Rune Gild: Codex Wormianus and the First Grammatical Treatise by P.Q.

Any text is more then the product of one mind, it is the product of a culture. Text interacts with its historical and social context which form a matrix of information through which the text may be understood and from such an understanding the scholar also enriches their understanding of the culture from which it stems. Textual study is a dynamic process. A codex is not merely a linguistic artifact, it is a cultural one and every manuscript edition of a text is a new and unique cultural product. Iceland has an extensive written tradition the most well known of which is indubitable the Icelandic Saga, however there were many other forms of literature produced by Icelanders. As with any literate culture Icelandic literature covers a breath of human experience which includes histories, poetry, religious literature and laws. In addition to this work there is also a body of scholarly writing which gives an important indication of the intellectual environment in which Icelandic literature grew. The most important manuscript in this regard is the Codex Wormianus, which preserves an important collection of tracts on grammar and orthography. The most frequently studied of these tracts is known as the First Grammatical Treatise, which outlines the method used by one Icelandic scribe to try to formulate a standard for the written expression of his tongue. This essay seeks to examine the nature and development of Icelandic manuscript culture through the development of a formalized literary language and the influence this has had on contemporary understandings of the Old Norse language. It will begin with a general discussion relevant to the study of manuscripts followed by a discussion of the development of a standardized form of Icelandic. The discussion will then turn to a closer look at the Codex Wormianus and the First Grammatical Treatise and examine their influence on Icelandic writing.

Philology in the broadest sense of the word is the desire to understand a work of written communication. The process of gaining such an understanding it is not simply a matter of interpreting the language of a text but also involves the process of understanding whatever contextual information may help to elucidate that text^[1]. This information may be gleaned from a variety of sources; form historical and political studies; through biographical information about the author; through an understanding of the socio-economic conditions in the area at the time the text was produced; through knowledge of how the text was produced; an appreciation of the world view of the author and the intended use for the text^[2]. This contextual data forms a matrix of information which contributes to a holistic understanding of the text which can not be considered as independent of its context. However it is important not to stop at considering merely the context of those who produced a particular document or manuscript. Any act of communication whether it be written or spoken has both an addressor and an addressee^[3]. And so one must also consider the relationship between these two participants who may even be one in the same person such as the author of a personal diary^[4].

It is essential when studding a particular codex that it not be considered as the mere receptacle of linguistic information which has fortunately preserved a particular text. It is a total unit whose physical make up, composition and history need to be as fully understood a possible^[5]. Even the act of coping a manuscript is to some degree context reliant and is defiantly not free of intervention. As a copyist the scribe now supplants the position of the original author and may often take liberties with the text by changing the expression to suit the vernacular of the day or interpolating new material^[6]. The copyist might also abbreviate sections of the text or even change the narrative order hence changing the nature of the text. Any such changes will be reflexive of the copyists context and so each copy must be seen as a new cultural production^[7]. These changes may reflect changing aesthetic tastes and it must be recognized that such changes imply a sense of superior judgement and understanding on the part of the scribe who undertakes the coping^[8].

When studding a dead language such as Old Icelandic one must remember that that language can only be preserved through a text or a number of texts which may reflect but can never full convey knowledge of the spoken form of that language. Through the high medieval period Iceland was a developing nation, and as such the development of a national language was an important part of its self identity^[9]. The make up of the Icelandic population was predominantly Norwegian yet there were also many people from Sweden and other countries which spoke a Scandinavian language. Importantly amongst the lower socio economic groups there was also a significant number people from the British Isles particularly the Irish. The diversity of this population must have bought a wide range of different Scandinavian dialects as well as some foreign influences. Yet from this relatively mixed population there was little dialectical variation in Iceland itself and there seems to have emerged a Standard language which was probably based on a West Norwegian dialect.

There are no doubt some political, geographical and economic factors which may have influenced the development of a standardized form of the Icelandic language (see bellow). However it is difficult to conceive of how such standardization of language can take place without some sort of written culture^[10] and it is only through such a written culture that we can come to study such a language. It is understood that non literate people have various types of formalized discourse and many standards for correctness, however without explicitly formulated rules it is questionable whether we can call this discourse standardized^[11]. Generally it is a societies written tradition which becomes a guide for the standard forms of a formal speech act, this is true whether it be a written act or a spoken one. However formal speech acts can not be seen as representative of the way a language is used in every day acts of communication. Generally the written tradition is only an ideal form of that standard language which people follow only in so far as it is suits their communications needs. Communication must be seen in a pragmatic sense and judged on its capacity to convey the desired information. Even with a written tradition we must question what degree of unifying power that tradition could have had on the language of a population that was largely illiterate. It is clear that prior to the spread of literacy through print the influence of such a written culture could only make itself felt within a restricted and privileged range of persons^[12].

Of all the Medieval Scandinavian countries Iceland has the largest surviving body of vernacular literature^[13] and it is the only one which preserves a grammatical literature. It is from this literature, both the grammatical and non grammatical texts, that we can talk of a standardized Icelandic language^[14]. The history of this standard language is closely linked to the Latin alphabet which reached Iceland in the tenth century through the medium of the Christian religion^[15]. Being a religion of the book Christianity is to a large degree reliant on literacy for its spread^[16]. The nature of manuscript writing was substantially similar in all areas of western Europe during the Medieval period. Latin as a “universal tongue was the language of wider communication in the western world- used by clergy, royal houses and all men of learning”^[17]. Translations of Latin religious texts such as Saints lives, homilies, bible paraphrases as well as non religious literature such as historical chronicles and romances were copied scriptoria, which also produced original works^[18]. From quite early in the history of Icelandic literature there were scriptorial centers at Holar, Skalholt and at Oddi^[19]. By the end of the Medieval period in all Scandinavian countries accept Iceland, which was too remote, the peoples literary and religious life was conducted either in Latin of Low German^[20].

The influence of Latin was strong in the Scandinavian world, especially in Denmark which was the last country to adopt a vernacular writing system. Unlike the Danish the Norwegians and Icelanders developed a strong vernacular tradition, this might be due to the influence of English Missionaries in the conversion of these lands^[21]. The vernacular had been used for writing in England since the eighth century. The Danish however were more reliant on the continent (particularly the Frankish state) for their religious education and so they developed a strong Latin tradition. The distinction between the Icelandic and Danish writing traditions is no more clearly demonstrated then by the fact that when the Icelander Snorri Sturluson sought to write his history of Norwegian Kings (Heimskringla) he did so in Icelandic. Whilst the Dane, Saxo Grammaticus chose to use Latin to write his Danish History, the Geasta Danorum ^[22]. Vernacular writing was first used for the production of legal texts which for the sake of clarity it was felt were best rendered in the vernacular. It was not until relatively late that Denmark was to produce its own Vernacular Laws which were recorded in 1371^[23], whilst as early as 1117-8^[24] the Icelanders had made there first attempt at recording their laws. However as the Power of the Danish state increased its influence spread through out Norway and Sweden were the vernacular traditions soon succumbed to Latin and Low German.

The divergent languages of the early medieval Scandinavian manuscripts were merely an embryonic form of standard languages. Forms which were subject to alteration and even extinction depending on the political or religious situation in the nation. By the end of the fifteenth Century the political unification of Scandinavia under the authority of the Danish state was beginning to have linguistic ramifications^[25]. It was only Iceland which was to preserve its native witting tradition for which there is a profuse record, which includes both poetry and prose. In the preservation of a vernacular writing tradition in Iceland there were three factors in its favour. Firstly its geographical remoteness from the rest of the Scandinavian world which preserved its vernacular speech form from the changes which occurred in other Scandinavian lands, which adopted many Danish and Low German loan words^[26]. Secondly it development of a extraordinary Medieval literary tradition which was widely studied and revered^[27]. Thirdly Iceland’s economy was predominantly based on fishing and ranching which promoted mobility and inhibited the formation of dialects^[28]. Further to these factors was the linguistic gap between Danish and Icelandic, which represent dialectical extremes of the Scandinavian region, enabled the Icelandic tradition to preserve its language^[29]. It is due to this preservation that Icelandic had become a model of what the medieval Scandinavian language might have been^[30]. Through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries scholars have attempted to eliminate Danish and German loan words and thus bring the language to a state of relative ‘purity’^[31].

Many are aware of the fact that Iceland has produce and extensive written record, which includes a range of material from historical and religious literature to the Icelandic family Saga. However few are aware that there also exists an important body of learned literature from medieval Iceland, which includes four treatises on Icelandic Grammar^[32]. All four of these treatise are in fact appended to Snorri Sturlusons Edda which collectively form the main body of the Codex Wormianus (AM 242, fol.). No complete description of the Codex has been published to date although it has been the subject of many investigations and there is much known about many of its characteristics^[33]. The first known owner of the manuscript was Bishop Gudbrandur Thorlaksson and it was possibly owned by his grandfather Jon Sigmundsson^[34]. The codex passed from Gudbrandur to a Reverend Arngrimur Jonsson and it was defiantly in his possession before the year 1628^[35]. It was on the 4th of September of that year that Arngrimr sent the codex to his Danish friend Ole Worm, form whom the manuscript takes its name^[36]. It stayed in Ole Worms family for two generations until his Grandson Bishop Christian Worm presented the text to Arni Magnusson in 1706^[37]. From where it came to reside with a famous collection of Old Norse manuscripts the Arnamagnæan Collection^[38].

This manuscript is the work of a single scribe^[39], writing on vellum, possibly working from the monastery at Thingyrar in North West Iceland^[40] in the middle of the fourteenth century^[41]. Through its age and association with this monastery the manuscript is thought to have been produced in connection to three known authors and translators, Arngrimr Brandsson, Bergr Sokkason and Arni Laurentiusson^[42]. Although it is difficult to determine exactly who the scribe of the text was it has been claimed that Bergr Sokkason was possibly the editor of the codex^[43]. In this regard it is important to realize that the functions of the editor and the scribe are separate yet this does not necessarily imply that they were undertaken by separate persons^[44] and so the Codex could be the work of just one man. The nature of the material compiled in the Codex also may give some clues as to the motivation for compiling it and the aims of the individual or individuals who did this. The codex seems to have been collected with the aim of compiling a collection of texts relevant to the vernacular language and poetry. Perhaps this was for the purpose of collecting important pieces of learned literature into one Text. The codex has been described as a collection of “linguistically and rhetorically orientated texts, edited by someone with a keen interest in the linguistics and poetics of his own language”^[45].

Of the four grammatical treatises contained in the Codex Wormianus the most extensively studied has been what has come to be called the First Grammatical Treatise. This text, which is found in no other source, is the oldest of the four grammatical treatise which appear in the Codex and it is some seventy five years older then Snorri’s Edda^[46]. The importance of this text is manifold, however it must initially be said that it aptly demonstrates that Iceland was far from being a parochial backwater and was in fact quite closely in contact with the learning of its day^[47]. In creating the first vernacular writing systems the Scandinavians adopted many Latin grammatical rules^[48] the First Grammatical Treatise is definitely a grammar which is this tradition. The Latin alphabet was one of the most important inheritances received from the Roman world however this alphabet was not entirely well suited to the various sounds of other Indo-European languages^[49]. Those Indo-European peoples which eventually adopted this phonetic orthography needed to modify the system so as to be able to represent the full range of sounds in there own native tongue^[50]. This was mainly achieved by bringing Latin writing habits into a vernacular system, however we also have evidence of some innovators amongst these non Roman scribes. The German scribe Notker and the English scribe Orm are two examples of such innovators^[51]. Yet the anonymous author of the text under consideration, a man who has become know as the first Grammarian is one of the most important of these. He provides the only example of the method used for adopting a Germanic language to the Latin alphabet^[52].

While it is solidly based on Latin grammar the First Grammatical Treatise represents an early instance of the application of descriptive linguistics to a vernacular language and the author states linguistic principles that were not otherwise formulated until the twentieth century^[53]. Writing in the middle of the twelfth Century the first Grammarian intended that his treatise would establish a writing system by which the sounds peculiar to the Icelandic speech could be rendered in writing^[54]. Modern Old Norse Grammars such as that by E.V. Gordon^[55] are indebted to this text for their knowledge of the Old Norse phonetics^[56]. Yet the treatise is not only useful in understanding the Icelandic language and it also provides useful information on the pronunciation of medieval Latin and how this was adapted to vernacular phonetics^[57]. The text itself was first published by the founder of modern Scandinavian Linguistics Rasmus Rask in 1818^[58] and since then has been republished a number of times (By Sveinbjorn Egilsson in 1848. The Arnamagnæan commission in 1852. Also by Verner Dahlerup and Finnur Jonsson in 1886)^[59]. In 1931 the famous Icelandic scholar Sigurdur Nordal produces a facsimile copy of the entire Codex Wormianus^[60].

Whilst there is little biographical information known about the first Grammarian he was probably the son of a member of the very first literate generation of Icelanders^[61]. It would seem fairly safe to assume that he was a well educated twelfth century Icelander. References to Ari the learned whilst eliminating one possible source for the codex, at the same time it raises the possibility that the grammarian may have been a student of Ari’s. Despite the lack of biographical information available regarding the first Grammarian it is possible to conjecture that his motivations for producing the work was a sense that the writing of his compatriots was in some way inadequate^[62]. He is worried that the ambiguities that he perceives in the writing and spelling of the Norse tongue would cause great problems for future generations^[63]. He is not actually the inventor of a grammar per se he is a systematiser of ideas that seem to predate him, he is trying to set the other scribes aright^[64] by producing a standard of correctness. Here we gain a glimpse of the grammarians personality he comes across as a man who is concerned with correctness, a man who feels the need to make sense of the disorder he perceives. He comes across a self confident codifier who has been prepared to make a judgment of superiority by determining the right way of producing written Icelandic. A self confidence that stems from his undoubtably fluent knowledge of Latin grammar and the apparent experience of another vernacular orthography, that used by the English. He points to the English adaptation of the Latin Grammar as an inspiration for Icelanders to do the same^[65].

Despite the efforts of the Grammarian it must be noted that many of his recommendations were never followed by the Icelandic authors and scribes which followed him.^[66] This raises the important issue of the extent of his proposed reform. The work has a text book feel to it, but it definitely was not written for the beginner, it is a text written by and for scholars, its intent was to correct the errors of the learned^[67]. The language used would seem to indicate that the Grammarian assumed his audience had achieved a certain level of knowledge of traditional Latin grammar^[68]. The grammarian, unlike the author of the Third Grammatical Treatise, does not begin his work as the tradition Latin grammar texts do, that is with definitions of terms, he takes for granted that the reader already knows those terms. From this it has been assumed that the text was written for the purpose of aiding clerics in the authors own scribal school^[69]. Despite the fact that the work did not have far reaching influence on Icelandic literature it seems to have been the basis for all the grammatical treatises in the Codex Wormianus^[70]. This would indicate that it must have been quite well know to a certain section of the literate members of the Icelandic society, possibly restricted to those who studied at the monastery at Thingyrar.

The development of a standard form of the Icelandic language could never be bought down to just one factor. A we have seen the geographical remoteness of the Icelandic colony, its development of a strong literary tradition, the fact that it was reliant on an mobile fishing and ranching economy where all factors which contributed to this development. The fact that Iceland was able to resist the linguistic changes that occurred in other Scandinavian lands has often been emphasized as a key factor of the preservation of such a formalized language. However the importance of the written tradition of Iceland can not be underestimated in this regard. It is due to the breath of the written record of medieval Iceland that today’s scholars are able to reconstruct the formal language that was used several centuries ago. Whilst it is recognize that this reconstruction merely preserves the high discourse of a privileged, literate, segment of the population, one must also recognize the impossibility of accessing any other form of the language. The learned literature that is preserved for us in the Codex Wormianus provides us with insight into the formation of formal language of the Icelandic people. It also demonstrates the problems faced by those few scholars who set out to reform that language by producing a standard for others to follow.

^[1] Siegfried Wenzel. Reflections on (New) Philology. Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies. Medieval Academy of America. Cambridge. Vol 65. 1990. p 12.
^[2] Ibid.
^[3] Suzanne Fleischman. Philology, Linguistics and discourse in Medieval texts. Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies. Medieval Academy of America. Cambridge. Vol 65. 1990. p 29.
^[4] Ibid.
^[5] Op cit. Siegfried Wenzel. (1990). p 14.
^[6] Stephen G Nichols. Introduction: Philology in Manuscript culture. Speculum a Journal of Medieval studies. Medieval Academy of America. Cambridge. Vol 65. 1990. p 8.
^[7] Ibid.
^[8] Ibid.
^[9] Einar Haugen. The Scandinavian Languages as Cultural Artefacts. Studies By Einar Haugen. E.S. Firchow, K. Grimstad, N. Hasselmo and W.A. O’Niel. (eds). Mouton. The Hague. (1972). p 564.
^[10] Ibid. p 565.
^[11] Ibid.
^[12] Ibid.
^[13] E.V. Gordon. An Introduction to Old Norse.(Second Edition), Revised by A.R. Taylor. The Clarendon Press. Oxford. (1988). p 266.
^[14] Op cit Einar Haugen. Studies by... (1972). p 565.
^[15] Ibid. p 566.
^[16] Preben Meulengracht Sørensen. Religions Old and New. In, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings. P. Sawyer. (ed). Oxford University Press. Oxford. (1997). p 204-5.
^[17] Op cit. Einar Haugen. Studies by... (1972). p 567.
^[18] Ibid.
^[19] Ibid.
^[20] Ibid. p 568.
^[21] Hreinn Benedictsson. Early Icelandic Script: As Illustrated in Vernacular Texts from the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. The Manuscript Institute of Iceland. Reykjavik. (1965). p 34.
^[22] Ibid. p 567.
^[23] Ibid.
^[24] Hreinn Benedictsson. Early Icelandic Script: As Illustrated in Vernacular Texts from the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. The Manuscript Institute of Iceland. Reykjavik. (1965). p 13.
^[25] Op cit. Einar Haugen. Studies by... (1972). p 577.
^[26] Ibid. p 573.
^[27] Ibid.
^[28] Ibid.
^[29] Ibid.
^[30] Ibid. p 374.
^[31] Ibid.
^[32] Einar Haugen. First Grammatical Treatise: The Earliest Germanic Phonology. An Edition Translation and Commentary. Longman. London. (1972). p 1.
^[33] Fabrizio D. Raschella. The So-called Second Grammatical Treatise. Felice De Monnier. Florence. (1982).. p 15.
^[34] Ibid.
^[35] Ibid.
^[36] Ibid.
^[37] Ibid.
^[38] Ibid.
^[39] Karl G. Johansson. Studier I Codex Wormianus: Skrifttradition och auskriftsverksamhet vid ett Islandskt skriptorium under 1300-talet. ACTA. University of Gottenburg. Gottenburg. (1997). p 246.
^[40] Ibid. p 247.
^[41] Op cit. Fabrizio D. Raschella. (1982). p 1.
^[42] Op cit. Karl Johansson. (1997). p 248.
^[43] Ibid.
^[44] Ibid.
^[45] Ibid.
^[46] Op cit. Einar Haugen. First Grammatical.... (1972). p 4.
^[47] Ibid. p 1.
^[48] Op cit. Einar Haugen. Studies By... (1972). p 578.
^[49] Op cit. Einar Haugen. First Grammatical.....(1972) p 1.
^[50] Ibid.
^[51] Ibid. p 2.
^[52] Ibid, p 72.
^[53] Ibid. p 1.
^[54] Ibid. p 2.
^[55] Op cit. E.V. Gordon. (1988).
^[56] Op Cit Einar Haugen. First Grammatical... (1972) p 2.
^[57] Ibid. p 3.
^[58] Ibid. p 2.
^[59] Ibid.
^[60] Ibid. p 3.
^[61] Ibid.
^[62] Ibid. p 4.
^[63] Ibid. p 5.
^[64] Ibid.
^[65] Ibid.
^[66] Ibid.
^[67] Ibid. p 6.
^[68] Ibid. p 5.
^[69] Ibid.
^[70] Op cit. Fabrizio D. Raschella. (1982). p 2.