Early Copies of the French Translation of Boccaccio’s De Claris Mulieribus

"Minerva, BnF fr. 12420, fol. 13v

"Minerva," BnF fr. 598, fol. 13r

"Minerva," KBR ms 9509, fol. 15r

On September 12, 1401, an anonymous translator completed work on the French version of Boccaccio's De Claris Mulieribus, entitled Des femmes nobles et renommées.1 On New Year's day of 1403, Jacques Rapondi, a Lucchese merchant established in Paris, presented a copy of the translation to Philippe le Hardi, the duke of Burgundy.2 In February of 1404, Jean de la Barre, receveur general des finances in Languedoc and Guyenne, presented a copy of the same text to Jean de Berry. Both of these copies are currently preserved in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris. On the basis of the Burgundian inventory of 1420, BnF fr. 12420 can be identified as the copy given to Philippe,3 while the ex libris of the Duke of Berry written by his secretary, Jean Flamel, appears at the beginning of BnF fr. 598 and the signature of Jean de Berry appears on folio 161.4 A third early copy of the text is in the Bibliothèque Royale in Brussels (KBR 9509). Although this manuscript appears in inventories of the Burgundian collection, its date and original ownership are unclear.5 Meiss has dated the Brussels' manuscript to between 1410-1415 on the basis of his assessment of the style of the miniatures.6 Although the more limited miniature cycle of this manuscript distinguishes it from MS fr. 12420 and MS fr. 598, examination of the manuscript reveals its close association to the other copies.

BnF fr. 242, fol. 1r

The studies to date have focused primarily on examinations of the style and iconography of the miniatures. Brigitte Buettner has devoted an excellent study to the imagery in BnF fr. 12420.7 BnF fr. 12420 and BnF fr. 598 were the work of two distinct artists.  The majority of the miniatures of BnF fr. 12420 have been attributed to an artist Meiss has named the Coronation Master named after a representation of the Coronation of the Virgin this artist added to a copy of the Golden Legend (BnF. fr. 242).8 In turn, Meiss used the miniatures of BnF fr. 598 as the eponymous manuscript on which to base the corpus of an artist he named the Master of Berry's Cleres Femmes.9 Patrick de Winter has renamed the artist of BnF fr. 12420 after this manuscript as the Maître du livre Des Femmes nobles et renommées de Philippe le Hardi.10 De Winter has distinguised three distinct hands in the miniatures of BnF fr. 598.11 Meiss has attributed the miniatures of KBR ms 9509 to an artist related to his Master of Berry's Cleres Femmes.12

The past studies focusing on the style and iconography of the miniatures have paid little attention to other aspects of the production of these manuscripts, most notably to the copying of the text and the secondary decoration.  These issues will be the focus of this study, which will examine the discrete stages of the production of these books from the laying out of the page and the scribal work, through the secondary decoration, to the creation of the miniature cycles. What this examination will reveal is that these manuscripts are closely linked in each of these stages. The connections go beyond general similarities based on the standardization of book making practices. We will see that many of the same scribes and decorators were active in each of these manuscripts. Although Meiss and de Winter are correct in attributing the miniatures to different artists, an assessment of the relationship of the miniatures to the text suggests that the miniaturists were not working independently but worked under the supervision of a planner. The implications of these connections between the manuscripts in their different stages of production suggest that they represent a veritable first edition of this new text.

Scribal Activity

 

                                                                                        Ruling Patterns

Before the scribes could have begun their work, the lay-out or mise-en-page needed to be defined. All three copies have nearly identical lay-outs, with a two column format and similar ruling patterns. In both BnF fr. 12420 and BnF fr. 598, there are 35 rows of text per column, while in KBR ms. 9509, there are only 33 rows. The measurements of the text blocks in the respective manuscripts although not identical are similar. In laying out the manuscript, it was decided to have allowed between 22 and 14 lines for a miniature and between 4 and 6 lines for an initial to introduce each new text. The type of script to be used also needed to be decided. All three manuscripts are written in the same script, gothica textualis.

BnF fr. 12420, fol. 13v

BnF fr. 159, fol. 16v

KBR ms. 9094, fol. 30v

The similarities in the lay-outs of the three manuscripts could reflect the standardization of manuscript making practices, and not necessarily a direct relationship in their production. Many of the similarities can be found in a large number of other books produced in Paris at the same time. Similar lay-outs are found in copies of texts like the Bible Historiale (e.g. BnF fr. 159) and the Livre des proprietés des choses (KBR, ms. 9094). The choice of this mise-en-page for the Boccaccio text was probably intended to place it in the context of the clerkly tradition of authoritative texts to which these other texts belong. The miniature introducing the Prologue in BnF fr. 12420 shows Boccaccio dressed as a cleric, wearing the scholarly hat, the calotte, and seated in a cathedra with a stack of authoritative texts in front of him ticking off points to students in front of him. Boccaccio dwarfs his students indicating his authority. This establishes Boccaccio's link to the tradition of Classical and Christian auctores. 

Closer examination of the scripts of the manuscripts reveals the work of three distinct scribes. This identification is based on three different criteria: general aspect of the scripts, particular letter formations, and general scribal habits. Scribe A's work is very regular and controlled with the letters being comparatively widely spaced. Among the distinguishing letter formations, the descender of this copyist's "g" forms a long, fluid curve going off to the left. The letter "S" appears to be pot-bellied. The letter "y" generally has a faint, hair-line descender trailing down to the left, and this letter is characteristically dotted with a short stroke that ascends from the left to the right. As a scribal habit, Scribe A frequently fills the empty space at the end of a line of text with a line-filler composed of a faint vertical stroke crossed by horizontal dashes. The framing device for catchwords appears frequently and is virtually a signature for Scribe A's work.

In contrast to the work of Scribe A, Scribe B's script is smaller, more compact, and angular. While not consistent, the letter "y" used by this scribe can easily be distinguished from that of  Scribe A by the hairline descender which loops upwards to the right and the stroke above which descends from left to right. This scribe's "g" has a descender which is frequently joined with the upper part of the letter and is placed off-center to the right. This scribe does not have a consistent catchword decoration.

The work of Scribe C has the appearance of being more fluid and more hastily written than the other scribes. The "y" has a hairline dash which ascends from the left to the right. This copyist's "s" is typically closed with the lower part being more pronounced appearing high-chested as opposed to the pot-bellied "s" of Scribe A.  Period marks, especially at the end of a line, have noticeable hairline tails. Like Scribe A, Scribe C decorates his catchwords with distinctive decoration which is again almost a signature for this scribe's work.

 

Manuscripts

Scribe A

Scribe B

Scribe C

fr. 12420

fr. 598

KBR 9509

BnF fr. 598, fol. 47r

Reviewing the division of labor between the scribes gives us insights into the production of these books.  The work of each of these scribes can be found in multiple copies of the Boccaccio text. Scribes A and C worked on all three copies, while Scribe B limited activity to BnF fr. 598 and KBR 9509. Because Scribe A was responsible for the opening portions of all three manuscripts, it appears likely that this scribe was the principal scribe. This conclusion receives further support by what might appear to be an insignificant detail.  As a rule scribes were responsible for the rubrics and running-titles of their portions. An exception to this is found in Scribe B's portion in BnF fr. 598.  The rubrics and running-titles in this portion were done by Scribe A.  A rubric on folio 47r gives an important clue about the stages of production. The text is attributable to Scribe B, but the rubric with the distinctive "y' is clearly the work of Scribe A.  Significantly the ink of the rubric overlaps the gold and black pen outline of the large initial and the gold frame of the miniature.  The general rule would be the secondary decoration would only begin after the scribal work had been completed. This overlapping indicates the rubrics were added after the completion of the secondary decoration. This suggests the possibility that Scribe A had a greater responsibility than simply the copying of the text. This scribe was perhaps the libraire responsible for the coordination of the different stages of production. Confirmation of this will have to wait until a larger group of manuscripts is considered.

Closer examination of the division of labor between these scribes in relationship to the physical structure of the manuscripts gives important insights into the production of these books. Two types of scribal breaks are evident.  The first type is represented by instances where there is a change in scribes in the middle of a gathering or even between a recto and verso of a leaf. Such breaks indicate consecutive copying with one scribe picking up where another left off. The second type is represented by instances where there is a break in scribes after a short gathering not containing the standard eight leaves, or where there is a break at the beginning of a gathering which introduces a new text. This type of break suggest the division of the text into separate scribal units which could have been distributed to the various copyists who could have worked concurrently on the different scribal units.13

 

Diagramming these two types of scribal breaks gives a better picture of the production of these manuscripts. In the case of BnF fr. 12420, Scribe A was responsible for the whole manuscript up to the recto of folio 127. Scribe C was responsible for the verso of this leaf and the remainder of the gathering. Significantly this break occurs in a gathering before a short quire of six leaves (fols. 130-135) completing a scribal unit. Scribe C was responsible for the entirety of the next scribal unit which extends from folio 136 to folio 167, the end of the manuscript. This suggests that Scribe C actually began activity with folio 136 and worked concurrently with Scribe A who was completing a stint, and then for some reason Scribe A suspended work with Scribe C completing the unit, in all probability after the last unit had been completed.

In BnF fr. 598, three distinct scribal units can be defined. Scribe A was again responsible for the beginning of the manuscript. Here this copyist's first stint was only the first 38 leaves. Folios 33-38 form a short gathering of six leaves with a new text beginning at the top of folio 39. While Scribe A was working on the first scribal unit, Scribe B probably began the next extending from folio 39 to folio 135. For some reason Scribe B suspended activity in this unit on folio 86, and then likely began work on the last scribal unit extending from folios 136-162. Scribe A, picking up for Scribe B in the second unit, was responsible for folios 87-112r, while Scribe C completed this scribal unit (fols. 112v-125). Folio 135, which ends the second unit, is a single leaf added to the preceding gathering to complete a text which ends on folio 135v.

In KBR 9509, there are only two scribal units. Scribe A and Scribe B collaborated on the first unit extending from folios 1-59, with Scribe A responsible for only the first 18 folios. The first unit is ended by a short gathering of three leaves completing a text (fols. 57-59). While Scribes A and B were working on this unit, Scribe B probably began the second unit, transcribing folios 60-131, with Scribe B reappearing on folio 132 and completing the manuscript (fols. 132-165).

Dividing a text up into discrete scribal units with different scribes working concurrently expedited the production of a book. Comparing the length of the scribal units gives a rough estimate of the relative amount of time it took to transcribe the different copies of the text. For example, the amount of time it took to produce BnF. Fr. 12420 corresponds to the length of the first unit, assuming, as argued above, that the first and second units were transcribed concurrently. The amount of time it took to produce BnF fr. 598 is determined by the second unit. This again assumes that this unit was begun at the same time as the first unit, and the the third unit was written concurrently with the second. For KBR 9509, the estimate is based on the second unit. Since the first unit in BnF fr. 12420 is 135 leaves and the second unit in BnF fr. 598 is composed of 97 leaves, it took 72% as long to write as BnF fr. 12420. Recent studies allow us to conjecture an approximate number of days it took to complete the scribal work on the respective manuscripts.14 Donal Byrne, in a study of a Sallust manuscript in Geneva, interpreted a set of Roman numerals at the bottom of leaves to be records of the days it took to write the manuscript.15 He concluded that the scribe completed between 3 and 3.5 leaves per day. Since this manuscript is similar to the Boccaccio manuscripts in format and script, the scribal work of BnF fr. 12420 could have taken between 38 and 45 days, that of BnF fr. 598 between 28 and 32 days, while that of KBR 9509 between 30 and 35 days.

The Secondary Decoration

The conclusions reached in the study of the scribal activity are closely paralleled in an examination of the secondary decoration. The decorative plan of the manuscripts, like the lay-out of the page, reflect the standardization of the Parisian book industry. Each new text is introduced by a larger gold ground foliate initial. Along the margin adjacent to the the large initial runs a bar staff with painted and gold rinceaux sprouting along its length and at the top and bottom of the page. Dentelle paragraph marks appear in the body of the text. This decorative plan can be found a many books produced in Paris during this period.

Closer examination reveals significant relationships between the three copies of the text. I have demonstrated elsewhere the ability to isolate the contributions of individual decorators.16 Although unity and coherence of decorative plans were essential concerns for decorators, a division of labor can be articulated on the basis of identifying distinct decorative motifs and characreristic treatments of decorative components.

Cleres femmes A Decorator

Of the decorators, the one here labelled as the Cleres Femmes A Decorator is clearly the finest.  The work of this artisan is distinguished by the delicacy of the treatment of the various decorative components, most apparent in the fine white detailing of the gold ground foliate initials and of the dentelle paragraph marks and line endings. This delicacy is also apparent in the thin pen line used in the stems and tendrils of the penned line rinceaux and the outlines of the initials and of the painted rinceaux leaves. Characteristically  a circlet is used in the terminals of initials and the bar staffs of this decorator.

A Decorator

BnF fr. 598, folio 14r

Cleres femmes B Decorator

The high quality of the Cleres femmes A Decorator becomes immediately apparent by comparing the work by this craftsman to that of the Cleres femmes B Decorator, whose white highlighting of the initials and of the dentelle paragraph marks and line endings is more simplified in the repertoire of decorative motifs. The white painted lines lack the control and delicacy of those of the Cleres femmes A Decorator. The pen line of the Cleres femmes B Decorator is thicker and lacks the subtlety of that of the Cleres femmes A Decorator. This can be seen in the more pronounced cusps created by the ink outlining of the initials, and the less fluid stems and tendrils of the pen line rinceaux. A characteristic motif found sprouting from the bar staff are bifurcating either painted or pen line stems with a gold ball with four pen lines projecting from the four corners.

B Decorator

BnF fr. 12420, folio 13v

Cleres femmes C Decorator

Characteristic of the Cleres femmes C Decorator are the more pronounced and sharper cusping of the painted and gold leaves with their black ink outlines. The white highlighting of the initials have a more serrated effect. The stems of the pen rinceaux projecting from the staffs are frequently broken up by curls and dashes.

C Decorator

BnF fr. 598, folio 155v

Cleres femmes D Decorator

The tendrils projecting from the stems of the pen rinceaux are signatures for the work of the Cleres femmes D Decorator. These are formed by pronounced curl usually followed by a loose "S" curve.

D Decorator

BnF fr. 598, folio 113v

Cleres femmes E Decorator

The general aspect of the Cleres femmes  E Decorator suggests a rapidity of execution, perhaps most apparent in the tendrils of the pen line rinceaux generally formed by a comma stroke followed by a quick "2" shape. Clusters of gold balls with the distinctive tendril decoration frequently appear in the borders associated with this hand. The Cleres femmes  E Decorator also creates denser clumps of painted rinceaux leaves from which frequently project gold tongue shapes.

E Decorator

BnF fr. 598, folio 134v

Cleres femmes F Decorator

The Cleres femmes F Decorator typically adds trilobed painted leaves in a concave space created by the bar staff adjacent to initials. The decorator also increases the number of cusps in the ink outlining of the staff and initials. The gold leaves of this decorator are also typically thinner than those of the other decorators. This decorator will employ bold tendrils formed of a comma stroke with a couple of dashes and terminated by an elongated "S" shape.

F Decorator

KBR 9509, folio 143v

Below are the characteristic initials and paragraph marks of the different decorators. Notice the differences in the treatment of the white filigree work and the black ink outlining of the initials also the shape and detailing of the paragraph marks. (click on the image to see a larger version of the table)

The attached pdf charts out the division of labor between the scribes and decorators of the three manuscripts. The decoration of BnF fr. 12420 was the responsibility of the A, B, and E Decorators, while five decorators worked on BnF fr. 598 (A, B, C, D, and E Decorators) and two decorated KBR 9509 (B and F). Only the B Decorator worked on all three copies, while the A and E Decorators worked on both BnF fr. 12420 and BnF fr. 598. The three other decorators (C, D, and F Decorators) contributed to only one of the copies. The collaboration of some of the decorators in multiple copies of the text reaffirms the conclusion reached in the discussion of the scribal activity that the different manuscripts are linked in their process of production. Since there is no correlation between the work of specific scribes and decorators, there is no evidence to conclude that any of the scribes also acted as a decorator.  The picture that emerges is not of a tightly organized workshop but of a loose network of decorators that could be called in on an ad hoc basis.

The division of labor in the decoration gives a better picture of the production of the books. The breaks in decorators are not the same as the scribal breaks. This indicates that the copying had been completed and decorators would receive groups of gatherings across the breaks in scribal units. In the majority of cases a single decorator was given responsibility for the decoration of a gathering. It seems, especially in the early stages of production, groups of gatherings were turned over to a decorator at a single time.  For example, in BnF fr. 598, the A Decorator was given the first three gatherings, while the B Decorator was given the next nine gatherings. The decorators could have worked concurrently on their stints. With the gathering beginning on folio 95, decorators appear to have been given individual gatherings with the C, B, and D Decorators each being given a single gathering. The pattern in BnF fr. 598 becomes more complicated with the gathering beginning on folio 119 where as many as three different decorators participated in the decoration of an individual gathering. Here the division of labor is by bifolio. It is noteworthy that in these portions of BnF fr. 598 appear the only contributions of the C and D Decorators. This suggests that the makers of BnF fr. 598 were under pressure to complete the manuscript as soon as possible, necessitating the more complicated division of labor and the appearance of these other decorators who were apparently called in to help speed up the process of production. These conclusions parallel those we have already reached in our discussion of the division of labor in the scribal activity.

In contrast to BnF fr. 598, the division of labor in KBR 9509 is much simpler. Here, only two decorators participated with each apparently being given groups of gatherings at a single time. The way the B and F Decorators leap frog through the manuscript suggests that they were working concurrently with each other and with the scribes. Groups of gatherings could be parceled out to the decorators as the scribes completed their work on them. The decoration of BnF fr. 12420 presents an intermediate case between the apparently hectic pace of BnF fr. 598 and the leisurely one of KBR 9509. The three decorators divided their labor by groups of gatherings in the early stage of production. It is only with the gathering beginning on folio 114 that a more complex pattern becomes apparent with decorators dividing the labor by bifolios.

 

 

The Miniature Cycles

One of the challenges facing the art historian focusing on miniature style is isolating the contributions of the individual craftsperson. The sorting out of the hands of the different Maelwael van Lymborch brothers will undoubtedly bedevil art historians for future generations to come. BnF fr. 12420 and BnF fr. 598 are clearly in distinct styles. The style identified as the Coronation Master dominates BnF fr. 12420.  While Meiss used the miniatures of BnF fr. 598 as the foundation for the style he has named the Master of Berry's Cleres Femmes, Patrick de Winter has suggested the miniatures were the work of three distinct hands. The miniatures of KBR 9509 are in a style related to the Master of Berry's Cleres Femmes. A later dating of the Brussels manuscript Meiss suggests could explain the differences in style between BnF fr. 598 and KBR 9509. It will be left to others to sort out the questions of miniature style. But connections we have seen in the scribes and decorators  indicate that the three copies are roughly contemporaneous.  An early dating of KBR 9509 will be further supported by a study of a larger group of manuscripts. In contrast to the challenges facing studies of miniature style, the identification of the work of distinct scribes and decorators can be made with a much higher degree of confidence. As we have seen, scribes can be identified by distinct letter forms and scribal habits, while the repetition of distinct decorative elements enable the identification of the different decorators. The physical structure of a manuscript broken down in working units  by gatherings, bifolios, folios, and individual pages enables the confirmation of the work of individual decorators.

Instead of miniature style, the focus here will be on a comparison of the different miniature cycles and their relationship to the texts they illustrate. While Buettner's study focuses on the pictorial cycle of BnF fr. 12420, we will consider all three manuscripts. We will find connections here that further demonstrate these three copies of the Boccaccio text were produced under common guidance.

"Olympias," BnF fr. 12420, folio 93v

"Olympias," BnF fr. 598, folio 93v

"Olympias," KBR 9509, folio 94r

The relationship between text and image can be demonstrated by considering the illustrations associated with the story of the infamous Olympias, wife of King Philip of Macedon and the mother of Alexander the Great. The three miniatures show the crowned figure of Olympias wearing a wimple and being supported by two women, while armed figures approach Olympias. This illustrates Boccaccio's account of how the jailed Olympias, aware of the approaching executioners, prepared herself and with the assistance of two servants stood fearlessly to face her death. The miniatures all include a pile of bodies among which can be seen a crowned figure. This detail demonstrates how different moment in the narrative are combined. Earlier in the text, Boccaccio tells how Olympias, who had been spurned by her husband Philip for committing adultery, had urged her lover Pausanias to kill Philip. After Pausanias had been executed for the assassination, Olympias had his body placed over the remains of King Philip. The three miniatures visualize the story in the same way even to the point of conflating different episodes of the account. But comparison of corresponding figures in the different manuscripts gives no evidence of dependence a common visual model. The correspondences evident in the Olympias miniatures are characteristic of the relationship between the miniature cycles in the three copies.

"Minerva," BnF fr. 12420, folio 13v

"Minerva," BnF fr. 598, folio 14r

"Minerva," BnF fr. 9509, folio 15r

Even when the text does not articulate a particular scene, the conception of the miniatures is the same. This is exemplified by the illustrations opening the text dedicated to Minerva. The text enumerates Minerva's various gifts: the art of wool (how it should be cleaned, softened with a comb, placed on a distaff and spun with fingers, and woven); the pressing of olives for oil; the invention of the cart; how to make iron weapons; the use of armor; the strategy and rules of battle; the use of numbers; and the creation of the flute. Each miniature shows Minerva seated on a throne with figures illustrating her various gifts encircling her. Comparing the list of gifts enumerated by the text to those illustrated reveals significant variations. None of the miniatures illustrate either the invention of the cart or the strategy and rules of battle. The miniatures conflate the creation of iron weapons and the use of armor by showing a man beating a helmet on an anvil, and all visualize the use of numbers by showing a money-changer at his counting desk. As emphasized by Buettner in her study of the miniature cycle of BnF fr. 12420, these miniatures exemplify how the cycle of illustration translates Boccaccio's account into the princely world and the urban world of trades understandable to an early fifteenth-century French audience.17 The figure of the money-changer included in the image would certainly connect with the merchant Jacques Rapondi who supplied Philippe le Hardi with his copy.  There are differences between the miniatures. In BnF fr. 12420, Minerva is represented without a crown and halo, and the art of wool is represented by a single figure separating wool. In contrast, both BnF fr. 598 and KBR 9509 represent Minerva as crowned and haloed, and the art of wool is represented by a woman combing wool and a man weaving. These differences, however, do not override the striking similarities between the miniatures, and, as will be argued later, these variations possibly reflect a revision in the program of illustrations.

Differences in the placement and poses of the figures argue against the use of a common visual model. The relationship between the different miniature cycles is best explained by their dependence on a common written model. It was a common practice to provide miniaturists with written directions. In margins adjacent to miniatures in a number of manuscripts erased instructions can be found.  We also have the famous case of the pictorial program that Jean Lebègue wrote for the illustration of Sallust's Conspiracy of Cataline and Jugurthine War. Another example is presented by what Gilbert Ouy has identified as a maquette or manuscript model for luxury copies of the text. This is a paper copy of Honoré Bouvet's Somnium super schismatis, where marginal notes provide instructions for the addition of miniatures.

"Polyxena," BnF fr. 12420, folio 46v

"Polyxena," BnF fr. 598, folio 47r

Although most miniatures correspond well with the texts they illustrate, cases can be found where particular miniatures are inconsistent with the text and disagree with other versions of the pictorial cycle. For example, the story of Polyxena tells how the son of Achilles, Neoptolemus, revenges his father's death innocently caused by Polyxena by slaying her at the tomb of Achilles. The miniatures in both BnF fr. 12420 and BnF fr. 598 show the son wielding a sword over the figure of Polyxena who kneels by a tomb. In BnF fr. 598, however, instead of showing a closed tomb which would have been consistent with the text, an empty tomb is shown with its lid ajar. Without knowledge of the text it would be natural to assume the tomb was intended for Polyxena. We can imagine an assumption being made by a miniaturist who did not consult the text but followed instructions that called for Polyxena to be kneeling by a tomb. The miniaturist's dependence on instructions rather than the text itself is a point Buettner has emphasized.18

"Veturia," BnF fr. 12420, folio 83v

"Veturia," BnF fr. 598, folio 82v

"Veturia," KBR 9509, folio 83r

The miniature of Veturia in BnF fr. 12420 presents another instance of a miniature not being consistent with the text. The story tells how Veturia's son, Coriolanus, had been exiled from Rome and fled to the Volscians. In time, he became the commander of the Volscian army which he led in a war against his native Rome. After Volscian victories, the Romans sent three embassies to Coriolanus to sue for peace. In each case, Coriolanus rebuffed the Roman appeals. The Roman matrons turned to Veturia in hopes that she could persuade her son. Veturia, along with Coriolanus's wife and his children, went to the Volscian camp, and made an impassioned appeal to Coriolanus. In general terms, all three miniatures visualize the confrontation between Veturia and Coriolanus in the same way.  The miniatures are divided into two groups, one showing Coriolanus before his army and the other lead by Veturia. However, BnF fr. 598 and KBR 9509 are much closer to the details of the narrative. The text describes Veturia as being old and specifies that she was accompanied by Coriolanus's wife and his children. While BnF fr. 598 and KBR 9509 are consistent with the text in these details with Veturia's status as an older woman indicated with her wearing a wimple, BnF fr. 12420 does not represent Veturia clearly as an older woman, the wimple has been replaced by a fashionable bonnet, and her companions are not clearly specified as Coriolanus's wife and children. But most significantly, the miniature in BnF fr. 12420 misinterprets the confrontation between Veturia and Coriolanus. It is Veturia's speech which is the central point of the account. In both BnF fr. 598 and KBR 9509, the gestures indicate that Coriolanus is listening to his mother's appeal. In these miniatures, Veturia uses a pointing gesture to Coriolanus's own sons while Coriolanus's hands are raised with his palms placed outwards, the conventional gesture of someone listening. In the case of BnF fr. 12420, however, the gestures are reversed. Coriolanus is shown ticking points off on his fingers, while Veturia has her hands raised as if listening to Coriolanus's speech. Anyone familiar with the text would not make this critical error. Again, a miniaturist misinterpreting written instructions seems to be the best explanation for such an inaccuracy. An instance like this strongly argues against the possibility mentioned by others that the miniatures of the later copies of the text were based on the miniatures of BnF fr. 12420.19 Again, the dependence on a common model, verbal as opposed to visual, is the most satisfactory explanation.

"Opis," BnF fr. 12420, folio 10r

"Opis," BnF fr. 598, folio 10r

Although misinterpretation of verbal instructions can account for many of the inconsistencies between the different miniature cycles, there are instances where diffeences do occur between corresponding miniatures which cannot be explained by miniaturists misrepresenting the instructions, as exemplified by the miniatures of Opis in Bnf fr. 12420 and BnF fr. 598. In BnF fr. 12420 Opis sits in a building with three men kneeling before her, while in BnF fr. 598 Opis seated in a temple gestures to three statues placed on pedestals. Comparison to the text suggests that both miniatures are consistent. The text tells how Opis was brought to Rome and was placed in a noble temple. The Romans and Italians honored the image for many years in a variety of manners and ceremonies.20  This explains the miniature in BnF fr. 12420, while earlier in the text, it is noted that the fame of Opis is largely due to her rescue of her three sons, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluton, and their father Saturn from Titan's plans to kill them.21. This linking of the veneration of Opis with that of her sons is represented in BnF frl 598 by having Opis gesture to the three statues, presumably representing Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto.

"Camiola," BnF fr. 12420, folio 161r

"Camiola," BnF fr. 598, folio 155v

Another example of this type of disagreement between the miniature cycles is represented by the penultimate miniature in the two Paris manuscripts. The story of Camiola tells how after a sea battle a certain Roland was held as a prisoner. While Roland's brother refused to pay the ransom to have him released,  Camiola, a woman of great wealth, took pity on Roland languishing in prison. She realized to have him released she needed to marry him and pay the ransom. The text tells how Camiola secretly sent someone to Roland to seek his consent to her proposal.22. With his approval, Roland and Camiola were married by proxy through the mediation of a procurator with the pledging of a ring. Camiola immediately sent the ransom of two thousand ounces of silver to Roland to have him released.23. The text does not indicate that Camiola and Roland met until after they were married and the ransom had been paid. The miniature of BnF fr. 12420 represents Roland inside the prison holding the hand of Camiola who stands outside while a servant offers the ransom to another man. Although disagreeing with the letter of the text which refers to Camiola and Roland being married by proxy, this miniature is still consistent with the spirit of the text with the joining of hands signifying marriage while Roland was in prison. In the case of BnF fr. 598, the miniature is much more consistent with the letter of the text. In this illustration Camiola is represented standing alone on the right side of the miniature while her servant, holding the ransom offers Camiola's proposal to Roland inside the prison.

Conclusions

This study has shown that all stages of the production of these earliest copies of the Cleres femmes show close connections so that these represent a veritable first edition of the text. It is not just that the earliest manuscript of the group, BnF fr. 12420, was the model for the other two copies, but that all three are likely based on a common workshop model like the one created by Jean Lebègue for Sallust's Cataline and  Jugurtha.24  All three had common guidance and that in the case of the scribes and decorators the same individuals were involved.  What can we say about this guidance?  In the case of the miniature cycles, it is evident that the different miniaturists were following the same written instructions in all likelihood drafted by the anonymous translator of the text. But this does not account for the coordination of the other stages of production. A question that needs to be answered is the role of the Lucchese merchant Jacques Rapondi who presented BnF fr. 12420 to Philippe le Hardi. Buettner and De Winter have suggested that Rapondi acted as the libraire coordinating the different stages of production.  But would a merchant like Rapondi have involved himself in such oversight? If Rapondi did not act as the libraire, who took on this role? Can a pattern of collaboration be determined for the scribes and decorators in other projects? These are questions that need to be answered by exploring a larger group of manuscripts. These will be considered in "Beyond the Cleres femmes."

  1. This information is based on the colophon which appears on fol. 167v of BnF, fr. 12420: "Icy fine de Jehan Bocace le livre des femmes renommees, translaté de latin en françois en l'an de grace mil CCCC et un, accomply le XIIe iour de septembre soubz le temps de tres noble et trespuissant et redoubté prince Charles VIe, roy de France et duc de Normendie. Deo gracias." This colophon does not appear in BnF fr. 598, but it reappears in KBR 9509, folios 164v-165r. A number of scholars have attributed the translation to Laurent de Premierfait, but there is no basis for this identification. [↩]
  2. This information is based on the following entry in the Burgundian accounts: A Jacques Raponde, marchant bourgois de Paris, auquel mon dit seigneur de grace especial a donné la somme de IIIc frans tant pour et en recompensacion d'un livre en françois de pluseurs histoires de femmes de bonne renommee qu'il lui donna aux estraines du jour de l'an derrenierement passé, comme pour les bons services qu'il lui a faiz chascun jour et espere que face ou temps avenir, si comme il appert plus a plain par les letres patentes dudit seigneur sur ce faictes, donnees a Paris le XXie jour de janvier l'an mil CCCC et deux cy rendu avec quictance. Pour ce IIIc frans. Dijon, ADCO B1532, ffl. 156-156v; Cockshaw, 1969, p. 135, no. 49; de Winter, 1985, p. 206, cat. no. 9. [↩]
  3. "Item, ung autre livre nommé Bocace, des cleres femmes escript en parchemin, de lettre ronde, à dues colonnes, historié et enluminé d'or, commençant ou IIe estudions, et ou derrenier, clarté très reluisante, couvert de veluau vermeil, garni de dix clouz de leton dorez et de deux fermouers d'argent, esmailliez aux armes de Bourgoingne. " BnF, Colbert 500, no. 127, fol. 151v; as quoted in George Doutrepont, Inventaire de la "librairie" de Philippe le Bon (1420) (Brussels, 1906, no. 97. [↩]
  4. The following entry appears in the inventory of Berry's collection: "Item, le Livres des femmes nobles et renommées, que fist Jehan Bocace, escript en françoys, de lettre de fourme; et au commancement du second fueillet à deux fermouers d'argent dorez, esmaillez l'un d'un Roy et l'autre d'une Royne; et sur chacune aiz a V boullons de cuivre dorez; lequest livre Jehan de la Barre donna à Monseigner, ou mois de fevrier ensuivant l'an dessusdit mil CCCC et III (1404 n.s.)".  See Jules J. Guiffrey, Inventaires de Jean duc de Berry (1401-1416) 2 vols. (Paris, 1894), i,: 246). [↩]
  5. KBR ms. 9509 corresponds with the following entry in the 1467 inventory of the Burgundian collection: "Ung autre livre en parchemin couvert de velours cramoisy, intitulé au dehors: C'est le livre que fist Jehan Bocace des clere et noble femmes, commançant ou second feuillet aprés la table: Come a celle qui, et ou dernier se aucun soit." [↩]
  6. Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries (New York, 1974), p. 373. [↩]
  7. Brigitte Buettner, Boccaccio's Des cleres et nobles femmes: Systems of Signification in an Illuminated Manuscript, (Seattle, 1996. [↩]
  8. Millard Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Boucicaut Master and His Workshop (New York, 1968), pp. 63-65; Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries, pp. 287-290 and 383-384 [↩]
  9. Meiss, Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries, pp. 287-290, 373-375. [↩]
  10. Patrick de Winter, La Bibliothèque de Philippe le Hardi, Duc de Bourgogne (1364-1404) (Paris, 1985), pp. 96-104 [↩]
  11. De Winter, La Bibliothèque de Philippe le Hardi, pp. 101-102. [↩]
  12. Meiss, The Limourgs and Their Contemporaries, p. 373. [↩]
  13. For a similar study of the division of labor between scribes, see A.I. Doyle and M. B. Parkes, "The Production of Copies of the Canterbury Tales and Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century," in Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker, ed. M.B. Parkes and A. G. Watson (London, 1978), pp. 163-210 (esp. 164-167). [↩]
  14. Carla Bozzolo and Ezio Ornato, Pour une histoire du livre manuscrit au moyen âge, Trois essais de codicologie quantitative, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1983), pp. 46-48. [↩]
  15. Donal Byrne, "An Early French Humanist and Sallust: Jean Legègue and the Iconographical Programme for the Cataline and Jugurtha," Journal of the Warburg and Coutauld Institutes, 49 (1986), p. 64. [↩]
  16. Allen S. Farber, "A Study of the Secondary Decoration of the Belles Heures and Related Manuscripts," Diss. Cornell University, 1980, and "Considering a Marginal Master: The Work of an Early Fifteenth Century, Parisian Manuscript Decorator," Gesta, 32,1993, pp.21-39 [↩]
  17. Brigitte Buettner, Boccaccio's Des Cleres et nobles femmes: systems of signification in an illuminated manuscript, Seattle, 1996, pp. 13-14. [↩]
  18. Buettner, 1996, p. 14 [↩]
  19. Meiss (Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries, p. 287) states: "Philippe's manuscript...may have served as a model for Berry's." De Winter (La Bibliothèque de Philippe le Hardi, p. 101) states that the Berry copy was "...largement inspirée de l'exemplaire produit pour la bibliothèque de Bourgogne." [↩]
  20. BnF fr. 12420, fols. 10v-11r: "...le dit simulacre porte a romme et receu en tresgrande et souveraine reverance...ledit simulachre assis en un noble temple.... et ainsi fur par pluseurs temps honnoree en diverses manieres et cerimonies des rommains et ytaliens." [↩]
  21. BnF fr. 12420, fol. 10v: "...[Opis] delivrasst de mort .Iupiter. Neptun. et Pluto ses fils avec Saturne leur pere, lesquels Titon son frere vouloit tuer et mettre amort....Ceste femme par ce acquist non seulement lonneur et la noblesce de royne, ains selon lerreur des hommes mortels est aue et reputee noble deese et mere des dieux et sont a elle constitues et ordonnes temple prestres et choses a sainctes par institucion publique...." [↩]
  22. BnF fr. 12420, fol. 163r: "...Et pour tant secretement envoya par devers lui pour savoir sa voulente...." [↩]
  23. BnF fr. 12420, fol. 163r: "...et ainsi en toutes choses de droit la sollempnite gardee par main de procureur du consentement de toux deux soubs les erres dun anel il espousa et la prinst en sa femme et Camiole sans ce mouvoir envoya par devers lui deux mille onces dargent lesquelles paiees.... [↩]
  24. This workshop model is found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, D'Orville Ms. 141. Donal Byrne, "An Early French Humanist and Sallust: Jean Lebègue and the Iconographical Programme for the Cataline and Jugurtha," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 1986, 49, pp. 41-65. See also the discussion by Anne Hedeman in Translating the Past: Laurent de Premierfait and Boccaccio's De Casibus, Los Angeles, 2008, passim. esp. 61-64. [↩]
Scroll to top