Looking for the Purpose behind a Multitext Book: The Miscellany as a Personal „One-Volume Library“

Looking for the Purpose behind a Multitext Book:
The Miscellany as a Personal „One-Volume Library“
Eva Nyström
Three different aspects of miscellaneous manuscripts were suggested as
the scope of this publication: composition, authorship, and use. In looking
for the purpose behind a multitext book, my emphasis will be on the first
and third of these-composition and use-and how these two aspects
are intimately related. To exemplify this relationship, 1 intend to use a
fifteenth-century Greek miscellany, Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8. lt is precisely
by scrutinizing the composition, the codicological structure and
the relation between the texts and their place inside the book that we
may come closer to finding out what purpose someone could have had in
collecting these texts. Although making only one manuscript my point of
departure, 1 see issues here that may also be useful to discuss in a
broader perspective.
Miscellanies often represent a real challenge to an investigator. Their
richness and diversity make them difficult to catalogue. Their composite
nature often means that they are unstable unities, i.e„ it may be difficult
to establish their origin and vicissitudes. Texts may be incomplete or
abridged and thus of less interest to an editor. But miscellanies are also
very rewarding. lf we instead see these obstacles as a challenge, the
richness in contents becomes an asset; the less examined books may actually
contain unknown texts; they may give clues to how texts were
combined and organized during the Middle Ages; they may represent
more of an ‚everyday‘ taste in literature; they may also mirror a more
personal selection of reading material, thus giving us a chance to come
closer to the medieval reader. The very fact that the texts may have been
tampered with renders them important for reception studies, s ince it
shows how people went about using texts in their own way for their own
purposes. A vital key to understanding miscellany manuscripts is the
codicological structure: one cannot stand on solid ground without a
thorough knowledge of how the combination of texts was created,
whether the whole book has the same provenance or if parts were
Pt.:RPOSE BEHIND A Mt.:LTlTEXT BOOK 71
added, or been lost, at later stages. Fortunately, the terminology that has
been developed in the last few years, by, e.g., Peter Gumbert and
Marilena Maniaci, gives us the means tobe more precise in our analyses.1
The manuscript that l will investigate, the Codex Upsaliensis Graecus
8, was created in the late fifteenth century, probably on Crete-the
approximate dating is based mainly on the watermark analysis. From
owner’s notes we may conclude that it stayed in Greek-speaking surroundings
at least half a century. In the 15 70s it was purchased by Philip
II of Spain for his library in the EI Escorial monastery, north-west of Madrid.
In a thunderstorm in 1671, this library caught fire and hundreds of
manuscripts were destroyed. Our codex disappeared in the turmoil and
was long thought to have perished, bm some twenty years later it appeared
on the market and was purchased by a Swedish nobleman, johan
Gabriel Sparwenfeldt. He eventually donated most of his personal library
to Uppsala University, and that is where we find this manuscript today.2
The Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 is a small but rich book: pocket size
but almost 700 pages long, it contains some 90 texts representing different
genres and textual types. To describe a miscellany manuscript it is
necessary to consider both structure and contents. First, when it comes
to structure we should ask ourselves: is it homogeneous or can we distinguish
several independent parts, so-called codicological units?3 Are
these units connected in any way, by paper, layout, script, decorations,
etc„ or do they seem to be totally unrelated in origin? Secondly, concerning
the contents there are further questions: are the texts-within
and also across codicological units-related in subject matter, in genre,
chronologically, geographically or in other ways? In my codicological
„screening“ of Upsaliensis Graecus 8 1 found it convenient to follow a set
of parameters, in order to clarify what is there for the eye to perceive
See Jean-Paul Gurnbert, „Codicological Units: Towards a Terrninology for the
Stratigraphy of the Non-Hornogeneous Codex,“ in fl Codice misceflaneo: Tipologie
e funzioni, Atti de! Convegno internazionale Cassino 14-17 maggio 2003, ed. Edoardo
Crisci and Oronzo Pecere, Segno e testo 2 (Cassino: Universita degli studi di
Cassino, 2004) 17-42; Marilena Maniaci, „ll manoscritto greco non unitario.
Tipologie e terminologia,“ in II Codice miscellaneo, 75- 107.
For further inforrnation on this manuscript, see Eva Nyström, Containing Multitudes:
Codex Upsaliensis Graect1s 8 in Perspective, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 11
(Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2009).
A codicological unit may be defined as „a discrete nurnber of quires, worked in a
single operation and containing a complete text or set of texts“ (Gumbert, „Codicological
Units,“ 23).
72 EVA NYSTRÖM
and what this could mean in regard to the structure of the whole book.
These parameters may of course differ depending on the material at
hand.4 The boundary criteria are listed according to where in the unit
they are normally observed: A and B apply to both first recto and last
verso of units. C usually applies to the end of a unit, as do D-G. H-0 apply
to the ensuing unit in relation to the preceding one.
Criteria for discerning codicological units:
A quire boundary and text boundary coincide
B external damage: outer leaves soiled or worn
C different quire construction
D Jeaf/leaves cut out at the end of a quire
E script compressed or distended to make the text fit
F space Jeft open after the textend
G further text(s) added on an originally blank space at quire end
H different dimensions ofthe leaves (but: often cropped to uniform size
by binding)
1 different set of quire signatures
j different paper/watermark
K different handwriting
L different mise-en-page (ruling, number of lines, etc.)
M different style of decoration
N scribal (prayer) formula added in upper margin of first recto
0 change in textual contents, genre affinity
From the definition of a codicological unit it follows that A is a necessary
criterion, although there are exceptions to this rule (for example when
the scribe broke off without finishing his or her text, or when the quire
was interfered with afterwards). As for criterion B it is not only the condition
of the outer leaves that needs to be considered, but also the distinct
traces of water damage, mildew, scorching, which can be seen
Cf. discussions of codicological units or booklets/libelli in, for example, Pamela
Robinson, „The ‚Booklet:‘ A Self-Contained Unit in Composite Manuscripts,“ Codicologica
3 (1980): 46-69; Birger Munk Olsen, „L’element codicologique,“ in Recherches
de codicologie comparee: La composition du codex au Mayen Äge, en Orient
et en Occident, ed. Philippe Hoffmann (Paris: Ecole normale superieure,
1998), 105-29; and Erik Kwakkel, „Towards a Terminology for the Analysis of
Composite Manuscripts,“ Gazette du livre medieval 41 (2002): 12-19.
Pl:RPOSE BEHJ)ID A Ml:L TlTEXT BOOK 73
throughout a limited part of the book but not in the neighbouring quires.
For j-N one has to bear in mind that these changes may also appear
within codicological units and some even within quircs; it is the accretion
of criteria which makes the unit delimitation plausible, and always
with criterion A present.
Finally, 0: this criterion is not purely codicological, since it has to do
with the textual contents of the book. And even if it is not as decisive as
some of the aforementioned criteria, one may argue that if the book in
general seems sensibly organized and there is a definite change in type
of texts, it could be worth looking into. Other possible criteria may of
course be added, like catchwords, for example, or rather the lack of a
catchword if other quires have them, and a change of language in a bilingual
or plurilingual miscellany. Some would count a subscription or dating
at the end of a quire: my reason for not including it is that the !ist of
criteria is to be used as a help in ambiguous situations; a subscription is
definite, it is not negotiable.
Studying Codex Upsa/iensis Graecus 8 with those criteria in mind, it
turned out that it was made up of no fewer than 17 autonomous units.
But a closer look at the codex showed that the codicological units were
still connected and related in different ways. The most important unifier
is the scribe. Except for the first unit, which is the EI Escorial tables of
contents, one single scribe is responsible for all other units and almost
every folio in Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8. Another unifier is the paper:
several of the units carry the same watermarks.
What about diversifying traits? 1 must confess that at the beginning of
my investigation the collection of texts gave a rather chaotic impression.
What can you make of a book which contains, and seems to jumble, fahles,
prayers, speeches, philosophical arguments, hymns, medical formulae,
lexica, lists, proverbs, jokes, biblical texts, historical accounts,
astrology, poems, letters, theological disputes, and so on? When scrutinized
more closely, though, it seemed less of a mystery, especially when
one took the unit structure into account. Inside units, texts seemed to
adhere more closely to either genre or subject matter or cultural origin.
Even the smaller additions at the end of the units revealed a mindful
planning.
As an example one may mention that the codex starts out with the
famous fable story, Stephanites and Jchnelates, which can also be de74
EVA NYSTROM
scribed as a kind of prince’s mirror or edifying text.s This text equals
codicological unit number 2 (U2; see also the table below).6 The next
unit, U3, is not closely connected in paper or layout; it is, for example,
rubricated and decorated. Thus the first unit and the second do not seem
to have been created in conjunction with each other. But in contents
there is definitely a connection: the first text of U3 (TS in the table) is
also a prince’s mirror-lsocrates‘ speech To Demonicus is a text of guidance
to a young man on how to live one’s life, how to be a good ruler, et
cetera. In the same unit there are also letters, mainly fictitious ones,
some of which are of an advisory kind, directed to rulers (T8 and T9 in
the table). Furthermore, Gregory of l\azianzos‘ letter, T7, also presents a
fable (actually with another fable within the fable), providing a neat connection
to Stephanites and Ichne/ates, with its fables in „Chinese-box
technique.“ At the end of the unit, the last one and a half pages are clearly
secondary, that is, they have been filled in at a later stage even though by
the same scribe. Here we find five short anecdotes from the Alexander
Romance, what Alexander the Great said or did in this or that situation.
Once again, wc meet a ruler, once again we are exposed to short narratives
of an edifying character. The last of these narratives teils us of
Alexander who saw a woman picking the lice off a soldier and likened
him to a sheep being treated by a wolf. There follow two short sayings on
women, beauty, and prudence (citations from Libanios and from the Old
Testament). Thus we see that even in the smallest detail the scribe
weaves the texts together: even the textual „extras“ are included, not
arbitrarily, but with care.
This is a Byzantine adaptation of Kali/a and Dimna, which once saw its origin in a
core of Indian tales, the Pan~atantra, but became more widely spread in the extended
Middle Persian version Karirag ud Damanag and its Arabic translation
Kalila wa-Dimnah. See Fran~ois de Blois, Burzöy’s Voyage to Indio and the Origin
ofthe Book of Kalilah wa Dimnah (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1990), 1-11; Johannes
Niehoff-Panagiotidis, Übersetzung und Rezeption: Oie byzantinisch-neugriechischen
und spanischen Adaptionen von Kali/a wa-Dimna, Serta Graeca 18
(Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2003), 34-47.
In addition to unit numbers, texts in each unit, folios, and quires, the codicological
table gives information on the boundary criteria which distinguish one
unit from the other.
Pl;RPOSE BEHJND A MCL TlTEXT BOOK 75
A schematic view of the first units in Codex Upsa/iensis Graecus 8
Cod Texts Folios Quires Boundary 1
unit Criteria
Ul 1. Pinax 1 (TacSE fvrnnv tv 1-Ilr Ql: binion with
1
TJlOE TÜ ßiß/i.qi.) the First leaf cut
out
2. Pinax 2 (prior El Escorial llv-lllr
1 pinax, discarded)
AB Cj K
LMO
U2 3 . Stephanites and lchnelates lr-86v Q2: (1-6) ternion
Inc. <J‘.\>vCtKEcpcUi.alwmc; <fj<; Q3: (7-12, 12anapoucrT]<;
npayμmdac;. Expl. 12b) 1 ternion + 2
EAET] μocruVT]V TE Kat EvEpyrniav, Ieaves
O:μ~v. Q4-11: (13-75) 8
quaternions (f. 34
bis)
Ql2: [76- 83)
quaternion; same
coarser paper
quality as in Q13
Q13: [84- 87]
binion
4. Later notes 87r-v
A petition draft concerning a
land dispute, dated Sept. 10,
1546. Notes on a bishop’s
benediction ofland, dated Dec. 1
9, 1546. A doxology, followed by
pen trials. .
ABCEF
GJ LM
U3 5. lsocrates, Oration 1 (Myoc; i 88- 98r Q14: (88- 95)
‚IcroKparnuc; npoc; 61‘]μ6vtKov). quaternion
QlS: (96-103)
quaternion
6 . Anonymous, On the soul 98r
and its faculties (At ntv-rE
cSuvaμEt<; nlc; i)luxfic;).
7. (BacriAEiou rnü μEyaA.ou
1 np6<; Ttva rpT]y6pt0v Kal ou TOV
μtyav)
8. <Ps.-Hippocrates, Epp. 8, 9, 99r- 1> lOOr
76 EVANYST~ÖM
9. Anacharsis, Epp. 1-8 lOOr-
(‚Emcrrnli.al :4.vaxapmoo<; 103r
IK\Jeou)
10a. Five sayings from the 103r-v
Alexander Romance
10b. Two sayings 103v
npbrwv yuvmKl Kocrμo<; OU „CO
KclMO<;, a/i.A‘ ~ crwqipocrUVT] (Lib.
Decl. 6. 2, 35); ‚l1crrrEp tvwnov
xpucroüv EV pLvl uo<;, o\hw
KaKOqJpOVL yuvmKl KclMO<;
(Prov. 11:22).
ABFG
0
U4 1 la-b. Paul of Aegina, Medical 104- Q16: [104-111]
Compendium (nau/i.ou 122v quaternion
AiyLvi a. Book 1, chs. 73-99. b. Book 1, Q18: [120-127]
eh. 100 (Diocles of Karystos, quaternion
Prophylactic letter).
12. A botanical lexicon 122v-
(/\E~LKOV TI;<; twv ßornvwv 127r
tpμ11vEia<; Ka 13. (a formula)
14. Anonymous, On 127v
contraceptives
lnc. KuKA.aμLvov ßacrrn~6μEvov.
Expl. atoKiav Kai au 15. Hippocrates, (cf. Philo, Op.
105). Inc. ‚lcr ‚lrrrroKpa<ri<; bmx ~ALK[a<;.
ABFG
0
US 16. Gregory Thaumatourgos, 128r- Ql 9: (128-135]
Treatise on the Soul (Toü ay[ou 132r quaternion
rpT]yOptOU „COÜ 0auμa<oupyoÜ
m:pl \fiuxfi<;)
lnc. A6yo<; m:pl \fiuxfi<;
aKoli.ou9[<;t nvl Kai Ta~EL. CPG
1773; PG 10, 1137- 1145.
Et cetera „.
PCRPOSE BEHND A MCL T!TEXT BOOK 77
All in all, we can see that the construction is organic and well-reasoned.
We have fiction, good reading material, protreptic themes; one can more
or less follow the path of associations that guided the scribe. Further examples
from other units which would show the same thing could easily
be provided: the planning and preparation of the book was apparently
carefully executed in several stages, both when first written as separate
units and when later compiled into a whole.7
There are also alternative ways of presenting the contents of Codex
Upsa/iensis Graecus 8. Since it was not possible to give attention to each
of the about ninety texts, I distributed them into groups tobe able to find
patterns all through the book and across unit borders, not only with the
texts in sequence. This is a way to boil down the contents to its essence,
to see what kind of book it is and also shed light on how it may have been
used. The texts were divided into four kinds: narrative (including, e.g„
fable literature, historical narratives); rhetorical (speeches, poems, epistolography);
philosophical and theological (treatises of various kinds,
devotional texts); practical (astrology, medicine, lexica, lists, mathernatics,
etc.). In this way, the function of the texts gets highlighted. We may
ask ourselves why someone would choose to include these texts in a
book. What may the practical use have been? The categories made it
clear that the book includes interesting narratives, things that someone
would have liked to keep for the stories, for the fun of reading. Many
texts would also be useful as models, to imitate or sample. The
instructive matter was also important, the lexica, the lists of rulers and
patriarchs, of historical memorabilia, the florilegia. Practical matters
concerning how to keep a healthy diet, how to find out about the future,
how to handle fractional numbers and other mathematical problemsmany
mundane concerns are included among these texts. And simultaneously
we find profound discussions about the soul, about virtue and
vice, predestination, the filioque controversy, and many other issues.
U4, for example, is made up of medical texts. The page fillers at the end of this
unit, which were put in secondarily, are akin in theme (a formula against edema
and gout, a note on abortives and contraceptives, Hippocrates on the seven ages
in man’s life). In US the page filler enumerates the Seven Wonders, i.e.,
spectacular building projects of the Ancient world, but it does so in connection to
the pre-ceding texts which present the great cities of Constantinople and
Florence. U9 is dominated by one of the longer poems in the codex, and here,
consequently, the page filler is an epigram.
78 EVA NYSTRÖM
As for the purpose behind a multitext book, one should also keep in
mind the practical and economical aspects of combining several units or
booklets: book bindings were expensive, so if you were to bind a book it
was convenient to collect whatever you had stored up and put it together.
Since there is just one person behind the Codex Upsa/iensis Graecus
8 one could say that in function it comes close to the so-called
Hausbuch: this is a miscellany which functions like a personal archive,
where a person collects his own writings and often works by other authors
as well.S 1 am not prepared actually to define the Uppsala miscelJany
as such, since one cannot know for sure if the scribe added any of
his own texts. Perhaps he was content with collecting personal favorites,
and choosing which parts to keep when the whole works or all letters in
a collection would not fit into a certain number of quires. The subject
matter in general and the modest level of interaction with the texts (few
marginal comments and glossae) suggest that the scribe was a welleducated
but not really specialist reader, a person who was informed of
the intellectual trends in humanist circles, but who needed an all-round
library rather than the most advanced writings and theories on a certain
subject.
What information does a miscellany like Codex Upsa/iensis Graecus 8
give about the person behind the book? From the quality of his work (the
handwriting, the layout, the amazing ability to increase gradually and
almost invisibly the amount of text per page to be able to end a text at
the bottom of the last verso in a quire), it is clear that he was a professional
scribe. And yet this miscellany was presumably not a commercial
product. A few of the units may originally have been planned for that
purpose,9 but as a whole it is unlikely that anyone would have commissioned
this maze of texts. 1 have already mentioned what we may infer
from the contents: that this was, or over time became, a personal collection
of texts. The secondary additions at the end of many units were
made judiciously. The attentive placement of related units together is
another indication that this composite was most likely made by the
scribe himself, or at least by someone who really knew what the texts
On the term Hausbuch, see also Herbert Hunger, Schreiben und Lesen in Byzanz:
Die Byzantinische Buchkultur (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1989), 74-75.
Some units are more finished as to their decoration. One unit even has some gold
on the initials, something which one would hardly add to a private manuscript:
in this case the unit is likely to have been „mackle paper,“ part of a text that was
faultily copied or perhaps damaged by fire before it could be sold.
Pt.:RPOSE BEHD.’D A Mt.:LTITEXT BooK 79
were about. The result is a book which seems to have functioned as a
personal one-volume library, consisting of texts worthy of keeping for
the sake of their usefulness as model texts, as treasuries, in some cases
for the interesting subject matter and, probably, in other cases for the
sheer joy of reading.
There is no subscription in the Uppsala manuscript, but by
comparing the handwriting with another manuscript one may conclude
that the name of the scribe was Theodoros. Nothing is known of this
man, beside the fact that three manuscripts can be ascribed to him:
Parisinus Graecus 3045 in Bibliotheque nationale de France (the one with
Theodoros‘ name in it), Sinaiticus Graecus 1677 in the monastery of St.
Catherine in Egypt, and then the Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8. lt may be
instructive to compare the Uppsala miscellany with Theodoros‘ other
identified products. There are some similarities, but more differences to
be noted. Both the Sinaiticus and the Parisinus are larger in size than the
Upsaliensis, they have wider margins, and they do not seem to cany any
page fillers in the way that the Upsaliensis does at almost every occasion
possible. These features may be indicative of the books having been
created for a different purpose than the smaller and more humble
Upsaliensis. As in the case of the Uppsala codex, neither of these other
manuscripts is a monograph, i.e„ they both contain more than one text.
But the textual array and scope are much more limited. In the Parisinus,
we find a theological treatise in question-and-answer-form by Michael
Glykas and an anonymous mathematical treatise.10 This codex was
obviously combined out of two wholly separate entities; one even finds
the scribe’s colophon at the end of the first text, i.e„ in the middle of the
book. The first part of the book might have been created as a commercial
product, but the present combination of theology and maths points
rather to a personalized use. In the Sinaiticus, Aristotle’s Rhetoric is
combined with commentaries and scholia to the same work (two
anonymous commentaries and one by Stephanus).11 This is, accordingly,
10 In the manuscript, the first text is mistakenly ascribed to Zonaras, but the work is
in fact Michael Glykas, Ei<; ra<; arrop{a<; rij<; ßda<; fpacprj<;; the second text deals with algebra and fractions. 11 Aristotle’s Rhetoric (fol. 1-74v) with concomitant commentaries (fol. 79r-244r: Anonymi Comm. in Rhet.; fol. 244r-247v: Fragm. Comm. in Rhet.; fol. 250r-283r: Stephani Co mm. in Rhet.); see Rudolf Kassel, Der Text der aristotelischen Rhetorik: Prolegomena zu einer kritischen Ausgabe [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), 13 and 56. 80 EVA NYSTRÖM a book in which all texts are closely interconnected, and a book which may have been used for teaching or for one’s own personal edification. There is, to my knowledge, no explicit sign of this codex having been commissioned, but from the design of it, it quite likely was a product aimed for the market.12 Thus, we have here three multitext books by the same scribe, apparently produced at about the same time, where one may surmise different purposes to lie behind their creation. One of them contains a perfectly logical combination of a text with accompanying commentaries; one is a composite of two texts with no obvious connection other than the same scribe being accountable for both; one is a composite of a !arge number of miscellaneous texts-one could even say that it is a composite of several miscellanies within the same binding-but at closer examination it nevertheless show signs of wellreasoned arrangement. Theodoros evidently was a resourceful scribe, who could compose appropriate books for different uses. Figure 9: An example of an easily recognizable break between codicological units, where the blank leaf at the end of the preceding unit was later used for personal annotations by an owner ofthe book (Cod. Ups. Gr. 8, fol. 87v- 88r). 12 l have only seen a few pages of this manuscript in photocopy, and rely on Diether R. Reinsch’s inspection of it for the Aristotle Archive in Berlin. Pt:RPOSE BEHJ);D A Mt:L TITEXT BOOK .: …. „ –·— ..,…..-….. … – „ „…_.- ..-,._-, ·… ·-…. .._ … ·- _,,_.,„~…,, … _ – – J … – – —–· __ …. 1- – _„,._. ___ …_ – _.,…._.._.,_. -~.,..,, .. „„„ –… – l \-111.-J..—-·· ..,..-…„ -„··_~–„–„–· .„. ..‘.“.“.‘. .. „ :,,- – ..– … ~-!._…_, ….. _.’\.! ……_.. ir …. ~~ . „„~–………. . .__.„ -~ ……. ·— ,..-~..>r-„.:…,.
___
l-t·‘:. … -~„- -..„ –
_,_……)..-__.. . –„“.!-…….. >::;“–~-~—„-~…,….._..,,__…..,.._~
.,,,:.~…–…-…,. …….. ~„.
s,.-•‘-‚C“:„~-~
__.,.._.,.,.-„r~_…~
)..„ … .:;.~ …. ,,. …… —->..–… , _..,…-~_ ……. ..-
,….„“l.; .,,_..,….}:~–,.,u
81
Figure 10: Compared to Figure 9, the break between the units is here less apparent,
since the space left over at the end of the quire was in a second relay utilized by the
scribe himself. The micro-texts added at the end of the unit link up with the
preceding narrative and rhetorical texts, whercas the next unit, beginning on f. 104,
is devoted to medical texts (Cod. Ups. Gr. 8, fol.103v-104r).
Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies:
Composition, Authorship, Use
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XXXI
Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies:
Composition, Authorship, Use
edited by
Lucie Dolezalova and Kimberly Rivers
Krems 2013
Reviewed by
Holly Johnson
and Farkas Gabor Kiss
Cover design by Petr Dolefal
with the use of MS St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 692
(photo Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen)
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG
VON
CHARLES UNIVERSITY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
„UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL
INTELLECTUAL T RADITIONS“
AND
„PHENOMENOLOGY AND SEMIOTICS“ (PRVOUK 18)
BOTH AT THE FACULTY OF HUMAN!TlES, CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE
UND DER
CZECH SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITHIN THE RESEJl.RCH PROJECT
„INTERPRETING AND APPROPRIATING ÜBSCURITY
IN MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPT CULTURE“
(GACR P405/10/P112)
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 978-3-901094-33-.10
Herausgeber: Mediwn Aevum Quotidianurn. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kulrur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, 3500 Krems, Österreich. Für den Inhalt verantwortlich
zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren ausdrückliche Zustimmung jeglicher
Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. Druck: KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner
Hauptstraße 8-10, 1050 Wien, Österreich.
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
INTRODUCTION
Table of Contents
Lucie Dolefalova and Kimberly Rivers
1. TAXONOMY AND METHODOLOGY
Medieval Miscellanies and the Case of Manuscript British library,
Cotton Titus D.XX
Greti Dinkova-Bruun
The Art of Regensburg Misce/lanies
Adam S. Cohen
looking for the Purpose behind a Multitext Book:
The Miscellany as a Personal „One-Volume library“
Eva Nyström
II. AUTHORSHIP AND NON-AUTONOMY OF TEXTS
Non-auconomous Texts: On a Fifteenth-Century German „Gregorius“ Manuscript
1
14
34
70
[Constance, City Archive, Ms. A 11) 84
Diana Müller
The Appearance of „A rtes praedicandi“ in Medieval Manuscripts 102
Siegfried Wenzel
Creating the Memory of God in a Medieval Miscellany: Melk MS 1075,
Jean de Hesdin (fl. 1350-1370), and late Medieva/ Monastic Reform 112
Kimberly Rivers
Multiple Copying and the lnterpretability of Codex Contents:
„Memory Miscellanies“ Compi/ed by Ga/lus Kemli {1417-1480/1) of St Gall 139
Lucie Dolefalova
III. USE
An Educational Miscel/any in the Carolingian Age: Paris, BNF, Tat 528 168
Alessandro Zironi
The Constitution and Functions of Collections of Patristic Extracts:
The Example of the Eucharistie Controversy (9th-11 th centuries) 182
Stephane Gioanni
Theological Distinctions, Their Col/ections and Their Effects. The Example
ofln Abdiam and In Naum 194
Csaba Nemeth
The Wiesbaden Miscel/any.
The Deli berate Construction of a Haphazard Collection 218
Kees Schepers
An Interpretation of Brunetto Latini’s Tresor in a
Fifteenth-Century Miscel/any Manuscriptnuscripts 240
Dario del Puppo
The Romances of British Library, Cotton Vite/lius D.111 256
Elizabeth Watkins
Contributors 270
Index librorum manuscriptorum 275
General Index 279
Colour Plates 285
Figures
Figure 1: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fol. 78r, Table ofthe
Temple Showbread (Mensa propositionis). See also the colour plate at the end of
the volume.
Figure 2: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fo l. 80r, Noah’s Ark. See
also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 3: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14731, fo l. 82v-83r, Labyrinth/
Jericho. See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 4: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cl m. 14731, fo l. 83v, World map. See
also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 5: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 13002, fo l. 7v, Microcosm. See
also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 6: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cl m. 13105, fol. 83r, Initials from
Honorius, lnevitabile. See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 7: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 13074, fol. 81v-82r, Scenes from
the Life of James the Less. See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 8: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 14159, fol. 187v, Sons of Noah
diagram. See also the colour piate at the end of the volume.
Figure 9: An example of an easily recognizable break between codicological units,
where the blank Jeaf at the end ofthe preceding unit was later used for personal
annotations by an owner ofthe book (Cod. Ups. Gr. 8, fo l. 87v- 88r).
Figure 10: Compared to Figure 9, the break between the units is here less apparent,
since the space left over at the end ofthe quire was in a second relay utilized by
the scribe himself. The micro-texts added at the end ofthe unit link up with the
preceding narrative and rhetorical texts, whereas the next unit, beginning on f.
104, is devoted to medical texts (Cod . Ups. Gr. 8, fo l. 103v-104r).
Figure 11: Drawing of a cherub. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex
Vindobonensis 12465, fol. 75v. By permission ofthe Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek. See also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 12: Drawing of a seraph. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex
Vindobonensis 12465, fol. 76v. By permission of the Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek. See also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 13: Conrad Celtis’s mnemonic alphabet, Melk, Stifstbibliothek, 1075, pp. 878-
79. Image provided by the Hili Museum and Manuscript Library, Collegeville, MN.
Figure 14: Alphabetic table to the Rule of St. Benedict: Si9nationes capitulorum
Re9ulae S. Benedicti secundum a/phabetum. Melk, Stifstbibliothek, 1075, pp. 881-
82. Image provided by the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, Collegeville, MN.
Figure 15: St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 972b, p. 150, Cena nuptialis.
Figure 16: St. Gall, Stiftsbiblioth ek, 293, p. 29, Cena nuptialis.
Figure 17: St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 692, p. 13, Cena nuptialis.
Figure 18: St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 692, cover.
Figure 19: Paris, BNF, lat. 17371, fol. 153 (electronic elaboration).
Figure 20: Paris, BNF, lat. 528, fol. 71v (electronic elaboration).
Figure 21: Paris, BNF, lat. 5340, fol. 146v, 11’h century.
Figure 22: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004B10, fol. lv: Salvator
Mundi ( copyright Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end
of the volume.
Figure 23: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. 2v (copyright
Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 24: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. 3r (copyright
Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour plate at the end ofthe volume.
Figure 25: Wiesbaden, Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3004 B 10, fol. 24v: The
Adoration ofthe Magi (copyright Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv). See also the colour
plate at the end of the volume.
Figure 26: New Haven, CT, Beinecke Library, 1030, c. 52v.
Figure 27: New Haven, CT, Beinecke Library, 1030, c. 53r.
Figure 28: New Haven, CT, Beinecke Library, 1030, c. 2r.
Acknowledgements
This volume contains selected, peer-reviewed and revised contributions to
an international conference Medieval Manuscript Miscellanies: Composition,
Authorship, Use, which took place at the Charles University in Prague on
August 24-26, 2009. The event and the publication of the book were
supported by the Gerda Henkel Stiftung, a junior research grant to Lucie
Dolefalova from the Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, no. KJB801970701 („Remembering One’s Bible: Reception of
Summarium Biblie in 13t1‘-15th c.“), by two Charles University Research
Development Programs: „University Centre for the Study of Ancient and
Medieval lntellectual Traditions“ and „Phenomeno-logy and Semiotics“
(PRVOUK 18) both undertaken at the Faculty of Humanities, Charles
University in Prague, and by a three-year post-doc grant to Lucie
Dolefalova from the Czech Science Foundation „Interpreting and Appropriating
Obscurity in Medieval Manuscript Culture,“ no. P405/10/Pl12,
carried out at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. lt was
possible to finish editing the book thanks to a Sciex-CRUS fellowship to
Lucie Dolefalova at the „Mittellateinisches Seminar“ at the University of
Zurich. We are also grateful to Petr Dolefal who designed the book cover, as
weil as to Adela Novakova who prepared the index.
Further gratitude goes to the Centre for Medieval Studies, part of the
Philosophical Institute of the Academy of Sciences in Prague for providing
the rooms for the conference. We are especially ind ebted to all the
contributors for their kind patience du ring the editing process.