The Medieval context

Apart from the openness that is intrinsic to every era, the kind of linguistic openness dealt with here is a specific and restricted vagueness typically only found in medieval texts. First, a well-known truth needs to be pointed out: medieval discourse, which will be mainly discussed here on the basis of Old English and Middle English texts, is only accessible through the written medium; the oral dimension can at best be revealed by questionable reconstructions and will never be completely accessible. Reflecting, in addition to this, on the openness of medieval utterances, we have in mind a certain openness that presented itself to the speaker/writer or listener/reader of that time as an entirely natural accompanying phenomenon of his linguistic environment. To the present-day beholder this appears rather odd. In any case, it is recommendable to distinguish the medieval perspective from the present-day one. In general, it can be stated that the Middle Ages had no concept of itself, neither of its temporal nor of its notional dimension. This is shown by the extremely discrepant notions of world and history of this era. Thus, it is also generally true that the Middle Ages do not know unequivocal categories (Borst 1979; Duby 1984; Gerhards 1986; Boockmann 1988), which is documented not only by medieval institutions and philosophic principles but also by artistic and linguistic utterances of this period. This can be briefly explained with the help of two examples. In the English Middle Ages, there is, for instance, no political order that could claim the quality of a general political system in connection with universally accepted theoretical foundations. The same fact is supported by another example. It is known that the church service is, among other things, the center of medieval religious experience. The essential text of the mass liturgy, however, is reflected in a variety of fairly different versions, which resulted in completely different mass liturgies being used often in the very same place.

Another condition for the basic openness of medieval linguistic utterances requires explicit mentioning. The medieval way of thinking and talking is used to perceiving each detail of existence not in an isolated way, but always in its relation to spiritual values, this, however, often in free decision and with a choice of certain second, third and other meanings. In this way, it is true that the individual linguistic sign refers to a known every-day referent, but usually also to another referential dimension which is not predetermined and only vaguely related to spiritual conventions. This referential dimension is shown in allegorical, tropological and anagogical interpretations (Lubac 1959-64). In this context the etymologicalizing procedure of medieval thinking and talking can be subsumed. In a free etymological decision of analysis - etymological not from a modern viewpoint, but only in the sense of general theological concepts – this procedure consists in creating a relationship between the signifiant of a linguistic sign and a similarly sounding word that spiritually elevates the former (Schwarz et al 1988: 207-260; Harms 1993). In the Middle Ages there is no binding system regulating this procedure for all persons involved, at best there are different theological hints and practices. Consequently, however, this results in a strange amorphousness of the individual linguistic sign, both with regard to its phonetic structure as well as to its content.