{"id":9366,"date":"2017-05-09T16:21:22","date_gmt":"2017-05-09T16:21:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/?p=9366"},"modified":"2022-07-11T18:38:29","modified_gmt":"2022-07-11T18:38:29","slug":"fit-to-be-tied","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/fit-to-be-tied\/","title":{"rendered":"Fit to Be Tied"},"content":{"rendered":"

1320 Letter of Berengarius
\nConcerning a Dispute at Calahorra<\/h2>\n

Or Not!<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Single-Sheet Document
\nof Cardinal\u2013Bishop B\u00e9rengar de Fr\u00e9dul
\ndated 13 July 1320
\nin Latin on Vellum
\nwith Red Cord Tie
\nand Docketing on the Dorse in Spanish<\/h4>\n

Budny Handlist 21<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

\"Budny<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Document<\/a><\/p>\n

Continuing our series on Manuscript Studies<\/a>, our Principal Blogger, Mildred Budny (see Her Page<\/a>) describes a single-sheet vellum Latin document, plus cord, which came within the span of her conservation, photography, and research for the Illustrated Handlist<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

There, the document holds Number 21<\/span><\/strong>.\u00a0 Unlike the other items (so far) in the Illustrated Handlist<\/a>, this one appears to be a forgery, albeit skilled.\u00a0 In a word:\u00a0 Curious.<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The Thing as Such<\/h3>\n

First some ‘statistics’.<\/p>\n

\"Cameo<\/a>

Cameo of Pope John XXII. Photograph via Wikimedia Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

Epistolary Document of
\nB\u00e9renger Fredoli<\/a> (circa 1250 \u2013 1323),
\nCardinal\u2013Bishop (1309\u20131323)
\nof Frascati<\/a> near Rome,
\nIssued Purportedly during
\nYear 4 of the Reign
\nof the Avignon Pope John XXII (1316\u20131377)
\nand dated 13 July 1320,
\nwith knotted red cord tie<\/p>\n

Circa 230 \u00d7 423 mm with flap closed; full height counting flap = circa 169 \u00d7 316 mm
\nSingle column of 18 long lines
\n< written area circa 169 \u00d7 316 mm >
\nplus red knotted cord tie laced through the flap
\nwith docketing in Spanish on the dorse<\/p>\n

Provenance Interrupted<\/h3>\n

The document was acquired by gift in 1955.\u00a0 The method and appurtenances of presentation provide the name of the donor, Philip Hofer<\/a>, (1898\u20131984), his letter announcing and accompanying the gift as a thank-offering, and his custom-made box for the offering.<\/p>\n

However, it provides no information whatsoever about the provenance, source of acquisition, the presentation provides other useful elements of information which the intermediary would have had.\u00a0 We are stuck with those gaps.\u00a0 Shame.<\/p>\n

About those lamentable and noxious with-holdings of information in the transmission of materials between modern handlers, some of our blogposts already document the miseries in trying to piece together the traces.\u00a0 See the blog’s Contents List<\/a>.<\/p>\n

We are entitled to wonder, also, about the caliber of the gift, which, itself doubtless well-meaning between equals at Harvard with stature and means, carries questionability in its own ‘right’ (or ‘wrong’), considering the dubious nature of the document itself.<\/p>\n

Information about where and how the donor acquired the document is much to be wished.\u00a0 Or what he thought it constituted.<\/p>\n

As a Gift<\/h3>\n

Folded in half horizontally and then in thirds across, along its medieval folds, the document was contained in its custom-made 20th-century lined clam-shell box for presentation to the Owner by Philip Hofer<\/a>, along with the letter describing that presentation, signed by Hofer and dated 14 December 1955.<\/p>\n

With that presentation enclosure, I first came to know the shape and features of the object.\u00a0 It took a while before the oddities came pressingly into the forefront.<\/p>\n

Happy as a Clam-Shell<\/h3>\n

The Presentation Box<\/h4>\n

In and Out.\u00a0 All About.<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 Outside<\/h5>\n

\"Unfolded<\/a><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Inside<\/h5>\n
\"Unfolded<\/a>

Unfolded Interior of Custom Clam-Shell Box with Donor’s Presentation Letter and Folded Document<\/p><\/div>\n

CenterFold<\/h3>\n

\"Opening<\/a><\/p>\n

Who, What, Where, Wherefore?<\/h3>\n

The text of the document begins with an enlarged and decorated ink initial B<\/em>, which stands upon the baseline of the first line of script and rises firmly into the upper margin.\u00a0 The other letters of the name Berengarius <\/em>ascend as a clustered, narrow group, before the document settles into the main script, which provides an upright, neatly written Gothic Textualis<\/em>, with some curved, hook-like tips ascending or descending into the interlines.\u00a0 Although the lettering, which employs some abbreviations, is, for the most part, clearly decipherable, the sense of the phrasing overall proves a puzzle.<\/p>\n

A transcription and attempted translations of the text reveal that the Latinity leaves something to be desired in terms of clarity or comprehension.\u00a0 Several of us looking at its challenges wonder about its command of the language.\u00a0 Neatly put, as one scholar declared in a message:\u00a0 “I cannot make out much of your document; the Latin is awful!”<\/p>\n

The Bishop addresses the recipient of the letter, the Thesaurius<\/em> (“treasurer”) of Calahorra<\/a> in the province of La Rioja in northeastern Spain, with an appeal on behalf of the clergy of its churches of Saint Andrew and Saint Christopher.\u00a0 The clergy claimed that they had “at one time” made a deal with the Thesaurius, who possibly had given them property to administer (or something).\u00a0 The deal went sour.\u00a0 They claimed that the Thesaurius had pulled a fast one on them; they appealed to the Bishop, who had authority from the Pope; and the Bishop turned to the official.\u00a0 To whit, this Letter.\u00a0 To quote our scholar again:\u00a0 “That’s the best I can do.\u00a0 I find most of the Latin incomprehensible.”<\/p>\n

\"Panorama<\/a>

Panorama view of the historical district of Calahorra. Photograph: Own Work by De Zarateman via Creative Commons.<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Cameo<\/a>The letter declares its issue during the reign of Pope John XXII<\/a> (1244\u20131334), the second Avignon Pope (reigned 1316\u20131334).\u00a0 The issue of the letter relates to the span of “political and administrative correspondence of the Avignon popes, 1305\u20131378”, as surveyed, for example, by Patrick Zutschi in a paper presented in 1988 (published in 1990<\/a>).\u00a0 As such, it would hold interest as a relic of that contested period in the papacy.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

When the Dust Has Settled<\/h3>\n

An interior view of the fold:<\/p>\n

\"Detail<\/a><\/p>\n

We plan to write some more about this questionable document, but other tasks and challenges (including illnesses and a death in the family) have interfered with the completion of the report.\u00a0 Returning somewhat to health, I decided that it might be useful to send forth these observations, questions, and images, to set the discussion going.\u00a0 Do you have any views on this matter and material?\u00a0 Please let us know.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, feast your eyes on its features.\u00a0 Photography by Mildred Budny.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Document<\/a><\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

\"Budny<\/a><\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

Some Background Reading<\/h3>\n

Patrick Zutschi, “The political and administrative correspondence of the Avignon popes, 1305\u20131378:\u00a0 a contribution to papal diplomatic”, in Actes de la table ronde d’Avignon (23-24 janvier 1988).\u00a0 <\/em>Publications de l’\u00c9cole fran\u00e7aise de Rome, 138 (1990), 371\u2013384<\/a><\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

More to come.\u00a0 Please watch this space.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1320 Letter of Berengarius Concerning a Dispute at Calahorra Or Not! Single-Sheet Document of Cardinal\u2013Bishop B\u00e9rengar de Fr\u00e9dul dated 13 July 1320 in Latin on Vellum with Red Cord Tie and Docketing on the Dorse in Spanish Budny Handlist 21 Continuing our series on Manuscript Studies, our Principal Blogger, Mildred Budny (see Her Page) describes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1371,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[678,115,1],"tags":[1488,1489,679,1514,1491,1490,127,22,449,1487],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9366"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9366"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9366\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17132,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9366\/revisions\/17132"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}