Vernacular Alphabets in the Auraicept na nÉces and The Third Grammatical Treatise Nicolai Egjar Engesland Masteroppgave i norrøn filologi Institutt for lingvistiske og nordiske studier UNIVERSITETET I OSLO Høsten 2016 2 The main supervisor of this thesis has been Jan Erik Rekdal, professor of Irish language and literature, and the co-supervisor has been Jon Gunnar Jørgensen, professor in Old Norse philology, both at the Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo. 3 4 Vernacular Alphabets in the Auraicept na nÉces and The Third Grammatical Treatise Nicolai Egjar Engesland 5 6 Preface I wish to thank Professor Karl Gunnar Johansson for feedback and constructive criticism during the initial stages of the project and Professor Jon Gunnar Jørgensen for efficient guidance through the final stages of the project. Heartfelt thanks go to my main supervisor Professor Jan Erik Rekdal. Not only for overseeing this project, but for having introduced me to Irish language and literature in the first place and for being a constant source of motivation and support. I also wish to thank Dr. Mikael Males for indispensable aid through the different phases of this project from its inception in Reykjavík 2015. Our colloquia have provided a platform in which to try out thoughts and ideas, though the number of participants has for most of the time been fairly limited due to our eclectic bouquet of texts. This eclecticism is to some extent represented in the present treatise. Finally I would like to thank Ayman Razek, who has had to delve into at least partly unfamiliar subject-matter in order to prevent the present thesis from violating English idiom. R. XIII Trastevere, November 6th 2016. 7 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 7 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1.1. Preamble 11 1.2. Historical Backdrop 12 1.3. On the Vernacular Alphabets 15 1.4. Institutiones grammaticae 18 1.5. Auraicept na nÉces 20 1.6. The First Grammatical Treatise 25 1.7. The Third Grammatical Treatise 27 1.8. Considerations on Method 31 1.9. Theoretical Stance and Aim of Thesis 34 2. ANALYSIS 39 2.1. Linguistic Theory: The Letter 40 2.2. Conceptualizing the Minimal Parts of Speech 40 2.3. The Divisions of the Alphabet 45 2.4. The Accidents of the Letter 50 2.5. Graphemic Inventory 55 2.6. Vowels 56 2.7. Consonants 63 2.8. De ordine litterarum 71 2.9. The Opposition between the Native Grammarian and the Latinist 74 2.10. Excursus: Mythography and the Origin of the Vernacular Alphabet 76 3. CONCLUSION 87 3.1. Practical and Theoretical Utility: Grammar as Genre 87 3.2. Texts as Part of a Curriculum 90 3.3. History of Linguistics and the Later Tradition 91 9 4. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS 95 4.1. Manuscripts 95 4.2. Editions and Translations 95 4.3. Monographs and Articles 97 5. APPENDICES 103 5.1. Keys to Alphabets 103 5.2. On Quotations from Editions and Translations 104 10 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Preamble This thesis will aim at an assessment of Auraicept na nÉces and The Third Grammatical Treatise from a comparative point of view. These are two vernacular treatises, from medieval Ireland and medieval Iceland respectively, dealing with the fundaments of grammar and poetics. What place these texts occupy in the history of linguistics will to some extent depend on one’s personal take on the turn of events. This might be experienced by browsing the scholarly discourse they have generated. The story to be told here grants them a certain distinction, without, in that particular appraisal, putting too much emphasis on cause and effect. The texts are rather comprehensive. A qualitative comparison between them could lead in several directions and deal with (from a modern perspective) widely different subject- matter. For this reason and others I have narrowed down the scope so that focus is to be put on those units which, at least in medieval thought, might not be further divided: The letters of the alphabet. Discourse based on such fundaments should be able to sustain a superstructure. A comparative approach is able, or so it is hoped, to further substantiate claims as to the place of these vernacular grammatical treatises within the history of linguistics and ideas. A juxtaposition of this kind has to the best of my knowledge, excepting the occasional cursory remark, not hitherto been attempted. The treatises are in some important respects deceptively basic productions and have on this account attracted some criticism of doubtful historical relevance. Some of these will still have to be dealt with in due course during the following argument. At any rate their apparent simplicity might account for a certain lack of serious scholarly attention and determination to take them at face-value. Their thematical affinity and their place within cultural history entitle them to a certain unity in treatment. The Latin grammatical tradition is the obvious tertium comparationis. For several reasons I have found it convenient to let Priscian represent this tradition. First of all he aimed at comprehensiveness, so that his work encompasses the different trends of the art of grammar and discusses different solutions to individual issues, thus allowing ease of reference. Secondly his influence was profound on linguistic thought and discourse after his rediscovery during the Carolingian Renaissance. The third reason is, however, the most important one: He is the chief source for the relevant parts of the texts. This will be further specified when these are properly introduced. 11 The present thesis is in its essence an attempt to follow a precept given by the Irish scholar Sedulius Scottus (fl. c. 850) concerning the art of definition: Sed notandum est, quod qui definitionem alicuius rei definit, ita debet definire, ut dicat ipsam partem, quae communis est ei cum altera, et dicat specialem, quam propriam et quam solam habet (Sedulius Scottus; cited from Law 1994: 105n45).1 This is in many ways a sound approach, but one which has been curiously absent in the modern reception of the relevant texts. Medieval precepts will not otherwise influence the argument, which will proceed in the following manner: A brief historical introduction to medieval grammatica precedes a discussion on vernacular alphabets, which in turn is followed by sections on the sources (including an outlook to the First Grammatical Treatise) and their material state. This raises some issues that will be developed in a separate sub-chapter on the theoretical stance of the present thesis. The main chapter or analysis will be roughly divided into two parts: One will proceed by a close reading of the relevant passages while an excursus is devoted to mythography and the origin of the alphabets. The conclusion will provide a brief summary of the central matters and direct attention towards issues arising from analysis. By the end it is to be hoped that adequate answer has been given to the following set of questions: 1) Why does each treatise deal with the vernacular alphabet? 2) How is the vernacular alphabet presented in the one as compared to the other? 3) Could the choices made in one of the treatises shed light on those made in the other? Thus a proper ‘definition’ of the texts in question might be allowed. 1.2. Historical Backdrop Linguistic thought in the medieval period was a continuation of tendencies which were found in Late Antiquity. As early as the third and second centuries BC, Stoic grammarians based at the school of Pergamum had developed a tripartite division (as in Donatus’ Ars maior) which would later become popular with the Latin grammarians (Law 1982: 12). Quite a few vernaculars of Western Europe were employed as written languages at different points of time during the Middle Ages. Both Icelandic and Irish were in fact equipped with writing systems which were in all probability derived from alphabetic systems (McManus 1991: 4-5; Pedersen 1909: §4; Spurkland 2001: 16-17). These are themselves the results of linguistic analysis and thus proof of a certain linguistic competence on behalf of their 1 “Note that anyone who gives a definition of anything should define it in such a way that he indicates what it has in common with other things, and singles out for mention its unique characteristics,” (Law 1994: 105). The remark is found in Sedulius’ commentary on Donatus. 12 composers (Ahlqvist 1982: 7ff.; McManus 1991: 5). There is no doubt that cultural contact provided the incentive for the framing of these alphabets (McCone 1996: 22ff.); the Irish habit of making epigraphs on sepulchral or other monuments may itself have been occasioned by contact with the late Roman Empire (Ó Cróinín 1995: 35), These and allied matters are further discussed in the next sub-chapter (1.3.). The adoption of Roman Christianity in Western Europe had far-reaching consequences for the cultural life of the subordinated areas.2 The linguistic situation in Western Europe was no less complex than that in the East, but the languages of the West had no established literary culture prior to the influx of learning brought by the Church. Latin had already been the language of administration in those areas of Western Europe which were part of the Roman Empire. The conversion of previously illiterate people (illiterate in a Latinate sense) necessitated education in literacy and written culture. Christianity followed in the wake of the Roman empire, but reached beyond its former borders. Neither Iceland nor Ireland had first-hand acquaintance with Roman administration. The new literary culture appears to have been dominated entirely by Latin. However, subsequently also the vernaculars were reduced to writing. Eastern Christianity was early furnished with translations of Scripture from Greek into a multitude of languages such as Coptic, Arameic and Syriac.