An Educational Miscellany in the Carolingian Age:
Paris, B N F, lat. 528
Alessandro Zironi
in 1730 a I arge number of codices became the property of the French National
Library. The donor, King Louis XV, received them from the monastery
of Saint-Martial in Limoges. One of these manuscripts, BNF lat. 528,
had been amongst the possessions of the abbey since at least the eleventh
century, when a copyist inserted Martial’s name in its Martirologium;
this addition reveals that the book was not actually copied in
Limoges.1 The history of this manuscript is rather complex, just as the
relations among the texts of the codex are intricate.2 Consequently, first
the structure of the manuscript will be discussed and then its
palaeographical features, in order to identify the scriptorium in which
the texts were copied. Thereafter, I shall investigate how such a miscellaneous
codex was composed and used.
1. The quires
The following table presents in a simplified form the quire structure and
content of B N F lat. 528. The manuscript is irregular both in the composition
of quires and in the number of leaves: there are, for instance, two
sexternions-the fourth and sixth quires-and a bifolium-the eleventh
Bernard Bischof[, „Ein karolingisches Denkmal des Gotischen (Zweite Hälfte des
neunten Jahrhunderts),“ in Anecdota Novissima. Texte des vierten bis sechzehnten
Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1984), 526.
Alessandro Zironi, „! Gotica Parisina nel codice Bibliotheque Nationale de France,
lat. 528,“ in II plurilinguismo in area germanica ne/ medioevo, XXX Convegno
Associazione ltaliana di Filologia Germanica, Bari, 4-6 giugno 2003, ed. Lucia
Sinisi (Bari: Palomar, 2005), 301-39; Alessandro Zironi, L’eredita dei Goti. Testi
barbarici in eta carolingia (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto
medioevo, 2009), 149-79.
Eot.:CATIO:’\AL MISCELLANY 169
quire. The parchment was sometimes of uneven quality (that of the bifolium
is rough) while in other cases, namely thc fifteenth quire, it is rcgular
and thin. Variations in the text-block confirm the heterogencity ofthe
manuscript: there are 23 or 24 lines i n the first quire, 20 lines in the
fourth, and up to 31 lines in the fifth. The differences in nurober of lines
from one quire to another are not connected with the texts that were
copied.
Many texts continue from one gathering to the next, as it is the case
for De singulis quaestionibus A ugustini by Eugippius, which runs across
the fifth and the sixth quire:
!_ I II Quaestiones in J Genesim,Exodum, -m- Leviticum I Eucherius L><I>< IV JXJ V Eucherius I I VI Eugippius, Jnstructiones Libri Duo, De Genesis VII Beda, De Schematibus Scripturae VIII De arte metrica I IX Beda, De divisione temporum I varia I X Glossarium [ Hymnarium Monasticum XI Oe Cyc/o Decemnov. 1 XII Defi. quris in scriptura sacra varia I I B!! Beda, Quaestiones in Libros Regum
XV varia I Paulus Diaconus et al. ) XVI versus varii I gramm.
.qraeca XVII Jnterrogationes de Grammatica [X] ��II Vita Sancti Audoeni ) Breviarium Apostolorum
XXXX I lXI Fulgentius, De Fide I I XXII excerpta ex Au.Qustino 1 varialXJ
I
If we take into account the distribution of those texts which cover several
quires, the idea of codicological units copied independently of each
other and assembled later could be conveyed. In fact, the manuscript was
continually enlarged by the addition of new quires.
I
170 ALESSAt\ORO ZJR0!\1
The first codicological unit (quires I-VII) contains commentaries o n
the Pentateuch (Aicuinus, Quaestiones i n Genesim, Exodum, Leviticum,
Deuteronomium); works by Eucherius (Instructiones. De Genest), Eugippius
(De singulis quaestionibus Augustini), and Bede (De Schematibus
Scripturae):
QUIRES LEAVES TEXTS
I 2-11 -Quaestiones in Genesim, Exodum, Leviticum, Deuteron.
II 12-18 – Quaestiones in Genesim, Exodum, Leviticum, Deuteron.
Ill 19-25 – Quaestiones in Genesim, Exodum, Leviticum, Deuteron.
(19r-23v)
– EucHERIUS, Instr-uctiones Libri Duo. De Genesi (23r-
25v)
IV 26-36 – Quaestiones in Genesim, Exodum, Leviticum, Deuteron.
V 37-46 – EucHERIUS, Instructiones Libri Duo. De Genesi (37r-
43v)
– EUGIPPIUS, De smguiiis quaestionibus Augustini ( 43v-
46v)
VI 47-58 – EUGIPPIUS, De smguilis quaestionibus Augustini ( 4 7r-
58r) – BEDA, Libel/us de Schematibus Scripturae (58r-58v)
VII 59-66 – BEDA, Libel/us de Schematibus Scripturae
Thc second unit (quires Vlll-XV!l), covering most o f the manuscript, collects
a group of works concerning grammatical and rhetorical matters,
many by Bede: De arte metrica, De divisione temporum, Quaestiones in
libros Regum, a !arge series of lyrics by Paul the Deacon, a Greek grammar,
and some letters:
QUIRES LEAVES TEXTS
VIII 67-72 – De arte metrica (67r-71v) – BEDA, De divisione temporum (72r-72v)
IX 73-82 – BEDA, De divisione temporum (73r-77v) – CASSIODOHUS, In Psalterium Praefatio (77v-79v)
– Epistula S. Damasi I ad Hieronymum (79v-80r)
– Epistula Hieronymi ad Damasum 1 (apocr.) (BOr)
– Epistula de origine psalmum (80r-81r)
– ISIDORUS HISP., Prooemium in Psalterium (81r-81v)
– De Iittera: hoc querendum est [ .. ] qui in Donato
continentur (82r-82v)
X 83-90 – Glossarium bucu/a id est vacca (83r-83v)
– Latin alphabetical series (84r)
– Hvmnarium monasticum (84v-90v)
EDCCA TIO:-!AL MlSCELLAl\’Y 1 7 1
XI 91-92 – De cyc/o decemnovennali
XII 93-102 – De jiguris in scriptura sacra: Multifurie et multis modis
[ … ] (93r-100r)
– AUGUSTINUS, Epistulafratri Consentio (fragm.:
quaneu/um ad oculos) (100v)
– Epistulae: formulae (101r)
– BEDA, Quaestiones in libros Regum cum epistula a
Nothhelmo (101v-102v)
XIII 103- – BEDA, Quaestiones in libros Regum cum epistula a
1 1 0 Nothhelmo
XIV 111- – BEDA, Quaestiones in libros Regum cum epistula a
120 Nothhe/mo
XV 121- – EUGENIUS TOLETANUS, Oratio ( 1 2lr)
128 – Epistulae: Formulae (12 1v)
– Epitaphium Constantis: hic decus ltaliae (122r)
– Epitaphium Doctronis: clauditur hoc tumulo (122v)
– PETRUS GRAMMATICUS: Nos dicamus Christo (123r-
123v)
– PAULUS DLACONUS: Sensi cuius (123v-124r)
– PETRUS ad Paulum: Lumine purpureo (124r-124v)
– PAULUS ad Petrum: Candida lumbijido (124v-126r)
– PAULUS ad regem Karo/um: Verba tui famu/i (126r-
126v)
– Epitaphium Sophiae neptis: Roscida de lacrimis
(126v-127r)
– Episto/a PAULI ad Theudomarum: amabil/imo (127r-
128v)
XVI 129- – Versus de episcopis sive sacerdotibus: ad perennis
136 (129r)
– De malis sacerdotibus: aquarum meis quis det (129r-
130r)
– Versus in laude sancti Benedicti: ondiar unde tuos
(130r-131v)
– ALCUINUS, Cartula perge cito (132r-133r)
– PETRUS, Versus in laude regis: Culmina si regum (133r-
134r)
– Sententiae septem philosophon1m: Perionder
Corinthius (134r-134v)
– Greek grammar: ti estln doctus quid est doctus (134v-
135r)
– Hornanima species (135r-135v)
– Epitaphium Ch/odarii pueri regis: Hoc satus in viridi
(135v)
– Versus: Paule sub umbroso (135v-136r)
– Epistula: l/le Christi fretus auxilio rex: cum in
adquirendis {idelium (136r-136v)
172 ALESSANDRO ZJROI‘:I
– Iist of svnonvms with same root [136v)
XVII 137- – lnterrogationes de grammatica: Partes orationis a/ii
139 dicunt ( 1 37r-138v)
– De magiis (138v-139r)
– lexicographical notes (139r-139v)
– poetic verses [l39v)
However, three quires were not copied at the same time as the rest of
this unit. Two of them (quire XV, containing Paul the Deacon’s lyrics, and
quire XVIII, with the Vita Sancti Audoeni) were added later. We are in the
presence of three expansions of codicological units. We can be certain of
this, because both Paul the Deacon’s lyrics and Audoenus’s life were
completed in the quires that follow the texts in the manuscript. These
last quires were copied in the same scriptorium where the whole codex
was created. Moreover, when the manuscript had already been bound,
the bifolium (quire XI) with a version of the Cyclum Decemnovennali was
added.
Finally, the third codicological unit (quires XV!li-XXII) contains hagiographic
and patristic texts that circulated in a monastic milieu: Vita
Audoini, Breviarium Apostolorum cum Martyrologio hierolomitano,
Fulgentius, De Fide, and Augustinus, Excerpta.
QUIRES LEAVES TEXTS
XIX 148- -Vita Sancti Audoeni episcopi (148r-148v)
155 – Breviarium Apostolorum cum martyrologio hierolomit.
adbrev. (149r-155v)
XX 156- – Breviarium Apostolorum cum martyrologio hierolomit
164 adbrev.
XXI 165- – FULGENTIUS OF RUSPE, De Fide (Pro!., I-XLIII) (165r-
172 17 1r)
– Excerpta ex AUGUST! NO (1 71 v-172v)
XXII 173- j- Excerpta ex AJGUSTINO ( 173r-180v)
180
2. The scriptorium
The content of the manuscript, i.e. the substantial presence of Gallican
authors such as Fulgentius and Eucherius, makes it possible to connect
the origin of the codex to a French monastic milieu, while palaeographEDt.:CATIO:’\
AL MISCELLA:“‚Y 173
ical evidence points in partiCLilar to Saint-Denis. The script can be compared
to that of BNF, lat. 1 7 371, which was certainly copied there.3
Figure 19: Paris, BNF, Jat 17371, fol. 153 (electronic elaboration).
We note in BNF, lat. 1 73 17, how the left stem of the Ietter X extends under
the line o f writing (first line, explanatione), that the Ietter G is open
and angular (third line, rogauit), and that A is always written in a halfuncial
shape. According to Nebbiai Dalla Guarda, these same forms also
appear in BNF, lat. 5 2 8 :
‚o“‚�““ …. cu<·ur, .,……., ‚ß.“n“: gn..u•r“ \ ,
·.. 1 1′“_,,-r.,,..,“.-, r … .., ….. rt • ., .-1 ‚
l m.vr:\.·lonJUf“ ,…..: .B'“““'“:,bt“· :
·“-ir’o“‚“‚“J““,.· v : „b.Aolt-. -.:.,..,. .. r=•·?
. Li\I““ llrof.-r ;.-? .D““““‚ ü} _ – _, I ,.. I 1 ..
Figure 20: Paris, BNF, lat 528, fol.71v (electronic elaboration).
The same type of ductus for the Ietter X can be recognized in the word
oxia in the first line, while the word longus, in the third Iine reveals similar
shape for the Ietter G. In addition all graphemes for A share the same
half-uncial form.4 The hypothesis of production in the abbey of SaintDenis
is reinforced by the presence of the Vita Sancti Audoeni. Audoenus
died in 683 not far from Saint-Denis, and his tomb and the church built
over it soon became the property of the abbey.s
Donatella Nebbiai dalla Guarda, La bibliotheque de l’abbaye de Saint-Denis en
France du IX• au XVI/l< siecle (Paris: Edition du Centre national de Ia recherche
scientifique, 1985), 33.
Elias Avery Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores, Vl (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953),
xxvi and n. 824; Franz Steffens, Lateinische Paläographie (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
19292), xvi-xx.
Elphege Vacandard, Vie de Saint Ouen, eveque de Rouen (641-684): etude
d’histoire merovingienne (Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1902); Georg Scheibelreiter, „Audoin
von Rouen. E i n Versuch über den Charakter des 7. Jahrhunderts,“ in La Neustrie:
174 ALESSA:-.JDRO ZlRO>:J
As far as the dating of the manuscript is concerned, it should be attributed
to the period in which Carolingian minuscule writing was in use
but alongside pre-Carolingian scripts. A more precise indication is offered
by some ofthe texts contained in the manuscript. The lyrics by Paul
the Deacon composed in Aachen between the years 782-786 provide a
terminus post quem,6 while the Cyclus Decemnovennali (gathering XI)
with a date of 826 supplies a terminus ante quem. Therefore, the greater
part of the manuscript was copied du ring the abbacy of Fardulfus (793-
806) or immediately after.7
3. Codex and texts
I will now take into account the relationships between the codex and the
texts it contains. Even if the manuscript can be divided into three codicological
units, from a thematic point of view it is evident that the first
and the second unit are tightly connected to each other. The presence of
passages from Eucherius and Eugippius should not be misread. In par-
/es pays au nord de Ia Loire de 650 a 850, ed. Hartmut Atsma, vol. I (Sigma ringen:
Thorbecke, 1989), 195-216.
Kar! Neff, Die Gedichte des Pau/us Diaconus. Kritische und erklärende Ausgabe
(Munich: Beck, 1908); William Dudley Foulke, „Introduction. Life and Writings of
Paul the Deacon with a Historical and Ltterary Estimate of his Work,“ in Paul the
Deacon, History of the Langobards (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
1907), xx-xxviii; Lidia Capo, „lntroduzione,“ in Pao/o Diacono, Storia dei
Longobardi (Milano: Fondazione Valla, 1992), xxvi-xxvii.
Ernst Dümmler, „Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der lateinischen Dichtungen
aus der Zeit der Karolinger,“ Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fiir ältere deutsche
Geschichtskunde 4 (1879): 104; Ernst Dümmler, Pauli et Petri Diaconorum
Carmina, Monumenta Germaniae H istorica, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini I (Berlin:
Weidmann, 1881), 31; Leopold Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscrits de Ja
Bibliotheque Nationale, III (Paris: Imprimerie imperiale, 1881), 258; Neff, Die
Gedichte des Pau/us Diaconus, xix; Bischoff, „Ein karolingisches Denkmal des
Gotischen,“ 256; Donatella Nebbiai Dalla Guarda, La bibliotheque de J’abbaye de
Saint-Denis, 298; Pascale Bourgain, „Les recueils carolingiens de poesie
rythmique,“ in De Tertullien aux Mozarabes, ll, Antiquite tardive et christianisme
ancien {VJ•-JX• siecles), ed. Louis Holtz and )ean·Ciaude Fredouille (Paris: Institut
d’etudes augustiniennes, 1992), 1 2 1 .
EDLCATJO:-.:’AL MISCELL<\’IY 175
ticular, the commentaries of Eucheriusa intermingle with Alcuin’s Quaestiones,
9 maintaining the order of the Bible: first the sections of both
commentaries on Genesis were copied, then come the passages on the
Pentateuch. These passages in the first quires-containing biblical
commentaries-are linked to Janguage and grammar rather than to
religious edification. As a whole, the Paris manuscript can be considered
a codex in which a particular roJe is played by texts which are connected
with rhetoric and grammar. Noteworthy are Charlemagne’s epistle (f.
136), i n which the king of the Franks exhorts monks to literary studieslO
or jerome’s Ietter to Paula, in which the meaning ofthe Hebrew letters as
a part of Psalm 1 1 8 is explained.11 Moreover, De arte metrica and De
Figuris in Scriptura Sacra must be cited in this context. The first two
codicological units of the manuscript are unified by rhetorical and
grammatical speculation. lt should be remernbered also that rhythmical
lyrics, as in the case of Paul the Deacon’s collection, were always
transmitted tagether with grammatical works.1z I n our manuscript a
Greek grammar was also copied, a sort of Donatus Minor with Greek
glosses.13 Bernhard Bisehoff argued for its being copied at Saint-Denis, as
in that monastery there was a vivid interest in the Greek language du ring
the Carolingian age.l4 The manuscript reveals a familiarity with Greek: it
Eucherius, „lnstructiones ad Sabnium, 1:· in Eucherius Lugdunensis. Opera omnia,
ed Carolus Wotke, Corpus scriptorum eccles1asticorum Latinorum 3 1 (Vienna:
Tempsky, 1894), 265-91.
PL 100, cols. 515-68. 10 Ernst Dümmler, Epistolae Karo/ini Aevi, II, Epistolae Variarum Carolo Magno
regnante scriptae, Menumenta Germaniae Historica Epistolae IV (Berlin: Weidmann,
1895), 532.
u Saint ]erome. Lettres, ll, ed. jeröme Labot.rt (Paris: Les Beiles Lettres, 1951), 3 1 –
35. 12 Pascale Bourgain, „Les recueils carolingiens de poesie rythmique,“ 120-21. 13 Louis Holtz, Donat et Ia tradition de l’enseignement grammatical. Etude sur /’Ars
Donati et sa diffusion (IV•-IX• siede) et edition critique (Paris: Centre national de
Ia recherche scientifique, 1981), 365; Anna Carlotta Dionisotti, „Greek Grammars
and Dictionaries in Carolingian Europe,“ in The Sacred Nectar of the Creeks: the
Study of Creek in the West in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Michael W. Herren and
Shirley Ann Brown, King’s College London Medieval Studies 2 (London: King’s
College, 1 988), 1-56, at p. 39 n. 4 7.
14 Bernard Bischoff, „Das griechische Element in der abendländischen Bildung des
Mittelalters,“ in Mittelalterliche Studien II (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann Verlag,
1967), 246-74, at 259 (previously published in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44
[1951]).
1 7 6 ALESSA'<DRO ZIRO:>il
is sufficient to have a Iook at the way in which Greek letters and words
are copied in De arte metrica (67r).
4. Annotations and glosses
Particular attention must be devoted to the annotations which cover a
!arge part of the manuscript’s margins. After the binding of the codex,
four different hands annotated and glossed the leaves. The first hand
made use of an ochre pigment and wrote glosses on rhetorical subjects.
All glosses and marginal notes of this copyist are in the form of explanatory
notes to issues discussed in the main text. In many cases, he explained
the Greek rhetorical names that are contained in the text; see for
instance the word catarismos at fol. 62v. lt is evident that the copyist
intervened, taking notes of some sort, and then writing them down on
the margins of the leaf, as if he were attending a lesson or studying a text
to clarify obscure passages with brief marginal notes. The same hand
noted some astronomical explanations with a clear educational intent, as
he wanted to clarify some obscure Latin words or explain Greek words
(fol. 154r-15 7r). The second glossator wrote with a sepia pigment, and
he copied almost all of the alphabetical series with their interpretamenta
(fol. 78v-79r). I will devote a particular section of this essay to the alphabetical
series. The third hand wrote with black pigment and was interested
in medical arguments: he copied the so-called signa mortifera1s
namely human behavior and aspects which reveal an imminent death
(fol. 80r), as weil as annotating medical remedies or the effects of dog
days (fol. 158v-159r). Finally, the fourth hand used a black pigment and
added annotations concerning astronomy and computus to the manuscript,
covering all of the margins of the fourth quire and the first folio of
the following gathering and elsewhere: the emblematic case is obviously
the eleventh quire devoted to the Cyclum Decemnovennali, namely the
nineteen-year lunar cycle.tG
5. Alphabets
lS Frederick S. Paxton, „Signa mortifera: Death and Prognostication in Early
Monastic Medicine,“ Bulletin ofthe History of Medicine 67 (1993): 631-50. 16 Anton von Euw, „Die künstlerische Gestaltung der astronomischen und komputistischen
Handschriften des Westens,“ in Science and Eastern Civilization in
Carolingian Times, ed. Paul Leo Butzerand Dietrich Lohrmann (Basel: Birkhäuser
Verlag, 1993), 251-52.
EDCCAT IO:’\AL MISCELLA>.’Y 177
A last element of this manuscript must be taken into consideration. The
margins of the codex were also covered by a large number of alphabetical
series. In the Paris manuscript the Greek alphabet is copied in the
inferior margins of fol. 77v-78r, with a specific interest in the numerical
value of Greek graphemes. The titulus clarifies it: incipiunt numeri graecarwn
litterarum. l t must be noticed that there is no indication of the
corresponding Latin graphemes: consequently, the Greek letters should
have been weil known to our copyist. This is not the case of the copyist
that transcribed the Greek alphabet on fol. 1 1 9v-120r, where the corresponding
Latin Ietter is given to every Greek grapheme. We have no evidence
of Greek alphabetical series before the end of the eighth century,
revealing a weak diffusion of the knowledge of Greek in the Western
European countriesY
lt is certain that the Greek alphabet was known through lsidore of
Seville’s Etymologiae (i, iii, 3-5) and Bede’s De temporum ratione. Bede
also gave the numerical value of the Greek graphemes. De temporum ratione
is one of the texts copied in the Paris manuscript. Ncvertheless, the
relationship between B N F lat. 528 and the Greek language is certainly
characterized by some peculiarities. The manuscript was mainly copied
in Saint-Denis, and that abbey pursued a particular interest in Greek.tB
The familiarity with transcriptions and annotations of Greek words all
over the manuscript can be explained by taking into consideration the
typology of texts copied in the manuscript. They are all texts appropriate
17 Bischoft: „Das griechische Element,“ 24 7; jerold C. Frakes, „The Knowledge of
Greck in the Early Middle Ages: the Commentarics on Boethius‘ Consolatio,“ Studi
Medieva/i, third series, 2 7 (1986): 23-43; Walter Berschin, „Greek Elements in
Medieval Latin Manuscripts,“ in The Sacred Nectar of the Creeks: The Study of
Creek in the West in the Early Middle Ages, 85-104, esp. 89; Elmar Seebold, „Die
Iren und die Runen. Die Überlieferung fremder Schriften im 8. Jahrhundert als
Hintergrund zum ersten Auftreten von Manuskript-Runen,“ in Theodisca.
Beiträge zur althochdeutschen und altniederdeutschen Sprache und Literatur in
der Kultur des frühen Mittelalters. Eine internationale Fachtagung in Schönmühl
bei Penzberg vom 13. bis zum 16. März 1997, ed. Wolfgang Haubrichs et al.
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 1 1 .
1a Pierre Riche, „Les foyers de culture en Gaule franque du V!• au IX• siede,“ in
Centri e vie di irradizione del/a civilta nell’alto medioevo (Spoleto: Centro italiano
di studi sull’alto medioevo, 1964), 320; Pierre Riche, Education et culture dans
/’Occident barbare. VI• – Vlll• siec/e, fourth revised and corrected edition (Paris:
Du Seuil, 1995), 360.
178 ALESSA!'<DRO ZJROl\1
for an advanced educational Ievel for which a basic knowledge of Greek
was pertinent and probably required.
Many other alphabets were also copied in the manuscript. The Hebrew
alphabet was actually copied three times in two folios, fol. 78v-79r.
The first series is on the left margin of the leaf and continues on the superior
margin, where the second series, carried on in the right margin of
leaf 79r, begins. Finally, the third series is transcribed on the bottom of
the leaves. The Hebrew alphabet is newly copied on fol. 82v-83r. In all
these H ebrew series, the pronunciation of the letters is never given;
therefore, a closer interest in reading or speculating on Hebrew letters
should be supposed.
In the same quire in which the last Hebrew series appears, three
other alphabets were copied: the Chaldaic alphabet, the so-called Aethicus
lster’s alphabet, and the Egyptian alphabet. They had great fame
during the end of the eighth century. lsidore of Seville mentioned the
Chaldaic alphabet, but the shape of the letters was unknown; therefore
they were likely invented in the second half of the eighth century. In our
manuscript the alphabet is copied three times, but one of them only
fragmentarily. On the two following leaves (fol. 84v-85r) there is the
Egyptian alphabet. This last one was also cited by lsidore in his Etymologiae,
but it was invented in the same period as the Chaldaic alphabet.1 9
The alphabetical series are a n expression o f a n erudite taste for cryptograms
and Geheimschriften , which were spreading in Northern France
during the Carolingian age, and this codex does not represent an exception.
2o The copyists of our manuscript shared the taste of their time, but
they added something peculiar to that manuscript: the specific grammatical
and rhetorical characterizations of the codex allow us to infer
19 Heinz Löwe, Ein literarischer Widersacher des Bonifatius. Virgil von Salzburg und
die Kosmographie des Aethicus lster (Wiesbaden: F Steiner, 1951); Heinz Löwe,
„Aethicus lster und das alttürkische Runenalphabet,“ in Deutsches Archiv für die
Erforschung des Mittelalters 32 (1976): 1-22.
zo Rene Derolez, „Ogam, ‚Egyptian,‘ ‚African‘ and ‚Gothic‘ Alphabets. Some Remarks
in Connection with Codex Bernensis 207,“ Scriptorium 5 (1951): 3-19; Rene
Derolez, Runica Manuscripta. The English Tradition (Brugge: De Tempel, 1954), 275; Bernard Bischoff, „Die sogenannten ‚griechischen‘ und ‚chaldäischen‘
Zahlzeichen des abendländischen Mittelalters,“ in Mittelalterliche Studien I
(Stuttgart: A Hiersemann, 1 966), 67-73; Bernard Bischof[, „Übersicht über die
nichtdiplomatischen Geheimschriften des Mittelalters,“ in Mittelalterliche Studien
111 (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1981), 144.
Eot:CATJO)<AL MTSCELLAl\’Y 179
that those alphabets were copied there in order to complete the information
imparted in the principal texts.
6. Using the manuscript
The presence of marginal glosses, the alphabetical series, and the substantial
number of margins covered by astronomical computing can reveal
the compilers‘ intentions: to create a manuscript that could be used,
and effectively was used, for educational purposes, in particular for the
study of rhetoric, Greek, and astronomical computing.
The compiler of the codex probably wanted to produce a manuscript
that could be used in a Carolingian schola monachorum at an advanced
stage of education, and therefore he condensed quires of different provenance,
or newly copied for the occasion, into a single codex. The result
was a new instrument for learning activities, with a last section, namely
De Vita Audoeni, tightly connected to the abbey i n which the work was
probably produced.
lt has been conceptualized that a miscellany is usually a libro debole, a
„weak book,“ as it was copied for personal use and reflects only the interest
of its creator. Was this the destiny of our manuscript? Probably
not. The composition phases of the codex suggest other possibilities. The
first phase is characterized by the constitution of the manuscript. The
intention is evident: the composition of a book that would be useful for
advanced rhetorical and grammatical studies. Some texts by Alcuin, Eucherius,
Eugippius, and Bede were copied with the scribe having a precise
structure in mind about the order of the works. Therefore the quires
are interdependent. The rhetorical perspective of the book explains why
an independent booklet of lyrics by Paul the Deacon and Petrus Pisanus
was bound to the other gatherings at the same time, constituting what
Gumbert defined as a homogenetic codicological unit.21 It must be noted
how Paul’s lyrics were copied also in the subsequent quire. At the same
time the compiler also attached the Vita A udoeni, which was another independent
quire. As in the case of Paul the Deacon‘ lyrics, the work was
completed in the gathering that followed, extending in a homogeneaus
way the codicological unit. The manuscript was subsequently bound.
This assertion is confirmed by the annotations and glosses which charac-
21 j. Peter Gumbert, „Codicological Units: Towards a Terminology for the Stratigraphy
ofthe Non-Homogeneaus Codex,“ Segno e Testo 2 (2004): 27.
180 ALESSA „‚DRO ZIRONI
terize the second phase o f the history of this codex. Probably in the abbey
of Saint-Denis, the book was used for rhetorical and grammatical
studies which are demonstrated by the annotations covering part of the
first two codicological units of the codex. Finally, a third and last phase
occurred, probably outside the walls of Saint-Denis. We know that the
manuscript was kept toward the middle of the ninth century by the abbey
of Massay, a monastery in the French departement of Cher, not very
far from Bourges.n Saint-Denis had some properties in those territories,
23 but, more importantly, in the second decade of the ninth century
the abbey of Massay was re-founded by Benedict of Aniane, one of the
most important scholars during the reign of Louis the Pious.24 It is to
Benedict of Aniane that a specific interest in languages other than Latin
can also be ascribed. Benedict of Aniane also oversaw a monastic reform,
which can easily explain why an educational manuscript created in a famaus
cultural centre like Saint-Denis would then be used in re-organizing
a monastery such as Massay. Nevertheless, during this last phase the
interest in the contents of the manuscript changed somewhat. Shortly
after 826 a new gathering was bound to the codex. It is the astronomical
text about the lunar cycle. This addition can explain the interest of at
least one of the last two annotators who glossed many margins of the
manuscript with astronomical computing. Finally, another glossator inserted
medical and scientific annotations in the codex. From Massay the
codex reached Saint-Martial’s abbey and then the BNF.
7. Miscel/any, miscellaneous, unity
lt is now time to discuss whether our codex can be considered a miscellaneous
manuscript. From a codicological point of view we can assert
that we have a miscellany in front of us, since we cannot assume a codicological
unity ofthe book. At the same time we cannot completely assert
22 Bischoff, „Ein karolingisches Denkmal des Gotischen,“ 257.
23 Michel Felibien, Histoire de /’abbaye royale de Saint-Denys en France, contenant Ja
vie des abbez qui l’ont gouvernee depuis onze cens ans . .. (Paris: Frederic Leonard,
1706), App. I, L; De Maurice de Laugardi<re, L’eg/ise de Bourges avant Charlemagne
(Paris: Tardy, 1951), 212-22. 24 Guy Devailly, „Massay,“ i n Lexikon des Mittelalters VI (Munich: Artemis Verlag,
1993), 370; Cecile Perrochon, „L’abbatiale Saint-Martin de Massay,“ Cahiers
d’archeologie et d’histoire du Berry 150 (2002): 3-17.
EOLCA TIO:’\AL M!SCELLA:’\Y 1 8 1
the presence o f manuscript homogeneity according t o Denis Muzerelte’s
definition „ensemble de texts independants copiEs en un meme volume
par une meme personne, dans une meme lieu ou a une meme epoque.“
More appropriate for our case study is the following definition by
Muzerelle about the „recueil heterogene organise,“2S namely „an organized
heterogeneaus collection,“ a book which gathers tagether texts or
codicologicat units whose collection is governed by an intention.
MariJena Maniaci argued in favour of a misceltanyjorganized collection
(in Jtalian „miscellaneajraccolta organizzata“26). In this case, we would
have a miscellaneous book in which texts were gathered according to a
particular intention.
The words ‚miscellany‘ and ‚miscellaneous‘ are consequently ambiguous.
They can be used with a palaeographical and codicological meaning,
or refer to the texts copied in the quires. In a recent book on Greek
miscellaneous manuscripts, Filippo Ronconi asserted that the word miscellany
should be used only for the intellectual product, while the term
miscellaneous book or miscellaneous codexjmanuscript should be used
only to refer to codicological questionsY In both cases, our Paris codex
can be considered a miscellany and a miscellaneous codex, but in both
cases the unity of the final compiler’s intention is evident.
In analyzing the manuscripts of the Early Middle Ages, it is necessary
to consider them in light of the culture in which they were copied. Taking
into account the cultural context in which the texts were chosen and the
codex was copied, the codicological and paleographical concept of miscellany,
or of miscetlaneous product, should give way to contextualization
ernerging from a philological approach. To conclude, B N F lat. 5 2 8 is
from a codicological and textual point of view both a miscellaneous codex
and a miscellany, but from the point of view of a ninth-century copyist
it represents a cultural unit that only a close cooperation of philology,
palaeography and codicology can explain.
2s Denis Muzerelle, Vocabulaire cadicologique. Repertoire methodique des termes
franais relatifs aux manuscrits (Paris: Editions CEMI, 1985), 60. 26 MariJena Maniaci, Terminalagfa del /ibro manoscritto (Rome: lstituto centrale per
Ia patologia del libro, 1996), 2 12.
27 Filippo Ronconi, I manoscritti greci miscel/anei. Ricerche stl esemp/ari dei seco/i
IX-XII (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2008),
13-14.