Indo-European linguistics and classical philology
A. E. Kuznetsov E. A. Kuzmenko Yu. K. Kuzmenko. A Metrical Epitaph of L. Calidius Eroticus Monks and Lay Brothers in the Cistercian visionary texts of the late XII – beginning of the XIII century: the ways of differentiation On the interpretation of the older runic inscription on the brooch from Værløsa (Denmark) (pp. 509–526)
Author
A. E. Kuznetsov E. A. Kuzmenko Yu. K. Kuzmenko (Lomonosov Moscow State University Lomonosov Moscow State University Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences)
Keywords\n carmina Latina epigraphica, Isernia, trochaic septenarii visionary texts, monks, lay brothers, Cistercian monasteries, conversus runology, older runic inscriptions, runic inscription in Værløse
Pages\n 509–526
Summary\n
The paper deals with a possible metrical reading of the epitaph of L. Calidius Eroticus CIL IX 2689. As early as 1849 Garrucci tried to read the epitaph as iambic senarii. Though this interpretation was abandoned by subsequent scholars, some wrong readings proposed metri causa by Garrucci have been retained. Modern transcriptions of the CIL IX 2689 put duo asses (or assibus) for the price marked as A. II and octo asses for A.VIII. A correct reading, however, would be dupundium and octussis. These readings make the text very close to correct trochaic septenarii. Nevertheless, a continuous trochaic scansion remains impossible. The CIL IX 2689 shares metrical incoherence with a large group of inscriptions whose meter is confused and correct verses are exceptional, but the standard meters of epitaphs of the Imperial age are hexameter and elegiac. The trochaic meter of the CIL IX 2689 is not based upon an epigraphic tradition. It is typical for drama, and the content of the epitaph, as well as its dialogic form, also indicate some comic genre as a literary source. It does not imply that the CIL IX 2689 is a direct quotation from a literary drama. If we consider the literary features of the epitaph and the probable date of the monument (early 2nd cent. A.D.), we can surmise that Eroticus who wished to put a comic dialogue on his grave stone was professionally related to theater, and that he is likely to have been an actor of mimus. This paper is dedicated to the problem of communication between monks and lay brothers in Cistercian monasteries in the Middle Ages (late XII – early XIII century). According to the chosen sources, lay brothers’ status in the community and, therefore, in the visionary texts created inside this community is determined by the notion of the typical and the ideal conversus belonging to a monk-author and his potential audience. Cistercian authors consider the marginal state of such a brother who has no access to the lectio divina or hierarchical promotion. The most important virtues for monks and lay brothers also differ. Conversus should be first of all obedient and humble; these advantages will lead him to the invention of God’s divine grace. Runic inscription in older futhark on the brooch from Værløse alugod does not have any accepted interpretation. Traditionally it is treated as a male or female compound proper name which consists of a formulaic “protective” word alu and of the root with the meaning “good” (gōd-). However, the interpretatioin of alugod as a proper name is impossible, because of the absence of names with the second components gōd- or godboth among the runic proper names and among hundreds proper names in the records in the Old Germanic languages as well. The new interpretation of the runic inscription alugod as a protective form consisting of two words alu and god (vocative of the word for gods or god) is based on the analogy with numerous graffiti-inscriptions in older runes (!) gud on oriental coins serving as amulets in the early Viking Age
References\n
  1. Schmeidler B. Magistri Adam Bremensis gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesia pontificum. Editio tertia. Hannoverae et Lipsiae, 1917.
  2. Antonsen E.H. The Oldest Runic Inscriptions in the Light of New Finds and Interpretations. Runor och runinskrifter. Föredrag vid Riksantikvarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8-11 september 1985. Konferenser 15. Stockholm, 1987, pp. 17-28.
  3. Antonsen E.N. Runes and Germanic Linguistics. (= Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 140). Berlin; New York, 2002.
  4. Bæksted A. Værløse runefibula. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed och Historie, 1945, pp. 84-91.
  5. Cleasby R., Vigfusson G. An Icelandic-English dictionary. Second edition with supplement by sir W.A. Craige. Oxford, 1957.
  6. Sonant J.B. Runic alu–a new conjecture. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 1973, vol. 72, N 4, pp. 467-473.
  7. Dobrovol’skij I.G., Dubov I.V., Kuz’menko J.K. Klassifizierung und Interpretation von Graffiter auf orientalischen Münzen. Zeitschrift für Archäologie, 1981, Bd. 15, pp. 217-242.
  8. Düwel K. Runenkunde. 3. Auflage. Stuttgart, Weimar 2001.
  9. Elmevik L. De urnordiska runinskrifternas alu. Runor och namn. Hyllningsskrift till Lena Peterson den 27. Januari 1999. Uppsala, pp. 21- 28.
  10. Falk Hj. De nordiske hovedguders utviklingshistorie. Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 1926, Bd. 43, N 1, pp. 34-44.
  11. Feist S. Runen und Zauberwesen im germanischen Altertum. Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 1919, Bd. 35, pp. 243-289.
  12. Gustavsson H. Ett runbleck från Järfalla. Fornvännen, 1969, Bd. 64, pp. 209-211.
  13. Hammarberg I., Rispling G. Graffiter på vikingatida mynt. Hakuin, 1985, Bd. 11, pp. 66-77. Hauck1 Hauck K. Zur religionsgeschichtlichen Auswertung von Bildchiffren und Runen der völkerwanderungszeitlichen Brakteaten. Runeninshriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung. Hg. K. Düwel in Zusammenarbeit mit S. Nowak. (Ergänzungsbände zu RGA 15). Berlin; New York, 1998, pp. 298-353.
  14. Hauck K. Die runenkundigen Erfinder von den Bildchiffren der Goldbrakteaten. Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 1998, Bd. 32, pp. 28-56.
  15. Imer L. Maturus fecit. Unwod node. Runic Inscriptions on Fibulae in the Late Roman Iron Age. Lund Archaeological Review, 2011, pp. 11-27.
  16. Jacobsen L., Moltke E. Danmarks runeindskrifter, Bd. I, II. København, 1942.
  17. Laur W. Runendenkmäler in Schleswig-Holstein. Neumünster, 1961.
  18. Looijenga T. Texts and Contexts of the Older Runic Inscriptions. The Northern World. North Europe and the Baltic c. 400-1700 A.D. Leiden; Boston, 2003.
  19. MacLeod M., Mees B. Runic Amulets and Magic Objects. Woodbrige, 2006.
  20. Marstrander C.J. S. De nordiske runeindskrifter i eldre alfabet. Oslo, 1952.
  21. Moltke E. Runeindskriften på rosetfibulen fra Nøvlig. Kuml. Årbog for Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab 1963. Århus, 1964, pp. 37-41.
  22. Moltke E. Runes and their Origin. Denmark and elsewhere. Copenhagen, 1985.
  23. Nowak S. Schrift auf den Goldbrakteaten der Völker-wanderungszeit. Untersuchungen zu den Formen der Schriftzeichen und zu formalen und inhaltlichen Aspekten der Inschriften. Göttingen, 2003. (bdoc.sub.gwdg.de/diss/2003/nowak/nowak/pdf)
  24. Peterson L. Reflections on the inscription laguþewa on the shield- handle Mount 3 from Illerup. Namenwelten. Ort-und Personennamen in historischer Sicht. Hg. Von A. van Nahl et al. Berlin, New York, 2004, pp. 659-677.
  25. Peterson L. Lexikon över urnordiska personnamn. Institut för språk och folkminnen. Available at: www.sofi.se/1465. Uppdaterad 8 oktober 2010.
  26. Seebold E. Die sprachliche Deutung und Einordnung der archaischen Runeninschriften. Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und–angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung. Hg. Von K. Düwel (Ergänzungsband zu RGA 10). Berlin, New York, 1994, pp. 56-94.
  27. Stiles P.V. On the Interpretation of Older Runic swestar on the OpedaleStone. NOWELE, 1984, vol. 3, pp. 3-48.
  28. Stoklund M. Die Runen der römischen Kaiserzeit. Himlingøje–Seeland–Europa. Ein Grabfeld der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit auf Seeland, seine Bedeutung und internationalen Beziehungen. Hg. von Hansen L.H. et al. Kopenhagen, 1995, pp. 317-346.
  29. Stoklund M. Navnestoffet fra Nydamindskrifterne og et fragment fra Sorte Muld. I. Namenwelten. Ergänzungsband zum Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, 44. Berlin, New York, 2003, pp. 722-729.
  30. Taylor P.B. Logaþore and Lóðurr: the literary Contexts. Studies in honor of René Delorez. Red. A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen. Gent, 1987, pp. 603- 611.
  31. Dobrovolsky I.G., Dubov I.V., Kuzmenko Yu.K. Runicheskie graffiti na vostochnykh monetakh [Runic inscriptions on Oriental coins]. Skandinavskie runicheskie nadpisi. Teksty, perevod, kommentariy [Scandinavian Runic Inscriptions. Texts, translation, commentary]. Melnikova E.A. (ed.). Moscow, 1977, pp. 142-152. (In Russ.)
  32. Dobrovol'skiy I.G., Dubov I.V., Kuz'menko Yu.K. Graffiti na vostochnykh monetakh. Drevnyaya Rus' i sopredel'nye strany [Inscriptions on Oriental coins. Ancient Rus' and neighbouring countries]. Leningrad, 1991. (In Russ.)
  33. Makaev E.A. Yazyk drevneyshikh runicheskikh nadpisey. Lingvisticheskiy i istoriko-filologicheskiy analiz [The Language of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions. A Linguistic and Historical-Philological Analysis]. Moscow, 1965. (In Russ.)
  34. www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm (Uppsal'skiy universitet)
  35. www.runer.ku.dk (Kopengagenskiy universitet)
  36. www.runenprojekt.uni-kiel.de (Kil'skiy universitet)