physical description of manuscripts · digital editing of medieval manuscripts - intellectual...

DigitalEditingofMedievalManuscripts-IntellectualOutput1:ResourcesforEditingMedievalTexts(Paleography,Codicology,Philology)

1

PhysicalDescriptionofManuscriptsMichalDragoun(CharlesUniversityinPrague)The description method, composition, and description parts and the level ofdetail havedeveloped in the courseof time.Often, theonly tool available forcodicesinPraguelibrariesarecataloguesdatingbacktoearly1900s.Descriptioninthesecataloguesfrequentlyconsistsof justa few lines,whereasmanuscriptdescriptionsinmoderncataloguescanbetensofpageslong.Whendescribingamanuscript, thepurposeof thedescription shouldbe considered. Informationcan be added and descriptions improved infinitely. However, there comes apointwhen adding further information is notworth the time it takes. Even adescriptionof justonemoremanuscriptwill requirediverseapproacheswhenenteredinanew,enlargededition. Individualcountrieshavetheirrulesfordescribingmanuscripts,andthesegenerally differ only in particulars. (Different, more detailed guidelines forspecifically defined lists usually exist.) As for nearby countries, let usmentionGerman guidelines; compared to Czech guidelines, formal instructions differslightly and cataloguers prefer briefer descriptions (http://bilder.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de/hs//kataloge/HSKRICH.htm, quoted on April 30, 2017).Compliancewiththeguidelinesdependsmainlyonquantityofextantmaterial.Inextremecases,onecountrymay treasure inall its libraries lessmanuscriptsthananothercountryhasinjustonelibrary. The following sections and the description method used works onprinciplesappliedintheCzechRepublic.Theruleswerepublished(J.Pražák–F.Hoffmann – J. Kejř – I. Zachová: Zásady popisu rukopisů, Sborník Národníhomuzea – řada C, literární historie 27, 1983, s. 49–95; Rules for DescribingManuscripts;NationalMuseumCollection–CSeries,LiteraryHistory27,1983,pp.49–95)andtheyareavailableonlineat(https://www.mua.cas.cz/cs/zasady-


2

popisu-rukopisu-a-dalsi-teoreticke-prace-463, quoted on April 30, 2017). Therules“assume”thattherecordscreatedwillbepublishedinacatalogueformat.Thisisreflectedincertainformalrequirements,suchasspecificheadingformatrules.(HeadingsinnewerCzechcataloguessometimesincludeasummaryofthemanuscript content.) However it is unnecessary to repeat the formalrequirementshere. Thedescriptionrulesapplytocodicesofliterarynature,i.e.thosethatarenotaproductofadministration.Ofcourse,therulescanbeappliedtocharter-descriptions,howeveritisusuallynoproblemtoidentifyacharter’stimeaplaceof origin, which are usually exactly the questions we aim to solve whendescribingandanalysingliterarymanuscripts.FormofsourcesManuscriptsexistmainly inaformofcodices,studiedbycodicology,buttherearealsootherforms.Apartfromdiplomaticmaterialsinaformofofficialbooksandcharters,alsofoundinmanuscriptcollectionsofindividuallibraries,thereisanothertextformat–scrolls.Scrolls,however,areratherrareinCzechlibrarieswithmedievalmanuscripts.LeavingHebrewmanuscripts(theTorah)aside,thisform is absolutely exceptional. However, it was sometimes used for certaintypesofdocuments–notonlythediplomaticones(e.g.informationondeceaseofmonasticcommunitymemberswerepassedonthisway).Material

Two types of material were used for medieval manuscripts: parchment andpaper. Papyruswas very exceptional in Bohemian and the documented caseshave nothing to do with codices: it is assumed that the non-extant originalcharterbyPopeJohnXVfortheBřevnovMonasterywaswrittenonpapyrus. InBohemia,onlyparchmentwasusedformanuscriptsuntilearly1300s.Around 1270, paper-making became established in Italy and from there, itspreadaroundEurope.ThefirstdocumentedanddatedmanuscriptwrittenonpaperinBohemiawasthemunicipalbookofrightsfortheOldTownofPraguewithrecordsstartingin1310.Asof1300s,theproportionofpapermanuscriptscontinued to grow relative to thosewritten on parchment. Thiswas largely aresultofthelowercostofpaper.Inthe14thcentury,paperwasaboutfourtimes


3

cheaperthanparchment,anditspricekeptdropping.However,parchmentwasnot abandoned entirely – it continued to be used for more exclusive, richlydecoratedmanuscriptsandfor illuminations,parchmentwasabettermaterial.Thus,evenifonlyexceptionally,parchmenthasremainedinusetillthepresentday. Parchment was often recycled because of its cost. After scraping theoriginal text off, it could be written on once more (so-called palimpsest).Description should mention this and if possible, the original text should beidentified. However, this is usually true only of individual sheets. (ManuscriptPrague,National libraryoftheCzechRepublic (hereafterNK)XVIIG5 isratherexceptional in this regard as the entire work is written on reused sheets ofparchment; the original, scraped-off text was probably of an administrativenature). Some manuscripts were written on a combination of parchment andpaper (this was not only true of binder’s volumes – sometimes it was donedeliberately).Insuchcases,themoreheavy-dutyparchmentwasusedforinnerand/orouterdoublesheetstoprotectthelessdurablepaperinside. Tosomeextent,onelookatthewritingmaterialcanrevealtheplaceandtimeofmanuscript’sorigin.Parchmentmanuscriptfolioswereusuallyarrangedso that when the manuscript was opened, the two pages facing each othermatched–grainsideoppositegrainsideandfleshsideoppositefleshside(theso-calledGregory’s Law). However, in Southern Europe, they used to prepareonesideofaparchmentsheetmorecarefullythantheotherandthusonecansee immediately lighter anddarker folios taking turns. As for paper, finer andfinerscreenswereusedtoproducepaper.Thickerhorizontalmeshandnotveryfinescreensaretypicalstillinthesecondhalfofthe14thcentury.WatermarksWatermarksinpaperareaveryimportantfeaturefordatingcodiceswrittenonit. Paper mills used them as their trademarks. Watermarks were created byweaving a design into thewires in themould; after coveringmeshwith pulp,pressing and drying, a watermark remained impressed in each sheet.Watermarkswerepositionedinthemiddleofhalfofafolio,whichdeterminestheir position in a manuscript (depending on its size). In case of foliomanuscripts(i.e.codicesapprox.30×21cm)withtextusuallyarrangedintwo


4

columns,partofwatermarkisusuallyvisiblebetweenthetwocolumns.Incaseofquartocodices,we find thewatermark in themanuscript spine; the thickerthe manuscript, the less visible and measurable the watermark. Should themanuscriptsizebeevensmaller,partsofwatermarksdisappearas ifasheet isfoldedmorethantwice,watermarksmovetoanareathatisusuallytrimmed.

Registersofwatermarksthathadbeenfound indatedmanuscriptsor inarchives have been used to produce printed and digital collections ofwatermarks. (A specificwatermarkcan serve to identify the timeandplaceofuse of a specific paper; connecting a specific paper mills with a specificwatermarks is rather rare in theMiddle Ages). Identification is based on twopresumptions. Firstly, a wire design woven in the mesh survived only a fewyears.Owingtotearandwear,ithadtobereplacedwithanewone,differentboth in shapeand in size. Secondly, thepaper that thepapermills producedwas consumed fairly quickly, usually within a few years. Exceptionally, thesecondpresumptionwould not apply, however if other indicia donot conflictthewatermark-based dating, identifying thewatermark is themost importantcluetodatethewrittentext.Notallwatermarksfromallregionsareavailable,ofcourse,andunfortunatelyitisnotuncommonthatresearchersfailtoidentifythe watermark, or to find a version that would be similar enough. Whenidentifyingwatermarks,theidealcaseistofindotherversionsthatareidenticalbothinvisualaspectandinsize,howeverevensimilarversions(similarinvisualaspectandvaryinginsizeby±2–3mm)helpalotdatetexts.

When identifying watermarks, it is most important to identify first thepattern and the size. Somewatermarks characteristic of a particular period –e.g. the so-called Greek cross (a cross with three widening arms, ending inglobules,onastand)occursfrequentlyand,sofar,itsincidenceappearstohavebeenlimitedtotheyearsbetween1450and1479.Inmostcases,however,itisnecessary to identify the size of awatermark both as awhole and also of itssmallersectionstobeabletodate itmoreprecisely. (Thesize, inparticular, isindispensable when searching the watermark databases available on theInternet).Identifyingthepatternmightseemeasy,howeveritisveryoftentheexactopposite.Even in foliocodices,onlypartsof thewatermarkwillbeclearbecause of ink. It is not rare to find that not only is the pattern as a wholeunclearbutalsothatitisdifficulttodetermineitscontourssoastomeasureits


5

size. The ideal case – blank manuscript leaves – is unusual and the variousimaging methods that make it possible to highlight the watermark, are notcommonlyavailable.Thefirstoptionistoholdthesheetofpaperagainstalightsource or to use special filters to shine light through the paper to show thewatermark.Anothermethod,wherenospecialequipmentisrequired,isplacingthesheetonahardunderlay(e.g.aplateofglass),coveringthewatermarkareawith tracing paper and rubbing it gently with soft pencil – the watermarkpattern contours will come up light against dark background. However, thismethodworks onlywith undamagedmanuscripts andbenevolent curators. (Abetterresultisachievedifonerubsthesidethatwastouchingthescreenwhenthepaperwasmade).Anotherperfectlylegitimatemethodistoreconstructthewatermark from thoseparts thatare visibleon thevarious foliosof thebook.However, it must be kept in mind that, in order to identify the watermarkcorrectly, onemust not combine dimensions of various versions, even if theylook similar. There are special imaging techniques that provide better results,such as using radiation with a different frequency than that of visible light.These methods are not, however, freely available, let alone for routinedescription of manuscripts. (An interesting work for Czech materials: M.Benešová – K. Boldan:Metody vizualizace filigránů a využití filigranologie prodatovánínejstaršíchčeských tiskůnapříkladu tzv.Novéhozákonasesignetem,Metodika a dokumentace stavu poškození fondů, konzervátorské průzkumy(WatermarkVisualisationMethodsandUsingWatermarkScienceforDatingtheOldest Czech Prints Using so-called New Testamentwith Printer’sMark as anExample; Methodology and Documentation of Damage in Collections,Conservator Surveys) [online], 2011, s. 99–114,wwwold.nkp.cz/restauratori/2011/Benesova_Boldan_2011.pdf, citováno 30. 4.2017).

Several basic resources are available to identifywatermarks. The oldestprintedwork isCh.Briquet’s:Lesfiligrans.Dictionnairehistoriquedesmarquesdupapierdes leurapparitionvers1282jusqu’en1600,vol.1–4,Genève1907,reprint 1968; (at the moment, only parts are available also online athttp://www.ksbm.oeaw.ac.at/_scripts/php/BR.php, quoted on April 30, 2017;however, one can only search by the description in the original work and inFrench). For most medieval watermarks, this founding work has lost its


6

importanceasitclustersmanywatermarksvaryinginsizeinonetypeandthusdating is rather unspecific. Still, thework does include somewatermarks thatarenotdescribedanywhereelseand italsocoversperiodsotherthan justtheMiddleAges.

AnotherimportantcollectionwascompiledbyGerhardPiccardanditisinWürttembergischesLandesarchivinStuttgart.Thecollectionwasusedtopublishseventeen printed volumes, classified into groups by individual patterns (G.Piccard: Wasserzeichen. Veröffentlichungen der Staatlichen ArchivverwaltungBaden-Württemberg. Sonderreihe, Die Wasserzeichenkartei Piccard imHauptstaatsarchivStuttgart,Findbücher1–17,Stuttgart1961–1997).Theentirecollections is also being digitized and may be searched online (www.piccard-online.de,quotedonApril30,2017).Theprintedandelectronicversionsarenotidentical though. The printed versions, especially the older volumes, tend tocatalogue watermarks differing in size as one type and thus, dating is lessprecise (in other words, identifying a specific version using the electronicdatabasemayresult inmoreprecisedating).Ontheotherhand,theartificiallycreatedclusteredtypesintheprintedversionmayprovideatleastapproximatedating for watermarks that are not listed in the electronic version at all. Ifpossible, the best approach, especially in case of older books, is to combinesearchbothintheelectronicdatabaseandintheprintedsource.Theelectronicdatabasealsoincludespatternsthathaveneverbeenpublished.Havingchosenaspecificmotif(includingvariousaccessoriesasitisnotpossibletosearchlargebasic categories),more detailed search criteria should follow. These are: theheight,thewidthandthechainlinewidth. It ispossibletoselectanallowancefor themeasuremistake thatwill be applied to all the three dimensions. Theheightandwidthspecifythemaximumsizeofawatermark,eveniftheshapeisirregular. The third dimension specifies the distance between two (if thewatermark is between two chain lines or overlaps slightly on each sidesymmetrically) or three chain lines (if themiddle chain line serves as an axis).Searchingmotifsvisuallydoesnotalwaysworkintuitively(especiallyiftherearemoreaccessoriesaboveorbelowthebasicmotif)andsometimesonesucceedsonly throughaprocessof trial anderror. Somewatermarksare segmented tosuchanextentthatvisualdifferencesarenotobviousanditisnecessarytoreadthedescriptionthatdisplaysaftermovingthecursoroverthepicture.


7

Piccard’s collection is a part of a larger system Wasserzeichen-Informationssystem (WZIS, https://www.wasserzeichen-online.de/wzis/index.php, quoted on April 4, 2017). The database is updatedcontinually to reflect the latest watermarks discovered in German bookcollections. The navigation of the catalogue is different from that of Piccard’scollection. After selecting a specific watermark, several search criteria areavailable;dimensionsremainthekeycriteriontosucceedinfindinganidenticalor similar version. The structure ofWasserzeichendesMittelalterswatermarkdatabase, reproduced from codices in Austrian libraries (WZMA,http://www.wzma.at/,quotedonApril4,2017)isverysimilar.An interface within a project called Memory of Paper(http://www.memoryofpaper.eu/BernsteinPortal/appl_start.disp, quoted onApril30,2017)canbeusedforaggregatedsearchoftheseandofotheronlinecollections of watermarks. Other databases are (at least for the time being)rathersmallandonecanonlysearchbykeywords,which israther impracticalas itmeansthat it isnotpossibletodifferentiatebetweenthemainmotifandother,additionalmotifsthatwatermarksmayinclude.

As for thedescriptionofmedievalcodices,modernwatermarksareonlyoflimitedimportance–theymaybefounde.g.onliftedpastedownsofyoungerbindings or in newer additions to manuscripts. The registration of newerwatermarks remains incomplete: a set of works by František Zuman are thebasic source for basic orientation in Czech watermarks. The first indubitablementionofpaperproductioninBohemiacomesfromaslateas1499andZumandescribed the industry in particular regions and during particular centuries (F.Zuman: České filigrány XVI. století, Památky archeologické 33, 1922–1923, s.277–286, tab. XXIII–XXVII; týž: České filigrány XVII. století, Památkyarcheologické 35, 1926–1927, s. 442–463, tab. CXXXVI–CLXVI, týž: Českéfiligrány XVIII. století, Praha 1932) (F. Zuman: Czech watermarks of the 16thcentury, Archeologic relics 33, 1922–1923, pp. 277–286, tab. XXIII–XXVII; thesameauthor:Czechwatermarksofthe17thcentury,Archeologicrelics35,1926–1927,pp.442–463, tab.CXXXVI–CLXVI, thesameauthor:Czechwatermarksofthe18thcentury,Praha1932).ForformerAustro-Hungarianterritories,thereisG.Eineder:Theancientpaper-millsoftheformerAustro-HungarianEmpireand


8

their watermarks (Monumenta chartae papyraceae historiam illustrantia VIII),Hilversum1960.

Whendescribingcodices,allwatermarks,whetherwhollyvisibleorwhichcanonlybetentativelydiscerned,needtoberegistered;ifawatermarkcannotbeidentifiedinarepertory,itcanbedescribedinwords.Itisalsofundamentaltorecordtheincidenceofindividualwatermarks:aparticularwatermarkisoftenlimited to just one of a manuscript’s gatherings. This (especially whenaccompanied by a change in scribe’s hand)would indicate that the gatheringwascreatedindependentlyandbecameapartofanaggregatemanuscriptlateron. If various watermarks from various gatherings within one codex can bepositivelyassignedtothesameperiod,itmakesdatingoftheentirecodexmoreconvincing.If,ontheotherhand,timeoforiginofindividualwatermarksdiffers(bymorethan20years),otherindicianeedtobeconsideredtodatethecodex.StructureAmanuscriptconsistsofgatherings.Gatheringsaremadeofbifolios,i.e.sheetsof parchment or paper, folded in half and arranged in short stacks. Individualgatherings, joined side-by-side, are sewn at the book spine and attached tocovers.Gatheringsmadeoffourtosixbifoliosaremostcommonbutthesizeofagatheringalsodependsonsizeofamanuscriptandtocertainextentalsoonthetimeofitsorigin.Gatheringsarenamedaccordingtotheonthenumberofbifoliostheycontain:agatheringoftwobifoliosiscalledabinion,agatheringofthree bifolios is called a ternion, of four is called quaternion, of five is calledquinternion,ofsixsexternion,etc.Inordertoidentifythetypeofgathering,oneneeds to identify the centres sewn togetherwith threador string to hold thebifolios together. Sometimes, strips of parchment are used to prevent thegathering centres being damaged by the thread. Waste paper from oldermanuscriptswasusuallyusedforthispurpose.Ideally,thiswastepapercanbestudiedtodiscoverand identifytheremainsofoldermanuscripts. Inanycase,thesereinforcementstripsshouldalsoberegisteredanddocumented(mentionwhether there isa legible texton themandanyotherdetailsavailable; in thedescription, this information falls under another section calledBinding).Otherindiciathatwillhelpdeterminethesizeofgatheringsarementionedbelowandareofusemainlyincaseoflargemanuscriptsastheyopenonlytocertainangle


9

andonedoesnotgettothemanuscriptspine,unlesscertaindegreeofforceisused. Gatherings belonging to one manuscript created at the same time areusually of the same, or similar, size. Describing the gatherings verbally wouldmakethedescriptiontoolongandnationalguidelinesthereforedefinesystemsfor describing gathering sizes; howevernational practicesmaydiffer. InCzechsystem,Romannumeralsspecifynumberofbifolios inagivengathering (II forbinion,IIIforternion,etc.);symbols“-”and“+”followedbyanumberoffolios(less frequently bifolios) provide information onmissing – or added – leaves.Arabicnumeralsareusedforleaves,Romannumeralsareusedforbifolios(thesameasgatheringsize). Ifthereareseveralgatheringsofthesamesize,this isexpressed by an Arabic numeral in front of the Roman numeral. To double-check,lastfolio(orpage)numberismentionedaftereachregisteredgathering.The Czech formula for a manuscript consisting of two full sexternions, onesexternion with one leafmissing and one quinternion with two leaves addedwouldbe:2.VI(fol.24)+(VI-1,fol.35)+(V+2,fol.47).

Different systems may be used by various countries and in variouscatalogues.InGermany,thelastfoliocheckdigitisdisplayedasanupperindex.Anglo-Saxon catalogues often use gathering order number with a number ofleaves in it, and any irregularities arementioned right in the given gathering.Using this system, thesamemanuscriptwouldbe recordedas1-212 (ff.1–24),312(ff.25–35),410(ff.36-47),wheretheaddedormissing leavesare indicatedrightinthegivengatheringbyspecifyingthenumberofleavesinit.

Theoriginallocationofmissingoraddedleavesalsoneedstobeidentifiedandregistered.(Extraleaveswereusuallyaddedbybindingorpastingthemin,exceptionally theywere sewnonolder leaves.) The specific caseswhereextraleavesareaddedbypastingthemontoastripofanoriginalbifoliosarerecordedverbally; this would typically happen in cases where in the second half of agathering, textwaswrittenonwrongpagesofgivenbifolios. If thishappened,theleavesinquestionwerecutandpastedtotherightplacenottodisturbthetextstream. Sometimes,missingoradded leavesarenoteasytodetermine. If leavesdisappeared after a manuscript had been finished, and thus the text flow isdisrupted,therearenoquestion.Questionsariseincaseswherethereisnotext


10

disruption. In general we can say that as for parchment manuscripts, onlyindividual leaves would be added (parchment was an expensivematerial andalso,somesizeswerenot largeenoughforbifolios).Paper,ontheotherhand,was produced in unified-size leaves, whichmakes cutting a leaf out after thegathering had been bound more likely. We must also consider position ofirregular gatherings and of leaves in a part of them.Gatherings of a differentnumberofleavesaremorefrequenttowardstheendofmanuscriptsorincasegatheringswere produced in one go, because sometimes the end of the textwould be shorter, hence a smaller gathering. Sometimes though we see aslightly larger lastgathering– inthesecases individual leavesweremore likelytobeadded(thesearethenfound inthesecondhalfofthegatheringwhen itwasalreadyclearhowmuchspacewasneeded for the remaining text). Thereareusuallyfinetracesofamissingleafinthegathering–whateverthecauseofthe loss. A thin strip was necessary to attach a leaf by sewing it in. Thewatermarkposition, incaseofpapermanuscripts,alsohelpstodetectmissingleaves.Incaseoffoliomanuscripts,thereisawatermarkonlyononeleafofthefoldedfolio.Thereforeiftherearewatermarksontheleavesinthefirsthalfofthegathering,therewillbenowatermarksonthecomplementaryhalvesinthesecond half of the gathering. Quartomanuscripts usually have watermarks inthespine;thusonefoliointhegatheringeitherhasnowatermarkatalloritisinpartsofone folio in the first and secondhalfof thegathering, in itsupperorlowersection,respectively.Foliationofindividualfoliosinthegatheringcanalsosayalot.Onlyleavesinthefirsthalfofagatheringwereusuallyfoliated.Markswere usually placed either in outer bottom corner or in the middle of thebottom of recto pages of individual leaves. Marking takes various forms: themost commonareArabicorRomannumerals.However, therearealso lettersstarting from “a”or the correspondingnumberof vertical lines. Exceptionally,foliationalsoincludesasequencenumberofagivengathering,andthuswefindacombinationofa letter (identifying thegathering)andanumber (identifyingthefolio). Another aid to identify individual gatherings would be information thatwasmeant tohelpbindersorder thepages and sections in the correctorder.Therewere two such tools– so-called signaturemarksandcatchwords (theseterms are used also for prints but have a differentmeaning). Catchwords are


11

usuallylocatedatthebottomofthefinalleafofagathering,towardstheinnermargin(sometimestheyareinthemiddleofthelowermargin,sometimesevenwithin the decorative border, exceptionally also in the inner bottom corner,perpendiculartothemanuscripttext).Acatchwordanticipatesthefirstwordofthe followinggathering.Sometimes it is justoneword,sometimes it is severalwords.Sometimes,ifbifolioswerenotboundinthecorrectorderorifacopyistdidnotcopytheleavesinthesecondhalfofthegatheringinthecorrectorder,catchwordscanindicatetherightorderevenwithinonegathering.

Signature marks are sequence numbers of gatherings, and they wereplaced at various places. Themost common optionwould be at the end of agathering,atbottommargincentre.Itisnoexceptionthoughtofindsignaturesat the bottom or outside top margin of a leaf. Signatures found within onemanuscriptdonotnecessarily formacontinuoussequence;wefindsignaturesstarting from1 that indicate that individual sectionswere createdatdifferenttimes or places, and we also find signatures that indicate “simply” a copy ofindividualparts,sometimesbythesamecopyist.RomanorArabicnumeralsareusedassignaturemarks,.Howeversometimesweseenumberswritteninwords(andsometimestherearenumberswritteninwordsfirst,andwhenthenumbergets too long,numeralsareused). Inanycase, it isnecessary todocumentalloccurrencesofsignatures (placeandmethodused)andany irregularities. (E.g.“Two signature sequences: first in Arabic numerals 1–6, final folio, bottomcentre, ff.1–72, second inRomannumeralsXIII–XV, first folio,bottomoutsidecorner, ff. 73–102.” Such description suggests that the second half of themanuscriptbelongedoriginallytoanother, largercodex,anditwasaddedonlysecondarily.)Afterbinding,thesesignaturesbecameirrelevantandwereusuallytrimmedoratleastdamagednottointerfereaesthetically. In case of rebound books, it is more difficult to identify the structure.Damage would often be the reason for rebinding a manuscript and in theprocessofrestoringthebook,sometimesmorefolioswereadded,andthustherestored book comprised a different type of gatherings. In these cases, it isdesirable to indicate this factand if indiciaallow, try to identifywhat changesweremadetotheoriginalmanuscript.Layout


12

Layout descriptions reflect, in most cases, what it obvious at first sight. Thepurposeofstatingthefactsisimportantforgettinganideahowmuchcarewasputincopyingthemanuscriptasthiscantellwhothemanuscriptwasintendedfor. The visual aspect of two identicalmanuscripts can reveal whether it wascopied just casually, for somebody’s personal use, or very carefully, for amonasterylibrary. Layoutdescriptionrecordsaboveallnumberofcolumns, layoutsizeandhow itwasprepared.Numberofcolumnscorrelateswithmanuscriptsize,andtocertainextentalsowithitscontents.Largermanuscriptsusuallyhaveatwo-column layout.More-columns layout is specific to certain types of texts (e.g.Bible concordances or other indices that can be listed in columns, unlikecommontext).Numberofcolumnsalsocorrelateswith thescriptsize:ononehand,evenlargegradualsandothercodiceswithsimilarcontentwritteninlargescripthaveaone-columnlayout,ontheotherhand,relativelysmallmanuscriptshaveatwo-columnlayoutbuttheywouldbewritteninsmall,orevenminiature,script(e.g.smallcarry-aroundBiblescomprisingentireScriptures). The layout size (or rather marginal space size) depended on themanuscriptpurpose. Largemarginsprimarily reveal representativenatureofamanuscript. However, certain texts were expected to be commented – andthesehada lotofmarginal space, too. In thesecasescertainamountofblankmarginswasleftastheextentofcommentarytobeaddedwasoftenpreparedup front. Some legalmanuscripts (thatoftencame toBohemia fromSouthernEurope)areofspecificappearance:thecoretextisusuallyintwocolumns,thelayout is variable, and the script size is larger; around the core text, runs thegloss in smaller script. Thesemanuscripts that have a basic layer or layers ofexplanatoryglossesusuallyalsohavesameblankspaceleftinbottommarginforaddingmorecommentaries. Thecareput in ruling lineson thepagesalso revealsa lot.While layoutmargins, and individual columnmargins, were prepared on regular basis, lineruling is found only in considerably lower percentage of manuscripts. Themethodusedforrulingdependsonwritingmaterialused:untilthe12thcentury,eitherahardpoint(forblindruling)oraleadpointwereusedtorulelinesontheparchmentpages.Asofthe13thcentury,inkrulingbecomesmorefrequentandprevails soon. Blind ruling is far less frequent in paper manuscripts as with


13

hardpoints, the risk of damaging the writing material was rather significant.Sometimesweseeprickingonmarginsasremainsofrulingpreparations–themarks were then connected with guiding lines. Sometimes the pricking wastrimmednot to interferewithoverall visualaspectofapage,but itwasnotarule.Asfortheabovementionedcommentaries,sometimesonlythecoretextisruled and the commentary itself is located in the outer margin of a page.Sometimes, however, the core text and commentaries take turns. Sometimeshomilieshavethisstructure– theScripturetextuses theruledpartofapage,and thehomily texthaseitherno lines ruledor there are smaller line spaces.The simplestmethod, seenmost frequently in commentaries onphilosophicalworks,wouldbethatofasinglewordorashortsectionofthecoretextwritteninmeticulousscript,sometimesunderlinedinred,andthecommentarywritteninsmaller,moreordinaryscript. Layout description includes number of columns, layout size, layoutpreparationmethod, (widthof individualcolumnsand thewidthof thevacantspace between them, sc. “spatium”), and a number of lines per column. Forstandardmanuscriptswritten intwocolumns,thewidthofonecolumn is7to10 cm, spatium width is 1 to 2 cm. Dimensions can tell us a lot in case offragments where it may be unclear whether the blank space it a spatium orwhether it used to be the originalmanuscript’s spine; (should it be the lattercase,thevacantspaceisusualwider).Shouldtherebescriptsofdifferentsizes(the core text and thegloss), information forboth setsneeds tobe recorded.Also,ifnumberoflinesineachmanuscripttextdifferssignificantly,thisneedstobe recorded. Should the script size change gradually, only the sizes at thebeginningandattheendarerecorded,andanoteofgradualchangeintypeofscriptisrecorded.Foliation,Pagination,RunningHeadsFoliation,orpagination less frequently, is thenowadaysmethodfornavigatingmanuscripts and for referencing them. Unlike the less frequently usedpagination,foliationhasbeenusedforthesamepurposesincetheMiddleAges.However,therewerealsoothernavigatingandreferencingsystems. First of all, the medieval foliation usually used a different basic unit.Nowadays, the recto page of one leaf has a sequence number followed by r


14

(recto), the verso pagehas the same sequencenumber followedby v (verso).Medieval foliation, however, was based on the aperture system, i.e. aperture(an opened bifolios)was the reference unit. It consisted of the verso page ofone leaf and the recto page of the next leaf. Themost common referencingsystemisbasedonthisperception–itconsistsofafoliofollowedbylettersa-d,referencingoneoffourtextcolumns(orlettersa-bincaseofmanuscriptsthathadaone-columnlayout;however,columnsareusuallyspecifiedonlyincodicesthat have a two-column layout per page). The system of column markingdevelopedinasystemofbookmarks–whichwerespecialmarksplacedeitheron a capital, or in movable version, attached to a wooden stick. (Both typessurvivedmainlyinRoudnicemonasterymanuscripts.)Thesearerotatingdisksorcrosses, with the numbers 1-4 on them (either inwords or in numerals) thatwouldmark the columnwhere a readerwished to resume reading. However,thedownsideofthefoliation-basedsystemwouldbethatitwasnotpossibletouseitinothercopies–itwaspracticallyimpossibleforcopiestohaveidenticalvolumesoftext (orevencolumns).Thusthemorefrequentlyusedreferencingsystemwasbasedontext,notcodex,features.Oftencertaintextunits(sections,homilies, etc.) were numbered, and individual letters were used tomake themarkingmorespecific.Whensuchamanuscriptwascopied, thesebookmarkswereplacedonmargins,attherelevantsectionofatext.Sequencenumbersofsmallerunitswereusuallyplacedinheaders,asatypeofrunningheads.Thesereferences,however,providedonlylessdetailedinformation,typicallye.g.nameofagivenbiblicalbookorasequencenumberofabookbelongingtoa largercollection. They did not include information referencing a specific folio in amanuscript. Running heads are recorded in the section describing layoutpreparation. Exceptforcontinuousnumberingoffolios,othersystemswerealsoused,eveniflessfrequently.Themostfrequentotheroptionwasacombinationofaletter and anArabic or Romannumeral,most frequently fromone to twenty.This system was used mainly in liturgical codices, typically e.g. in serialproductionofmanuscriptsinthe16thcentury. Descriptions need to record older foliations in a manuscript. (It is noexception to findmedieval foliationswhereeach individualwork inonecodexhad its own numbering, while this does notmean necessarily that theywere


15

each created in ratherdifferentperiodsof time). If the foliationsareused forreferencepurposes,thefactisalsogoodtobedocumented.Modernfoliations,including errors, are documented, too. (In some collections, numberingintentionallyskipsblankleaves).Themissingfolioisthefoliothatisimmediatelybefore the numbered leave (if there are folios numbered 110 and 115 in amanuscript,andonlythreemoreleavesbetweenthem,114isthemissingfolio).Analogically,amultiplefoliowouldbeafolioimmediatelybeforethenumberedleave(ifweusethepreviousexamplewithfoliosnumbered110and115withsixleavebetweenthem,thefoliosafterfol.114willbedocumentedas114bisand114 ter). Using new foliation is useful only on rare occasions: older systems,includingtheerrors,hadusuallybeenusedinoldercataloguesandmanuscriptdescriptions.DamageDocumentingdamagestoamanuscriptortoitspartshelpsscholarsinresearch,andsometimesithelpsuncoveramanuscript’s“life”story.Missingleaves,fallenoutgatheringsetc.shouldbementionedalreadyintheStructuresection.Thusjustareferencetothiswillsufficeinthis(Damage)section.Moreheavilystainedouter leaves of a gathering, or of groups of gatherings reveal that themanuscript may have been collated from individual sections (that sometimeshad existed independently for some time). Newly bound manuscripts withleavesdamagedbycorrosionmay indicate that theoriginalbindinghadmetalornaments and clasps. This section should also mention damage caused byinsects,humidity,etc.Itshouldalsomakeamentionofillegibleordisruptedtextorpartsoftext.Script

Thebasicpurposeofscriptsandscribes’handsdescriptionistwofold:toidentifythe number of scribes creating themanuscript, and to characterize the scripttheyused.Boththetasksareuneasy. Visual appearance of one scribe’s hand can vary relatively significantlyevenwithinonemanuscript.Ifascribeworkedonacodexcontinually,thehandwould change continually, too. More questions arise, though, when another


16

copyist took over, or when the first scribe took a longer break and resumedcopying the manuscript in a more calligraphic style. As calligraphy tends tosuppress individual style, it makes it more complicated to identify differenthands. Sometimes a scribewrote the core text carefully in calligraphy, and inmargine, he used casual italic script (e.g. for notes to the rubricator). In suchcasesthedramaticdifferencebetweenthetwoscriptsbyonehandisobviousatfirstsight.Thescriptsaresodifferentthatwithoutknowingthegeneralcontext,itwouldnotoccurtoanyonetomatchthetwoscriptswithonehand.Volumesof text written by individual scribes’ hands are measured by foliation. If ascribe’shanddoesnotchangewithinagathering(oranindividualtext),theycanbemeasuredbygatherings.Corrections,especiallyifbyadifferenthand,andatleast total number of marginals are documented, too. Should rubrication bemadebyadifferenthand,thisshouldalsobementioned. Script terminology used has not been unified, and various publicationsmayuseslightlydifferentterms.The leastproblematic, fromidentificationandterminological point of view, are the oldest scripts: Caroline (Carolingianminuscule) andRoman square capital (majuscule). These scripts,however, arerather scarce in extantmaterials; after 1250, Carolinewas not used anymoreand Romanesque manuscripts used Roman capitals only exceptionally, as ahighlighting script (for rubrics, incipits, etc.).Wemay alsomention uncials, ormore precisely the round uncial shapes of letters that were also used in theMiddle Ages, and even in the 14th century, to highlight incipits and runningheads.

Most medieval codices in Czech libraries are written in Gothic scripts.Different sourcessometimes listdifferentcriteriacharacterisingGothic scripts,especially in case of its early forms. However, for the calligraphic form,characteristics would include: pointed bows, broken tops and bottoms ofverticalstems,stemsendinginthesamestyleonthebaseline,andconjoiningletters(sharedbowsandverticalstems).AfterthetransitionalperiodofCarolinagetting outdated, the most calligraphic form of this script (known as Gothicblackletter or Gothic bookhand) got in use from 1300s, it was used almostexclusively for calligraphicmanuscripts in1400s,and lateronwas replacedbybastarda. Gothic blackletter, however, was still used in the 16th century for


17

liturgical books, such as large graduals or hymn-books. In bastarda, individuallettersarecreatedinseveraldisconnectedstrokes.

Gothiccursiva is theotherGothicscript, its firstusedatingbacktomid-14th century. The script allowed scribes to write faster, hence it is less tidy.Fasterwriting,bindingletterstogether,madeitpossibleusesomenewshapes(mainlysc.single-bowled“a”andloopsonascendertopsofletters“b,d,l”,thatallowed binding the next letter). The script spread fast due to growingmanuscript production, both at universities and elsewhere. Descriptions oftenusethetermGothicsemi-cursive–moreneatlywrittenformofGothiccursiva,howeversometerminologysystemsdonotusetheterm.

The last type of Gothic script is bastarda – it uses the same letters asGothiccursiva,howeverlettersdonotbind–theyareusuallywritteninseveralseparate strokes. Bastarda partially omits the non-functional loops at tops ofascenders. In the 15th century, bastarda was the prevailing calligraphic script,exceptfortheabove-mentionedliturgicalmanuscripts.Exceptfromthesebasictypes, Bohemian libraries sometimes offer region-specific scripts in importedcodices.TheonemorefrequentlyusedscriptwouldbeItalianGothic,orGothicRotunda–withmoreroundedshapesofletters.

Humanisticminuscule, developed from Carolina, did not spread aroundBohemia until the 15th century, and its spreading was rather uneven. It wasintroducedmainlybystudentswhohadstudiedatuniversitiesinItaly,howeverthey could use the new script in their autographs only partially or not at all,maybealsoduetolanguageoftextstheywerecopying.

Whileonescribe’shandmaychangeoverthetime,onlyonescripttypeisusually used within one manuscript. Commentaries would be an exception –usually thecoretext iswritten incalligraphichand,commentary itself inmorecursorycursive.

Fromtheterminologicalpointofview,themostcomplicatedsituation isindefiningcursorybastardaandneatGothiccursiva.Individualresearchershave“theirown”criteria toputascript intooneof these twocategoriesandthesecriteria may differ. The prevailing terminological system is that based on thefollowingworks:J.Pražák(NázvoslovíknižníchpísemvčeskýchzemíchI.11.–13.stoletía II.13.–15.století(Terminologyforbookscripts inBohemiaI.11th–13thcenturyandII.13th–15thcentury)reprintedin:J.Pražák:Výborkodikologickýcha


18

paleografických rozprav a studií (Selected codicologic and paleographicdiscussionsandstudies),Praha2006,pp.119-134and135-152),andonmorerecent work by H. Pátková: Česká středověká paleografie (Czech medievalpaleography), České Budějovice 2008; a slightly different system is used in I.Hlaváček– J.Kašpar:Paleografie (Paleography), in: I.Hlaváček– J.Kašpar–R.Nový: Vademecum pomocných věd historických (Vademecum to auxiliarysciencesofhistory),2ndedition,Jinočany1994,pp.19–97.DecorationThepurposeofrecordinganddocumentingdecorationsinregularcataloguesisnot to categorize illuminations by style. The purpose is rather to recordinformation that can be used in further research. Some collections (KNM,Strahov) offer specialized catalogues of illuminatedmanuscripts, including arthistorybibliographies.Usuallyitispossibleonlytocopytheinformationbutitisnot a rule. (Other collections have their catalogues of decoratedmanuscripts,too, however these are usually just selective lists.) Of course, literature oftenlists codices belonging to collections with no continuous catalogues, howeverthe rule is that attention is paid especially to manuscripts with good-qualitydecorations. For record-keeping purposes, decorations should be categorized asilluminations in form of figures, ornamental initials, drolleries (amusingdecorationsonbordersof individualpages,notrelatedtothetext), illustrationdrawings (e.g. for texts on astronomy), or larger initials decorated with floralornaments (fleuron), created either by a calligrapher or a scribe himself. Thedescriptionshouldgivethefoliathedecorationsareonwithinthemanuscript.Catalogue entries should also include the information on whether themanuscript is illuminated (abbrev. as “illum.”), however for the last category,the border is rather unclear. Just a summary mention will suffice in case oflarger rubricated initialsopening individual textsor sections, rubrication (titlesof works or sections written in different-colour ink, usually red), elaboratedcapitalsincolour,andunderlinedpartsoftexts.Allthisinformation,characterofhandandcareputinlayoutpreparationindicatehowmuchattentionwaspaidto creating the manuscript. Rubricated captions were meant to help users


19

navigate the manuscript, however autographs copied by university studentsoftenlackedthisbasichighlighting. Almost without exception, manuscript decorations illustrate themanuscript text; therefore description of reproducible images is text-dependant. Illustrationsof a saintwithnoclearpersonal attributes ina setoflegends will therefore be identified as the saint the legends are about. Thescribeatthebeginningofthetextwillbe identifiedastheauthorofthegivenwork. Analogical approach is used to identify iconographically non-specificbiblicaltableausorthosedealingwithCanonlaw(judicialtableausmaybefoundinDecretumGratianumorinotherbooksonCanonlaw).Iconographicrepertoryof illuminations for individual books of the Bible or for the most significantholidays in liturgical codices was rather monotonous and one learns ratherquickly to identify individual tableaus.Onlyminorityof tableausaredifficult toidentify. In such cases it is necessary that the catalogue describe the tableau.Thesameappliestodrolleries–theseusuallydepictscenesfromnormallife,oranimals imitatinghumans.Whendescribing initials,with figuralorornamentaldecorations, it ispossibletoenterwholewordorprepositionalphasewiththedecoratedinitial.Forexample, incaseof liturgicalmanuscripts,thewordoftenrevealstheofficetheinitialopens. Scribes and illuminators had to work together sometimes more andsometimeslesscloselywhenproducinganilluminatedmanuscript.Saveforfewexceptions,textwaswrittenfirst,andthentheworkwasdecorated.However,sometimes decorations remained unfinished or were less rich than originallyintended.Asaresult,wefindremainsofinstructionsleftforilluminators:guideletters (small letters placed in the vacant space left for the illuminated initial,sometimes including abbreviations instructing the illuminator onwhat coloursheshoulduse)orverbalinstructionsdescribingtherequiredtableau(theywereusuallyscrapedawayorcoverbycolourlateron). MusicalNotation

Cataloguesmentionmusicnotationinamanuscriptmainlyforthepurposesoffurther specialised research – the word “notation” is written down in thecatalogue entry heading. Unlike illuminations, notation is almost exclusivelylimited to liturgical codices and to religious hymn-books; (in comparisonwith


20

sacredmusic, only aminimumnumberofmanuscriptswith secularmusic hassurvived). WefindseveralprevailingtypesofnotationinmanuscriptsoriginatinginBohemia. These are categorized depending on the system used. The oldestsystemusedwas the no-staff neumatic notation used till early 1300s.Neumemarkingswereplacedabovethechanttexts,indicatingnottheexactpitch,butrather direction of pitchmovement, i.e. whether themelody line goes up ordown in pitch. Neumatic notation also used letter abbreviation indicatingchanges in rhythm andmelody. Chronologically younger type of notationwasthesc.Metz(Messine)notation–originallystaff-lessbutinBohemiausedwithstaffanddocumentedfromlate12thcentury. AnotherformofnotationusedwastheMetz-Gothicnotation(oldertermwas virga system of chorale notation). However, it was the Bohemian chantnotationthatbecamethemostcommonlyusedsystem(olderterminologyusesthe term rhombic chant notation – nota choralis-rhombica). From mid-14thcentury, it was the prevailing system, used till Modern Ages. In monasteries(Friars Minor Conventual, Cistercians and others), they used square chantnotation. A square was the basic note shape and it was used to form othersymbols. Evolutionally younger type of notation is themensural notation. Unliketheoldersystems, thisonewasable todescribemeasuredrhythmicdurationsusingvisuallydifferentnotes.Blacknotationistheoldertype,createdalreadyinthe13thcenturybutusedonlargerscaleinBohemiaonlyfromthebeginningofthe 15th century. Younger, white notation developed in the 15th century (andcameintouseinBohemiaabitlater,again).Notesshapesareidenticalinboththeblackandwhitemensuralnotations,thedifferenceisthatinblacknotation,allnotesarefilledin,whileinwhitenotation,thereareboth,hollowandfilledinnotes,thesolid(black)onesbeingreservedforthesmallestvalues. Asformusicdatabases,wemustmentionaboveallCantus:AdatabaseforLatin Ecclesiastical Chant (http://www.cantusdatabase.org/ – quoted on April30, 2017). Texts and melodies for Czech chants are available atMelodiariumHymnologicum Bohemiae (http://www.musicologica.cz/melodiarium/ – quotedon April, 2017).Manymanuscripts with notations are in the LIMUP database(http://www.clavmon.cz/limup/–quotedonApril,2017).Itcomprisesprimarily


21

sources of Utraquist provenance, but there are also sources from historicallyolder periods. Specialised lists ofmanuscripts with notations are available fortheNKcollections(V.Plocek:Cataloguscodicumnotismusicisinstructorum,quiin Bibliotheca publica rei publicae Bohemicae socialisticae in Bibliothecauniversitatis Pragensis servantur, Pragae 1973) and for the collections inMuseum východních Čech in Hradec Králové, however the collection includesmostlyModernAgeworks(J.Černý:SoupishudebníchrukopisůmuzeavHradciKrálové (List of musical manuscripts in the Hradec Králové museum),Miscellanea musicologica 19, Praha 1966). Specific type of codices wasdocumentedbyB.F.H.Graham:BohemianandMoravianGraduals1420–1620,Turnhout2006.Unfortunatelytherearemanyinaccuracies.BindingAmanuscriptbindingwasaboveallofpractical function. Itwas toprotect themanuscriptandtomakeiteasiertohandleit.Inmedievallibraries,therewerealsoloose,notboundgatherings,buttheseweremorepronetogetdamagedoreven lost. They usually got bound when they became part of nowadayscollectionstobeusedforresearch. Binding could also be of aesthetic function. However, incidence ofbindings richly decorated with embossed and stamped decorations, (withincisions, precious stones, gems, moulded figurines, enamels, containers forholyrelicsetc.)isratherexceptionalinCzechcollections.Thereareforexamplethe Strahov Evangeliary (StrahovDF III 3; its binding as it is now is a result ofcontinuousadditionsthroughouttheMiddleAgesuntilthe17thcentury,andofmodernrestauration)orthePraguechapter libraryevangeliary (Cim2,Cim3).Therearetwobasictypesoftypicalmedievalbinding.Thefirstwouldbealessfrequentsoftparchmentbinding(itissometimesreferencedtoascoopertorium,but it canalsomean justcovers,notbinding).Theother,morecommontype,wouldbewoodenboardscoveredinleather,sometimesdecorated(referencedtoasinasseribus,howeverthetermcoopertoriummayprobablybeusedinthiscase,too). Bindingdescriptionshouldaboveallspecifytimecorrelationbetweenthebindingandthemanuscriptitself(contemporary,i.e.thebindingfromthesametimeasthemanuscript;period,i.e.fromthesameperiod–incaseofmedieval


22

manuscripts,bindingsmadestillintheMiddleAgesbutnotatthesametimeasthe codex; younger).Next it should identifymaterials used – both the boardsmaterialandthecovermaterial.Ifdecorated,decorationsdescriptionshouldbeincluded.Asalreadymentioned,wehaveonlyafewrichlydecoratedbindings–individualelementsofdecorationsneedtobejustdescribed,theirstyleortimecategorization is a question of specialized research. Description of (especiallydecorated) later bindings should be an analogy of describing the medievalbindings.Bindingsoflaterperiodsthoughcanbedescribedinlessdetailastheyareusuallyplainer,withnodecorations. Soft parchment bindings have, for functional reasons, reinforcement(most usually) leather slips on the back of the book, sometimeswith incisiondecorations. Sometimes the back cover was wider than the book-block, theexcesscoverformingaflapwrappingaroundthecodextoprotectitsfore-edge.Thesemanuscriptsusuallydonothaveanyclasps;sometimesthereisathreadorathinleatherstraptowraparoundthemanuscript,oraroundabuttonfixedtothefrontcoverboard.Thistypeofbinding isfrequent(butnotexclusive) incase of workmanuscripts, written casually, found e.g. in NK collections oftenrelatingtotheUniversityofPrague. Woodenboardsusedformedievalbindingsareusuallycoveredinleather,theyoftenhavemetalcornersandametalboss,andtheyalmostalwayshavefasteningstraps.Theleatheroverlaywasplain,notdecoratedatfirst,fromthe14thcentury,simplelineswereusedtodecoratethebinding.Firstblind-stampeddecorations are documented in Bohemian in early 1400s, they becamemorecommonafter1450.Variousdesignswereusedtodecoratebindings,byusingindividual stamps or sets of stamps and impressing them in slightly dampedleathercoveringtheboards.Stampsidentifiedbyspecificmotifsandsizesfoundon bindings help identify periods and locations of individual bookbindingworkshops.Howevertheycanonlyrarelybeusedtoidentifyindividualpersons;(these can be sometimes identified by initials or names on stamps, butsometimes,theinitials/namesidentifysaints).Incisiondecorationsaregenerallyless usual, usedexceptionally in the14th century, a bitmoreoften in the15thcentury. Sometimes the leather covers only a section of boards, by the spineandthespineitself,butthistype,too,doesnotemergeuntilthe15thecentury.Therewerealsosomewhatspecificbindingtypes–namelywrappedbindingand


23

yapp-edgesbinding.Incaseofwrappedbinding,leatheroverlaywasattachedtotheoutsidecoverboard,butinsteadoffoldingintobeattachedtopastedown,therewerelooseoverlapscoveringthemanuscriptedges.Asfortheyapp-edgebinding,theoverlappingpartsofthecovercouldbetieduptoformabagandthebookcouldbetransported.Inmajorityofcases,theoverlappingsectionsofbooks covers were cut off and did not survive, however loose cover edgesindicatethistypeofbinding.Blind-stamporothertypeofdecorationneedstobeverballydescribedsothatreaderscangetat leastarough ideaofthestyleand stamps used. In order to identify individual bindings, researchers useE.Kyriss:VerziertegotischeEinbändeimaltendeutschenSprachgebiet,parts1–4, Stuttgart 1951–1958. Another source continually gathering a categorizingmaterials from other libraries, including the Czech ones is available athttp://www.hist-einband.de/ (quoted on May 30, 2017). It can be used tocompare individual stamps, to view and search by motif, or identify specificworkshops.Othermaterials,usedratherexceptionallyforbindingintheMiddleAges,wouldbetextilesorparchment. Brasswasusually thematerialused formetaledges (corner-pieces)andmetal bosses, butweencounter also ironandwood, andevenmorepreciousmetalsincaseofdeluxemanuscripts.Mostfrequentlyweseebossesofaroundshape, but there are also studs in a shape of a flower or a Gugelhupf.Moresophisticatedmetalworkdecoratedwithcutholes,engravingsandusingothermethods are less frequent. Such metal work needs to be described. It is noexception thatmetal edges and bosses did not survive, but the binding oftenbears traces that reveal at least the basic shape of the original element. Thelargerthemetalworkandthemanuscript, themoredecorative itusuallygets.Sometimes it is even somehow connected to the person who had ordered it(coatsofarmsofthetownofKolínonmanuscriptsKNMXIIA21andXIIA22,orderedbythetownforitsparishchurch). The typeof strapsandclaspsusedalso indicates themanuscriptage. InBohemia,formanuscriptsdatingbacktothe14thcentury,aclasphookedwithalocking pin in the middle of the cover was the prevailing type of fasteningmechanism. Clasps hookedwith locking pins attached at the side of the bookappeared inBohemiaatearlymodernperiod. In the15th century, lockingpinswerereplacedbyhooks lockingwithcatchplatesatthesideofthebookfront


24

cover.Catchplatesweresometimesdecoratedwithfloraloranimalfigures,orwith words and letters (sometimes with no meaning and used purely as adecoration). The strapswouldusually fasten from theback cover to the frontcover; should it be the otherway round, it needs to bementioned. Folio-sizemanuscriptsusuallyhavetwostraps,smallercodicesone,ortwo.Therearealsomanuscriptsthathavetwostrapsovertheforeedge,andonestrapoverthetopedgeandanotheroneover the loweredge.Modernperiodbroughtvariety towaysusedtokeepbookcoversfirmlytogether:tyingwithlacesorbindingwithno clasps. Lockable bookswith a lock and a keywere rather rare,mostly thecaseofmunicipalbooksofrights.Themechanismwasusedtopreventcontentsaltering. A chain attaching a manuscript to the bookcase would be a specificelement, rather rare inBohemia. Thepurposewas toprevent theft. The termused for these codices is libri catenati, i.e. “chained books”. One end of thechainwasfittedtothebackcoverofthemanuscriptandtheothertoareadingdesk or a bookcase. In Western Europe, the practice was usual at universitylibraries that served as reference libraries and was used for frequently usedcodices. No such codices showing traces of chains were found in the Pragueuniversitylibrary.However,tracesofattachingbychainareratherfrequentonmanuscriptsbelonging to St. Jamesparish church library inBrno.Chain tracesare also sporadically foundon individual booksbelonging toother collections.(Manuscripts from the Weissenau monastery bear rather frequent traces ofchaining,butthebooksgottoBohemiaandtotheNationalLibraryonlywiththePragueLobkowitzlibrary).RemainsofchainsortracesofthemareabundantinJáchymov burgher library and in Cheb Greyfriars monastery; however thesebook collections consist almostentirelyofprintedbooks.Chainsas suchor atleastseveral links fromthemsurvivedonlyexceptionally; it isusuallyahole inthebackcoverthatindicateslibercatenatus. Identifying bookbinder’s shop can assist in identifying not only theterritoryoforigin, but also the timeoforigin.At themoment,weare able toidentifyblind-stampedbindings.Incaseofothertypesofbindings,weareabletotelle.g.identicalmetalelementsandthusconcludethatinthe14thcentury,Roudnicemonasteryusedacertainshop(ormaybehaditsownshop?).Identicalmetal elements were identified on certain types of books bound for Třeboň


25

monastery during 1365-1400. A homogenous collection of bindings from theaforementionedWeissenaumonastery dates back to the turn of the 15th andthe16thcenturies;themanuscriptswerereboundforpurelyaestheticreasons.Otherwise,rebindingalargernumberofbookstocreateaunifiedvisualaspectbecameacommonpracticeonlyinmodernperiod. The latest treatiseonterminologyandtypologyofmetalcomponentsofbookbinding was written by K. Sojková: Kovové prvky vknižní vazbě(terminologie,vývoj,výroba,restaurováníakonzervace) (Metalcomponentsofbookbinding (terminology, evolution, manufacture, restauration andconservation), Pardubice 2011. P. Hamanová also deals with medievalbookbinding inherbook:ZdějinknižnívazbyodnejstaršíchdobdokonceXIX.stol. (History of Bookbinding, from the earliest times to the end of the 19thcentury),Praha,1959. Bookbinding description should also include description of pastedowns(insideofbookcovers)andflyleaves(front/backendpaperspreceding/followingthemanuscript text). Flyleaves were not a rule, however pastedowns were acommonelementofmedievalmanuscripts.Wedo find “naked” inside covers,howeverthis isusuallybecausetheoriginalpastedownwasremovedforsomereason later on. Blank paper or parchment leaves, orwaste paper fromoldercodices was used for pastedowns and flyleaves. In case of waste paper it isnecessary to identify thetextwrittenon it. (Sometimeswastepaperwasusedbecausetheoriginalmanuscriptgotdamaged,whichcanmaketheoriginaltextidentification difficult.) There can be later additions written on the originallyblankleavesshowingthatthetextwasusedactively(e.g.excerptsorcommentswritten by book owners). All this should be documented. (Call numbers andinformation on ownership are dealt with in the next section). However, evenblank leaves can reveal information. Watermarks in paper leaves can revealbinding age, and possibly tell how much time elapsed between writing andbindingthecodex(shouldthetimeelapsedberatherlong).Bindingdescriptionshould also mention strips reinforcing sewing at central folds of individualgatherings (see Structure) and readers’ markers – tabs pasted against leavesedges, sticking out of the fore edge. These weremade from both the wastepaperandblankparchment,sometimesbearingrelevantheadwords.


26

OwnershipNotesandManuscriptProvenanceHistory“Life”ofamanuscriptstartedwith itswriting.Oncewritten, itwasread,used,stored at different places. There are various approaches to reconstructingwhere manuscripts moved and how they were received, but the options areratherlimited.Acertaintypeofchangesisreflectedbyvisualchanges(typicallyrebinding). However, written records – readers’ notes, call numbers andownershipnotes – usually tellmore.As for readers’ additions and comments,theyusuallydonotrevealmuch,asthesearealmostexclusivelyanonymousandthus we can identify authors only if they intentionally provided enoughidentificationdataor if thecommentsandadditionswerewrittenbysomeonewhose scribal style is so characteristic thatwe can identify the author. As forlibraryentries,thewrittenrecordstellmore. However,thiswouldnotbethecaseofcallnumbers.MedievalBohemianlibraries usually used almost identical systems of call numbers consisting of aletterandanumeral(sometimesagivenlibraryusedonlyRomanoronlyArabicnumerals, but sometimes both were used, especially if there were severalpersonsregisteringthebooks). It is importanttodocumentcallnumberswhendescribing manuscripts, however as long as there is no database that wouldmake it possible to compare new call numbers with those that have alreadybeenidentifiedorare identifiable,researchershave littleuseforcallnumbers.Accesstocallnumberimages,however,doesnotseemtobeaquestionofnearfuture. Call numbers using a different system are easier to identify: e.g.manuscriptsfromZlatáKorunamonasteryusuallyhadaplateonthefrontcover,withmajuscule letters; should there be a larger number of books,majusculeswere doubled; no numeralswere used.Manuscripts belonging to the CharlesCollegeofPragueUniversityhadaplateon the frontcoverbearing theusual-format call number consisting of a letter and an Arabic numeral, usuallyfollowed by the letter K. The letter-numeral combination denoted themanuscript position: letters denoted shelves, numerals serial numbers. Somecall number reveal more complex systems of arranging books in the library.Codicesfromchaplain library inČeskýKrumlovbearcallnumbersconsistingoftheletterC.(abbreviationofcapsa,bookcase);eachbookcasehadtwoverticalcompartments and thus the letter C. is followed by Roman I or II; next is or.followed by an Arabic numeral 1-4. (ordo, shelf) and the position in the shelf


27

identified by a letter. Call numbers primarily served record-keeping andlocation-indicating purposes andwere therefore placed in immediately visibleplaces.Firsttheyweremostcommonlyplacedonthefrontcover,thenonthespines.However,somelibrariesplacedcallnumbersoncover insides,flyleavesand even fore-edge (in the Middle Ages, manuscripts were usually stackedhorizontally and the fore-edge was therefore visible). Sometimes we find callnumbers inside thebookblock.Thiswouldbethecaseofseparate texts,withnothing to do with other texts in the codex. This probably indicates thatoriginally, thesectionwaskeptseparatelyandwasbound into thecodex lateron. Contentrecordswereanotherelementmakingiteasiertolocatecodices.Content recordswereusuallywrittenon the front cover, cover insidesor firstflyleaf,butwealsofindthemonedges.Ouroptionstomatchcontentsandtitleswrittenbythesamescribe’shandarelimited,though.Thetroubleisthesameas in case of call numbers: all we can use at the moment to make theidentification are ownership notes, our visual memory and comparison ofrecordswith digitalized codices. Somebigger libraries used their ownways torecord titles.Oneway,generally less frequent,wouldbeplacing themdirectlyontheboardoverlay.Labels,however,weremorecommon.Labelswerepastedto theboard, coveredwithhorn andnaileddownorheld inplaceby ametalframe.However,thepractiseusedbythelibrarycouldchangeoverthecourseof its existence. It is important that manuscript descriptions quote labels inextenso: labels often state (real or presumed) authorsof individualworks andalso, some labels are quoted (sometimes word for word, sometimes lessverbatim) in contemporary catalogues (if they exist) and thus this can helpidentifytheminolderlibrarytools. Ownership notes, on the other hand, usually specifymanuscript owneraccurately (but sometimes, when themanuscript changed hands, the originalnote got damaged or removed). Forms of the notes vary. Some notes simplystatethenameofthepersonor institutionowningthecodex.Somenotesaremore detailed and describe details of how the book came to its owner (year,donator,etc.).Someownerslabelledtheirbookswithidenticaldecorativelabelsthatcanbeperceivedasex-libris:e.g.VáclavHněvsínzKrumlovausedayellowdragononabluefield;VáclavKorandaJr.usedvaryingcombinationsof letters


28

VKM–VKforhis firstnameandsurname,Mformagister.Therewasnoneedforownershipnotes tobe immediatelynoticeable, thus theyareusually tobefound inside thebook. Insideof the frontcoverboard, front freeendpaperorfirst flyleaf would be the most common locations to place ex-libris. Someinstitutions, however, placed them at characteristic places: some Roudnicemanuscriptshavetheownershipnoteinscribedonthelastleaf,atarightangleto the spine; codices belonging to Sadskámonastery had the ownership noteinscribedonthethirdaperturefromthecodexfrontandbackandalsoroughlyin the middle of the book. The bottom line is to track and document allownership notes and call numbers, not just the medieval ones: thanks todocumenting history ofmedieval collections,we can track down codiceswithidentical “life stories” and thus identify them, even if there is no record ofpreviousororiginalowner. So far, ownership noteswere recorded and used to identify typical callnumbersonlyincaseofresearchinspecificlibraries.TheProvenioprojectaimstoencompassa largerscope (www.provenio.net,quotedonApril30,2017). Itmaps owners of individual collections in theNationalMuseum Library (KNM),butmedievalmanuscriptsformjustasmallpartoftheKNMcollection.

The information in the manuscript texts as such and the informationdescribing its physical appearance should appear in that part of the codexdescription that summarizes information about the codex place and time oforigin,andaboutotheridentifiedorlikelyownersandlocations.FragmentsThe obvious difficulty in describing manuscript fragments is their condition.Some libraries call fragments not only the genuine fragments but alsomanuscripts that survived as a whole but are very small. Another grouprelativelyfrequentlycategorizedasfragmentsarediplomaticmaterials,whethertheysurvivedasawholeorasatorso. Manuscript fragments come mainly from codices or other manuscriptmaterials that for some reason lost its original purpose and were usedsecondarily for other purposes. Oldmanuscripts were usually used for newerbooks,dependingonwhat theoriginalmanuscriptwaswrittenon.Parchmentcodices were usually used as cover material in binding newer books. Old


29

parchment was also sometimes cut to narrow thongs and used to reinforcecentral folds to protect them fromgettingdamagedbybinding sewing. Papermanuscripts were usually torn and used as bookmarks. Both parchment andpaperleaveswereusedaspastedownmaterialfornewermanuscripts. Certain types of damage are typical of individualmaterials and types ofsecondaryuse.Parchmentusedascovermaterialfornewbooksisdirty,textisrubbed off on the outer side and inaccessible on the inner side. Reinforcingthongs can be in most cases studied only if removed from the codex. Inoptimistic scenarios, individual strips can be reassembled to form a biggersectionoftext.However,therearenumerousgapsinmostcases.Textonpiecesofpaperusedasbookmarksisusuallylegibleasmostlyjustthepartstickingoutfrom the book is obscured by dirt.On the other hand, bookmarks are usuallyverysmallfragmentsandthechancetofindmorefragmentsofthesameoriginis very little. As for pastedowns, these are sometimes covered by lateralterations,butingeneralparchmentfragmentsusedthiswaysurvivedingoodcondition. There are two important reasons to identify and study fragments. Thefirst reason is thatmanuscript fragmentsareoftentheoldestextantspecimenofmanuscriptsinthegivencollection.Thesecondreasonisthatifwemanagetotracedownfragmentscomingfromthesameoriginalmanuscriptandusedforbinding new books, we can tell that these new books come from the samelibraryoratleastfromthesamebindery. The rules for describing fragments are the same as for describingmanuscripts. Damage is usually described in more detail as this is related tosecondaryuseoftheoriginalmaterial.Thedescriptionusuallyincludesthetitleand the call number of the book the fragmentwas used in. However, as theextantmaterialisusuallyveryfragmentary,itisusuallyimpossibletoidentifythetext, letalone thegenre. In suchcases,anything thatcanbedeciphered fromthetextshouldberecorded.ContentDescriptionPhysical description is necessary to determine time of origin of a givenmanuscript. (From the viewpoint of written down texts, the only clue of thistype would be the post quem date for works with exactly specified dates of


30

origin,howeveritisrelevantonlyforsomemanuscriptsfromtheHighandLateMiddle Ages.) Most researchers are, however, interested above all in themanuscript content. Content description should include identification ofindividualtextsinthecodex.Accuracyofidentificationmayvary,despitesparingnoeffort.Thisappliestoallworks,fromthosewhereitisnoproblemtoidentifythe author to collections of shorter texts or notes, where both structure anddescription method are arbitrary. Description of individual text units shouldalwaysinclude(ifallpartsofthetextarepresent):–Author’snameifknownornamesofallauthorsevermentioned,orgenerallyaccepted and used designation of the author the text is attributed to (in thiscaseusing“Pseudo-“infrontofthename).–Titleusedinseriesinuseorgeneratedaspartofthedescription.Itispossibletouse information fromthemanuscript itself togenerate the title,however itshould be obviouswhat is the cataloguer’s input (usually in quotationmarks)andwhatcomesdirectlyfromthesource.

Theleastcomplicatedapproachwouldbetoputbothauthor’snameandwork title in square brackets (the usual practice for added, editorialinformation). This could lead to catalogues growing slightly larger, should thesame information be contained in the opening heading, however if the sametextappearsrepeatedly,thispracticemakesiteasiertogeneratee.g.indices.–Openingheading(worktitlethatisnotdirectlycontainedinthetext,individualsections–prologue,chapters,etc.,author’snameetc.),incipit(theopeningofatextual unit), explicit (the closing of a textual unit) and closing heading –provided,ofcourse,thetextdoeshavealltheseparts.

Rubricsshouldbequotedinfull.Incipitandexplicitquotationsneedtobeonly long enough to identify thework accurately. It is therefore possible anddesirabletoshortene.g.biblicalquotations–threedots(…)marktheellipsis.Ontheotherhand,incaseoftextswithveryfrequentorevenstereotypicwording(suchashomiliesopeninglines:“Inistosermonetangunturtria”)thedescriptionshouldquotethestereotypicpartandendonlywhensomethingnewappears.When describing Bible manuscripts, where sometimes only opening headingsdiffer, and the usual types of liturgical codices, there is no need to describeindividual parts. “///” at the beginning or at the end mark mechanically


31

destroyedtext;itisadvisabletoquotetheincipit(ortheexplicit)ofthefirst(orthelast)largerblockofextanttext.–Colophonisusuallyapartofannotationthatfollowsthequotedtextitself.

Some definitions see a colophon as just an addition recording informationrelatingtothecircumstancesoftheproductionofagivencodex(scribe’sname,donator’s name, the place and date of making the copy, etc.). However,colophons may contain other notes made by scribes: prayers and thanks forhelpincourseofwritingthetext,threatstothosewhomightwanttostealthemanuscript,pleasforspiritualormaterialrewardorchildishoutburstsofjoybyscribes over finishing the work. Published catalogues served as a source tocompile a comprehensive work: Bénédictins du Bouveret: Colophons demanuscriptsoccidentauxdesoriginesauXVIesiécle,TomeI–V,Fribourg1965–1979.

Colophons are the most common part of a manuscript where scribeswould write in secret code, but their encryption was not very sophisticated.Writingbackwardswasthemostfrequentencryptionmethod.Anothermethodwouldbe splittingnames into syllables and scattering the syllables in a longertext toencrypt scribes’names; the text,however,usuallyprovideddecryptinginstructions.Scribesalsousedsimplesubstitutionciphers,veryoftenreplacingonly some letters: usually only vowels were replaced, frequently by the nextletterinthealphabet,i.e.“a”wasreplacedwith“b”,“e”wasreplacedwith“f”,“i”withk,etc.

Nextelementinthedescriptionoftextualparts(andcolophon,ifpresent)is usually the annotation. The annotation provides additional information ofvarious kinds,mainlyon contentandbibliography, it also supplies informationoneditions,presenceoftheworkincataloguesandinothermanuscripts(basedonwhatothercataloguesay,ofcourse),etc.

A growing number of secondary literature, such as monographs,catalogues and lists, are available to identify authors and texts.What ismoreimportantthoughisthattextsarebeingprocessedandlinkeduptoenablefull-textorotherwisestructuredsearch.(Atthesametime,internetsourcescanbeeasilymodified and thus informationmay become invalid or even completelydisappear.)


32

As for number of records and relevance for Czech research, theManuscripta Mediaevalia database is by far the most important one(www.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de, quoted on April 30, 2017). There arecatalogues to manuscript collections in Germany, and to collections in othercountries, too (mainly Austria, Jagiellonian Library in Krakow or UppsalaUniversity catalogue, which is also relevant for Czech research; as for Czechcollections, the Research Library in Olomouc catalogue is available and thedatabasealsocontainsrecordsoflibrarycollectionscompiledbyBerlinAcademyof Science workers, but many of those manuscripts are currently missing orunidentifiable). Quality of descriptions of individual manuscripts differs, depending oncatalogues time of origin. Most of them, however, comply with modernstandards for manuscript description. Classic Latin orthography is used forsearching inmanuscript texts. Records are very often structured at individualincipits level, which makes search very efficient (unlike theManuscriptoriumfurther below). Bible quotations in incipits are all reduced to two or threeopeningwords.Imagesofincipits(orcodicesincaseofoldercatalogues)usuallyhavealinktodisplayascannedpagefromtheprintedcataloguedescribingthegiven manuscript (this does not apply to Olomouc and Krakow librarycatalogues).Sometimes,someprintedcatalogueshavedetaileddescriptionsofcontentofmanuscriptsonlyintheindex–inthesecases,too,therearelinkstothe description. Slowly,more andmore direct links to digitalizedmanuscriptsappear;thesedescriptions,however,arenotstructuredinsuchdetailandthuse.g. there are several search results for the searched words in incipits indifferent parts of the codex. The “Materialien” section with references is ausefultool. Austrian collections are also very important in the Czech context. Thecentralwebsite formanuscriptdescriptions isavailableatwww.manuscripta.at(quoted on April 30, 2017). The search is very detailed (if you use the“Detailsuche”option);whensearchinganincipitfromanunknownwork,whichisusuallythecase,orwhensearchingforitsotheroccurrences,thereisnoneedforsuchadetail.ClassicLatinwasusedtotransliteratepassagesfromcodices.Listsofmanuscripts in individual librariesarealsoavailable,sometimeslinkstocataloguesandtodigitalisedmanuscriptsareavailable,too.Incaseofthemost


33

significant collection, the collection belonging to ÖsterreichischeNationalbibliothek Wien, individual codex records have direct links to moredetailedÖNBsite(ifmoredetailedrecordsareavailable).Nevertheless,thelistsshow that the approach to digitalization of individual collections is lesssystematicthantheoneadoptedinGermany. ItisasadfactthatthereisnosuchwebsiteintheCzechRepublic.Thus,allwe have when describingmanuscripts in Czech libraries is just a very limitedcomparisonbase. The website at https://www.mua.cas.cz/node/400 (quoted on April 30,2017) offers a growing database of manuscripts described by workers of theDepartment for the Cataloguing and Study ofManuscripts (part of the CzechAcademy of Science). The department suggested long ago to create a unioncatalogue ofbohemicamanuscripts, however the electronic database createdfrom existing descriptions of manuscripts represents only a certain section;(apart from catalogues of entire collections, there are also some specialcatalogues, such as catalogue of illuminated manuscripts). The databaseincludes description of manuscripts in Czech collections (i.e. not only ofmanuscripts described in the catalogues), and also codicology literature.Overviews of codicology literature are otherwise published in theManuscriptStudiesjournal. Thedigital libraryManuscriptorium (www.manuscriptorium.com, quotedonApril 30, 2017) is another online source,with a broader scope. It providesaccesstoanumberofcataloguesofmanuscriptsinCzechcollections,todigitalcopiesof themanuscriptscreated inVISK6,and italsoaggregatesdocumentsfrom other projects (e.g. codices digitalized in the National Museum Library(KNMinPrague)andinMoravianLibrary(MZKinBrno),providesaccesstoSwisse-codicesathttp://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de,quotedonApril30,2017,andtodigitalizedoldprintsfromtheNationalLibrary(NK)collections).Printedversionsof the catalogues mentioned above have no index (National Museum LibrarycataloguebyF.M.Bartoš)ornoindexofincipits(cataloguesofLatinandCzechcodicesintheNationalLibrarybyJ.Truhlář),whichmeansthatManuscriptoriumcan be used to full-text search these catalogues. Access to large quantities ofheterogeneousdatahasboth itsadvantages (access todigitalized images)anddrawbacks.Thereasonisthatcurrently,manuscriptsrepresentjustasmallpart


34

of documents presented, the search cannot be simply limited just tomanuscripts(notevenbyselectingchronologicalsearchcriteria)andasaresult,formanuscriptstudies,efficiencyofsearchcanbeverylow.Also,thedatabasecontainsdescriptionsofdramaticallydifferentqualityandforhistoricalreasons(andalsoduetodifferentsourcesofdata), thereareseveralrecordsformanymanuscriptsinManuscriptorium.Searchresultsarenotdisplayedinaveryuser-friendlymanner(XMLfiledisplaysandonemustuseCtrl+Ftofindtherequiredtext),entiredocument is searched (i.e. forexample inbasic search, thewordsrequiredwillnotnecessarilyexisttogetherinoneincipit).Orthographydependsontheauthorofthedescriptionofthegivenmanuscript;inmajorityofcasesitwouldbethemedievalorthography(butrespectingthewritingstyleinthegivencodex). Inprincipioisanotherlargeandthereforesignificantonlinedatabase.Itisadatabaseofincipitsfromvariouslargecollectionsandcataloguedsources(i.e.itisnotadatabaseofdescriptionsofentiremanuscripts).OnecansearchusingbothClassicandmedievalorthographiesof individualwords. It isapaidaccessbut the database is available to users registered e.g. in Litterae ante portas.Limited search in integrated databases containing authors, works andmanuscriptscanbedoneusingapaidwebsiteMirabile–Archiviodigitaledellaculturamedievale(www.mirabileweb.it–quotedonApril30,2017). We must not forget search using www.google.com. Using this searchenginemightseemratherunscholarly,but itcanbeofgreathelp. It isagreattool to discover unknown websites containing documents one is looking for.Also books.google.com is an excellent service to read not only secondary butalsoprimarysourcesasmanyoldprintshavebeendigitalized. Printed compendia also are, of course, of great use. Literature listingworks by one author is abundant, however bibliography of such works is ingeneral often to be found in manuscript catalogues or as part of individualcatalogue records. Thus, from the viewpointof scope,works listingdetails forspecific areas, environments, periods, genres etc. are of greater importance.(Overviewsandlistsforspecificfieldsareaddressedfurtherbelow.) AsforgreatbookcollectionsintheWesternEurope,twoworksshouldbementioned: A. G. Schmeller – G. Meyer (edd.): Initia operum scriptorumLatinorummedii potissimum aevi ex codicibusmanuscriptis et libris impressis


35

alphabetice digessit B. Hauréau, Turnhout 1973, and J. Hamesse – S. Szyller(edd.):RepertoriumInitiorumManuscriptorumLatinorumMediiAevi(TextesetÉtudesduMoyenÂge42,1–4),Louvain-la-Neuve2007–2010. Themostcomprehensivelistsofworksbymembersofindividualmonasticorders are cataloguesofDominicanworks (T. Kaeppeli –E. Panella: ScriptoresOrdinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, vol. 1–4, Romae 1970–1993) and ofAugustinian(Hermit)works,thoughitdealsonlywithCentralEuropeanlibraries(A. Zumkeller: Manuscripte von Werken der Autoren des Augustiner-EremitenordensinmitteleuropäischenBibliotheken(Cassiciacum20),Würzburg1966).CatalogueofincipitsofworksbyGreyfriarsisfarlesscomprehensive(G.E.Mohan:InitiaOperumFranciscalium,FranciscanStudies35sqq,1975sqq). Other lists deal with texts in verse. H. Walther: Initia carminum acversuummedii aevi posterioris latinorum,Göttingen1959;oldermaterials areincluded in D. Schaller – E. Könsgen: Initia carminum Latinorum saeculoundecimo antiquiorum, Göttingen 1977. H. Walther also compiled a list ofmedieval proverbs (in manuscripts, they are often to be found in colophons,inscribedonpastedowns, etc.).H.Walther: Proverbia sententiaeque latinitatismediiaevi,vol.1–6,Göttingen1963–1969. Alistofhumanistictextincipits,bothinverseandinprose,wascompiledbyL.Bertalot:InitiahumanisticaLatina.InitienverzeichnislateinischerProsaundPoesieausderZeitdes14.bis16.Jahrhunderts,Bd.1–2/2,Tübingen1985–1990(thisbyfarisnotacomprehensivelist). Other overviews list works created in Bohemia, chiefly those havingsomething to do with the University of Prague: P. Spunar: Repertoriumauctorum Bohemorum provectum idearum post Universitatem Pragensemconditam illustrans, tomus I (Studia Copernicana 25), Vratislaviae etc. 1985;tomus II (Studia Copernicana 35), Warsaviae, Pragae 1995. The same authorwrote a work covering the Podiebradian and Jagiellonian eras: P. Spunar’s:Literárníčinnostutrakvistůdobypoděbradskéa jagellonské(UtraquistWritingsinthePodiebradianandJagiellonianEras). In:ActareformationemBohemicamillustrantia–Příspěvky kdějinámutrakvismu (PapersonHistoryofUtraquism)byA.Molnáretal.,Praha1978.J.Tříškadealtwiththesameera,andsomeofhis lists (in particular e.g. Literární činnost předhusitské university (Writings atPre-HussiteUniversity),SbírkapramenůapříručekkdějinámUniversityKarlovy


36

vPraze 5 (Collection of sources and guides on history of CharlesUniversity inPrague),Praha1967)includewritingsbymembersofotheruniversitynations. There are similar works documenting University of Paris output:P.Glorieux:RépertoiredesMaîtresenthéologiedeParisauXIIIesiècle(Étudesde philosophie médiévale 17–18), Paris 1933–1934 and the same author: LaFacultédesArtsetsesMaîtresauXIIIesiècle(Étudesdephilosophiemédiévale59),Paris1971.However,someofthetexts includedinthis listspreadaroundEuropeanddidnotremainrestrictedtotheirregionoforigin. The basic series dealing with texts in Latin are: Patrologiae cursuscompletus,serieslatina,ed.J.P.Migne,Paris1844–1864,andPatrologiaLatinaDatabase, CD-ROM, Version 5.0b, 1996. Greek texts are addressed inPatrologiae cursus completus, series graeca, ed. J. P.Migne, Paris 1857–1866,electronic edition C. Blum 2004. Many texts were later on published in neweditionsthatweremuchmoreaccurate,still,Patrologiahasremainedthemostcommon first-choice option as it is easy to search it. Other editions, theirconcordances, additionsandother literatureweredocumentedbyE.Dekkers:ClavispatrumLatinorum,editiotertiaauctaetemendata,Steenbrugge1995andby M. Geerard at al.: Clavis patrum Graecorum, Turnhout 1974–2003, morespecifically pseudo-epigraphic works J. Machielsen: Clavis PatristicaPseudepigraphorum Medii Aevi, vol. IA–III, Turnhout 1990–2003. The Corpuscorporum(http://mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/–quotedonApril30,2017)providesaccessnotonlytothePatrologia(incompletesofar),buttoothersources,too.Thegeneralprinciplesof listingindividualpartsofthecataloguedtextmaynotalwaysbe followed.Approachesdifferprimarilydependingon the languageofthegiventexts.TranscriptionorTransliteration

Itisthetranscriptionthatisthegeneralapproachtoreproducingtexts.Itistheoriginallanguagethatdetermineshowdifficultitwillbe,andwhetheritwillbenecessary to use any special methods. Clarity is the main benefit oftranscription, as especially explaining abbreviations in square brackets makestext looking complicated while this does not add more information. Usingredundant characters also limits computer search options. To certain extent,


37

transliterationiseasierforcataloguersasespeciallyincaseofCzechtexts,thereis no need to interpret the texts. This is trueboth for themost simple cases,suchasdiacritics,andthosemoredifficult,too.However,stickingtodiagraphsandtokeepingthesameboundariesbetweenwordsasintheoriginalisratheruser-unfriendly.

As for Latin, transliterated texts differ from the original only little.Transliteration just eliminates unusual graphic forms (both long and round(short) “s” are transliterated identically; “u” or “v” is determined by themeaning). Phone forms are left as they are in the manuscript, nothing isremoved,noradded,evenifthoseformsarenotstandardinClassicLatin.“W”meaning “vu” is transliterated as “vu”, “w” meaning “uv” is transliterated as“uv”.Where“w”means“v”, “w” is left.As forunusual characters,diphthongs“ae”, “oe” and the “e caudata” found both in the oldest and the humanistictexts remain. Use of capitals and punctuation is governed by contemporaryrules.ThemoredetailedpracticeisdescribedbyB.Ryba:Pravidlaprotranskripcilatinskýchliterárníchrukopisnýchtextů(RulesforTranscribingLatinManuscriptLiterature)(theworkhasnotbeenpublishedasaprintedbookbutitisavailableon line under the Czech name, e.g. athttp://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2011/PV2B62/um/Ryba.pdf, quoted on April 30,2017). RulesfordescribingoldCzechtextssaythattheymustbetranscribed;useof transliteration is limited to philological studies. Diphthongs are transcribedusingcorrespondingphoneswithpunctuation.(Itmaynotalwaysbeeasytotell“s”from“š”,asoneneedstoevaluatealsothegraphicforminthemanuscript).Most frequently, the following ones are subject to transcription: “au”transcribesas “ou”;where “c” ispronouncedas “k”, it transcribesas “k”; “ie”meaning“ě”transcribesas“ě”,ifitmeans“í”,“ie”remains.Transcriptionof“s”or“z”remainsthesameasinthemanuscript,thesameappliesto“t×d”;useof“i” and “y” is governed by current rules. The principles were published by J.Daňhelka: Směrnice pro vydávání starších českých textů (Guidelines forpublishing older Czech texts), Husitský Tábor 8, 1985, pp. 285–301. Theguidelinesdetailtranscriptionofindividualphonesinspecificcases.Apartfromprinted vocabularies, one can check existence or forms and individual forms


38

using the web vocabulary (http://vokabular.ujc.cas.cz/, quoted on April 30,2017).

In general, more attention was paid to medieval works in vernacularlanguages than to Latin texts. This is probably reflected by the fact that theyform a separate section in libraries (in the National Library, they have callnumber XVII), but more importantly, these texts and manuscripts are usuallydocumented inmoredetail.Staročeskýslovník,úvodnístati,soupispramenůazkratek (Old Czech Vocabulary, Introductory Articles, List of Sources andAbbreviations),Praha1968isstructuredbyworksusedassources.Itdocumentsindividualmanuscripts (but somemaybemissing,whichwould bemostly thecase of the newer copies). Identification of works by their incipits is morecomplicated. A great part of texts in Czech from the Pre-Hussite period,including prayers and other smallerworks has been documented by J. Tříška:Anonymní česká literatura předhusitské reformace (Anonymous CzechLiterature of Pre-Hussite Reformation), Acta Universitatis Carolinae – HistoriaUniversitatisCarolinaePragensis12/1–2,1972,pp.155–207.Czechincipitscanalsobeidentifiedusinglistswherelanguageisnotthecriterion. In case of German manuscripts, Czech guidelines for describingmanuscripts recommend modifications, however transliteration is morecommon.Precisetransliterationreflectseverythingexpertsneedtoidentifythemanuscript’s place of origin – sometimes it even makes it easier (thoughsometimesthereproducedsectionistoosmall).TwogreatspecializedresourcesareavailabletoresearchersstudyingmanuscriptswritteninGerman.Thereisacontinually updated overview at http://www.handschriftencensus.de/ (quotedonApril30,2017).Thisdatabasereferencesrelevantliterature,andsometimesprovides selective information on physical description, time of origin andlanguagearea.Thesecondresource isacollectiveworkDiedeutscheLiteraturdesMittelalters:Verfasserlexikon.HerausgegebenvonK.RuhzusammenmitG.Keil,W.Schröder,B.WachingerundF.J.Worstbrock,BandI–XIV,Berlin–NewYork 1978–2008. Just like in case of Czech works, if only incipits are known,works are more difficult to identify (even though some works by unknownauthorshavetheincipitastheirname).


39

ExceptformanuscriptswritteninthethreebasiclanguagesthatpeopleinmedievalBohemiausedtospeakandtowritein,therewerealsotextsinsomeotherlanguages.

All through theMiddleAges, Bohemia hadbusy relationswith Italy andFrance.Manymanuscriptswereimportedfromabroad–e.g.bystudentsfromWestEuropeanuniversities,byclerics travelling to thePapalcourt inRomeorAvignon, by representatives of monastic orders attending general chaptermeetings, etc. However, texts in Romance languages represent absoluteminorityinextantmedievalmanuscriptsandmostofthemgottoBohemiaonlylater,withlargeraristocraticlibraries.

Special training is usually necessary todescribe codiceswritten inotherlanguages, asnotonly the language isunusual, but someusealphabetsotherthan the Roman. The poor rate of preservation of written culture reflectspersecution against the Jews throughout history. Little Jewish manuscriptscoming from Bohemia survived, and only fragments represent any newdiscoveriesofmedievalHebrewmanuscripts.MostofextanttextsbelongtotheJewishMuseumofPraguecollections.NotalltextswritteninHebrewalphabetarenecessarily inHebrewlanguage–someare inAramaic(mainlytranslationsoftheTorah),andalsosomeCzechglosseswritteninHebrewalphabetsurvived.AbriefoverviewofHebrewmanuscripts inCzechcollectionswaswrittenbyV.Sadek:RukopisnásbírkaStátníhožidovskéhomuseaažidovskérukopisnéumění,Studie o rukopisech 8, 1969, s. 105–122 (Collection of Manuscripts in theNational JewishMuseumand JewishManuscript Art, Study onManuscripts 8,1969, pp. 105–122). Hebrew fragments in Czech libraries were listed for theproject Hebrew Fragments in European Libraries,http://www.hebrewmanuscript.com/.

Another alphabet used in the region of Bohemia andMoravia was theGlagolitic used to write down the Old Church Slavonic. The alphabet wasinvented by St Cyril to translate the Bible into the language of the GreatMoravia. The use of the Old Church Slavonic was discontinuous though, asSlavonicritepresbytershadto leaveafter886.Someof themfledtoBohemiaand the Sázava abbey became the centre of Slavonicwritten culture. In 1096however,SlavonicmonkshadtoleaveSázava,too.Theso-calledKievFoliosdatabacktotheGreat-Moravianperiod.Theso-calledPragueFragments(KapN57)


40

probably come from the Sázava abbey. It is a collection of prayers, or morepreciselya fragmentof theGoodFridayofficium.Slavonicwrittenculturewasrevivedin1347byCharlesIVfoundingtheEmmausMonasteryintheNewCityofPrague.In1419however,themonasterywasoverranbyHussites.TherewereGlagolitic manuscripts in the Emmaus library until approx. 1611 when themonasterywasplunderedastroopsledbytheBishopofPassauinvadedPrague.Two extant Glagolitic manuscripts of Czech provenience date back to theEmmausera–theso-calledGlagoliticBible(NKXVIIA1)andtheGlagoliticpartoftheso-calledReimsGospel,writtenin1359.Therearealsomanyfragments.Someof themarewritten in theOldChurchSlavonicand thereforemayhavebeen brought by Croatian monks. Other texts, though, are Czech andexceptionallyalsoLatin.MostGlagoliticfragmentsbelongnowtocollectionsoftheNationalMuseumLibrary(KNM),butotherGlagoliticmonumentscollectedby19thcenturyresearchersaretobefoundinotherlibraries,too.

EvenlessmedievalmonumentsarewritteninCyrillic.Tobemoreprecise,theonlyCyrillictextintheEmmausmonasterywastheotherpartoftheReimsGospel. This part dates back to the 11th century and it was given to theBenedictines probably by Charles IV. There is evidence of earlier contactsbetweenBohemiaandKievanRus’,howevertheconnectionbetweenthemandother written monuments is not definite. (In particular so-called HradecFragmentofEvangeliaryKNM1Dc2/5wasseenassuchapieceofevidence).

SpecialcatalogueswereusuallyproducedtorecordGlagoliticandCyrillicfragments found in individual Czech collections (J. Vašica, J. Vajs: Soupisstaroslovanských rukopisů Národního musea (Catalogue of Old SlavonicManuscripts in the National Museum), Praha 1957; J. Vašica: ZcírkevněslovanskýchrukopisůNárodníknihovnyvPrazeaSlovanskéknihovny–soupis a popis (From Church Slavonic Manuscripts in the National Library inPragueandintheSlavonicLibrary–ListandDescription),Praha1995).

WhilesmallcommunitiesinBohemiausedChurchSlavonicforwritingforcertainperiodsoftime,onlyindividualpersonsknewGreek.TowardstheendoftheMiddleAges,Czechhumanistscould,andsomeofthemwould,studyGreek,too. Reports document that e.g. Bohuslav Hasištejnský z Lobkovic did nothesitatetopay1000or2000ducatsforaGreekmanuscript.Still,beingabletoreadandwriteinGreekwasratherrare.(SourcessaythatBhuslav’slibrarywas


41

the only library inmedieval Bohemia that could boast of Greekmanuscripts.)Greek texts of various types usually had Greek terms transcribed in Romanalphabet; scribes’ attempts to copy Greek letters reveal that they wereunfamiliar with the alphabet. Greek manuscripts and fragments in Czechlibraries were catalogued by J.-M. Olivier – M.-A. Monégier du Sorbier:CataloguedesmanuscritsgrecsdeTchécoslovaquie,Paris1983andin(thesameauthors): Manuscrits grecs récemment découverts en République Tchèque,SupplémentauCataloguedesmanuscritsgrecsdeTchécoslovaquie,Paris2006.Theauthorsareworkingonanothervolume.More or less identical rules apply to describing content of manuscripts,regardlessofgenre.Still,theremaybespecificrequirementsforindividualtypesofworks(dependingonfieldoronothercriteria),andalsospecifictoolsmaybeusedtoidentifythem.GrammarandRhetoricOnlythosefamiliarwithLatingrammarwereabletousemedievalmanuscripts.ArsminorbyAeliusDonatusandlateronalsoAlexanderofVilledieu’sDoctrinalewerethebasictexts.Grammarswereoftenwritteninverse:ononehandversesare easier to remember, on the other hand they provide more space fordifferent interpretations. For this reasons, these texts often abound ininterlinear commentaries (these are either numbers numbering the logicalsequenceofwordsortranslationequivalents)andinmarginalnotesexplainingthemeaning.Aftermasteringgrammar, rhetoric instruction followed.Rhetoricfocusedmainlyontheartofcomposing lettersandotherdocuments inprose,notonspokendiscourse.Theoreticaltextbooksspecifiedindividualpartslettersand other written documents had to comprise of, and offered examples ofsingle phrases and entire texts, too. (There were examples both for personalcorrespondence and for official dealings.)Grammar textbooks in Europewerecatalogued by G. L. Bursill-Hall: A census of medieval Latin grammaticalmanuscripts (Grammatica speculativa 4), Stuttgart – Bad Cannstatt 1981.Manuscriptsonrhetoric,andcomposinglettersandformsweredocumentedbyE.J.Polak:MedievalandRenaissancelettertreatisesandformletters:acensus


42

ofmanuscriptsfoundinEasternEuropeandtheformerU.S.S.R.,Leiden–NewYork–Köln1993.TheBibleTheBible is themost common typeof text tohave survived from theMiddleAges.DescribingtheBibleisrathersimple,asthetextassuchis(almostalways)the same. Therefore there is no need to include incipits and explicits.Annotations should specify the folio sizeof individualbooks.Prologues shouldby recorded, too (by identification in Repertorium biblicum,http://www.repbib.uni-trier.de/cgi-bin/rebiIndex.tcl,quotedonApril30,2017,ifthey can be found there). Other items to be recorded include: summaries ofcontent or lists of chapters that are sometimes placed at the beginning ofindividualbooksoftheBible;booksthatarenotincludedinabiblicalcanon(inparticular this would be the case of 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras (inmanuscripts, 4Esdras is sometimes structureddifferently fromVulgate) andof Epistle to theLaodiceans);anydeparturesfromtheusualorderofthebooksoftheBible.TheologyThe broad and sometimes vague term “theology” covers most medievalmanuscripts, everything fromcomprehensive systematicworks to shortnotes.(The term “notae variae theologicae” with no further specification used incatalogues is used for notes of various kinds). Theological works and theirincipits are therefore often included in the aforesaid bibliographical tools.Specific tools would include: in particular the aforementioned Repertoriumbiblicum (it lists not only biblical books, prologues and apocrypha, but alsobiblical exegeses, commentaries and more comprehensive exegetic homilies);repertoryofcommentariesontheSentences,thestandardtextbookoftheologyat medieval universities by Peter Lombard: F. Stegmüller: RepertoriumCommentarioruminSententiasPetriLombardi,1–2,Würzburg1947(however,theRepertory includesworks that, strictly speaking, arenot commentariesontheSentences);andacatalogueof incipits toworksdealingmostlywithmoraltheology(M.W.Bloomfield–B.-G.Guyot–D.R.Howard–T.B.Kabealo:Incipitsof Latin Works on the Virtues and Vices 1100–1500, including a section of


43

incipits of works on the Pater noster (The Mediaeval Academy of America,Publication88),CambridgeMass.1979).Sermons(homilies)Individual sermons and collections of sermons are one of the most frequenttypes of medieval texts. Sermons can be divided into several types, verydifferent innature.Thehomiliesrecorded inmanuscriptswouldonlyrarelybethe sermons delivered by priests from pulpits. The texts falling under thiscategory would be: collections of homilies that priests used to prepare theirsermons;sermonsactuallydeliveredbypriestsduringtheserviceandrecordedbyaudience,butmostlyonlyinpart.Sometimestheserecordedsermonsareacombination of the actual oration and the priest’swritten preparation – suchrecords would be themost genuine reflection of the actual sermon. Anothertypearethepreparations–sometimestheseare justcasualnotes,sometimesthepreparationisverydetailed. Artificial,literarysermonsareusuallycategorizedasdeTempore(sermonsfor themovable feasts) andde Sanctis (sermons for the fixed feasts). ThedeTemporesermonsoffertextsforSundaysandthefewmovablefeasts.AnothergroupofsermonsaredeQuadragesima–sermonsforeveryday inLent, fromthe AshWednesday to Easter (in Lent, priests would deliver a sermon everyday). The de Sanctis sermons provided texts for saints’ days, sometimes theyofferedcommunesanctorumsermons(sermonsforgeneralcategoriesofsaintsthatwere easily “customized” by filling in specific details for the given saint).Collectionsofdeliveredsermonsusuallycombinethedetemporeanddesanctiscategoriesinoneandasthesequenceofindividualfixedandmovablefeastsisusuallyuniqueforeveryyear,inidealcasesitispossibletodeterminetheyearoforigin.Apartfromtheaforesaidbasictypesofsermons,thereweresermonsaddressingspecialtopicsoraudience(deliveredatauniversity,inasynod–adclerumsermons,etc.). Sermons usually explain the particular passage from the Bible, thepericope, they open with. There are certain pericopae assigned to certainmovable feasts and thus, it is possible to identify the feast based on thepericopethesermonexplains.However,thisisnotarock-solidrule,andincaseof fixed-feasts sermons, the rule is even less reliable; there were certain


44

“popular” pericopae for certain saints and feasts, but they were not usedexclusively. Other texts different in nature offer comprehensive exposition ofbiblical books or their parts. This genre includes some patristic works butexpository(exegetic)preachingwaspopularwithHussitepreachers,too. Various approaches are applied to describing preaching manuscripts inexisting catalogues. The ideal approach is breaking all extant texts down.However,thisisverytime-consuming,especiallyincaseofpreparationswithnorubrics or other methods used to separate individual sections. Earlier worksadopt rather general approach to treating similar collections, which, amongotherthings,limitsouroptionstoidentifythetextsorrecordparallelincidenceofidenticaltexts.Ontheotherhand,oneday,thisidentificationwillbepossibleifwegraduallybuildadatabaseofmoredetaileddescriptions. Many sermons by early medieval authors are, of course, available andaccessible in Patrologia Latina. However, keeping in mind how it was puttogether, for example authorship attributions are very often inaccurate. Inparticular the summary works mentioned in themore general introduction –CPL,CPGaCPPM–aresignificanttoolstorecordnewereditionsandliterature,and to identify authors more accurately. As for other summary works, let usmention e.g. H. Barré: Les homéliaries Carolingiens de l'ecole d' Auxerre:authenticité, inventaire, tableaux comparatifs, initia, Città del Vaticano 1962.Many sermons from the School of Auxerre appeared not only in Carolingianhomiliariesbutwerestillcopiedmuchlater.TheessentialtoolfortheperiodoftheHighMiddleAgesisJ.B.Schneyer:RepertoriumderlateinischenSermonesdesMittelalters fürdieZeitvon1150–1350,Bd.1–11(BeiträgezurGeschichtederPhilosophieundTheologiedesMittelalters43),Münster1969–1990.BasedonnotesleftbySchneyer,L.HödlandW.Kmochpublishedsermonsfromafter1350 on a CD (J. B. Schneyer: Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones desMittelalters für die Zeit von 1350–1500, herausgegeben von L. Hödl und W.Kmoch unterMitarbeit von R. Hetzler, K. A. Jacobi, T. Schnell, U. Vordermarkund S.Wessel, Münster 2001). The sermons after 1350 have been less well-studied,stillwemustnotomitthiswork.


45

Historiography

Historiographic sources were among the first sources historians workedwith.After all, it was the aim of historiography to relate what has happened.Historiographicworkshave thereforebeencataloguedverywell andaccess tothem is verygood.Many sourcesofCzechproveniencewerepublished in theedition series Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, where introductions record knownmanuscripts, too. Some sources were also published in newer editions; somenarrative sources for the Hussite period were edited by Konstantin Höfler(Fontes rerum Austriacarum, Scriptores 2, 6, 7 – Geschichtschreiber derhussitischen Bewegung in Böhmen 1–3,Wien 1856–1866). A number of textsfrom FRB II–V and some other sources are available online athttp://www.clavmon.cz/clavis/index.htm,quotedonApril30,2017.Textsearch,however,doesnotwork.SourcesontheRomanEmpireareavailableonline inthe repertory of historiographic sources athttp://www.geschichtsquellen.de/index.html, quoted on April 30, 2017,including catalogues or lists ofmanuscripts, editions and basic characteristics.Full-text search of (not only) historiographic sources published inMonumentaGermaniaeHistorica is available at http://www.dmgh.de/, quoted onApril 30,2017.New,unknownhistoriographicworksareveryunlikely tobediscovered,maybeexcept for shorter annalistic records. For shorter accounts, cataloguersshouldrecordtheperiodoftime(fromandtodates),andspecifytheterritoryifobvious.LiturgicalManuscriptsLiturgical manuscripts are a heterogeneous and a very large group of extantmedieval manuscripts. They are divided into two basic types: codices forcelebrating theMass (Missal with texts and Gradual with musical items) andcodicesforliturgyofthehours(BreviarywithtextsandAntiphonarywithmusic).The development of the basic types of liturgical books took time, and thusvariousmanuscripts that had existed as separate books survived (lectionariesconsisting of epistolaries and evangeliaries for reading epistles and gospels).Othertypesofliturgicalcodicesexistingasseparatebookswouldbee.g.booksoftextsforcertainrites(Processionale)orbooksofgeneralrulesfortheclergy(Rituale).Inliturgicalcodices,redcolourusedforwritingisofaspecialfunction.


46

In non-liturgical manuscripts red is used to highlight and to make the textstructureclearer.Inliturgicalcodices,redisusedtoinstructpriestsonhowtheriteistobecelebrated,whileblackindicatestextsthataresaidaloud.(Therearefewcodicesmadewithminimumcarewithnoblackandred text.)Sometimesscribeswrotethetexttoberubricatedinwrongcolour– insuchcasestheyatleastunderlinedthetextinred. Thefundamentalpartspresentinboththemissalandthebreviaryarethepropriumdetempore (formovable feasts,heldondifferentdayseveryyearastheymovedependingonEaster,andforfixedfeastsduringChristmastide),thepropriumde sanctis (for fixed feasts) and the commune sanctorum (for feaststhatdonothavetheirown,typicalproperorapartofit;thefeastsareusuallygrouped into classes, such as feasts of apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins,etc.). Feasts then follow the liturgical year chronology. The year begins withAdvent–indetempore,itisthefirstSundayofAdvent,indesanctisusuallythefeastof StAndrewor StBarbara. Largermanuscriptswere sometimesdividedinto a winter section and a summer section, Trinity Sunday demarcating thedivide. The de tempore and de sanctis separated entirely only later on; thesectionsstilltaketurnsbycertainstretchesoftimeinsomemanuscriptsdatingbacktothe14thcentury.Churchandaltardedicationofficium,usuallyfollowingthe de tempore section, would be an independent section. Both types ofmanuscriptshavesometimesacalendaratthebeginning,othersectionsdiffer. ThebasicsetofChristianfeasts,bothmovableandfixed,wasestablishedbyChurchlawmakersandcodifiedintheDecretumGratiani.Also,bishopscouldorder other feasts in their dioceses; such feasts were usually established byannouncing them indiocesansynods.Typically thesewouldbe feastsofsaintswhohadsomethingtodowiththediocese–theywerebornthere,livedthere,the church had their relics, etc. Church orders also had “their own” saints –usually formermembers.Differencesspecific to individualdiocesesandordersreflectmostmanifestly in calendars andpropersde sanctis. Thusby analysingthem,wecan identify theplaceoforiginand to someextentalso the timeoforigin(assomefeastswerenotincludedinliturgicalcodicesuntiltheyhadbeenestablishedasobligatoryinthegivendiocese). ThefirstparttypicaloftheMissalistheCanonoftheMass(asetofrulesforthepriestcelebratingtheMass).Itisusuallybetweenthedetemporeandde


47

sanctis, sometimes it is inde tempore (usuallybefore theTrinity Sunday). TheCanon’s opening phrase Te igitur has (richly) decorated initial “T”, sometimeselaboratedintoapictureofthecrucifixion,someCanonsopenwiththepictureof the crucifixion on a separate leaf. Names of the king and the Pope arereplaced by a generic character (usually “N”) in the Te igitur prayer;exceptionallytheactualnamesaregiven,whichhelpsidentifythetimeoforiginof thecodex.Thecommunesanctorum section isusually followedbyvotiveorspecial masses with prayers for certain days in week, for specific persons oroccasions. (Officium de patronis is usually the part that helps identify themanuscript’splaceoforiginbymentioningsaintsspecifictoindividualregions.)SomeMissals include sequences for feasts in the liturgical year. The openingsequence of this section in the Missal would usually be “Grates nunc omnesreddamus domino deo“, and individual sequences are usually orderedanalogouslytotheMissalsections:detemporefirst,followedbydesanctisandcommunesanctorum last.Missalrubricscanalsoreveal informationspecifictothe diocese or the church the missal was created for: altars dedications,destinationsofprocessions (Břevnovmonastery,StrahovmonasteryorKnightsHospitallers’monastery inLesserTownofPrague),church interior informationor informationonsaintsburied inagivenchurch.However, it isquitepossiblethatscribes justmechanicallycopiedthis information(aswouldbethecaseofplentiful mentions of St Wenceslas chapel in the Maundy Thursday officiumrubrics). Rorate hymnal is a specific type of manuscript that did not appear inBohemiauntilthe16thcentury. ItwasacollectionofhymnsforRorateMassescelebratedearly in themorning inAdvent. Itwasnamedby the introitRoratecoeli to votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin in Advent. Sometimes the Roratecollection was part of the Gradual. Another type of manuscripts of slightlydifferentcontentisahymnbook:itisacollectionofreligioussongs,tobesungbothduringtheliturgy(theMass)andatotheroccasions. TheBreviaryisacollectionofOffice-of-the-Hoursprayers,i.e.theofficialsetofprayersfortheOffice,whethersaidinprivateorinchoir.BasedonPsalm118,164 Septies in die laudem dixi tibi, there are seven canonical hours. ThePsalter is typically the first section inabreviarybecausepsalmswerea stableandaratherbigpartoftheHoursOffice.TheBreviarytextreferencesrelevant


48

psalmsbytheirincipits.ThePsalterisoftenfollowedbylitanies(petitions)thatstart with Kyrie eleyson, Christe eleyson, Christe audi nos. In petitions,sometimesspecificsaintsare implored,whichcanbeacluefor identifyingthemanuscript’splaceoforigin.Thecommunesanctorumisusually(butnotalways)followedbythehymnalwithhymnsforindividualfeasts;(hymnals,too,havethesamestructureastheSequentiale–hymnsformovablefeastsarefirst,forfixedfeasts second). TheOfficeof theDead is another section thatwas a standardpartofBreviariesfromtheLateMiddleAges. BooksofHoursandbooksofprayerswere theprivatedevotionalbookstypicaloftheHighMiddleAges.Thelinebetweenthemisratherfine.BooksofHours (horae, libri horarum) contain Hours of the Virgin, often much shorterHoursof theCrossandHoursof theHolySpirit, theSevenPenitentialPsalms,theLitanyandOfficeoftheDead.SomeBooksofHoursbeginwithacalendar.Various sets of prayers follow after the Litany section and they usually revealpersonalpreferencesofthepersonortheinstitutionthathadorderedthebook.Books of prayers (libri orationum, precum) are usually of a rather looserstructure and they concentrate of prayers as such. For more information onBooks of Hours and Books of Prayers go tohttp://manuscripts.org.uk/chd.dk/gui/index.html,quotedonApril30,2017.Thewebsite also offers external links to other libraries and to other types ofmanuscripts. A useful tool by H. Grotefend: Zeitrechnung des DeutschenMittelaltersundderNeuzeit1,2,Hannover1891–1898,onlineathttp://bilder.manuscripta-mediaevalia.de/gaeste//grotefend/grotefend.htm (quoted on April 30, 2017)helps locate calendars and Propers of the Saints (de sanctis). For individualordersanddioceses,thepoolofsourcesdatingbacktotheLateMiddleAgesisrather small, still typical saints are to be found in given dioceses, sortedalphabetically.ThebasichandbookforhymnsinparticularareAnalectahymnica(G.M.Dreves–C.Blume–H.M.Bannister(edd.):Analectahymnicamediiaevi,vol. 1–55, Leipzig 1886–1922), and U. Chevalier: Repertorium hymnologicum,vol. 1–6, Louvain 1892–1921. For liturgical manuscripts in general, see A.Hughes: Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office. A Guide to theirOrganizationandTerminology,Toronto–Buffalo–London1982.


49

PhilosophicalWorks

FirstgroupofworksfallingunderthiscategoryareAncientphilosophicalworks(for thepurposesof thisoverview,wedonotcount inmedievalworkson theborderbetweenphilosophyandtheology).Throughunderstandingphilosophicalworks, students gained the argumentation skills and could pursue furtherstudies in the higher faculties. Assorted works by Aristotle served at theUniversity of Prague (and at other Central European universities, too) forinstruction.Anothergroupwerematerialsusedininstruction:lectures,readingtexts and commentaries on them, questions proposed for disputation withmaterials to prepare the argument. Annual university disputations calledQuodlibetattendedbyallartisticfacultymasterswereaspecialuniversityevent. Thesetextsaredifficulttodescribeasveryoften,theextantmaterialsarerecordsofuniversitylectureswrittendownverycasually,aboundinginuntypicalabbreviations,unusualvocabularyandeliminatedrepetitivephrasing.Greatpartof these texts comes quite understandably from college libraries of theUniversity of Prague and is now deposited in the National Library (NK).Important tools to identify these texts include: a list of Aristotle’s works andcommentariesonthem(J.B.Korolec:Repertoriumcommentariorummediiaeviin Aristotelem Latinorum quae in Bibliotheca olimUniversitatis Pragensis nuncStátní knihovna ČSR vocata asservantur,Wrocław etc. 1977), a general list ofthisliterature(Ch.H.Lohr:MedievalLatinAristotleCommentaries,Traditio23–30,1967–1974,publishedbysections),andsimilarcataloguesofcommentariesinlibrarieswithlargecollectionsofbohemica(worksinCzech,byCzechauthors,published inBohemiaordealingwithBohemia) (M.Markowski forVienna,M.MarkowskiandS.WłodekforKrakow).SpecificallyfortheUniversityofPrague,forworksbytheUniversityteachersandforreceptionofothertexts:F.Šmahel:VerzeichnisderQuellenzumPragerUniversalienstreit1348–1500(Mediaevaliaphilosophica Polonorum 25),Wrocław etc. 1980. Philosophical works are alsoincludedinacatalogueofincipitsbyL.Thorndike–P.Kibre(seebelow). A list of questions proposed for academic disputation at pre-HussiteQuodlibetsheldby theArtsFacultyofPragueUniversityby J.Kejř:Kvodlibetnídisputace na pražské universitě (Quodlibet Disputations at Prague University),Praha1971.


50

NaturalSciences

Thereisnospecificdefinitionforthecategoryofnaturalsciencetexts;individualbranchesofnaturalscienceweremoreinterconnectedintheMiddleAgesandmany authors dealt with multiple branches (medicine and astronomy ormathematic,inBohemia,e.g.KřišťanzPrachatic). Thebasic tool for theseworks is L.Thorndike–P.Kibre:ACatalogueofIncipits of Mediaeval Scientific Writings in Latin (The Mediaeval Academy ofAmerica29),London1963.AstronomicmanuscriptsarecataloguedinE.Zinner:Verzeichnis der astronomischen Handschriften des deutschen Kulturgebietes,München 1925. A catalogue of materials from the Jagiellonian University inKrakow is also a work relevant for our region, as the catalogues is verycomprehensive and Krakow very close: G. Rosińska: Scientific Writings andAstronomicalTables inCracow.XIVth-XVIthCenturies (StudiaCopernicana 22),Wroclawetc.1984. Medical codices are specific in two aspects. Firstly, they abound inpractical instructions (recipes, inparticular) – theseareusually summarised inthedescription.Secondly,asoftheLateMiddleAges,theyareoftenwritteninnational languages. The usual inconvenience for cataloguers are unusualvocabulary with many medical terms, and a system of usual abbreviations,mainlyforunitsofweight,usedinrecipes.LawTherewere several concurrent legal systems inmedieval Europe.Certain lawsapplied to certain parts of the medieval society. Sources for individual legalsystems differed, and approaches to recording and passing them on differed,too. Romanlaw,codifiedintheCodeofJustinianofCorpusiuriscivilis,wasthefirstof the legal systems.University students studiedRoman law theoretically,eventhoughitsprinciplesreflected,sometimesmore,sometimesless, inotherlegalsectors.Comparedtootherlegalareas,numberofcodiceswithRomanlawtextswastheleastnumerous.MaterialsinCzechlibrariesweresummarizedbyM. Boháček: K rozšíření legistických rukopisů v českých zemích, Studie orukopisech 10 (On spread of legist manuscripts in Bohemia, Study onmanuscripts10),1971,pp.1–63.


51

TheRomanlawwasabodyoflawsthatremainedthesame,withnonewlaws added. The other legal system taught at universitieswas the Canon law,withmoreandmorecanons(rules)added.Asaresult,theoreticalworkshadtobewritten,glossatorsappearedand lawshadtobesystemized.The firstworktrying to harmonize and systemize various Canon law ruleswasConcordantiadiscordantium canonum, compiled around 1150 by a jurist Gratian, and thuscommonly known now as the Decretum Gratiani. Originally, Decretum was aprivate collection,but lateronbecame the first bookof a collectionofCanonlaw texts known as Corpus iuris canonici. Later on, some popes had othercollections published: Liber Extra (Gregory IX), Liber Sextus (Boniface VIII),Clementinae (ClementV), and twoExtravagantes collections.Gratian’sDecreecanbesearchedonlineathttp://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de/decretum-gratiani/online/angebot (quotedonApril 30, 2017). A numberof other Canonlaw texts (some as searchable documents, some as scans of old prints) areavailable at The Medieval Canon Law Virtual Library(http://web.colby.edu/canonlaw/category/canon-law/, quoted on April 30,2017). These normswere of universal legal force in Catholic Church.However,bishopswereauthorisedtolegislateintheirdioceses.Theyusuallypublishedso-called provincial or diocesan statutes. In Bohemia, the earliest extant statutescomefromthebeginningofthe14thcentury.Statutespublishedinpre-HussitePraguewere cataloguedby J. V. Polc – Z.Hledíková: Pražské synody a koncilypředhusitskédoby(Praguepre-Hussitesynodsandcouncils),Praha2002.Post-Hussite synods were summarised by B. Zilynská: Husitské synody v Čechách1418–1440 (Hussitesynods inBohemia1118-1440),Praha1985and thesameauthor: Synody v Čechách 1440–1540. Proměny synodální praxe v Čechách vkontextu vývoje synodality vEvropě (Synods in Bohemia 1140-1540. Synodalpractice in Bohemian in the context of synodality development in Europe),disertace 2008. Statutes published in Olomouc diocese: P. Krafl: Synody astatutaolomouckédiecézeobdobístředověku(SynodsandstatutesinOlomoucdiocese in theMiddle Ages), Praha 2014. There are othermedieval texts thatcannotbecategorizedasstrictly legal,still they involve legalaspects.So-calledsummaeconfessorumisapeculiarclassoftextsbothlegalandtheological.Theydeal with confession and penance, and served as a manual for confessors.


52

(Manuscripts in Czech library collections were catalogued by J. Kejř: Summaeconfessorum a jiná díla pro foro interno v rukopisech českých a moravskýchknihoven(SummaeconfessorumandotherworksforforointernoinmanuscriptsinCzechandMoravianlibraries),Praha2003).Asabibliographicreference,weshouldmentionJ.F.Schulte:DiecanonistischenHandschriftenderBibliotheken:1) der k. k. Universität, 2) des Böhmischen Museums, 3) des Fürsten GeorgLobkowitz,4)desMetropolitan-KapitelsvonSt.VeitinPrag;Prag1868,availablealsoonlineathttp://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/,quotedonApril30,2017).InsectionDieGeschichtederQuellenundLiteraturdescanonischenRechtsvonGratianbisaufdieGegenwart,Stuttgart1875–1880,theauthordocumentedalotofmedievalcanonliterature,includingincipitsandpartiallyalsomanuscriptsinlibrariesinPrague.Anothercomprehensivelistofincipits,withbibliographicalreferences and references to relevant manuscripts, found mainly in Italianlibraries was compiled by Giovanna Murano (http://home.uni-leipzig.de/jurarom/manuscr/murano/murano.html,quotedonApril30,2017). A problem specific to legal manuscripts when describing them is thesystemused to reference relevantCanon (andRoman)norms. Individual legalcodes had a sophisticated structure and specific abbreviations and incipits ofrelevantconstitutionswerequotedtoreferencethem.Lawyers,obviously,werefamiliar with the referencing system, however it posed a great problem tocommoncopyists.Asaresult,helpful listsofabbreviationsused in legalbookswerecompiled,still,citations innewercopiesaregarbledandsometimestheymakenosenseatall. Therewasnocodificationofthe“non-learnedlaws”andcreatingwrittenaccountswasnotacommonpractice.Archivesareamorelikelylocationtofindanywrittendocuments,buttheycanbefoundinlibraries,too.However,theseare usually collections of various legal texts, dealing with issues concerningspecificenvironments.Thereweredifferentlawsapplyingtodifferentgroupsofpeople (provincial law, town law,mining law, etc.); however these collectionsincludealsoprovisionsfromotherareas–thatwereeitherrelevantelsewhere,too,or thatwere inspirational. Rightsof towns inBohemia andMoraviawerepatternedonthoseofMagdeburgandNurnbergandthecollectionsofferede.g.modeldecisions, legaladviceetc. In the15thcentury,collectionsof theoreticaltexts, dealing bothwith town law and provincial law, becamemore frequent.


53

Someofthesecollectionsmayhavecomeintoexistenceasaresultofdisputesbetween towns and nobility; such collections include not only theoreticaltreatises,butalsosetsofdietprovisionsandrulers’decisions. Many theoretical legalworkswritten inCzechororiginating inBohemiawerepublished intheCorpus iurisBohemiciseriesand invariousmonographs;(howevernotallextantmanuscriptshavebeencatalogued).Dietprovisionsthathave become a part of more comprehensive collections are available in theArchivčeskýandinReliquiaetabularumterrae.Codexiurismunicipalisliststownprivileges. As for catalogues of legal manuscripts falling under individualcategories of law, the situation is less satisfying: V. Hanka started cataloguinglegal works, but following summaries are not very methodical. For exampleworks on town rights catalogue only individual library collections (e.g. F.Hoffmann: Rukopisy městských práv v knihovně Národního muzea v Praze,Studieorukopisech15(ManuscriptsontownprivilegesintheNationalMuseumin Prague Library, Study onManuscripts 15), 1976, pp. 13–37 ). German lawmonuments have been catalogued in a more methodical manner (followingolderlistsU.-D.Oppitz:DeutscheRechtsbücherdesMittelalters,Band1–3,Köln–Wien1990–1992). DiplomaticsJust like actual legal provisions, diplomatic materials are usually deposited inarchives. The type of access to the given monument (registered charters orcharters that survived e.g. as flyleaves, pastedowns, etc.) determines thedescriptiondetail.Forcharterspublishedinaccessible(i.e.modern)editions, itusually suffices to mention whom was the charter issued by, whom it wasaddressedto,placeofissue,andtheeditionreference.Asforthechartersthathavenotbeenpublished in (easily) accessibleeditions, the ideal solution is toreplace it with an abstract (charter disposition, names of all persons andlocations mentioned in the charter). Lists of series relevant to today’s CzechRepublic territory were compiled by H. Krmíčková: Edice středověkéhodiplomatického materiálu (Medieval diplomatic materials series), Brno 2014(online:https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/data/handle/11222.digilib/130557/monography.pdf,quotedonApril30,2017).


54

LiteratureofClassicalAntiquityUnlike other sections, this sections encompasses works across all fields.Medieval cultural heritage picked up threads of Ancient culture, even thoughChristianauthorshadtodealwithpaganattitudesofAncientauthors.Thiswasless complicated in case of works used in instruction – of grammar (AeliusDonatus), liberal arts taught at faculties of arts (Aristotle), or medicine(Hippocrates, Galen – Ancient medical knowledge got to medieval Europethrough Arabic translations). The term Classical Antiquity authors in libraryinventoriesusuallymeansbelles-lettresauthors. ClassicalAntiquityworksareusuallypublished(repeatedly),thusitusuallyis not difficult to search them (even though there is no specialized list ofincipits). First lists of oldermanuscriptswithClassicalworks for some librarieswere compiled already in the 19th century (J. Kelle: Die klassischenHandschriften bis herauf zum vierzehnten Jahrhundert in Prager Bibliotheken,Prag 1872). A comprehensive work dealing with this topic was written byM.Flodr: Diegriechischeund römische Literatur in tschechischen Bibliotheken imMittelalter und der Renaissance (Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis,Facultas philosophica 115), Brno 1966, but it does not include a register ofmanuscripts.IncunabulaandOldPrintsBinders’ volumes, comprising both manuscript and printed parts, appearedbetween 1470 and early 1500s. At first, printed books looked much alikemanuscripts: printing type looked the same as handwritten script, there wasfreespaceleftforinitialsorilluminations.Evensuchausefulelementasatitleleaf appearedonly gradually. For these reasons, thehand-written andprintedpartslookedalike. Whencataloguingmanuscriptsitsufficestoprovidethebasicinformationabout theprintedparts (author, title, data andplaceofprinting, printer)withreference to the most common lists: Incunabula Short Title Catalogue (ISTC,http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/istc/–quotedonApril30,2017)orGesamtkatalogder Wiegendrucke (GW, http://www.gesamtkatalogderwiegendrucke.de/ –


55

quotedonApril30,2017);thesegivemoredetailedtypographicdescriptionandserveasadatabaseofcopiesinindividuallibrariesorareas. The basic tool for prints in Czech and Slovak dating back to the 16thcentury is Knihopis českých a slovenských tisků od doby nejstarší až do konceXVIII. století (BibliographyofCzechand Slovakprints from theoldest times tothe end of the 18th century), Praha 1939–1967; it is available also online athttp://aleph.nkp.cz/F/?func=file&file_name=find-b&local_base=KPS (quoted onApril 30, 2017). Otherwise, binder’s volumes contain mainly prints fromGerman-speakingareasthatarecataloguedinVD16(www.vd16.de,quotedonApril30,2017).

physical description of manuscripts · digital editing of medieval manuscripts - intellectual...

Documents