Christine Jakobi-Mirwald / Marilena Maniaci: “For there is nothing lost, that may be found, if sought”. Manuscript terminology across languages and scientific disciplines (original) (raw)
Related papers
Digital Philology: A Journal of Medieval Cultures
This article reviews the terminological framework to describe manuscripts. The Lachmannian terminology allows scholars to classify manuscripts as versions or variants of a work on a purely textual basis, but lacks a rigid designator to indicate a (part of a) manuscript as a unit of text and material considerations. Conversely, scholars who adopt Dagenais’ solution to renounce the work and concentrate on the material scriptum gain a rigid designator, but threaten to lose the ability to classify manuscripts at all. Proceeding from a case study, the article argues that the twelfth-century view of a work’s ontological status enables medievalists to keep classifying their scripta on both textual and material grounds. It explores the possibility of using Dagenais’ scriptum as the foundation for a Neo-Lachmannian terminological framework that allows scholars to study manuscript variance and materiality without losing the ability to classify them.
2016
A new resource for manuscript cataloguing The idea of an introduction to manuscript cataloguing stems from a series of scholarly achievements, conceptual inputs, and methodological debates which in the last few decades have concerned research on archaeology, history and the description of mediaeval books. We can mention, first of all, a recent and intensive production of new handbooks and introductions to manuscript studies, not confined to the most well-known and documented manuscript cultures (that is, the Greek and the Latin ones), but open to a comparative evaluation of other and less-investigated traditions, even in terms of a sheer quantitative census and summary description of their manuscript witnesses.1 In parallel to this, there has been significant progress in the study of the constituent materials and the structural components of the codex, which may greatly affect descriptive practices. In particular, among the new trends in contemporary codicology the recognition of th...
Education Materialised
Clm 19410 contains a variety of texts, most of them of rather drab and unassuming nature like questionnaires, moral sayings or writing templates. Taken together, they constitute a utilitarian manuscript to be used in education and for self-study in more advanced topics or even practice in them. Hidden among the different texts lay a multitude of glossaries of varying educational levels, from explanations of basic monastic texts to esoteric farm vocabulary, as well as a glossed version of an Anglo-Saxon poem. The glossaries and the poem are analysed in regard to their setting in the manuscript as well as to their internal characteristics. This analysis reinforces the impression of the manuscript as a dual use tool for education as well as advanced activities of the learned clergy of the time.
PECIA, 2004
FORD, John. “Metatextual Evidence of a Manuscript Relation Based on Correlation of Rubrication and Decorated Capitals in a Translated Medieval Text.” PECIA : Ressources en médiévistique 4 (2004): 1-28. It has long been recognised that the Middle English version of Amis and Amiloun has much in common with its Anglo-Norman predecessors in terms of content and style. Although versions of the story occur in almost every language of Europe, the parallels between the English and Anglo-Norman versions are so striking that they have often been linked together as a single group. As MacEdward Leach once stated : « The proof is there that the English is a translation or redaction of a version very close to the KLC group, and that consequently the English and the KLC group must be considered as a unit.1» While this paper supports Leach’s general view, its specific aim is to draw attention to the particularly close relationship between the English version of the story in ms Auchinleck (A) and the Anglo-Norman version of the story in ms Karlsruhe (C). The evidence provided here relies not so much on textual analysis (though such evidence does exist and will be touched upon) as it does on the wealth of metatextual evidence provided in the manuscripts. The metatext can be defined as the aggregate of those elements held to be « behind » or « outside » of the text, either because they have traditionally been considered incidental, secondary or merely decorative in nature2. Medieval punctuation, illumination, the mise-en-page, and rubrication or decoration of letters fall under the heading. However, given the individual nature of manuscripts, it is surprising that the metatext has not been the focus of more study. The layout of the page, the use or omission of line breaks and stanzas, the decorations accompanying a text and the signalling of sections by use of punctuation or decoration certainly tell us much about what the author or scribe thought of his work. Such considerations appear all the more important when one considers that, like the scribal hand or accompanying marginalia, the metatext can and does vary from manuscript to manuscript. With such considerations in mind, it would seem that the metatext should be equal in value to palaeography, which can help to date or localise a text, or marginalia, which might give insight to the impressions of the author, scribe or readers. Its importance might even eclipse other supra-textual considerations when one identifies instances of the metatext being transmitted along with the text from witness to witness. Nevertheless, despite longstanding recognition of the value of palaeo-graphy, codicology, and marginalia, the metatext has largely been neglected in manuscript studies. In modern editions, medatextual evidence tends to be considered independently of the text (e.g. illumination) or often ignored entirely (punctuation). Only recently have scholars seen the value in systema-tically noting rubrication or decoration in modern editions, and even then such elements are often omitted in the apparatus showing variants in critical editions. Indeed, lack of an edition indicating Karlsruhe’s decorated letters meant that the present study would have been impossible without directly consulting the manuscript. However, such a consultation reveals that the degree of correlation between Auchinleck’s rubricated letters and Karlsruhe’s decorated capitals surpasses the bounds of mere coincidence, especially when compared with the lack of correlation in other Anglo-Norman versions. This conclusion seems particularly apt when one considers the known history of the manuscripts concerned and their established relationship to each other, as explained briefly below.