I have been accepted to present a paper on the Great Stemma at the Oxford Patristics Conference which takes place in England August 8-12. The paper will be a short communication delivered during one of the parallel sessions when participants can divide up according to the area that interests them.
Here is my abstract (I think I am allowed to publish this, though the paper itself is under wraps until delivery):
The annotated diagram which spans eight folios of Florence Laurenziana Plutei 20.54, ff 38r-45v is demonstrably Late Antique in origin. This little-studied Latin work, partly published by Wilhelm Neuss and Bonifatius Fischer, presents a genealogy from Adam to Christ. It is also found in a cluster of Spanish bibles and the Apocalypse commentary of Beatus of Liébana. The anonymous author worked entirely from the Vetus Latina rather than from Jerome's Vulgate. We can study how a Late Antique author used complex graphics in place of prose to include a non-canonical figure, Joachim, as father of the Virgin within the genealogy of Christ. He structured the diagram around a timeline based on Eusebius's Chronological Canons. The paper will present a reconstruction of the diagram's archetype, arguing that it was originally a chart displaying synchronisms between scripture and history. It suggests that information graphics were a tool in early Christian literature.
2011-05-26
Ekphrasis
In the classic sense, ekphrasis means a poem that vividly describes a work of art or other physical artefact. During the Greek period, such texts might describe weapons, exceptional clothing, household items of superior craftsmanship (urns, cups, baskets) and splendid buildings.
This form of expression connects with the Roman pride in showing off one's education (paideia) at dinner parties which Michael Squire describes (p. 219) in his book Image and Text in Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Learned discussions of myths and philology were the bread and butter of the cena and convivium, and it seems to have been de rigueur to intersperse dinner with all manner of literary entertainments, he notes. Even Petronius's Trimalchio appreciates that 'one must know one's philology at dinner' (oportet etiam inter cenandum philologiam nosse: Petron. Sat. 39.3), though getting his own woefully wrong, Squire notes.
Squire traces this back to Hellenistic examples, quoting (p. 239) a passage in Greek (Dom. 2) from Lucian's On the Hall: When it comes to what we see, the same law does not apply for ordinary as for learned men. For the former, it is enough to do the usual thing: simply to gaze, look around ... But when a man of learning looks upon what is beautiful, he would not, I think, be content with harvesting his delight in looking alone, nor would he allow himself to witness their beauty in silence; instead, he will do all he can to take his time and to reciprocate the image with speech.
Lucian's speaker later says: 'Visual judgement lies not in the act of looking, but a rational eloquence also concurs with what is seen' (Dom. 6, quoted Squire p. 240). Addressing this Hellenistic 'etiquette of viewing', Squire adds (p. 243): 'The art of being an educated viewer once again becomes the art of being equipped with paideia - of having the terms, language and knowledge to articulate what is remarkable in an image.
The remainder of Squire's argument, that 'verbally mediated responses might actually force viewers to look harder at what they saw' (p. 247), need not concern us here. Instead, I am concerned with the relationship between the Great Stemma and the Liber Genealogus. The one is a very large and impressive diagram, the other an extended text which muses, in list order, on the etymology of biblical names and drops in various tendentious remarks of a Donatist nature about the Church of Rome. In the order of the material, the earliest, G recension of the Liber Genealogus closely follows the diagram. It is all but inconceivable that this order would have been independently adopted without reference to the diagram.
We are thus left with the issue of how and why the Liber Genealogus was written.
It seems to me that the practice of ekphrasis offers a plausible hypothesis to explain its creation. Much of what we read in the Liber seems to be a response to the visualization, perhaps by a Christian displaying both classical learning and biblical knowledge. It might be too fanciful to imagine three or four Christian literati going out to dine with a secretary at hand to jot down what they say and the Great Stemma pinned up on the wall of the dining room. But certainly the Liber does seem to be written with the purpose of dazzling somebody with the eloquence and resourcefulness of its etymological speculation about Hebrew names of the Bible.
This form of expression connects with the Roman pride in showing off one's education (paideia) at dinner parties which Michael Squire describes (p. 219) in his book Image and Text in Graeco-Roman Antiquity: Learned discussions of myths and philology were the bread and butter of the cena and convivium, and it seems to have been de rigueur to intersperse dinner with all manner of literary entertainments, he notes. Even Petronius's Trimalchio appreciates that 'one must know one's philology at dinner' (oportet etiam inter cenandum philologiam nosse: Petron. Sat. 39.3), though getting his own woefully wrong, Squire notes.
Squire traces this back to Hellenistic examples, quoting (p. 239) a passage in Greek (Dom. 2) from Lucian's On the Hall: When it comes to what we see, the same law does not apply for ordinary as for learned men. For the former, it is enough to do the usual thing: simply to gaze, look around ... But when a man of learning looks upon what is beautiful, he would not, I think, be content with harvesting his delight in looking alone, nor would he allow himself to witness their beauty in silence; instead, he will do all he can to take his time and to reciprocate the image with speech.
Lucian's speaker later says: 'Visual judgement lies not in the act of looking, but a rational eloquence also concurs with what is seen' (Dom. 6, quoted Squire p. 240). Addressing this Hellenistic 'etiquette of viewing', Squire adds (p. 243): 'The art of being an educated viewer once again becomes the art of being equipped with paideia - of having the terms, language and knowledge to articulate what is remarkable in an image.
The remainder of Squire's argument, that 'verbally mediated responses might actually force viewers to look harder at what they saw' (p. 247), need not concern us here. Instead, I am concerned with the relationship between the Great Stemma and the Liber Genealogus. The one is a very large and impressive diagram, the other an extended text which muses, in list order, on the etymology of biblical names and drops in various tendentious remarks of a Donatist nature about the Church of Rome. In the order of the material, the earliest, G recension of the Liber Genealogus closely follows the diagram. It is all but inconceivable that this order would have been independently adopted without reference to the diagram.
We are thus left with the issue of how and why the Liber Genealogus was written.
It seems to me that the practice of ekphrasis offers a plausible hypothesis to explain its creation. Much of what we read in the Liber seems to be a response to the visualization, perhaps by a Christian displaying both classical learning and biblical knowledge. It might be too fanciful to imagine three or four Christian literati going out to dine with a secretary at hand to jot down what they say and the Great Stemma pinned up on the wall of the dining room. But certainly the Liber does seem to be written with the purpose of dazzling somebody with the eloquence and resourcefulness of its etymological speculation about Hebrew names of the Bible.
2011-04-10
Liber Genealogus
A 9,000-word study of the links between the Liber Genealogus and the Great Stemma more or less completes my detailed research into the oldest stemma diagram known. I have just placed this new article online. I do not pretend it offers any great amusement: it is rather dry stuff. But we need the detail to assemble the case that the Liber is the textual account of someone who had read the Stemma, or something like it. I don't think many people read the Liber Genealogus: it is difficult to see what use it ever was to any reader. Mommsen's edition of the Liber does not help the contemporary reader much either. It is not particularly easy to use, given that the composite Mommsen text overlays the original G recension with material from the Origo Humani Generis and a lot of Donatist disputation. It might have almost been easier for me to just read a manuscript. Unfortunately, the best and oldest one is not online. The excellent Swiss e-codices project has not yet digitized Cod. Sang. 133, which contains the G recension dating from the late 8th or early 9th century. That is quite impressive: this codex was penned less than 400 years after the Liber Genealogus was written in 427. In the absence of this much-needed digital work, one can only consult Plutei 20.54 in Florence, which contains the inferior F recension. This is in fact the same codex that contains the most primitive form of the Great Stemma.
2011-03-09
Greek Place-Names
An interesting blog post from last year by Nick Nicholas on old Greek names for a stretch of coast that is much in the news at the moment. Hippolytus's Chronicon comprehensively lists places that a mariner might need to know about on the desert coast of North Africa.
2011-03-08
New Revisions
So we now have two new pages on the site: one deals in more detail with Eusebius and the likely debt of the Great Stemma to his Chronological Canons. The other explores in more detail the oddities of the Ordo Romanorum Regum. I have also fully revised the bibliography to make it more comprehensive.
2011-02-17
Ordo Annorum Mundi
A new page, dealing with the Ordo Annorum Mundi, has now been placed on the Macro-Typography website. It seems to me that the OAM may be a piece of writing by the Great Stemma's author, but I am still looking for the killer evidence. The OAM seems to appear only in Iberian-origin manuscripts, but has achieved wider diffusion through its incorporation in the Commentary on the Apocalypse of Beatus of Liebana.
Note added in August 2012: No killer evidence found. It seems more than likely that the Ordo Annorum Mundi is not by the Great Stemma author, who probably worked from a chronology drafted by Hippolytus of Rome. However the OAM's history seems intimately entwined with that of the diagram. It could well be the work of someone who revised and altered the diagram at a later stage, altering it to reflect a chronology of world history computed by Eusebius of Caesarea. Professor José Carlos Martín of the University of Salamanca will soon be issuing an editio princeps of the Ordo Annorum Mundi, and we are keenly awaiting this important publication.
Note added in August 2012: No killer evidence found. It seems more than likely that the Ordo Annorum Mundi is not by the Great Stemma author, who probably worked from a chronology drafted by Hippolytus of Rome. However the OAM's history seems intimately entwined with that of the diagram. It could well be the work of someone who revised and altered the diagram at a later stage, altering it to reflect a chronology of world history computed by Eusebius of Caesarea. Professor José Carlos Martín of the University of Salamanca will soon be issuing an editio princeps of the Ordo Annorum Mundi, and we are keenly awaiting this important publication.
2011-02-16
The Vetus Latina Hispana of Ayuso
In 1953, Teófilo Ayuso Marazuela published the first volume of his Vetus Latina Hispana. It was an ambitious project, presumably with government funding, to recover the bible texts that circulated in Iberia before the introduction of Jerome's Vulgate. It was in direct rivalry with the Vetus Latina that was being reconstructed at the Abbey of Beuron in Germany, and it was awarded a prize (marked on the title page) in the name of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.
Ayuso devised his own numbering system for the codices and other manuscripts he used. The numbers seem to have fallen completely out of use, but are still essential in reading scholarly Spanish articles of the period, in particular Ayuso's own writing, about biblical manuscripts. Since the numbers seem to be nowhere on the internet, I am tabulating them online in the hope they can be of service to modern scholars.
The left column comprises the VLH or Ayuso numbers themselves, followed by the abbreviations commonly used and the sequence numbers for each manuscript of the same provenance. For example, Leg2 or Legionense2 is the Codex gothicus. Burgense1 is the Burgos Bible, also called Biblia de San Pedro de Cardena. The last column lists the (1953) locations of the manuscripts.
You are welcome to copy my list and reproduce it as you wish, though a credit would be appreciated. As far as I can assess, the list in the book can no longer be subject to copyright, and in any case I have modified it to present it here on the web.
There is one peculiarity, perhaps a lapse in attention by Ayuso. Pages 25-6 (IV. Lista de codices espanoles o de origen hispanico estudiados, numeros y siglas correspondientes) list 203 sources only, while pages 347-83 (Los manuscritos bíblicos espanoles) contain a list that is one element longer (204). The extra item in the latter list comes at position number 113, Escurialense5, which is inexplicably missed from the summary table, so that every item below it is displaced by one position when the two lists are compared. In the above tabulation, I have followed the numbering on pages 347-83, since this seems to be correct. Perhaps there is an errata page, or a handwritten correction, in a copy in a Spanish library, and I would be grateful to anyone willing to check this. But there is no such correction in the Hamburg State Library copy, which is kept in the city's Bergedorf stack and does not seem to have been much used down the years.
[A later note:] Ayuso's earlier articles use quite different sigla, including A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, 7-8. These are apparently the items in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid (lines 64-69 above). A2 for example is the Bible of San Juan de la Peña, and these are listed in the print catalog (Tomo 1) here. His earlier "Bu" is the Burgos Bible in line 25, as noted above. Ayuso renumbered the León bibles, since 3 Legionense in line 23 is a lost one, whereas the Leg3 he had referred to in 1943 was clearly the Second León Bible which is very much in continued existence. In line 12, 2 Oventense is the lost Gospel Book of Justus which I discuss in another post.
Ayuso devised his own numbering system for the codices and other manuscripts he used. The numbers seem to have fallen completely out of use, but are still essential in reading scholarly Spanish articles of the period, in particular Ayuso's own writing, about biblical manuscripts. Since the numbers seem to be nowhere on the internet, I am tabulating them online in the hope they can be of service to modern scholars.
The left column comprises the VLH or Ayuso numbers themselves, followed by the abbreviations commonly used and the sequence numbers for each manuscript of the same provenance. For example, Leg2 or Legionense2 is the Codex gothicus. Burgense1 is the Burgos Bible, also called Biblia de San Pedro de Cardena. The last column lists the (1953) locations of the manuscripts.
| 1 | Guelf | Vaticano -Guelferbitano | Vaticano | |
| 2 | Tur | Turonense | Paris | |
| 3 | Fragm. To | Fragmentos toledanos | Toledo | |
| 4 | Freís | Fragmentos de Freising | München | |
| 5 | Palimps | Palimpsesto de León | León | |
| 6 | Ottob | Ottoboniano | Vaticano | |
| 7 | Lugd | 1 | Lugdunense | Lyon |
| 8 | Lugd | 2 | Lugdunense | Paris |
| 9 | Escu | 1 | Eseurialense | El Escorial |
| 10 | Ov | 1 | Ovetense (Desaparecido) | Oviedo |
| 11 | Luxeuil | Leccionario de Luxeuil | Paris | |
| 12 | Ov | 2 | Ovetense (Desaparecido) | Oviedo. Escorial |
| 13 | Cav | Cavense | Cava | |
| 14 | Cav dpdo | Cavense duplicado | Vaticano | |
| 15 | To | 1 | Toledano | Madrid |
| 16 | To dpdo | Toledano duplicado | Vaticano | |
| 17 | Co | 1 | Complutense | Madrid |
| 18 | Co | 2 | Complutense | Madrid |
| 19 | Leg | 1 | Legionense | León |
| 20 | On | Oniense | Salamanca | |
| 21 | Leg | 2 | Legionense | León |
| 22 | Leg dpdo | Legionense duplicado | Vaticano | |
| 23 | Leg | 3 | Legionense supuesto (Desaparecido) | León |
| 24 | Emil | 1 | Emilianense | Madrid |
| 25 | Burg | 1 | Burgense | Burgos |
| 26 | Valv | Valvanerense (Desaparecido) | Escorial | |
| 27 | To | 2 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 28 | Pin | Pinatense | Madrid | |
| 29 | Moz | Breviario Mozárabe | Madrid | |
| 30 | Psalt | 1 | Salterio | Madrid |
| 31 | Psalt | 2 | Salterio | Madrid |
| 32 | Psalt | 3 | Salterio | Madrid |
| 33 | Psalt | 4 | Salterio | London |
| 34 | Psalt | 5 | Salterio | Nogent-sur-Marne |
| 35 | Psalt | 6 | Salterio | Escorial |
| 36 | Psalt | 7 | Salterio | Madrid |
| 37 | Psalt | 8 | Salterio | Santiago |
| 38 | Cant | Liber Canticorum | Madrid | |
| 39 | Com | 1 | Liber Commicus | Toledo |
| 40 | Com | 2 | Liber Commicus | París |
| 41 | Com | 3 | Liber Commicus | León |
| 42 | Com | 4 | Liber Commicus | Madrid |
| 43 | Seg | 1 | Seguntino | Sigüenza |
| 44 | Esc | 2 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 45 | Tolos | 1 | Tolosano | Toulouse |
| 46 | Tolos | 2 | Tolosano | Toulouse |
| 46* | Esc | Escurialense Misceláneo (not a bible) | El Escorial | |
| 47 | Lugd | 3 | Lugdunense | Lyon |
| 48 | Teod | Teodulfiano | Paris | |
| 49 | Anic | Aniciense | Le Puy | |
| 50 | Bern | Bernense | Bern | |
| 51 | Hub | Hubertiano | London | |
| 52 | Sang | Sangermanense | Paris | |
| 53 | Sang | Sangermanense | Paris | |
| 54 | Sang | Sangermanense | Paris | |
| 55 | Riq | Saint Riquier | Paris | |
| 56 | Laud | Laudiano | Oxford | |
| 57 | Mon | Monacense | München | |
| 58 | Aur | Aureo | Escorial | |
| 59 | Cas | 1 | Casinense | Monte Cassino |
| 60 | Cas | 2 | Casinense | Monte Cassino |
| 61 | Cas | 3 | Casinense | Monte Cassino |
| 62 | Cas | 4 | Casinense | Monte Cassino |
| 63 | To | 3 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 64 | Matr | 2 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 65 | Matr | 3 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 66 | Matr | 4 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 67 | Matr | 5 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 68 | Matr | 6 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 69 | Matr | 7 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 70 | Matr | 8 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 71 | Purp | Purpúreo (Desaparacido) | Urgel | |
| 72 | Urg | Urgelense | Urgel | |
| 73 | Rip | Ripollense | Vaticano | |
| 74 | Roa | Rodense | Paris | |
| 75 | Vic | 1 | Vicense | Vich |
| 76 | Vic | 2 | Vicense | Vich |
| 77 | Vic | 3 | Vicense | Vich |
| 78 | Vic | 4 | Vicense | Vich |
| 79 | Par | 1 | Parisiense | Paris |
| 80 | Par | 2 | Parisiense | Paris |
| 81 | Par | 3 | Parisiense | Paris |
| 82 | Esc | 3 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 83 | Mall | Malloricense | Palma | |
| 84 | Leg | 3 | Legionense | León |
| 85 | Leg | 4 | Legionense | León |
| 86 | Leg | 5 | Legionense | León |
| 87 | Leg | 6 | Legionense | León |
| 88 | Leg | 7 | Legionense | León |
| 89 | Osc | Oscense | Madrid | |
| 90 | Matr | 9 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 91 | Burg | 2 | Burgense | Burgos |
| 92 | Burg | 3 | Burgense | Burgos |
| 93 | Cal | Calagurritano | Calahorra | |
| 94 | Emil | 2 | Emilianense | Madrid |
| 95 | Ler | llerdense | Lérida | |
| 96 | Co | 2 | Complutenses | Madrid |
| 97 | Av | Avilense | Madrid | |
| 98 | Esc | 4 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 99 | Alf | Alfonsino (Desaparacido) | Barcelona? | |
| 100 | Avig | Avignoniense (Desaparcido) | Avignon? | |
| 101 | Barc | 1 | Barcinonense | Barcelona |
| 102 | Barc | 2 | Barcinonense | Barcelona |
| 103 | Barc | 3 | Barcinonense | Barcelona |
| 104 | Barc | 4 | Barcinonense | Barcelona |
| 105 | Barc | 5 | Barcinonense | Barcelona |
| 106 | Bil | 1 | Bilbilitano | Calatayud |
| 107 | Bil | 2 | Bilbilitano | Calatayud |
| 108 | Burg | 4 | Burgense | Burgos |
| 109 | Burg | 5 | Burgense | Burgos |
| 110 | Cal | Calagurritano | Calahorra | |
| 111 | Conc | Concentainense | Concentaina | |
| 112 | Dar | Darocense | Daroca | |
| 113 | Esc | 5 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 114 | Esc | 6 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 115 | Esc | 7 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 116 | Esc | 8 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 117 | Esc | 9 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 118 | Esc | 10 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 119 | Esc | 11 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 120 | Esc | 12 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 121 | Esc | 13 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 122 | Esc | 14 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 123 | Esc | 15 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 124 | Esc | 16 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 125 | Esc | 17 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 126 | Esc | 18 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 127 | Esc | 19 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 128 | Esc | 20 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 129 | Esc | 21 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 130 | Esc | 22 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 131 | Esc | 23 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 132 | Esc | 24 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 133 | Esc | 25 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 134 | Esc | 26 | Escurialense | El Escorial |
| 135 | Hisp | Hispalense | Sevilla | |
| 136 | Mall | 2 | Malloricense | Palma |
| 137 | Mall | 3 | Malloricense | Palma |
| 138 | Matr | 10 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 139 | Matr | 11 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 140 | Matr | 12 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 141 | Matr | 13 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 142 | Matr | 14 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 143 | Matr | 15 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 144 | Matr | 16 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 145 | Matr | 17 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 146 | Matr | 18 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 147 | Matr | 19 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 148 | Matr | 20 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 149 | Matr | 21 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 150 | Matr | 22 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 151 | Matr | 23 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 152 | Matr | 24 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 153 | Matr | 25 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 154 | Matr | 26 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 155 | Matr | 27 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 156 | Matr | 28 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 157 | Matr | 29 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 158 | Matr | 30 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 159 | Matr | 31 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 160 | Matr | 32 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 161 | Matr | 33 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 162 | Matr | 34 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 163 | Matr | 35 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 164 | Matr | 36 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 165 | Matr | 37 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 166 | Matr | 38 | Matritense | Madrid |
| 167 | Oxorm | Oxomense | Burgo de Osma | |
| 168 | Par | 4 | Parisiense | Paris |
| 169 | Plas | 1 | Plasentino | Plasencia |
| 170 | Plas | 2 | Plasentino | Plasencia |
| 171 | Salm | Salmanticense | Salamanca | |
| 172 | Segov | Segoviense | Segovia | |
| 173 | Segunt | Seguntino | Sigüenza | |
| 174 | Ser | Serenense | Villanueva de la Serena | |
| 175 | Sor | Soriano | Soria | |
| 176 | Tar | Tarraconense | Tarragona | |
| 177 | Tir | Tirasonense | Tarazona | |
| 178 | To | 4 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 179 | To | 5 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 180 | To | 6 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 181 | To | 7 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 182 | To | 8 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 183 | To | 9 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 184 | To | 10 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 185 | To | 11 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 186 | To | 12 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 187 | To | 13 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 188 | To | 14 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 189 | To | 15 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 190 | To | 16 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 191 | To | 17 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 192 | To | 18 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 193 | To | 19 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 194 | To | 20 | Toledano | Toledo |
| 195 | Urg | 2 | Urgelitano | Urgel |
| 196 | Urg | 3 | Urgelitano | Urgel |
| 197 | Valent | 1 | Valentino | Valencia |
| 198 | Valent | 2 | Valentino | Valencia |
| 199 | Valent | 3 | Valentino | Valencia |
| 200 | Valent | 4 | Valentino | Valencia |
| 201 | Valv | 2 | Valvanerense | Valvanera |
| 202 | Vat | Vaticano | Vaticano | |
| 203 | Zar | 1 | Zaragozano | Zaragoza |
| 204 | Zar | 2 | Zaragozano | Zaragoza |
You are welcome to copy my list and reproduce it as you wish, though a credit would be appreciated. As far as I can assess, the list in the book can no longer be subject to copyright, and in any case I have modified it to present it here on the web.
There is one peculiarity, perhaps a lapse in attention by Ayuso. Pages 25-6 (IV. Lista de codices espanoles o de origen hispanico estudiados, numeros y siglas correspondientes) list 203 sources only, while pages 347-83 (Los manuscritos bíblicos espanoles) contain a list that is one element longer (204). The extra item in the latter list comes at position number 113, Escurialense5, which is inexplicably missed from the summary table, so that every item below it is displaced by one position when the two lists are compared. In the above tabulation, I have followed the numbering on pages 347-83, since this seems to be correct. Perhaps there is an errata page, or a handwritten correction, in a copy in a Spanish library, and I would be grateful to anyone willing to check this. But there is no such correction in the Hamburg State Library copy, which is kept in the city's Bergedorf stack and does not seem to have been much used down the years.
[A later note:] Ayuso's earlier articles use quite different sigla, including A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, 7-8. These are apparently the items in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid (lines 64-69 above). A2 for example is the Bible of San Juan de la Peña, and these are listed in the print catalog (Tomo 1) here. His earlier "Bu" is the Burgos Bible in line 25, as noted above. Ayuso renumbered the León bibles, since 3 Legionense in line 23 is a lost one, whereas the Leg3 he had referred to in 1943 was clearly the Second León Bible which is very much in continued existence. In line 12, 2 Oventense is the lost Gospel Book of Justus which I discuss in another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
