Two Aragonese-Latin Sermon Fragments in Cambridge University Library MS 4408


David Hook
MIMSS, Oxford
Faculty of Medieval & Modern Languages, University of Oxford

Cambridge University Library MS 4408 is a box of loose MS fragments and single leaves and contains some individual pieces of Hispanic interest, including paper bifolia in Catalan and the single vellum leaf that is the subject of this note; the latter piece is numbered (5) in the box. Its existence was brought to my attention some years ago by Michael Gullick, who noticed it while examining Romanesque MSS at Cambridge. The leaf (the maximum dimensions of which measure 175 x 126mm) is written in dense black ink in a clear but not entirely regular libraria media hand, in a script palaeographically similar in stage of development to (but much less accomplished in execution than) that of the MS of the Historia Roderici. The text is presented in a single text block occupying twenty-one lines per side; there is a single red two-line initial ‘A’ on the verso, opening the new text after the red rubric ‘Sermo de die natalis domini’ which occupies the remaining space in line 2 after the first sermon ends earlier in the line. There are later Latin marginalia in a tiny Gothic cursive on the outer and foot margins of the recto, and a single line of Hebrew characters in a light brown ink has been added in the foot margin of the verso. The latter has been partly deciphered and its central element identified by Dr César Merchán-Hamann of the Bodleian Library, to whom I am grateful for this analysis, as a common benedictional formula (‘peace be upon him/her’) frequently attached to names of deceased religious authorities. The leaf is stained and has sustained some damage to the outer margin and the outer lower corner; there is also some loss of text into the gutter. The CUL identification ‘Add. 4408 (5)’ has been added in ink in the upper margin of the recto. I am grateful to Dr Patrick Zutshi of Cambridge University Library for permission to publish the text here.

The leaf contains the last twenty-three lines of one sermon, occupying the recto and the first one and a half lines of the verso, and the rubric (as quoted above) and first nineteen lines of another, the latter being for Christmas Day. Neither sermon is complete in this copy. The technique is to follow quoted Biblical or biblically-based liturgical text in Latin (sometimes reduced to merely the initial letters of the words quoted) with its translation into the vernacular; the vernacular is used also for the accompanying explication and moral comment, and this indicates the nature of the target congregation. Direct address to them by use of ‘Sennores’, and their association with the preacher through use of the the first-person plural and pronouns, are characteristic stylistic resources in both sermons.

In the following transcription contractions (including nomina sacra) are resolved in italics, with the exception of Latin Biblical quotations reduced to initial letters in the MS, which are preserved in that form but identified in full form in the accompanying notes on sources. Superscript letters in the same hand as the text are not treated as contractions or interlinear additions but as principal text. Word separation, capitals, and line breaks are those of the original MS; redundant contraction strokes where no contraction is present (e.g. on ‘coysos’ in line 18) are ignored. The Tironian sign is represented in this transcription by the ampersand. Punctuation of the original is restricted to punctus and punctus elevatus, which are here represented by the full stop and the colon respectively. Bold type denotes the sections of text written in red ink. Double vertical strokes mark the end of a side; ellipses within brackets represent illegible or lost letters, and letters between brackets represent conjecturally restored letters.
1 como el cieruo desea del agua dela fuent: quando a

grant set assi desea la mie alma ati señor. Y

abrio las lenguas delos mudos quando disso.

Agite penitenciam. Quando el dixo que prisiesen peni
5 tençia los que primero auien uerguenza: clamaron peni

tencia Clamo el ladron enla cruz. & dixo. Mi

serere mei domine dum uenerjs in regnum tuum.

Señor aue mercet de mi: quando fores alto regno.

Hodie mecum eris: in paradiso. Y el dixo oy
10 seras conmigo: enel paradiso. Assi clamo mer

cet sancta maria magdalena. Assi fezo alos

mudos fablar: Sennores conplido es lo que el

prophetizo. Oy maes catar nos deuemos que non

seamos ciegos: recognoscamos el nuestro señor
15 en cielo. Non seamos sordos que nos digan Prop

terea uos non audistis quia ex domino non estis. Que

nonos digan por que uos non oydes: Ka non

sodes dedios: Non seamos coysos: cora[...]mos

contra dios. Non seamos mudos. manifeste
20 mos nuestros peccados. Que quando uenemos de

lant christus. enel dia del iudiçio [......] ||

1 mos con el entrar enel paradiso celestial. Vbi [....]

v. & r. per o. s. s. amen. Sermo de die natalis domini. [..]
AppaRujt BENIGNitas Et humanita[s]

saluatoris nostri domini. Non ex operibus iustici[..]
5 q[..] fecimus nos s[..]s. s. m. s. n. fecit. Señor[..]

diz nos la sancta scirptura que aparescida no[s]

es grant salut. & grant bien: en este dia.

Maes non por uebras nin por merescimientos

de nos mas por la sue piadat & por la
10 sue misericordia nos saluo & nos saco: dela po

destat del diablo. El diablo nos auie metud[..]

ensso podestat. con gra[n]t engenno por el pec

cado de adan. Maes el nuestro señor que non quiso sofr[..]

elengenno del enemigo mortal saconos d[..]
15 so podestat por grant saber: assi como nos

auia el metudos por grant engenno. Tal om[..]

era ad enbiar en saluamiento de tod el mun

do: que non podiesse seder uenzudo. & con corazon lo

fiziese: & con saber lo pensase. Non era ad enbiar
20 omne puro alidiar conel diablo ca uenzudu seria.

Adan omne puro fue maes por humana fra ||

Linguistic Notes
Certain critical linguistic characteristics of the text are associable with the region of the Peninsula to the east and north-east of Old Castile. The principal points of general linguistic interest noted in the sermons are as follows.

1 fuent: apocope of final -e gives final -nt consonant group.
2 grant set: final -nt and -t; la mie: article plus possessive adjective; adjective form (raised final vowel).
3 preterite form disso (cf. dixo 9).
5 auien: -ie imperfect form; clamaron: initial cl- group.
6 clamo: initial cl- group.
8 mercet: final -t; fores: undiphthongised form; alto: article plus possessive adjective (= al tu), and adjective form.
10 paradiso: intervocalic -d-; clamo: initial cl- group.
11 fezo.
13 maes (Castilian más, mas); cf. verso, lines 8, 13, 21.
14 recognoscamos, spelling of nasal -gn-; el nuestro: article plus possessive.
18 coysos: a redundant contraction mark is present on this word in the MS; adj. < L coxus (Castilian cojo). Forms such as this persist in Aragonese to the modern era: see Rafael Andolz, Diccionario aragonés (Zaragoza: Editorial Librería General, 1977), s.v. coixo.
20 delant: apocope of final vowel producing -nt group.
21 iudiçio: intervocalic -d-.

1 paradiso: intervocalic -d-.
6 diz: apocope of final vowel; scirptura: scribal transposition of -ri-.
7 grant salut; final -nt, -t.
8 uebras: diphthongised form (Castilian obras).
9 la sue: article plus possessive, and feminine adjective form; piadat: final -t, and open vowel.
10 podestat: final -t; grant: final –nt.
11 auie metudo: -ie imperfect.
12 sso: possessive without article; gra[n]t: final -nt; podestat: final –t.
13 el nuestro: article plus possessive.
16 auia: -ia imperfect; metudos: agreement with preceding direct object.
17 ad for a (an Aragonese characteristic; cf. line 19); tod: apocope.
18 seder: for ser.

Certain forms among those listed can be recognized as diagnostic Aragonese linguistic features include the conservation of Latin initial cl- (Castilian: cl > ll-, Leonese: cl > ch-) consistently in clamo, clamaron; the conservation of intervocalic Latin -d- (paradiso, Castilian paraiso; iudiçio, Castilian juicio); sedere > seder (alternative seyer; Castilian seer, ser); ad for a; coysos (Aragonese coixos, Castilian coxos, cojos). Such solutions are recorded in the relevant sections of standard manuals such as Vicente García de Diego, Dialectología española, 3rd edition (Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica, 1978), and Alonso Zamora Vicente, Dialectología española, 2nd edition (Madrid: Gredos, 1967).

Dating evidence
The combination of linguistic features such as the general occurrence of article plus possessive adjective solutions (only one case occurs without an article), and -ie imperfect endings (with a single case of -ia) could be consistent with a date for the text in the second half of the XIIth century or the first half of the XIIIth.

Vulgate editions collated for this study are Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam nova editio, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 14, ed. Alberto Colunga and Lorenzo Turrado (7th ed., Madrid: BAC, 1985); Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum editio (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1979); and Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis [...], 2 vols (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1891). Textual variants in the relevant passages are minor, (recorded here as ‘[otherwise...]’), and it is uncertain which precise form (let alone which manuscript) of the biblical text was used by the author of the sermons.

1.2 The text immediately preceding the opening words of the extant text must have been that of Psalm 42 (41).2: ‘Quemadmodum desiderat cervus ad fontes aquarum, ita desiderat anima mea ad te, Deus’, the vernacular translation of which begins the extant fragment.
4 Agite penitenciam’: various occurrences e.g. Matthew 3.2 (‘Poenitentiam agite’, from John the Baptist), and less precise instances such as Acts 2.38 (‘Poenitentiam – inquit – agite’, from St Peter), Acts 8.22 (‘Poenitentiam itaque age’, St Peter), Apocalypse 2.5 (‘Age poenitentiam’). Christ’s own words elsewhere are a less precise parallel (e.g. Luke 13.3: ‘sed nisi poenitentiam habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis’), and a common OT and NT formulation is simply ‘Poenitemini’ (e.g. Acts 3:19).
6.9 Luke 23.42-43: ‘“Domine [otherwise ‘Iesu’], memento mei cum veneris in regnum tuum”. Et dixit illi Jesus [otherwise om. ‘Jesus’]: “Amen dico tibi: Hodie mecum eris in paradiso.”’ This is given here as ‘miserere’ for ‘memento’.
15-16 John 8.47: ‘propterea vos non auditis, quia ex Deo non estis’.

1.2 Numerous liturgical occurrences, e.g. Missale Romanum, at offertory (‘Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus: per omnia saecula saeculorum’), following Agnus Dei (‘Qui vivis et regnas Deus per omnia saecula saeculorum’), and at purification of the chalice (‘Qui vivas et regnas in saecula saeculorum’); but note that in this sermon the quotation begins with ‘Ubi’ not ‘Qui’, a neat locative modification of the text to fit the context of the immediately preceding phrase.
3.5 Titus 3.4-5: ‘Cum autem benignitas et humanitas apparuit Salvatoris nostri Dei, non ex operibus iustitiae, quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit [...]’.

Received 04 October 2012.

A Repeated Passage in a Manuscript Copy of the Crónica de Enrique IV of Diego Enríquez del Castillo (MS C-3)


David Hook
MIMSS, Oxford

Hitherto unstudied and unpublished, MS C-3 in my library is a s.XVII folio paper copy of Diego Enríquez del Castillo’s chronicle of Enrique IV of Castile (wrongly identified as ‘Coronic[a] de Enrique III’ on the spine label). The manuscript is written in a single-column text block on unruled leaves in quires without early foliation or pagination (modern pencil foliation has been supplied); excluding later endpapers, there are 200 leaves including a final blank. The provenance of the manuscript before its acquisition by me from Sr Joan Gili of the Dolphin Book Company, Oxford, in 1991 is uncertain; by then, it had been in his possession for some decades. (It may, however, be stated with confidence that it is not a former Phillipps manuscript, since it bears none of the library marks diagnostically associated with the Bibliotheca Phillippica.) The twenty-one quires do not bear signatures, but were once numbered in ink in Arabic numerals at the upper left-hand corner of the first recto; the unusual collation of the volume is 1-1810 198 2010 212. The quire numbers (which use forms of numerals identical to those in the numbering of chapter headings in the manuscript) survive in full on the first rectos of quires 2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-21; traces of the feet of figures cropped by binding remain in the appropriate position on quire 16. Additionally, verso foliation (in the lower margin of the first verso only) survives on fols 51v (quire 6), 71v (quire 8), and 81v (quire 9); it may be assumed that elsewhere it has been cropped. The occurrence of verso catchwords is, in the case of this manuscript, an unreliable guide to collation (though it may provide useful evidence in other considerations) because of its irregular distribution, since in some quires all leaves have a catchword, while in others only the first five leaves and the last have one, and yet other quires have a more idiosyncratic occurrence of this device.

Eschewing here the study of other aspects of the text of the manuscript, an interesting feature is the copyist’s treatment of a passage duplicated in error during copying, which is found on fols 7v-8r. Here, instead of being struck out as is the case with other more minor duplications encountered elsewhere in the manuscript (e.g., fol. 151v), the first occurrence of the passage in question, which occupies the last sixteen lines of fol. 7v, has been outlined in ink with a single-framed freehand box and marked by a diagonal croix pattée in the left-hand margin; the redundant text is not, however, crossed through. An identical cross marks the start of the second occurrence of this passage, which follows as the first textual content of fol. 8r and occupies fifteen lines below a blank space three lines deep left empty, as if for a chapter heading that was never inserted, at the head of that page. From the end of this second copy of the passage the text of the rest of the chronicle continues uninterrupted.

As is usual in such situations, the duplicated passage naturally offers the opportunity to examine the fidelity of the copyist to certain aspects of the text of the unidentified exemplar being copied; since key features of the writing on these folios are identical, and since the duplication does not stand at the junction of two quires but is internal to quire 1, there is no reason to believe that the error results from separate work by two different copyists. It seems more likely to have arisen from some discontinuity in executing the work of a single hand. The two renderings of the passage are as follows.
A. fol. 7v.
Quanta mas alta cosa es aquella que se deue tratar
tanto su grandeça pone temor en el deçir quanto de mayor
ecelençia tanto de fruto de las palabras mas grande porque
antes el estilo describir que materia de ablar fallesçe siempre
nuestras lenguas son mas aparejadas a disparar sus dhos
que las plumas a conponellas y avn aquesto la espirienzia
natural Nos lo nuestra como sea cierta cosa quel vso comun
de ablar es a todos General y a muy Pocos la perfiçion del
decir y no sin caussa que los humanos yngenios mayores
cosas entienden que sauen Proponer y mejor las conçiben
que açiertan a pronunçiarlas en deçir lo que dentro sienten y
Porque tratando de tan alto Rey altas E Grandes cossas
se deuen notar Primero que al processo que de su Ystoria
Vengamos Para que de todo Prestemos Raçones y la re
Prension dela ynograncia se escuse algo de su jesto
y façiones de sus condiçiones y bida conVerna

B. fol. 8r:
Quanta mas alta cossa es aquella que se deue tratar tanto su
grandeça Pone temor en el deçir quanto de mayor eçelenzia
tanto de fruto de las palabras mas Grande Porque antes el
estilo descrebir que materia de ablar falleçe siempre nuestras
lenguas son mas aparejadas a disparar sus dhos q las plumas
a conponellas yavnquesto la espiriençia natural nos lo muestra
como sea çierta cosa quel Vso comun de ablar es a todos General
y a muy Pocos la perfiçion del deçir Y no sin caussa que los huma
nos yngenios mayores cosas entienden que sauen proponer Y
mejor la conçiben que açiertan a pronunçiar las En dezir lo
que dentro sienten e porque tratando de Tan alto Rey Altas
e Grandes cosas se deuen notar Primero que al Proçesso que de
sy ystoria vengamos Para que de todo Prestemos raçones y
la reprehension de la ygnorançia se escuse algo de su jesto Y
façiones de sus condiçiones y bida conberna que digamos [...] 15
The absence of substantive differences of textual readings in the two versions of this repeated passage (apart from the single case involving ‘las conçiben’ [A10] versus ‘la conçiben’ [B10], in which the reading in A is the correct one) should not be allowed to obscure the extent of difference between them in other matters. To begin with questions of mise-en-page, as may be seen from the transcription above the line breaks occur, without exception, at different points in the text in the two renderings, and it is immediately clear, therefore, that this aspect of the exemplar was of no concern to the copyist here; no attempt was being made to produce a line-for-line copy. Nor does there appear to have been any concern with accurate reproduction of details of presentation such as the distribution of capitalisation. It may be noted, however, in passing that where the two texts occasionally coincide on an unusual succession of capitals such as ‘a todos General y a muy Pocos’ (A8/B7-8) this may perhaps be thought more likely to reflect the exemplar, although it may perhaps be felt that such considerations would be likely to carry more weight in cases in which the capitalised words are not the semantically most significant ones in a clause. Matters of linguistic detail such as orthography and word-separation exhibit similar variation between the two versions. While both are agreed on caussa (A9/B8), in one case on cossa (A1/B1), and in two instances on cosa (A7/B7, A10/B9), on one occasion they differ on this point (cossas, A12; cosas, B12), as they do on reprension (A14-15) versus reprehension (B14) and also on ynograncia (sic, A15) versus ygnorançia (B14). They agree on the absence of a written initial consonant for ablar (A8/B7). It is, of course, debatable whether such orthographic solutions as are common to both versions of the passage reflect the usage of the exemplar or the habits of the copyist. The incidence of contractions is small in this section of text in both cases; while the versions differ once on employing the contracted (B5) versus the full (A6) form of que (which is usually written out in full in both), they agree on the contraction dhos (A5/B5), and on the writing of ‘de escribir’ as one word, descrebir/describir (A4/B4), which we may probably accept as the likely form in the exemplar.

The duplicated passage in MS C-3 thus abundantly documents the inconsistency and the variability of the work of this late copyist in treatment of matters such as the orthography, word separation, capitalisation, and mise-en-page of the exemplar; production of the text was evidently the limit of the copyist’s concern. Such significance as the resulting manuscript possesses lies in other aspects of its textual content; and, of course, not least in its very existence, in so far as it constitutes an additional late witness to the extent and duration of the impressively fertile textual tradition of the work of Diego Enríquez del Castillo.

Received 02.11.2011.