{"id":4724,"date":"2015-07-07T01:19:04","date_gmt":"2015-07-07T01:19:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/?p=4724"},"modified":"2021-04-23T15:02:47","modified_gmt":"2021-04-23T15:02:47","slug":"a-new-leaf-from-otto-ege-manuscript-41","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/a-new-leaf-from-otto-ege-manuscript-41\/","title":{"rendered":"A New Leaf from ‘Otto Ege Manuscript 41’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part of the Dialogues<\/em> of Gregory the Great<\/h2>\n

Book III, Chapters 12,3.23 (intra eandem<\/em>) \u2012 14,6.60 (in ortum<\/em>), plus catchword<\/h3>\n

Produced probably in Flanders, perhaps circa 1450<\/h4>\n

Mildred Budny reports on a stray leaf and its former manuscript, as part of a series including
\nThe Foundling Hospital<\/a> and Lost & Foundlings<\/a> among Manuscript Fragments.<\/em><\/p>\n

[Published on 7 July 2015, with updates. The announcement that (after earlier sales from that collection), the residue of manuscript materials in the possession of Otto F. Ege’s family has been purchased by the Beinecke Library<\/a> at Yale University encourages the anticipation of more revelations about surviving leaves from the dispersed manuscripts, perhaps also this one. Reports on that collection figured in our 2016 Symposium on ‘Words & Deeds’<\/a>. Also, we can include the specimen from this manuscript now at The Newark Public Library.<\/em>]<\/p>\n

With permission, we illustrate a detached leaf, now in a private collection, from one of the manuscripts which the notorious bibliophile and self-styled ‘biblioclast’ Otto F. Ege<\/a> (1888\u20121951) dismantled for dispersal, mostly by sale, among different collectors and collections far and wide. \u00a0Our recent post<\/a> reflected on the conditions of dispersal and partial recovery for some of those fragments.<\/p>\n

The leaf, seen here on both recto and verso, was purchased on its own several years ago in Boston. Its seller had little information about the leaf, whose identity awaited recognition.\u00a0 The present owner, having identified the Ege connection, told me about the leaf when I mentioned my work on some dispersed Ege leaves in other connections<\/a>, and generously allowed me to study the specimen and report further findings.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"Recto<\/a>

New Leaf from Ege MS 41, recto. Reproduced by permission.<\/p><\/div>\n

The Nature of the Leaf<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\"Recto<\/a>

Recto (reproduced by permission)<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Greg<\/a>

Verso (reproduced by permission)<\/p><\/div>\n

The parchment leaf presents, in 2 columns of 40 lines per page (with a written area of circa 204 \u00d7 148 mm), part of Book III of the Dialogues<\/em> in Latin by, or attributed to, Pope Gregory the Great<\/a> (pope from 590\u2012604).<\/p>\n

As written, the leaf turns the yellowed hair side of its animal skin onto the recto (first side or page), with the whitish flesh side on the verso (second page). Recognizing the shapes of the margins at top, sides, and bottom, and identifying the text and its sequence across the leaf make it possible to discern which is front and which is back of the leaf.<\/p>\n

A deeper trimming of the leaf, or matting to obscure its margins, so as to zero in on the text or decoration and obscure those outer, supposedly ‘extraneous’, features, could have required dependence upon the second of these two factors to establish or confirm the front and back. (Other posts report such problems with manuscript fragments and their varied resourceful solutions.)<\/p>\n

Breaking off mid-sentence at both ends, that is, at the top of the recto and bottom of the verso, the leaf carries the last lines of one chapter, all of the next chapter, and much of the following one, before adding the catchword monasterii<\/em> in the lower margin to signal the first word on the next leaf and to aid assembly of the book in its production.\u00a0 If no other leaf from the book survived, we would be stuck with its evidence, for better and for worse.\u00a0 (Sometimes, however, those few fragments can become extraordinarily eloquent, as illustrated in an earlier post in our series on Manuscript Fragments<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\"Verso<\/a>

New Leaf, verso. reproduced by permission<\/p><\/div>\n

On its own, without any other leaves from the manuscript, the catchword could be ambivalent as an indicator of the expected continuation of text either from the end of a quire to the next, or from each leaf to the next within a quire, because such practices for the position of catchwords could vary in the late Middle Ages.\u00a0 Observing the other leaves of the manuscript, provided that they might be found, can resolve this ambivalence.<\/p>\n

Design and Layout<\/strong><\/h3>\n

With some abbreviations, the text on the leaf was written by a single scribe in a skilled Lettre B\u00e2tarde<\/a><\/em>, a semi-cursive Gothic script used in France, Flanders, and Germany during the 14th<\/sup> and 15th<\/sup> centuries CE. For Latin manuscripts, the script may be called B\u00e2tarde de manuscrits latins<\/a><\/em>, using ornamented forms (\u2018des capitales romaines dor\u00e9es et orn\u00e9es\u2019) for its initial letters.<\/p>\n

This case of the script appears to have been produced in Flanders in about the mid-15th<\/sup> century. A distinctive feature of the layout is the use of some ascenders with exaggerated height in the first line of the page (here in the words subl<\/strong><\/span>ata<\/em> on the recto and contumel<\/strong><\/span>ia<\/em> on the verso), resembling practices for documents with a flamboyant display.<\/p>\n

\"'Dialogues'<\/a>

Top lines of recto, column b, reproduced by permission<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Top<\/a>

Top lines of verso, column b, reproduced by permission<\/p><\/div>\n

The leaf carries no running titles nor chapter titles, although the skipped line of script in each column (=columns ‘a’ and ‘b’) on the recto (recto, column a, line 15 [=line ‘ra15’] and line rb36) between the end of each chapter and the beginning of the next allows space, albeit left unfilled, for the title to be entered in script of red pigment.\u00a0 The openings of both chapters have enlarged and indented 2-line initials which alternate between blue or red pigment from one initial to the next.<\/p>\n

\"Dialogues<\/a>

Opening of Book III, chapter 13, reproduced by permission<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Dialogues<\/a>

Opening of Book III, Chapter 14, reproduced by permission<\/p><\/div>\n

These initials are embellished with decorative pen-flourishing<\/a> which forms both a bed (or background) and extensions in the contrasting color (red or blue).\u00a0 As part of the dialogue structure of the text, the question concluding the chapter opens with an inline 1-line initial Q<\/em> (for Quis<\/em>) in blue pigment, decorated simply decorated with a bulbous element (line rb33).<\/p>\n

Such features of layout impart a clarity and legibility to the structure and components of the text\u00a0\u2014 that is, when consistently observed. And yet, despite the overall appearance of consistency, some other parts of the manuscript do not completely conform with these principles.<\/p>\n

Pope Gregory’s Dialogues<\/em><\/h3>\n

Cast in the form of questions and answers between Pope Gregory and his disciple Peter the Deacon (died circa 605), the Dialogues<\/em> collect in four Books a series of stories about the signs, wonders, and miracles associated with holy men (and also some women), mostly monastic, in sixth-century Italy. Book II focuses upon Saint Benedict of Nursia<\/a> (circa 480 \u2013 543 or 547), author of the Rule of Saint Benedict<\/em><\/a>, while the other Books consider other figures, mostly accorded single chapters, of which Book III has 38 chapters.<\/p>\n

The authorship of the Dialogues<\/em> continues to be subject to dispute<\/a>, as some scholars deny Gregory’s work and attribute the text to a pretender, while others rigorously defend the pope’s composition. For the present purposes, the debate might remain a \u2018spectator\u2019s sport\u2019, meaning no disrespect.<\/p>\n

Here we focus upon the text itself, insofar as transmitted in this witness, that is, insofar as we can determine the extant extent of its text. This quest is not easy, given the disruption \u2014 partly willful, partly negligent, partly careless, and mostly predatory \u2014 of evidentiary transmission, at the hands severally of the 20th<\/sup>-century plunderers and some sellers of the manuscript as a whole and its fragments.<\/p>\n

The Latin Text as Such<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Latin text of the Dialogues<\/em> \u2014 not using this witness or its manuscript \u2014 has been edited by Adalbert de Vog\u00fc\u00e9<\/a> (in 3 volumes), with a French translation by Paul Antin, in the critical edition of Gr\u00e9goire le Grand,<\/em> Dialogues<\/em>, in the series Sources Chr\u00e9tiennes<\/a><\/em>, volumes 251, 260, and 265 (Paris, 1979). In line with this resource (its Volume II, pages 289\u2012306), the text on the leaf extends from Chapter XII, Section 3, Line 23 (= Book III, 12, 3.23) to Chapter XIV, Section 4, Line 31 (Book III, 14, 4.31).<\/p>\n

A freely available online edition of the Latin text appears here<\/a>, with different section numbers (according to which the text on the leaf extends from within Chapter XII, Section 4<\/a> to within XIV, 8<\/a>). An English translation of the text is available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Span of Text on the Leaf<\/h3>\n

Details establish the clues for a wider context within the former book and its position in the transmission of the several texts. Recording these details prepares the grounds for their evidentiary potential in reconstructing the whole, both for the Dialogues<\/em> and the rest of the volume.<\/p>\n

Yes, it may seem boring, but sometimes getting technical and precise gets results.<\/p>\n

The text on the recto of the leaf concludes Chapter XII (on the manuscript lines ra1\u201213), extending from within Section 3.23 to the end of Section 4.31 (intra eandem<\/em> [for eamdem<\/em>] . . . per humiles premat<\/em>). With the skipped lines for chapter titles not filled, there follow all of Chapter XIII (lines ra15\u2012rb35) and most of Chapter XIV (lines rb37\u201240 + va1\u2012vb40), from Sections 1.1 to within 6.60 (in ortum<\/em>), plus the next word monasterii <\/em>as a catchword leading to the next page. The textual division between the recto and verso occurs with gothorum<\/em> \/ tempora<\/em> (XIV, 1.3\/4).<\/p>\n

And so, the textual coverage corresponds to some 112 printed lines by de Vog\u00fc\u00e9 per leaf and about either 55 or 57 printed lines per page (not counting any titles). Given these standards, the preceding leaf would presumably conclude with Et dum magna nimis inundatio fieret<\/em> (12, 2.23) and the following leaf would begin with monasterii fecit iactari ferramenta . . .<\/em> (14, 6.60\u201261).<\/p>\n

That is, provided the manuscript followed the printed standard(s).\u00a0 As usual, anyway in manuscript studies, the truth resides in the details.<\/p>\n

The Process of Detection<\/h3>\n

Such are some methods with which the search for other parts of the dispersed manuscript may or must proceed.\u00a0 Yet it is also important to bear in mind the variations either which the manuscript may have exhibited, on some still ‘lost leaves’, or which it certainly did, on some known surviving leaves, with respect to the received (or printed) versions of the Latin text.<\/p>\n

The process of detection proceeds, as usual in manuscript studies, in various directions as the available or recoverable evidence, interpretations, clues, opportunities, and challenges might direct.<\/p>\n

Now we turn to the other leaves from the volume, or anyway some of them, given the challenges of dispersal and distribution mostly without clear and direct trace. The present locations of the two leaves which stood directly before and after this one in the original manuscript are unknown to me, although the locations of various of their companions elsewhere in the manuscript have come to light, piecemeal.<\/p>\n

Part of that process results from the individual and collective research across the years on the many fragments and residuals of medieval manuscripts which Otto Ege dispersed among different individuals and institutions in his proselytizing activities regarding manuscripts, printed books, and other graphic arts from the 1910s to the time of his death. Some links to these continuing contributions are listed in our previous post on The ‘Foundling Hospital’ for Manuscript Fragments<\/a> and Lost and Foundlings<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Relevant here as well are some printed works.\u00a0 They include:<\/p>\n

1) Julia Boffey, A.S.G. Edwards et al.<\/em>, Medieval Manuscripts in the Norlin Library:\u00a0 A Summary Catalogue<\/em><\/a> (2002)<\/p>\n

2) Christopher de Hamel, Joel Silver, et al<\/em>, The Leaf Book Considered<\/a><\/em> (2005)<\/p>\n

3) A.S.G. Edwards, \u2018Otto Ege:\u00a0 The Collector as Destroyer’<\/a>, Manuscripta:\u00a0 A Journal for Manuscript Research<\/em>, 53:1 (2009), 1\u201312<\/p>\n

4) Barbara A Shailor, \u2018Otto Ege:\u00a0 Portfolios vs. Leaves’<\/a>, Manuscripta,<\/em> 53:1 (2009), 13\u201327<\/p>\n

5) Scott Gwara, Otto Ege\u2019s Manuscripts: A Study of Ege\u2019s Manuscript Collections, Portfolios, and Retail Trade, with a Comprehensive Handlist of Manuscripts Collected and Sold<\/a><\/em> (2013),
\nespecially Appendix X: Handlist<\/em>, No. 41 (pages 132\u2012133).<\/p>\n

Invaluable to the detective work is the ability to observe, either directly or virtually, the appearance and text of individual leaves dispersed in many directions into public or private collections, although sometimes the leaves or sets of leaves have had a tendency to wander further in other directions, sometimes traceable.\u00a0 We work with the materials at hand and in view.<\/p>\n

The Ege Portfolio Edition of
\nFifty Original Leaves from Medieval Manuscripts<\/em>, Western Europe, XII\u2013XVI Century
\n<\/em><\/strong>Or,
\nThe Case of Manuscript Number 41 (Dialogues, etc.<\/em>)
\nout of 50 Dismembered Manuscripts
\n<\/strong><\/h3>\n

A starting point is Otto Ege’s Portfolio edition of Fifty Original Leaves from Medieval Manuscripts<\/em><\/a> (issued between 1930\u20121950), to which the manuscript surrendered some of its detached leaves. Among those 50 numbered ‘Medieval Manuscripts’, this one is Number 41.<\/p>\n

Among the different albums, or ‘Leaf Books’<\/a>, constructed with cuttings from original manuscripts or printed books, which Ege (like some other collectors and sellers) prepared between circa 1923 and 1949 for sale and distribution, this one is probably the most famous or infamous. Its boxed set, album, or portfolio of 50 single leaves (numbered 1\u201350) removed from 50 different manuscripts was issued in an edition of 40 numbered sets, plus at least 1 and perhaps 2 unnumbered sets.<\/p>\n

Of the latter, there are at least 1 unnumbered copy in the possession of the Ege family and 1 now-unnumbered copy at Smith College<\/a>.\u00a0 The Smith College set may or must originally have had a number (‘doubtless’, with some details, as reported by Gwara, Otto Ege’s Manuscripts<\/em>, Appendix X, page 106, note 1).\u00a0 If so, it could account for one\u00a0\u2014 which one?\u00a0\u2014 of the sets whose locations are currently unknown.<\/p>\n

The Unknowns<\/em>, ‘untraced as of May 2013’, are Sets Numbers 1, 3, 7, 14, 18, 20, 21, 26, 31, and 40 (listed in Ibid<\/em>., note 3, updating an earlier list up to 2008<\/a>).\u00a0 But we should note the relevant proviso that one of them could be ‘known’, that is, as the Smith College set, without as yet knowing which number that set would (or should) have had originally.<\/p>\n

So, maybe, 9 sets remain as yet among the Unknowns<\/em>. Not only have some Portfolios been lost (Number 33, ‘lost in shipping’), or lost trace of (for example, after sales from recorded sellers’ catalogues), but also some of the Known<\/em> ones have lost some of their leaves along the way, and\/or been broken up for resale.\u00a0 Apparently that is an ‘occupational hazard’ for ‘Leaf Books’.<\/p>\n

Make Up Means Break Up First<\/h3>\n

In producing this Portfolio, Ege selected 50 manuscripts from his own collection, removed leaves from each of them, mounted each leaf onto a large paper mat using gauze-like tape hinges, added a descriptive printed label to the window of the mat, and assembled the mounted leaves into a single sequence which remains constant throughout the Portfolio.\u00a0 Thus were formed a linked pair of series:<\/p>\n