• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving tire catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeob Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 481 OS 76-3536 ROSENBERG, Donald Karl, 1942- THE SCHIEIERlllQILEIN OF HERMANN TO! SACHSENHEIM: A CRITICAL EDITION WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1975 Literature, general Xerox University Microfilms , Ann Arbor, Michigan 40100 © 1975 DONALD KARL ROSENBERG ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. PLEASE NOTE: Page 138 1s not availab le for photography. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS THE SCHLEIERTtJCHLEIN OF HERMANN VON SACHSENHEIM: A CRITICAL EDITION WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillm ent of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Donald K, R osenberg, A .B ., M.A. • * # * * The Ohio S ta te U n iv e rsity 1975 Reading Committee: Approved by Wolfgang Fleischhauer Johanna Belkin Gisela Vitt-Maucher yvjAAyiser Department of German ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to the Trustees of the British Library and to the Universitats-Bibliothek at Heidelberg for their kind permission to use their microfilms of BM Add* 10010 and Cpg* 313 1 a the preparation of this edition* [ ii] * VITA 5 Hay X9It2 . • Born—Akron, Ohio 196** . • A.B., Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey " 1963 . * . • M.A., Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland 1971-1975 . Graduate Student, Department of German Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio [ i i i ] TABLE OF CONTENTS Pago ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................... i i VITA ................................................................................................................ i l l INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. MANUSCRIPT HISTORY, PHONOLOGY, CRITICAL PRINCIPLES .... 1 RITTER HERMANN: RELIGION, POLITICS, AND THE SOCIAL ORDER Zk THE POEM: RITTERBILD UND RITTERBILDUNG..................................... 39 THE QUESTION OF THE REISEBERICHT AND GEORG VON EHINGEN . 6*f TEXT AND COMMENTARY................................................................................................ 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 170 [ iv ] Dirre aventuere kere, si si krump oder slihte, daz iet nicht wan ein lero. darumb sol ich si wisen uf die rlhte. hie vor 1st sie n it tugenden an gevenget, ir houbet, ir brust, ir siten, ir fueze die sint nit tugenden gar genenget. Albrecht von Scharfenberg Per jungere Titurel, 65 Cv] MANUSCRIPT HISTORY* PHONOLOGY, CRITICAL PRINCIPLES The Schleiertuchlein of Hermann von Sachsenheim was first edited under the title "Das Sleigertiiechlin" in the Holland-Keller edition of Meister Altswert?-, although in the introduction (page vi) the editors state that they believe the author to be Hermann. This1851 e d itio n , a fairly accurate transcription by Holland of MS. A (Cpg. 313) is* however, sufficiently outmoded to require a successor. It is not principally the errors of Holland that call for a new edition; while as an editor I have been zealous for accuracy, I cannot pretend that Holland's deviations from MS. A (e.g. Per for Des in line 1967) constitute a serious block to an appreciation of Hermann. A greater problem for the modern researcher of dialect and orthography is Holland's practice of regularizing the MS.'s spelling. But the most serious drawback to the 1851 e d itio n i s th a t i t d id n o t make use o f MS. B (BM Add. 10010), even though the edition contained many shrewd conjectural emendations, some of which correctly anticipated the readings of B. MS. B does, in fact, clear up many doubtful readings in A (e.g. line 1510), and it confirms that certain transcriptions of Holland are errors—-errors that have formed the baBis of errors in Lexer. Thus Holland's maschboum of line 889 is actually mastboum; Lexer records this nonexistent word (I, 2059)* giving Hermann as its only instance. Similarly, Lexer's adjective uborschrof ? (II, I 656) is based on Holland's transcription of uber achroffen (= "over reefs," 9*H) Cl] as a single word* In 185** Frans Roth copied the variants of the S chle le r tuc hie In not from MS. B in London, but from a copy of B made for its previous ownert Dr. Qeorg Kloss, by Jacob Lepper (MS. Germ. Oct. 2 in the Stadt-Biblio- thek in Frankfurt a. M.). Roth, who had already described the MS. in the Anzeiger fur Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit 2 (185*0, ? 8- S l, se n t these variants to Adalbert von Keller in Tubingen, who published them in volume 5 of the same periodical ( 1858) , 112- 11**; 1**2- 1****; 177- 179* These variants, however, suffer both from Lepper's misreadings of MS. B and from occasional misreadings by Roth of Lepper's copy. Even this version of the variants, however, has never been printed with the Holland-Keller edition, nor has anyone since risen to Keller's challenge at the end of the introduction to his edition: "Eine weitere und durch- greifende kritische textbehandlung wird bei diesen denkmalen uns kaua jemand zumuthen." The present edition, then, seeks to present a text based accurately on MS. A, listing the pertinent variants of B, and putting in one place the fruits of Hermann scholarship from Martin ( 1878) to Schlosser (197*0. The oldest datable textual witness for any portion of the Schleier­ tuchlein is the poem known as "Verweisung eines, der R itter wolt warden" (II, 62) in the Liederbuch der Clara Hatzlerin, and found on pages 180 - l8lv of the Knihovna N&rodniho musea Praha MS, X A 12 (called H below) and dated 1*170-71. It combines twelve lines of Hermann's Spiegel (19**,31—195»3) with lines 3**8-**22 of the Schleiertuchlein. an identi­ fication first made by Karl Geuther in his Studien zum Liederbuch der Clara Hatzlerin (p. l**7f.) in 1899)*^ For chronological reasons, MS. A [2] itse lf could have been the model (it is dated 1**78) • Although in wording and orthography H does appear at first look to be derived from B, a closer examination shows that such B traits as the use of p- for b- and t- for (e.g. tugent for the dugent of A), are consistently met with throughout the entire Hatzlerin MS* An important discrepancy between MS. B and H is that the Liederbuch reads kirchen (6l) for MS. B's kirchwichln (MS. A line *tOO: kirchwih) . although it is possible that the error originates with the Hatzlerin MS. It is a serious error of sense (the difference between returning home after having wasted one's money at [Hi church or at [A,B] a church fair), and perhaps one more likely to have been originated than copied. Stronger evidence against B's having served as a model is that the Hatzlerin MS. does not pick up B'b redundant reading of line 351 ("Soltu du dich huten in h8t") and instead uses A's more sensible "Soltu dich han in hut." Unfortunately, the Hatzlerin fragment begins just after a separative error (line 3^6) that might have made a final judgment p o s s ib le . In the following cases the Hatzlerin MS. shows an independence in orthography from A and B: H A B p e ic h t (**3 ) b ic h t (3 7 7) bycht p f lS t ( 18) f l u t ( 352 ) f lS t han (17) han (351) »»***• (68) w ar (**07) war geparen (29) gebarn ( 3 6 3) gebaren chom (75) kum (*tl *0 kora chomt (5**) k u m p t ( 3 8 7) kumpt versarabt(35) verstum pt( 3 8 8) verstu m p t [3 ] H A B das (6?) D«n (406) dar In the following cases H shows an independence from A and B in wording: H A/B /•chomt (5*0 kumpt (387) versam bt (55) verstum pt ( 388) Gar (29) So (363) Darab (31) Gar d ick (365) S ch arp ff (32) So scharpff (386) hoch (45) hohen (379) Es 1 s t (58) Es ducht mich (392) [adds kurtzen] (60) (399) k irc h en (61) A: kirchwih (400) B: kirchwichin (see above) Bchaw (66) beschaw (405) d ie (66) den (405) [adds noch] (67) (406) The variant beginnings of lines 29* 31* and 32 in H suggest that H was copied* not from B* but from an exemplar which had suffered damage to certain line beginnings.

Load more

  182

Copy Link