Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:46:42.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Text of the Bible and the Script and Art of Tours

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2011

Leslie Webber Jones
Leslie Webber Jones
Affiliation:
College of the City of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘To no student of the Middle Ages,’ says Beeson, ‘can Tours and its scriptoria fail to appeal.’ The historian, for example, desires to know the part Alcuin played in the reform of writing, the relationship between the scriptoria and the Court and Church, the exact dates at which certain monks lived and wrote. The scholar interested in Classical and mediaeval literature turns to manuscripts of Cicero, Virgil, and Livy, or Augustine, Bede, and Isidore. The philologist looks for ‘Irish’ or ‘Spanish’ symptoms in the Latinity of certain codices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 1935 , pp. 135 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I present a list of abbreviations used hereafter for books and articles frequently mentioned:

Köhler, Schule.

Köhler, Wilhelm, Die Karolingischen Miniaturen. Im Auftrage des Deutschen Vereins für Kunstwissenschaft. Erster Band: Die Schule von Tours. Des Textes erster Teil: Die Ornamentik (Berlin, 1930).Google Scholar

(Köhler,) G. G. A.

(Köhler,) , G. G. A., review of Rand, Survey (see below), in Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 193. Jahrgang (1931), 321–336.Google Scholar

Rand, Survey.

Rand, E. K., A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours. Studies in the Script of Tours, I. (Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1929).Google Scholar

(Rand,) G. G. A.

Rand, E. K., review of Köhler, Schule (see above), in Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 193. Jahrgang (1931), 336–351.Google Scholar

‘Alcuin's Bible.’

Rand, E. K., ‘A Preliminary Study of Alcuin's Bible,’ in The Harvard Theological Review, XXIV (1931), 323–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

The Earliest Book of Tours.

E. K. Rand, with the assistance of Jones, Leslie Webber, The Earliest Book of Tours with Supplementary Descriptions of Other Manuscripts of Tours. Studies in the Script of Tours, II. (Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1934).Google Scholar

2 Beeson, C. H., in Classical Philology, XXV (1930), 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Lowe, E. A., ‘Handwriting,’ in C. G. Crump and E. F. Jacob, The Legacy of the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1926), 217.Google Scholar

4 Survey.

5 Schule.

6 For the points of agreement and disagreement see Köhler, G. G. A.; Rand, G. G. A.; and ‘Alcuin's Bible.’

7 G. G. A., p. 333.

8 Ditto.

9 G. G. A., p. 334.

10 G. G. A., pp. 335–336.

11 G. G. A., p. 347. Cf., e.g.: ‘In some cases it is hard to tell the difference between a letter, or a fragment of text, and a picture; but if lettering underlies the art, however elaborate the art may be, it is a scribe who achieves it.’

12 G. G. A., p. 348.

13 G. G. A., p. 349.

14 G. G. A., pp. 349–350.

15 For an application of this principle to another problem see Jones, L. W. and Morey, C. R., The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence prior to the Thirteenth Century (Princeton: 1930 and 1932).Google Scholar

16 G. G. A., p. 336.

17 G. G. A., p. 351, n. 2.

18 Rand, G. G. A., pp. 350–351; ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 341, 346, 347, 353, 373, 393, 395–396; The Earliest Book of Tours, p. viii.

19 He does, however, bar a book (Survey, No. 44) that formerly was the keystone in the arch of his account of the Alcutnian style, and on the contrary accepts as books of Tours manuscripts that Rand considers of questionable genuineness (Survey, Nos. 33, 95).

20 For a study of some of the foundations upon which Alcuin built see The Earliest Book of Tours.

21 Cf., e.g., the importance of studying the appearance of imitations of the various styles of Tours at other centers as a means of dating the styles at Tours itself. On this point see Rand, E. K., ‘A Supplement on Dodaldus,’ Speculum, VI (1931), 594Google Scholar, and Jones, L. W., ‘Two Salzburg Manuscripts and the Influence of Tours,’ Speculum, X (1935), July.Google Scholar

22 Rand avoids a consideration of text in Survey, but includes it in ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ 373–393 (he adds the readings of Morgan Library 191 and Tours, Bib. Municipale, 22 to Köhler's list). For Köhler's treatment of text see the description below.

23 Schule, p. 314.

24 Die Trierer Ada-Handschrift, bearbeitet und herausgegeben Menzel, von K., Corssen, P., Janitschek, H., Schnütgen, A., Hettner, F., Lamprecht, K.. Publikationender Gesellschaft für Rheinische Geschichtskunde (Leipzig, 1889), 29–61.Google Scholar

25 Schule, pp. 338–361.

26 Köhler also considers the order of the books of the Bible (Schule, pp. 315–318), the prefatory pieces (Schule, pp. 318–323), the capitula and the divisions in the text (Schule, pp. 323–338). These matters will be discussed below (pp. 143–149).

27 Bruyne, Dom de, ‘Notes sur la Bible de Tours au IXe siècle,’ in Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 193. Jahrgang (1931), 357.Google Scholar

28 Novum Testamentum … (Oxonii, 1889–1898).

29 ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 382.

30 Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1893), p. 241.Google Scholar

31 Quentin, Dom H., Mémoire sur l'Établissement du Texte de la Vulgate. Collectanea Biblica Latina, VI (Rome and Paris, 1922)Google Scholar. See Rand's, E. K. criticism of this work in The Harvard Theological Review, XVII (1924), 197–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Dom de Bruyne, loc. cit., makesthe following excellent suggestion: ‘Enfin on s'étonne que personne n'ait encore songé à comparer les mss de Tours avec le commentaire d'Alcuin sur S. Jean. Le commentaire aété fait immédiatement après la revision de la Bible et il est done un excellent critère pour apprécier le texte de nos mss.’

33 ‘Methodische Fortschritte und Materieller Landerwerb in der Kunstforschung,’ in Acta Archaeologica, III (1932), 276–288 (with two plates).Google Scholar

34 Art. cit, p. 280.

35 Nordenfalk would really prefer to regard Paris, B. N., lat. 1451 (dated 796) as 'den besten chronologischen Anhaltspunkt' (p. 279). This ms., however, though retainedby Wilmart, Dom A., ‘Dodaldus, clerc et scribe de Saint-Martin de Tours,’ Speculum, VI (1931), 574Google Scholar, n. 2, is discarded by Köhler and by Rand, , ‘A Supplement on Dodaldus,’ Speculum, VI (1931), 592 sq.Google Scholar

Again, Nordenfalk (art. cit., p. 280, n. 3) does not seem to accept the early date of Rand's pre-Alcuinian (‘Improved Cursive’) period. He thinks that Rand has recanted and placed it after Alcuin's revision of the text (801), i.e., ‘weit ins IX Jahrhundert,’ though Rand has done nothing of the sort.

36 Loc. cit.

37 Art. cit., p. 280.

38 Art. at., p. 284.

39 Art. cit., pp. 282–284.

40 He finds, however (art. cit., p. 282) that it differs from mss. of Tours in that it changes the body and interlacings of the bird-initials of its prototype into a snake (‘Schlange’). This would of course be accounted for by supposing our ms. pre-Alcuinian. As a further evidence of the same date he points out (p. 284) that it is the second volume ofa two-volume Bible, whereas the St. Gall Bible (which is the earliest to show Alcuin's revision) is in one volume, and Alcuin's letter written to accompany the Alcuinian edition remarks as notable the fact that the edition is in one volume. Nordenfalk, however, fails to point out that some of the Bibles of Tours whichbelong to the Alcuinian recension are in two volumes: Survey, No. 49 (London, B. M., Harley 2805), the first half of a Bible; No. 70 (Angers, Bib. Mun. 1–2), two parts of one Bible, written possibly at Angers; No. 73 (Berne, Stadtbib. 3–4), two parts of one Bible.

41 In The Earliest Book of Tours, p. 96. See also Plates LIX-LXI.

42 Survey, p. 107.

43 That this conclusion is correct is also substantiated by the adherence of the text to the Alcuinian revision. See below, pp. 166, 173–175.

44 Art. cit., p. 284.

45 See above, p. 139.

46 I desire to express my gratitude to Monsieur Ph. Lauer, Conservateur des Manuscrits at the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and to Mr. Morgan, his librarian Miss Belle da Costa Greene, and Miss Meta P. Haarsen also of his library, for their permission to consult these manuscripts and their kindness in facilitating my work.

47 As Rand points out, ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 386,the Morgan Gospels in both earlier and later parts is A. T. in all of the readings listed by Köhler. SeeRand's account of this manuscript, art. cit., pp. 351–352, andKöhler's account, Schule, p. 161.

48 Art. cit., p. 383.

49 This ms. (Rand, art. cit., p. 395, and Köhler, Schule, p. 339) is certainly N. E.

50 Art. cit., p. 383.

51 I have intentionally omitted from my report of Paris, B. N., lat. 8847, as of no significance, certain misspellings, the omissions of certain unimportant words (particularly et at the beginning of clauses, though this is sometimes significant, as we shall see), and certain inversions (corrected frequently by m. 1). In general, the manuscript is much more faulty in text than either of the other two manuscripts. In some instances my judgment will probably prove to be wrong, but I doubt if these instances will affect the general picture. The way ofthe critic of text is a hard one, beset by pitfalls at every hand, but traversed it must be.

52 Schule, p. 315. I omit consideration of one of Köhler's criteria, the order of the books of the Bible, which in the present case is of no significance.

53 The fact that a Bible is written in one or in two volumes has already been considered (see above, p. 141, n. 40) for its possible bearing upon date.

54 tamen is merely a variant of etiam.

55 Schule, p. 319.

56 ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 377. Cf. his further remarks, loc. cit., on the same subject.

57 ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 377.

58 After the prologues in Mor and P3.

59 Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1893), p. 307.Google Scholar

60 ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 378.

61 Stephan Beissel, Geschichte der Evangelienbücher in der ersten Hälfte des Mittelalters. Ergänzungshefte zu den “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,” Heft 92 und 93 (Freiburg, 1906), pp. 334–335.Google Scholar

62 Schule, pp. 323–335.

63 ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 378–381.

64 ‘Notes sur la Bible de Tours au IXe siècle,’ Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 193. Jahrgang (1931), pp. 354–357. He points out, moreover, art. cit., p. 355, n. 2, ‘Berger 353 énumère un grande nombre de sommaires en indiquant les mss où ils se trouvent. Ces listes sont cependant encore incomplètes. Le tableau de Beissel ne mérite pas les éloges que lui donne trop généreusement Köhler 323. Wordsworth a édité beaucoup de sommaires, mais n'a pas tenté de donner un texte critique.’Google Scholar

65 P. 355, particularly n. 1.

66 Pp. 355–357.

67 Dom de Bruyne, art. cit., p. 356.

68 Köhler, Schule, p. 333.

69 Köhler, Schule, p. 329.

70 Presumably R (n), though J (l) also has 46 items. Except for a few readily explicable variations the divisions in Mor and P2 occur at exactly the same points in the text: the system in the two books is obviously the same.

71 Dom de Bruyne, art. cit., p. 355.

72 Köhler, Schule, p. 329.

73 The only instance of divergence (II at Ch. I, 46 in Mor and at Ch. II in P3) is pretty surely accidental.

74 Köhler, Schule, p. 326.

75 Köhler, Schule, p. 327. There are also traces of another set here employing 78 items.

76 Presumably R (Q), though J (l) has only one more item and might therefore be confused with the former.

77 There is one instance of divergence, fairly surely accidental: XXXV at Ch. XX, 19 in Mor and at Ch. XX, 1 in P3.

78 Köhler, Schule, p. 327.

79 ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 391.

80 For neglect in this matter cf. the Bible of Monza, ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 380.

81 If there was not some conservatism in the copying of Bibles, why were the Alcuinian and subsequent revisions not adopted almost immediately in their entirety?

82 After all, two sets of numbers afford little basis for choice, especially if one set is not crossed out or expunged.

83 The Bible of Monza has divisions for all four Gospels, but a set of capitula for Luke only. The Bible of Basel has divisions for Matthew alone, but no capitula. The St. Gall Bible, finally, has merely ‘traces’ of divisions, but no actual divisions or capitula. See Köhler, Schule, pp. 324–325; ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 378–381; Dom de Bruyne, art. cit., pp. 356–357.

84 P. 172.

85 P. 143.

85a Or sometimes the page in Wordsworth and White's larger edition.

85b Or line.

86 Wordsworth, J. and White, H. J., Novum Testamentum … secundum Editionem Sancti Hieronymi ediderunt (Oxford, 1889–1922).Google Scholar

87 There is proof in the readings in which Mor, P3, and P8 all agree against all the important non-Turonian families — the Irish (DELQRZ), the Northumbrian (AY), and the Theodulfian (ΘH. (Cf. p. 173 below). Such readings I have not listed among my variants, since my interest there has been not to distinguish the Turonian text from others, but to set down the readings in which P8 differs from Mor or P3 or both. I present below, however, several examples of readings characteristic of the Turonian text, readings in which Mor, P2, and P8 all agree against non-Turonian families: Mark, 5, 35: ab archisynagogo] ad archisynagogum (with KW); 6, 32: in navi] in navem (with CIK ); 8, 19: quot] et quot (quod P3); 13, 2: has omnes magnas] magnas has omnes (with KV); 14, 13: laguenam] lagoenam (with ); Luke, 16, 21: divitis] + et nemo illi dabat (nunc eras. P8) (with KTW) 21, 13: continget] P8 m. 2 contingit (contigit Mor); John, 7, 39: non enim] nondum ( + enim? Mar); 13, 2: corde] cor (with ); 19, 36: impleatur] impleretur (with IKTVW).

88 Wordsworth, J. and White, H. J., Novum Testamentum … secundum Editionem Sancti Hieronymi ediderunt (Oxford, 1889–1922). See the preface of this book for an explanation of the symbols used to designate the various manuscripts. I enclose in parentheses below certain readings, the presentimportance of which in indicating P8's sources I have not yet discovered.Google Scholar

89 Rand, ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 383, names only D, E, L, Z as the Irish group. Wordsworth and White, op. cit., p. x, include Q and R. P8, however, agrees with Q and R alone of the Irish group (or with Q or R alone) in the following cases only: Mark, 14, 61 (RX*, an easy independent change); Luke, 12, 41 (HCTR, etc., possibly an independent omission); John, 4, 10 (Y*R, an easy independent error); John, 4, 38 (AYHQR, etc.; harder to explain, but this part of L is not extant); and John, 18, 36 (AYΘHR, etc.; this part of L is not extant).

90 Z is frequently the only manuscript which agrees with both Mor and P8. Z is not the immediate archetype of P8, but it is certainly not far removed in relationship. In addition to the 50 instances mentioned above one should also consider the following instances in which Zc may possibly be Z m. 1: Mark, 1, 12; Luke, 7, 38; 11, 31; 23, 38; John, 15, 25; 18, 39.

91 Matthew, 13, 15 (perhaps independent omission of enim); 27, 64 (possibly independent changes); Mark, 9, 28 (perhaps independent omission of nos); 13, 11 (perhaps independent changes).

92 Luke, 9, 18 (not a bold addition; cf. autem in verses 13, 14, and 16, which immediately precede); 21, 9 (possibly independent errors).

93 Epist. ad Damasum, p. 2, 18(AHΘKVY); Matthew, 8, 20 (VWXe [in ras.] Y); Luke, 7, 38 ( possibly Zc here = Z m. 1); John, 10, 5 (AΔFGHΘMSY); cf. Luke, 10, 7 (H[ut cidetur sed dubium] ).

94 John, 6, 21 ; 14, 10 (ACASY).

95 According to Wordsworth and White, op. cit., T is saec. x and C saec. ix. T, then, is certainly, and C quite possibly, later than P8, but both are nevertheless useful examples of what may have been contained in their models.

96 John 6, 21 ; 14, 10 (ACΔSY).

97 John, 8, 27 m. rec. T).

98 Pp. 145–149 above.

99 Although apparently many Bibles were copied at Tours, they were usually sent to other monasteries for use there. Consequently, at any given time there would not normally have been a large number of Bibles at Tours.

100 C. H. Beeson, in his review of Jones, L. W. and Morey, C. R., The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence prior to the Thirteenth Century, II. The Text (Princeton University Press, 1932)Google Scholar, in Classical Philology, XXIX (1934), 75Google Scholar states that when new editions of Classical authors were made in the Middle Ages, they immediately drove out the older editions. ‘When an old codex was copied, the copy displaced the original.’ But this is apparently not true of the editions of the Bible in every case. The difference is no doubt due to the fact that many of the faithful considered particular editions of the Bible as possessing some sanctity and therefore hesitated to discard them completely.

101 ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 385.

102 I add Q and R to this group in accordance with Wordsworth and White, op. cit., p. x, though Rand does not include them.

103 ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 383–385. Rand cites seven, but his nos. 5 and 83 are not really examples of his point.

104 Op. cit.

105 Köhler at first asks (Schule, p. 342) if it is too bold aconjecture to regard Amalricus as the compiler of N. E. and then speaks positively of the ‘Amalricustext’ and the ‘Amalricusrevision’ (loc. cit.).

106 Schule, p. 22.

107 ‘Alcuin's Bible,” p. 393.

108 The Earliest Book of Tours, p. 96.

109 Loc. cit.

110 Loc. cit. The Regular set, in general. Note t always for -tur.

111 This is probably due to fairly strict adherence to an older model.

112 The added variants in London, British Museum, Add. 11848 and in the Gospels of Nancy should also be examined in this connection to see if they are by the original scribe or by a later hand. Cf. ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ p. 395.

113 See above, p. 140.

114 ‘Methodische Fortschritte und Materieller Landerwerb in der Kunstforschung,’ in Acta Archaeologica, III (1932), p. 284 and Abb. 2, p. 283. Cf. also pp. 282–283.Google Scholar

115 See above, pp. 141 ff. passim.

116 See above, pp. 136–137.

117 Of course Köhler does not agree with Rand concerning a number of non-illuminated manuscripts as well (G. G. A., pp. 323–327), but our present concern is with illumination.

118 G. G. A., pp. 323–332.

119 G. G. A., pp. 340–347; ‘Alcuin's Bible,’ pp. 327–335; elsewhere when noted.

120 The Arabic numerals at the left of the items are Köhler's. Rand's designations are in parentheses.

121 To this list should be added Cologne, Dombibliothek XIII, thought once by Köhler (Survey, p. 115) a product of St. Martin's early in Alcuin's time, but later excluded from his list (G. G. A., p. 325), although with hesitation. This book I (Jones) find in The Earliest Book of Tours, pp. 92–94, to be Alcuinian (IVa).

122 There are minor disagreements in this period in manuscripts not mentioned below. See G. G. A., pp. 341–342 on Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 25, and 26. On No. 25 (No.48-R) and on No. 16 (No. 63-R) see also The Earliest Book of Tours, p. 95 (Jones) and pp. 96–100 (Rand) respectively.

123 In general, Rand puts all thebooks in this group of Köhler's nearer 820 than 843. The remaining members of the group are: 27.Paris, B. N., lat. 3 (No. 80. V); 28. Nancy, the Gospels of St. Gozlin (No. 79. V); 29. Paris, B. N., lat. 274 (No. 82. V); 30. Wolfenbüttel 2186 (No. 128. VI); 31. London, British Museum, Add. 10546 (No.77. V); 33. Basel B. II. 11 (No. 96. V. Cf. Rand in The Earliest Book of Tours, pp.110–112); 35. Vienna 468 (No. 104. V); 36. Leningrad Q. V. 1. No. 21 (No. 102. V).

124 Note Rand's statement, G. G. A., p. 346: ‘Some of the books in the present section, therefore, that I have labelled Period VI might well have been done after thesacking of St. Martin's — my approximate limit was 860.’

125 To the present group should be added Berlin, Preuss. Staatsbib.,Hamilton 248 (No. 124: R). See Jones in The Earliest Book of Tours, pp. 115–117.