7/27/2019 14 Crimean Gothic

1/5

1

A letter in a Letter:

a textual note on Busbecqs Crimean Gothic cantilena

ei saiandans saiaima jah gaumjaima

1. Our knowledge of Crimean Gothic is extremely limited. We have only one smallcorpus of data, comprising: two lists of words and phrases glossed in Latin, eighteencardinal numbers, and the unglossed, three-line beginning of a song, the cantilena, all told amere 101 separate forms (Stearns 1978: 3). This is to be found in Busbecqs FourthTurkish Letter (dated 1562), first published in Augerii Gislenii Busbequii D. legationisTurcic epistol quatuor..., Paris 1589 Apud Egidium Beys, via Iacoba, ad insigne Lilijalbi (see Renouard 1979: 312-322 on Beys, and no. 460 on the edition; the title page isillustrated in Stearns 1978: 21). The report of Crimean Gothic is on pages 135a to 137a.

However, it is not just the paucity of the material itself, but also the nature of itstransmission, that restricts our knowledge of this dialect of Germanic. This is because the

printed text of Busbecqs report is several removes from the living language underlying it,which Stearns designates Native Crimean Gothic (1978: 3). (1) Though a Germaniclanguage is known to have been spoken in the Crimea (cf. Stearns 1978: chapter 1), ourdata do not derive from any native-speaker, but (2) from a Crimean Greek who had learntCrimean Gothic (cf. Stearns 1978: 45-47). As he was not bilingual from birth, we mustreckon with the possibility of sub-stratum effects from his mother-tongue (cf. Stearns1978: 47-63). (3) Our information does not derive directly from this man, but was writtendown at his dictation in Constantinople. (4) Moreover, Busbecq, the transcriber, wasFlemish, so again we cannot exclude the possibility that there might have been someinterference from his own Germanic language in recording the words (he did not use aphonetic script), especially those words he considered to be similar to his own (cf. Stearns

1978: 68-86). (5) The uncertainties are further compounded by the fact that our publishedversion is an unauthorized one, not directly based on Busbecqs original field-notes, norindeed on his original Letter, but on one of the copies of it that were privately circulated inhumanistic circles. (6) It further appears that a number of errors were introduced at theprinting stage, either by misreading or mistakes in typesetting (cf. Stearns 1978: 42-44).

In view of this state of affairs, we cannot but be grateful to Edward Schrder forclarifying the relationship between the printed editions, by showing (1910: 3-12) that allsubsequent editions of Busbecqs report of the Crimean Gothic language derive directlyor indirectly from the first edition of the Fourth Turkish Letter, Paris 1589. (Schrder alsolisted and discussed errors that can be attributed to this edition, 1910: 12-15).

2.1. It is the purpose of this note to bring to notice a further potential distortion of thedata in the course of the transmission from Native Crimean Gothic to the first printededition of Busbecq's report, and thereby to correct a misreading of it. This additionalsource of error was introduced at the very latest stage and is of a purely mechanical nature,for it concerns the contact of type with paper during the actual business of printing.

7/27/2019 14 Crimean Gothic

2/5

2

2.2. Stearns has already drawn attention to the various readings ofGaltzou, the last wordof the second line of the cantilena (1978: 121 fn1, cf. 10 fn22). This form appears asGaltzu in the Frankfurt edition of 1595 (and all subsequent editions) as a result of a type-setting error. What is of interest here, however, is the way scholars have variouslyreported these forms as Galtzou or Galizou, respectively Galtzu or Galizu, reading the

fourth letter as a t or an undotted i. I myself differ from Schrder in reading Frankfurt1595, Hanau 1605, as Galtzu (SchrderGalizu), cf. also Stearns 1978: 121 fn1. proposthis phenomenon, Stearns remarks (1978: 121 fn1): It is possible that during the printingof the first edition the type t used in Galtzou was in some way affected, so that in somecopies the printed letter took on the appearance of an (undotted) i.

2.3. I would like to suggest that an analogous situation obtains with the first word of thesecond line of the cantilena, which has always been quoted as Scu. I have consulted sevencopies of the Paris edition of 1589 (Renouard 1979: no. 460), and eight copies of the 1595Paris re-issue of the same printing with a cancel title-page (see Renouard 1979: no. 462;the re-issue is not mentioned by either Schrder or Stearns, and seems not to be widely

known in the literature on Crimean Gothic).1 In all but one of these copies, I read therelevant word as Seu: the understroke of the bow of the e is fainter than the topstroke,though the degree of faintness varies. However, in the Dresden copy the second characterof the first word of line two actually does look more like a c than any other letter, albeitwith a thickening of the upper curve. There is no clear sign of the understroke of an e andwithout having consulted other copies of the book, one would probably most naturallyread the letter as a c.

Probably, the best quality printing of the copies I have seen is that of the 1595 re-issue in the Bibliothque Nationale, Paris, with the shelfmark Z 13939: the understroke ofthe e in Seu, though faint, is clear, and a number of is, apparently undotted in other

copies, are here seen to have their dot. This or a similarly good print should be used forany future facsimiles. In the Harvard copy reproduced by Stearns (1978: 21-26), theunderstroke of the e in Seu is presumably particularly faint, for Stearns prints the wordas Scu (1978: 121).

Unlike the t of Galtzou, which Stearns regards as having been damaged or wornduring the course of printing, it seems that the e of Seu was defective from the start.Evidently, this adversely affected its ability to take ink.

2.4. On the question of why the correct reading should hitherto have been missed, I canoffer the following thoughts. (1) Until the publication of Schrders article in 1910, many

scholars did not use the first edition. The Frankfurt edition of 1595, previously the mostwidely used (and believed by some to be the first, cf. Schrder 1910: 4 fn1), actually doeshave the reading Scu.2 (2) In some copies of the first edition, the understroke of the bow ofthe e may be so faint as to be barely, if at all, visible, as in the Dresden copy. (It seemsthat the Frankfurt edition must have been prepared from such an exemplar unless thereading Scu is, like Galtzu, the result of a type-setting error.) Stearns has already pointedout that Loewe used a defective copy for his influential study of 1896 (Stearns 1978: 121fn1, in connection with Loewes reading Galizou for Galtzou, cf. 2.2). Streitberg

7/27/2019 14 Crimean Gothic

3/5

3

reproduced Loewes text in the second and subsequent editions of his GotischesElementarbuch (1906: 316-318, etc.; Loewes book appeared too late for inclusion in the1897 first edition of Streitbergs book, whose preface is dated 1. Okt. 1896). I take itthat most scholars have relied on Loewe and Streitberg for the primary data. (3) Mostimportantly, the Gttingen copy that Schrder consulted (1910: 16) itself has a very faint

understroke on the e. It also has a poorly printed t, with the left part of the cross-stroke barely visible. We may note that, like Loewe (and Streitberg), Schrder readsGalizou (1910: 8; cf. also his testament to the accuracy of Loewe, 4-5). Thus this and thereading Scu were undisputed by Schrder, and the two readings therefore had the authorityof all three scholars.3 (4) It is also possible that the fact that the cantilena was unglossed,uninterpreted, and also widely believed actually to be in Turkish, may have divertedattention from it and its forms.

3. I also read Seu in some of the later editions of Busbecqs Fourth Turkish Letter, namelyAmsterdam 1660, London 1660, Dresden (Leipzig) 1689. These all go back to the first

Elzevir edition, Leiden 1633 (A. Gislenii Busbequii omnia quae extant), cf. Schrder1910: 10-11. This reads Scu, however (though see below), as do the two other editions,which, according to Schrder, are based on it: Oxford 1660, Basel 1740. As these Seu-editions all derive from that of 1633, it would appear that this reading did not arisethrough collation with the first edition (they all read Galtzu/Galizu), but is an unconnectedaberration, born no doubt of the inherent confusability of c and e. From the point ofview of Busbecqs report, these particular readings are of no relevance, since, as shown bySchrder, it is only the first edition of 1589 and its 1595 re-issue that matter.

In addition, the London edition of 1660, which Schrder says derives directly fromthe Elzevir edition of 1633 (1910: 11), contains the reading ut fecisti for tu fecisti in the

word list, a change which, according to Schrder, first occurred in the second Elzeviredition, Amsterdam 1660. In all fairness to Schrder, it must be pointed out that he wasunable to consult the London edition. In fact, it would seem that there are actually TWOElzevir editions bearing the title-page Lugd. Batavorum 1633: one (1633a), which reads tufecisti and Scu, and one (1633b) which reads ut fecisti and Seu. The ut/tu fecisti and thepreceding gloss, ebibe calicem, stand out from the surrounding glosses by beginning withlower-case letters in both these 1633 editions4; in the 1660 Elzevir edition, these twoglosses both begin with upper-case letters: Ebibe calicem and Ut fecisti. The Londonedition of 1660 has the same readings as 1633b. Schrder must have consulted a copy of1633a.

As Schrders main thesis, the priority of the Paris edition of 1589, still stands, itis doubtful what value a detailed re-examination of the later editions would have. I have notbeen able to undertake one.

Patrick V. Stiles, London

Notes

7/27/2019 14 Crimean Gothic

4/5

4

1. The copies of the 1589 Paris edition that I have seen are:British Library, London;Bodleian Library, Oxford (two copies);Library of Kings College, Cambridge;Bibliothque Nationale, Paris;

Niederschsische Staats- und Universittsbibliothek, Gttingen;Schsische Landesbibliothek Staats- und Universittsbibliothek, Dresden.The 1595 Paris re-issue I have consulted in the copies of:

Library of the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London;Bodleian Library, Oxford;Library of Balliol College, Oxford;National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh;Bibliothque Nationale, Paris (two copies);Bibliothque Sainte Genevive, Paris;Universiteitsbibliotheek, Amsterdam.

I would like to thank the staffs of these institutions for their kind assistance.

2. Unaccountably, Scardigli (1973: 24649) prints Busbecqs report on Crimean Gothicfrom the Basel edition of 1740 (cf. Schrder 1910: 11).

3. According to Renouard 1979: 370, 372, there are only two copies of the Paris printingof Busbecqs Four Turkish Letters in Germany. They are both of the 1589 first editionand are located in Gttingen (the copy consulted by Schrder) and Dresden.Unfortunately, Loewe, who was based in Berlin at the time, does not indicate which copyof the Paris 1589 edition he used for his text (1896: 12730). However, on the basis of hisreading ofGaltzou as Galizou (cf. 2.2, 2.4), it may have been the Gttingen copy, as itst is somewhat unclear, in contrast to the one in the Dresden copy. So it is at least

possible that both he and Schrder had recourse to the same volume in GttingenUniversity Library. As noted above, Streitberg, merely reproduced Loewes text.However, the main point is that both the copies in Germany have particularly c-likeletters. It is also possible, although less likely, that Loewe consulted a copy outsideGermany.

The only copy in America is at Harvard University.Incidentally, there are more copies of both Beys versions than are listed in

Renouard 1979 (a new edition is in preparation). From various online library cataloguescome the following additions: 1589 edition: Aix-en-Provence, Bibliothque Mjanes (asecond copy); Lyon, Bibliothque municipale; Orlans, Bibliothque municipale: 1595 re-issue: La Rochelle, Mdiathque Michel Crpeau; Lyon, Bibliothque municipale;

Budapest, Orszgos Szchnyi Knyvtr. It also turns out that there are two more copiesbelonging to the Bibliothque Nationale in Paris, in the collection of La Bibliothque delArsenal.

4. ebibe calice and tu fecisti are the only two glosses to start with lower case letters in thefirst edition. This is presumably to save space and fit the text within the print area, asthese are the longest lines on the page (136b col ii). Note the contraction on calice andcompare Sciete.Mittere aggit. on page 136a col ii, also the longest line.

7/27/2019 14 Crimean Gothic

5/5

5

REFERENCES

Loewe, Richard (1896)Die Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meere: eine ethnologische

Untersuchung. Halle.

Renouard, Philippe (1979)Imprimeurs & libraires parisiens du xviesicle. Ouvrage publid'aprs les manuscrits de Philippe Renouard. Vol. III. Paris.

Scardigli, Piergiuseppe (1973)Die Goten: Sprache und Kultur. Mnchen: CH Beck.

Schrder, Edward (1910) Busbecqs Krimgotisches Vokabular. Nachrichten der kniglichenGesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 116.

Stearns, MacDonald Jr. (1978) Crimean Gothic. Analysis and Etymology of the Corpus.

(Studia linguistica et philologica 6) Saratoga.

Streitberg, Wilhelm (1906) Gotisches Elementarbuch. 2. verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage.Heidelberg.

[An earlier version of this article appeared in Neophilologus 68 (1984) 63739. ]

Published in Gothica Minora IV (2005).