' American Anthropologist'66 (1964), Special Publication: Transcultural Studies in Cognition, edited by A. Kimball Romney and Roy Goodwin D'Andrade. pp. 146-70. ROSENTHAL, Joel T. 1966. 'Marriage and the Blood Feud in "Heroic" Europe.' British Journal of Sociology 17 (1966) 133-44. ROSIN, Heinrich. 1877. Der Begriff der Schwertmagen in den Rechtsbüchern und verwandten Quellen des deutschen Mittelalters. Breslau 1877. ROUKENS, Winand. 1937. Wort- und Sachgeographie Südost-Niederlands und der umliegenden Gebiete mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Volkskundlichen. [2 parts.] Nijmegen 1937. RUBERG, Uwe. 1965. Raum und Zeit im Prosa-Lancelot. München 1965. ( = Medium Aevum, 9.) RUBERG, Uwe. 1988. 'Verwandtschaftsthematik in den Tierdichtungen um Wolf und Fuchs vom Mittelalter bis zur Aufklärungszeit.' Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 110 (1988) 29-62.

Secondary references

267

RUH, Kurt (editor). 1978-. Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon. Begründet von Wolfgang Stammler, fortgeführt von Karl Langosch. 2., völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage unter Mitarbeit zahlreicher Fachgelehrter hrsg. von Kurt Ruh, zusammen mit Gundolf Keil, Werner Schröder, Burghart Wachinger, Franz Josef Worstbrock. Berlin, New York 1978-. RUH, Kurt (editor). 1985. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Prosaforschung. Beiträge der Würzburger Forschergruppe zur Methode und Auswertung. Tübingen 1985. (= Texte und Textgeschichte. Würzburger Forschungen, 19.) RUIPÜREZ, German. 1984. Die strukturelle Umschichtung der Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Lexikologie, diachronen Semantik und Ethnolinguistik. Marburg 1984. ( = Marburger Studien zur Germanistik, 5.) SALZER, Anselm. 1886. Die Sinnbilder und Beiworte Mariens in der deutschen Literatur und lateinischen Hymnenpoesie des Mittelalters [...]. Programm des k. k. Ober-Gymnasiums zu Seitenstetten 1886. SCHANZE, Heinz. 1966. Die Überlieferung von Wolframs Willehalm. München 1966. (= Medium Aevum, 7.) SCHEFFLER, Harold W., and Floyd G. LOUNSBURY. 1971. Α Study in Structural Semantics. The Siriono Kinship System. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1971. SCHERZ, Johann Georg. 1781. Glossarium Germanicum medii aevi potissimum dialecti Suevicae. Edidit illustravit supplevit Jeremias Jacobus Oberlinus. Argentorati 1781. SCHILLER, Karl, and August LÜBBEN. 1875-81. Mittelniederdeutsches Wörterbuch. Bremen 1875-81. SCHMELLER, J. Andreas. 1827-37. Bayerisches Wörterbuch. [...] [4 Theile, 2 Bände.] Stuttgart, Tübingen 1827-37. SCHMID, Elisabeth. 1980. 'Über Verwandtschaft und Blutsverwandtschaft im Mittelalter.' Acta Germanica 13 (1980) 31-46. SCHMID, Elisabeth. 1986. Familiengeschichten und Heilsmythologie. Die Verwandtschaftsstrukturen in den französischen und deutschen Gralromanen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen 1986. ( = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 211.) SCHMID, Karl. 1957. 'Zur Problematik von Familie, Sippe und Geschlecht, Haus und Dynastie beim mittelalterlichen Adel. Vorfragen zum Thema "Adel und Herrschaft im Mittelalter".' Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 105 (N.F. 66) (1957) 1-62. SCHMID, Karl. 1959. 'Über die Struktur des Adels im frühen Mittelalter.' Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung 19 (1959) 1-23. SCHMITZ, Carl A. 1964. Grundformen der Verwandtschaft. Basel 1964. ( = Basler Beiträge zur Geographie und Ethnologie, Ethnologische Reihe, 1.) SCHNEIDER, David M. 1972. 'What is Kinship AU About?' In: REINING (editor) 1972: 32-63.

268

6. Bibliography

SCHNEIDER, Karin. 1987. Gotische Schriften in deutscher Sprache. I. Vom späten 12. Jahrhundert bis um 1300. [2 vols.] Wiesbaden 1987. SCHNELL, Bernhard. 1979. 'Stemma und Wortvarianz. Zur Rolle des Überlieferungsprozesses in der historischen Wortgeographie.' In: Befund und Deutung. Zum Verhältnis von Empirie und Interpretation in Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Hrsg. von K. Grubmüller [et al.] Tübingen 1979. pp. 136-53. SCHNELL, Bernhard. 1981. 'Ein neues Exzerpt aus dem "Fließenden Licht der Gottheit" der Mechthild von Magdeburg.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 110 (1981) 272-74. SCHNELL, Bernhard. 1986. 'Der Vocabulartus Ex quo. Zum wirkungsmächtigsten lateinisch-deutschen Wörterbuch im Spätmittelalter.' In: BURIDANT et al. 1986: 71-82. SCHÖNBACH, Anton. 1874. 'Grazer Marienleben.' Zeitschrift für Altertum 17 (1874) 519-60.

deutsches

SCHOLZ, Manfred Günter. 1989. Review of Wigamur, ed. D. Buschinger. Germanistik 30 (1989), no. 886. SCHOOF, Wilhelm. 1900. 'Die deutschen Verwandtschaftsnamen.' Zeitschrift für hochdeutsche Mundarten 1 (1900) 193-298. SCHRÖDER, Walter Johannes. 1963. Die Soltane-Erzählung in Wolframs Parzival. Studien zur Darstellung und Bedeutung der Lebensstufen Parzivals. Heidelberg 1963. SCHRÖDER, Werner. 1969. 'Der Markgraf und die gefallenen Heidenkönige in Wolframs "Willehalm".' In: Festschrift für Konstantin Reichardt, hrsg. von Christian Gellinek. Bern, München 1969. pp. 135-67. SCHRÖDER, Werner. 1982. Die Namen im 'Parzival' und im 'TitureP Wolframs von Eschenbach. Berlin, New York 1982. SCHULTHEISS, Hermann. 1937. Die Bedeutung der Familie im Denken Wolframs von Eschenbach. Breslau 1937. ( = Sprache und Kultur der germanischen und romanischen Völker, B, 26.) SCHULZE, Wilhelm. 1966. Kleine Schriften. 2., durchgesehene Auflage mit Nachträgen hrsg. von Wilhelm Wissmann. Göttingen 1966. SCHWEIZERISCHES IDIOTIKON. 1881-. Schweizerisches Idiotikon. Wörterbuch der schweizerdeutschen Sprache [...]. Bearbeitet von Friedrich Staub und Ludwig Tobler [et al.]. Frauenfeld 1881-. SDS. See SPRACHATLAS DER DEUTSCHEN SCHWEIZ. SEHRT, Edward H. 1962. Notker-Glossar. Ein Althochdeutsch-Lateinisch-Neuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch zu Notkers des Deutschen Schriften. Tübingen 1962. SEIFFERT, Leslie. 1974. 'Wortfeldtheorie zwischen Sozio- und Systemlinguistik.' In: Historizität in Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft. Vorträge und Berichte der Stuttgarter Germanistentagung 1972. In Verbindung mit Hans Fromm und Karl Richter hrsg. von Walter Müller-Seidel. München 1974. pp. 347-64.

Secondary references

269

SERVICE, Elmer R. 1960. 'Kinship Terminology and Evolution.' American Anthropologist 62 (1960) 747-63. SINGER, S. 1898. 'Zu Wolframs Parzival.' In: Abhandlungen zur germanischen Philologie. Festgabe für Richard Heinzel. Halle a. S. 1898. pp. 353-436. SKINNER, John. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. Edinburgh 1910. SMET, Gilbert A. R. de. 1986. 'Die frühneuhochdeutsche Lexikographie: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ihrer Interpretation.' In: HILDEBRANDT and KNOOP (editors) 1986: 59-80. SPINDLER, Max. 1967-75. Handbuch zur bayerischen Geschichte. [Band I-IV.] [6 vols.] München 1967-75. SPRACHATLAS DER DEUTSCHEN SCHWEIZ. 1962-83. Bearbeitet von Rudolf Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf Trüb [et al.]. [5 vols.] Bern 1962-83. SPRENGEL, Konrad. 1977. 'Semantische Merkmale und Universalien am Beispiel der Verwandtschaftswörter.' In: Semantik und Pragmatik. Akten des 11. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Aachen 1976. Band 2. Hrsg. von Konrad Sprengel, Wolf-Dietrich Bald und Heinz Werner Viethen. Tübingen 1977. ( = Linguistische Arbeiten, 50.) pp. 135-46. SPRINGER, Otto. 1959. 'Wolframs Parzival.' In: LOOMIS (editor) 1959: 21850. STAHL, Hans-Jürgen. 1986. 'Latein und Deutsch in den spätmittelalterlichen Vokabularien — vorgeführt am Beispiel des "Vocabularius Ex quo".' In: HILDEBRANDT and KNOOP (editors) 1986: 193-221. STAMMLER, Wolfgang (editor). 1933-55. Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon. Unter Mitarbeit zahlreicher Fachgenossen hrsg. von Wolfgang Stammler. [5 vols.] Berlin, Leipzig 1933-53. STARCK, Taylor, and J. C. WELLS. 1972-84. Althochdeutsches Glossenwörterbuch (mit Stellennachweis zu sämtlichen gedruckten althochdeutschen und verwandten Glossen). Heidelberg 1972-84. STEER, Georg. 1985. 'Gebrauchsfunktionale Text- und Uberlieferungsanalyse.' In: RUH (editor) 1985: 5-36. STEINHOFF, Hans-Hugo. 1968. 'Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des deutschen Ρ rosa- Lancelot.' In: Probleme mittelalterlicher Uberlieferung und Textkritik. Oxforder Colloquium 1966. Hrsg. von Peter F. Ganz und Werner Schröder. Berlin 1968. pp. 81-95. STEINHOFF, Hans-Hugo. 1974. 'Zum Münchener Lancelot-Fragment (Cgm. 5250, Nr. 25).' In: Wolfram-Studien, II. Hrsg. von Werner Schröder. Berlin 1974. pp. 254-58. STEINMEYER, Elias, and Eduard SIEVERS. 1879-1922. Die althochdeutschen Glossen. [5 vols.] Berlin 1879-1922. STIEGELE, Peter. 1967. Wortschatz und Wortbedeutungen im Nibelungenlied. Diss. Heidelberg 1967.

270

6. Bibliography

STUTZ, Ulrich. 1890. Das Verwandtschaftsbild des Sachsenspiegels und seine Bedeutung für die sächsische Erbfolgeordnung. 1890. ( = Untersuchungen zur Deutschen Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, 34.) SWARTZ, Marc J. 1960. 'Situational Determinants of Kinship Terminology.' Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 16 (1960) 393-97. SZEMERiNYI, O. 1977. Studies in the Kinship Terminology of the IndoEuropean Languages, with Special References to Indian, Iranian, Greek and Latin. Leiden, Teheran, Liege 1977. ( = Acta Iranica, 16; Textes et Memoires, 7: Varia 1977.) pp. 1-240. TAPPOLET, Ernst. 1895. Die romanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der französischen und italienischen Mundarten. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Lexikologie. Strassburg 1895. TAUBER, Walter. 1983. Der Wortschatz des Hans Sachs. [2 vols.] Berlin, New York 1983. ( = Studia Linguistica Germanica, 19.) TRÜBNER. 1939-57. Trübners Deutsches Wörterbuch, hrsg. von Alfred Götze [und Walther Mitzka]. Berlin 1939-57. TURVILLE-PETRE, Joan. 1978-79. 'The Genealogist and History: Ari to Snorri.' Saga-Book of the Viking Society 20 (1978-79) 7-23. VELTEN, Theo. 1956. Der 'Plan' von Wolframs Parzival. Studien zu Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen, Religiosität und Romanform. Diss. Heidelberg 1956. VERFASSERLEXIKON. See STAMMLER (editor) 1933-53 and RUH 1978-. VERWIJS, E., and J. VERDAM. 1885-1929. Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek. [10 parts.] 's-Gravenhage 1885-1929. VIZKELETY, Andräs, and Gisela KORNRUMPF. 1968-69. 'Budapester Fragmente des "Fließenden Lichts der Gottheit".' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 97 (1968-69) 278-306. VOLLMER, Hans (editor). 1931. Deutsche Bibelauszüge des Mittelalters zum Stammbaum Christi mit ihren lateinischen Vorbildern und Vorlagen. Potsdam 1931. ( = Bibel und deutsche Kultur. Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen BibelArchivs in Hamburg, I, Der 'Materialien zur Bibelgeschichte und religiösen Volkskunde des Mittelalters' Neue Folge, 5.) VORKAMPFF-LAUE, Alice. 1906. Zum leben und vergehen einiger mhd. Wörter. Halle 1906. VOSSMERBÄUMER, Gerd. 1971. Untersuchungen zur diachronen Semantik. Zulassungsarbeit, Tübingen 1971. [manuscript] WACHINGER, Burghart. 1973. Sängerkrieg. Untersuchungen zur Spruchdichtung des 13. Jahrhunderts. München 1973. ( = Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 42.) WALLACE, Anthony F. C., and John ATKINS. 1960. 'The Meaning of Kinship Terms.' American Anthropologist 62 (1960) 58-80. WALLNER, Anton. 1939. 'Der Springer im Schnee (MFr. 65,5).' Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 64 (1939) 160-62.

Secondary references

271

WEBER, Gottfried. 1928. Wolfram von Eschenbach. Seine dichterische und geistesgeschichtliche Bedeutung. Band 1: Stoff und Form. Frankfurt am Main 1928. ( = Deutsche Forschungen, 18.) WECK, Helmut. 1982. Die 'Rechtssumme' Bruder Bertholds. Eine deutsche abecedarische Bearbeitung der 'Summa Confessorum' des Johannes von Freiburg. Tübingen 1982. ( = Texte und Textgeschichte. Würzburger Forschungen, 6.) WEGSTEIN, Werner. 1985. Studien zum 'Summarium Heinrici'. Die Darmstädter Handschrift 6. Werkentstehung, Textüberlieferung, Edition. Tübingen 1985. ( = Texte und Textgeschichte. Würzburger Forschungen, 9.) WEIDLEIN, Johannes. 1963-64. 'Die Verwandtschaftsnamen in den donauschwäbischen Mundarten.' Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundartforschung 30 (196364) 58-65. WEINHOLD, K. 1877. 'Zu dem deutschen Pilatusgedicht. Text, Sprache und Heimat.' Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 8 (1877) 253-88. WEISGERBER, Leo. 1953. Vom Weltbild der deutschen Sprache. 1. Halbband: Die inhaltbezogene Grammatik. 2. Auflage. Düsseldorf 1953. ( = Leo Weisgerber, Von den Kräften der deutschen Sprache, I.) WEISGERBER, Leo. 1962. Von den Kräften der deutschen Sprache. I. Grundzüge der inhaltbezogenen Grammatik. 3. Auflage. Düsseldorf 1962. WEST, Jonathan. 1989. Lexical Innovation in Dasypodius' Dictionary. A Contribution to the Study of the Development of the Early Modern German Lexicon Based on Petrus Dasypodius' Dictionarium Latinogermanicum, Straßburg 1536. Berlin, New York 1989. ( = Studia Linguistica Germanica, 24.) WESTERMANN, Claus. 1984. Genesis 1-11. A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. London 1984. WESTERMANN, Claus. 1985. Genesis 12-36. A Commentary. Translation by John J. Scullion. London, Minneapolis 1985. WHITE, Leslie A. 1939. Ά Problem in Kinship Terminology.' American Anthropologist 41 (1939) 566-73. WILMANNS, W. 1870. 'Ein Fragebüchlein aus dem neunten Jahrhundert.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 15 (1870) 166-80. WÖRTERBUCH DER MITTELHOCHDEUTSCHEN URKUNDENSPRACHE auf der Grundlage des Corpus der altdeutschen Originalurkunden bis zum Jahr 1300. Unter Leitung von Bettina Kirchstein und Ursula Schulze hrsg. von Sibylle Ohly und Peter Schmitt. Berlin 1986-. ( = Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.) WYNN, Marianne. 1984. Wolfram's Parzival. On the Genesis of its Poetry. Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York, Nancy 1984. ( = Mikrokosmos, 9.) YEANDLE, David N. 1984. Commentary on the Soltane and Jeschute Episodes in Book III of Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival (116,5-138,8). Heidelberg 1984.

272

6. Bibliography

ZACHARIAS, Rainer. 1961-62. 'Die Blutrache im deutschen Mittelalter.' Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 91 (1961-62) 167-201. ZATOClL, Leopold. 1952. Cato a Facetus. Pojednani a Texty. Zu den deutschen Cato- und Facetusbearbeitungen. Untersuchungen und Texte. Brno 1952. (= Opera Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis Facultas Philosophica, 48.) [Cato: manuscripts 14th-15th es.] ZWIERZlNA, Karl. 1895-96. Review of Μ. Walz, Garel von dem blüenden tal. Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum 22 (1895-96) 353-63.

SUMMARY

The subject of this work is the German terminology of kin relationships in the Middle Ages and the early modern period: a word-field which, despite its significance in literary studies and social history, has hitherto only been partially recorded and analysed by lexicographers. This work primarily considers synchronic-systemic, diachronic and geographical aspects, basing itself on a varied corpus of over 280 primary sources, which were specifically read for this purpose. Following an introduction which describes the state of present research and the aims of the study, a large amount of lexically, semantically and dialectally revealing material is systematically presented and discussed in three main sections: (1) from the High Middle Ages, a critical, text-centred examination of the kinship system of Wolfram von Eschenbach, which is chronologically central, semantically still largely traditional, and unique in language history because of its complexity and scope; (2) a widening of the chronological and regional perspective, with an inventory and a comparative analysis of the German equivalents for Latin kin terms in Old and Middle High German glosses, and in the vocabularies of the Late Middle Ages (Liber ordinis rerum, Vocabularius Ex quo), which axe particularly relevant to the regional distribution; (3) to form the core of the work, a detailed, diachronic-diatopic documentation, analysis and synopsis of the semantic development of eight selected lexemes (mäc, vriunt, niftel, neve, muome, base, aeheim, veter) from the beginnings of the literary tradition to shortly after 1500. On this basis, the closing section then draws a series of chronological and dialectal conclusions, either as firm findings or as working hypotheses for further study. In this way, the following conclusions (among others) are reached: by chronological stages, beginning in the 12th and 13th centuries, a semantic relaxation and diversification of the lexemes; in the 13th century, the introduction or extension of the principle of part-reciprocity, with repercussions for the system as a whole; gradually also the neutralisation of traditional oppositions (laterality, consanguinity); the treatment of kinship designations by late medieval scribes and redactors, which is often rather free, reflecting the instability of the Middle High German

274

Summary

literary language and of religious usage; distribution of the lexemes according to specific text-types; cases of semasiological and onomasiological asymmetry, competition and redundancy; pragmatic differences between address and referential function; and not least (although as yet barely distinguishable before 1500) the crystallisation of the written norm, and the development of a pattern of regional variation which only partly tallies with the findings of modern word-geography. The work concludes with a commented list of sources and a bibliography of the secondary literature. This study is intended primarily as a contribution to historical German lexicology. In addition, it is likely to be of methodological, documentary, and analytical interest and significance within neighbouring disciplines (literary studies, social and legal history, anthropology).

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Gegenstand der Untersuchung ist die deutsche Terminologie der Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit: ein Wortfeld, das trotz seiner literarischen und sozialgeschichtlichen Bedeutung lexikographisch bisher nur unvollständig erfaßt und analysiert worden ist. Berücksichtigt werden hier vor allem die synchron-systematischen, sprachhistorischen und -geographischen Aspekte, und zwar auf der Grundlage eines heterogenen Korpus von mehr als 280 Primärquellen, die im Laufe der Untersuchung eigens exzerpiert wurden. Nach einer Einleitung, die den gegenwärtigen Forschungsstand und die Zielsetzimg der Arbeit beschreibt, wird eine Fülle von lexikalisch, semantisch und dialektgeographisch aufschlußreichem Material in drei Hauptkapiteln systematisch vorgelegt und erörtert: (1) aus dem Hochmittelalter eine kritische, textinterne Untersuchung des chronologisch zentralen, semantisch noch weitgehend traditionellen Verwandtschaftssystems Wolframs von Eschenbach, das wegen seiner Komplexität und Reichweite ein sprachgeschichtliches Unikum daxstellt; (2) Erweiterung des chronologischen und regionalen Blickfeldes mit einer Bestandsaufnahme und einer vergleichenden Analyse der deutschen Äquivalente für lateinische Verwandtschaftstermini in den alt- und mittelhochdeutschen Glossen und in den für die regionale Verbreitimg besonders relevanten Vokabularen des Spätmittelalters (Liber ordinis rerum, Vocabularius Ex quo); (3) als Kernstück der Arbeit eine eingehende, diachron-diatopische Dokumentation, Analyse und Synopse der semantischen Entwicklung von 8 ausgewählten Lexemen (mac, vriunt, niftel, neve, muome, base, oeheim, veter) vom Anfang der literarischen Uberlieferung bis kurz nach 1500. Auf dieser Basis zieht dann das abschließende Kapitel eine Reihe von chronologischen und dialektgeographischen Schlußfolgerungen, entweder als gesicherte Befunde oder als weiterführende Arbeitshypothesen. Festgestellt werden auf diese Weise u. a.: eine zeitlich gestaffelte, im 12.13. Jahrhundert einsetzende semantische Auflockerung und Auffächerung der Lexeme; die für das Gesamtsystem folgenreiche Einführung bzw. Erweiterung des Prinzips der Teilreziprozität im 13. Jahrhundert; stufen-

276

Summary

weise auch die Neutralisierung von traditionellen Oppositionen (Lateralität, Konsanguinität); die oft ziemlich freie Behandlung der Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen bei spätmittelalterlichen Schreibern und Redaktoren als Indiz der Labilität der mittelhochdeutschen Literatursprache wie auch des religiösen Gebrauchs; textsortenspezifische Verteilung der Lexeme; Fälle von semasiologischer oder onomasiologischer Asymmetrie, Konkurrenz und Redundanz; pragmatische Unterschiede zwischen Anrede- und Verweisfunktion; und nicht zuletzt (wenn auch vor 1500 nur schwer erkennbar) das Herauskristallisieren der schriftsprachlichen Norm und die Entwicklung regionaler Varietäten, die nur z. T. mit der modernen Wortgeographie im Einklang stehen. Die Arbeit schließt mit einem kommentierten Verzeichnis der Quellen und einer Bibliographie der Sekundärliteratur. Diese Untersuchimg versteht sich in erster Linie als Beitrag zur historischen Lexikologie des Deutschen. Darüber hinaus dürfte sie methodologisch, dokumentarisch und analytisch in verschiedenen Nachbardisziplinen (Literaturwissenschaft, Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte, Anthropologie) von Interesse und Bedeutung sein.

SUBJECT INDEX

active competence 62 address 4-5, 42-43, 97, 99, 118, 137, 139, 172, 185 address inversion 186-88 address theory 187 adjectival limitation: see limiting adjective adoptive relationship 3, 132 affective connotations 91, 99, 146, 158, 160, 183, 185, 191, 192 affinal senses 83, 92, 104, 105, 110, 118, 125, 126, 131, 133, 136-37, 139, 141, 143, 144, 146, 156-57, 164, 168, 174, 182, 192-93, 214 affinal terms 9, 11, 20-21, 57, 60, 67, 79, 182, 197, 199 age, relative 10, 188 agnatic kinship 30, 80-82, 191 American Indian kin terms 4 analytical terms 59, 65, 67-69, 190, 192, 193, 205, 211 ancestral terms 57, 65-66 animals 95, 129 Annunciation 88, 111-14, 133 anthropology 1, 11, 12, 43 antithesis 19 antwortendes Prinzip 187 archaism 204, 212 Arthurian romance 43, 78, 196, 213 asymmetry 24, 185 atomism 214 authorial unity 78 authoritative relationship 185, 187 avoidance 185, 207 avuncular relationships 147, 186 avunculate 11, 34

bahuvrlhi 147 baptismal sponsorship 106 barbarian kingdoms 80-81 bereavement 20 biblical relationships 107-08, 111-15, 119, 129, 132, 135, 136, 140, 141-42, 149-50, 152, 164, 201 bifurcate collateral system 5, 43, 184, 190, 192, 194, 195 bifurcate merging system 5 bilateral kindred 81 Bireferenzialität 186 blood feud 81-82 brotherhood 82 calculation of kinship 82, 84-86 caique 46, 65 Canon Law 82, 193 Carolingian empire 81 causality 8, 194 Celtic kin terms 59, 147 chancery usage 139, 213 child-adult interaction 187 child language 139 chivalrous romance 78 Christian influences 182 chronicles 78, 215 chronology 77-78, 195-96 circuitous kin references 32 Civil Law 82 clan 80, 92 classiiicatory function 2 classificatory systems 5 classiiicatory terms 182 clergy 213 cognatic kinship 30, 80-82

278

Subject index

collateral terms 11, 12-13, 27-42, 57-58, 68-72, 106-74, 183-94 collective-abstract terms 80 collective noun 116 collocations 18, 79, 90, 101, 104, 106, 159, 160, 174, 185-86,193 communicative handicap 182 competence: see active, passive competence complementary distribution 183 componential theory 6 compounds 45, 59, 73, 83, 88-91, 105, 193, 199; see also motivated compounds compurgation 81 computatio canonica 82, 86 computation of kinship 82, 84-86 conferred relationship 132, 157 connecting relative 131, 191-92 connotation 97 consanguineal vriunt 102-04 contact 6 context 128, 216-17 contextual restriction 128 contrastive approach 14, 45-75 convergence: see semantic convergence 'core' meaning 71,107, 139, 142,160, 171, 184, 193, 196 'core' terms 57, 193 corpus 43, 77-79, 215 correspondence 10, 78, 135-36, 146, 188, 193, 207, 213 courtly poetic language 14,21,198-99 cousin 5, 111, 124, 125, 189-90 critical editions 216 cross cousin 24, 124 dating 77-78, 195-96 deeds 9-10 definition 107 degrees of kinship 84 denotation 97 derivatives 45,69,88,90,91,104,105, 116, 172, 184, 193 dialectology 216

dialects 7-9, 11, 131, 197, 209-12 diasystem 46 diminutives 34, 70,108,116,134,137, 139, 144, 146, 156-57, 160, 172, 185, 187, 192 discrepancies 39-43 distant kinship 82, 88, 111, 118, 158 distinctive features 196 downward extension 134, 139, 153, 190, 206 dynastic view 82 echoistic factors 187 elective bond 97 emendation: see textual substitution emotive use: see affective connotations enclaves 8-9, 210-11, 212 endogamy 30 epic 78, 213 epistolary style: see correspondence 'Eskimo' system 43 ethnocentric fallacy 7 etymological motivation 162, 174 Eurocentric views 1 extended family 81, 191 extension 18, 20, 26; see also downward, upward extension extensionist hypothesis 181 extinction 78, 197; see also archaism, obsolescence female linkage 24 feud 81-82 feudalism 194 fictive kinship 3 folk taxonomy 14, 184 formulae 79, 83-84, 93-96, 104, 199, 213 fostering 3, 11 fraternity 82 French kin terms 13, 43, 65, 70, 75, 118, 136, 191-92, 194, 197 frequency 92, 115, 130, 146, 187, 194, 199, 215 friendship 19, 92-100

Subject index gender 88 gender-specific usage 188 genealogical basis 3 genealogical relationships 216 genealogical systems 79 genealogical tables 10, 77 generalisation 110-11, 118, 128-29, 131, 137, 139, 158, 170, 182, 185 generational system 5 generation-shift 153; see also downward, upward extension generative theory 6 genetic theory 30 glossaries 14, 45-73, 116, 136, 167, 170, 191, 196, 208, 212 glosses 14, 45-75, 160, 162, 186, 196, 213 godparenthood 3, 106, 172 Gothic kin terms 83, 93, 111 Greek kin terms 59, 83, 93 Großfamilie 81 Grundrichtigkeit 75 half-brother 35 heredity 30, 82 heroic epic 78, 197, 213 historical reconstruction 16 homonymic clash 185 honorific use 131, 139, 160, 191 'horizontal' perceptions 30 hypocoristic forms 116, 132, 139, 147 hyponym 87 Icelandic kin terms 83, 192 identity 216 idiolect 14, 15ff., 77 idioms 91, 129, 137, 142-43, 144, 146 immediate constituents 172 impediments to marriage 82 importation 197, 209 incest 132-33, 165 Indo-European 1, 7-8, 83, 92, 93,106, 182 indulgent relationship 185 inheritance 81, 86 innovation 78

279

interlingual approaches 8 interpersonal functions 188 intertextual aspects 217 intimacy 187 inversion 107 isolating systems 5 isolation 193 jocular reference 32 kindred 81, 182 kin groups 80-82 kinship range 182-83 kinship roles 3 laterality: see neutralisation of laterality Latin kin terms 7, 14, 43, 45-75 et passim legal sources 10-11, 79, 84-86, 101-02, 120, 213, 215 legal terms 11, 14 legal usage 129 lexical change 6 lexical isolation 193 lexical meaning 16 lexicography 73-75, 79, 214-15 lexicography, historical 12 libri memoriales 81 limiting adjective 91, 101, 128, 139, 142, 159, 171, 193 limit of kinship 23-24, 80-82, 84-88, 106 limit of mäcschaft 83-92, 106, 182 limit of vriuntschaft 102, 106, 182 lineage 80 lineal system 5, 43 linking relative 10, 26, 42, 151, 188 literary anthropology 12 loan-translation 65 localisation 47, 72, 79, 198 male usage 188 matrilineal bias 15, 26 matrilineal linkage 26, 42 meaning 16

280

Subject index

metaphor 3-4, 18, 20, 182 middle class 213 Middle English 142 mimetic factors 187 Monoreferenzialität 186 motivated compounds 9, 67-68, 197 multiple reference 40, 128, 131, 158, 160, 167, 174, 193 names 5, 10, 151, 164 narrator 19, 154 neologism 45 'nepotism' 182 neutralisation 131 neutralisation of laterality 43, 70-71, 73-75, 141, 144, 146, 149-52, 160, 165-70, 174, 188, 190-92, 194-96, 206-08, 212 non-collateral terms 20-21 Norwegian kin terms 9-10, 192 notation 6 nuclear family 20, 81, 97, 141, 191 nuclear terms 42, 57, 182, 193 nuns 139 obsolescence 73, 80, 92, 106, 115-16, 118, 131, 152, 185, 197, 199-201 (Edipal triangle 11 Old English kin terms 59, 61, 83, 88, 93, 106, 131, 133, 147, 162 Old French kin terms 43, 165 Old Frisian kin terms 162 Old Norse kin terms 83, 93, 106 Old Saxon kin terms 83, 93, 106 Omaha system 147 onomasiological redundancy 192 onomasiological synopsis 174-77 opaqueness 9, 91 oral usage 213 orthography 205-06 palaeography 216 paradox 141-42, 213 parallel cousin 24, 125, 160 parallelism 34, 69 passive competence 62, 204

patrilineal bias 24 patrilineal linkage 24, 26 pejorative use 144, 146 periphrasis 16, 32, 45, 73, 128, 130, 193-94 personell name 5 phonology 205-06 phraseology: see idioms pleonasm 18, 19, 85, 87, 101 poetic language 14, 21, 198-99 polarity-shifting 186-88 polygenesis 205, 207 polysemy 11, 13, 45, 59, 60, 68, 92, 104, 107, 118, 137, 182 pragmatic factors 14 prescriptivism 45, 75, 196 prestige 209 presumptive kinship 3, 86 productivity 57 pronominal reference 34, 36-37 Proto-Germanic 92, 93, 106, 162, 182 psychological priority 160 putative kinship 142 reciprocal principle 186-88, 195-96, 206 reciprocal use 4, 8, 134-35, 142, 155-56, 164, 186-88, 195-96, 206 reckoning of kinship 82, 84-86 reconstruction 16 redundancy 16, 40, 192 referential function 4, 77 reflectionist assumption 2 regal use 26, 118, 121, 125, 131, 182 regional competition 65 regional restriction 89, 118, 146, 182 regional variation 11,. 62-73, 126,131, 144, 192,198-214 reincarnation 187 relative age 10, 188 relative clause 85 religious texts 78, 213 religious usage 14, 104, 197 respectful address 127, 154, 185 riddles 133, 142 role designation 3

Subject index role specification 97 romance 43, 78, 196, 213 Romance kin terms 43, 192 royal use 26, 118, 121, 125, 131, 182 rural usage 171, 197 scribal emendation: see textual substitution self-cancelling kin references 32 self-corroboration 16 self-reciprocity 126, 153, 155, 159, 160, 168, 172 semantic continuum 26 semantic convergence 183 semantic development 77, 107 semantic inversion 107 semantic neutralisation 131 semantic overlap 26, 42, 46, 118, 127, 156, 183-85 semasiological synopsis 177-80 seniority 4, 112-13, 154, 187 sense 16 sense development 77 sense spectra 77 seventh remove 81, 86, 102, 106 sex of connecting relative 131, 191-92 sex, relative and absolute 4 side: see neutralisation of laterality simplificatory function 3 sixth remove 81 skewing 5, 147 Slavic kin terms 43 social stratification 214 social structure 2ff. social variation 46, 79, 214, 215 socio-cultural patterns 1 socio-economic change 13-14 solidarity 182 speed of lexical change 6, 107, 130, 182 spiritual kinship 92, 106, 182, 213 Spitzenahn 86 Sprachinseln: see enclaves standard language 67, 197, 205, 211, 214 step-terms 21, 57, 60, 66-67

281

structuralist analysis 2 structural pressure 6 stylistic variation 46, 79, 214, 215 summa cognatorum 105 summative definition 107 superordinate terms 17-20, 43, 60, 62-65, 80-105, 182-83 suppletion 193 supra-regionalism 67, 214 surnames 10, 151, 164 Swedish kin terms 192 synonymy 16, 104 system 2 systeme des appellations 2 systeme des attitudes 2 tautology 34, 90 teleological model 181 terminologische Neffenschaft 26 text types 78, 212 textual criticism 216 textual cruces 17, 28-30, 36-42 textual substitution 100-01, 104, 110, 112-13, 115-16, 126-27, 130-31, 143,151-52,160,168,170-71,185, 196-97, 200-05, 207-08 textual transmission 62, 198 thematisation of kinship 79, 82 theory of address 187 therapeutic devices 194, 197 transference 182 transparency 67-68 Turkish kin terms 43 typology of kin sets 5, 43 unilinealism 80-81 unitary texts 216-17 unitcis carnis 193 universale 4, 6 upper class 214 upward extension 126-27, 134, 139, 153, 160, 186, 199, 206 urban usage 171 Urtext 216 variants 216

282

Subject index

variation: see regional, social, stylistic variation vendetta 81-82 Vietnamese kin terms 5

vocabularies 61-73, 201, 205, 212; see also glossaries word-geography 7-11

STUDIA LINGUISTICA GERMANICA WILLIAM JERVIS JONES

A Lexicon of French Borrowings in the German Vocabulary (1575 - 1648) 1976. Large-octavo. X, 699 pages. Cloth DM 170,— ISBN 3 11 004769 1 (Volume 12) Based on a large collection of material newly excerpted from wide range of texts, the work is seen as a contribution to German historical lexicology, to the theoretical discussion of lexcal borrowing, and, indirectly, to the more general history of Franco-German relations.

RICHARD JAMES BRUNT

The Influence of the French Language on the German Vocabulary (1649 -1735) 1983. Large-octavo. X , 557 pages. Cloth DM 128,— ISBN 3 11 008408 2 (Volume 18) From the contents: The Historical Background — The French Language in Germany in the late 17th Century — Lexica and Foreign Language Dictionaries — Sociological Aspects of Word Borrowing — Lexicon of circa 1.200 French Borrowings — Bibliograhies — Appendixes.

Prices are subject to change

Walter de Gruyter

W G DE

Berlin · New York

STUDIA LINGUISTICA GERMANICA JONATHAN WEST

Lexical Innovation in Dasypodius' Dictionary A contribution to the study of the development of the Early Modern German Lexicon based on Petrus Dasypodius' Dictionarium Latinogermanicum, Straßburg 1536 1989. Large-octavo. XV, 486 pages, 8 pages facsimiles. Cloth DM 176,- ISBN 3 11 011360 0 (Volume 24) O n the basis of a list of the German nouns attested in the alphabetical sections of Dasypodius' dictionary, the monograph filters out words attested before 1535 and investigates Dasypodius' neologisms from the point of view of their integration into the lexicon and the word formation patterns they exemplify. Dasypodius* presumed dependence on Martin Luther is also critically examined.

FELICITY RASH

French and Italian Lexical Influences in German-Speaking Switzerland (1550 - 1650) 1989. Large-octavo. ΧΠ, 411 pages. Cloth DM 172,— ISBN 3 11 011862 9 (Volume 25) Semantic feels covered: ecclesiastical, administrative, diplomatic, legal, financial, textiles, exotic wares, architecture, landscape gardening, nautical, geographical, meteorological, travel, social, political, military, scientific, horticultural, agricultural, household.

Prices are subject to change

Walter de Gruyter

W G DE

Berlin · New York