Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:01:07.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Runic Inscription of Codex Latinus Monacensis 13067

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Carl Selmer
Carl Selmer*
Affiliation:
Hunter College of the City of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

After the introduction of Christianity the use of runic characters diminished considerably in continental Europe. While in the times of King Chilperich and Venantius Fortunatus the runic script still played a rôle in public life, it fell into disuse in subsequent periods in central Europe, a fact which is deplored by Otfried in his introduction to the Gospels: Res mira, tam magnos viros, sapientia latos, sanctitate praeclaros, cuncta haec in alienae linguae gloriam transferre et usum scripturae in propria, lingua non habere. It will, therefore, be of interest to discover an unpublished runic inscription in CLM. 13067, a codex belonging to the eleventh or the twelfth centuries. It must be regarded as quite an unusual occurrence to see here the runic characters transcribing a Latin sentence and taking the place of a Hebrew inscription.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 1938 , pp. 645 - 655
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, v, 45 (used by Aimon in his De Gestis Francorum, chapter 41).

2 Ven. Hon. Clem. Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers (sixth century), invites Flavus to answer his letter in another script or language, incidentally using the word runa in the meaning of “character.”—Mon. Germ. Hist. (1879), p. 173.

3 One runic syllable is still used in the Wessobrunner Gebet for the syllable gi(ga), resembling in form the “gilch”-symbol of Hrabanus Maurus' treatise De inventione linguarum (Migne, PL, cxii, 1579). Hrabanus (eod-loc.) mentions the fact that the pagans still use the runes to write down their carmina.

4 Sporadic examples of runic characters transcribing Latin sentences are found e.g. in the Monumentum Ruthwellense (ed. Georgius Hickesius, Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus, Oxoniæ, MLVII, iii, tab. iv), in the Alphabetum Norvagicum (ed. Monfaucon, Palaeogr. Grœca, p. 898), in Coda. Galba A.2 and Exoniensis Ecclesiae (Hickesius, op. cit., tabb. ii and vi). There are also cases of runic inscriptions interspersed in AS manuscripts, e.g. in Cod. Exoniensis (Hickesius, op. cit., tabb. iv, v, vi).

5 This is evidenced by the inscriptions (1r): met Petri Veichtner, praepositi sancti Johannis Ratisponnensis and Rat. Civ. 67.

6 The description of the Munich catalogue is somewhat inadequate especially in the enumeration of the contents and the designation of the folia, as a personal scrutiny revealed.

7 In Mittelalterliche Kirchenfeste und Kalendarien in Baiern (Freiburg im Br., 1891), pp. 208–228.

8 Cf. “Note sur un ancien psaultier manuscript du Prieuré d'Hastière,” Revue Bénédictine, ix (1892), 110.

9 There can be no doubt that the miniature presents an occidental variation of a Byzantine type as it is encountered in the romanesque period of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The student of art will be interested in the fact that there exists a striking similarity between the above Descent and contemporary and later Spanish, French, and English presentations. They can be seen in A. Goldschmidt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der karol. und sächs. Kaiser, viii–xi. Jahrhundert, (Berlin, 1918), vol. ii, tab. xlv, no. 156; vol. iv, tab. vi, no. 22, and vol. iv, tab. viii, no. 30. Most presentations of this type point to Spain. Nearest to the above presentation is a bas-relief of the monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos, near Burgos, portrayed in Gg. Weise, Spanische Plastik aus sieben Jahrhunderten (Reutlingen, 1927), vol. ii, tab. iv.—My attention was called to this fact by Mr. Henry Meier, of the New York Public Library, to whom I am indebted for his kindness.

10 The Greek letters also deserve a closer scrutiny because of the peculiar form of some, though a possible Greek Vorlage is not necessarily to be brought into connection with the runic inscription. Only in the case of a common Vorlage might this be of significance.

11 The numerous stone-cross inscriptions, found on the Continent as well as in England and Wales, are of quite a different type and served another purpose. They are discussed in George Stephens, The Ruthwell Cross, Northumbria, from about A.D. 680, with its runic verses by Cœdmon (London, 1866).

12 Some are shown e.g. in Georgius Hickesius, op. cit., iii (50 examples); George Stephens, The Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England (1866), i, 100 ff. (48 examples); H. Paul, Grdr. der germ. Philol., i, 258, 260; W. C. Grimm, Über Deutsche Runen tabb. i–iv (20 examples); J. Hoops, Reallex. der Germ. Altertumskunde, pp. 15–47 (35 examples); Hrabanus Maurus, op. cit.; Montfaucon, op. cit.; Paul Lehmann, “Fuldaer Studien,” (Bayer. Akad. der Wiss., phil. hist. Kl. (1925), p. 16.

13 It is at least very unlikely that the scribe should have invented this symbol himself; in such a circumstance he would have regarded u as composed of two i-staves and consequently would have written two x-like symbols; but in that case they would stand next to each other and not one above another. It is not probable that it is a genuine High German rune, since the only example is found on the buckle of Szabadbattýan (about 450 a.d.), and differs greatly in its form from the above symbol. Cf. W. Krause, “Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark,” Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft (1937), xiii,691). It is, however, doubtful whether Krause's interpretation of a similar symbol on the stone of Årstad (about 550 A.D.) as the ng-rune in the word uŋwinar is correct (op. cit., p. 453). No one will doubt the common origin of the j- and ng-runes, formed by two overlapping circles and their respective derivation from PreGc. ∗jera, resp. ∗ingwaz.

14 It appears as Z in the Alphabetum Runicum of Cod. Galba A. 2 (Hickesius, op. cit., tab. vi), Cod. Oxoniensis C. 27 (ibid., tab. ii), Cod. Exoniensis Ecclesiae (ibid., tab. ii), Cod. Cott. Vitellius A. 12 (idem, p. 148); as z in the Alphabetum Norvagicum (Grimm, op. cit., tab. iii) and Mappae Clavicula (shown in Stephens, op. cit., p. 111).

15 Cf. Hickesius, op. cit., p. 135 and tab. ii.

16 Cf. Grimm, op. cit., tab. i.

17 Cf. G. Stephens, op. cit., p. 155.

18 E.g. on the Franks' casket. Concerning the forklike form, cf. Otto von Friesen, in Hoops, op. cit., p. 24: “Bei der Rune u beginnt der Beistab in jüngerer Zeit zuweilen ein Stück unterhalb der Spitze des Hauptstabes.”

19 By an early split of the a-sound, the Anglo-Saxon stave rows have two symbols. The symbol of the inscription is of provincial English growth and is applied almost everywhere in English monuments. The preceding ing-rune (iii, 5) is also a typical English provincial form

20 Cod. theol. 65 (Cassel) and even the Isidor-MS. 155 (Brussels, 8th century) have to be eliminated, because the last line is cut off, with three letters missing. Though these symbols probably were the a-, yr-, and io-runes, the absence of the co-rune forbids its consideration.

21 Contained in Hickesius, op. cit., tab. ii; abbreviation C.

22 Ibid., tab. ii; abbr. E.

23 Ibid., tab. vi; abbr. G.

24 Idem, p. 148; abbr. K.

25 Idem, p. 135 and tab. ii; abbr. O.

26 They are shown in W. Grimm, op. cit., p. 107.

27 E.g. in Cod. Sangallensis 270, f. 52.

28 E.g. in Cod. Ratisbonensis 1443 (Munich, 10th–11th centuries), which contains some futhorcs arbitrarily made up, with fanciful names, such as Hebraice, Siriace, Arabice, Aegytiace, and Gothice; about magische Runen, Fruchtbarkeits- und Gesundheitsrunen, Liebes- und Krankheitsrunen, Kampf- und Siegrunen cf. W. Krause, “Was man in Runen ritzte,” Schriften der Königsberger Gel. Ges. (1935), i, 26 ff.

29 In Cod. Sangall. 270 an OE futhorc was copied by a Germanizing scribe.

30 Luke xxiii.38: “and a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.”

31 E.g. the a-rune is always applied correctly.

32 For various reasons it was deemed advisable to give here only the Latin values; the runic characters can easily be verified by a comparison with the five alphabets mentioned above.

33 It is impossible to decide whether this crosslike symbol (I,2) presents the e- or f-rune; this is of no importance for our research. (For the abbreviations of the MSS see Section E:)

34 The above findings permit of no direct conclusion upon the continuation of the runic alphabet after the ng-symbol. Any symbols, which possibly might have been added to this alphabet are irrelevant.

35 It was through research work on the Brendanus-MSS that the present writer accidentally hit upon the runic inscription.

36 There are at the present time, exclusive of the many translations, the following Latin Brendanus-MSS in Continental libraries: 25 in France, 7 in Belgium, 26 in Germany, 6 in Italy, and 1 in Switzerland. This large number bears witness to the importance of Brend anus for mediæval literature.

37 The Irish monasteries of Ratisbon, Würzburg, Nürnberg, Constance, Vienna, Memmingen, Eichstädt, Erfurt, and Kelheim, founded in the eleventh to the twelfth centuries.

38 One of these monasteries existed as late as a century ago. The sixtieth and last “Scottish” abbot of St James, Ratisbon, was Anselm Robertson, born in Fochabers, Scotland (1855–62). He returned to his native Scotland after the dissolution of his monastery (cf. P. Lindner, Monasticon Metropolis Salisburgensis Antiquae [1908], p. 422).

39 Cf. James F. Kenney. The Sources for the Early History of Ireland (1929), p. 409, and L. Lahaye, Étude sur l'abbaye de Waidsort (1890), p. 7.

40 I am indebted to the Bollandist, Rev. Paul Grosjean, Brussels, who has made a special study of these questions, for his kind advice in this respect.

41 This miniature shows a man offering a child to the Virgin. Supporting his surmise with passages from the history of Hastière-Waulsort, D. U. Berlière, op. cit., p. 111 says: “Rien donc est plus naturel que la répresentation du rîte de l'oblation d'un enfant â la Vièrge? Serait-ce peut-être Erembert lui-même offert par son père? Comme l'histoire du monastère nous apprend, Erembert était entré dès l'âge le plus tendre à l'abbaye de Waulsort, où il se distingua par ses travaux d'art.” This plausible explanation compares very favorably with Joachim Prochno, Das Schreiber-und Dedikationsbild in der deutschen Buchmalerei (Leipzig, 1929) who shows the miniature (nr. 77) and mistakes the person for a female person. He is corrected by A. Goldschmidt in Dt. Literaturzeitung, xiv (1930), 699, who recognizes in this person a monk or abbot presenting the scribe of the manuscript to the Virgin. The book or manuscript is distinctly recognizable in the hands of the scribe. This interpretation is corroborated by the parallel “Echtemacher Typus.”

42 “Venerabilis Erenbertus scolam a loco removens, eam in Hasteria esse disposuit.” Mon. Germ. Hist. SS. xiv, 524.