Two early readers leave their mark in this manuscript one regularly adds a descending horizontal manicula in both the contents list and the main text (fol. Reilly ed., The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 296–314. 229–246 ‘On the creation of the Old French Bible’, Nottingham Medieval Studies,xlvi (2002), 25–44, and ‘The Old French Bible’ in Susan Boynton and Diane J. Sneddon considers this manuscript with three others to represent the earliest recension of the translation, which he proposes has was made ‘as a result of royal interest’, may have been composed in Orleans but, by 1260, was more widely available: id., ‘Pour l’édition critique de la Bible française du XIIIe siècle’ in Lino Leonardi ed., La Bibbia in italiano tra Medioevo e Rinascimento (Florence, 1998), pp. However, Sneddon’s extensive researches have not discovered any companion volume for ours. That said, as Berger points out (119), manuscripts like this one often accompany, as a second part, the Old Testament portions of Guiart des Moulins’s Bible historiale. 793), Acts, Catholic Epistles, ending imperfectly at v.5 of Jude¦¦ Apocalypse, acephalous, opening at 2:12.Īlthough only the New Testament, the manuscript is most likely not part of a two-volume set, since, in two-volume format, this Bible version usually is split at Proverbs at least one other example of an independent New Testament is known. 780), Philemon, ‘Li apostres fet letres.’ (cf. 772), Titus, ‘Li apostres amonneste.’ (cf. 765), II Timothy, ‘Sainz Pouls escrit.’ (cf. ![]() 765), I Timothy, ‘Li apostres endoctrine.’ (cf. 752), II Thessalonians, ‘Li apostres endoctrine.’ (cf. 747), I Thessalonians, ‘Aus thessalonicensiens escrit.’ (cf. 736), Colossians, ‘Li thessalonicensien sont.’ (cf. 728), Philippians, ‘Li colocensien autre.’ (cf. 715), Ephesians, ‘Li philippensien sont.’ (cf. 707), Galatians, ‘Li ephesien sont.’ (cf. 699), II Corinthians, ‘Li galathien sont.’ (cf. The arrangement of the contents is thus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, ‘Li Romani sont.’ (cf. The text lacks the end of Jude and the start of Apocalypse, owing to a removed leaf. The disposition of the unique prologues, following the actual texts, strongly implies that they were being intercalated into this copy from a source alien to the text proper. The prologue to I Timothy has been repeated before II Timothy, and thereafter the prologues follow the epistles they should introduce. It presents the books in the usual order, and includes, starting with Romans, translations of Ker’s usual set of prologues ( MMBL, 1:96–97), in a version, according to Sneddon (1978), unique to this codex. 45 rb): ‘Et cil qui ne porte sa croiz et uenient apres moi ne puet estre mon deciple ce est a dire cil qui ne fet peneance et ne fet bonnes oeures ne puet estre mon deciple’. The text is a full representation of the New Testament, though, rather than being a strict translation of the Vulgate, it includes gloss materials, e.g. Sneddon describes our manuscript, 1:191–94, and Berger also discusses it, 413–14. Remarques critiques’, Romanica Gandensia, 12 (1969), 53–65 and Michel Quereuil, La Bible française du XIIIe siècle. Decoo, ‘La Bible du XIIIᵉ siècle et l’Evangile selon Marc. See further Sneddon (1979:128 n2) for other portions ed. Sneddon, ‘A critical edition of the four gospels in the thirteenth-century Old French translation of the Bible’, 2 vols (unpublished Oxford University D.Phil. ![]() Verhelst ed., The Bible and Medieval Culture, (Louvain, 1979), 127–40. Sneddon, ‘The “Bible du XIIIᵉ siècle”: its Medieval Public in the Light of its Manuscript Tradition’ in W. Unprinted, described Samuel Berger, La Bible française au moyen âge (Paris, 1884), 109–56 and, with important revisions, Clive R. ![]() ![]() Explicit: Sire ihesu criz ge uieng la grace de nostre seingneur soit o uos touz Amen Ci fine lapocalypse Amen New Testament in Old French, ‘version du xiiiᵉ siècle’
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |