UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Studies in Merovingian Latin Epigraphy and Documents A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies by Éloïse Lemay 2017 c Copyright by Éloïse Lemay 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Studies in Merovingian Latin Epigraphy and Documents by Éloïse Lemay Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Brent Harmon Vine, Chair This dissertation is a study of the subliterary Latin of Gaul from the 4th to the 8th centuries. The materials studied consist in epigraphic and documentary sources. The inscriptions of late antique and early medieval Trier and Clermont-Ferrand receive a statistical, philological and comparative analysis, which results in 1) fine-grained decade- by-decade mapping of phonological and morphosyntactic developments, 2) comparative discussion of forms of importance to the chronological and regional development of Vulgar Latin, and, 3) isolation of sociolectal characteristics. Particular attention is paid to the issue of inscription dating based upon linguistic grounds. This dissertation also approaches papyrus and parchment documents as material cul- ture artifacts. It studies the production, the use, and the characteristics of these docu- ments during the Merovingian period. This dissertation examines the reception that the Merovingian documents received in the later Middle Ages. This is tied to document destruction and survival, which I argue are the offshoot of two processes: deaccession and reuse. Reuse is tied to the later medieval practice of systematized forgery. Systematized forgeries, in turn, shed light upon the Merovingian originals, thanks to the very high level of systematic interplay between base (the Merovingian documents) and output documents (the forgeries). ii The dissertation of Éloïse Lemay is approved. Richard Rouse H. Craig Melchert Stephanie Jamison Brent Harmon Vine, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2017 iii To Jeffrey and Cato iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 1.1 Summary . 1 1.2 Defining Merovingian Latin . 2 1.2.1 What is Merovingian Latin? . 2 1.2.2 Why Merovingian Latin? . 4 1.3 The late antique and early medieval primary sources . 8 1.3.1 Rationale for source selection . 8 1.3.2 Inscriptions . 10 1.3.3 The documents . 12 1.4 Methodology . 13 1.5 Structure of the dissertation . 14 1.5.1 Ch. 2-3: Epigraphic evidence for the Late Antique and Merovingian period: Trier and Aquitania Prima . 14 1.5.2 Ch. 4: Epigraphic evidence for the Merovingian period: Contrastive study of the ‘late’ vulgarisms . 16 1.5.3 Ch. 5: Inventory, typology, use and reuse of early medieval documents 16 1.5.4 Ch. 6: Conclusions . 17 I Epigraphy 18 2 Epigraphic evidence for the Late Antique and Merovingian period: Trier 19 2.1 Statistical and philological analysis of the inscriptions of Trier . 20 2.1.1 Objectives . 20 v 2.1.2 Methodology . 21 2.1.3 Sample Inscriptions . 31 2.1.4 Data . 36 2.2 Discussion: Statistical analysis of the Trier inscriptions . 75 2.2.1 Distribution of Vulgar Latin features . 75 2.2.2 Feature-dependent trends and behaviors . 83 2.2.3 Observations pertaining to particular vulgarisms . 87 2.3 The Trier irregular inscriptions . 89 2.3.1 Inventory . 89 2.3.2 ‘Expanded’ formulaic inscriptions . 91 2.3.3 ‘Innovative’ inscriptions . 100 2.4 Discussion: social variation, material culture, and sociolinguistics . 112 2.4.1 Funerary inscriptions and the individual . 112 2.4.2 Linguistic conservativeness and social status . 118 2.4.3 Burial practices and social identity . 120 2.4.4 Sociolinguistic variation: conclusions . 123 2.5 Discussion: Dating . 124 2.5.1 Number of Vulgarisms as a dating tool . 124 2.5.2 Types of vulgarisms as a dating tool . 126 2.5.3 Watershed moments as dating tools . 128 3 Epigraphic evidence for the Late Antique and the Merovingian period: Aquitania Prima ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 131 3.1 Quantitative and philological analysis of the inscriptions of Aquitania Prima.132 3.1.1 Objectives . 132 vi 3.1.2 Methodology . 133 3.1.3 Sample Inscriptions . 144 3.1.4 Data . 147 3.1.5 Discussion . 175 3.2 The poetic inscriptions of Aquitania Prima ..................178 3.2.1 Inventory . 178 3.2.2 The ‘high-style’ poetic inscriptions . 179 3.2.3 The ‘poetic’ inscriptions . 183 4 Epigraphic Evidence for the Merovingian Period: Contrastive Study of the ‘Late’ Vulgarisms :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 190 4.1 Methodology . 190 4.2 The ‘late’ features . 191 4.2.1 Degemination . 191 4.2.2 Palatalization . 195 4.2.3 The merger between /¯o/and /˘u/ . 198 4.3 Conclusions about the ‘late’ vulgarisms . 211 4.3.1 Linguistically-motivated VL spellings . 212 4.3.2 Secondary VL spellings (‘misspellings’) . 214 II Documents 215 5 The material culture of Merovingian papyri and manuscripts ::::: 216 5.1 Inventory of the Merovingian documentary evidence . 217 5.1.1 Merovingian and Carolingian documentary papyri . 218 5.1.2 Earliest documents on parchment . 220 vii 5.2 The use of papyrus and parchment in Merovingian documents . 222 5.2.1 The earliest charters: exclusive use of papyrus . 223 5.2.2 The transition from papyrus to parchment: diplomas . 224 5.2.3 The transition from papyrus to parchment: Private and institu- tional charters . 227 5.2.4 The transition’s spread . 228 5.2.5 Motivating the transition . 229 5.3 The reuse and survival of Merovingian documents . 231 5.3.1 Forgeries and the preservation of the oldest charters . 233 5.3.2 Manuscript reuse in bindings . 239 5.3.3 Conclusions on the reuse and survival of Merovingian documents . 241 5.3.4 The reuse of papyrus in the later Middle Ages: Two undated Merovin- gian wills on papyrus (Erminethrude’s will and the will of the son of Idda) and a group of 11th century forgeries from the abbey of Saint-Denis . 242 6 Conclusions :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 256 6.1 Epigraphy . 256 6.2 Documents . 264 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Map of the late Merovingian kingdom . 3 2.1 Trier: Inscriptions that can be dated approximately . 24 2.2 Trier: Weighted frequency of i/e confusions by group . 39 2.3 Trier: Weighted frequency of i/e confusions by decade . 39 2.4 Trier: Confusions between <i> and <e> . 40 2.5 Trier: Weighted frequency of o/u confusions by group . 43 2.6 Trier: Weighted frequency of o/u confusions by decade . 43 2.7 Trier: Confusions between <o> and <u> . 44 2.8 Trier: Weighted frequency of monophthongizations by group . 46 2.9 Trier: Monophthongization - /ae/ ><e> . 47 2.10 Trier: Monophthongization - /au/ ><o> . 48 2.11 Trier: Degemination of consonants . 59 2.12 Trier: [ks]: <x> . 62 2.13 Trier: [ks]: <xx>, <xs>, <cs>, <sx> . 63 2.14 Trier: Loss of /-m/................................. 66 2.15 Trier: Weighted frequency of declined and non-declined relative pronouns by group . 69 2.16 Trier: Qui or quod generalized . 70 2.17 Trier: Qui declined . 71 2.18 Trier: Distribution of Vulgar Latin Traits . 78 2.19 Trier: Number of VL features per inscription, by group . 78 2.20 Trier: Weighted average number of Vulgar Latin features by decade . 80 2.21 Trier: Weighted average number of Vulgar Latin features by group . 81 ix 2.22 Partial reconstruction of the text of Trier no 133 . 103 2.23 Trier: Weighted average number of Vulgar Latin features by decade . 125 2.24 Trier: Comparison of the distribution of the two vocalic mergers . 127 2.25 Trier: Comparison of vulgarism distributions (two tallies, by decade) . 129 3.1 Aquitania Prima: Chronology of the Early Medieval inscriptions . 140 3.2 Aquitania Prima: Confusions between <i> and <e> (all cases) . 152 3.3 Aquitania Prima: /˘ı/written as <e> . 153 3.4 Aquitania Prima: /¯e/written as <i> . 154 3.5 Aquitania Prima: /¯ı/written as <e> . 155 3.6 Aquitania Prima: /˘e/written as <i> . 156 3.7 Confusions between <o> and <u> . 160 3.8 /˘u/written as <o> . 161 3.9 /¯o/written as <u> . 162 3.10 Aquitania Prima: Monophthongization - /ae/ ><e> . 165 4.1 Schematized CL >LL vowel development . 198 4.2 Trier: Confusions between <o> and <u> . 200 4.3 Trier: Weighted frequency of o/u confusions by decade . 202 4.4 Trier: Weighted frequency of i/e confusions by decade . 203 6.1 Trier: Weighted average number of Vulgar Latin features by decade . 257 6.2 Comparison development trends of two VL features (i/e and o/u confusions) . 258 x LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Research plan of dissertation . 15 2.1 Trier: Inscriptions subdivisions by group . 25 2.2 Trier: Phonological features . 27 2.3 Trier: Morphosyntactic features studied . 27 2.4 Trier: Spellings for J ................................ 53 2.5 Trier: Spellings for Q ................................ 54 2.6 Trier: Spellings for F ................................ 55 2.7.