'What is Medieval Paratext?' [open access], Marginalia, vol. 19 (November 2015), 37-50 (original) (raw)

In recent decades, as the attention of medievalists has turned towards considering the details that lie beyond the text, in the body of the physical manuscript itself, studies have increasingly made use of the terms ‘paratext’, ‘peritext’, and ‘epitext’, coined by Gérard Genette in the 1960’s. These terms are used unquestioningly, and often with little recourse to what Genette’s definitions were getting at; critics have also paid little heed to Genette’s own caution that over different periods, the form and function of the paratext endlessly change. Although Genette therefore warns us against the direct application of these terms to different periods of literature, we have not considered the implications of this statement, and his warning goes unheeded. But was Genette right? Does the paratext appear in the same form, and function in the same way in the medieval period as it does in the modern? Indeed, is there such a distinction between text and paratext to be made in manuscripts? Is such a distinction even useful? This paper explores these questions by discussing examples of two different kinds of what we term “paratext”, aspects of the manuscript that are considered as in some way secondary, or “marginal” to the text proper: prologues, and illuminations. The examples used are drawn from the author-manuscripts of Christine de Pizan and Guillaume de Machaut, two French writers active in the C.14th and early C.15th. We shall see that the status of prologues is particularly difficult to determine, as they could be presented as part of the text itself (paratext functioning as text), and in the case of Machaut’s famous prologue, operate as works in their own right (text functioning as paratext). Whilst the non-textual nature of illuminations and images makes it easier to class such features as paratextual, they can nevertheless enhance and inform our reading, to convey supplementary meaning, or enrich the messages to be drawn from the text. The inclusion of two representations of the author in one manuscript of Christine’s Epistre Othea serves to illustrate this point. I end the paper by suggesting that a distinction between text and paratext is useful, but that we need to be mindful of the porousness that exists between the two. It may be helpful in this respect to distinguish ‘scribal’ paratext from ‘editorial’ paratext. By stressing this difference, texts whose formatting does not match our modern expectations of printed formats might then be reexamined, and studied in all their paratextual glory.