Fájl:Az Arsenal, Ms-1169 rúnabetűi, Delorez 1954. 249. alapján.png

Az Arsenal, Ms-1169 rúnabetűi, Delorez 1954. 249. alapján

Tropaire de l'église d'Autun. — Neumes [neumák: az énekhangok lejtését, illetve egy-egy dallamfrázist leíró grafikus jel.] « Incipiunt Tropi cum Laudibus » Répons et verset qui étaient chantés durant la procession à l'office du sépulcre Acclamations pour Robert, roi de France (996-1031), et pour Gautier, évêque d'Autun (977-1024) (versek melyeket a gyászmenetben énekeltek)

René Derolez: Runica Manuscripta : The English Tradition. Brugge, 1954. [1]

Paris, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, Ms-1169 réserve [régi jelzet: 637 T. L], fol. 39r-39v [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

11. Paris, Bibliotheque de ['Arsenal, MS. II69 (saec. X/XI).

Thus far this manuscript has been studied mainly for its binding, its miniatures and its liturgical contents. The runic alphabet, though mentioned in the catalogue of the Arsenal library, seems never to have been edited. It is of special importance because it presents features which will return in most of the late TUnica manuscripta (Mandeville, Wyss).

The binding consists of an ivory plaque (saec. III) sawed in half. The fine parchment is well preserved; 57 folios are arranged in 7 quires: 4 IV (1-32) + II (33-36) + 2 V (37-56) + 1 fol. Format: 167 X 60 mm (written area on the average 130 X 45 mm); 20 to 22 lines to the page. Written by several hands; between 996 and 1024 as appears from acclamations for Robert, King of France (996-1031) and for Walter, Bishop of Autun (977-1024); possibly in Autun.

Contents (1) :
[(I) Catalogue gbll!ral ••• BibIiothAque de I'Arsenal II, 320. Cf. L. GAUTIER, Histoire tk la pohie Iiturgique (paris 1886), 126 f.]

fol. 1r Incipiunt tropi cum laudibus: the tropes for the liturgical cycle, from Christmas to Michaelmas.
39r (inserted in this cycle) a brief extract on music; Latin written with Greek and pseudo-Greek characters.
39v in the left-hand margin, a runic alphabet; in the right-hand margin a Roman capital alphabet (cf. infra), both written in one vertical row.
49r a fragmentary prosary.

Fol. 39v contains liturgical texts with musical accents; the first five lines are clearly visible, but the rest of the page has much faded. The scribe who wrote the upper part may also be responsible for the two alphabets in the margins (1).
[(1) Mr. J. BoUSSARD, Conservateur-adjoint of the Biblioth~que de l'Arsenal, kindly informs me that the runes are probably written in the same ink as the upper five lines of the page. ] The runes extend from the very top of the page to I. IS, i. e. a height of ca. 110 mm. Their size varies from 2 to 5 mm. The letters of the Roman alphabet do not exactly face the corresponding runes : A faces b, Z: s. Yet there. can be no doubt that the two alphabet~ belong together; the discrepancy seems simply due to a miscalculation of the copyist. He may have inserted the runes after his interest in strange alphabets had been aroused by the text on 39r.
The runes are written in the outer margin, very close to the edge of the page. Frequent handling has soiled the margin, and as a result the runes are somewhat obscured. Their reading, however, has hardly been impaired:
[Fig. 40]
As soon as we assign a value to each rune, we are struck by an anomaly: beginning with h all values have been shifted one place in the direction of a. The explanation is obvious: there are two g-runes. In the manuscript the two alphabets are so far apart that the anomaly becomes apparent only upon closer I inspection. It is quite possible that the scribe was not aware of it; he was probably copying from an older exemplar; if he had any knowledge of the runes, it must have been slight indeed. As a result of his overight, there is no rune for z. It was probably left uncopied after the number of twenty-three runes, corresponding to the twenty-three letters of the Latin alphabet, had been reached. Of course we cannot decide· whether this omission is due to the scribe of the Autun manuscript, or whether he found it in his exemplar. In the following discussion of details the values are tacitly restored to their respective runes

a: the rune stands in a rather worn corner of the· page, but there can be no doubt that a was intended.
c: I can find no trace of the side-stroke on the photograph at my disposal; it was probably omitted in the process of copying.
d: the distinction between this rune and m has been extraordinarily well preserved : d has the intersecting strokes at about middle height, with m they start from the top of the vertical shafts.
g: the first g-rune is in fact j, the second j; the regular g does not appear here, but cf. k.
k: at first sight the runic form which fills the place of k looks· identical with n •. but closer inspection shows that the slanting cross-stroke has longer serifs in k than in n. This leads us to the assumption that the k-rune is in fact a g of the type found in the isruna fuporc. in which the outer ends of the broken line have been reduced to serifs. The choice of a g for k may be an indication of High German influence. Usually it is the j-rune that takes the place of k. the OE. name ger being interpreted as OHG. ker. As there are no other traces of High German phonology. this indication has only a relative value.
q: the rune which takes the place of q is either x or, more probably: a k turned upside down. The runes x and k were occasionally mixed up, cf. Exeter MS. 3507, etc.
x : in other alphabets this rune is found with the value y (e. g. in Munich MS. 14436). According to the isruna fuporc it is a variant form of the ~-rune; on account of the name inc it may have been chosen to take the place of y. Here it fills the place of x, which may be explained in two ways: either this y-variant was used for x because the regular x, having been mixed up with k. had received the value q; or else it is simply a doublet for y (cf. next).
y: the normal OE. V takes the place of y. We may then have doublets, just as in the case of g. But here we cannot know for sure whether they were originally intenfied as variants of the same rune; in the case of g the inclusion of a second rune caused the values of all the remaining runes to move one place forward. The two ŋ-runes may originally have been variant forms for y; but then there is no symbol for x, or it must have been omitted, cf. the case of.z. At this point it is difficult to decide how the alphabetizer actually proceeded.

There can be no doubt that this alphabet is derived from an expanded English fuporc, even if only one of the new runes is inciuded (0, and also q = k f). . At any rate it does not continue a local tradition of which the inscriptions of Charnay and Arguel might be remnants (1). [(1) H. ARNTz-H. ZEISS, Runendenk:m6ler, 173 ff. (Charnay); J. A. BIZET, L'inscription nmiqtUI d'Argrud. :Etudes germaniques 3 (1948), I-Ia. ] The use of ag-rune for k may imply that the alphabetizer spoke High German. In: view of ~. the connexions of Autun with cultural centres in South Germany, the presence· of this runic alphabet in a manuscript of Autun would not be surprising. As to the underlying fuporc, it is puzzling in one point : no other fuporc has come down to us with two forms of the ŋ-rune (in Domitian A 9 the type with two cross-strokes is a variant of h). . The runes for k and x may prove that our alphabet is related with the isruna group.

Delorez 1954. 248-251. [7]