How to Do Things with Diagrams? A 13thย Century Kabbalistic Experiment with a 12thย Century Cosmographic Cycle

Jewish Kabbalistic writings often construct elaborate systems to assist their metaphysical speculations on the divine realm. Occasionally, these systems are presented through diagrams that map out the structure of divine potencies and the dynamic relationships between these potencies and the created world. The best-known examples are the numerous variations of thetheosophical Sefirotic Tree, whose branching structure has come to epitomize the dynamic order of divine entities and powers, (sefirot). Yet the early 13th century Kabbalists also drew on other types of geometric diagrams that were readily available in the scientific and theological environments of the time, namely, the concentric spherical diagram as generally informed by Ptolemaic astronomy. These diagrams, which consisted of ten spheresโ€”the 7 traditional planets, the sphere of fixed stars, the diurnal sphere (Primum Mobile), and, in some cases, the Universal Intellectโ€”were integrated and further modified by Jewish theological and Kabbalistic doctrines of creation.

Kabbalistic texts illustrate how dynamic and adaptive these cosmological models were. So much so, that Kabbalists often integrated elements from markedly different systems, mainly theological or cosmogenic, thereby reconstruing the nature, logic, and order of the cosmic diagrams of the time. One notable case appears in Ginnat Egoz (The Garden of the Nut), a cosmic-Kabbalistic work composed in 1274 by the Castilian Kabbalist Joseph Giqatilla. His text includes a spherical diagram that serves as the structural skeleton of his cosmology (Figures 1โ€“2).

Figure 1: The British Library, MS Add. 11416, fol. 147r.

As the diagram suggests, Giqatilla reconfigured the concentric model by integrating the first ten Hebrew letters as ciphers which stand for the โ€˜parts of the cosmosโ€™. In the manuscripts of Ginnat Egoz, the diagram usually appears as two concentric circlesโ€”an inner and an outer sphere. On the inner circumference are inscribed the first ten Hebrew letters, ordered counterclockwise: ื, ื‘, ื’, ื“, ื”, ื•, ื–, ื—, ื˜, ื™. These letters, and the Hebrew alphabet more generally, played a significant role in ciphering complex cosmic structures, also due to their numerical value as established in early Rabbinic tradition. The numerology of the Hebrew letters was constructive tool for recasting the relationship between the spheres and parts of the cosmos, as ciphered by the first ten Hebrew letters:

The ten letters correspond to the โ€œten parts of the universeโ€, a term which refers to both the number of spheres and to the 10 cosmic qualities that the Hebrew letters carry together with their respective numerical values. The latter is pivotal for the construction of a dynamic cosmos that operates by the qualities epitomized by these linguistic principles. Another pivotal addition is the symbol ื™ื, hovering above the inner concentric letter-arrangement. The numerical value of this symbol is 11, or 10 + 1 (ื™+ื). In Jewish Neoplatonic literature ื™ื often represents the transcendent One in relationship to the tenfold cosmos. In Giqatillaโ€™s diagram it takes on an additional function, namely, the primary principle of divine motion which sustains and governs and spheres.

Figure 2:ย Paris, Bibliothรจque nationale de France, MS Hรฉb,ย 811, fol. 30r.

The categorical distinction between the ten cosmic parts and the principle of divine motion likely prompted later copyists of the Garden of the Nut to render Giqatillaโ€™s cosmic diagram more schematically. Thus, a sixteenth-century manuscript in (Figure 3) arranges the ten letters on one side of the sphere, directly opposite the symbol ื™ื on the other. Each side bears a heading: แธฅelqe ha-galgal (โ€œparts of the sphereโ€) and tenuสฟah ื™ื (โ€˜motion Yโ€˜), respectively. Whereas the diagram in the Paris and London manuscripts can be considered integrative (in the sense that the hovering symbol ื™ื is situated in dialogue with the running alphabetic circle), the diagram in the Munich manuscript is pronounceably schematic.      

Figure 3:ย Ginnat Egoz, Munich, Bavarian State Library, MS Cod. hebr. 54, fol. 175r.

The idea that the universe consists of the principles embedded in the Hebrew alphabet is central to many Jewish texts, and The Garden of the Nut marks another important moment in this rich speculative tradition. But it also affords us an opportunity to better assess the role that diagrams play in the intersection of cosmology and theology. Particularly, Giqatillaโ€™s letter-cosmography stresses the question whether Kabbalistic diagrams served a goal beyond the mere pedagogical illustration of complex ideas? Addressing this question is also instructive for assessing the manuscript tradition of Giqatillaโ€™s Garden of Nut which includes a markedly distinct rendition of the alphabetic-spherical diagram.  

Abraham Ibn Ezraโ€™s 12th century Arithmetic Cycle

Let us begin by noting that Giqatillaโ€™s diagram has a history. It bears striking allusions to a diagram presented by the Andalusian polymath Abraham Ibn Ezra (12 c.), one of Giqatillaโ€™s major influences. In his Sefer ha-Mispar (โ€œBook of Numbersโ€), composed over a century prior to The Garden of Nut, Ibn Ezra offered perhaps the earliest systematic Hebrew introduction to the decimal number system. He prefaced it with a brief meditation on the symbolic qualities of the nine numbers and their analogy to the nine spheres encompassing earth:

[The Hebrew word] Sfar refers to the nine numbers, since nine is the end of any reckoning. You should know that the nine are the true numbers which stand against the nine spheres and all the ensuing numbers are assimilated to them

โ€”ย Abraham Ibn Ezra, Preface to Sefer ha-Mispar, trans. Shlomo Sela (excerpt; adapted).

The first nine Hebrew letters (ืโ€“ื˜) represent the numbers 1โ€“9 and the nine celestial spheres surrounding the sublunary realm. The sequence proceeds counterclockwise, with แนญet (ื˜, 9) at the apex. Ibn Ezra assumes also the additional symbol 0 (‘void’), functioning as a placeholder within a decimal system. Ibn Ezra is not explicit about the cosmic analogue of the 0, though one might wonder if he had the sublunar realm in mind.

Figure 4: Ibn Ezra,ย Sefer ha-Mispar; Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS Cod. hebr. D 194, fol. 90v..

While not figured in the diagram, the letter yod (ื™, 10) is implied as the radix of the decimal system, rather than one of its counted elements. What is significant about Ibn Ezra circular diagram is its arithmetic  mechanism which demonstrates the harmony of the 9 letters and, consequently, of the spheres: Multiplying 9 by any descending integer yields products whose digits are positioned as diametrically opposite pairs.

Figure 5: The Austrian National Library, MS Cod. hebr.ย ย D 194, fol. 90v.

Reconstructing Giqatillaโ€™s Experiment

Ibn Ezra was a polymathic thinker and several of his ideas, in both areas of linguistics and cosmology, became pivotal to Giqatilla. There are grounds to assume that Ibn Ezraโ€™s cosmic diagram was among these adopted ideas, and not simply because of the graphic and doctrinal allusions. If we read Giqatillaโ€™s diagram through Ibn Ezraโ€™s arithmetical logic, its inner workings become clearer. In the discussion following his diagram, Giqatilla introduces various cosmic constructs by manipulating the elements presented in the alphabetic diagram. One of these hermeneutical products is the following fourfold set of letters: โ€œThe parts of the sphere [are] ืื˜ (AT), ื‘ื— (Bแธค), ื’ื– (GZ), ื“ื• (DW).โ€

Figure 6: London, British Library, MS Add. 11417, fol. 147r.

This set alludes to an established Rabbinic hermeneutical formula, known asย ืื˜ื‘ืดื—ย (ATBแธค), where specific letters in the Hebrew alphabetic system are interchangeable with their respective counterparts โ€“ e.g.,ย  the letter โ€™aleph (ื) with tet (ื˜), bet (ื‘) with แธฅet (ื—), and so forth. Giqatilla adopts this hermeneutical device while recasting its function and significance through the logic of Ibn Ezraโ€™s cosmic-decimal system. He does not spell out his methods, but the logic can be construed if we correctly identify the key variables in his diagram while using Ezraโ€™s system as a frame of reference. The same variables are at play in each of the systems:

  1. The multiplicand โ€“ the sequential letters around the circle;
  2. The multiplier โ€“ the letter at the apex (แนญet, 9, in Ibn Ezra; yod, 10, in Giqatilla);
  3. The radix โ€“ the numerical base that determines the systemโ€™s internal coherence.

The crucial change lies in this last variable. The compound symbol ื™ื, whose numerical value is 11 (โ€™aleph + yod), stands above the circle as a new counting base Giqatillaโ€™s diagram therefore operates not on a decimal but on an undecimal system. (Giqatilla uses the symbol ื™ื for this undecimal radix, but for the sake of clarity we may use the letter A as a placeholder for the radix 11, by which logic the number 10 is the last of the counted number: 1-10.)

Figure 7: Paris, BnF, MS hรฉb. 811, fol. 30r.

This small adjustment transforms the arithmetic while recasting the parts of the universe. Where Ibn Ezraโ€™s 9 ร— 9 produced 81 (ืื—), Giqatillaโ€™s multiplication (within an undecimal system) yields 73 (ื’ื–). Each of the ten letters, multiplied by 10, produces a value recalculated according to base 11. The decimal radix and unitsโ€™ places are redefined: 10ยฒ = 9(A) + 1, where A signifies the new radix 11 and, 1 represents the remainder. Similarly, the product 9 ร— 10, which equals 90 in decimal terms, becomes 82 in the undecimal system [8(A) + 2]. The letter ื—ืณ represents the undecimal grouping [8(A)] and 1 constitutes the remainder of the unit digit.

Under this paradigm, Giqatilla reconstructs the ATBแธค letter-pairing formula. From his modified arithmetic emerges the four pairings: ืื˜ (AT), ื‘ื— (Bแธค), ื’ื– (GZ), ื“ื• (DW). Each represents a structural correspondence between cosmic parts as sustained by divine motion, echoing but transforming Ibn Ezraโ€™s earlier decimal pairs (ืื—, ื‘ื–, ื’ื•, ื“ื”). Following Ibn Ezraโ€™s logic, the digits constituting the resulted value stand symmetrically in relationship to the apex (the multiplier), while diametrically opposing each other: ืื˜ (AT), ื‘ื— (Bแธค), ื’ื– (GZ),  and ื“ื• (DW). Similarly, the addition of the two digits/letter of each pairโ€”e.g. ื+ื˜โ€”amounts to the apex (10) and thus completes the order of numbers. Diverging from Ibn Ezra, Giqatillaโ€™s apex is the letter ื™ืณ  (rather than ื˜ืณ) and, more importantly, the radix, that is, the basis of the system in toto, is the combine letters ื™ื (rather than ื™ืณ).

The addition of ื™ื to the cosmic diagram is quite instructive. It reveals how established systems are adopted and further modified by new metaphysical and theological ideas, on the one hand, and with the aid of traditional hermeneutical formulas, on the other. Like other 13th century Kabbalists, Giqatilla developed a distinct cosmology which he based on the active principle of the ื™ื, the latter signifying the One as the direct and active and cause of cosmic motion and its sustainability. No less significant is what Giqatillaโ€™s adopted diagram teaches us about how original theological systems take form. Giqatillaโ€™s model borrows from the available systems of his time while reworking their elements and, at the same time, โ€˜reinventingโ€™ a new cosmology whose principles and essence assume a different and perhaps more radical conception of creation. Finally, this process of adaptation also shows us why graphic precision is important.  The schematic version of the diagram (Figure 3) loses the entire logic of the spherical letters in relationship to the apex, and their diametric opposition in relationship to each other. I shall conclude this interesting spherical diagram journey, from Ibn Ezra to Giqatilla, with the afterlife of Giqatillaโ€™s Garden of Nut. This work occupies a unique and important place in Kabbalistic literature, and some of its ideas and themes left a noticeable mark on subsequent Kabbalistic developments. One of these themes is the spherical diagram which the fourteenth century Kabbalist Menaแธฅem แนขiyyoni incorporated and further reworked in his commentary on the Pentateuch.

Figure 8: แนขiyyuni, London, British Library, MS Or. 13261, fol. 55r.

Difference and shifts in the process of copying was not unique to The Garden of Nut and here, too, we find interesting variations among manuscripts.

Figure 9: ย แนขiyyuni, Munich, Bavarian State Library, Cod. hebr. 76, fol. 154b.

The diagram is modified considerably in a Munich manuscript. (Figure 9) Not only does it reconfigure the diametric order of the letters, running now clockwise, it repositions the letter yod (ื™). This letter now initiates a new inner circle consisting of the Hebrew letters ื™, ืฆ, ื›, ืค, ืœ, ืข, ืž, ืก, ื  the latter forming the pairs ื™ืฆ, ื›ืค, ืœืข, ืžืก (These pairs complete the constituents of some version of the Rabbinic ATBแธค hermeneutic formula.)
 
Giqatillaโ€™s ATBแธค sphere provided the basis for further cosmic-theological diagrams. Some of these were modified and integrated into more complex theosophical systems of divine potencies (structured vertically) while borrowing further elements from the hermeneutical ATBแธค formula (Figure 10).

Figure 10: A marginale with the pairs ืื˜ ื‘ื— ื’ื– ื“ื• ื™ืฆ ื›ืค ืœืข ืžืก , and with the additional pairs ืงืฅ ืจืฃ ืฉืŸ ืชื โ€“ in a copy of แธคayyim Vitalโ€™s Kabbalistic Derush ATBแธค (16-17 c.). Moscow, Russian State Library, Gรผnzburg Collection, MS 1446, fol. 182r. The last pair ืชื does not appear in all versions.

All in all, the journey from Ibn Ezra to Giqatilla, and from Giqatilla to later theosophical Kabbalistic texts, offers a glimpse into the workings of a dynamic and creative force of Jewish theological speculation, producing conceptual shifts within a multifaceted intellectual history.

Tzvi Schoenberg, PhD
Arts and Letters Provost Postdoctoral Fellow 
Medieval Institute
University of Notre Dame 

Sources:

The Bavarian State Library, MS Cod. hebr. 54, fol. 175r

The Bavarian State Library, MS Cod. hebr. 76  fol. 154v

The National Library of France, MS hรฉb. 811, 30v

The British Library, MS Add. 11416, fol. 147r

The British Library, MS Or.13261, fol. 55r

The Austrian National Library, MS Cod. hebr. 194, fol. 90v

The Russian State Library, MS Guenzburg 1446, fol. 182r

Further reading: 

Yosef Avivi, Kabbalat ha-Ari, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Institute, 2008), 445 (Hebrew)

Avishai Bar-Asher and Jeremy Phillip Brown, Light is Sown: The Cultivation of Kabbalah in Medieval Castile (New York: Oxford University Press, 2025), 73-115 (esp. 99-106)

J.H. Chajes, โ€œSpheres, Sefirot, and the Imaginal Astronomical Discourse of Classical Kabbalah,โ€ Harvard Theological Review, 113: 2 (2020) 230โ€“262

J. H. Chajes, The Kabbalistic Tree (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2022)

Elke Morlok, Rabbi Joseph Gikatillaโ€™s Hermeneutics (Tรผbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011)

Yakir Paz and Tzahi Weiss, โ€œFrom Encoding to Decoding: The AแนฌBแธค of R. Hiyya in Light of a Syriac, Greek, and Coptic Cipher,โ€ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74: 1 (2015): 95โ€“114

James T. Robinson, “The ‘Secret of the Heavens’ and the ‘Secret of Number’: Immanuel of Romeโ€™s Mathematical Supercommentaries on Abraham Ibn Ezra in His Commentary on Qohelet 5:7 and 7:27”, Aleph, 21:. 2 (2021): 279-308

Shlomo Sela, Abraham Ibn Ezra and the Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science (Leiden: Brill, 2003)

Judith Weiss, โ€œSpherical Sefirot in Early Kabbalah.โ€ Harvard Theological Review 117: 4 (2024): 770-792

Notaries in Medieval and Early Modern Ireland

In June of 2023, I arranged to meet my friend and fellow historian Caoimhe Whelan for a short breakfast during one of my rare trips to Ireland. I had given the rest of the day over to research, a concession of one day in what was supposed to be a family holiday. At breakfast, Caoimhe introduced me to Stuart Kinsella, Christ Church Cathedralโ€™s Research Advisor; he was chasing down the scribes and notaries of the Cathedralโ€™s later medieval manuscripts, and had run across a few pages at the back of my dissertation – an appendix cataloguing all of the notaries I had found in the process of investigating the life and career of Anglo-Irish author and notary James Yonge. In introducing me to Stuart, Caoimhe inadvertently cancelled my vacation. Breakfast was consumed. We talked. We ordered coffee. Stuart got out his carefully compiled list of notaries. We talked some more. Soon we were ordering lunch. We compared images, debated the merits of early 20th-century drawings of documents lost in a catastrophic 1922 fire a half mile from where we sat, and began making plans. By the end of the morning, we had explored several possibilities for a project far wider than my study of James Yonge or Stuartโ€™s study of Christ Church scribes and notaries. Every spare moment I could get for the rest of my time in Ireland was given over to notaries. (Caoimhe would go on to destroy my summer holidays the following year with a grainy image of a notarial signum taken at Sarah Grahamโ€™s lecture at Leeds, but that is a tale for another time.)

            Notaries were specialized legal scribes used principally by the ecclesiastical courts to record proceedings and produce official documents. Notaries could be found in every corner of medieval and early modern Europe, and were particularly prevalent on the Italian and Iberian peninsulas where they also played a role in civil courts. In England and English-controlled Ireland, English civil law did not provide for notaries, and as a result they were far fewer in number. Notaries found their way, however, into civil procedures, particularly in cases where an official witness was needed. Notaries not associated with the church were paid by laypeople to produce documents that might be helpful in future cases in the ecclesiastical courts, particularly those regarding marriage or legitimacy.[1] In Anglo-Ireland, these specialized scribes also created new, authenticated copies of documents that had become faded or damaged. Notaries also served as official witnesses in disputes, creating documents functioning similarly to a sworn deposition; their instruments record in a matter-of-fact way dramatic moments in the lives of ordinary people. For instance, a 1406 instrument of James Yonge records that Robert Burnell wanted John Lytill to place his seal on some documents; Lytill refused, and Burnell responded by seizing Lytill in a Dublin street and holding him hostage until he acquiesced.[2] Another instrument by Thomas Baghill records an attempt to interfere in a will. On his deathbed, William Moenes was approached by his brother, Robert, who attempted to claim Williamโ€™s property, despite the objections of William himself, who even in his extremity protested that he wished his property to go to his uncleโ€™s daughters.[3] Both of these instruments were probably intended for later use in civil cases regarding the disposition of property.

            Notarial instruments are most easily identified by their signa. Each notary developed his own unique signum manuale, a pen-and-ink drawing that he used to authenticate the documents he created. These frequently looked like altar crosses. During the Tudor period, notarial signa became panels of knotwork.

Signum manuale of William Walch (fl. 1525-1538) on a document created in 1525 in the Waterford area and now housed at the National Library of Ireland, D.2129. Image courtesy of the National Library of Ireland.

Once developed, a notaryโ€™s signum remained fixed; he would use the same signum for the rest of his career. On an instrument, the signum manuale is also accompanied by an eschatocol, a formulaic attestation that the notary has heard and witnessed what is recorded in the document and that the contents are true to the best of the notaryโ€™s knowledge. Eschatocols frequently begin with an E that can be quite plain or highly ornamented, depending on the notary. Again, notariesโ€™ Es tended to remain somewhat fixed. The signum and eschatocol provide a key to identifying a notaryโ€™s handwriting in other contexts. For instance, James Yonge was also the scribe of over one hundred surviving documents, signed and unsigned. Notary William Somerwell, who worked for the archbishops of Armagh, was also one of the principal contributors to the registers of archbishops Nicholas Fleming (1404-1416), John Swayne (1418-1439), John Prene (1449-1453), and John Mey (1443-1456).

Signum manuale of William Somerwell (fl.1422-1459), on a document bound into the Registrum Iohannis Mey, PRONI DIO 4/2/6, Book 3, fol. 393, reproduced by permission of the Deputy Keeper of Records, Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI).

Signa have also been instrumental in identifying groups of notaries. For instance, James Yongeโ€™s student Thomas Baghill borrowed portions of his masterโ€™s signum when developing his own.[4]

Signum manuale of James Yonge (fl. 1404-1438), deeds of the Guild of St. Anne, Royal Irish Academy 12.S.22โ€“31, no. 343 (12 December 1432). By permission of the Royal Irish Academy ยฉ RIA.
Signum manuale of Thomas Baghill (fl.1419-1439). Note Baghillโ€™s imitation of Yongeโ€™s cross outline. Deeds of the Guild of St. Anne, Royal Irish Academy 12.S.22-31, no. 253 (27 January 1431). By permission of the Royal Irish Academy ยฉ RIA.

Weโ€™ve also discovered signa in contexts outside of notarial instruments. Of particular note is the signum of an as-yet-unidentified notary in the margins of a Hiberno English translation of Gerald of Walesโ€™ Expugnatio Hibernica.[5]

Our survey of Anglo-Irish notaries is still in its infancy, and we are seeking sources of funding. We are currently trying to document as many notaries from medieval and early modern Ireland as possible as an entry into a larger exploration of notariesโ€™ training, scribal networks, and documents. We hope to create a searchable online database of notarial marks and scribal hands for Ireland as a starting point for a more extensive resource cataloging the marks of medieval and early modern notaries of the British Isles. We would also love to see a future collaborative database of European notaries.

            Ian Doyle once wrote of palaeography that โ€œthe jigsaw puzzle we are all working on is so big that it may need the help of every eye to try to fit a piece in it.โ€[6] We believe the same is true of medieval and early modern notaries. This is where you, dear reader, come in. We heartily invite researchers in any area of medieval and early modern Europe to let us know about any notaries or notarial signa you encounter in your own research. The projectโ€™s email address is notarius.ie@gmail.com. We welcome your comments and contributions!

Theresa Oโ€™Byrne

Associate Researcher, Virtual Record Treasury of Ireland

Latin and history instructor, Delbarton School


[1] C.R. Cheney, Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972, p. 56; Patrick Zutshi, โ€œNotaries Public in England in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,โ€ Historia, Instituciones, Documentos 23 (1996), pp. 421-33, at p. 426.

[2] Trinity College Dublin MS 1477, no. 69, 16 March 1406.

[3] Royal Irish Academy 12.S.22-31, no. 826, 17 April 1434.

[4] Theresa Oโ€™Byrne, โ€œNotarial Signs and Scribal Training in the Fifteenth Century: The Case of James Yonge and Thomas Baghill,โ€ Journal of the Early Book Society 15 (2012): 305โ€“18.

[5] Trinity College Dublin MS 592, fol. 6v.

[6] A.I. Doyle, โ€˜Retrospect and Prospectโ€™, in Manuscripts and Readers in Fifteenth-Century England, ed. D. Pearsall (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 142โ€“6 (pp. 145โ€“6).

From Chequered Board to Medievalist Commons: The Medieval Studies Research Blog Turns Ten!

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the University of Notre Dame‘s Medieval Institute‘s Medieval Studies Research Blogโ€”a benchmark and milestoneโ€”which warrants both celebration and reflection on the evolution of the project, especially certain important actors and pivotal moments that have shaped the academic blog into an accessible resource for so many scholars and medievalist as well as general and public audiences.

Image from the Medieval Studies Research Blog. Header Image: John Mandeville writing his travelogue. This image comes from a unique, Bohemian picture book version of the Voyage dโ€™outer merLondon, British Library MS Additional 24189, fol. 4. Screen shot by Richard Fahey (2024).

The project was conceived by Dr. Kathryn Kerby-Fulton, now an Professor Emerita of English and Medieval Studies at the University of Notre Dame, specializing in the study of Middle English manuscript studies. Kerby-Fulton intuited that an academic blog could become an asset to the medieval institute, and so she brought together a team of graduate students to whom she pitched her academic blog project. Kerby-Fulton, in her wisdom and generosity, leaned on the next generation of scholars to get her project off the ground. Although she was the founder, the project, then called the Chequered Board, has always endeavored to support and lift up students and junior scholars. She envisioned the academic blog as both a forum for public medievalism, a space for academics engaging directly with general readers and a public audience, but also as a serious online, open-access resource for specialists in the field.

Dr. Kathryn Kerby-Fulton, Emerita Professor of Middle English and Manuscript Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Photo by Matt Cashore (2006).

Many of the earliest blogs in fact, came from assignments in her graduate classes, asking students to reflect and analyze aspects of Middle English manuscripts and their intricacies and peculiarities. Dr. Kerby-Fulton had long recognized certain parallels between modern websites and medieval manuscripts, characteristics that print culture often passed by, including marginalia and visual formatting, as well as their respective function as multimedia objects, especially the interplay between aesthetic (whether illustrations or illuminations) and textual elements in both websites and manuscripts. Just as websites frequently feature a combination of texts, images and paratexts, so too do medieval manuscripts, and this affinity is at the heart of Kerby-Fulton’s vision for the project.

Indeed, my first-ever blog “Bobbing for Answer” discusses the Bob and Wheel in the manuscript containing Gawain and the Green Knight, and builds on Kerby-Fultonโ€™s own work in her foundational text, Opening Up Medieval Manuscripts. My blog explores possible ways in which this poetic feature could offer semantic options and performative opportunities for readers of the poem in its manuscript context. These graduate student blogs, however, were just the beginning of the project.

Images of Arthur, Guinevere, Gawain & the decapitated Green Knight in British Library, Cotton Nero MS a.x f.94v.

Dr. Kerby-Fulton then organized a team of medievalist graduate students to conceive of possible directions and special series, as well as to help her run the blog project (then known as the Chequered Board). From projectโ€™s inception, she encouraged students take the reins and shape what would become the University of Notre Dameโ€™s Medieval Instituteโ€™s Medieval Studies Research Blog into the active resource that it is today, open to academics of all levels from graduate students to senior scholars.

In order for the project to run efficiently, a blog manager was selected from the team, Dr. Nicole Eddy, who had previously worked for the British Library and had headed up their medieval manuscript blog, so she was familiar with the online genre and brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to the project. After her foundational role in establishing the blog and getting the project off the ground, blog management passed to Dr. Andrew Klein who continued the work. Once Dr. Klein left for his current position, the role of blog manager was handed off to Dr. Karrie Fuller. It was around this time that the project shifted from Dr. Kerby-Fultonโ€™s personal research initiative to a project funded and overseen by the University of Notre Dameโ€™s Medieval Institute, which came with rebranding and the new name for the project, the Medieval Studies Research Blog, which remains its title today.

Dr. Nicole Eddy (left) and Dr. Andrew Klein (right). Dr. Eddy is currently Managing Editor at Dumbarton Oakes (image from Facebook post) and Klein is currently Associate Professor at St. Thomas University (image from faculty page).

All projects need funding and institutional support to survive, and without the steadfast championing of the Medieval Studies Research Blog by Dr. Kerby-Fulton and both the Medieval Institute Director, Dr. Thomas Burman, and the Associate Director of the Medieval Institute (and fellow contributor), Dr. Megan Hall, our beloved Medieval Studies Research Blog may not have endured. Instead, it thrived and continued evolving into the valuable open access online academic resource it is today.

Dr. Megan Hall (left) and Dr. Thomas Burman, Associate Director and Director of the Medieval Institute at the University of Notre Dame. Images taken from faculty page.

After a few years of managing the blog, Dr. Fuller passed the role to me, and it was at long last my turn to take the helm of the project  Although I had been a contributor and partner throughout the entirety of the project, I have served as blog manager has for the past five years, in which weโ€™ve seen the project continue to expand and transform to meet the diverse and ever-changing needs of the field. 

Dr. Karrie Fuller, currently Blog Manager at AptAmigo (image from LinkedIn) and Dr. Richard Fahey, currently Blog Manager at the Medieval Studies Research Blog, in addition to other academic and editorial positions (image from faculty page).

At the Medieval Studies Research Blog, we are blessed to have our regular contributors (currently including Dr. Linnet Heald, Dr. Nick Kamas, and Dr. Charles Yost, all graduates of the Medieval Institute) in addition to guest and alumni contributors. The work of many junior scholars affiliated with the Medieval Institute at the University of Notre Dame has fostered the growth of our project, which has since received attention from departments of education, scholars, enthusiasts, fellow bloggers and even the occasional author of fiction.ย 

I would like also to cast a spotlight on some of the projects and special series, which in addition to the many excellent blog posts featured on the Medieval Studies Research Blog, have helped shape the project. Some of these projects include: The Medieval Poetry Project and A Scientific Analysis of the Pearl-Gawain Manuscript. New projects are rolling out in force this year, such as the Medieval Homily Project and Medieval Fable Project, while older special series, such as Working in the Archives, continue to prove a resource for young scholars in the field. And now, the MSRB now also features transcripts and reflections on its sister-project, the Meeting in the Middle Ages podcast spearheaded by William Beattie and Ben Pykare. Having a somewhat unique perspectiveโ€”a kind of bird’s eye viewโ€”serving in various roles at the Medieval Studies Research Blog, I’ve had the privilege of advancing the project and watching as it has continued to gain traction and momentum in the field, and I am so excited to see where the next ten years take us, and what is in store for the MSRB.

Most of all, on this 10th anniversary of the Medieval Studies Research Blog, we at Notre Dameโ€™s Medieval Institute want to thank youโ€”our readersโ€”for being so interested and invested in this public medievalism project, and for helping us sustain our viewership. Hereโ€™s to another successful year and continued growth and expansion of the Medieval Studies Research Blog.

Stay tuned for a forthcoming Meeting in the Middle Ages podcast interviewing the four blog managers of the Medieval Studies Research Blog, coming this spring!

Richard Fahey, Ph.D.
Medieval Institute
University of Notre Dame