{"id":11251,"date":"2018-11-27T21:22:32","date_gmt":"2018-11-27T21:22:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/?p=11251"},"modified":"2022-11-04T14:19:58","modified_gmt":"2022-11-04T14:19:58","slug":"vellum-bifolium-from-augustines-homilies-on-john","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/vellum-bifolium-from-augustines-homilies-on-john\/","title":{"rendered":"Vellum Bifolium from Augustine’s “Homilies on John”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recycled and Reclaimed
\nLarge-Format Vellum Bifolium
\nfrom a Discarded Medieval Copy
\nof Saint Augustine’s Sermons<\/em>
\non the Gospel of Saint John
\nIn Double Columns of 47 Lines<\/h2>\n

Measuring at most circa 384 mm high \u00d7 523 mm wide
\n<\/span>< written area, or text block, circa 274 \u00d7 180 mm,
\nwith columns circa 80 mm wide and intercolumn circa 20 mm ><\/span><\/p>\n

Formerly Reused as the Cover for
\nAn Account Book for A Garden at Ysenburg
\nFor the Parish Church at B\u00fcdingen<\/h3>\n

Now in a Private Collection<\/h3>\n

[Published on 28 November 2018, with updates, continuing our series of Blogposts on Manuscript Studies<\/a>, for which see the Contents List<\/a><\/em>]<\/p>\n

\"Augustine<\/a>

Augustine Homilies Bifolium Folio IIr detail with title and initial for Sermon XCVI. Private Collection, reproduced by permission. Photograph by Mildred Budny.<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

What<\/h3>\n

In this case, ‘it’ concerns a detached and reclaimed medieval manuscript fragment, in the form of a bifolium written on vellum.\u00a0 The fragment comprises a large piece of animal skin perfect for reusing, once the original religious text supposedly no longer mattered.\u00a0 Exigencies then claiming attention on site \u2014 wherever that site owning that volume would have been and whatever conditions prevailed \u2014 permitted the dispersal and reclamation of parts of the manuscript for altogether new purposes.<\/p>\n

Long story short.\u00a0 The reused state left some traces upon the original artefact, comprising fold-lines, stains, wear-and-tear, added inscriptions, and more.\u00a0 But another, subsequent, stage of reclamation and reuse\u00a0\u2014 in the pursuit of sales from old bits of written materials of whatever kind \u2014 has removed the reused wrapper from its former volume and led to its transfer, on its own, to a new owner, via commerce on the internet, but without the extra volume of post-medieval materials for which “Our” bifolium had served for some time as the outer cover or wrapper.<\/p>\n

When<\/h3>\n

The Bifolium came into our view recently, with the occasion for examining some original written materials at an informal session arranged by the Research Group on Manuscript Evidence, gathering collectors, scholars, teachers, and students.\u00a0 About the occasion, see our Report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\""Having<\/a>

“Having a Look”. Manuscript Consultation Session, By Appointment, at the 2018 Congress. Photography by Mildred Budny, organizer extraordinare.<\/p><\/div>\n

Two Sides to Every Story<\/h3>\n

The Bifolium has an outside and an inside, according with the 2 sides of its original animal skin and the folding of the skin into a pair of leaves to carry the text laid out in double columns, each of 47 lines.\u00a0 The marks of damage over some time from the reuse as a binding cover or wrapper make manifest which side was outermost in that reuse.\u00a0 The identifiable original text and its sequence, as attested in other extant copies and in editions of the text, demonstrate that the outside of the wrapper and the outside of the bifolium in its original orientation in its manuscript placed the same side of the skin outermost.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, for convenience, here we identify the first leaf of the bifolium, textually speaking, as “Folio I” and the second leaf as “Folio II”, with the recognition that originally there must have stood other leaves of the text in between them.\u00a0\u00a0 We cite the pair of columns per page as columns a and b respectively, proceeding from left to right.<\/p>\n

Outside of the Bifolium:\u00a0 Folios II verso \/ I recto<\/h4>\n
\"Outside<\/a>

Conjoint Folios II verso \/ Folio I recto<\/p><\/div>\n

Inside of the Bifolium:\u00a0 Folios I verso \/ II recto<\/h4>\n
\"Augustine<\/a>

Conjoint Folios I verso \/ II recto<\/p><\/div>\n

The Original Text<\/h3>\n

Despite some abrasion and wear in the reuse, along with a few adhering remnants of bright white paper from the former pastedowns, the original text on the bifolium is almost entirely decipherable.\u00a0 It is an advantage that the original script is precisely written, with distinctly differentiated letter-forms and only a few abbreviations, in the interests of efficient legibility.<\/p>\n

So what is the text?<\/p>\n

Let us take the “easy” or \u2014 anyway “easier”\u00a0\u2014 route, which focuses first upon the rubricated titles, inscribed in bright red pigment (probably made of vegetal rather than metallic materials), ending one section or chapter of text and leading to the next.<\/p>\n

The 2 titles on “Our” bifolium stand on only one side of the bifolium, but on two (non-consecutive) pages, as its Folio Iv column b and Folio IIr column a (= “Folios Ivb and IIra”).\u00a0 Namely on the inside of the bifolium.\u00a0 Here:<\/p>\n

\"Augustine<\/a>

Augustine Homilies Bifolium Folios I verso column b and II recto column a: Homily titles and Opening Initials. Private collection, reproduced by permission. Photography by Mildred Budny.<\/p><\/div>\n

These 2 sets of titles extend for 5 and 4 lines respectively.\u00a0 In each case the title is followed by an enlarged initial which opens the text of the Homily in question:\u00a0 C<\/em> in red for Cum<\/em> and I <\/em>in blue for In<\/em>.\u00a0 Their opening titles declare these texts to represent Homilies XCIV and XCVI respectively, preceded\u00a0\u2014 as the concluding titles designate \u2014 by Homilies XVIII and XVV respectively.<\/p>\n

So:\u00a0 portions of Homilies XCIII\u2013XVIV stand on one leaf of the bifolium, and portions of Homilies XCV\u2013XCVI on the other.<\/p>\n

On Folio Ivb, the prominent initial C<\/em> (for Cum<\/em>) appears in red pigment inset within 4 lines of the text.\u00a0 In contrast, on Folio IIra, the initial I<\/em> (for In<\/em>) stands alongside the column of text, descends for 13 lines of text, and appears in bright blue pigment.\u00a0 The quality of the blue pigment (probably expensive) and the attention to enlivening visual embellishment elevates this manuscript into a stature of careful, formal layout and presentation designed for clarity of reading.<\/p>\n

A Copy Intended for Reading Aloud?<\/h3>\n

Such signs, including the imposing format of the text, might indicate an original manuscript with intentions for lection not necessarily only private. Another blogpost describes that process and such signs concerning a large-format late-medieval Lectern Bible manuscript: A New Leaf from ‘Otto Ege Manuscript 14’<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That “Our” Homily fragment carries no manifest marks for lection nor annotations of any kind appears to signal that any such intentions\u00a0\u2014 if pertinent at all\u00a0\u2014 received no such use in practice.\u00a0 In other words, the text on the bifolium looks like a rather clean, mayhap neglected copy.\u00a0 Perhaps no wonder it was destined for the scrap heap?<\/p>\n

Whose Composition?<\/h3>\n

The rubricated titles on the bifolium make no mention of an author.\u00a0 Presumably the concise titles could easily have gotten away with that ‘omission’ because the original manuscript in full should, at its opening and perhaps also its conclusion, have presented his (or her) identity, as well as the overall title of the full set of texts.\u00a0 Thus a reader approaching the manuscript in its original state would have been able to have an orientation well established within the volume itself.<\/p>\n

That was then.\u00a0 This is now.<\/p>\n

Back To Front<\/h4>\n

Given the reduced set of material evidence, we readers and beholders now must confront the detached bifolium on its own, orphaned as it is, and must try (if we care) to perform some informed ‘reverse engineering’ or ‘DNA analysis’, shall we say, in order to determine the consanguinity with any and all leaves of its former manuscript, or to reconstruct the design and implementation (core text included) which led to its construction and accomplishment.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, identification of the portions of text on the bifolium can be found among multiple resources, given the enormous prestige and proliferation of this author’s oeuvre \u2014 including this set of Homilies<\/em>.\u00a0 Worth stating that not all those resources are equal in value, partly because some of the more up-to-date scholarly resources depend upon payment of subscription before access is permitted, and some freely available because copyright obligations are no longer valid present editions, translations, or evaluations long out-of-date and superseded by subsequent scholarship.<\/p>\n

Aware that not all of us have access to those privileged, costly resources, I principally focus here, for ease of your access, on readily available links.\u00a0 For some other blogposts, where the details of the text called for such effort, I have made sure (and at cost, not freely available to me) to consult some resources that impact the assessment of the text, its specific readings, its potential impact on the transmission trajectory, and other factors with bearing upon the evaluation of the newly discovered fragment in question. For example: Another Witness to the Cistercian Statutes of 1257<\/a>.\u00a0 But this current case might not (or not yet) call for such detailed treatment.<\/p>\n

And so, now to “Our” Homily Bifolium, its texts, and its author.<\/p>\n

Whose Text?<\/h3>\n

Identifying the text reveals its structure and its continuity \u2014 as well as its gaps, which occur before, in between, and following the pair of leaves in the bifolium.\u00a0 Customarily, in our blogposts (see their Contents List<\/a>), we present the conclusions all in their reconstructed textual order, but, this time, we choose to show the identifications in the sequence as we found them, starting with the rubricated titles, ever useful as guides for locating their relevant texts.<\/p>\n

The First Verso = Folio Iv and Its Title<\/h4>\n
\"Augustine<\/a>

Folio I verso. Private Collection, reproduced by permission.<\/p><\/div>\n

Starting with the prominent cues, as in the title concluding one text and opening the next, plus the enlarged initial, it is relatively easy (given, for example, resources available on the internet, whether freely or by subscription) to identify the text on this page.<\/p>\n

Explicit omelia xciij.\u00a0 Incipit xciiii ab eo quod ait. hec autem vobis ab initio non dixi. hec vobis secundum enim. usque. de iudicio autem. quia princeps huius mundi iam iudicatus est.<\/em><\/p>\n

“[Here] ends Homily XCIII.\u00a0 [Here] begins [Homily] XCIV, from which it says: ‘Haec autem vobis ab initio non dixi, qui vobiscum eram’ [= John 16:5<\/a>] up to ‘de iudicio autem quia principes huius mundi [+ iam] iudicatus est.’ [ = John 16:11<\/a>].”<\/p>\n

\"Augustine

Augustine Homilies on John, Tractatus 93>94, Title. Bifolium, Folio Iv. Private Collection, Reproduced by Permission.<\/p><\/div>\n

Augustine of Hippo and John the Evangelist<\/h3>\n

The text on each folio pertains to a consecutive pair of Patristic Sermons, or Homilies, devoted to the Gospel of John the Evangelist<\/a> by Saint Augustine of Hippo<\/a> (354\u2013430 CE).<\/p>\n

This extraordinarily prolific and influential author has already figured in our blogposts reporting newly discovered and recovered manuscript fragments (see our Manuscript Studies Blog Contents List<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"Fictive<\/a>

Fictive Portrait of Saint Augustine of Hippo as a Author before his Text(s). He holds a Scroll in One Hand and Gestures before a Page of Text Placed upon a Lectern Beside Him. Fresco, 6th Century CE, Rome, Lateran. Image in the public domain via Wikimedia Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

Augustine’s 97 Homilies on the Gospel of John,<\/em> with portions of Homilies<\/em> 93\u201396.<\/em><\/p>\n