Manuscript Aesthetics
Sponsoring Organization(s)
Graduate Medievalists at Berkeley
Organizer Name
Bernardo S. Hinojosa
Organizer Affiliation
Univ. of California-Berkeley
Presider Name
Bernardo S. Hinojosa
Paper Title 1
Framing the Word: A Set of Niello Book Covers in Fifteenth-Century Florence
Presenter 1 Name
Brenna Larson
Presenter 1 Affiliation
Univ. of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Paper Title 2
The Aesthetics of Practicality: Reassessing the Manuscripts of Late Medieval Remedy Collections
Presenter 2 Name
Hannah Bower
Presenter 2 Affiliation
Univ. of Oxford
Paper Title 3
Pilgrimage Badges in a Fifteenth-Century Book of Hours
Presenter 3 Name
Avantika Kumar
Presenter 3 Affiliation
Harvard Univ.
Paper Title 4
Trophies, Coffee Table Books, and Texts: Theorizing Reading in Luxury Manuscripts
Presenter 4 Name
J. R. Mattison
Presenter 4 Affiliation
Univ. of Toronto
Start Date
10-5-2018 10:00 AM
Session Location
Schneider 1350
Description
In a 2013 special issue of the Chaucer Review, Arthur Bahr and Alexandra Gillespie encourage literary scholars to consider the aesthetic qualities of the medieval manuscript, in tandem with the text itself. For Bahr and Gillespie, the “forms of manuscripts can be read alongside, or as an intrinsic aspect of, the forms of literary texts.” These claims are, of course, part of a long-standing tradition in Anglo-American scholarship that considers how the mise-en-page of the medieval manuscript generates different modes of reading, from the lifelong work of Malcolm Parkes to the so-called “New Philology.” These methodological approaches invite medievalists – both literary scholars and others – to engage with the materiality and aesthetics of the codex and, in particular, with paratextual devices that are routinely left out of modern editions. These include potentially systematic elements of manuscript design such as punctuation, rubrication, and rhyme braces, as well as the unique elements of a specific codex, such as marginalia, doodles, and vellum defects. The sustained analysisof manuscript design can reveal a multilayered understanding of medieval reading practices, as well as an understanding of aesthetics in the Middle Ages. This panel explores the aesthetics of particular manuscripts or manuscript tradition from literary, art historical, and historical perspectives, focusing on the Late Middle Ages across Europe. It also investigates the possibilities and limitations of “manuscript aesthetics” as a concept to think with.
Bernardo S. Hinojosa
Manuscript Aesthetics
Schneider 1350
In a 2013 special issue of the Chaucer Review, Arthur Bahr and Alexandra Gillespie encourage literary scholars to consider the aesthetic qualities of the medieval manuscript, in tandem with the text itself. For Bahr and Gillespie, the “forms of manuscripts can be read alongside, or as an intrinsic aspect of, the forms of literary texts.” These claims are, of course, part of a long-standing tradition in Anglo-American scholarship that considers how the mise-en-page of the medieval manuscript generates different modes of reading, from the lifelong work of Malcolm Parkes to the so-called “New Philology.” These methodological approaches invite medievalists – both literary scholars and others – to engage with the materiality and aesthetics of the codex and, in particular, with paratextual devices that are routinely left out of modern editions. These include potentially systematic elements of manuscript design such as punctuation, rubrication, and rhyme braces, as well as the unique elements of a specific codex, such as marginalia, doodles, and vellum defects. The sustained analysisof manuscript design can reveal a multilayered understanding of medieval reading practices, as well as an understanding of aesthetics in the Middle Ages. This panel explores the aesthetics of particular manuscripts or manuscript tradition from literary, art historical, and historical perspectives, focusing on the Late Middle Ages across Europe. It also investigates the possibilities and limitations of “manuscript aesthetics” as a concept to think with.
Bernardo S. Hinojosa