A previously unidentified Somniale Danielis text in Takamiya MS 33 with an updated handlist of Latin Somniale texts from England.
This Latin oneirokritkon is a previously unidentified text within the tradition of the Somniale Danielis. The "Daniel dreambook" is a "Christianised dream key manual" held to be written in Greek sometime between the fourth and seventh centuries, though the surviving material record begins with Latin versions in manuscripts that date only from the ninth century. (4) In Takamiya MS 33, the dreambook's rubric does not introduce it as such (which is key, and more on which below), but comparison of the text with those presented in Steven R. Fischer's The Complete Medieval Dreambook and Lawrence T. Martin's Somniale Danielis: An Edition shows that the majority of the dreams and associated significations in Takamiya MS 33 derive from known texts in the tradition, even if not in the specific pairing found in Takamiya MS 33 itself. (5) Variation within the roster is the norm among Somniale texts: "some dreams and their interpretations appear frequently, while others are preserved in only a few manuscripts." (6) The Somniale text in Takamiya MS 33 likely the 40th Latin witness to the tradition that is of English origin. (7) (For an updated working handlist of the Latin Somniale Danielis texts thought to be from England, see the Appendix below.)
Somniale Danielis in Takamiya MS 33 comprises 458 dreams, which makes it quite long for this tradition. (8) Even so, the work appears to be atelous, as Linda Ehrsam Voigts notes. (9) The text is in two columns: dreams on the left and significations on the right, with a red line connecting them. The alphabetical list begins on folio 57r with the dream-and-signification set arma portare se videre--honorem significat, and it ends on the bottom of folio 63v with vestimenta linea habere--pecuniam habere. These are also the concluding words of the manuscript; there are no further complete folios and no explicit. The lack of explicit is notable: in London, British Library, MS Additional 15236, a Somniale text also ends shortly into the letter V, but the presence of an explicit indicates that the text was judged to be complete. (10) With no such explicit in Takamiya MS 33, there is reason to suggest that the already-long dreambook went on, or was originally intended to go on even longer.
While most of the significations are a terse one or two words, such as honorem or periculum, a few end in significat or significant, the latter practice being standard within the Somniale tradition. (11) The text is in alphabetical order by the headword of the dream, though the order of headwords within each letter is less predictable, and there are some other oddities: notably, the Latin preposition in, rather than the nominal object of the preposition, serves as the headword for most of the I section. Each new initial letter, progressing through the alphabet, is introduced with a two-line decorated initial in gold leaf, except for A, which is a four-line initial. Decorative borders ornament the top and left margin of the first folio, folio 57r.
One of the reasons such a popular work--the most popular dream interpretation text in the Middle Ages, (12) even "one of the most popular books in medieval Europe" (13)--has been hitherto unidentified must be its misleading rubric. Though the rubric mentions prophets, it makes no specific mention of Daniel, as is standard but not required in this tradition. (14) Instead, it foregrounds Aristotle. The Latin rubric reads: "Sompnus est legamentum [sic] omnium sensum [sic] ab arestotile de sompno et vigilia et nota quod sompnus est triplex scilicet primo modo ab angelis et secundo ab hominibus tercio modo a demonis spiritus prophetarum non semper est subditus prophetis." This translates as: "'Sleep is the binding of all the senses,' from Aristotle's On Sleep and Waking, and note that sleep is three-fold: namely, the first kind is from the angels; the second is from men; the third is from demons. The spirit of the prophets is not always subject to the prophets." (15)
Typically, when the Somniale is not attributed to Daniel by name, either the text is still identified as the work of a prophet or there is no introductory material at all. (16) Neither circumstance is the case here. And although the rubric does not introduce the text as Aristotle's De somno et vigilia, it does cite that work, and not Somniale Danielis, at the outset. This Aristotelian red herring is all the more significant because, as Lorenzo DiTommaso notes, "while it was possible--albeit within a limited range--for substantively identical texts to be associated with more than one biblical, mythological, or historical figure, the Somniale resolutely remained the sole province of Daniel." (17) Though the rubric falls one step short of attributing the work to Aristotle, it still calls into question Daniel's seemingly exclusive right to the material: "spiritus prophetarum non semper est subditus prophetis," indeed.
As misleading as the Somniale rubric is, it also suggests a reason for the text's inclusion in the manuscript. The focus on Aristotle in the rubric of this text recalls the rubric of the manuscript's first text, John Lydgate and Benedict Burgh's poem, Secrees of Old Philosoffres. Secrees is an English verse translation of Secretum secretorum, the popular pseudo-Aristotelian Latin prose treatise. The rubric of Secrees in Takamiya MS 33 puts Aristotle on the first folio of the manuscript: "Of the crafte of phisonomye whiche doth trete of the qualitees and condicions of the membre of man and of the Image of Ypocras whiche Arestotele wrote to kynge Alisaunder." The presence of this particular Somniale and its rubric in Takamiya MS 33 thus creates a "bookend" effect.
Lydgate and Burgh's poem also appears with the same rubric in Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725. (18) The second half of this other manuscript is a "twin" of Takamiya MS 33 in most of its textual contents and visual details. The same decidedly distinctive line filler, made up of alternating red and blue running x's," fills out the rubric's last line in both manuscripts. The four-line decorated "I" at the beginning of the poem, as well as the one-line alternating red and blue initials at the beginning of each stanza, are markedly similar in style in both manuscripts. More broadly, the design of the paraph marks and, perhaps most strikingly, of the ornate borders that mark new texts is consistent across the "Takamiya portion" of the manuscript at Gonville and Caius College and Takamiya MS 33 itself. (19)
The motif of Aristotle writing to Alexander makes another appearance in both manuscripts, though Aristotelian elements ultimately feature more prominently in Takamiya MS 33. The main text of the Tractatus nobilis de regimine sanitatis begins, "Aristoles [sic] autem scribens Alexandro" (Takamiya MS 33, fol. 38r; Gonville and Caius MS 336/725, fol. 140r). This work occurs roughly halfway through Takamiya MS 33 and the corresponding material in Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725, punctuating the volumes with an Aristotle-and-Alexander mid-point that recalls the rubric of Lydgate and Burgh's Secrees. Takamiya MS 33 cites the classical authority, but not Alexander, a third time with its Aristotelian Somniale text. There is no Somniale, with or without an Aristotelian rubric, in the Cambridge "twin," and none of the works therein after the Tractatus mention Aristotle. The dreambook's rubric thus reveals that the thematic interest in Aristotle--which may also be an interest in structural symmetry--is stronger in Takamiya MS 33.
The structurally and thematically unifying arc that Somniale anchors may have been extrinsic to the design of Takamiya MS 33: Somniale shows signs of existing as a unit separate from the rest of the manuscript, to which it then may have been appended as a booklet. (20) The structure of the folios supports this: the first leaf of this work, folio 57, is a singleton, which is followed by a quire of six further folios. These seven folios comprise the "booklet" I consider, though if it were an independent unit at one time, it may have been longer. A stub of very worn parchment after the final leaf, folio 63, wraps around the entire booklet and is pasted along the gutter of folio 57, though it is now partly peeling off. (21) This stub has stains on both the recto and verso that are not on the Somniale booklet. Last, the configuration of the bifolia in this last portion of the manuscript is especially problematic. The single folio at folio 57 is curious; even more curiously, the hair and flesh sides of the parchment do not match across openings except across folios 60v to 6lr, although the text is continuous throughout, from folios 57r to 63v. (22)
In addition to the codicological singularities of this Somniale, there are other reasons, beyond the booklet, to suggest that the dreambook may once have been separate. In further support of the possibility that these leaves were a later appendage, folio 56, the final extant folio in the quire immediately preceding Somniale Danielis, was originally left blank, though it had been ruled in what appears to be brown crayon: medicinal recipes are added in a later hand on both sides of the leaf. (23) Had the dream text been part of the manuscript's original design, it would presumably have followed the preceding text directly, given that there was suitably formatted space available: the Sominale folios are ruled in a similar brown waxy crayon. Further evidence that the dream text might not have been part of the manuscript's original design is the fact that this is the only text in Takamiya MS 33 not to appear in its twin manuscript, Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725. (24)
Yet however codicologically distinct the Somniale text is, the visual and structural continuities bespeak a concerted cohesion across the manuscript. Crucially, the booklet with Somniale has the same decorator and style of decoration in its border, initials and line fillers as the rest of the manuscript. There is also no discernible difference in the booklet's script. There was a clear effort expended to integrate this material visually with that preceding. And, as discussed above, the somewhat misdirecting rubrication of Somniale nevertheless creates a structural "bookend" effect with its nod to Aristotle.
The integration is an important complicating factor that raises the question of how long Somniale Danielis was separate from the rest of the volume. The possibility that the material originated independently is perfectly in line with Ralph Hanna's description of booklets as providing booksellers with "ready stock, especially of popular texts," which Somniale certainly was. (25) Independent circulation would also explain the degree to which the outer stub is worn. Yet the decorative and structural cohesion across the whole manuscript is undeniable. (26) The booklet may have been produced and appended directly after production of the rest of the volume. Further codicological study of contemporaneous copies of Somniale Danielis might reveal whether there is precedence for booklets containing it to circulate independently in England in the period and might thereby shed some light on reasons for the assembly and present structure of Takamiya MS 33.
Future comparative work on Takamiya MS 33 and Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725 must take into account the presence and the idiosyncrasies of the Takamiya copy of Somniale Danielis as well as the ramifications of its codicology. One may already distinguish between the twins by noting the great length of Gonville and Caius Library MS 336/725 (172 folios) compared to Takamiya MS 33 (63 folios) and registering all that is absent from the latter. But it is worth emphasizing that one may also, although it is less obvious to do so, reverse the process and tell the twins apart by noting the larger presence of overarching thematic and structural interests in Takamiya MS 33. At precisely what point in its making or use was Takamiya MS 33 thus "framed" by the addition of a Somniale Danielis that acknowledges the authority of Aristotle is now one of the questions for future research. (27)
My thanks are due to Anya Adair, Daniel Cowling, Lorenzo DiTommaso, Roland Folter, Ralph Hanna, Traugott Lawler, David McKitterick, Henry Parkes, Kathleen L. Scott, Barbara A. Shailor, Toshiyuki Takamiya, M. Teresa Tavormina, and Daniel Wakelin. I am also grateful to the librarians of the Gonville and Caius College for the permission to examine MS 336/725.
APPENDIX: AN UPDATED HANDLIST OF LATIN TEXTS OF SOMNIALE DANIELIS FROM ENGLAND
In Zur Bedeutung von Schlafund Traum im Mittelalter, Maria Elisabeth Wittmer-Butsch provides two tables that sort eighty-two Latin manuscripts of Somniale Danielis by origin and date. (28) Lorenzo DiTommaso augments Wittmer-Butsch's inventory and rearranges it, furnishing references to 126 Latin Somniale Danielis manuscripts as part of his heroic catalogue and bibliography of apocryphal Daniel literature, which is sorted by language and indicates date but not origin. (29) Below, I provide an updated working handlist of Latin texts of Somniale Danielis from England. I have corrected Wittmer-Butsch's tabulation against my own research into the 126 Latin manuscripts in DiTommaso's inventory. (30)
All but two of Wittmer-Butsch's assumptions of English origin for Latin manuscripts in English libraries stand. London, Wellcome Medical Library, MS 508 is, N. R. Ker notes, from Germany. (31) Further, the manuscript from B. S. Cron's private library and from which he published a limited-run edition and translation is, the prefatory material to his book suggests, from France. (32) In addition to Takamiya MS 33, now in New Haven, Connecticut, three other English Somniale texts are found in non-English libraries. Wittmer-Butsch was perhaps hasty in assuming Germanic origin for two manuscripts in Berlin's Staatsbibliothek that are in fact English; and a Vossiani manuscript in Leiden is also English, though it dates to the seventeenth century and thus falls outside Wittmer-Butsch's medieval purview. (33)
The following handlist should not be taken as an exhaustive account of copies of Somniale Danielis from England but rather as a further step in that direction. I have checked the catalogue information and available scholarship on DiTommaso's 126 Latin manuscripts to see where English origin is noted. The dates and folio/page numbers listed below are taken from his inventory unless otherwise stated. Witnesses not hitherto proposed as English in origin are in bold.
1. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz, MS theo. 4[degrees] 10 (s.xv), fols. 63r-64r. (34)
2. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin PreuGischer Kulturbesitz, MS lat. 4[degrees] 70 (s.xiv), fols. 226r, col. a-229r, col. b. (35)
3. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 301 (s.xiv), pp. 198-202.
4. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 466 (s.xiv), pp. 131, 228-231
5. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 481 (s.xiii/xiv), pp. 404-418.
6. Cambridge, Pembroke College, MS 103 (s.x), fols. 75r-77v.
7. Cambridge, Peterhouse, MS 222 (s.xiv), fols. 1r-8v. (36)
8. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS 0.1.57 (s.xv), fols. 119r-124r.
9. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS 0.8.21 (s.xv-xvi), fols. 134r-149v. (37)
10. Cambridge, University Library, MS Gg.i.l (s.xiv), fols. 394v-397r.
11. Cambridge, University Library, MS Ii.vi. 17 (s.xv),fols. 112r-117v.
12. Leicester, Old Town Hall Library, MS 4 (s.xiii-xiv), pp. 33-34. (38)
13. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS Vossiani lat. O. 52 (s.xvii), fols. 101r-109v. (39)
14. London, British Library, MS Additional 15236 (s.xiii/xiv),fols. 161v-168v.
15. London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A.iii (s.xi), fols. 27v-31v.
16. London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A.iii (s.xi), fols. 31v-32r.
17. London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius Adii (s.xi), fols. 32r-v.4 (40)
18. London, British Library, MS Cotton Titus D.xxvi (c. 1040), fols. 11v-16r.
19. London, British Library, MS Egerton 821 (s.xii/xiii), fols. 12r-14v. (41)
20. London, British Library, MS Egerton 847 (s.xv), fols. 21v-26v.
21. London, British Library, MS Harley 2558 (s.xiv), fols. 191r, col.a-191 v, col. b.
22. London, British Library, MS Royal 8.E.X. (c. 1315), fols. 114v-117r.
23. London, British Library, MS Royal 12.C.xii (s.xiii/xiv), fols. 81v-86v.
24. London, British Library, MS Royal 13.D.i (c. 1385), fols. 247v-248r.
25. London, British Library, MS Sloane 475 (s.xi/xii), fols. 217v-218r. (42)
26. London, British Library, MS Sloane 1009 (s.xv), fols. 58r-61v. (43)
27. London, British Library, MS Sloane 2561 (s.xvii), fol. 55. (44)
28. London, British Library, MS Sloane 3281 (s.xiii/xiv), fols. 39r-47r. (45)
29. London, British Library, MS Sloane 3542 (s.xiii-xvi), fols. 41v-44v. (46)
30. London, Royal Society of Antiquaries, 306 (s.xv), fols. 64r-71v. (47)
31. New Haven, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University, Takamiya MS 33 (s.xv), fols. 57r-63v.
32. Oxford, All Souls College, MS 81 (s.xv), fols. 166r-172r.
33. Oxford, All Souls College, MS 81 (s.xvi), fols. 205r-211v.
34. Oxford, All Souls College, MS 81 (s.xv), fols. 232r-238v. (48)
35. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 177 (s.xiv), fol. 64r.
36. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 581 (s.xiv), fols. 6r-8v.
37. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 81 (s.xiii), fols. 99v-101v.
38. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 86 (s.xiii), fols. 34v-40r.
39. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Lyell 35 (s.xv), fols. 5r, 19r-23v, 25v.
40. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Selden Supra 74 (s.xiii), fol. 14ra.
(1.) K. L. Scott proposes this date to me in email correspondence from Nov. 18-19, 2014. The rose pen frame of the borders indicates a date in the last quarter of the fifteenth century; see Kathleen L. Scott, Dated and Datable English Manuscript Borders: c. 1395-1499 (London: Bibliographical Society and British Library, 2002), 9. Further, in correspondence she notes that both the relatively free curling of the larger borders and the consistent use of green lobes point to a date of the 1480s and that the leaf motifs are not oversized enough in relation to the other motifs in the sprays (as they are in ibid., pi. 37a) to suggest a date as late as the 1490s. In correspondence of November 26, 2014, she observes that a very similar lower border decorates a page of Boke of the xii patriarkys in Cambridge, University Library, MS Ff.6.33, though that manuscript also differentiates itself with a "bar down the left margin" and "a less rigorous upper border," as well as a different scribe. Laura Saetveit Miles, "Scribes at Syon: The Communal Usage and Production of Legislative Manuscripts at the English Birgittine House," in Saint Birgitta, Syon and Vadstena: Papers from A Symposium in Stockholm, 4-6 October 2007, ed. Claes Gejrot, Sara Risberg, and Mia Akestam, Konferenser 73 (Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akadamien, 2010): 71-88, at 71, notes that the hand in Cambridge, University Library, MS Ff.6.33 is that of William Darker, who died in 1512, but Anya Adair has suggested to me that the script of Takamiya MS 33 is not William Darker. Contrast examples of his hand: see A. I. Doyle, "William Darker: the Work of an English Carthusian Scribe," in Medieval Manuscripts, Their Makers and Users: A Special Issue of Viator in Honor of Richard and Mary Rouse (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2011), 199-211; and an example of Darker's fere-textura in M. B. Parkes, English Cursive Book Hands: 1250-1500 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), pl.8(1i).
(2.) Ralph Hanna notes, in email correspondence of February 20, 2015:
The hand itself I would date s. xvex (1.e. after 1470) or s. x v4/4 (more specifically 1480s-1490s). There are some things in it that are more reminiscent of 16th-century secretary than of 15th, although they are not consistent features, rather forms in variation with others. Here I am thinking of things like [on fol. 1r] near the foot, the two examples of g that have a "horn" above the upper cup on the right side only and a dangly lower lobe.
He also points out "the w with pronouncedly prominent v on the front end and the final stroke (the second v) reduced to a relatively small o-sized loop." Based on this evidence, he concludes that these features:
may only suggest that this is someone "upgrading" a script they are more used to writing, a document hand (but which trickles in here and there as they go), than anything about dating. But simultaneously, it does suggest that I wouldn't automatically exclude dating this "s. xv/xvi," that is leaving open the possibility that it might be just after 1500 (rather than, say, specifically c. 1485-1500).
A useful English comparator is Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 831 from 1493; see Andrew G. Watson, Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts c. 435-1600 in Oxford Libraries, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), no. 115, pl. 788.
(3.) Toshiyuki Takamiya, "A Handlist of Western Medieval Manuscripts in the Takamiya Collection," in The Medieval Book: Glosses from Friends & Colleagues of Christopher de Hamel, ed. James H. Marrow, Richard A. Linenthal, and William Noel ('t Goy-Houten, The Netherlands: Hes & De Graaf, 2010): 421-440, at 428. There is no mention of the manuscript in Takami Matsuda, Richard A. Linenthal, and John Scahill, eds., The Medieval Book and a Modern Collector: Essays in Honour of Toshiyuki Takamiya (Cambridge, UK, and Tokyo: D. S. Brewer & Yushodo Press, 2004); nor in Simon Horobin and Linne R. Mooney, eds., Middle English Texts in Transition: A Festschrift Dedicated to Toshiyuki Takamiya on his 70th birthday, Manuscript Culture in the British Isles 6 (York, UK: York Medieval Press in association with Boydell & Brewer, 2014).
(4.) Steven M. Oberhelman, Dreambooks in Byzantium: Six Oneirocritica in Translation, with Commentary and Introduction (Hampshire, UK: Ashgate, 2008), 2-4.
(5.) Steven R. Fischer, The Complete Medieval Dreambook: A Multilingual, Alphabetical Somnia Danielis Collation (Bern: Peter Lang Publishers, 1982); and Lawrence T. Martin, Somniale Danielis: An Edition of a Medieval Latin Dream Interpretation Handbook, Lateinische Sprache und Literatur des Mittelalters 10 (Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter D. Lang, 1981).
(6.) Lorenzo DiTommaso, The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature, Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 20 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005), 237. For a summary of the (inconclusive state of the) oneirokritikon's textual criticism, see ibid., 239.
(7.) There are also witnesses to the tradition in Old English, Middle English, Middle Welsh, Middle Irish, Old Icelandic, German, French, Italian, Hebrew, Armenian, and Coptic; ibid., 389-394.
(8.) Ibid., 237.
(9.) Linda Ehrsam Voigts, "The 'Sloane Group': Related Scientific and Medical Manuscripts from the Fifteenth Century in the Sloane Collection," British Library Journal 16 (1990): 26-57, at 33.
(10.) Martin, Somniale Danielis, 15.
(11.) DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 237.
(12.) Ibid., 236.
(13.) Gabriel Turville-Petre, "Dream Symbols in Old Icelandic Literature," in Festschrift Walter Baetke, dargehracht zu seinem 80. Geburtstagam 28 Marz 1964, ed. Kurt Rudolf, Rolf Heller, and Ernst Walter (Weimar, Germany: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1966), 343-354, at 349.
(14.) For a sample of the variety of titles of and prologues to the Somniale, see the narrative descriptions of thirty-two of the Latin witnesses in Martin, Somniale Danielis, 14-60.
(15.) The rubric's most explicit allusion is to Aristotle, but it also incorporates Alan of Lille, who explains in De arte praedicatoria that sleep is threefold (Patrologia Latina 210.195D-196A), and St. Paul, who says in 1 Corinthians 14:32 that the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets. I am grateful to Traugott Lawler for his help in puzzling out the rubric.
(16.) Martin, Somniale Danielis, 14-60.
(17.) DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 243.
(18.) Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 336/725, fol. 104r. (This manuscript has two sets of foliation: I use the first, recorded in ink.) Voigts, "Sloane Group," 27, gives the most complete consideration so far of the two manuscripts in tandem.
(19.) In correspondence of November 19, 2014, Kathleen L. Scott proposes that the two manuscripts had the same decorator.
(20.) For the most recent survey on the "booklet" and the questions it raises, see Alexandra Gillespie, "Medieval Books, Their Booklets, and Booklet Theory," in Manuscript Miscellanies, c. 1450-1700, ed. Richard Beadle and Colin Burrow, English Manuscript Studies 1100-1700 16 (London: British Library, 2011), 1-29.
(21.) Cf. Pamela R. Robinson's sixth feature of a "booklet": "Its outer leaves may be soiled or rubbed, suggesting that the 'booklet' circulated independently for some time before being bound up with others." See P. R. Robinson, "The 'Booklet': A Self-Contained Unit in Composite Manuscripts," Codicologica 3 (1980): 46-69, at 48.
(22.) Such disjointedness is not visible in other parts of the manuscript. Cf. Ralph Hanna's additional feature of a "booklet": "Variation in the material from which different parts of a manuscript are made: shifts between paper and vellum, shifts (insofar as these are recognizable) among kinds or qualities of vellum, shifts among different paper stocks"; Ralph Hanna, "Booklets in Medieval Manuscripts: Further Considerations," Studies in Bibliography 39(1986): 100-111, at 108.
(23.) This portion of the manuscript (fols. 51r-56v) preceding the Somniale booklet shows signs of being a booklet as well. Fol. Sir has a stub pasted down the gutter, now partly peeling off, like that on fol. 57r. Instead of being attached to a larger outer stub, however, this fol. 51r stub simply folds behind to the other side of the quire, where it is one of three stubs in total. Cf. P. R. Robinson's ninth feature of a "booklet":
The last page (or pages) of a "booklet" may have been left blank because the text did not fill the "booklet." A "booklet" in which the concluding text is complete may lack its last leaf (or leaves), suggesting that a blank endleaf (or leaves) has been cut away when the "booklet" was bound up with others.
Robinson, "Booklet," 48. It is also worth mentioning that the preceding quire, fols. 47r-50v, has four stubs at the end.
(24.) I follow Tess Tavormina in noting that though the "Takamiya portion" of the Gonville and Caius manuscript mainly starts on fol. 104, shared material also exists on fols. 60r-63r (Takamiya MS 33 fols. 51r-53v) and on fols. 96r-97v (Takamiya MS 33 fols. 54r-55v). Her comments to this effect are recorded in email correspondence with the Gonville and Caius College Library from April 15, 2014, which is preserved in the manuscript's annotated catalogue there. I add to this observation that it is these five folios, as well as the ruled folio originally left blank, that in the Takamiya manuscript together form the quire preceding Somniale (see note 23). There is no similar indication that these folios (fols. 60r-63r, fols. 96r-97v) are codicologically distinct in the Gonville and Caius volume. Fols. 60r-63r are in a quire that consists of fols. 57-64. Fols. 96r-97v are in a quire that consists of fols. 93-99. The material that starts halfway down the second column on fol. 60r in Gonville and Caius MS 336/725 stands at the head of the first column on the corresponding folio in Takamiya MS 33, fol. 51 r. The material is less well fitted to its new setting in the second instance: the top half of fol. 96r in the Gonville and Caius manuscript is occupied by text continuous from fol. 95v; on the corresponding folio in Takamiya MS 33, 54r: fol., there is a blank space. The impetus to place these two different texts alongside one another in the Takamiya manuscript may have been visual and/or thematic. They are similarly laid out, with lists of items visually linked by red brackets. They are also similar in content: both lists detail medicines. It is nevertheless clear that these texts are different: the first is a mix of English headings situated above the lists and primarily Latin list-entries; the second is entirely in Latin with Latin headings in the margin. The decoration is also somewhat different between the two texts: decorated gold-leaf initials mark off the English headings of the first text; blue paraph marks divide the entries in the second. It is interesting to note that in the Takamiya manuscript, the second text in the booklet (fols. 54r55v) reproduces the full text of its Gonville and Caius counterpart (fols. 96r-97v). The first text in the booklet (fols. 51r-53v) reproduces only the end of the text that in Gonville and Caius MS 336/725 runs from fols. 57v-63r. The reproduction of the end and its explicit in this case cleverly gives the impression that a full text has been reproduced.
(25.) Hanna, "Booklets in Medieval Manuscripts," 101.
(26.) Hanna writes, "The producer of a codex, in a single-quire booklet, possesses a bibliographical unit which can potentially be fitted into nearly any context." Ibid., 105. What is striking about the Takamiya MS 33 Somniale booklet is how perfectly it fits into its current context. It was also certainly not cheap to produce, another feature Hanna cites to explain the typical booklet's appeal; Ibid., 102.
(27.) Gillespie lays out a variety of motivations for booklet production, one of which may ultimately best explain the codicology of Takamiya MS 33:
In the absence of some contemporary narrative about it, or a great deal of circumstantial evidence, how is a codicologist meant to distinguish a composite manuscript made up from booklets put into circulation by authors as booklets, from one made by scribes imitating this authorial format, from one made up from booklets copied for the purposes of stocking a shop? The conditions in which a scribe (or an author) might find it useful to make books from booklets are also various: when he was collaborating with others; when his patron's needs seemed likely to shift unexpectedly; when he was not sure where his next exemplar was coming from; when his own work was routinely interrupted by other tasks; when his exemplar seemed "easily divisible" and he judged that the copy he was making might also be best in some flexible form.
See Gillespie, "Medieval Books," 21. Given the complicated "twin" relationship that Takamiya MS 33 has with Gonville and Caius MS 336/725, it may prove particularly useful to think through the options involving an exemplar.
(28.) Maria Elisabeth Wittmer-Butsch, Zur Bedeutung von Schlaf und Traum im Mittelalter, Medium Aevum Quotidianum, 1 (Krems, Austria: Medium Aevum Quotidianum, 1990), 178-179. Wittmer-Butsch's tables promise the "Verbreitung der lateinischen Handschriften und Fragmente des 'Somniale Danielis'" across different spans of time; ibid., 178-179. Whether Verbreitung [distribution] entails origin or provenance is not immediately clear: she covers both. She also delineates her categories variously. She alternates between sorting manuscripts into bounded countries (as in Italien) and into language zones (as in Deutsches Sprachgebiet). DiTommaso asserts that "in her tables M.E. Wittmer-Butsch merely lists the manuscripts by their shelf marks" (DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 240); that is, that she takes note only of their present location. This methodology would certainly explain how two English manuscripts ended up in the realm of Deutsches Sprachgebiet [see items 1 and 2 in the Handlist] and how she assumes an English origin for the Wellcome Library manuscript from Germany [see further in the Appendix], but it is not the only rationale she uses. She does note the Italian origin of Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek (Carolina), MS C.664 and the French origin of London, British Library, Harley MS 3017, so I can only assume that she is most concerned with presenting origin.
(29.) DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 379-389. DiTommaso's research considerably increases the number of known manuscripts containing Somniale Danielis, adding upwards of forty Latin texts to Wittmer-Butsch's tally. One reason, though a minor one, for this increase is an expanded set of criteria. DiTommaso, who is most concerned with classifying the witnesses by language, includes three Latin texts from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; Wittmer-Butsch limits her inquiries to witnesses from the ninth through sixteenth centuries.
(30.) I have made every effort to track down information about the last Latin manuscript in DiTommaso's inventory, which was purportedly in the private collection of Professor August Conrady, a sinologist at the University of Leipzig. See "August Conrady," Universitat Leipzig: Geschichte, last modified August 10, 2011, http: //www.uni-leipzig.de/~ostasien/institut/ geschichte/august-conrady. I have been unable to find any information about this Somniale text specifically, but DiTommaso has generously provided me with a reference to a Latin lunation in a manuscript in the Conrady collection. In an email of January 15, 2015, he writes, "Interesting but not probative is the fact that this text was a lunation, and lunations frequently precede or follow copies of the Somniale in MS." See Hardin Craig, The Works of John Metham, including The Romance of Amoryus and Cleopes (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., for the Early English Text Society, 1906), xxxix.
(31.) N. R. Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, vol. 1, London (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 398.
(32.) Cron writes:
This list of dreams and their interpretations is written in a hand of probably the fourteenth century on some blank leaves in the middle of a thirteenth century manuscript of the Treatise on the Virtues and Vices of Guillaume Perault, Bishops of Lyons (died before 1260), that formerly belonged to the monastery, now Cathedral, of St. Benignus at Dijon.
B. S. Cron, "Note on Text & Translation," in A Mediaeval Dream Book: Printed from the original Latin with an English translation (London: Gogmagog Press, 1963), n.p.
(33.) See items 1, 2, and 13 and the accompanying notes in Appendix: An Updated Handlist.
(34.) Assigned by Wittmer-Butsch, Zur Bedeutung von Schlaf und Traum, to Deutsches Sprachgebiet. For a record of English origin, see Valentin Rose, Verzeichniss der lateinischen Handschriften der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, zweiter Band: Die Handschriften der kurfurstlichen Bibliothek und der kurfurstlichen Lande, dritte Abteilung (Berlin: A. Asher & Co., 1905), 1161-1164. The portion of the manuscript with the Somniale also contains the work of the Oxford-affiliated scholastics Walter Burley, John of Wales, and Robert Holcot.
(35.) Assigned by Wittmer-Butsch, Zur Bedeutung von Schlafund Traum, to Deutsches Sprachgebiet. For a record of English origin, see Rose, Verzeichniss, 1216-1221.
(36.) M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Peterhouse (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1899), 271-275.
(37.) I am grateful to David McKitterick for providing me with the folio numbers, which were added after James compiled his catalogue and are thus not in M. R. James, The Western Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: A Descriptive Catalogue, vol. 3, Containing an Account of the Manuscripts Standing in Class 0 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1902), 409-410. They are also not included in DiTommaso's inventory.
(38.) N. R. Ker, Medieval Manuscripts in British Libraries, vol. 3, Lampeter-Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 77-79.
(39.) S. xvii is too late for Wittmer-Butsch's purview. For a record of English origin, see K. A. de Meyier, Codices Vossiani Latini, Pars III: Codices in Octavo (Leiden, The Netherlands: Bibliotheca Universitatis Leidensis, 1977), 97-98.
(40.) Wittmer-Butsch does not acknowledge the presence of multiple copies of the Latin Somniale in Cotton Tiberius A.iii; by DiTommaso's count, there are five, the last two of which he notes are in Latin and Old English. (I have omitted these two from my handlist on account of their being primarily in Old English. See R. M. Liuzza, Anglo-Saxon Prognostics: An Edition and Translation of Texts from London, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius A.iii, Anglo-Saxon Texts 8 (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 2011), 178-189 and 208-211.) She does, however, cite two separate versions in Oxford, All Souls College, MS 81 (in which, by DiTommaso's count, there are three). To err on the side of caution, and because, per DiTommaso, three versions of the text abut in Cotton Tiberius A.iii, I assume that she has omitted one, not two, texts.
(41.) Laszlo Sandor Chardonnens and R. M. Liuzza both refer to it as English. See L. S. Chardonnens, Anglo-Saxon Prognostics, 900-1100: Study and Texts, Brill's Texts and Sources in Intellectual History 3 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2007), 113, 395, 479; and Liuzza, Anglo-Saxon Prognostics, 30 n. 105 and esp. 42 for mention of Somniale.
(42.) According to Liuzza, this manuscript is "possibly English." See R. M. Liuzza, "Anglo-Saxon prognostics in context: a survey and handlist of manuscripts," Anglo-Saxon England 30 (2001): 181-230, at 225-227. Chardonnens, Anglo-Saxon Prognostics, 42-43, is cautious about the posited English origin for the relevant part of the manuscript. The manuscript is listed in Helmut Gneuss and Michael Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A Bibliographical Handlist of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100 (Toronto: University of Toronto, 2014), 400, where it is attributed to an "English or Anglo-Norman scribe."
(43.) I acquire the date and folio numbers from the detailed manuscript description available online. See Rebecca Farnham, "London, British Library, Sloane 1009 (vol. 1)," in Manuscripts of the West Midlands: A Catalogue of Vernacular Manuscript Books of the English West Midlands, c. 1300-c. 1475 (Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham, 2009), http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/mwm.
(44.) S. xvii is too late for Wittmer-Butsch's purview. Further work is needed to place the Somniale, specifically, in England with certainty, but at least some parts of the manuscript, which is a collection of fragments that span six centuries, are from England; see the British Library Online Catalogue, http://searcharchives.bl.uk; as well as "Detailed Record of Sloane 2561," British Library Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts, last revised November 30, 2005, http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/.
(45.) Martin, Somniale Danielis, 27, posits an origin of either England or France for the manuscript. The British Library Online Catalogue specifies that the dream text is English.
(46.) Further work must be done on placing and dating the component parts of this manuscript, which is, per the British Library Online Catalogue entry, a composite volume of texts from different centuries and in several different languages: English, Latin, Dutch, German, and French. Wittmer-Butsch places the manuscript in England, but as seen, her rationale in determining Verbreitung is somewhat inconsistent. Chardonnens also places the manuscript in England; see L. S. Chardonnens, "Mantic Alphabets in Medieval Western Manuscripts and Early Printed Books," Modern Philology 110.3 (2013): 340-366, at 360.
(47.) Ker, Medieval Manuscripts, 1:310.
(48.) See note 42.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Nota Bene: Brief Notes on Manuscripts and Early Printed Books|
|Publication:||The Journal of the Early Book Society for the Study of Manuscripts and Printing History|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2015|
|Previous Article:||A previously unrecognized French Alexander romance.|
|Next Article:||New findings in a late-medieval catechetic prose sequence.|