A Survey of the Changes in the Interpre-Tation of "Ackermann aus Böhmen": With

Special Emphasis on the Post-1940 Developments

Author(s): Isaac Bacon
Source: Studies in Philology , Apr., 1956, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 101-113
Published by: University of North Carolina Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4173160

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Studies in Philology

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Studies in Philology
Volume LIII APRIL, 1956 Number 2

A SURVEY OF THE CHANGES IN THE INTERPRE-

TATION OF ACKERMANN AUS BOIM1EN:

WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE POST-1940

DEVELOPMENTS

By ISAAc BACON

The Ackcermann aus B6hmen, in the words of L. L. Hammerich

the most beautiful and strangest German prose work before Goethe's
Werther,1 abounds in power of language, in power of imagination,
and in power of spirit. Although this ingenious little masterpiece
of less than one thousand lines is laden with conflicts and contra-
dictions, it presents outwardly a perfect unity. From the first call
of Zeter and Gerilfte by the Plowman and the first repudiation by
Death, the dialogue strives contrapuntally towards a harmonious
culmination-a Bach Fugue! The 16 MSS and 17 prints give proof
to the popularity of this work of the early fifteenth century, a
popularity matched in our own times by literary interest and
scholarly attention. Within the last 14 years alone, from 1941-
1955, there appeared scores of articles on the Ackcermann, seven
critical editions, one text-copy, two partial copies, six translations
into modern German-one of which is in verse form and one in
verse loosely modeled after the original-also, one translation into
English and one into Spanish.2

1'L. L. Hammerich, "Der Dichter des Ackermann," ZfdPh, LVI (1931),

185.
2 See bibliographies in Hammerich-Jungbluth's edition of Der Ackermann
aus Bbhmen (Copenhagen, 1951), pp. 7-18, and in Krogmann's edition of

101

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
102 Changes in Interpretation of "Ackermann aus Bohmen"

For the scholar the attraction of the text lies in the complexity
of problems it presents and in the multitude of unknowns that
weave a web of mystery about the Ackermann aus B6hmen: Who
is its author? When was it written? What is its relation to the
Old Czech counterpart, Tkadlecek '-did it serve as a pattern for
the Ackermann, or must Tkadlecek be looked upon as a plagiarism
of the German text? Does the Ackermann essentially belong to the
spiritual domain of the Middle Ages, of Humanism, or of the
Renaissance? Is the author original, or does he betray in his
language and style the epigoni mannerist who borrowed freely from
the minnesong, the Maria hymnic, the Meistergesang, and from
the metaphorically and allegorically rich language of the mystics.
Is the creation of the Ackermann motivated by force of personal
experience, or is it a work of fiction? How is one to treat the
intricacy of the filiation of the various MSS and prints? Which
one of the MSS, as the best preserved, is to be given preferred status
in the endeavors to reconstruct the original text, for all the MSS
are, to a greater or lesser degree, in a progressed state of deteriora-
tion? Is it at all possible to set up a stemma of the individual
MSS, or must one operate with groups of MSS-with Qualitdts-
gruppen? How is one to make a sensible arrangement of the
acrostic in the last chapter? Of the questions here listed, only the
first and last, that of authorship 4 and the acrostic,5 have been
satisfactorily answered.
It is not in line with the purpose of this survey to present all the
changes in the attitudes to these numerous problems. Many of

Der ackerman (Wiesbaden, 1954), pp. 249-264; also descriptive biblio-

graphy at the end of this article.
Krogmann's arguments (in ZfdPh, LXIX [1944], 43 f.) for his prefer-
ence of Tkadlec over the familiar Tkadlecek as the title are rather in-
significant.
Ferdinard Tadra, Kanceltde a pisari v zemich 6eskIch za krdlu' Jana,
Karla IV a Vdclava IV z rodu Lucemburskeho. Rozpravy NeskW Akademie,
I, 1. 2. (Prague, 1892).
K. J. Heilig, " Die lateinische Widmung des Ackermanns aus Bohmen,"
Mitteilungen des (sterreichischen Instituts fur Geschichtsschreibung, XLVII
(1934), 414ff.
5 W. Krogmann, "Das Akrostichon im Ackermann," Festschrift fur W.
Stammler (Berlin, 1953), 130 ff. See descriptive bibliography at the end of
this article under B, 18.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Isaac Bacon 103

themn are extensively discussed by E. A. Philippson.6 Here, rather,

is an attempt to continue, in a broad synthesis, where Philippson
left off; at the same time one finds it unavoidable to lav bare the
roots of the post-1940 developments concerning the Ackiermann.
The endeavors to clarify the spiritual contents and background
of the Ackermann aus Borhmen are closely connected with the names
of K. Burdach and A. Iuibner. Burdach gives the Ackermann the
key position in the process of transition from the late medieval
period to that of the Renaissance in Germany. He views every-
thing in and about the dialogue in the light of the new spiritual
constitution that was being written by the forces of the new move-
ments assaulting the fortress of medieval Western Civilization. The
modern religious elements expressed in the text, he correlates with
the English Reform movements; the modern elements of art and
of language, the numerous allusions to antiquity, the learned refer-
ernces, the calling upon the authority of thinkers of antiquity rather
than upon that of saints and church fathers, the glorification of
the human being, all these he correlates with the new trends
emanating from Italy.
This unique and lone position within its epoch assigned to the
Ackermann is denied by Hiibner. His objection is strongly in-
fluenced by Johann of Tepla's dedicatory letter, discovered by K. J.
Heilig in 1933,7 of which Burdach could not have had any knowl-
edge when he wrote his monumental work on the Ackermann aus
Bohmen. Hiibner classifies the dialogue as a significant piece of
literature, but still one that is an integral part of the German
literary tradition of its time. If the new spirit fostered by Dante,
Petrarch, and Cola di Rienzo found its way into the Bohemia of
the Luxembourgs, it must have crystallized in the sphere of form
not in the realm of any Weltanschauung. However, the form of
the dialogue is above all deeply rooted in the Meistergesang which,
according to Hiibner, is the most medieval poetry in German
literature. Johann of Tepla merely has his face turned toward the
South. Thus, Burdach's grandiose concept of the Ackermann as a
spontaneous outburst of a despondent rebel is deflated by Hiibner,
who sees the work only as a splendid exhibition in rhetorics-the

6 E. A. Philippson, " Der Ackermanun aus B6hmen. A Summary of Recent

Research and an Appreciation," MLQ, II (1941), 263 ff.
7 K. J. Heilig, op. cit.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
104 Changes in Interpretation of " Ackcermann aus B6hmen "

stylistic experiment of an idle poet desiring to produce in German

what polished Latin could accomplish.
The dichotomy in aspect becomes less pronounced in the post-
1940 period when viewed in the light of initeresting new interpreta-
tions of the Acliermann by R. Brand 8 and A. Schirokauer.9 In
Brand's opinion, the personal experience cannot be eliminated as
a factor in the creation of Acicermana, nor can it be considered as
the impulse for the work. The tragedy of the loss of the author's
wife served only as an incentive. The time interval between the
experience and the actual writing allowed the author to think
through carefully in every detail and perfect in content and style
his literary creation. The dialogue, then, can be understood
correctly if it is interpreted in the reverse motion, from the end
of the work toward the first chapter. Seen from this angle, the
author may not be identified with either one of the dramatis
personae; both, as his creationis, speak for him. However, Johann
of Tepla is found to be more partial to Death than to the Plowman,
for it is the cause of Death that is vindicated in the end.
Unlike Brand, who directs her critique against the extremes in
the views of Burdach and Hiibner and their respective partisans,
A. Schirokauer sets out to show that botlh applied wrong values in
their treatment of the Acker;uaann. Instances in the text in which
Burdach detects elements of the Ilenaissanee are seen by Schirokauer
to be still deeply ensconced in the AMiddle Ages; and those instances
in which Hiibner finds his most imiiportanit proof for the indebted-
ness of the Acklermann to German nmedieval tradition are seen to
be in most intimate contact with the German Renaissance-but
not the Reinaissance as Burdach understood it. For Schirokauer,
Renaissance is not-at least not in its initial stage-personal
experience; it is Bildungserlebn is, educational experience, acquired
through reading anid learning. The author's great pleasure in his
rhetoric prose, his linguistic ambition, his pride in the mother
tongue, his daring to match the German language with the accom-
plished Latin, manifest the Bildungserlebnis in the Aclkermann aus
Bohmen.

"R. Brand, " Zur Interpretationl des A ck rmnainn aus B6hmen," Monats-
hefte, XXXII (1940), 387 f. Zur Interpretation des "Ackermann aus
Bohmen," Basler Studien zur deutschen Sprache u. Lit. 1 (Basel, 1944).
9 A. Schirokauer, " Der Ackermzaann aus B6hmene und das Renaissance-
problem," Monatshefte, XLI (1949), 213 ff.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Isaac Bacon 105

Schirokauer's views mirror the concern of literary critics for the

need of a deeper and clearer understanding of the concepts of
Renaissance and Humanism as applied to German literature and
art. The realization of such a deficiency, coupled with the demand
that a thorough and scientifically sound treatment of the text must
precede any geisteswissenschaftliche considerations, may perhaps
explain to some degree why such considerations have moved into
the background and textual criticism has become the foremost issue
in late Ackermann research.
In the main, textual criticism of the Ackermann aus Bohmen
proceeds along two well established avenues of approach: one
favoring eclecticism, the other recognizing a perferred status for
one MS. A new perspective in that field is opened by the use of
Tkadlecek. This text, relegated into oblivion by the derogatory
remarks of Knieschek, Martin, Roediger, and others,10 was restored
to its rightful significance by L. Zatocil,1' in 1938; it is the extent
of reliance upon Tkadlecek which determines the difference in
the emendations of the recent Ackermann editions.12 W. Krogmann
trusts Tkadl. unreservedly. In his opinion, it may practically be
identified with the German original, and all varied readings in the
MSS supported by Tkadl. may be considered original. It follows
that no one German MS is better than the other and it is therefore
impossible to set up a stemma that would present the relation of

10 J. Knieschek, Der "AaB," herausgegeben u. mit dem tschech. Gegen-

stiuck Tkadle6ek verglichen, Bibl. der mhd. Lit. in B6hmen II (Prague,
1877), passim.
J. Knieschek, " Das Verhujltnis des Ackermann zum Tkadl. u. die Hypo-
these einer gemeinsamen Vorlage," Mittheilungen des Vereins f. Geschichte
d. Deutschen in Bohmen, XVI (1878), passim.
E. Martin ,Anzeiger, IV (1878), 366.
H. Roediger, ibid., p. 352.
K. Kinzel, ZfdPh, IX (1878), 253.
H. Lambel, Mittheilungen des Vereins f. Geschichte d. Deutschen in
Bihmen, XVI (1878), Lit. Beilage, p. 20.
11 L. Zato6il, " uber die Bedeutung des alttschech, Tkadl. fur die
Ackermannforschung," Slav. Rundschau, X (1938), 96 ff. " Poznamky o
slohu st6. Tkadle6ka a jeho pomeru k Ackermannovi," easopis pro rmodernf
fl-., XXIV (1938), 1 ff. " Textkritisches zum Ackermann," ZfdA, LXXV
(1938), 118f.
12 One exception is K. Spalding's edition (Joh. v. Tepl, Der " AaB"
[Oxford, 1950]), in which he, admittedly (p. xlvi), left unconsidered all
researchl on the subject since 1938.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
106 Changes in Interpretation of "Ackermann aus Bohmen"

the different MSS. Hammerich-Jungbluth 13 -also, M. O'C.

Walshe 14-see the weakness of such an approach in its inherent
skepticism and the resultant recourse to eclecticism that does not
permit a scientifically sound working basis but merely a working
process based on intuition. Hammerich-Jungbluth propose to have
found scientific criteria for the establishment of a stemma. Their
division of the entire tradition into two groups is based on the fact
that the variant reading of the fourth word in the German text
appears, in agreement with Tkcadl., as lant 15 in MS. E and as leut
in the rest of the MSS. Accordingly, the lant-group comprises E
and Tkadl.; the leut-group, all the other MSS. A mistake in
chapter 16, common to the entire leut-group, is used as a control
to justify the division. The trust that Krogmann puts in Tkadl.,
Hammerich-Jungbluth place in E, which, they assert, is the best
preserved and most dependable. The masterfully presented material
in the philological introduction in Hammerich-Jungbluth's edition
renders satisfactory solutions of many a problem, convincing clarifi-
cation of many a difficult reading in the text. However, in a series
of articles subjecting their edition to a close-up, Krogmann un-
covers several inconsistencies.16 Although his manner of argumenta-
tion may at times cause one to suspect him of a somewhat blinded
zeal, his criticisms at times undoubtedly carry weight. He is rather
unconvincing when he points to the distortion of the fourth word
in MIS. E as evidence that the word originally was not lant but also
leut, only spelled with an umlaut a (l Iut) .17 On the other hand,
he is certainly correct when he invalidates the use of the mistake
in chapter 16 as a control by pointing out that the place in the
German tradition containing the mistake does not correspond in
context with the place in Tkadl.'8 In addition, the critical reader
of Hammerich-Jungbluth's edition will find himself asking: Is
the agreement of the word lant in E and Tkadl. sufficient ground
for grouping them together against the rest of the MSS? Is it

13 Hammerich-Jungbluth, op. cit., p. 25.

14 M. O'C. Walshe, ZfdPh, LXXI (1951), 179 f.
's Seemingly, this is an oversight on the part of H-J. Actually, the
reading in E is landt.
"See descriptive bibliog. at the end of this article under B, 7, 8, 24.
17 ZfdPh, LXXIII (1954), 83. H. Rosenfeld (Studia neophilologica, XXV
[1953], 87 ff.) fully agrees with Krogmann in this criticism of H-J.
18ZfdPh, LXXIII (1954), 94f.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Isaac Bacon 10O

justifiable to place absolute trust in the superiority of E because

of the several variants in it upheld by Tkadl.? How scientifically
sound is their summary dismissal of the agreement between Tkadl.
and other MSS? What of the instances where Tkadl. supports some
or all MSS against E? Is it not a fallacy in their procedure to
have the postulated combination of Tkadl. and E controlled by a
regulative-the mistake in chapter 16-which per se is also postu-
lated, and which, as a matter of fact, depends in validity on whether
the combination Tkadl. and E is acceptable or not? One will
concur with Walshe's finding that although Hammerich-Jungbluth
operate in different ways from Krogmann, yet in principle they
do not escape the same errors: Reliance on only one MS is highly
questionable since it is agreed that none of the MSS are free from
mistakes. Also, though Hammerich-Jungbluth reject as unreliable
the eclectic method, they must resort to it after MS. E drops out
in chapter 14.1'
Obviously, the stemma as established by Hammerich-Jungbluth
and their reconstructed text may not be accepted as conclusive.
With equal reservation one must meet Krogmann's contention that
solely an eclectic method permits the satisfactory reconstruction of
the original and that his edition shows where this is accomplished.20
As a matter of fact, problems long since considered conclusively
solved may have to be reexamined, which in turn may necessitate
a revaluation of the Ackermanm research.
One such problem is the dating of the Aclcermann. Those who
minimize or completely disclaim the biographical value of the work
cannot possibly accept the Ackermann dating, which is entirely
based on the biographical references it contains. Actually, they
could have relied only upon the date 1428, appearing in the
dedicatory letter, were it not that the date had to be dismissed as
a mistake of a sloppy copyist. Documentory evidence proves that
Johann of Tepla died sometime between March 1413 and April
1415, and regardless of whether the Ackermann is fiction or the
genuine outcry of a man mourning the death of his beloved wife,
it could not have been written by a dead man. For those who
lean toward Brand's moderate and sensible opinion that the personal
experience was a time-cooled incentive for the creation of the

19 M.L.R. (Cambridge), XLVII (1952), 85.

20 Anzeiger, LXVI (1952), 74; Der ackerman (Krogmann's ed.), pp. 6, 92.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
108 Chaanges in Interpretation of " Ackermann aus B6hmen"

Ackermnann, the problem of the dating must be no less acute. Since

the dating has evolved from the correlation of the time of death
of the Plowman's wife, as mentioned in the text (XIV, 14-lH-J's
ed.), with the phrase nu neulich (IV, 4), which is interpreted to
mean that the work was written shortly after the tragedy, the
acceptance of nu neulich literally is surely incompatible with
Brand's view.2' Finally, even those who attribute full biographical
significance to the work cannot overlook the fact that the date as
cited in the text is cryptic and not the same in all the MSS.22 One
may, therefore, justifiably conclude that the problem of the dating
of the Ackermann is far from solved.
Another problem which may have to be reexamined is that of the
relationship between Tkadl. and the German text. In 1877,
Knieschek advanced a number of points in support of his notion
that the Czech version is an imitation of the German.23 His
allegation, on which his premise is primarily based, that the
Ackeermann was written before Tkadl. is undermined if one recog-
nizes the unreliability of the dating of the Ackermann text. His
claim that a comparison of eleven passages in Ackermann with
corresponding passages in Tkadl. further strengthens his notion is
magnified in importance only if one operates with the assumption
that Knieschek's premise is valid. Most of the eleven passages may
be applied with equal force to support an opposing premise. His
observation that Tkadl. is so much longer and inferior in literary
quality to Ackeermann is, in effect, of no consequence. Yet one may

21 Nu neulich is a phrase that falls naturally into the contents of the

sentence within which it is used, and to attribute so much weight to a
rather vague expression seems quite unwarranted. In addition, one may
point to the manner in which Johann of Tepla treats the idea of remarriage,
suggesting less the man who nurses his grief over the recent death of his
wife but more the man who nurses the thought of remarrying. Cf. R. Brand,
Zur Interpretation, p. 35. (May the AaB. perhaps be regarded as an
expiatory sacrifice to the memory of a promise not to marry again?)
Documents prove that Johann of Tepla did remarry. In this connection it
is interesting to note Hammerich's conjecture that Johann of Tepla wrote
two versions of the Ackermann, the second of which, supposedly written
after remarriage, emphasizes the author's greater concern with life than
with death. (Humanisme en taalkunde [Groningen-Djakarta, 1952]).
22 MSS of group a (PQCONGF and ba) have the year 6529, the MSS
(with the exception of E, which breaks off with the words: six thousand
five hundred) have the year 6599.
23 J. Knieschek, " Der Ackermann aus Bohmen," op. cit.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Isaac Bacon 109

reasonably counter with the question: why would a plagiarist

enlarge the copy when the merit of the original lies in its brevity
and compactness? It would seem, then, that Knieschek's well
entrenched notion, which has been of paramount importance to the
Ackermann research, is without substantiation. There are indi-
cations on hand which cause one to suspect that Ackermann is a
copy of Tkadl.24 However, to formulate such a conjecture into a
statement of fact would be premature at this time.

DESCRIPTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PUBLICATIONS ON THE

ACKERMANN AUUS B6HMIEN, 1950-1954

A. EDITIONS

1. F. Lorenz, ed. " Der Ackermann aus Bihmen." Von der Klage des
Menschen wider den Tod und Gottes Urteil. Das diatektische Meister-
werk der deutschen Fruhrenaissance urm 1400, von Johannes von
Saaz. tbertragung, Einfiihrung und Deutung, Miinchen o. J., 1950.
2. K. Spalding, ed. Johann von Tepl, "Der Ackermann aus Bohmen."
Oxford, 1950.
Considers research up to 1938 only, and therefore was obsolete at
the time of its publication. However, the thorough introduction is well
suited for the purpose of acquainting the student with A. research. Cf.
W. Fleischhauer's review in Monatshefte, XLIII (1951), 157-60.
3. F. Genzmer, ed. Der Ackermann aus Bohmen. Stuttgart, 1951.
4. L. L. Hammerich and G. Jungbluth, ed. Der Ackerrnann aus B6hmen,
Part I, Bibliographie, Philologische Einleitung, Kritischer Text mit
Apparat, Glossar, Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Hist.-Filol.
Meddelelser, XXXII, No. 4. K0benhavn, 1951.
Second part in preparation.
5. L. L. Hammerich and G. Jungbluth, ed. Johannes von Saaz, "Der
Ackermann aus Bohmen." Textausgabe. Heidelberg, 1951.
Both editions, primarily the one publication in Copenhagen, replace
to a large extent the great Bernt-Burdach edition of 1917. In the
editing of the text, H-J rely on MS. E, and essentially on readings
that Tkadl. has in common with MS. H after E drops out.
6. M. O'C. Walshe, ed. Johannes von Tept, " Der Ackermann aus Bohmen."
Introduction, Notes, Glossary. London, 1951.

2"J. Dobrovskl, W. Hanka, F. Palack&, J. Jungmann, K. Sabina, A. A.

gembera, J. Gebauer, and more recently G. Heidenreich (1937) and R.
UJrbAnek (1952) have advanced reasons to uphold the view that Ackerm, is
a copy of Tkadl. However, the establishment of an unprejudiced and valid
relationship between the two texts requires, in the opinion of this writer,
completely different criteria from thQse previously employed.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 110 Changes in Interpretation of "Ackermann aus Bohmen"

x x

cr

co

4L
w (Y

CID x

cm,,,

OL

IL x
cr MCI

cc

Ca
14

cd

ki
co u -4J,
< (t 0). = gcd E-i
w
.d4

cr j
0 CS CY
.0 02
cd
w 0 -+.,3Id P4
J _4
C, 0:
(L Cd

x ID < 4.., 4,.

tj U CL
ti) cc
cc <

er
x cd
A

9L CD

Cd

z -4J
0

<
4J.

fAi

z
V --a->

41N.
0
z
J
z cc
0 bi
i- co
j

0
4x
w (L ox

x IL
0
4nwlaxI
19 x 140
ac ix cc
< < 0 x
kg

IL 0
SM

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Isaac Bacon 111

In the attempt to restore the text, this edition takes into account
the unique position of Tkadl. Author relies-like Hammerich 1938
(1944)-primarily on MS. H.

7. A. HEubscher, ed. Johannes von Saaz: " Der Ackermann und der Tod."
ubertragung. Mit 12 Holzschnitten v. F. Masareel. Muinchen, 1952.

8. W. Krogmann, ed. Johannes von Tepl, "Der ackerman," Deutsche

Klassiker des Mittelalters, Neue Folge, I. Wiesbaden, 1954.
This edition relies almost exclusively on Tkadl.

B. ARTICLES AND IMPORTANT REVIEWS

1950

1. L. Wolff, "Der Ackermann aus Be5hmen." Wirkendes Wort, I (1950),

23-31.
1951

2. A. Blaschka, " Ein Brieftopos des Ackermann-Dichters." Wissenschaft

liche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Gesell-
schafts-u. sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe I (1951/52), 37 ff.
Brings further evidence to prove that neither the name of the
Plowman's wife nor her death is historical.
3. A. Blaschka, " 550 Jahre Ackermann." Ibid., p. 41 ff.

4. M. O'C. Walshe, rev. of K. Spalding, Johann v. T., " Der AaB"

(Oxford, 1950). M.L.R. (Cambridge, Eng.), XLVI (1951), 288-89.
5. M. O'C. Walshe, rev. of Hammerich-Jungbluth, Der AaB (Copenhagen,
1951). Erasmus Speculum Scientiarum, IV (1951), 417-22.
Accepts H-J's division of stemma into the lant and leut groups;
takes exception to their complete trust in E; objects to subordinated
position given to Tkadl.
1952

6. L. L. Hammerich, " Taal en stijl." Humanisme en taalkunde, Scripta

Academica Groningana, Aula Voordrachten, No. 2 (Groningen-Djakarta,
1952).
Conjectures existence of two versions of the A. text: The first, written
in 1393, shortly after Johann v. T. lost his wife; the second, written
after his remarriage, and after his return from a trip to Rome.
7. W. Krogmann, "Textbesserungen zu Ackermann XXXII. 24 ff." ZfdA,
LXXXIV (1952), 172-174.
Argues against the various corrections offered by Hiibner, Hamme-
rich, Hammerich-Jungbluth, Walshe, and Spalding, for these 3 phrases:
gewant weben (XXXII. 24), eitoven zunden (XXXII. 26), wie sie holz
in welden vellen (XXXII. 23) [readings and lines according to H-J's
edition].

8. WV. Krogmann, "Ein Sammelreferat fiber die Ackermannausgaben von

Spalding, Walshe, Hammerich-Jungbluth." Anzeiger, LXVI (1952),
64-74.
Valuable critical analysis of the four editions.

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
112 Changes itn Interpretation of "A kcerinatnb aus Bohnmen" "

9. E. A. Philippson, rev. of Hammerich-Jungbluth, Der AaB (Copenhagen,

1951). JEGP, LI (1952), 95-99. (The Heidelberg edition reviewed on
p. 410.)

10. J. Reitzer, "Das zehnte Kapitel des Ackermann aus B6hmen."

Monatshefte, XLIV (1952), 229-233.
Analyzes structure and style of Chap. X. PIesents Chap. in rhythmic
form.

11. T. C. van Stockum, "Der Ackerniann aus Bihmnen, heifsttij der

middeleeuwen of humanistische lente? " MIededelintgen der Koninklijke
Nederlandse Akademnie vanil Weteuschap pent, afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe
reeks, deel XV, no. 4 (Amsterdam, 19,52).

12. R. Urbanek, " Satirickh sklhd'ani Budyiinsk6ho rukopisu M. Vavrince z

Bfezov6 z. r. 1420 v ramci ostatni jeho 6innosti literarni." Vestnik Kr.
?. Sp. N., Tr. fil. hist. flol., ro6nik 1951, 6. III (Praha, 1952).
Sees in solich vadenricht s p i n 'a e s t autch du (H-J: XXII. 2) and
in deincr wverkstat sahen wir dich eiat edel gewant von regenbogen
w u r k e a (XVIII. 20-21) stroiig indication that Ackerm. is a copy
of 'lkadl. (_ Czechl diminutive for weaver).
13. M. O'C. Walshe, "D)er Ackermean aus Bihnzen and its Latin Dedica-
tion." M.L.R. (Cambridge, Eng.), XLVII (1952), 211-212.
Disagrees wtith Hulbner's and Spalding's evaluation of the A. dialogue
as " merely " a stylistic masterpiece.

14. M. O'C. Walshe, " Textkritisches zum Ackermann aus Bohmen." ZfdPh,
LXXI (1952), 162-183.
1. Agrees with 36 of Krogmann's textual emendations, argues
against 9; adds a number of his own emendations based on Tkadl. 2.
Discusses problems concerning textual criticism in instances where
l'kadl. is of no help; also discusses problem of the acrostic. 3. Ex-
presses his attitude on the question of filiation of the Ackerm. MSS and
prints.

15. M. O'C. Walshe, rev. of Hammerich-Jungbluth, Der AaB (Copenhagen,

1951). M.L.R. (Cambridge, Eng.), XLVII (1952), 84-86.

1953

16. WV. Fleischhauer, " Der Ackermann, aus Bohmen and the Old Man of
the Mountain." Monatshefte, XLV (1953), 189-201.
A scholarly study that corroborates Wackernagel's explanation of
the three words of Chap. XXIX. Cf. below, No. 19.
17. W. Krogmann, " Untersuchungen zum Ackermann." ZfdPh, LXXII
(1953), 67-109.
The first part examines the MSS of group a in their relation to
prints a and b. The second part deals with medieval works written in
imitation of the Ackerm.

18. W. Krogmann, " Das Akrostichon im Ackermann." Festschrift fur W.

Stammler zu seinem 65. (Geburtstag (Berlin-Bielefeld, 1953), p. 130 ff.
Reconstructs convincingly the acrostic, to read: IOHANNES
M (agister) A (rtium).

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Isaac BaconL 113

19. G. Orton, "A Note on Ackerntaqn aus B6hvie XXIX.' M.L.R. (Cam-
bridge, Eng.), XLVIII (1953), 56-57.
hauptmann von berg (H-J: XXIX. 25) rendered as master (=
expert) of the mine (mining), and interpreted to be the Plowman's
sarcastic answer to Death in an exchange of sarcasms between them.

20. H. Rosenfeld, rev. of Hammerich-Jungbluth, Der AaB (both editions).

Studia neophilologica, XXV (1953), 87-94.
Agrees with Krogmann's criticism of H-J's division of the stemma
into the lant and leut groups. Objects to H-J's use of apocope and
syncope in their emendations of text. In his opinion, the original must
have had full forms.

21. H. Swinsburne, " Chapter XVI1I of the Ackermann aus Bodhme."

M.L.R. (Cambridge, Eng.), XLVIII (1953), 159-166.
22. H. Swinsburne, " Word-order and Rhythm in the Ackermann aus
BiYhmen." Ibid., pp. 413-420.
A comparison of word-order in Ackerm. with that in Buch der
Liebkosung and Liber Soliloquiorum. The word-order in Ackerm. is
found to be superior in form to that in the other two books because of
the rhythmic character of the text.

1954

23. F. M. Bartog, " Tvfurce Bible Rotlevovy." (asopis pro Moderni Filologii,
XXXV (1954), 89-94.
Sets forth thesis that Johann v. T. is the translator of the
Wenzelbibel. This is based on some striking similarities between the
Hieronymus-Offizium, known to have been prepared by Johann v. T.,
and the prologue to the Wenzelbibel.
24. W. Krogmann, " Untersuchungen zum Ackermann." ZfdPh, LXIII
(1954), 73-103.
Completely negative valuation of H-J's edition of the AaB.
25. W. Krogmann, " Ackermann und Tkadlec," ZfslPh, XXII (1954),
272-304.
Additional emendations of A. text on basis of Tkadl.
26. J. Reitzer, " Zum Sprachlich-stilistischen im Ackermann aus Bdhmen
mit besonderem Hinblick auf Rhythmus und Zahlensymbolik." Unpubl.
diss., Univ. of Colorado, 1954.

University of Colorado

This content downloaded from

95.74.219.254 on Sun, 06 Nov 2022 16:00:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms