Integral Palaeography 978-2-503-51177-1, 978-2-503-56233-9

Table of contents :

Front Matter ("Contents", "Préface"), p. i

Introduction, p. ix
Fabio Troncarelli
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00072


Manuscripts and Incunabula in the Library of San Clemente, p. 1
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00073


The Emergence of Gothic Handwriting, p. 27
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00074


Optimist and Recensionist: « Common errors » or « Common variations » ?, p. 33
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00075


Peciae, apopeciae and a Toronto Manuscript of the Sententia Libri Ethicorum of Aquinas, p. 45
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00076


Peciae, apopeciae, epipeciae, p. 63
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00077


« Epistulae venerunt parum dulces » . La place de la codicologie dans l'édition des textes latins médiévaux, p. 65
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00078


Tonic Accent, Codicology and Literacy, p. 83
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00079


« The Ways of Prayer of St. Dominic » : Notes on MS Rossi 3 in the Vatican Library, p. 91
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00080


The 'Basilicanus' of Hilary Revisited, p. 105
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00081


The Nowell Codex and the Poem of Beowulf, p. 119
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00082


The « Breviary of St. Dominic », p. 135
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00083


The Friars and Reading in Public, p. 149
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.4.00084


Back Matter ("Index des auteurs anciens et médiévaux", "Index des auteurs modernes", "Index des manuscrits"), p. 159

Plates, p. 167
https://doi.org/10.1484/M.TEMA-EB.5.109447

Citation preview

INTEGRAL PALAEOGRAPHY

FEDERATION lNTERNATIONALE DES lNSTITUTS D'ETUDES MEDIEVALES

President: L.E. BOYLE (t) (Commissio Leonina, Roma)

Vice-President : L. HOL1Z (Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, Paris)

Membres du Comite: M. FASSLER (Yale University, Connecticut) C. LEONARDI (Societa Internazionale per lo Studio del Medioevo Latino, Firenze) J. MARTiNEZ GAZQUEZ (Universitad Autonoma de Barcelona, Departament de Ciencies de l'Antiguitat i de l'Edat Mitjana, Barcelona) M.C. PACHECO (Universidade do Porto, Gabinete de Filosofia Medieval, Porto) A. RINGBOM (Institute of Medieval Studies of the Abo Akademi, Turku)

Secretaire et Editeur responsable : J. HAMESSE (Institut Superieur de Philosophie, Louvain-la-Neuve)

Tresorier: 0. WEIJERS (Constantijn Huygens Instituut, Den Haag)

Federation Intemationale des lnstituts d'Etudes Medievales TEXTES ET ETUDES DU MOYEN AGE, 16

Leonard E. BOYLE O.P.

INTEGRALPALAEOGRAPHY

with an Introduction by F.

BREPOLS 2001

TRONCARELLI

© 2001, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

D/2001/0095/48

ISBN 2-503-51177-5

Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................... ............................

vn

Introduction by F. TRONCARELLI ...... .. .............. ...... ................ ...... .

IX

Manuscripts and Incunabula in the Library of San Clemente, Rome, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 29 (1959), p.206-227. Reprinted in San Clemente Miscellany, 2 : Art and Archaeology, edited by Luke Dempsey, o.P .. Rome, 1978, p. 152-78 ................................................... . The Emergence of Gothic Handwriting, in The Year 1200, 2 : A Background Survey, Published in Conjunction with the Centennial Exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, February 12 through May 10, 1970, edited by Florens Deuchler, pp. 175-183. The Cloisters Studies in Medieval Art 2. New York, 1970. Reprinted in The Journal of Typographic Research, 4 (1970), p. 307-316.

27

Optimist and Recensionist : 'Common Errors' or 'Common Variations' ?, in Latin Script and Letters, AD. 400900: Festschrift Presented to Ludwig Bieler on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday edited by John J. O'Meara and Bernd Naumann. Leiden, 1976, p. 264-274 ............ .

33

Peciae, apopeciae and a Toronto Manuscript of the 'Sententia Libri Ethicorum'of Aquinas, in The Role of the Book in Medieval Culture : Proceedings of the Oxford International Symposium, 26 September-] October 1982, edited by Peter Ganz, vol.l(Bibliologia, 3). Turnhout, 1986, p. 71-82. .. ............................................ .

45

Peciae, apopeciae, epipeciae, in La production du livre universitaire au moyen age ; Exemplar et pecia. Actes du Symposium tenu au Collegia San Bonaventura de Grottaferrata en mai 1983, edited by Louis J. Bataillon, Bertrand G. Guyot and Richard H. Rouse, p. 39-40. Paris, 1988 ...................................................................... .

63

'Epistulae venerunt parum dulces'. La place de la codicolo gie dans l 'edition des textes latins medievaux,

65

VI

TABLE DES MATIERES

in Les problemes poses par !'edition critique des textes anciens et medievaux. Volume en collaboration intemationale edite par Jacqueline Hamesse, pp. 207-222 (Publications de l'Institut d'Etudes Medievales. Textes, etudes, congres, 13). Louvain-la-Neuve, 1992, p. 207222.

Tonic Accent, Codicology and Literacy, in The Centre and Its Compass : Studies in Medieval Literature in Honor of Professor John Leyerle edited by Robert A. Taylor et al. (Studies in Medieval Culture, 33). Kalamazoo, Mich. 1993, p. 1-10 .................................................................. .

83

The Ways of Prayer of St. Dominic: Notes on MS Rossi 3 in the Vatican Library, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 64 (1994), p. 5-17 ............................................... .

91

The 'Basilicanus' of Hilary Revisited, in Scribi e Colophoni : Le sottoscrizioni di copisti dalle origini all'avvento della stampa. Atti del seminario di Erice, X Colloquia del Comite international de paleographie latine (23-28 ottobre 1993) edited by Emma Condello and Giuseppe De Gregorio. Spoleto, 1995, p. 93-105 .......................... .

105

The Nowell Codex and the Poem of Beowulf, in The Dating of Beowulf edited by Colin Chase. Toronto, 1981, second ed. 1997, p. 23-32 .......................................................... ..

119

The 'Breviary of St. Dominic' , in Praedicando et docendo : Melanges offerts a Liam Walsh O.P. edited by Barbara Hallensleben and Guido Vergauwen o.P. (Cahiers oeucunmeniques 35). Fribourg, 1998, p. 241-51. ........... .

135

The Friars and Reading in Public, in Le vocabulaire des ecoles des Mendiants au moyen age : Actes du Colloque, Porto (Portugal), 11-12 octobre 1996 edited by Maria Candida Pacheco (CNICIMA. Etudes sur le vocabulaire intellectuel du moyen age, IX) Turnhout, 1999, pp. 8-15 .. ······························································· Index des auteurs anciens et medievaux....................................

149

159

Index des auteurs modernes.... ...... ...... ....... ......... ...... .... .... .... ... ..

161

Index des manuscrits .................................................................

165

PREFACE Ce volume rassemble la majorite des articles consacres par le Pere Boyle a I' etude des manuscritsl. Leur lecture permet de comprendre ce que leur auteur entendait par > 2 . Based on this formula, one might be tempted to think that a palaeographer is just someone who knows how to decipher and describe the handwriting of the past. These were in fact the objectives of Mabillon, who perceived palaeography as the cataloguing and transcription in a modern format of disparate manifestations of writing in historical contexts. The English language better preserves the double meaning of the original word: the expression 'old writing' can either mean 'ancient hand1 The major part of this preface was first published in Italian in L.E. BoYLE,

Paleografia Latina Medievale. lntroduzione bibliografica. Versione italiana di M. E. Bertoldi, with Supplemento 1982-1998 by L.E. Boyle and F. Troncarelli, Roma, 1999, p. ix-xvii. I am deeply indebted to A. Freeman and P. Meyvaert for their revision of the English text, and to J. Magee for his advice. 2 M. CORTELAZZO, P. ZOLLI, Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana, IV, Bologna, 1985, p. 864.

X

FABIO TRONCARELLI

writing' or 'to write about the past'. In this way, for English speakers, the palaeographer is not only expected to be versed in ancient writing itself, but also in the history reflected in the script. Herein lies the difference between the Italian and the English speaking palaeographer. Analysis the work of palaeographers in this century would show that the principal objective of the Italians has been an analysis of the morphology of the writing. In such studies, the most important aspect seems to have been the preliminary defining of the material and the questions to be tackled, along with a meticulous methodological approach. Work of this kind has been maintained up to this day, from Cipolla3 to Casamassima4. Despite possessing rather diverse methodological approaches, a common link unites these researchers. Italian palaeographers (like the French ones) are like Archeologists : their aim is to make a complete excavation of its own specific research field. Only afterward, somebody else will establish a general historic reconstruction of the ruins they have discovered5. On the other hand, English palaeography has evolved in a completely different way. Here, empiricist thinking has always 3D. Fruou, G.M. VARANINI, « Insegnare paleografia alia fine dell' Ottocento. Alcune lezioni di Carlo Cipolla (1883 e 1892) >>, in Scrittura e Civilta, XX (1996), pp. 367-398. 4A. PETRUCCI, « Storia della scrittura come storia di strutture : originalita e tradizione nell' opera di Emanuele Casamassima paleografo », in Per Emanuele Casamassima. Un incontro di studi su scrittura, libro, biblioteche (Firenze, 16-17 marzo, 1990), Medioevo e Rinascimento, n.s., V (1991), pp. 105-118, in particular p. 116 : «I have previously mentioned how Casamassima would fix with obstinate pride the precise limits of his investigations. In the same way, I have also noted how he would vigorously extirpate from his historical method every possible detraction to factors, elements, and influences which might in any way reveal themselves to be alien to the pure written word ... » 5 The following statement of Cipolla is almost an epigraph. In his view, the palaeographer studies « the body of the manuscript » while the diplomatist investigates its «soul» (FRIOLI- VARANINI, Insegnare (n. 2 above), pp. 378-379). On the thinking and the methodological approaches in Italian palaeography in the last century, see A. PETRUCCI, «La paleografia latina in Italia dalla scuola positiva a! secondo dopoguerra >>, and P. SUPINO, «La paleografia latina in Italia da Giorgo Cencetti ai giorni nostri » , in Un secolo di paleograjia e diplomatica (1887-1986), edited by A. PETRUCCI, A. PRATES!, Roma, 1986, pp. 21-36, 37-80.

INTEGRAL PALAEOGRAPHY

XI

prevailed, and the examination of forms of hand-writing has been one of many possible approaches. As a consequence, English-speaking palaeographers often tend to work on several fronts contemporaneously : codicology, manuscript illumination, epigraphy, diplomacy, dating systems, inks. They appear more as antiquarians than as specialist palaeographers. It is no coincidence therefore, that some of the most celebrated English and American palaeographers have in fact worked for auction houses or for rich collectors (as is the case for many art critics), or even as librarians, like Richard Hunt and Julian Brown in the past, and more recently Robert Babcock, Paul Gehl and Paul Saenger. In the work of such scholars, one can often perceive an acute sensibility at the necessity for thorough cataloguing of the manuscripts and also a desire to satisfy all the more urgent needs of a collector or a library. As a result, when examining a manuscript, English speaking palaeographers often give precedence to its dating, localisation and to analytical description. It would be false, however, to exaggerate the differences between the two schools of thought. In Italy, the more innovative palaeographers have invited researchers to abandon their rigid position in favour of a more flexible approach. All too often palaeography here has been considered as an 'auxiliary science' of history and not as a discipline in its own right. This notion has prompted certain scholars to go back to palaeography's origins in order to resuscitate the basic links between 'ancient' and 'writing'. Here it is sufficient to cite the distinction with which Cencetti opens one of his classic works, entitled Lineamenti. He contends that palaeography 'in the strict sense' of the word deals only with the study of the old styles of writing ; whereas palaeography 'in the wider sense' embraces everything related to written texts of the past : the technique of writing, its material support, the mode of its transcription, and also the ways texts were diffused and circulated6. At the same time, English speaking palaeographers have called for the eclectic empiricist mould to be broken, claiming that a deeper theoretical approach is needed. Julian Brown in his characteristically colourful style distinguishes in a way similar to Cencetti between palaeography 'in the strict sense' referring to the 'study of ancient 6 G. CENCETTI, Lineamenti di storia della scrittura latina, Bologna, 1957, p. 5 ; Bologna, 1997, p. 6.

Xll

FABIO TRONCARELLI

hand-writing' and palaeography in the 'wider sense' that applies to all aspects of the documentation7 . All of the most significant palaeographical research, carried out in the last thirty years, whether in Italy or in the English speaking world, has as its foundation some or all of these theoretical standpoints. Indeed, in Italy the legacy of Cencetti is clearly evident to this day. In attempting to evaluate the extent to which Cencetti's teachings have persisted, Alessandro Pratesi wrote : « It cannot be denied that Cencetti's concept of handwriting as a manifestation of human development and of man's spiritual and cultural activity at all levels is still solid, as well as the idea that the development of a script must be understood only with an integral historiographical methodology. Cencetti' s respect for the experience and methodology of those not in accordance with our own views is still a lesson for us : he taught us to accept honestly the results obtained by other means than ours ... >> 8 . In the English speaking world, the legacy of Brown has been passed on in a similar way. On this point, Albinia De Ia Mare writes : > If this is the spirit of the most open minded palaeographers, there should not be any problem in accepting a multidisciplinary approach and in recognising the nexus between 'history' and the 'written word'. As Armando Petrucci noted in the introduction to his Breve storia della scrittura latina : Today ... the methodological limits concerning the study of Latin writing and other ancient scripts appear ever shorter and increasingly inadequate to satisfy the ever- widening range of 7 T.J. BROWN, A Palaeographer's View. Selected Writings of Julian Brown, ed. J. BATELY, M.P. BROWN, J. ROBERTS, London, 1993, p. 47. 8 A. PRATES!, All those who have the opportunity to consult manuscripts, whether they are palaeographers or not, have a way of testing, on each occasion, the unique way in which the manuscript transmits its contents. This uniqueness is even more notable in those cases where the codices demonstrate close relationships between text and illuminations. This type of relationship is often overlooked by the more traditional schools of thought, since these tend to divide the study into two parts : the historical and palaeographical study on the one hand, and the art historical study of the illustrations on the other. Only by offering the reader the original link between words and images, or by revealing the relationship between those who com13 L.E.BoYLE, >, in Editing and Editors : a Retrospect, New York, 1988, p. 46.

INTEGRAL PALAEOGRAPHY

xvii

missioned the work and those who executed it, can the original message of the text be faithfully rendered. As for interpreting the text and its message, this effort is often hampered by the difficulty of finding a suitable compromise among the different analytical methods and tools. The temptation for the palaeographer - and perhaps for all researchers? - is simply to settle for a narrower approach. Protected within the perimeters of a highly specialised field of study, the palaeographer conveniently avoids awkward questions and discussions with other disciplines. The risk in such an approach arises from the temptation to base our thinking upon a mass of self-referencing data. The conclusions drawn from such material serve only to reassure ; their isolation means that they can neither be verified or invalidated. In recent years this pitfall has been particularly dangerous among the new younger generation of researchers. Either though insecurity or lack of guidance, they seem so desirous to affirm only that of which they are absolutely certain that they effectively sacrifice many other important dimensions of their research. As a corollary to such tendencies, a series of hotly debated questions has been relegated to the background without any agreement ever being reached, producing stagnation and inertia, almost as if the questions were too vast to be faced. One might cite here the problem of nomenclature for hand-writing, or that of dating criteria needed for the codices. Such 'old chestnuts' seem to have been largely overlooked by almost everyone ; some of them seem to be considered practically irrelevant. Dealing only with solid, quantifiable data is trapping palaeographers into studying nothing but limited and specific problems. The paradox is that younger researchers, ever keen to criticise their older colleagues, are themselves old and outdated in their positivism and manner of studying only the 'part' and not the 'whole'. In the end, this type of scholarship results in a rather lame yet acrimonious attempt to reinstate a very old concept - namely the role of palaeography as the slave or servant of history. Such a development is regrettable since it shuns the larger issues and impedes any attempt to build bridges with other disciplines. Emphasis is instead placed on measuring, segmenting and confining. Also worrying is the use of specialised jargon often comprehensible only to an 'initiated few'.

XVlll

FABIO TRONCARELLI

Such a development, we believe, is a mistake which is to require considerable effort to correct. We have already indicated elsewhere a number of alternative courses that the research might take. These are not only valid but represent fresh ground that ought now to be exploited. Above all, we must thoroughly reconsider our analysis of the morphology of the letters, giving particular regard to the interpretative models used by historians and psychologists, such as those formulated by the Gestalt Schoo11 4 . Such models permit us to understand problems that would otherwise be difficult to resolve. A good example is an application of Gestalt's idea of Pattern to explain the socalled 'mixed script', in which different hand-writing styles co-exist. The second element requiring reconsideration is the problem of legibility and as a consequence the relationships between cursive and formal script. The question merits study in depth, and those palaeographers who have begun working in this area15 are now invalidating anomalies formerly accepted without question and until recently reinterpreted but with similarly unconvincing arguments. The third element is the problem that I have decided to call the 'transmission of texts', a concept that is wider and richer than that of the manuscript tradition alone16. In the years to come, palaeography as a discipline must work very hard on these and many other topical questions. If progress is to be achieved, major differences in the way we perceive palaeography and the methods used to study it must be resolved.

14 TRONCARELLI, La comunicazione scritta (n. 11 above), p. 19-35. 15 MASTRUZZO, , Apollinaris 19 (1937), 76-105. 8.

Antonius de Butrio (1338-1408), In quintum librum DecretaHum.

Ff. 254 : a 10 , b 10 Paper. 43 x 29.2 ems. 2 cols. 60 lines. Signatures. Written (254v) by Hermann of Munster between 1458 and 1467 for Oliver Carafa, oo·

Archbishop of Naples, whose arms are depicted on fo. 1'. The manuscript later belonged to S. Maria della Pace, Rome.

This finely-written manuscript, whose opening page has initials worked in gold and a floral border, contains the complete commentary of de Butrio on the 5th Book of the Decretals, as in the printed editions listed in the Gesamtkatalog 5817, Indice 725, etc. For the author see Schulte 11, 289, and van Hove pp. 496-7, 503. The date of the present volume may be deduced from the fact that Carafa is described (fo. 254v) as Archbishop of Naples, which he became in 1458, and not as Cardinal, which he became in 1467 (C. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica II, 200). 9.

Dominicus de Sancto Gemignano (d. 1436). Recollecte super libris 3, 4 et 5 Sexti Libri Decretalium. Ff. 256 : a 10

00.

Paper. 42.5 x 29 ems. 2 cols. 60 lines. Signatures. Written

(fo. 256') by Peter Schell of Cologne between 1458 and 1467 for Oliver Carafa, Archbishop of Naples. Later it belonged to S. Maria della Pace, Rome.

This again is a well-written manuscript. There are very large margins, and the first page is handsomely decorated in blue and gold. Although the explicit on fo. 256v, unlike that of MS 8 fo. 254v, does not specify that the manuscript was written for Carafa, this seems to be clear from the fact that the Arms on fo. 1' are exactly the same as those in MS 8 fo. 1'. For Dominicus de Sancto Geminiano see Schulte II, 294-6, and van Hove pp. 497, 501. Printed edition of the Recollectae are listed in the lndice 3535-3547.

MANUSCRIPTS AND INCUNABULA OF SAN CLEMENTE

11

10. Firmianus Lactantius (ca. 250-340), Divinae Institutiones. Ff. 335 : 110 .•• Paper. 28.5 x 21.5. Single and double cols. 30 lines. Finished on 13 Feb 1466 at Otranto by Thomas Cantacuzene of Constantinople. Belonged to S. Maria della Pace, Rome.

This manuscript, which is very carefully written and rubricated, was written by one of the fugitive royal family of Greece after the fall of Constantinople, probably by a member of one of the lesser branches: Presentem hunc librum a me thoma canthacusino constantinopolitano scriptum sciant legentes. Idronti die xiUO Februarii xiiUO indictione m°CCCC0 lxvf. For a greek manuscript copied probably by the same, seeR. Foerster, Libanii opera, I, Lipsiae 1903, 15-16. For a number of the many printed editions of Lactantius that appeared between this date and 1500 see the Indice 5619-5630. 11. Guillelmus de Horborch, Decisiones novae Rotae Romanae. Guillelmus Gallicus, Decisiones Rotae Antiquae. Jacobus de Camplo, Additiones ad Decisiones Rotae. Ff. 345 : 110 ... Paper. 27.5 x 22 ems. 2 cols. 40 lines. Late 15th century. Belonged to S. Maria della Pace, Rome.

Contents : a. 1-26 : Summarium decisionum Rote secundum alphabetum. b. 30-17 4 : Guill elm us de Horborch, Decisiones novae Rotae Romanae (1376). Inc : In nomine domini. Amen. Anno a nativitate eiusdem millesimo tricentesimo septuagesimo sexto ... Ego Wilhelmus Hardorp Alemanus, decretorum doctor minimus ac inter dominos meos auditores predictos junior, conclusiones sive determinationes infrascriptas... ad perpetuam rei memoriam cepi colligere et conscribere ... On Horborch and the various editions of the Decisiones see A. Fliniaux, '' Les anciens collections de Decisiones Rotae "• Revue hist. droit fraw;:ais et etranger, 4th ser., 4 (1925) 61-93, 382-410 ; G. Ermini, Guida bibliografica per lo studio del diritto comune pontificio, Bologna 1934, pp. 69-70. c. 186-199 : Summarium antiquarum, decisionum rote secundum alphabetum, followed, fos. 202-205, by index to same. d. 209-310 : Guillelmus Gallicus (auditor, 1372-4), Decisiones Rotae Antiquae. Inc : Primo quod monacho habenti administracionem seu prioratum ad nutum abbatis amovibilem non competit nee

12

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

datur restitucio nee aliquod remedium causa restitucionis possessionis contra suum abbatem. This work is anonymous here, but it is clearly that given by Fliniaux, art. cit., pp. 78-80, where eight manuscripts are noted. This Decisio is Decisio I of the printed editions, e.g., of the Decisiones Rotae, George Laur, Rome 1475. e. 311' : Constitution Execrabilis of John XXII (Corpus iuris canonici, ed. A. Friedberg, 11, 1207-9) ; 312': Benedict XII, Ad regimen ecclesiae universalis (ibid., II, 1266-7). f. 316-345 : Jacobus de Camplo (d. 1426), Additiones ad Decisiones Rotae. Inc : Adiciones ad aliquas ex decisionibus dominorum de rota reverendi patris domini Jacobi de Camplo, unius ex auditoribus, postea episcopus Spoletani. In quadam causa romana ... potest explicari duobus modis, etc. Jacobus de Camplo, who was an auditor of the Rota in 1407 (see E. Cerchiari, Capellani Papae et Apostolicae Sedis Auditores causarum, Rome, 3 vols., 1919-22, II, 41, n. 237), became bishop of Spoleto in 1409 and died as Bishop of Carpentras in 1416. According to Fliniaux p. 386, his authorship is known only from MS 1443 of the Town Library of Aix-en-Provence, and from a letter of Aloisius Tuscanus, printed in the Decisiones Rotae published by Laurin Rome in 1475 (fo. 256v).

12. Anonymous Commentary on Decretals, Book 2, tit. 21-30. Ff. 401 : 110 ... 46 (blank), 5 10 lines. Late 15th century.

...

Paper. 27.5 x 22 ems. Single column. 30

Inc : De testibus cogendis. Continuatur supra versum fuit de testibus. Sed quia officium testis est quasi publicum ... Expl : et de hiis deo duce habetis expetitum hunc librum. The author of this section of a commentary on the Decretals has yet to be identified. The initials M.S.F.B. (fos. 140", 141', 149', etc.) and F.B. (fos. 76v, 88", 112v, etc.) occur after certain sections of the commentary, but these initials find no echo in E. Seckel, >, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, 45 (1925), rom. Abteilung, 1-16; possibly M.S. could stand for Marianus Socinus (see Schulte II, 319-20 ; van Hove p. 498), whose commentary on the Decretals is, apparently, unpublished, and is known to exist in manuscripts at Lucca and

MANUSCRIPTS AND INCUNABULA OF SAN CLEMENTE

13

Bologna (see F. Blume, Bibliotheca. librorum manuscriptorum. ltalica, Gottingen, 1834, pp. 78, 85). 13. Constitutiones sive ordinationes Canonicorum Regularium Congregationis Salvatoris Lateranensis alias Sanctae Mariae de Frisonaria. Pp. 102: ! 8 , 26 , 38 ... 66 . Small vellum. 24 x 17 ems. Single col. 29lines. Ca. 1453. Belonged to S. Maria della Pace.

Inc : Cum sacrosancta mater ecclesia multa sit vivendi decorata generibus ... This collection of the constitutions of the Canons Regular of the Lateran was compiled in obedience to an injunction of the General Chapter at Bologna in 1453, with which, in fact, the text ends (p. 10 1). A later hand has added on p. 102 an ordination of the chapter of Ferrara in 1479. The original first folio is missing, but the text has been supplied on parchment in a hand of the 16th or 17th century. The following note occurs on the flyleaf: Domini Celsi Rosini Cesene et venerabilis Abbatie Sancte Crucis. On the Congregation named de Frisonaria after a castle near Lucca, see G. Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione, VII, Rome, 1841, 256; M. Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche, I, Paderborn 1933, 410. 14. Johannes de Turrecremata O.P. (1388-1468), Commentarium in Decretum Gratiani, Causae 1.5. Ff. 272 : ! 10 ... Paper. excepting first folio, which is parchment. 40 x 28 ems. 2 cols. 60 lines. Written at Rome in 1479 for Cardinal Philibert Hugonet, of Macon, by Stephanus de Ponte of Aix-la-Chapelle. Later it belonged to S. Maria della Pace, Rome.

Fo. 1': Ad commendacionem doctrine, tradite per venerabilem patrem magistrum gracianum in hac decreti parte que causarum intitulatur... (26T) : Explicit primum volumen de causis super decretum editum per reverendissimum patrem et dominum dominum Iohannem de Turrecremata episcopum Sabinensem, sacrosancte Romane ecclesie Cardinalem, Sancti Sixti vulgariter nuncupatum, per me Stephanum de Ponte oriundum de urbe aquisgrani. Scriptum Rome ad opus reverendissimi patris et domini Philiberti Cardinalis Sancte Lucie in Silice, Matisconensis vulgariter nuncupati, anno 1479, 23 novembris in anno Jubileo.

14

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

This volume, which goes with the next manuscript (14), is well written and rubricated. The first page is highly decorated, and the arms of Cardinal Philibert occur at the bottom of the page. 15. Johannes de Turrecremata O.P. (1388-1468), Commentarium in Decretum Gratiani, Causae 6-16. Ff. 293 : 110 ... Paper. 40 x 28 ems. 2 cols. 60 lines. Written at Rome in 1476 for Cardinal Philibert Hugonet, of Macon, by Stephanus de Ponte. Later belonged to S. Maria della Pace, Rome.

Fo. 1': Quo jornicatores. Hie incipit vi. causa que sic ad superiores continuatur... (292v-3') : Explicit secundum volumen de causis compositum et editum per reverendissimum patrem I et dominum dominum Iohannem de Turrecremata episcopum Sabinensem sacrosancte Romane ecclesie Cardinalem, Sancti Sixti vulgariter nuncupatum. Quod ego Stephanus de Ponte de Urbe Aquisgrani scripsi pro Reverendissimo patre et domino domino Philiberto, Episcopo Matisconense, sacrosancte Romane ecclesie Cardinale, in Urbe anna 1476, 4 Junii, sedente Sixto Quarto anna pontificatus sui quinto. This again is a well written volume, with a richly decorated first page on which the arms of Cardinal Philibert are again depicted. Torquemada's commentary on Part I of the Decretum exists in several manuscripts, the chief of which, as far as we are concerned here, are those which he him-self gave to the Dominican Priory of the Minerva in Rome. These are now in the Vatican Library, MSS Vat. lat. 2269 (Causae 1-5), 2270 (Causae 16-16), and probably 2271 (Causae 17-36) ; there is a second set of these volumes in Vat. lat. 2566, 2567 and 2568. (See J. Garrastachu OP, , Ciencia Tomista 32 [1930] 200-202, 203-5). The commentary was composed at several periods. Causae 1-5 belong to the pontificate of Paul II (1464-71), as we know from the dedication, wanting here in the San Clemente MS, in Vat. lat. 2269 and 2566. Causae 6-16, however, bear no date in either Vat. lat. 2270 or 2567. Causae 17-36, on the other hand, were finished on 24 Mar 1354 (Vat. lat. 2271) or 24 Mar 1464 (Vat. lat. 2568); 1454 is probably the more correct date of the two. In general see Garrastachu. art. cit., 188-217, 291-322 ; and a loosely-worded article in the Dictionnaire de Droit canonique vi (1957) 122-127, where printed editions of the commentary on the Decretum are noted.

MANUSCRIPTS AND INCUNABULA OF SAN CLEMENTE

15

INCUNABULA

The following description of the 30 incunabula in the Library of San Clemente omits any quasi-facsimile reproductions of text as are readily available in the standard books of reference. Such textual specimens, indeed, serve no scholarly purpose, since edition has already been established by earlier bibliographies ; to print these identical passages here would be an entirely uneconomic waste of time and paper. (See C. F. Buhler, J. G. McManaway, L. C. Wroth, Standards of Bibliographical Description, Philadelphia 1949, especially Buhler's contribution on pp. 1-60). On one occasion, however, it has been considered advisable to depart from this course (n. 15, below), since in this case the descriptions given by established bibliographers lead to some confusion. Otherwise the detail is reduced as much as possible, an abbreviated reference being made to these bibliographies, as follows : Rain : L. Rain, Repertorium bibliographicum, in quo libri ornnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD typis expressi ordine alphabetico vel simpliciter enumerantur vel accuratius recensetur, Stuttgart-Paris, 1826-1838. RC : W.A. Copinger, Supplement to Rain's Repertorium bibliographicum, Part. I, London 1895 (by inference the original entry of the same number as it appeared in Rain is also included). Copinger: W.A. Copinger, Supplement to Rain's Repertorium Bibliographicum Part 11, 2 vols. and addenda, London 1898 and 1902. Reichling : D. Reichling, Appendices ad Rainii-Copingerii Repertorium Bibliographicum, Munich 1905-11. Copinger-Reichling : D. Reichling, Appendices ad ... Copingerii ... Supplementum, Munich 1914. Pellechet : M. Pellechet, Catalogue general des incunables des bib1iotheques-publiques de France, 3 vol., Paris 1897-1909.

16

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

Proctor : R. Proctor, An Index to the early printed books in the British Museum : from the invention of printing to the year 1500. With notes of those in the Bodleian Library. London, 1898-1903. BMC : Catalogue of books printed in the xvth century now in the British Museum, Pts 1-7, London 1908-1935. GW : Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, herausgegeben von der Kommission fur den Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, Leipzig 1925 (in progress). Burger : C. Burger, The Printers and Publishers of the xvth century, ed. Berlin 1926. Polain : M.L. Polain, Catalogue des livres imprimes au quinzieme siecle des bibliotheques de Belgique, 4 vols, Brussels 1932. 2C : Margaret B. Stillwell, Incunabula in American Libraries, a Second Census of fifteenth-century books owned in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, New York 1940. Indice : T.M. Guarnaschelli and E. Valenziani, lndice generate degli incunaboli delle biblioteche d'Italia, Roma 1943 (in progress).

1.

Robertus Caracciolus de Licio O.F.M. (1425-1495).

Sermones Quadragesimales. Venice, Franciscus Renner, 1472. Fol. rom. HC 4427 ; Pellechet 3246 A ; Proctor 4154 ; BMC V 191 ; Polain 982; 2C 152 ; Indice 2470.

According to Copinger (HC 4427) this is the first known product of the press of Franz Renner of Hailbrun ; it differs slightly from another edition of the same year in Rain 4428, GW 6063, etc. Some 30 copies are listed by GW for Europe, 8 by 2C for America, Canada and Mexico, and 32 for Italy by the Indice. 2.

Thomas de Aquino (S) O.P. (1224-1274).

Contra Gentiles. Venice, Franciscus Renner et Nicholaus de Franckfordia, [ca. 1473]. 4° goth. Hain 1386; Pellechet 987; Proctor 4159; BMC V 193; 2C Tl71.

MANUSCRIPTS AND INCUNABULA OF SAN CLEMENTE

17

This edition, four copies of which are noted for America by 2C, is given as ca. 1473 by BMC, but 2C prefers the date 1476 given without further comment by A. Michelitsch, Thomasschriften, Graz 1913, 204 (n. 61). 3.

Cains Julius Solinus (saec. 3 A.D.).

Rerum memorabilium collectanea. [Rome, Johannes Schurener de Bopardia, 1474/5]. 8vo. rom. HC 14874 ; Proctor 3490 ; BMC IV 59 ; Polain 3560 ; 2C S551.

This rare edition is without any note of origin, but Hain appears to accept the printer and place named by J. B. Audiffredi O.P., Catalogus historico-criticus Romano rum editionum saeculi xv, Rome 1783, 385 ; the compiler of 2C, who notes 7 copies in America, gives the date above. Two folios are missing from the first gathering of the present copy, while the last folio is damaged by damp. Catchwords have been supplied in ink. 4.

Johannes de Turrecremata O.P. (1388-1468).

Expositio super toto Psalteria. Rome, Lupus Gallus, 21 Feb. 1476. 4°. rom. defective. Hain 15700 ; Proctor 3605 ; BMC IV 74 ; 2C 469 (9 copies).

Although the title given on the spine of the present copy is Turrecremata Salmi Venezia 1472, this appears to be a mistake made when binding it in the last century. The copy has some illuminated initials and pleasant borders, but it is defective, breaking off in Psalm 148. 5.

Richardus de Mediavilla O.F.M. (c. 1249-1300).

In Quartum Librum Sententiarum. Venice, Christophorus Arnoldus, [1476-8]. Fol. goth. defective. HC 10984; Proctor 4219 ; BMC V 206; Polain 3353 ; 2C M363.

A third of the commentary is missing from this copy, only 4D. 17A- 4D. 50,1 being present, but, the original binding survives with the name of the author embossed. A comparison of the remaining gatherings (m-z ... A 10 , B-C 8) with copies of Richard's commentary in the Vatican Library shows that it is the edition given in Hain 10984. This edition is listed there without date, but the Vatican catalogue puts

18

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

it as 1476 ; 2C, however, noting some 9 copies in America, gives it as 1476-8. 6.

Johannes Duns Scotus O.F.M. (1265-1308).

In Quartum Librum Sententiarum. Ed. Thomas Penketh OSA and Bartholomew Bellatus. Venice, Johannes Coloniensis and Johannes Mathen, [1477/8]. Fol. goth. HC 6416; Pellechet 4451; Proctor 4315; BMC V 227; GW 9073; 2C D306 ; Indice 3598.

Since the first three volumes of this edition of Scotus' commentary on the Sentence were published at Venice in 1477/8, it seems reasonable to presume that this fourth volume of the set, which gives only the place and the publishers, is also 1477/8; 2C, however, suggests 1476. Over 80 copies of the commentary as a whole are given by GW, some 8 by 2C, while the Indice notes that about 30 libraries in Italy possess all or some of the commentary. The first page of the present copy has been mutilated, part of the floral border and all of the initial, both worked in gold, having been cut away at some time. The text, however, is intact. 7.

Thomas Ebendorfer de Haselbach (1387-1464).

Sermones Dominicales super Epistolas Pauli. Pars Hiemalis. [Strassburg, Henricus Knoblochtzer] 13 Dec. 1478. Fol. goth. HC 8370; Proctor 333; BMC I 87; GW 9173; 2C El.

The place and publisher are not given in the colophon to this edition of Ebendorfer's Sermons, although the date is, but Copinger (HC 8370) and Burger (p. 327) both suggest Knoblochtzer of Strassburg. For some woodcuts in this edition see W. L. Schreiber, Un catalogue des incunables a figures imprimes en Allemagne, en Suisse, en Autriche, Hongrie, et Scandinavie, Leipzig 1910-11, n. 5344. Some 60 copies are noted by GW and 3 by 2C. 8.

Johannes Nider O.P. (ob. 1438).

Sermones totius anni. [Reutlingen, Michael Greyff, not after 1480]. Fol. goth. HC 11798; Proctor 2695; BMC II 577; 2C N195.

There is no colophon to this edition, but both Copinger (HC 11798) and Burger (p. 513) are agreed that it was printed at

MANUSCRIPTS AND INCUNABULA OF SAN CLEMENTE

19

Reutlingen ; 2C, noting four copies for America, adds that the printer was Greyff, and following Hain, says that the printing was not after 1480. 9.

Leonardus de Utino O.P. (ob. 1470).

Sermones de Sanctis. Vicenza, Stephanus Koblinger, 1480. 4°. goth. HC 16136 : BMC VII 1043 ; 2C Ll40; Indice 5743.

This is one of the few books printed by Koblinger (see Burger, p. 456). Five copies are noted by 2C and 45 by the Iodice. 10. Ambrosius Massarius de Cora O.S.A. (ob. 1485). Defensorium Ordinis Fratrurn Herernitarum Sancti Augustini. [Rome, Georgius Herolt, ca. 1481]. Fol. rom. HC 5684 ; Pellechet 3971 ; Proctor 3933 ; BMC IV 127 ; 2C C786 ; Indice 437.

Hain suggests the above publisher, place and date, presumably on the ground that this author had a life of St Augustine published by Herolt in 1481 (Hain 5683). Some 6 copies are noted for America by 2C, and about 25 for Italy by the Iodice. 11. Bartholomaeus Platina (1421-1481). Vitae Pontificurn. Nuremberg, Antonius Koberger, 11 Aug. 1481. Fol. goth. HC 13047; Proctor 2005; BMC II 420; Polain 3187; 2C P700.

Some 15 copies are noted by Copinger (HC 13047) for Europe, while 2C gives 20 for America. 12. Johannes Duns Scotus O.F.M. (1265-1308). Quaestiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum. Ed. Thomas Penketh OSA and Bartholomeus Bellatus. Venice, Joharmes Herbort de Seligenstadt for Johannes Coloniensis and Nicholaus Jenson, I : 10 Nov. 1481 ; II : 22 Nov. 1481 ; III : 1481 ; IV : 13 Nov. 1481. 4o goth. Hain 6421 ; HC 6418 ; Pellechet 4453 ; Proctor 4683, 4684 ; BMC V 302 ; GW 9075 ; 2C 0308 ; Indice 3600.

20

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

This present, complete set of the 1481 Venice edition, which formerly belonged to S. Maria della Pace, Rome, is in three volumes, the first containing the commentary on Book One of the Sentences, the second that on Books Two and Three, and the third that on Book Four. Some 70 other complete sets are noted by GW, but there appear to be only 12 in Italy (Indice 3600) and one in America (2C D308). 13. Robertus Caracciolus de Licio O.F.M. (1425-1495). Opera Varia. Venice, Octavianus Scotus, 31 Jan 1482. 4°. goth. Hain 4460; HC (add.) 4463 ; Reichling 450 ; Pellechet 3273 ; Proctor 4570; GW 6040; 2C Cl19; lndice 2448.

This edition of the Varia also contains (nn-oo) an edition of the De Conceptione Beatae Virginis Mariae of Dominicus Bollanus which is rarely noted by bibliographers. About 30 copies of the Varia are noted in GW, some 7 in 2C, and about 30 for Italy in the Indice. 14. Jacobus de Voragine O.P. (ca. 1230-1298). Legenda Sanctorum. Venice, Octavianus Scotus, 12 Dec 1483. 4°. goth. Copinger-Reichling 6433 ; Proctor 4579 ; BMC V 278 ; 2C 196 ; Indice 5020.

This edition, which was unknown to Hain, is found only once in American libraries, but more than 20 copies are noted for Italy by the Indice. The present copy has an ex-libris of S. Maria sopra Minerva, Rome, on fo. 1. See also, for this edition, M. Pellechet, Jacques de Voragine, liste des editions de ses ouvrages publiees au xv siecle, Paris 1895 (extract from Revue des Bibliotheques, 1895). 15. Guillelmus Gorris. Scotus Pauperum. Toulouse [Henricus Mayer, ca. 1486]. Hain 6456? ; HC 6456 ; Pellechet 5283 ; Burger p. 495 ; Polain 1669 ; 2C G295? ; lndice 4351.

4°. 206 fos. a-c, f-h, mn, qr, vx, aa-cc, ffl; de, i, k, 1, op, st, yz, dd, ee6 • 2 cols. Lines 41 (av), 40 (aij) ... Typepage (aiij) 141 x 96 mm; cols. 141 x 46. Guide letters. Signatures appear on first three leaves of six-leaf quires, excepting kij, ddij, and on first four of eight-leaf quires, excepting x4 ; leaves 2, 3, 4 of q8 are marked 4, 3, 4, and the fourth leaf of dd6 is signed.

MANUSCRIPTS AND INCUNABULA OF SAN CLEMENTE

21

Title page [a] : SCOTUS PAUPERUM I vel abbreviatus in quo doctorum et Scoti olpiniones I in quattuor libris sententiarum com I pendiose elucidantur. [av] :

EPISTOLA I REVERENDISSIMO I in xpo patri 7 illustrissimo domino. domino I alfonso d'aragonia archiepiscopo de celsaraugustanen. dignissimo subditus I Guillerinus gorris

aij :

PROLOGUS I Scotus pauperum in quo I doctorum et scoti opiniones I in quattuor libris senten I tiarum compendiose elucidantur I Tholose editus per eximium artium et sacre theologie pro I fessorem Guillerinum gorris I arragonensem ad pauperum I vtilitatem Feliciter incipit.

dd (6) : Qui vivit et regnal per infinita secu!la seculorum. Amen. I finit tiber quartus ff (7) : claritate tres ponit conclusiones I Finis tabule. Deo gratias ff (7v) and ff (8) blank. It has been thought advisable to give a reasonably full bibliographical description of this volume, since many bibliographers are by no means at one in distinguishing the various editions of the Scotus Pauperum. Three editions, it seems, appeared from the press of Henry Mayer at Toulouse, one of 296 folios (Pellechet 5281), a second of 256 folios (Pellechet 5282), and a third of 206 folios (HC 6456, Pellechet 5283, etc., and the present copy); there are also other editions, for example, that in Reichling 197. It is impossible to say, however, to which edition Rain 6456 is referring, or for that matter Proctor 8717, while Burger (p. 495) attributes the date of the > Toulouse edition (i.e. Pellechet 5282 : post 10 May 1486) to HC 6456 (the edition listed by Pellechet 5283) ; further, the compiler of 2C makes matters even more confusing by noting, this edition of HC 6456 and Pellechet 5283 as a product of the press of Peter Drach at Speyer about 1492. The present copy, however, clearly belongs to this edition of 206 folios given by HC 6456, Pellechet 5283 and the Indice 4351, all of whom appear to assign it to the press of Henry Mayer at Toulouse, although they are unwilling to suggest a date ; the date given above (ca. 1486) is only very tentative. Four copies of this edition are listed by the lndice.

22

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

On the spine of the present copy there is an old shelf-mark SO 26, and on the title page there is an ex-libris, rubber-stamped, of Bibliotheca Regia Monacensis, together with a note, in an angular hand, of original ownership : Pro M. Johanne Eckio ex dono integerrimi viri Jo. Buman magistri Parisiensis et capellani in Kruzigen 1504. There are notes throughout the volume in this same hand, that, presumably, of Eck himself, for as is well known, Eck (1486-1543) used the Scotus Pauperum extensively, especially in his Chrysopassus (1514) : see J. Greving, Johannes Eck als junger Gelehrter, Munich 1906, pp. 46, etc. This copy, presented to him in the year before his baccalaureate in theology, presumably passed to the Royal Bavarian Library through Thaddeus Eck, although it does not occur in the '' Index librorum tam manuscriptorum quam impressorum bibliothecae Eckianae >> printed from MS CLM 423 by Th. Wiedemann, Dr Johann Eck, Regensburg 1681, pp. 698-715; see also 0. Hartig, « Das Katalog der Bibliotheca Eckiana >>, Festschrift Joseph Schlecht, Freising 1917, pp. 162-87, and, on the place of the Eck library in the history of the Munich library, 0. Hartig, Die Grundung der Mtinchener Hofbibliothek durch Albrecht V und Johann Jakob Fugger, Munich 1917, pp. 6, 59-62, etc. How this Eck copy of the Scotus Pauperum came to San Clemente is not at all clear, but it is just possible that it is the very copy of the Scotus advertised by the Munich bookseller Rosenthal in his Incunabula Typographica, Munich [1900-1906], no. 678. Clearly the Rosenthal copy belongs to the same edition as that of San Clemente, although the compiler notes the copy as containing 292 folios. This foliation is of course an impossibility, since in fact the quires listed by Rosenthal amount to only 200 folios and are indeed, with two exceptions which must be errors, exactly those of the San Clemente copy ; in any case Rosenthal quotes HC 6456, which is the 206 folio edition. Rosenthal's description of his copy as "Veau brun estampe, froid, ferms >> does fit the San Clemente copy, although the phrase following, >, hardly allows for the fact that the binding of the San Clemente copy has not only cut the original margins considerably but also lopped off some of Eck's notes ; it would be more difficult still to explain why Rosenthal omits all mention of the evidence of Eck's ownership. 16. Rainerius de Pisis O.P. (ob. 1351).

MANUSCRIPTS AND INCUNABULA OF SAN CLEMENTE

23

Pantheologia. Ed. Jacobus Florentini O.F.M. Venice, Hermannus Liechtensteyn, 12 Sept 1486. Fol. goth. HC 13019; Proctor 4788; BMC V 357; Polain 3315; 2C R12.

Ten copies of this two-volume edition of the Pantheologia are noted in 2C. The first page of volume one of the present set is finely illuminated in gold, but the marginal decorations have been cut away. 17. Bible in Latin, with commentaries of Nicolaus de Lyra, Guillelmus Brito, Paulus de Sancta Maria, Mathias Doering ; followed by Nicolaus de Lyra, Contra perfidiam Judaeorum. 4 vols. Venice, [Bonetus Locatellus for] Octavianus Scotus, 8 Aug 1489. Fol. goth. HC 3168; Pellechet 2347; Proctor 5018A; BMC V 437; GW 4291 ; 2C B550; Indice 1688.

This is the well-known edition, rich in woodcuts, described by Prince d'Esseling (Victor Massena), Les Livres a figures venetiens de la fin du xve siecle et du commencement du xvi", Florence-Paris, 1907-8, i., n. 132. In the present copy the woodcuts are lavishly decorated in blue and gold, with some magnificent floral borders. GW notes some 40 copies in Europe, 2C gives 4 complete sets for the United States, while the lndice lists about 50 for Italy. 18. Richardus de Mediavilla O.F.M. (ca. 1249-1300). In quartum librum Sententiarum. Ed. Franciscus Gregorius, O.F.M. Venice, Dionysius. Bononiensis, 10 Nov 1489. Fol. goth. HC 10986 ; Proctor 5274 ; BMC V 488 ; Polain 3354 ; 2C M365.

This is one of the very few books that Dionysius Berthochus printed at Venice ; Burger, however, gives Bologna as the place of printing (p. 346), although the colophon states explicitly that it was Venice. 2C notes some 11 copies for America. The present copy belonged to S. Maria della. Pace, and on the endpaper there is the following note of ownership : Joannes Callanan de portu patrum Abbas C. R. Hibernus. 19. Decretales Gregorii IX, with Glossa Ordinaria. Venice, Thomas de Blavis, 15 Dec 1489. 4°. goth. Hain 8025; BMC V 319; 2C G424; Indice 4468.

24

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

2C notes four copies for America ; there are 15 in Italy according to the Indice. The present copy belonged to S. Maria della Pace, Rome. 20. Nicolaus de Lyra O.F.M. (a. 1274-1349).

Repertorium super Bibliam. Memmingen, Albertus, Kunne, 1492. Fol. goth. Hain 10397 ; Proctor 2793 ; BMC IV 606 ; Polain 2830 ; 2C Nl24.

Three copies are listed by 2C. The present copy belonged to S. Maria della Pace, and, in 1500, to a Benedict Adam, Provost of Le Puy-en-Velay (Anicien.), dept. of Haut-Loire (see flyleaf and fo. 1'). 21. Henricus Suso O.P. (ca. 1300-1365).

Horologium Sapientiae. Venice, Petrus de Quarengiis, 24 Jan 1492. 4°. goth. CR 3170; Proctor 5474; BMC V 510; 2C S776 (3 copies).

22. Albertus de Brudzewo (1445-1497).

Commentarium in Theoricas Planetarum Georgii Purbachii. Milan, Ulricus Scinzenzeler, 30 Mar 1945. 4°. goth. HC 3999 ; Pellechet 3027 ; Proctor 6028 ; BMC VI 769 ; GW 5577 ; 2C Bl080 ; Indice 241.

Some 30 copies are given by GW, a further eight by 2C, but from the lndice it appears that there are only 3 known copies in Italy. The present copy is bound up with the commentary In Tractatum de Sphaera of Silvester Prierias (1514), and the title on the spine wrongly states PRIER SPHOR 1495. 23. Catharina Senensis (S.) (1347-1380).

Liber Divinae Doctrinae (Dialogus). Translated from the Italian by Raymond of Capua O.P. Preceded by Stephanus Maconi, Epistola de Vita Sanctae Catharinae. Followed by Prayers of St Catherine translated from the Italian ; Pius II : Epistola in vitam et canonisationem Sanctae Catharinae ; Epitaphium ; Memoria quotidiana. Brescia, Bernardinus Misinta, 15 Apr. 1946. svo. goth. HC 4693 ; Pellechet 3392 ; Proctor 7034 ; BMC VII 990 ; GW 6226 ; 2C C255 ; Indice 2595.

MANUSCRIPTS AND INCUNABULA OF SAN CLEMENTE

25

Some six copies are noted by GW, six by 2C, and about 35 by the Indice. 24. Johannes Wallensis O.F.M. (ob. ca. 1303).

Communiloquium, Compendiloquium, Breviloquium, Ordinarium Vitae Religiosae. Venice, Georgius Arrivabenus, 30 Jul 1496. 8v0 • goth. Hain 7446 ; Copinger 3370 ; Proctor 4390 ; BMC V 386 ; Polain 2283 ; 2C 1296.

2C notes some 10 copies in America. The present copy has the following note of ownership on fo. 1': Caroli Severoli. 25. Epistolae diverisorum philosophorum, oratorum, rhetorum. In Greek. 2 vols. Venice, Aldus Manuntius, 29 Mar 1499. 4°. greek and roman. HC 6659 ; Pellechet 4613 ; Proctor 5569 ; BMC V 560 ; GW 9367 ; Polain 1416 ; 2C E49 ; Indice 3707.

About 70 copies of these Epistolae are listed by GW for Europe, 37 for America by 2C, and some 50 for Italy by the Indice. On the edition see A. Firmin-Didot, Aide Manuce et l'Hellenisme, Venise, Paris, 1875, pp. 199-200. The following price marks from the last century occur on the inner cover of vol. 2 of the present set : L. 200 ; six guineas, Quaritch, March 1873. 26. Augustinus de Novis, Papiensis (ob. 1520).

Scrutinium consiliorum quatriconsulti collegii. Bartholomeus de Libris, 25 Apr 1500. 12°0 • rom.

Florence,

Hain 2115 ; Proctor 6235 ; BMC VI 654; GW 654 ; Indice 1071.

13 copies are noted by GW and some 19 by the Indice, but there does not appear to be any copy in America. In the present copy almost all of the first gathering has been destroyed by damp. 27. Catharina Senensis (S.) (1347-1380).

Epistole. Ed. Bartholomeus de Alzana. Venice, Aldus Manutius, 15 Sept 1500. 12mo. rom. HC 4688 ; Reichling 4688 ; Pellechet 3388 ; Proctor 5575 ; BMC V 562 ; GW 6222 ; C251 ; Indice 2587.

26

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

Some 36 copies of this are given by GW for Europe, some 14 by 2C for America, and about 50 for Italy by the lndice. The present copy, which was freshly bound in the last century, is in excellent condition, and the famous woodcut of St Catherine, facing the prologue, is intact. A.A. Renouard, Annales de l'Imprimerie Aldine, Paris 1834, pp. 18-19, says of this edition that it is About 1050, however, the Caroline script began to undergo small but significant changes. For example, instead of employing the graceful curves and the sharply pointed finishing strokes of pure Caroline writing, scribes now developed a tendency to break and to stagger the strokes of a letter. Thus the top parts of m and n which were straight in Caroline writing, took on a humped look ; similarly, the ends of minim strokes (as in i or m or n) began to turn up lazily and to resemble the trunk of an elephant. These marked departures from standard Caroline practice first appeared in Normandy around 1050. Probably the shift from sharp fmials to a broader, rather snub finishing stroke was due to the adoption in Normandy (and elsewhere, later on) of the obliquely cut pen, which scribes in England and Ireland had been using for their insular script. The Caroline style of writing had been challenging the insular form in England from about 950, when Benedictine monks from Normandy were invited into southern England to promote monastic reform ; in turn, the broad insular pen seems to have gained a foothold in Normandy in the next century. It was also in Normandy in the middle of the eleventh century that a further departure from the Caroline canon of writing was to be seen. Where Caroline insisted on letter separation in order to make reading (and reading in public in particular) less subject to

28

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

hesitation or error, there began at that time the practice of joining certain letters and, indeed, making some letters (e.g. pp, bb) overlap to form a monogram. These changes heralded the beginnings of that non-Caroline form of writing to which the humanists of the fifteenth century, despising it as barbarous when compared to Caroline, attached the label Gothic. However, the era of full-blown Gothic did not commence much before 1200. Caroline writing, but with the intimations of Gothic noted above, dominated the eleventh and twelfth centuries: the script continued to be clear and spacious, and abbreviations were kept to a minimum. Yet there were definite indications from 1150 onward that a growing demand for books, a widening readership, and the increasing use of the written document for business transactions were bringing about a general abandonment of the leisurely Caroline hand. The twelfth-century renaissance, a direct result of the quest for original sources and a scientific methodology begun during the Gregorian reform (1050-1100), saw a multiplication of schools, scholars, and treatises. After the publication of the two most influential syntheses of the twelfth century - the Decretum of Gratien for church law about 1140, and the Sentences of Peter Lombard for theology some fifteen years later - whole new classes of legal and theological literature come into being : glosses and commentaries, questions and repetitions, summae and distinctiones, and the like. In addition, the growing literacy of the clergy, a process hastened by educational decrees of the Third Lateran Council (1179), especially that which established chairs of grammar in every cathedral church, occasioned a demand outside of the schools for cheap, portable books of a none too professional nature; and it is significant that the first popular manuals of theology and law began to appear about 1200. Given this growing market for writings, both academic and popular, it was only a matter of time before the generously spaced and uncluttered pages of a typical Caroline manuscript gave way to a more economical layout and to more parsimonious methods of writing. Further, the great upsurge of scholastic learning at Bologna, Paris, and Oxford had brought about the eclipse of monasteries as the chief centers of book production. Professional non-monastic scriptores were now emerging as a class ; and what these scribes needed in order to meet the rising demand for the written word was an expeditious and profitable yet legible method of writing as much as possible in the

EMERGENCE OF GOTHIC HANDWRITING

29

smallest possible area. In fact such a method lay readily to hand in the small, clear, and highly abbreviated style of writing that had developed out of the Caroline book hand in chanceries and business centers of the twelfth century. This neat, « cursive >> hand enabled a lot of ground to be covered quickly with a freely flowing pen, and was ideal for recording or for preserving file copies (rolls, registers) of business transactions, state and legal affairs, and ecclesiastical correspondence ; by 1200 it was an established form of writing, best seen in the earliest extant series of registers of papal letters (1198-1216 : Innocent III), or in the earliest groups of English administrative documents from the same period (1199-1216 : King John). The influence of this cursive or documentary hand is clearly reflected in the changeover in literary productions about 1200 from the large, expansive Caroline hand to a minute and sometimes crabbed style of writing. The script now became smaller and more compressed than Caroline, and abbreviations began to abound, all in the interests of time, space, and increase of output. The disruption of the Caroline canon of writing, which had been threatening for some one hundred and fifty years, was complete. In this new, Gothic script, the most significant and far-reaching departure from Caroline - the mark, indeed, of pure Gothic - was the phenomenon of combining or fusing the opposite curves of letters where these were found back to back. The breakdown of Caroline had begun with the introduction of the obliquely cut insular pen and with the overlapping of certain rounded letters ; now, the better to save space, scribes began to fuse opposing curves where possible. Thus, when a letter such as o, was preceded by a letter such asp, or was succeeded by a letter such as c, the bow or curve of one letter was merged with the opposite bow or curve of the other (e.g. po, oc; be, bd, be, bg). By 1220 this was a steady (and for dating purposes, invaluable) feature of the new book hand. Not every word, of course, provided a ready-made juxtaposition, back to back, of opposite curves, but a judicious use of abbreviations offered over a hundred combinations of bows and curves (thus the opposing curves of o and e in omne could be merged in the abbreviated form oe). The fashion became so popular, indeed, that scribes often imposed curves on uncurved letters, forcing them to merge with the curves of naturally curved letters. The wide use of the old « uncial >> form of d as an

30

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

alternative to the regular minuscule d, probably was due to the fact that the availability of two forms of d almost doubled the range of fusion of d with bowed letters. This phenomenon of the « fusion of opposite curves '' is at its most elegant in the scriptum rotunda of Italy (and especially of Bologna) from 1250 onward. In centers outside of Italy, however, there developed a form of compression that made the bows of letters more angular than round, so that the merging of curves in the Gothic of northern countries was more often than not a merging of angled bows. In fully developed Gothic, whether curved or angled, letters follow one another with mathematical precision. Generally the writing tends to be heavy, but there is always a harmony of angle with angle and curve with curve ; the almost invariable use of a Gothic r (a letter resembling the Arabic number 2) after the letter o instead of the straight Caroline r, is a good example of the preoccupation with symmetry, for the 2 form of r, with its pleasant curves, blends more agreeably than the plain r with the bows of o, as in o2. The use of the broad pen heightens the impression of weight and solidity, echoing to some extent the Gothic architecture of the period. A page written in the full, disciplined Gothic looks wry much like a woven pattern or textus, suggesting the name text hand to some scholars. Capital letters, too, underwent a change because of the general use of the broad insular pen, and the shallow « rustic '' capitals of the pure Caroline period gradually gave way in the late twelfth century to more rounded or squat forms. In Caroline writing, capital letters were chosen from some obsolete majuscule script, such a rustic or square or uncial, in order to set them off from the minuscule script used in the body of the text. After 1200, however, it became the fashion to turn capitals into larger versions of the letters of the text itself, and to single them out by a generous use of ornamental strokes. As a result, Gothic capitals are often so elaborate that they are more difficult to decipher than the sentences or names to which they are prefixed. It is, then, to this solid if monotonous script that we owe the transmission to our day of much of ancient and medieval literature. The great period of the script was from 1250 to 1350, and it was the classic text hand of those years that the first generations of printers adopted as their typeface in the second half of the fifteenth century. By that time, however, Gothic had degenerated considerably, and was

EMERGENCE OF GOTHIC HANDWRITING

31

in fact on its last legs. From 1400 onward, the new humanist learning, with Florence as its local point, had been arguing successfully for the revival of the antiqua littera (caroline) that had preceded the Gothic era. By 1500, printers, too, were abandoning Gothic, with all its abbreviations and ligatures. Today it is the modified Caroline minuscule promoted by the humanists that we write and print. But Gothic is not forgotten. The vast riches of medieval manuscripts and monuments, the script used in some book titles, not to speak of display scripts of « Ye olde tea shoppe » variety, all serve to remind us vividly of the Gothic turn that Caroline writing took around 1200 1 •

1 All of the illustrations in this essay were drawn by Hs. Ed. Meyer and appear in his book Die Schriftentwicklung (Zurich, Graphis Press, 1958).

OPTIMIST AND RECENSIONIST : « COMMON ERRORS » OR « COMMON VARIATIONS » ?

If an Optimist is scholar who selects and then edits a « Codex optimus >>, from among the various extant manuscripts of a work, a Recensionist, on the other hand, is one who holds that all the manuscripts, all the extant witnesses, should be reviewed and as a whole should be made to contribute to the edition. Where the Optimist prefers to place his trust in a single « best >> or « basic >> manuscript, the Recensionist relies on a complete Recensio, often accompanied by a Stemma codicum, of the relationship between all the witnesses to a text.

The Optimist method is more popular with editors of vernacular texts than with those of texts in the classical languages. The bestknown exponent of the method is Joseph Bectier, particularly in an article in 1928 on the manuscript tradition of the Lai de l'Ombre1 • According to Bectier and others of the same persuasion, the sensible thing to do when confronted with a large or even a small number of codices of a work, is to single out for editing that codex which is on the whole the most satisfactory, and then to follow this « Codex optimus >> through thick and thin, except, of course, where it is obviously defective or unintelligible. A variation on this method prefers to speak of a > rather than of a > codex. This codex, to quote one practitioner of the method, is chosen . In order to correct these errors and deficiencies, variants from other manuscripts are compared with the base text, and are used where suitable. With respect to the basic text as whole, variants from the other manuscripts can be incorporated into it if they are judged by the editor to be more original than what the basic text has to offer, The end-product of this refinement of the Optimist method is therefore a >, which, when published, is accompanied by a presentation of all the variants, 1

J. BEDIER, «La tradition manuscrite du Lai de l'Ombre. Reflexions sur l'art d'editer les anciens textes », in Romania 54 (1928), pp. 162-86, 321-56 (also printed separately, Paris 1929).

34

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

by an indication of the points where corrections have been made, and by a discussion of the evidence. 2 Sensible though it may seem, the Optimist method has its critics, particularly among editors of classical texts. A. E. Housman has some rough remarks on it in various prefaces and reviews. 3 Ludwig Bieler is far from enthusiastic about it in his «Grammarian's Craft >>. 4 Alphonse Dain, for whom there is really no such thing as a « best >> or > manuscript, is convinced that it is a solution >. 5 Optimists, in turn, are no less caustic about the Recensionist method. Bedier showed plainly that it was full of pitfalls. 6 Kane abandoned it as impracticable for his edition of Piers Plowman. 7 Vinaver averred that the method had become as >). A stationer's copy-text thus divided into peciae is, strictly speaking, a« pecia manuscript>>, and according to the list provided by Chenu from the papers of Destrez in 1953, only 82 such pecia manuscripts from Bologna, Paris, Oxford and Naples are extant today. The term « pecia manuscript>>, however, is not always used with due circumspection and care. More often than not it is used indiscriminately both for pecia manuscripts as such and for copies

46

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

made from these. The late Graham Pollard was very much aware of this ambiguity and sloppiness when he wrote in the article noted above that he used the term « peciae » for the separate quires which the stationer had made from the exemplar at his disposal, and that he would reserve the term « pecia copies » for copies made by what Pollard calls , thus : >. Now when one turns to fol. 26ra2 in the Toronto MS., one finds that '' predictas >> is as untouched as it is in all the other apopeciae MSS., but that the original scrivener has inserted > after >. In the light of the fact that Aquinas had introduced the words > to gloss

56

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

Aristotle's «extra fumum et undam custodi navem »the retention of « predictas >> makes for good sense where the substitution of « pretereas >> for it does not : « Extra fumum et undam custodi navem, quasi dicat, Ita navem custodias ut sic predictas fumositates et undas vites >>. At first sight, of course, the substitution by the Leonine editors of « pretereas >> for > may seem to have the advantage of leaving unchanged a nice cursus planus ending (fumositates et undas) ; yet, on the other hand, one must allow that the phrase > in the Toronto MS. has the merit not only of drawing attention to the fact that it was Aquinas not Aristotle who used the words > and . More importantly, there is the very pertinent fact that, like in the Toronto MS. is not a chance insertion but one made by the original scrivener at the prompting of a corrector who here, as elsewhere, has noted his corrections in a crabbed backhand in yellow or ochre crayon at the top or bottom of each folio or in the margins. Few of these corrections are immediately visible now and, in fact, are only observable if one allows a shaft of sunlight to fall obliquely on to the folio. But once one is aware of these > it is not too difficult to locate them, wherever there is an original insertion or correction in the littera notularis of the scrivener. What their import may be I shall suggest presently. For the moment it is enough to note that . Is this simply an intelligent conjecture by a reader of the late thirteenth century who, like the Leonine editors, based his conjecture on the text of the Latin Aristotle at his elbow (but who, unlike these, placed his conjecture after > not before it) ? Perhaps it is. All the same it is odd that no other MS. of the Sententia carries such an insertion and that no other reader or corrector saw fit to emend the text at this point. And it is at least worthy of note that this is not an isolated or casual conjecture but one which, like so many other additions or corrections in the Toronto MS., is based solidly on a ghosted correction. In these three cases of corrections - > on fol. 2rb, > on fol. 26ra, and > here on fol. 13va - the striking thing is that, as we may see from the Leonine edition and its extensive apparatus, none of these words or phrases was in the peciae MSS. nor in the epipeciae exemplar from which they were made nor in the non-Parisian or > tradition of the Sententia. Hence it is unlikely that these words and phrases were present in the two postulated apographs of the Sententia - that behind the stationer's epipeciae exemplar and that behind the non-Parisian tradition. Since this is so, then, unless he was a scholar of exceptional acumen, the thirteenth-century ghost-corrector must have had access to something beyond the peciae of the stationer and the epipeciae and the apographs - perhaps to the autograph of Aquinas himself or at least to a copy prepared by a secretary at the dictation of Aquinas. This is not at all impossible, given that the three examples above are

58

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

not random corrections but firmly belong to a series of ghostcorrections which are contemporary with the codex and were faithfully copied out in a notular hand by the scrivener of the codex himself, as I presume. Curiously, the ghost-hand cannot be traced beyond about fol. 50 of the 137 folios, although there are corrections in the scrivener's notular hand after that. It may well be, indeed, that after fol. 50 the ghost-corrector no longer had the autograph of Aquinas or a secretary's copy at his disposal. Since the Sententia libri Ethicorum was written at Paris in 1271-1272 just before the departure of Aquinas from there for good for Naples, perhaps the reason why the ghost-corrector ceased his work around fol. 50 was because when Aquinas moved from Paris to Naples in 1272, he and his party took the autograph or dictated copy with them, leaving the ghost-corrector high and dry. If so, then the Toronto codex would be contemporary with Aquinas at Paris and would have been written in 1272. From a paleographical point of view there is nothing against this, but there is one snag from what we know of the university book-trade at Paris in the 1270s. If Aquinas released his Sententia libri Ethicorum for copying at Paris as soon as he had completed it in1271-1272, then it is odd that there is no sign of the work in the taxation list of peciae that survives from the university of Paris ca. 1275. The first time the Sententia occurs in a taxation list is in 1304. There it is listed as being in thirty-eight peciae, which is precisely the number of peciae to which all the surviving apopeciae, Toronto included, attest. But, on the other hand, there is no guarantee that the first taxation list, that of ca. 1275, is complete. Nor may one take it for granted that there were no apopeciae MSS. of the Sententia before 1304, the year of the second known taxation list. Some of the apopeciae MSS., that at Toronto included, could have been written twenty or thirty years before that date. At present I am not in a position to say more than this : that the Toronto codex was ghostcorrected at Paris shortly after it was written by someone in the circle of Aquinas (possibly a Dominican colleague at St.Jacques), and that in that sense the Toronto apopeciae MS. may be unique in having some sort of association, however indirect and tenuous, with Aquinas.

PECIAE, APOPECIAE AND A TORONTO MS. OF AQUINAS

59

There may indeed have been some oral tradition to that effect. The colophon of the Toronto MS. reads, «Explicit scriptum fratris thorne de akino de ordine predicatorum super ethicam » - a colophon in which the word « fratris » was changed to « sancti » sometime after 1323, when Aquinas was canonized. Later, when the manuscript had migrated to Italy in, probably, the early fourteenth century, a late fifteenth-century or early sixteenth-century hand added the following after the colophon : « Explicit ethica sancti Thome quem propria manu scrips it ''. This addition occurs on one of the two or three folios of the Toronto MS. which the Leonine editors were allowed to see in photocopy by the canny Parisian bookseller who possessed the MS. in the 1960s. The editors duly report the colophon and the above note, and, very understandably, place an exclamation mark after « quem propria manu scripsit ». But perhaps the inscription had its own grain of truth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

S. AXTERS, «La critique textuelle medievale doit-elle etre desormais en fonction de la "pecia >> ? Une reponse a Monsieur !'abbe Destrez >>, in Angelicum 12 (1935) pp. 262-295.

2.

G. BATTELLI, «La 'pecia' e la critica del testo dei manoscritti universitari medioevali », in Archivio Storico Italiano 93 (1935), p. 244-252, reprinted in G. BATTELLI, Scritti scelti (Rome 1975), pp. 1-11.

3.

G. BATTELLI, «De quodam 'exemplari' Parisino Apparatus Decretorum », in Apollinaris 21 (1948), pp. 135-45, reprinted in Scritti scelti, p. 109-121.

4.

G. BATTELLI, « Ricerche sulla 'pecia' nei codici del 'Digestum vetus' », in Studi in onore di Cesare Manaresi (Milan 1953), p. 311-330, reprinted in Scritti scelti, pp. 149-170.

5.

A. BROUNTS, «Nouvelles precisions sur Ia 'pecia'. A propos de !'edition du Commentaire de Thomas d' Aquin sur l'Ethique d' Aristote », Scriptorium 24 (1970), pp. 343-359.

60 6.

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P. K. CHRIST, >

67

c'est-a-dire comme !'equivalent moderne de ce qui est designe par le terme « contamination » dans un contexte medieval. D'ou, un editeur de renom a recemment declare sans vergogne que le texte de base de son edition « etait construit a partir de cinq manuscrits qui furent entierement collationnes d'apres !'edition la plus moderne ». Un autre editeur, un defenseur - excellent, par ailleurs des editions faites a l'aide de l'ordinateur, rejette comme non-valable une edition precedente de l'reuvre qu'il veut editer, bien que, dans une breve allusion, i1 nous informe que la premiere etape de sa nouvelle edition a consiste en un enregistrement sur bande magnetique de la precedente pour en eliminer les erreurs. Dans ces deux cas, sans parler des feuilles intercalees de West, le danger reside dans le fait qu'on fait !'edition d'une edition. Ce travail est considere comme une nouvelle edition basee sur la tradition manuscrite, alors qu'on avoue que celles qui existent deja doivent faire partie de la tradition manuscrite dans tous les cas et a tout moment et doivent done etre traitees de la meme maniere5 . Le probleme reel present dans tous ces cas est qu'on met Ia charrue avant les breufs. On part du fait que Ia base du travail est un texte deja constitue, bien mis en page et divise en paragraphes, alors que le probleme fondamental auquel la plupart des editeurs sont confrontes, est qu'ils doivent faire face a un texte qui n'a pas encore de structure definitive, mais qui varie d'un manuscrit a !'autre. Je ne veux pas suggerer que la critique textuelle est mauvaise ou superflue. Bien au contraire. Elle a un role bien defini et essentiel a jouer dans !'edition des textes, mais son but ne peut pas etre atteint s'il ne s'agit pas en premier lieu de la critique de Ia tradition du texte. Malheureusement cette derniere - je ne parle pas de tradition textuelle - n'a pas un champ d'application aussi large que la critique textuelle. Chacun souhaite etre un editeur et pas un simple reproducteur, afin d'etre en mesure de noter soigneusement dans l'apparat critique « conieci >> ou, avec delectation, >. Ces moments exaltants qu'on connait en apportant sa propre contribution a une 5

Les deux exemples cites ainsi que d'autres cas semblables qui seront evoques dans Ia suite de !'expose, ne sont pas une invention de rna part. Mais je ne cite pas les noms de ces auteurs ni les sources des exemples, afm de ne pas mettre en doute l'honnetete professionnelle des auteurs ou ectiteurs qui ont une opinion differente de Ia position tres personnelle qui est exprimee ici.

68

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

tradition textuelle doivent de toute evidence etre savoures, mais ne se justifient que si on est pratiquement certain qu'ils correspondent a la tradition du texte a cet endroit. Une convergence de la tradition constitue un prerequis de la critique textuelle, un gain de temps, une exigence, meme si elle represente pour certains une degradation. Parfois il semble qu'elle soit tres loin du texte parce qu'elle ne se base pas sur le texte, mais sur !'evolution de la tradition, sur les manuscrits, c'est-a-dire sur le support du texte plus que sur le texte lui-meme. Cependant i1 s'agit de la seule methode ineluctable a suivre si on veut jamais arriver a un texte sur lequel on peut appliquer la critique textuelle. I1 s'agit en fait d'un element incontournable, a savoir que la seule voie d'acces au texte que nous voulons Miter - meme s'il en existe deja plusieurs editions - est de suivre les manuscrits qui nous l'ont transmis. Et tant que ces supports n'auront pas ete examines aussi soigneusement que possible, personne ne sera jamais en etat de soumettre ce texte tel qu'il a ete transmis par les manuscrits a aucune analyse critique. La plupart des manuels de critique textuelle distinguent peu ou pas du tout la critique de la tradition ou de la transmission des textes de la critique textuelle. Et puisque la critique textuelle est generalement le but de ces manuels, la tradition est examinee uniquement du point de vue du texte, sans reference ou avec peu de renvois aux manuscrits en tant que tels. Cependant, sans eux, il n'y aurait pas de texte a Miter. En un mot, faire une edition, c'est partir des codices, c'est les respecter jusque dans leurs moindres details et c'est seulement s'en ecarter lorsque l'editeur a acquis la certitude qu'ils ont ete entierement exploites et ne contiennent plus aucun element signifiant, qu'il soit textuel ou physique. Dans un ouvrage que j 'ai lu recemment et que je laisserai dans l'anonymat, le seul manuscrit conserve de l'reuvre est qualifie de copie de mauvaise qualite, ce qui, en soit, est une remarque ingrate, puisque sans le temoignage de cette unique copie deterioree, l'editeur aurait ete dans 1' incapacite de realiser son edition et de se faire - ou non - une reputation. Mais !'auteur continue en disant que

69

temeraire, se base leur critique des copistes erudits du moyen age ou meme simplement, des scribes. Par-dessus tout, certains copistes erudits modernes (et, je le repete, un editeur n'est ni plus ni mains que cela) sont enclins, peut-etre sous !'influence de Housman, a attacher trap peu d'attention a deux principes importants qui devraient guider Ia critique et plus specialement Ia correction : d'abord ce choix ne devrait etre fait qu'apres un examen attentif du manuscrit (ou des manuscrits) sous taus les angles ; ensuite si une correction s'avere indispensable, alors c'est Ia plus neutre qui est Ia meilleure, en accord avec le texte tel qu'il a ete transmis dans les autres manuscrits. II existe en !'occurrence, un bel exemple de fiasco dft au respect de ces principes, lorsque Ia phrase >, qui est clairement problematique, est corrigee en >. Puisqu'une confusion entre > et > est banale dans les manuscrits medievaux (de meme que dans Ia plupart de nos propres ecritures cursives), Ia premiere chose a faire dans ce cas, avant d'envisager des corrections comme a Ia place de « lectoris meus >> est de voir si > a un sens - ce qui est effectivement le cas - (>, c'est-a-dire dans le diagramme qui suit immediatement), Ia oil >, a part le fait qu'il donne satisfaction a une lecture immediate, constitue une parfaite inadequation avec ce dont il est question dans le manuscrit. Puisqu'il s'agit de ce qui est important dans le codex, Ia premiere etape, en vue d'une edition, doit alors etre Ia tache lassante de cataloguer ou de decrire chaque manuscrit aussi soigneusement que possible. II ne suffit pas de noter les dimensions, Ia date, le type d'ecriture de chaque codex. L'ensemble des caracteristiques physiques du texte do it etre pris en consideration, depuis Ia reliure jusqu 'aux feuillets isoles et aux fonds de cahiers. A ce niveau, il est surprenant de constater que certains editeurs ne se preoccupent pas de Ia constitution materielle d'un manuscrit. lis se fient trap souvent aux descriptions de catalogues et sont satisfaits de travailler sur des microfilms ou des reproductions photographiques de Ia partie du manuscrit dans laquelle leur texte est conserve, sans avoir jamais vu !'ensemble du codex. Cette fa>. En soi, «description physique >> ne vise que la confection telle quelle du manuscrit, tandis que « constitution physique >> inclut a la fois le manuscrit et le texte tel qu'il est conserve, de page en page, avec des notes marginates ou interlineaires, des rubriques, des gammas capitulaires, des decorations, des bouts-de-ligne, des gribouillages et d'autres elements de ce type. La maniere precise de transmission physique peut etre

6

Cf. par exemple, L. GILISSEN, Prolegomenes ii La codicologie, Gent, 1977 ; G. OuY, «Pour une archivistique des manuscrits medievaux », dans Bulletin des bibliotheques de France 3 (1958), pp. 897-923 ; et n. 1570-1594, 1616-1632, etc. dans BOYLE, Medieval Latin Palaeography.

>

71

aussi importante pour 1' ensemble de la tradition du texte que Ia qualite du texte lui-meme dans un manuscrit donne.

* Cet examen codicologique, tel que je !'envisage, constitue la premiere des trois etapes qu'on doit franchir lorsqu'on entreprend Ia preparation d 'une edition, Ia deuxieme est I' etablissement du texte sur Ia base des manuscrits conserves, Ia troisieme est !'edition du texte etabli. La deuxieme etape, a savoir l'etablissement de Ia tradition du texte telle qu'on peut Ia retrouver de maniere precise dans les manuscrits, a retenu - je m'empresse de le dire - de loin beaucoup plus !'attention des chercheurs que la premiere etape, celle de la constitution physique - et ceci en depit du fait qu'il est beaucoup plus hasardeux d'essayer d'etablir un texte sur Ia base des manuscrits, lorsqu'on ne connait pas les codices dans tous leurs details. II existe deux theories principales pour extraire ou etablir un texte La premiere, qui, pour des raisons evidentes peut etre qualifiee d' (( optimiste » decide, dans le sillage de Bedier (1928) que la seule bonne solution, lorsqu'on est confronte a un nombre important de manuscrits d'une reuvre, est de privilegier pour !'edition le codex qui dans son ensemble est Ie plus satisfaisant et ensuite de suivre ce > a travers tout, sauf, bien sur, lorsqu'il est de toute evidence defectueux ou inintelligible. La seconde qu'on peut definir comme > decide, en se reclamant de Karl Lachmann comme son inventeur, qu'il faut faire une > complete ou un examen exhaustif d'un texte donne tel qu'il figure dans chacun des manuscrits conserves, et ceci afin de trouver d'abord ce qui est commun a tous les temoins conserves et ensuite les divergences 7 •

a partir d'un grand nombre de manuscrits.

La technique recensionniste est ennuyeuse si on Ia suit pas a pas (et meme si on emprunte des raccourcis). D'abord, l'un des manuscrits (n'importe lequel, mais habituellement le plus ancien) est transcrit fidelement, de maniere tout a fait servile, et avec toutes ses 7

A propos de ces deux techniques principales, cf. L.E. BOYLE, "Optimist and Recensionist: Common Errors or Common Variations?», dans Latin Script and Letters AD. 400-900: Festschrift presented to Ludwig Bieler, ed. J.J. O'MEARA and B. NAUMANN, Leiden, 1976 p. 264-274.

72

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

caracteristiques : suppressions, annotations, sauts, ratures, corrections, inversions et graphies erronees, bouts-de-ligne, non-sens grammaticaux, homoeoteleuton et toutle reste. Ce que l'editeur recensionniste obtient a ce stade du travail est tout sirnplement une transcription scrupuleuse mais absolument demunie d'element critique concernant le premier temoin choisi. Puisque ce texte ouvre Ia porte a Ia recension des manuscrits dans leur ensemble, il peut etre appele dans les manuscrits, aux endroits ou il y avait des desaccords. L'expression habituelle qu'on trouve dans les manuels et les articles pour designer ce phenomene est >, mais n'existe pas - que ce soit vrai ou faux (puisque, en tenant compte du texte, nous ne pouvons pas, a ce niveau, porter un jugement critique dans la majorite des cas), mais nous sommes confrontes a une simple constatation physique, a savoir que deux ou plus de temoins ont certaines caracteristiques en commun qu'un troisieme ne possede pas. N'importe quel accident, en fait, qui n'est pas partage par tous les temoins survivants, peut etre considere 8

P. MAAS, ed. cit. n. 2, p. 2-9, fournit un releve classique des« erreurs

».

« EPISTULAE VENERUNT PARUM DULCES

>>

73

comme variante, depuis une signature jusqu'a un gribouillage, depuis un mot tronque, jusqu'a un passage supprime, depuis un changement d'encre ou de main jusqu'a une separation de mots, depuis des gloses jusqu'a des lectures alternatives. Cela montre !'importance de la «constitution physique>>, dont j'ai parle a propos de la premiere etape. C'est une croyance recensionniste que de penser qu'en observant les variantes communes a certains manuscrits ou les divergences qui existent ou non entre eux, on peut retracer retrospectivement la constitution de ces variantes communes et arriver ainsi a la source premiere des diverses sortes de variantes communes. Si le recensionniste le souhaite, il peut faire la liste ou dresser un diagramme de ces variantes. 11 peut meme appeler cela un stemma codicum, mais seulement s 'il est base uniquement sur les variantes communes entre les manuscrits et non sur les erreurs communes qui existent par rapport au texte vehicule par les manuscrits (dans ce cas il ne s 'agirait pas d'un stemma codicum mais d'un stemma textuum). A partir des relations qu'il a detectees entre les manuscrits grace au phenomene des « variations communes >>, le recensionniste est desormais en mesure de trouver une voie a travers les manuscrits et de dire de quelle maniere leur texte varie par rapport a un autre. 11 peut distinguer egalement, en cas de divergence, le manuscrit ou les groupes de manuscrits ayant vehicule de maniere probable le texte tel qu'il a generalement circule (je ne parle pas du « vrai >> texte). Et il est maintenant capable d'etablir d'apres les manuscrits pris dans leur totalite, le texte qu'ils ont vehicule comme un tout. Le texte qu'il etablit sur Ia base des manuscrits est done le texte commun a taus, accompagne, aux endroits ou les manuscrits divergent, de ce qu'il decide etre le texte le plus vraisemblablement courant, conjecture sur Ia base des variantes communes. 11 reste Ia troisieme etape, celle de Ia critique textuelle. Le texte etabli est simplement le texte transmis par les manuscrits et reproduit aussi fidelement que possible par l'ectiteur. 11 s'agit globalement d'un texte non-ectite et il peut etre contradictoire a certains endroits et depourvu de sens a d'autres. Ce dont il a besoin maintenant est d'un reil critique. C'est ici, lors de cette troisieme etape, que l'ectiteur entre reellement en scene. 11 est ici dans son veritable role ; et il est seul, en

74

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

ce sens que jamais personne avant lui n'a parcouru le meme chemin. Les probl>, alors cette copie directe est eliminee automatiquement d'une reflexion textuelle parce qu'il s'agit precisement d'un «codex descriptus ''· Mais ici a nouveau, c'est prendre le texte pour le manuscrit. Ce qui est reellement « descriptus , est le texte, non pas le codex. Le manuscrit doit garder sa place dans la tradition du texte, et il faut s'en servir lorsque le travail d'edition commence. Le « codex descriptus >> peut avoir ete en possession d'un chercheur de valeur ayant eu acces a des manuscrits ou a des temoignages qui n'existent plus et dont il a extrait des notes ou releve des lectures differentes. Lors d'un examen codicologique soigneux, elles peuvent prouver qu'elles vehiculent des conjectures ou des lectures qui ne peuvent pas etre negligees. QueUe que soit !'importance d'un stemma codicum au niveau logique, quel que soit son impact ou sa signification, ce sont les manuscrits en tant que tels qui sont signifiants dans Ia duree et pas le stemma codicum. Malgre son poids inexorable, le stemma codicum n'est pas un monstre auquel il est impossible d'echapper. Dans le meilleur des cas, il ne represente pas plus qu 'un appui : un instrument qui permet d'etayer certains textes momentanement, lorsque des temoins divergent d'un autre et par la-meme ont affaibli Ia garantie commune du texte qui les unissait tous comme etant l'a:uvre d'un auteur. La oil le texte etabli n'est pas le meme dans tous les manuscrits, l'editeur n'est pas rive a lui simplement parce qu'il decoule de variantes communes et du stemma codicum. Lorsque ce texte etabli, fait de parties communes et d'elements propres a differents temoins, est vu dans son ensemble lors de la troisieme etape de !'edition, l'une ou l'autre des lectures alternatives peut bien s'averer lors d'un examen critique etre plus adaptee que celle qui a ete choisie pour le texte etabli, sur Ia base des variantes communes et du stemma. Jamais, en tous cas, le texte commun en lui-meme ne doit etre considere comme definitif uniquement parce qu'il est commun. 11 peut etre completement depourvu de sens a certains endroits. Et lorsque c'est le cas, il faut etre vigilant.

76

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

Dans une edition recente des lettres de Seneque, par exemple, 1'editeur imp rime Ia phrase > et, pour etre tout a fait clair' « epulae >> est ecrit en toutes lettres dans la marge. Grace a von Jan - mais cette position n'est pas acceptable -, « venerunt >> a remplace « vero erunt >> et le texte est devenu : « Vesicae te dolor inquietavit, epulae venerunt parum dulces, detrimenta continua - proprius accedam, de capite timuisti ». Seneque, en fait, si on suit le texte corrige du Pal. lat. 869, dresse simplement Ia liste des plaintes de Lucilius et, volontairement, passe du mauvais au pire de maniere croissante : « Une douleur dans la vesicule te gene ; manger ne constitue plus un plaisir ; tout va mal et, - pour le dire brutalement -, tu commences meme a craindre de perdre la tete >> • A cause de sa vesicule malade, il y a fort a craindre que Lucilius renonce a la bonne chair. Ce fait seul me pousse a choisir « epulae >> plutot que >. Pour aller plus loin, le choix de Ia le dans le manuscrit de Bamberg et dans d'autres, rompt la chaine des malheurs qui est evidente. De Ia, Seneque continue en disant > avait ete contracte en >, avec une apostrophe dans le >, et que, comme cette abreviation est tres proche de celle qu'on utilise pour >, il a du etre assez facile pour le copiste du manuscrit de Bamberg ou de son modele d'avoir resolu > signifiant >, en un terme plus familier >. II est pour le moins bizarre que le proprietaire du manuscrit du Vatican ait change au XIIe siecle > en >, si la presence du terme > etait aussi normale que les ectiteurs modernes le suggerent. La le etait-elle une conjecture ? Cela parait ose lorsqu'on se souvient que le Pal. lat. 869 a ete si soigneusement collationne avec un ou plusieurs manuscrits des lettres de Seneque. Mais meme si > constitue une conjecture, doit-elle pour cette raison etre passee sous silence ou exclue de I' apparat ? Si une conjecture ou une correction faite par un erudit

80

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

moderne tel que von Jan merite toute notre attention, pourquoi une conjecture medievale ne la meriterait-elle pas ? Elle fait au mains partie de la tradition codicologique du texte et a ce titre elle merite 1'attention de tout editeur a sa juste valeur. Ces deux exemples, extraits des Lettres de Seneque, montrent qu'une veritable application experimentale de la codicologie a !'edition d'un texte peut ne pas paraitre vraiment capitale. Je donne peut-etre !'impression d'accorder trap d'importance a un rien, specialement aux yeux de ceux qui considerent la codicologie comme un simple examen de la realisation materielle d 'un manuscrit : dimension, piqftres, assemblage des feuillets et autres phenomenes semblables. Mais, precisement, la codicologie dans taus ses aspects constitue ames yeux l'examen d'un codex en taut que vehicule d'un texte. Si, comme on a tendance a le faire habituellement, on se contente d'extraire simplement une reuvre d'un manuscrit, alors le texte est prive de sa mise en page et le manuscrit n'est pas pris en consideration. Au contraire, en se concentrant sur la composition du codex, le danger reside dans le fait que le support soit traite a part, comme s'il etait n'importe quel manuscrit et pas precisement ce recueil specifique contenant le texte en question. La codicologie doit, par consequent, inclure l'examen du texte, non pas, bien sur' du texte en tant que texte, mais comme transmis physiquement par le codex, soit qu'il s'agisse de la dimension des colonnes, des volutes des initiales, des notes ou, evidemment, des taches faites par les lecteurs. Ainsi la codicologie ne constitue pas du tout une > que Housman, comme tout le monde le sait, caracterisait comme

81

d' autres termes, la codicologie constitue 1'his to ire des avatars non pas d'un texte en tant que texte, mais d'un texte tel qu'il a ete transmis dans des manuscrits. II s' agit done de Ia reconnaissance indispensable du fait que les textes n'ont survecu qu'a cause des manuscrits et qu'inversernent, chaque codex transmet un texte d'une maniere unique qui lui est propre. Biblioteca Vaticana, Roma

criticus of Mr. Hosius' third edition, except in a few places, ... where I chance to have independent information. » (p. xxxv).

TONIC ACCENT, CODICOLOGY, AND LITERACY

MS. Royal I. A. VIII in the British Library is a plain, small Vulgate Bible of the second half of the thirteenth century, with routine initials. Probably of Parisian origin, it certainly was in England well before 1300, when it was much used, was annotated heavily with cross-references in the margins, and was provided with line-numbering in fives in the center of each page of fifty-five lines between the two columns. It is, in fact, unexceptional and commonplace as a Bible. What is interesting from my point of view is that at the end of the Bible, from folios 411-21, there is a short, unascribed treatise labelled'' Correctorius biblie, >> which in fact is extant in four other copies, one of which, that of Canterbury (which I have not seen) is from about the year 1400 and is ascribed to Robert Grosseteste. If the ascription to Grosseteste proves to be acceptable - and certainly the purpose of the work is not at variance with his wellknown pastoral concerns as bishop of Lincoln, 1235-53 - then, on the authority of S. Harrison Thomson, it is probably to be dated to the last decade of his life. 1

This little work, which is called « Correctorium tocius biblie >> in most of the five manuscripts, covers all the books of the Bible and was intended, in general, to correct misspellings in copies of the Bible and, in particular, to provide a guide to the pronunciation of difficult or unusual words. In most of the manuscripts - but not in the British Library copy - an accent or tonic mark has been placed in red above the correct syllable to be stressed (in the British Library copy the mark is in black). Sources are quoted to back up various decisions on where the tonic accent should fall, predictably Bede but more interestingly Marbod of Rennes (1035-1123 : Lapidarius), Alexander de Villa Dei (Doctrinale, c. 1200), Petrus de Riga (d. 1209), Alexander Neckham (d. 1217), and John of Garland (his Speculum or De mysteriis ecclesiae, written 1245). Although the use of Bede prompts the authors of the catalogue of Royal manuscripts in the British Library to conclude rather unhelpfully that « a reference to Bede shows it was 1

S. Harrison THOMSON, The Writings of Raben Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, 1235-1253 (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 127-28.

84

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

written after his date, >> the later sources seem to place the date of composition firmly in the middle of the thirteenth century2 • On occasion there are also quotations from Vergil or Ovid to illustrate how proper tonic accent or syllablestress in tonic writing may be established from metre or rhyme. This Correctorium, which thus appropriately accompanies a copy of the Bible in the Royal manuscript, naturally begins its survey of the Bible from Genesis and notes the difficult words there such as frrigans, bdellum, virago, deinde, de6rsum, se6rsum, 6bstetrix, and bfssinum, placing a stress or tonic mark in each case over the correct syllable. Then it moves on to Exodus (noting, for example, accers(tus and Pharao) and gradually works its way through all the books of the Hebrew Testament before turning to the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of Paul, Hebrews, and Revelation. Some chapters are quite long, but most are rather short and summary. Thus the comment on Hebrews is just six lines and is almost totally taken up with Hebrew names. What is particularly interesting about the Correctorium is that it is written for the iunior lector and that it was written by someone who was desirous of helping those « juniors >> who wore uncertain of where the tonic accent should fall in certain words : cupiens prodesse pusillis, as the author says. There is, in fact, nothing new in this concern for the placing of tonic accents, as the following two examples illustrate. About 1140 the Cistercian monk Nicholas Maniacutia wrote a Libellus de corruptione et correptione psalmorum at the monastery of Tre Fontane in Rome. His main concern was the correction of the text of the Bible, and on this score he has an interesting account of a visit to the scriptorium at S. Martino on the Oppian Hill (near S. Maria Maggiore), where he asked a scriptor why he had chosen a particular word that was not commonly in copies of the Bible and received a splendid lesson in textual criticism : « because I found it in the Bible written in a large hand.>> But on many occasions Nicholas touches on the question of accentuation, and in one long passage, commenting on the phrase Succinate in neomenia tuba in Psalm 80, he states with 2

G. F. WARNER and J.P. GILSON, British Museum. Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King 's Collections, 1 (London, 1921), p. 4. The >is fols. 411-21.

TONIC ACCENT, CODICOLOGY, AND LITERACY

85

respect to neomenia that the Roman usage is to stress in the Greek fashion the penultimate, thus neomenia (and, likewise, castimargia, theologia, philosophia, epiphania, ierarchfa, letanfa, ethimologfa, melancolfa, and orthographya), where others prefer neomenia and so on. 3 A century and a half later Bartholomew Cotton, the chronicler and monk of Norwich, put together in 1291 : Un saggio di critica testuale nella Roma del XII sccolo », in Italia medidevale e umanistica 20 ( 1947), pp. 19-125, atp. Ill. 4 For Cotton (d. 1298) see J. C. RUSSELL, Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth Century England (London, Institute of Historical Research : Special Supplement No. 3, Bulletin of Historical Research, 1936), pp. 22-23, who notes the Cambridge manuscript and quotes the title > was read publicly : the Puiset Bible of c. 1160 at Durham is a nice example. But what other books were read this way, or at least were prepared for such reading ? And what was the relationship of this public reading to Lectio divina ? These are not idle questions. Public reading is an aspect of monastic and other (perhaps courtly) literacy that has not had much consideration, if any. It is an aspect that any and every palaeographer, in the guise of a codicologist, may very easily explore and record. By doing so the palaeographer - and any medievalist who has access to manuscripts or facsimiles - will not only learn much about medieval accentuation and the words that caused problems but will also begin to appreciate more fully the Latin language as it was lived and spoken and indeed cherished in the Middle Ages.

« THE WAYS OF PRAYER OF ST DOMINIC » NOTES ON MS ROSSI 3 IN THE VATICAN LIBRARY

The so-called «Nine Ways of Prayer of St Dominic>> has attracted much interest in recent years, and has occasioned some solid textual scholarship, notably on the part of Fr Simon Tugwell of the English Dominican Province in 1985, and some very interesting iconographical studies, particularly that in 1991 of Fr Domingo Iturgaiz of the Dominican house in Caleruega, the birthplace of St Dominic 1 • More properly, I suppose, the little treatise should be entitled >. For although the author who put the account together spells out nine ways, his introductory paragraph speaks simply of or >, as in six of the extant manuscripts. Fr Tugwell's exhaustive introduction to his edition of 1985 has established, albeit with much caution, that the unknown author wrote the about 1280, possibly in the north of Italy : 2 • However, given the contrast between the references in the prologue to Thomas and Albert (>), it is just possible that the work was written while Albert was still alive, and hence may be dated fairly securely between 1274 (death of Thomas) and 1280 (death of Albert). The purpose of the present article is not the ways of prayer as such but just one manuscript in which they are found, that known as MS Rossianum (or Rossi) in the Vatican Library. Its polychrome 1

S. TUGWELL,« The Nine Ways of Prayer of St. Dominic : A Textual Study and Critical Edition "• in Mediaeval Studies 47 (1985), pp. 1-124 (the critical edition is pp. 81-92) ; D. ITURGAIZ, ,, Iconografia de Santo Domingo de Guzman ''• in Archivo Dominicano 12 (1991), pp. 5-125, at pp. 38-56. 2 TUGWELL, p. 73.

92

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

paintings of the nine ways are celebrated, and have been reproduced widely, if not always brilliantly, in black-and-white or in colour over the past seventy years since the text of the Rossi codex was first published by Fr Innocenzo Taurisano in 19223 • Whoever the artist was, he belongs to a tradition of« gestures of prayer>> that has its best-known exponent in the Parisian theologian Peter the Chanter (d. 1197) in his treatise De poenitentia4 • St Dominic is portrayed first of all bowing in prayer before an altar, then (2) lying flat out before the same altar, giving himself the discipline before a crucifix (3), genuflecting repeatedly before an altar (4), standing erect and immobile (5), praying with hands outstretched (6) and with hands uplifted (7), seated in his cell reading and pondering (8), going ahead of or away from a companion to pray while on a journey (9). A text accompanies each of the illustrations, treating in turn of these nine modes in simple, unadorned Latin.

1. THE ROSSI MANUSCRIPT

Ten manuscripts of the «Modi>> are listed by Fr Tugwell. The present note however concerns only one of these, that known as Rossi 3

The text of the Ways in MS. Rossi 3 was first published by I. TAURISANO, >, there follow (folios 16-19) >, the famous bishop and patron of Aries, and native of Lerins. Again, although Moorish influences (from Catalonia or Andalusia) are present (see plate 6) in the pictures of Dominic 12 , the script of the> and of all 132 folios is more French of the period than Spanish. Perhaps the Spanish artist who copied the paintings of the . This dating would make MS Rossi 3 (or R) the oldest surviving text of the >, and indeed would bring it very close in time to the copy of the that Bernard Gui, the Dominican author and inquisitor, is known to have sent to the Master General of his Order in 1314: > 13 • Perhaps it does not really matter. Fr Tugwell, for example, is quite dismissive of MS. Rossi 3. On one occasion he notes tout court 11

This text of the . On another he states at more length that « It belongs within the same family as M [the Madrid, vernacular version] and is a very inferior witness to the tradition of that family. It is riddled with inaccuracies, and has suffered from considerable editorial tampering, so that when it is on its own there is little reason to take it seriously. Its main value is that, in conjunction with M, it often enables us to reconstruct the Latin text of>> [the postulated archetype of Rossianus and M] 14 . He has a point ; and there is no doubt whatever that the text of the «Ways>>, as edited by Fr Tugwell from nine MSS, proves to be much more intelligible on a number of occasions than that in MS. Rossi 3. All the same, if one leaves aside for a moment the Castilian codex at Madrid (M), the Rossi manuscript in the Vatican Library proves to have a distinct advantage over all its seven fellow MSS in Latin (including two in the Vatican Library) : it has painted pictures to illustrate each of the nine modes of prayer - ten pictures in all in fact, since the last mode is given two. Although Fr Tugwell does not consider them in any way, except, in passing, to admit that they are >, it could be argued that these pictures form an integral part of the text of the « Ways >>. For, as is clear from the text as transmitted by all eight Latin MSS (including the seven which have no pictures), not to speak of the Madrid codex which also carries the ten pictures (but simply as line drawings), the author of the Modi or did not compose a blank text that left everything to the imagination. Rather, what he devised was an illustrated text. Thus, at the end of the first way he writes (and here I cite the text as established by Tugwell from all the MSS) : « Et iste modus ut descriptus est in figura, erat principium devotionis eius, inclinando profunde >>. And in Rossi (and M) the picture or > is duly present. Again, at the end of the third mode (there is no textual reference to a picture in the second mode, except in M : >), the text as established states, >, and the picture is there in R (and M). Likewise at the end of the 14

TUGWELL,

«The Nine Ways »(cit. n. 1 above), pp. 3, 44.

THE WAYS OF PRAYER OF ST DOMINIC

99

fourth mode, just before the picture in R (and M), we read, « Et hoc exemplo, plus faciens quam dicens docebat fratres, hoc modo>> ; at the end of the fifth (but the words are omitted in R), again before the picture, he says simply, « ut hie patet >> ; at the end of the sixth, « ut in hac figura patet >> ; at the end of the seventh, « Quod ut melius intelligatur, subscripta figura docet >>(see plate 7). There is not, however, as I noted above, any reference, except in M, to the picture illustrating the second mode, nor, except again in the Madrid codex, to that illustrating the eighth mode, although here the picture in R and M exactly represents the very last lines of the text : « Et totus refectus et factus quietus in seipso iterum legebat in libra >>. On the other hand, two pictures in R and M are provided to illustrate the ninth and last mode, Dominic's manner of prayer on a journey. But the usual reference to the pictures is lacking in all the codices, presumably because their relation to the brief text for this mode is obvious. In Rossi 3 they occur on the folio (13r) facing the text of the ninth mode, and bring the treatise clearly to a close. It is hardly an exaggeration, then, to say that without these pictures the text of the «Ways >> is incomplete, perhaps indeed not wholly intelligible. At all events it seems clear that Fr Tugwell's edition, for all its persuasive qualities, falls short of perfection in not considering the pictures as an integral part of the « Modi>>.

On the other hand it also seems clear that Fr Tugwell's edition, in admitting two stories found respectively in the seventh and ninth ways in all the MSS of his edition except Rossi 3, has accepted matter which does not at all belong to the original text. For Fr Tugwell, of course, the reason for their omission from R is, as he states without further add, «obvious enough>>, presumably because this is only to be expected from a codex which there is « little reason to trust >> and whose readings > 15 • Yet in respect of these two stories which it >, the Rossi text is demonstrably far from a shambles. For the stories are as extraneous to the text of the as the pictures are essential. They detract from the purpose of the tract, which is simply to recount, and then to depict graphically, Dominic's outward behaviour 15

Idem, pp. 58, 43.

100

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

when praying. This is very evident in the seventh way, where a story from Bologna accepted by Tugwell disrupts the flow of the text and destroys the impact of « ltaque sanctus pater in illo modo orandi non diu stabat, sed revertebatur in seipsum, quasi de longinquo veniens >>, which clearly has nothing to do with the Bologna exemplum which precedes it in these manuscripts but is in apposition to 'Videbatur tunc ingredi sanctus pater raptim in sancta sanctorum et in tertium coelum>>. Rossi

Edition

Videbatur tunc ingredi sanctus pater raptus in sancta sanctorum et in tertium coelum, unde et post illam orationem sive in corripiendo sive in dispensando sive in predicando modo prophetico se habebat.

Videbatur tunc ingredi sanctus pater raptim in sancta sanctorum et in tertium coelum, unde et post illam orationem sive in corripiendo sive in dispensando sive in predicando more prophetico se habebat, ut in miraculis memoratum est. Sed unum hie ponendum est breviter ad hedificationem. Post talem orationem sanctus magister Dominicus requisivit Bononie super quibusdam agendis ... (an exemplum of some fifteen lines now follows) ... Et admirati sunt fratres quia sic dixit esse fiendum. Et dixit sanctus magister. Iusticie nostre iustitie divine comparate immunditie sunt. Itaque sanctus pater in illo modo orandi non diu stabat, sed revertebatur in seipsum, quasi de longinquo veniens .... Et docebat verbo et exemplo sanctus magister fratres sic orare, dicens illud psalmi, Ecce nunc benedicite... in noctibus extollite manus vestras in sancta Quod ut mel ius intelligatur, subscripta figura docet 16 •

In illo modo orandi sanctus pater non diu stabat, sed revertebatur in seipsum, quasi de longinquo veniens.... Et docebat verbo et exemplo sancto iugiter fratres sic orare, dicens illud psalmi, Ecce nunc benedicite... in Jloctibus extollite manus vestras in saacta .... Quod ut mel ius intelligatur, Sllbscripta figura docet.

16 MS. Rossi 3, fol. lOv-llr; Tugwell's edition, pp. 88-9. A few of the divergences between the Rossi text and that of Tugwell have been placed in italics to give the flavour of some of the drawbacks Tugwell sees to R.

THE WAYS OF PRAYER OF ST DOMINIC

101

The long exemplum printed in Fr Tugwell's edition in the ninth way is even more intrusive and, indeed, like that printed in the seventh way above, appears to be more concerned with the figure of a redoubtable sacristan at Bologna than with the mode of prayer of Dominic in question. Since the two pictures that illustrate this ninth way are absent from the MSS carrying this second Bologna story, then it may be suggested that it was introduced into these manuscripts simply because the text of the ninth mode was deemed too short and indeed brought the« Ways >>to an end too abruptly (as of course it did without the pictures) . If, on the contrary, it is argued that the scribe of R dropped the story from his text in order not to imperil the balance between text and pictures (of which more shortly) which he had so carefully observed for some eight folios, then it is odd that he neglected to add this story (and the story he had « skipped,, in the seventh way) immediately after the « Ways >>. Had he had the text of these stories as established by Fr Tugwell from the other MSS in front of him, then he could have done precisely this without strain. For the text and pictures of the «Ways >> occupy only seventeen pages of the gathering of twenty (1 10) of which the « Ways >> is the first item. He therefore had some three pages (13v14r) from this gathering at his disposal, but instead of the two Bologna stories he chose to fill them and the next two pages (15rv) with passages relative to Dominic from other sources (fols. 13v-15r : « Ex vita beati dominici patris ordinis predicatorum compilata per vincentium istorialem >> ; '' Ex vita eiusdem sancti >>), and two short pieces attributed to Thomas Aquinas (fol. 15r-v : « Modus studendi in sacra scriptura edita a beato Thoma de Aquino ordinis predicatorum » ; « Cundo mihi celle »), before going on at fol. 16r to « Deffloraciones >> from the life of St Honoratus and the Rule of St Benedict.

All in all, then, the text of the «Ways >> as it is found in the surviving Latin MSS excepting R, is at least singularly lame without the illustrations. Spotty thought his narrative may be, the scribe of MS. Rossi 3 - or his mentor - knew full well just where it stood in relation to the pictures he had before him in his exemplar. And whoever planned this gathering in R, was so aware of the importance of the illustrations that he had them done before the text itself was penned.

102

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

This was hardly a whim of the scribe or the artist or the patron. It was rather, I surmise, the result of a scrupulous attempt to repeat a model which, one may suggest, must reach back to the archetype of the « Ways >>. If so, then the only full representative of the archetype today is R (and to a lesser extent M, which Fr Tugwell has shown to be dependent upon R's immediate exemplar). To judge from R, the layout of the text and illustrations in the archetype was such that there was little or no room for additional matter. Any tampering with the body of the text would wreck the place of the illustrations. The omission of illustrations would blunt the points made by the text. When one looks at R from this point of view, it is remarkable how uniform the frames of the ten pictures prove to be. Where the writing-frame for all sixteen pages of text of the «Ways >> (fols 5r-12v) generally measures 110 x 78 mm., the ten illustrations (one each for the first eight ways, two for the ninth) occupy half-a-page each and are almost exactly the same size in each case 1 : 65 x 100 ; 2 : 65 X 100 ; 3 : 70 X 100 ; 4 : 65 X 102 ; 5 : 72 X 107 ; 6 : 67 X 100 ; 7 : 70 x 100 ; 8 : 72 x 100 ; 9 : 72 x 107; 10 : 69 x 107. Hence the pictureframes, starting generally on the recto at the inner margin of the writing-frame (pictures 1, 3-10) and, in one case (picture 2) on the verso (fol. 6v), are as a rule about twenty-five mm. wider than the outer margin of the writing-frame. This uniformity in the picture-frames, and the placing of the picture in relation to the space ruled for writing, are hardly accidental. They suggest that the artist and the co_pyist were doing their 1 best to copy exactly what was in front of them . It was a situation in which the pictures dominated the text and dictated its length and placing. Hence, as in MS. Rossi 3, the pictures sometimes were done before the text. On fol. 7r, for example, part of the word > in > before the picture illustrating the third mode, intrudes on the top of the picture, as do some of the

17

Interestingly, the measurements of the pictures in the Madrid manuscript provided by ITURGAIZ, art. cit. n.l above, pp. 28-9, are almost to a millimetre those in R. Since M is not copying R, though they have a source in common, it seems reasonable to conclude that the measurements so strikingly common to R and M are those of the original pictures of the Ways.

THE WAYS OF PRAYER OF ST DOMINIC

103

letters of > in « subscripta figura docet >> is forced into the right margin because there is no room left for writing just above the picture to which« subscripta >> refers (see plate 7). These words to pictures which are simply not there. The charge that R (i.e. the breviary - booklet A - and the antiphonary - booklet B), and given a probable connection with the Osma region through the usage of eight 0 antiphons at Silos, this now-battered volume in two distinct parts could have been that which Dominic took with him when he set out for Denmark with his bishop Diego of Osma in 1203. And since a large portion of Dominic's years (1206-1211) in the Narbonne area was spent in the company of Cistercians, then it is also possible that a Cistercian calendar was added at some time or other at the beginning (now fols. 1-5) of booklet A, just before the Breviary, perhaps on the occasion of the protracted visit to Citeaux which Dominic and his bishop made in the Spring of 1206.

***** So far, although not so good. But there is room for one final question. Is there any trace whatever of Dominic himself in this nondescript little volume ? Here one page above all of the calendar section at the beginning may merit more attention than that given to it in passing by Frs Gignac and Gleeson. This is the present folip, 5v at the very end of the calendar and at the end of the quire in A that is marked III. Originally it was blank, but at some time or other someone copied the opening line from hymns such as > on to the top half of the folic, in a distinctive hand that crops up from time to time in various annotations in margins of the breviary and antiphonary, for example at fols. 59v and 60V. Could this possibly be the hand of Dominic? The only sure way of answering such a question is to compare this hand with an authentic sample of the hand of Dominic. Unfortunately no such sample survives. A piece of parchment carrying an autograph of Dominic dated 16 August 1199 was kept in the seventeenth century in a reliquary at the monastery of Verula in the province of Zaragoza, but it has disappeared, probably during the

146

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

Napoleonic period 15 . A document of January 1201 signed by Dominic as Subprior of Osma was published in 1788 from the archives of the cathedral of Osma, but is no longer extant, no more than is the auto~raph of a letter of Dominic to his nuns in Madrid of May 1220 6 . All the same, all is not lost, at least from a palaeographical point of view. The hand of the fourteen lines on the blank folio 5v of part A, the breviary, and of various notes in part B, the antiphonary, is undeniably Spanish of the time of Dominic, and given the persistent tradition that the volume belonged to Dominic, could be that of Dominic 17 . This hand is very much a personal one and is quite distinct from the professional hands in the calendar (the present folios 1-5), the breviary proper (6-48), and the antiphonary (49-91). It is discernibly Spanish in its use of abbreviations (oms for omnis, oiuz for omnium, for example) ; in the uncrossed < et > sign, looking like a 7 ; the flamboyant final < s > on occasion, snaking below the line of writing ; a < g > that swings the lower stroke back under the head of the letter ; a tallish < a> open at the top ; the final the form of z well below the line of writing, as in < pastoribz > ; an < etcetera> which is rendered < 2c > ; a Gothic < r > followed by a plain < r > after a round letter, as in < abho2ruit > ; an upright instead of an horizontal or way stroke over < p > for ; and so on. Dominic was trained to write a century after the Council of Leon had prohibited the old « Visigothic >> script and imposed the « littera 15

V. KOUDELKA, Monumenta Diplomatica S. Dominici (Monumenta Ordinis Praedicatorum Historica 25, Rome 1966), p. 4n. The Verula document of 16 August 1199 has a Dominic signing as Sacristan, but in the Osma document of 1201 mentioned below, where Dominic signs as Subprior, there is still an «Ego Dominicus sacrista », so the Dominic of the Verula document may not be our Dominic. 16 J. L. CORVALAN, Descripci6n Hist6rica del Obispado di Osma, III. Collecion Diplomatica (Madrid 1788), n. XXX (pp. 41-3). Again my best thanks to Canon Arranz Arranz of Osma (see n. 14) for his gracious reply to my query about this document. 17 Gignac and Gleeson both remark on this hand on Sv and elsewhere. GIGNAC calls it (Le sanctoral dominicain, p. 18) «a second hand,. ; GLEESON, «Dominican Liturgical Manuscripts » (see n. 9), p. 126, repeats Gignac, but in a letter of 27 March 1992 terms it nicely a« Dominican hand •.

THE « BREVIARY OF ST DOMINIC

>>

147

gallica >> or Carolingian script which most of us use today in its 18 Humanistic form . Hence it is not always easy to distinguish Spanish from French products in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, though, as in some of the examples above, certain survivals from « Visigothic >> practices are a help. By the time Dominic began school and later studied at Valencia, the Carolingian script itself was undergoing changes which gradually would lead around the year 1200 to what is called '' Gothic >> script, the chief characteristic of which is the tendency to fuse together any back-to-back curves, , for example, and to introduce after a curved letter a rounded (r) that looks like a < 2 > and is thus able to be fused with the curved letter, as in the < abho2ruit> example on folio 5v. The hand that penned the fourteen lines on that folio and marginal notes elsewhere in the volume is then Spanish of the time of Dominic and could well be his.

***** But there is a final question. Granted all of this as possible, is it conceivable that Dominic would have penned notes such as these in any book or breviary owned by him ? It is ; and he may very well have been very much given to such a practice. At the canonization process in August 1234, the Spanish Dominican Stephen, then Provincial of Hungary, testified very helpfully that as a student of scripture at Valencia, Dominic, to help victims of famine in the region, sold books > 19 .

18

See in general, A. CANELLAS, Exempla scripturarum in usum scholarum, Pars altera (Saragossa !974?. 19 Monumenta Historica SPN Dominici, II (Monumenta Ordinis Praedicatorum Historica 16, Rome 1935), p. 153.

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

THE FRIARS AND READING IN PUBLIC

What I wish to speak about here, first of all, is one small aid to facilitate reading in public that has had little or no attention from scholars, before going on to discuss in general reading in public among the Friars. This aid is the insertion of a stroke over the syllable to be stressed in a word, the provision, if you wish, of a visible but discreet tonic accent as a help to monks, friars, clerics and others who in the course of their duties were called upon from time to time to read aloud in public from manuscripts or from printed books. Generally the strokes are very slight indeed, so as not to stifle the beauty of the line of writing or mar the page visually. One finds them readily in large, uncluttered bibles, psalters and liturgical books in general, in non-liturgical books selected to be read publicly in refectories, classes or chapters, and indeed in papal bulls or other documents that were proclaimed in public, such as the canonisation bull of Pope Celestine V by Clement V in 1313, where in the preamble, for example, words like prodeunt, progredi, agmina, etherea, archidiaconus, sydereis, are assigned tonic marks on the antepenultimate syllable in each case, and laborem, prelatis, solari, fulgore, canora, terrenis on the penultimate'. In this simple way, by scoring the text, that is, for public reading, the reader made sure that he did not, in the case of the papal bull, ruin by an inept accentuation the stately run of one or other or all of the three main forms of the inevitable curial cursus (planus, velox, tardus), or, in less specific circumstances, did not fall into absurdities such as mistaking Maria (antepenultimate syllable) for Maria (penultimate), as is nicely to be seen in the opening page of the Book of Genesis in a copy of the Gutenberg Bible, where nine words are scored for public reading, Maria included2 •

1

See the facsimile of the bull in R. TULLIO, Celestino V, Macchia d'lsemo 1997, pp. 24-30. 2 For a picture of this page see T. MCARTHUR, Worlds of Reference, Cambridge, 1986. The copy of the bible is not identified. For the cursus in general see T.O. TUNBERG, or, in general, « texts scored for public reading >>, owes its origin to a little work appended to the end of a thirteenth-century Parisian bible in the British Library (MS. Royal I.A.VIII, fols. 411-21) 3 . It is called there >, and in general it was intended to correct misspellings in copies of the bible and, in particular, to provide a guide to the pronunciation of difficult or unusual words such as irrigans, obstetrix and bissinum (accent on the antepenultimate syllable) or virago, deorsum, seorsum (penultimate). It was, it says, written for the >, and by someone around 1250 who professed to be >. The Correctorium has been attributed to Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln (1235-1253) 4 , but the setting seems to be more that of a monastery or friary than of a diocese. Although it is extant in five manuscripts, it never had the circulation of the Expositiones vocabulorum biblie by the Breton Franciscan Guillelmus Brito, of whom Salimbene records about 1285 that on a visit to Lyons in 1249 he had heard Brito correcting readers at meals, . Brito was irascible and impatient with the readers, Salimbene says, noting further that Brito had not yet written the book that carries his name in its title >>. Born surely of Brito's stint as a testy >, Summa Britonis is a dictionary of words, mainly those that unusual, in the bible, and shows a good acquaintance with writings of Isidore, Papias, Alexander de Villa Dei and, above Huguccio in his Derivationes5 •

the are the all,

Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide, Washington D.C. 1996, pp. 111-21. 3 There is a brief discussion of this manuscript in L.E. BOYLE, «Tonic Accent, Codico1ogy, and Literacy», in R.A. TAYLOR et alii, The Centre and its Compass. Studies in Medieval Literature in Honor of Professor John Leyerle, Kalamazoo 1993, pp. 1-10. 4 S. Harrison THOMSON, The Writings of Robert Grosseteste. Bishop of Lincoln, /235-1253, Cambridge 1940, pp. 127-28. 5 See Summa Britonis sive Guilelmi Britonis Expositiones Vocabulorum Biblie, ed. L.W and B.A. DALY, Padua 1975, introduction p. xiii, for this and for the

THE FRIARS AND READING IN PUBLIC

151

In the case of words which many might find difficult to accentuate or were subject to controversy where accentuation was in question, Brito indicates clearly where the accent should fall, thus, « in huiusmodi ergo nominibus : agonia, scenophegia, neomenia et consimilibus usum ecclesie teneas, in qua legis ut penultimam corrigias vel producas » (p. 23) ; > (p. 29) ; , where , Brito accepts his view that the accent is on the antepenultimate syllable (>), but notes that some theologians wrongly hold that two words and thus two accents (>) are in question and adds that if the reader of the Summa should find himself having to speak or read publicly in some church which holds for this opinion, he is to follow this mistaken usage, unless he be of sufficient authority to oppose it : > (pp. 631-2). As for > in 1 Cor. 15.21, which should in Brito's view be accented on the antepenultimate, he had to admit that to treat it as two words was the more common practice, and hence the reader could suit himself : > (p.634). Although Roger Bacon c. 1270 had a low opinion of the work of Brito, '' sui capitis stulticia obstinatus >>, he had to admit that it was famous and had a wide circulation : > 6 • The Summa Britonis indeed is extant today in 130 and more copies from all over Europe. The centre of distribution was undoubtedly Paris, where 43 peciae of a university exemplar of Brito were rented out from the shop of the bookseller William of Sens, probably around 1275, and are now in the Mazarine library in Paris

remarks of Salimbene. The quotations from Brito that follow here are, with indication of pages, from this edition. 6 Ibid., p. xiv.

152

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

as MS. 333 7 • In 1284 John Pecham, archbishop of Canterbury, issued a set of injunctions to Merton College, Oxford, in which, among other things, he orders that there should be a decent reference-table somewhere in the College for the common use of all, with the books of Papias and Huguccio and the Summa of Brito chained to it : > 8 • Clearly the going was not always easy for beginners, and compendia such as the Correctorium and Brito were a godsend for the young in religious communities like the Franciscans and the Dominicans, or academic communities such as Merton College. From this point of view the most explicit statement I am aware of on public reading in religious communities is in the De officiis of Humbert de Romanis, the fourth Master (or General) of the Dominican Order, around the year 1260. A reader reading publicly during meals, Humbert writes in his chapter > 9 , should always be very careful just how he reads, not only with respect to a measured punctuation and accentuation but also, for his own sake, to the sense of what he is reading aloud. If he has any doubts about that sense or about how exactly to read a passage, then he should consult the glosses or postills, or some of his brethren versed in these matters, and particularly the >. When receiving the blessing before reading at lunch or supper, he should stand in the middle of the refectory, and should not begin to read until all are seated and there is quiet. As far as possible he should read facing the community, and while reading should not speak too low or too loudly, but deliberately, distinctly and pleasantly, pausing the meanwhile at the proper places. When he is corrected by the Corrector he should accept this humbly, even if the Corrector is not all that sure about what is 7

See R.A. and M.H. RousE, The Book Trade of the University of Paris in their Authentic Witnesses : approaches to medieval texts and manuscripts, Notre Dame, Indiana 1991, p. 285. 8 Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckham, ed. C.T MARTIN, London 1885, III. 138. 9 B. Humberti de Romanis Quinti Praedicatorum Magistri Generalis Opera De vita regulari, ed. J.J. BERTHIER O.P., Rome 1888, II. 297-300

THE FRJARS AND READING IN PUBLIC

153

wrong, unless of course the Corrector is clearly in error. It was the duty of the reader to be in charge of the book to be read, taking it to the refectory and returning it afterwards to wherever it belonged. And if he found any defects or falsities or errors in books selected for reading, he was to bring these to the attention of the librarian, when the books in question were of the common stock of the house, or, if not, to the brethren to whom these books had been assigned officially for their private use. For the convenience of the next reader, at the end of each reading session he should mark with lead or wax the place where he had stopped, or place a knob (« sphera >>) on the spot. Finally, when guests were present and the reader of the day was not the best in the world, the reading should be assigned to someone more presentable, especially if the guests were men of letters or of intellectual eminence. In all of this public exercise of reading, the really key authority was the « Corrector mensae>>, that official, that is, according to Humbert (« De officio correctoris in mensa ,, )10 , whose function it was to oversee the readers as they read in public and to correct their pronunciation or accentuation where necessary. It was his duty, in concert with the superior of the house, to decide what was to be read at breakfast, lunch and supper, and if the requisite books were not to be found in the house itself, to borrow them and be responsible for them. Where books of the community were concerned, he was, Humbert says, to bring pressure on the superiors to ensure that books selected for public reading were well-corrected and punctuated, and the clauses properly indicated. In particular it was up to the Corrector to select books for breakfast and supper that would build the community up spiritually ; as far as possible these should be historical works which could be remembered without strain, such as the Vitae Patrum or the Collationes (of John Cassian). At lunch, however, the Bible was to have pride of place, though from time to time such as the > (complete works, that is, not excerpts or summaries) of some recent doctor also could have their moment. The constitutions of the Dominican Order, the acts of general or provincial chapters, and letters of the Master of the Order, also were to be read frequently

10

Ibid., II. 300-301.

154

LEONARD E. BOYLE O.P.

(and, of course, as Humbert notes elsewhere 11 , the Rule of St. Augustine once a week, generally on a Monday). Above all else it was the duty of the Corrector to take care of the public reading, to devote all his attention to it, and to help the reader, even when not requested to do so, with difficulties in accentuation or pronunciation or dubious readings. Readers who clearly were ill-at-ease and not making much progress were to be taken aside and brought up to standard charitably. In the refectory the Corrector should not be too far away from the reader, in Humbert's opinion; and if he found himself too much at a distance, he should request permission to seat himself nearer to the reader. All the same, he should avoid interrupting the reader tactlessly, and should not indulge at any point in out-of-the-way or unusual corrections which might unsettle the reader or jar the sensitivities of the hearers. The better to fulfil his office, Humbert says in conclusion of the chapter on the « Corrector mensae », the Corrector should see to it that his house was supplied with summary or manuals on accentuation, pronunciation, and grammar, and with « correctiones bibliae ,, (Brito, probably) and the like, 15 • The words spoken were no less instruments and had to be transmitted to the hearers unambiguously and tellingly : > 16 • 12

P.O. LEWRY, «Thirteenth-Century Teaching on Speech and Accentuation: Robert Kilwardby's Commentary on the De Accentibus of Pseudo-Priscian », in Mediaeval Studies 50 (1988), pp. 96-185, at pp. 142-43, 163-65, 175-80. 13 Divi Thomae Aquinatis Opera Philosophica, ed. R.M. SPIAZZI, Turin-Rome 1954, pp. 231-2 (cols. 665-70). J.-P. TORRELL, Initiation ii Saint Thomas d'Aquin, Fribourg-Paris 1993, pp. 516 and 523, sees it as a spurious work of Thomas. 14 On the Catholicon and other similar dictionaries see 0. WEDERS, Lexicography in the Middle Ages, Viator 20 (1984), pp. 139-53 ; R. SHARPE,