Muger/Mugier?

Polly has recently come across the problem of how to expand the abbreviation “mug” (with a macron over the g) in manuscript E2. In principle, I take the view that since (i) E is going to provide us with our base text, and (ii) it is (in parts) the earliest attestation for the Estoria, we should follow the practice of the manuscript. The issue in this case is: should this be expanded as “mugier” or “muger”, since both are attested in the manuscript. (127 times and 106 times respectively.) E1, which is entirely text from the 1270’s Alfonsine taller, also has attestations of both, with a marked preference for “mugier”. E2 is of course a composite manuscript. A large proportion of the attestations of “muger” come from the folios of the text which we know to have been compiled in the 1340’s, while the opposite is true of “mugier”. In this light we seem to be witnessing an example of the evolution of a particular orthographic variant (and perhaps palatal consonants…but this may be to enter very muddy waters). In which case, one might ask what rationale should be used for the expansion. In principle, one might suggest that the Alfonsine practice should be followed. But although this might lead to a rule of following the earliest variant, in this case the Alfonsine practice seems not to have been especially consistent. The same also appies for the graph “ñ”. To expand to “nn” or not?, that is the question. As Alfonsine practice seems to have leant towards the graph “nn” this seems clear. However, since we know this ultimately results in the use of the “ñ” as a separate graph to represent palatal nasals… 

An unsatisfactory answer is to establish a rule on a case by case basis (emendatio ope ingenii anyone?). Watch this space.