Metatextuality, sexuality and intervisuality in MS Junius 11
2009; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 25; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/02666280902717262
ISSN1943-2178
Autores Tópico(s)Medieval Literature and History
ResumoAbstract ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank his colleagues, Professor Forrest Colburn and Professor Jane Rosenthal, for their comments and advice on an earlier version of this paper. Any residual error is entirely the author's own. Notes 1 – See B.J. Muir, ed. and N. Kennedy (software), A Digital Facsimile of Oxford Bodleian Library MS Junius 11 (Bodleian Digital Texts, I) (Oxford, 2004). For an excellent overview of the facsimile and its many technical advances, see the review by Murray McGillivray on the website of Digital Medievalist (http://www.digitalmedievalist.org) where the author makes the astonishing but accurate assessment of Muir's work that it presents ‘a virtual encounter with the manuscript itself that may well exceed the benefits of personal examination for many users… .’ 2 – For a full account of the manuscript and the history of scholarship on its text and illustrations, see most recently C.E. Karkov, Text and Picture in Anglo-Saxon England: Narrative Strategies in the Junius 11 Manuscript (Cambridge, 2001). On the question of the manuscript's date, see L. Lockett, ‘An integrated re-examination of the dating of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 11’, Anglo-Saxon England, 31 (2002), pp. 141–73. Junius 11 was recently included in an exhibition at the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., entitled In the Beginning: Bibles Before the Year 1000, where it appears in the catalogue of the same title as item 61, pp. 298–99, ed. M.P. Brown (Washington, D.C. and Oxford, 2006). 3 – Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. 181–2 notes the usefulness of the Bodleian Library web pages (http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk), but on page 187 notes that (in 2001) ‘Unfortunately, in its present state the digital facsimile lacks a transcription and translation of the text, as well as any form of commentary.’ This has now been rectified by Muir. 4 – See B.C. Raw, ‘The probable derivation of most of the illustrations in Junius 11 from an illustrated Old Saxon Genesis’, Anglo-Saxon England, 5 (1976), p. 135, where in note 1 the author cites the illustration of the prose Marvels of the East, which is included in the Beowulf manuscript, London, B.L. Cotton Vitellus MS A.XV. On these illustrations, see the note in M. Budny, ed., Shelf Life, 1 (2006), p. 22. 5 – On this important manuscript and its illustrations, see most recently B.C. Withers, The Illustrated Old English Hexateuch, Cotton Claudius B.iv; the frontier of seeing and reading in Anglo-Saxon England (London and Toronto, 2007). 6 – On the history of ‘codicology’, the philosophy of studying the entire book, manuscript or scroll as a physical entity, sometimes referred to as the ‘archaeology’ of the book, see A. Gruys, ‘De la “Bücherhandschriftenkund” d'Ebert à la “Codicologié” de Masai’, in Codicologica, I (1976), pp. 27–33. An aspect of this approach to the ‘whole book’ has been characterized by Siegfried Wenzel as ‘materialist philology’, which ‘postulates the possibility that a given manuscript, having been organized along certain principles, may well present its text(s) according to its own agenda’, S. Wenzel, ‘Introduction’, The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany, ed. S.G. Nichols and S. Wenzel (Ann Arbor, 1996), p. 2. 7 – For an overview of the concept of typology and its interpretation, see J. J. Paxson, ‘A Theory of Biblical Typology in the Middle Ages’, Exemplaria, III/2 (Fall, 1991), pp. 359–84. With reference to the illustrated Old English Hexateuch, see David F. Johnson, ‘A Program of Illumination in the Old English Illustrated Hexateuch: “Visual Typology?”’, in The Old English Hexateuch: Aspects and Approaches, ed. R. Barnhouse and B. C. Withers (Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2000), pp. 165–200. 8 – The phrase is Karkov's; Text and Picture, p. 36. 9 – K. Weitzmann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex: A Study of the Origin and Method of Text Illustration (Princeton, 1947) (reprinted with addenda, 1970). Weitzmann and his work these days seem to be in somewhat the same situation as the famous literary aphorism attributed to André Gide, ‘Who is the most famous French writer?’ And the answer is said to be, ‘Victor Hugo, hélas!’ 10 – See especially J. Lowden, ‘Concerning the Cotton Genesis and Other Illustrated Manuscripts of Genesis’, GESTA, XXXI/I (1992), pp. 40–53, especially p. 40, note 5. See also D.H. Wright, ‘The School of Princeton and the Seventh Day of Creation’, in University Publishing (Summer 1980) pp. 6–8. Also M.-L. Dolezal, ‘The Elusive Quest for the “Real Thing”: The Chicago Lectionary Project Thirty Years On’, GESTA, XXXV/2 (1996), pp. 128–41. 11 – M. Schapiro, Words, Scripts, and Pictures: Semiotics of Visual Language (New York, 1996), pp. 11–12. Further on the issue of text and image see W. Dynes, ‘Tradition and Innovation in Medieval Art’, in Medieval Studies: An Introduction, ed. J. M. Powell (Syracuse, 1976), pp. 335–7; and F. P. Pickering, Literature & Art in the Middle Ages (Coral Gables, 1970). 12 – L.G. Duggan, ‘Was art really the “book of the illiterate”?’, Word & Image, 5 (July–September 1989), pp. 227–51; see also C.M. Chazelle, ‘Pictures, books, and the illiterate: Pope Gregory I's letters to Serenus of Marseilles’, Word & Image, 6 (April–June 1990), pp. 138–53; further, L.G. Duggan, ‘Reflections on “Was Art Really the ‘Book of the Illiterate’”?’ in Reading Images and Texts, ed. M. Hageman and M. Mostert (Utrecht, 2000), pp. 109–19. See also the article by S. Hindman, ‘The Roles of Author and Artist in the Procedure of Illustrating Late Medieval Texts’, ACTA, X (1986), pp. 27–62. 13 – Although, see today contemporary examples of an ‘illustrated’ Beowulf, such as S. Heaney, Beowulf: An Illustrated Edition (London, 2007) or S. Petrucha, K. Chamberlain (illustrator), Beowulf (London, 2007), not to mention the 3D movie version released on 16 November 2007 with Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother. 14 – M. Hilmo, Medieval Images, Icons and Illustrated English Literary Texts (Aldershot–Burlington, 2004), pp. xix–xxv. 15 – Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, pp. 130–43. 16 – See J.T. Wollesen, ‘“Ut poesis pictura”, Problems of Images and Texts in the Early Trecento’, in Petrarch's Triumphs: Allegory and Spectacle, ed. K. Eisenbichler and A. Iannucci, Univeristy of Toronto Italian Studies, 4 (Ottowa, 1990), pp. 183–210. Interestingly enough, Franciscus Junius, to whom MS Junius 11 belonged and for whom the manuscript is named, wrote a treatise in 1637 entitled De Pictura Veterum (The Painting of the Ancients) in which he promotes the idea of ut pictura poesis, ut poesis pictura (i.e. that painting is mute poetry and poetry spoken painting), employing the word Pictura, ‘picture’, meaning not just painting, but any form of representational art. In the words of Philipp Fehl, Junius puts forward the idea that the same imaginative power brought to the work by the artist, ‘must be brought to it by the viewer of a work of art so that it will become “vivid” for him.’ See Philipp P. Fehl et al., ‘Franciscus Junius and the Defense of Art’, Artibus et Historiae, 2/3 (1981), p. 25. To the best of our knowledge, we have no statement by Junius as to his opinion of the drawings in MS Junius 11 which he was interested in solely for its text. Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 184 makes the observation that ‘the Junius 11 drawings may well have struck him as crude and artistically unimportant … .’ As well they might considering that as late as 1948 a classically inclined aesthetician such as Bernard Berenson could comment on Hiberno-Saxon art as a continuation of the ‘scratchings, chippings, and interlacings executed by early occupants of marsh and forest, field and tundra…’ (quoted by D. Rosand, ‘Semiotics and the Critical Sensibility: Observations on the Example of Meyer Shapiro’, Artibus et Historiae, 3/5 (1982), p. 9, n. 1. 17 – Most notably in works like M. Bal, Reading ‘Rembrandt’: Beyond the Word–Image Opposition (Cambridge, 1991); see also S. and P. Alpers, ‘Ut Pictura Noesis? Criticism in Literary Studies and Art History’, New Literary History, 3 (1972), pp. 448–54; M. Camille, ‘Seeing and Reading: Some Visual Implications of Medieval Literacy and Illiteracy’, Art History, 8 (1985), p. 6, passim. J.J.G. Alexander, ‘Iconography and Ideology: Uncovering Social Meanings in Western Medieval Christian Art, Studies in Iconography, 15 (1993), p. 1, for example, says, ‘why should we not aim to read medieval imagery in the same sort of way in terms of role models, social practices, and an encoded value system of social mores?’ See also the excellent introduction and collected essays in E. Sears and T.K. Thomas, eds, Reading Medieval Images (University of Michigan, 2002). 18 – As on pages 3, 6, 7, 11, 41, 51; See Karkov, Text and Picture and Muir, CD, for illustrations. 19 – As on pages 31, 34, 39, 41, 51, 53, 54, 65, 68, 81; see Karkov, Text and Picture, and Muir, CD, for illustrations. 20 – G. Henderson, ‘Late-Antique Influences in some English Medieval Illustrations of Genesis’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXV (1962), pp. 172–98; idem., ‘The Programme of Illustrations in Bodleian MS Junius XI’, in Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice, ed. G. Robertson and G. Henderson (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 113–45. Reprinted in G. Henderson, Studies in English Bible Illustration, 2 vols, vol. I (London, 1985), pp. 138–83. 21 – R. Gameson, The Role of Art in the Late Anglo-Saxon Church (Oxford, 1995), pp. 35–45. 22 – Henderson, ‘Programme’, p. 156. 23 – Henderson, ‘Late-Antique’, pp. 154–5. 24 – Gameson, Role of Art, p. 37. 25 – Ibid., pp. 37–38. 26 – Ibid., p. 38. 27 – Raw, ‘Probable’, pp. 133–48. 28 – H. Broderick, ‘Observations on the Method of Illustration in MS Junius 11 and the Relationship of the Drawings to the Text’, Scriptorium, 37 (1983), pp. 161–77. See also the comments on my hypothesis in K. Weitzman and H. Kessler, The Cotton Genesis (Princeton, 1986), p. 2, and J. P. Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind (London and New York, 1997), p. 237, n. 55. 29 – Henderson, ‘Programme’, pp. 126, 129, 130, 131. 30 – Ibid., pp. 154–5. 31 – P. Blum, ‘The Cryptic Creation Cycle in MS Junius XI’, GESTA, XV (1976), pp. 211–26. 32 – T.H. Ohlgren, ‘The Illustrations of the Caedmonian Genesis, literary criticism through art’, Medievalia et Humanistica, III (1972), pp. 199–212. 33 – Idem., ‘The Illustrations of the Caedmonian Genesis as a Guide to the Interpretation of the Text’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan (1969), pp. 96–9 suggests that the first artist of Junius 11 employed a symbolic color code, red for the Deity and heavenly and brown for the Devil and scenes of Hell. While this distinction holds true in a limited number of instances, the system of coloration is by no means as consistent as Ohlgren would have it. 34 – Ohlgren, ‘Literary Criticism’, p. 209. 35 – Ibid., p. 201. 36 – Ibid. 37 – Ibid., p. 202. 38 – Blum, ‘Cryptic Creation’, p. 221. The concept of image as exegesis has continued to attract the attention of a number of scholars in medieval studies. Of particular note are: A.C. Esmeijer, Divina Quaternitas: a preliminary study in the method and application of visual exegesis (Assen, 1978); H.L. Kessler, ‘Medieval Art as Argument’, in Iconography at the Crossroads, ed. B. Cassidy (Princeton, 1992), pp. 59–70; K. Corrigan, Visual Polemics in the Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters (Cambridge, 1992); R. Gameson, ‘Aelfric and the Perception of Script and Picture in Anglo-Saxon England’, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 5 (1992), pp. 85–101; G.R. Wieland, ‘Gloss and Illustration: Two Means to the Same End’, in Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts and their Heritage, Pulsiano and E.M. Treharne (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 1–20; L. Brubaker, Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium: Image as Exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge, 1999); P. Berdini, The Religious Art of Jacopo Bassano: Painting as Visual Exegesis (Cambridge, 1997). 39 – Blum, ‘Cryptic Creation’, p. 220. 40 – Ruth Wehlav, ‘The Power of Knowledge and the Location of the Reader in Christ and Satan’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 97/1 (1998), p. 2. 41 – J.J. Campbell, ‘Some Aspects of Meaning in Anglo-Saxon Art and Literature’, Annuale Mediaevale, 15 (1974), p. 44. 42 – C. Hughes, ‘Visual typology: an Ottonian example’, Word & Image, 17/3 (2001), pp. 185–98. 43 – Ibid., p. 197. See also C.B. Tkacz, The Key to the Brescia Casket: Typology and the Early Christian Imagination (Paris, 2002). 44 – A quote attributed to Sigmund Freud in response to a question from a student about what the significance was that Freud smoked cigars. Other versions of the quote say that the question occurred at a meeting of psychiatrists. See http://www.everythingz.com. 45 – Blum, ‘Cryptic Creation’, p. 220. 46 – Ibid. 47 – I. Gollancz, ed., The Caedmon Manuscript of Anglo-Saxon Biblical Poetry: Junius XI in the Bodleian Library (London, 1927), p. xl. 48 – R.B. Green, ‘The Adam and Eve Cycle in the Hortus Deliciarum’, Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton, 1955), p. 346. 49 – Blum, ‘Cryptic Creation’, p. 220. 50 – M.-M. Larès, ‘E´chos d'un rite hierosolymitain dans un manuscript du haut Moyen-Age anglais’, Revue de l'histoire des religions, CLXV (1964), p. 40. 51 – E. Panofsky, Studies in Iconology (Oxford, 1939), reprinted (New York, 1972), pp. 3–17. 52 – Ibid., pp. 15–17. 53 – Blum, ‘Cryptic Creation’, p. 220. 54 – Ibid., p. 220. 55 – See the discussion of this problem in my unpublished Columbia University Ph.D. dissertation, ‘The Iconographic and Compositional sources of the Drawings in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius 11’ (New York, 1978), pp. 109–40. 56 – Ibid. 57 – Karkov, Text and Picture (Cambridge, 2001). 58 – Ohlgren, ‘Illustrations’, p. 199. 59 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 36. 60 – Ibid., p. 16. 61 – Ibid., p. 101. 62 – M. Camille, ‘Gothic Signs and the Surplus: The Kiss on the Cathedral’, Yale French Studies, special issue: Contexts: Style and Values in Medieval Art and Literature (1991), pp. 151–70. Interestingly enough, the term ‘intervisuality’ seems to have entered the general art historical vocabulary without necessarily being connected to its creator. In a review of a book by Jonathan Hay, Shitao: Painting and Modernity in Early Qing China (Cambridge, 2001), Craig Clunas says, ‘one idea developed by Jonathan Hay that certainly deserves wide currency (and if he is its inventor he deserves to be recognized as such) is that of ‘intervisuality… .’ Art Bulletin, 84/3 (2002), p. 689. In his book, Hay makes no mention of Michael Camille's work. 63 – ‘Intertextuality’ was introduced by Julia Kristeva, La révolution du langage poétique (Paris, 1974); see also idem., Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (New York, 1980); on ‘intertextuality’ in general, see G. Allen, Intertextuality (London, 2000); with specific reference to Anglo-Saxon literature, see A.J. Frantzen, ‘Writing the Unreadable Beowulf: “Writan” and “Forwritan”, the Pen and the Sword: Intertext and Inner History’, Exemplaria, III/2 (1991), pp. 327–58. M. Hilmo, Medieval Images, Icons and Illustrated English Literary Texts (Aldershot and Burlington, 2004), p. 80 uses the term ‘metatextual’ where ‘events of the scriptural narrative signify more than their literal meaning.’ Hilmo's methodological approach and vocabulary are very close to those of Karkov. Hilmo, p. xv, for example, speaks of illustrations in English vernacular texts in general as ‘more than visual renditions of the text; rather, they frequently guide the reading process,’ arguing that literary works can be afforded even greater unity by the addition of illustrations, ‘even to the extent that a new, overarching narrative is created.’ And, like Karkov, Hilmo refers to such agencies as ‘strategies.’ See Small, Wax Tablets, p. xi, n. 1. 64 – Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. 17–18. See also C. Hahn, ‘Interpictoriality in the Limoges Chasses of Stephan, Martial, and Valerie’, in Image and Belief, ed. C. Hourihane (Princeton, 1999), p. 109, where the author introduces the term ‘interpictorality.’ 65 – Ibid., pp. 8–9. 66 – Ibid., p. 9. 67 – Ibid., p. 202. 68 – Ibid., p. 18. See also the remarks of J.J.G. Alexander, ‘Art History, Literary History, and the Study of Medieval Illuminated Manuscripts’, Studies in Iconography, 18 (1997), p. 55. 69 – On the question of preliminary, unfinished drawings, sketches and ‘doodles’ in medieval manuscripts, see J.J.G. Alexander, Medieval Illuminators and their Methods of Work. (New Haven–London, 1992), pp. 38–9. On a number of other such dry-point drawings in MS Junius 11, see T.H. Ohlgren, ‘Some New Light on the Old English Caedmonian Genesis’, Studies in Iconography, I (1975), pp. 38–73, and idem., ‘Five New Drawings in MS Junius 11: their Iconography and Thematic Significance’, Speculum, XLVII (1972), pp. 227–33. There are several instances of ‘doodling’ and later over-drawing in the illustrated Old English Hexateuch, which, like Junius 11 is an unfinished (in its illustrations) vernacular manuscript which may not have been treated in later periods with the same respect as other types of manuscripts. The recent attempt to attach significance to this ‘doodle’ of a head at the upper right of page 7 in Junius 11 is a good example of ‘over-interpretation’; see R.E. Finnegan, ‘The Man in Nowhere, A previously Undiscovered Drawing in Bodleian MS Junius 11’, English Studies, 79 (1998), pp. 23–32. See also J. Wilcox, ‘The Audience of Aelfric's Lives of the Saints and the Face of Cotton Caligula A. XIV, Fols. 93–130,’ in A.N. Doane & K. Wolfe, eds, Beatus Vir: Studies in Early English and Norse Manuscripts in Memory of Phillip Pulsiano (Tempe, Arizona, 2006), pp. 229–38. 70 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 102, and earlier on p. 55. 71 – Ibid., p. 202 72 – Ibid., p. 4. One can hardly fault Gollancz for ‘failing’ to see something that is not generally recognized, i.e. that drawings (or ‘illustrations’ if you will) that are intercalated with texts (as in medieval manuscripts like Junius 11) are meant to be understood as ‘creating a narrative in their own right.’ On the complex questions of what constitutes an ‘illustration’ and what the relationship between text and illustration is, was, or ideally should be, see, among a number of articles in the present journal, e.g. W. Cole, ‘The book and the artist rethinking the traditional order’, Word and Image, 8 (1992), pp. 378–82; P.J. Papillo, ‘Sandro Botticelli, Morgan's M 676, and pictoral narrative: gothic antecedents to a Renaissance Dante,’ Word and Image, 23/1 (2007), pp. 89–115; R.M. Berrong, ‘When art and literature unite: Illustrations that create a new art form’, Word and Image, 23/3 (2007), pp. 362–75. 73 – Ibid., p. 6. 74 – Ibid., pp. 14–16. 75 – Broderick, ‘Observations’, pp. 161–77. 76 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 13. 77 – Ibid., p. 13. The author reiterates this interpretation in C.E. Karkov, ‘Margins and Marginalization: Representations of Eve in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius 11,’ in S.L. Keefer & R.H. Bremmer Jr., eds, Signs on the Edge: Space, Text and Margin in Medieval Manuscripts (Paris, Leuven, 2007), pp. 57–84. 78 – As is fairly consistent throughout the manuscript, Eve's pendant breasts with somewhat pointed nipples, as shown in the drawing on page 28, are distinctly different from the dotted nipples of Adam as also shown in the same drawing on page 28. On the ‘dotted nipple’ as a specifically English motif, see Meyer Schapiro, ‘An Illuminated English Psalter of the Early Thirteenth Century’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXIII (1960), p. 188. 79 – See Henderson, ‘Programme’, p. 124. 80 – Karkov, Text and Picture, pp.13–14. 81 – For the Roda Bible Image, see J. Zahlten, Creatio Mundi (Stuttgart, 1979), fig. 53. The small mound of earth on which Adam stands before the Creator in the Roda Bible image might be understood in a general way as the earth from which God created him. Alternatively, this mound may refer to a Jewish legendary tradition that Adam was created on the spot where the future Temple and its altar would stand, the Temple Mount. See L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, I (Baltimore, 1998), p. 55. See also H. M. von Erffa, Ikonologie der Genesis, I (Munich, 1989), pp. 77, 410. 82 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 14. 83 – Ibid., p.14. 84 – Ibid., p.14. 85 – See, for example, the figure of David (?) on fol. 1v of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 411; or the figure of Vita on fol. 49v of Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Bodley 579, the ‘Leofric Missal’, both illustrated in E. Temple, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: 900–1066 (London, 1976), figs 129, 55. 86 – The whole question of the history of taste and stylistic analysis of late Anglo-Saxon manuscript art and its artists has been explored by B.C. Withers, ‘A Sense of Englishness: Claudius B. iv, Colonialism, and the History of Anglo-Saxon Art in the Mid-Twentieth Century’, in The Old English Hexateuch: Aspects and Approaches, II, ed. R. Barnhouse and B. C. Withers (Kalamazoo, 2000), pp. 317–50, and in his recent book Old English Hexateuch (pp. 58–9), where the author cites scholars like Francis Wormald's assessment of the style of MS Junius 11 and Claudius B.iv as ‘violently stylized and sometimes grotesque.’ H.P. Mitchell, in an article entitled ‘Flotsam of Later Anglo-Saxon Art—I’, Burlington Magazine, XLII (January, 1923), p. 162, characterized the drawings in Junius 11 as showing ‘a certain simplification (and very inferior draughtsmanship).’ David Wright described the artist of the famed late fifth-century Roman Vergil (Vatican Library, MS Vat. Lat. 3867), as ‘fundamentally incompetent in drawing the human figure. Even when we assume he had a good model he made a hopeless mess of the reclining Ascanius … yet his distortions could also serve an expressive purpose… .’ Wright continues, ‘but our eyes trained by the paintings of Matisse, Picasso, and Klee have no trouble reading these images, and with a little tolerance for clumsy workmanship we can see them as important examples of the survival of classical culture …’; D.H. Wright, The Roman Vergil and the Origins of Medieval Book Design (London, 2001) pp. 62, 68; see also the remarks of Hilmo, Medieval Images, pp. xiv–xv; 4–5. 87 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 14. 88 – Gameson, Role of Art, pp. 37–8. 89 – Ibid., p. 38. 90 – Ibid., p. 37. 91 – Broderick, ‘Observations’, p. 163. 92 – Gameson, Role of Art, p. 37. 93 – Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. 15–16; see also Gameson's review of Karkov in Notes and Queries (March 2003), p. 84. 94 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 16, where, following Raw, ‘Probable’, p. 136, she quotes from the prose Solomon and Saturn where it is said, ‘Tell me, which man first ploughed the land. I tell you that was Cham, Noah's son.’ There is another midrashic tradition, however, that states that it was Noah, as in the Junius illustration, who first plowed the soil; see Ginzberg, Legends, I, 146–7, and note 6. Here, as elsewhere in the Junius 11 illustrations, the clearer and more powerful ‘intervisuality’ are the numerous references to extra-biblical traditions not found in the texts of the Junius poems. 95 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 15. 96 – Ibid., p. 16. 97 – Henderson, ‘Programme’, p. 155. 98 – Broderick, ‘Observations’, 173–5. 99 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 16. 100 – Camille, ‘Gothic Signs’, p. 151. 101 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 18. 102 – See Gameson's review of Karkov, Notes and Queries (March 2003) p. 84, ‘Whilst it is impossible to prove that the creators and early users of the manuscript would have perceived all the allusions she identifies and responded in the ways she suggests (we regularly did not)… .’ 103 – Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. 40, 47. 104 – Ibid., p. 41. 105 – Ibid., p. 64. 106 – Ibid., p. 46. 107 – Ibid., p. 47. 108 – Ibid., p. 47. 109 – See Broderick, ‘Sources’, pp. 65–71. Curiously enough, Hilmo, Medieval Images, pp. 84–6, seemingly unaware of Karkov's work as she does not cite Karkov's 2001 book, Text and Picture, presents a strikingly similar exegesis of this image from the Junius manuscript, referring as well to the text of Rev.4:1–8. Hilmo also seems unaware of Raw's observation in ‘Probable’, p. 143, connecting the winged heads under God's throne in the Junius image with similar winged wind-heads in the ninth-century Utrecht Psalter. 110 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 64. 111 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 51. This is an interpretation that had originally been proposed by Gollancz, Caedmon Manuscript, p. xi. It is also an idea developed in further detail by Blum, ‘Cryptic Creation,’ p. 200, neither of which references does Karkov cite. 112 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p.51. 113 – Ibid., p. 12. 114 – Ibid., p. 12. 115 – Ibid., p. 57, note 33. 116 – Broderick, ‘Sources’, pp. 142–4. 117 – Ibid., pp. 164–9. H. Schade, ‘Hinweise zur frühmittelalterlichen Ikonographie’, Das Munster, XI (1958), pp. 375–92 had already called attention to the later tradition in Petrus Comestor's Historia Scholastica that Adam's sleep during the creation of Eve is understood as a visionary, ecstatic and prophetic experience in which Adam is shown the Heavens and, when he awakes, prophesies about the union of Christ with the Church. See also H. Schade, ‘Das Paradies und die Imago Dei’, in Probleme der Kunstwissenschaft, II (Berlin, 1966), pp. 79–182. Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. 58–9 makes much of this typological connection between Eve and Mary. There is nothing specific, however, in the heavenly vision as represented in the Junius manuscript to suggest anything to do with Eve as the Church, or the union of the Church with Christ. In the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch or Baruch III, as cited by Schade, ‘Paradies’, p. 113, we read, ‘And the angel took me and led me thence to a fifth heaven. And the gate was closed. And I said, Lord, is not this gate-way open that we may enter? And the angel said to me, we cannot enter until Michael comes, who holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… .’ In the apocryphal Book of the Secrets of Enoch it is said that God tells Enoch that he opened the heavens to Adam so ‘that he should see the angels singing the song of victory, and the gloomless light’, see J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I (Garden City, 1983), 2 Enoch, 30:10–31:3. 118 – See, among others, Hilmo, Medieval Images, pp. 79–96, especially p. 96, note 136. 119 – See the pioneering work of K. Powell and D. Scragg, eds, Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 2003), especially, E. Coatsworth, ‘The Book of Enoch and Anglo-Saxon Art’, pp. 135–50; also more recently, F.M. Biggs, ed., Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: The Apochrypha (Kalamazoo, 2007). 120 – See especially, H.L. Kessler, The Illustrated Bibles from Tours (Princeton, 1977); idem., ‘Traces of an Early Illustrated Pentateuch’, Journal of Jewish Art, 8 (1981), pp. 20–7; idem., ‘An Unnoticed Scene in the Grandual Bible’, Cahiers archéologiques, 17 (1967), pp. 113–19. 121 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 9. 122 – Otto Pächt, The Rise of Pictorial Narrative in Twelfth-Century England (Oxford, 1962), pp. 6–8. 123 – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 10 and note 38 cites Gollancz, Caedmon Manuscript, p. xliv, and T.H. Ohlgren's Anglo-Saxon Textual Illustration (Kalamazoo, 1992), p. 95 reference to the apocryphal Enoch tradition that Enoch invented writing as he is shown holding an open book in the illustration on page 60 of Junius 11, but rather than seeing this detail as an essential witness to the possible antiquity of the pictorial source or sources the Junius artist had access to, Karkov would like to see this image as a ‘motif of reading and writing that runs throughout the manuscript’, and then goes on to say, ‘creating a self-referentiality that unites the writing of the first story with the writing of this manuscript’, and in a postmodernist mode ‘… its continual reading and interpretation (each a form of rewriting) by its audience’ (p. 10). 124 – This motif, derived from the apocryphal Vita Adae et Evae (see now Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, II, pp. 249–95), was first noted by Claire Lachman in her unpublished, incomplete Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg (1933), p. 6, translated by R. Wind and now in typescript at the Warburg Institute, London; see also Ginzberg, Legends, I, pp. 81–2 and note 96, that God takes pity on Adam and Eve after expelling them from paradise. God taking pity on his creation is an idea developed by Aelfric in several of his written works. See L. Grundy, ‘God Meditates: A Model For the “Salvation Histories” in Three Homilies of Aelfric and in His Hexameron’, Medium Aevum, LX1/2 (1992), pp. 189–205. 125 – For example the oft-noted reference to the Vita Adae et Evae on fol. 7v of Claudius B.iv showing Adam and Eve being instructed by the archangel Michael in the art of delving the soil; illustrated in C.R. Dodwell and P. Clemoes, eds, The Old English Illustrated Hexateuch (Brit. Mus. Cotton Claudius B.iv) (Copenhagen 1974), p. 19. 126 – As, indeed, in the image cited above from Claudius B.iv as an example of God's mercy in taking pity on Adam and Eve. 127 – Hilmo, Medieval Images, p. 80. 128 – Ibid., p. 93. 129 – Broderick, ‘Sources’, p. 328. 130 – Hilmo, Medieval Images, p. 93. 131 – See A. Bennett, ‘Noah's Recalcitrant wife in the Ramsey Abbey Psalter’, Source, II (1982), pp. 2–5, where, note 6, the author states that the identity of the woman as Noah's wife at the bottom of the ladder on page 66 of Junius 11 has been questioned by F. L. Utley, ‘The Flood Narrative in the Junius Manuscript and in Baltic Literature’, in Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur, ed. S. B.
Referência(s)