Textual Traditions

Having now taken two scenarios ‘off the table’ (so to speak), some skeptics may still contend that the reason why the majority of Fécamp manuscripts do not have navigational reading aids has to do with the content of the books: perhaps some texts simply ‘come with’ navigational reading aids, and others do not.⁵⁹ However, if we

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

features to his copy; conversely, if the original exemplar did include chapter numbers in this part of the book, the two scribes who copied BnF, lat. 12131 and Rouen 425 may have chosen to exclude these features in their later copies.

57 McKitterick, ‘Glossaries and Other Innovations in Carolingian Book Production’.

58 Parkes, Pause and Effect, 70-71, similarly notes examples of medieval copies of the same text, that feature different punctuation.

59 It has been widely recognized that certain literary genres are conducive to specific book layouts and presentation styles. Calendars, for example, are most often positioned at the opening of a volume, with each month presented on a single folia and ruled in four columns; verse texts are usually presented in a single column, the start of each line highlighted with an initial; martyrologies typically present a single entry for each day of the year, displayed in a ‘single column of long lines’. For an overview of different layouts for different types of books, see Parkes, ‘Layout and Presentation of the Text’, 55-74.

look to some examples of different manuscripts that contain the same text, we, again, find a high-degree of scribal innovation in terms of page layout and reading aids.

For example, if we compare two copies of Smaragdus’ Expositio regulae Sancti Benedicti, one from the Fécamp corpus (BnF, lat. 4210), and another from the Abbey of St-Martial de Limoges (BnF, lat. 2157), we find a conspicuous contrast in the presentation of the text. Despite the fact that both books feature identical textual content, they differ in terms of their page layout and use of navigational reading aids.

The example from Fécamp (BnF, lat. 4210), for instance, was copied around c. 1000 and presents Smaragdus’ text in a two-column layout with the Rule of St Benedict presented in rustic capitals and uncials written in red, and the commentary written in light-brown minuscule.⁶⁰ This copy also features a chapter table (fol. 22r) with corresponding chapter numbers, as well as navigational paragraph marks highlighting the location of marginal chapter numbers:

!

Fig. 10 – BnF, lat. 4210, fol. 37r: Opening of chapter 4 with paragraph mark

In the other copy of Smaragdus’ Expositio, BnF, lat. 2157 (copied in the late tenth century) the text is presented in a single column of long lines, with the Rule of St Benedict present in non-rubricated uncials, with the commentary in the same colour ink, written in minuscules. While there is a section of text that features the same subject divisions BnF, lat. 4210, there are no original chapter numbers, nor navigational paragraph marks.⁶¹

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

60 For an overview of BnF, Lat. 4210, see Branch, ‘The Development of Script’, 65-66.

61 The chapter numbers seen faintly on the right of the image have been added by a much later hand in a light pencil (fols. 34r-35v). This hand is also responsible for the later addition of chapter numbers

Fig. 11 – BnF, lat. 2157, fol. 52r: Opening of chapter 4 without paragraph mark

Another example of two texts that feature different visual apparata can be found in Rouen 506 and Rouen 507 – two very different copies of Gregory the Great’s Dialogues. Rouen 506 was copied at the Abbey of Jumièges sometime in eleventh century and features a chapter table at the opening of each book, along with corresponding chapter numbers presented in large red roman numerals. Rouen 507 is a much later copy of the same text, likely produced at the Abbey of St-Èvroul in the late-twelfth or early-thirteenth century. Unlike its earlier counterpart, this copy of Gregory’s Dialogues does not contain any chapter tables nor any chapter numbers at any point in the volume. The side-by-side images below show the opening of book four of Gregory’s Dialogues: Rouen 506 on the left, clearly features a chapter table, while Rouen 507 on the right, indicates the opening of book four only with a rubricated incipit and initial:

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and corresponding paragraph marks in the text – that is to say, the original manuscript did not include chapter numbers, nor corresponding paragraph marks in the primary text.

Fig. 12 – Two copies of Gregory’s Dialogues: Rouen 506, fol. 49r (left); Rouen 507, fol. 20v (right)

These examples indicate that the text itself does not necessarily determine how a scribe chose to design and present each manuscript copy.⁶² It would be premature, however, to argue such a position conclusively without conducting a far mor comprehensive study, examining each text individually (an undertaking that far exceeds the limitations of this present study). What is important to acknowledge, however, is that the nature of the text does not necessarily influence the design of the manuscript. There is sufficient degree of variation between different copies of the same text to invalidate the suggestion that the text alone is what drove the Fécamp scribes to exclude navigational reading aids in so many of the books they copied.

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

62 Focusing on Augustine’s De civitate Dei, Pierre Petitmengin brings attention to another case of how chapter divisions of certain texts may change over time and may be presented differently in the manuscript record. Petitmengin explains that once Augustine had completed his De civitate Dei, he sent the manuscript to a catachumen named Firmus with a letter attached, which provided a summary of chapter tables intended to accompany the work. The letter (describing the chapter tables) was published separately from the primary work, and, either through accident, neglect, or otherwise, was not attached to all copies of the book circulating in the fifth century. This may help to explain why some later copies of the De civitate Dei include chapter tables and others do not. See Pierre Petitmengin,

‘La division en chapitres de la Cité de Dieu de saint Augustin’, in Henri-Jean Martin and Jean Vezin, eds., Mise en page et mise en texte du livre manuscrit (Paris: Éditions du Cercle de la Libraire – Promodis, 1990), 133-138; cf. R. W. Hunt, ‘Chapter Headings of Augustine De Trinitate Ascribed to Adam Marsh’, The Bodleian Library Record 5, No. 1 (April, 1954), 65-68.