I am not really sure whether you should actually describe these
phenomena as abbreviations.
I'd rather argue, that in both cases this is not a deliberate attempt at
abbreviating a word but rather a property of the person's handwriting.
You can see, for example, that in what mean »-ich«, there is always a
dot for the »i« present as well as the »h«.
In »Geschichte«, both »e« are not really prononced but I'd have quite a
stomache ache if I said they were deliberately left out; rather, you can
see a small wave in the line following »G«. The same is true for
»vortreflich« where there is a clear wave between »r« and »f«.
If I look at my own handwriting, especially if I write quickly, I tend
to slur certain letters and I wouldn't describe that as an abbreviation
- for example, most people don't write every loop of an »m« or »n«,
especially if there are several following each other or at the end of a
word, but rather produce a more or less pronounced wavy line.
I do not know the rest of these manuscripts but in my recent
transcriptions of 17th and early 18th century manuscripts and letters,
had I considered these phenomena to be abbreviations, the text would
only have consistet of one <abbr> after another.
My suggestion would be to just transcribe these words as plain
»Geschichte« and »vortreflich« due to a) avoid amassing <abbr> and b)
that I don't see these as deliberate abbreviations (so using <abbr>
would be semantically wrong).
Editionsprojekt Karlstadt ; DARIAH-DE
Herzog August Bibliothek
Phone: +49 - 53 31 - 808-321