{"id":321,"date":"2012-01-02T13:51:36","date_gmt":"2012-01-02T18:51:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nd.edu\/medieval\/?page_id=321"},"modified":"2013-10-07T10:47:04","modified_gmt":"2013-10-07T14:47:04","slug":"session-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/session-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Session 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

October 17, 5:30 pm, 715 Hesburgh Library\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

{PLEASE NOTE THE NEW TIME!}<\/em>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Theme:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Roundtable on Medieval Manuscript Studies\"A<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Speakers:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Daniel Hobbins<\/a>\u00a0(University of Notre Dame, History Department): “The History and Meaning of the Authorial Colophon”<\/strong><\/p>\n

Colophons are among the most carefully studied features of medieval manuscripts. But scribes were not alone in their use of colophons. Soon after European scribes began to date their copies in colophons, authors themselves began to date the composition of their works in a form clearly derived from the scribal colophon. In my paper I’ll provide an overview of the history of the authorial colophon, and explore what this practice can tell us about\u00a0the history of authorship.<\/p>\n

David Gura<\/a> (University of Notre Dame, Special Collections): “Lemmatic displacement in the commentary of Arnulf of Orl\u00e9ans on Ovid\u2019s\u00a0Metamorphoses<\/em>“<\/strong><\/p>\n

The transition from the catena<\/em> commentary to the scholion<\/em> format in the early thirteenth\u00a0century affects more than just the presentation of a commentary on its manuscript page.\u00a0This change in the utilitarian tradition of the commentary (e.g. oral lecture to private\u00a0study) can provide further insight into the evaluation of manuscript evidence, particularly\u00a0approaches to interpreting and editing both commentary and text. This paper will address\u00a0how the movement of commentary formats in manuscripts may introduce variants,\u00a0unexplained contaminations, and other problems into the textual traditions of both\u00a0classical texts and their commentaries. Instances of these problems will be explored using\u00a0examples drawn from the manuscript tradition Arnulf of Orl\u00e9ans\u2019 commentary on Ovid\u2019s\u00a0Metamorphoses<\/em>. The manuscript evidence for Arnulf\u2019s commentary spans amply the late\u00a0twelfth to fifteenth century in both catena<\/em> and scholion<\/em> formats, and includes manuscripts\u00a0from France, Italy, and Germany. Examples will illustrate how lemmata can \u201chop\u201d from\u00a0catena<\/em> (commentary only) to scholion<\/em> (commentary in margine<\/em> or supra uersum<\/em>) and the\u00a0reverse. For example, variants may enter the text of the Metamorphoses<\/em> not from another\u00a0manuscript of Ovid, but rather from a commentary circulating independently of its\u00a0primary text and e contrario<\/em>. So the mysterious Manuscript X (source of contaminatio<\/em>)\u00a0may actually be a lemmatic commentary and not a manuscript of the \u201cprimary\u201d text at all.\u00a0The implications of these shifts on editing commentaries are equally problematic. The\u00a0grammar and syntax of a commentary changes with its format. In catena<\/em> the lemmata\u00a0provide a syntactically unbroken link between text and commentary. Lemmata govern\u00a0the syntax of their gloss (e.g. morphology, noun-adjective agreement, antecedents of\u00a0pronouns, grammatical constructions) and can exert an influence on word order of both\u00a0gloss and lemma (e.g. placement of enclitics, emphasis, structural\/stylistic features).\u00a0These features change when the same text is written in margine<\/em> or supra uersum<\/em>, in\u00a0which lemmata often are omitted entirely. The possibility of having layered versions of a\u00a0text places an editorial value on manuscripts format, which, previously, has been all but\u00a0ignored.<\/p>\n

Christopher Scheirer<\/a>\u00a0(University of Notre Dame, Medieval Institute): “Throwing Open the Doors of the Word:\u00a0Symbolizing the Book as Building in Aldred’s Colophon for the Lindisfarne Gospels”<\/strong><\/p>\n

The “Lindisfarne” Gospels, perhaps the most famous and arrestingly beautiful\u00a0suriving product of early Insular book production, is now better known than ever, thanks\u00a0in no small measure to two volumes of essays by Michelle Brown in 2004 and 2008 and,\u00a0more recently, its much anticipated homecoming exibition in Durham Cathedral this past\u00a0summer. Unique on a variety of levels, and a treasure trove of scholarly interest for art\u00a0historians, palaeographers, biblical scholars, and historical linguists alike,\u00a0the “Lindisfarne” Gospels has the further distinction of being one of only two gospel\u00a0codices from the Anglo-Saxon period supplied with full interlinear Old English glosses.\u00a0The scribe and glossator, Aldred, a priest and member of the community of St. Cuthbert\u00a0at Chester-le-Street in the middle of the tenth century, is also responsible for the lenghthy\u00a0colophon appended to the end of St. John’s Gospel on fol. 259rb of the manuscript.<\/p>\n

In many ways unparalleled both in length and content in the corpus of Insular\u00a0scribal colophons, Aldred’s text purports to give account of the book’s material history\u00a0and the circumstances of its production at Lindisfarne in the late seventh or early eighth\u00a0century. As Francis L. Newton, Francis L. Newton, Jr., and I have argued in a recent\u00a0article, however, Aldred does far more in the colophon than simply communicating\u00a0historical “fact,” instead carefully and meticulously structuring his text so as to operate\u00a0on a number of symbolic and metaphorical levels. The present brief essay will focus\u00a0more closely on but one of these metaphorical stuctures, namely, Aldred’s deployment of\u00a0the Cassiodorean conception of the book as a building, or rather, of the Scriptuarum\u00a0divinarum palatia<\/em>, and the subtle ways in which he articulates this understanding\u00a0throughout the colophon.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

October 17, 5:30 pm, 715 Hesburgh Library\u00a0 {PLEASE NOTE THE NEW TIME!} Theme: Roundtable on Medieval Manuscript Studies Speakers: Daniel Hobbins\u00a0(University of Notre Dame, History Department): “The History and Meaning of the Authorial Colophon” Colophons are among the most carefully … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":381,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-321","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/321","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/381"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=321"}],"version-history":[{"count":28,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/321\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":591,"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/321\/revisions\/591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.nd.edu\/medieval\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}