Metatextuality, sexuality and intervisuality in MS Junius 11

Abstract 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 by du (Paris, see also idem., in A to Literature and Art (New York, on in see G. (London, with reference to Anglo-Saxon see the Beowulf: and the and the and History’, Exemplaria, III/2 (1991), pp. M. Hilmo, Medieval Images, Icons and Illustrated English Literary Texts and 2004), p. the term where of the their approach and vocabulary to of Hilmo, p. for example, of illustrations in English in general as visual of the they the reading that literary works be by the of illustrations, to the that a is like Karkov, to such as See Small, Wax p. n. 1. – Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. See also C. in the of and in Image and ed. C. (Princeton, p. where the author the term – Ibid., pp. – Ibid., p. – Ibid., p. 202. – Ibid., p. See also the of J.J.G. Alexander, History, Literary History, and the Study of Medieval Studies in Iconography, 18 p. 55. – On the question of and in medieval see J.J.G. Alexander, Medieval and their of (New 1992), pp. On a number of such drawings in MS Junius 11, see T.H. Ohlgren, ‘Some New on the Old English Caedmonian Genesis’, Studies in Iconography, I pp. and idem., New Drawings in MS Junius their Iconography and (1972), pp. of and in the illustrated Old English Hexateuch, like Junius 11 is an (in its manuscript which may not have been in with the same as of The to significance to this of a at the of page 7 in Junius 11 is a of see ‘The in A in Bodleian MS Junius 11’, English Studies, (1998), pp. See also J. ‘The of of the and the of Cotton A. in & K. eds, Studies in Early English and Manuscripts in Memory of Pulsiano pp. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. and earlier on p. 55. – Ibid., p. – Ibid., p. for to see that is not that drawings if that with in medieval like Junius to be as a in their own On the of what an and what the text and illustration or should be, a number of in the present W. ‘The book and the artist the Word and Image, 8 (1992), pp. and to a Word and Image, pp. art and Illustrations that a art Word and Image, pp. – Ibid., p. – Ibid., pp. – Broderick, pp. 161–77. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. – Ibid., p. The author this in C.E. Karkov, and of Eve in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius in & eds, Signs on the Text and in Medieval Manuscripts (Paris, 2007), pp. – As is consistent the manuscript, with somewhat as in the on page from the of Adam as also in the same on page On the as a English see Meyer Schapiro, ‘An English of the Early Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, p. – See Henderson, ‘Programme’, p. – Karkov, Text and Picture, – For the Bible Image, see J. The of on which Adam the in the Bible image might be in a general way as the from which this may to a that Adam was on the where the and its would the See L. of the I 1998), p. 55. See also H. M. Genesis, I 1989), pp. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. – Ibid., – Ibid., – for example, the of David on of MS or the of on of Oxford, Bodleian Library MS the illustrated in E. Anglo-Saxon (London, 1976), 129, 55. – The question of the history of and of late Anglo-Saxon manuscript art and its has been by B.C. Withers, ‘A of Claudius B. and the of Anglo-Saxon Art in the in The Old English Hexateuch: Aspects and Approaches, ed. R. Barnhouse and B. C. Withers (Kalamazoo, 2000), pp. and in his book Old English where the author cites scholars like assessment of the of MS Junius 11 and Claudius as and sometimes in an article entitled of Anglo-Saxon p. characterized the drawings in Junius 11 as ‘a certain (and David the artist of the late Library, MS as in the we he a he a of the … his could also an .’ our by the of and have no reading these and with a for we see as important examples of the of D.H. Wright, The and the of Medieval (London, 2001) pp. see also the of Hilmo, Medieval Images, pp. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. – Gameson, Role of Art, pp. – Ibid., p. 38. – Ibid., p. 37. – Broderick, p. – Gameson, Role of Art, p. 37. – Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. see also review of in Notes and p. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. Raw, ‘Probable’, p. from the prose and where it is which first the I that was is that that it was as in the Junius first the see and note as in the Junius 11 illustrations, the and ‘intervisuality’ the to not in the of the Junius – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. – Ibid., p. 16. – Henderson, ‘Programme’, p. – Broderick, – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 16. – Camille, ‘Gothic p. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. – See review of Karkov, Notes and p. it is to that the and early of the manuscript would have the and in the suggests .’ – Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. 40, – Ibid., p. – Ibid., p. – Ibid., p. – Ibid., p. – Ibid., p. – See Broderick, pp. enough, Hilmo, Medieval Images, pp. of work as not book, Text and Picture, presents a exegesis of this image from the Junius manuscript, as well to the text of also seems of observation in ‘Probable’, p. the in the Junius image with in the – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. This is an that been by Gollancz, Caedmon p. is also an idea developed in by Blum, ‘Cryptic p. of which – Karkov, Text and Picture, – Ibid., p. – Ibid., p. – Ibid., p. note – Broderick, pp. – Ibid., pp. H. XI pp. attention to the in that the of Eve is as a and in which Adam is the he about the of Christ with the See also H. in pp. Karkov, Text and Picture, pp. makes of this Eve and is in the heavenly as in the Junius manuscript to to with Eve as the or the of the Church with In the of or as by p. we the and to a And the was And I is not this that we may And the said to we Michael holds the of the of .’ In the of the of it is said that that he the to Adam so he should see the the of and the see The Old I 2 – Hilmo, Medieval Images, pp. especially p. note – See the work of K. Powell and D. eds, Texts and in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, E. ‘The of and Anglo-Saxon Art’, pp. also ed., of Anglo-Saxon Literary The (Kalamazoo, 2007). – See H.L. Kessler, The Illustrated Bibles from (Princeton, idem., of an Early Illustrated Journal of Art, 8 (1981), pp. idem., ‘An in the 17 pp. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. – The of Narrative in England (Oxford, pp. 6–8. – Karkov, Text and Picture, p. 10 and note 38 cites Gollancz, Caedmon p. and T.H. Anglo-Saxon Illustration (Kalamazoo, 1992), p. reference to the that as he is an book in the illustration on page 60 of Junius 11, but seeing this as an to the of the or sources the Junius artist would like to see this image as a of reading and that the and on to a that the of the first with the of this and in a its reading and a form of by its – This from the et now pp. was first by in Ph.D. dissertation, University of p. 6, by R. and now in at the Warburg see also pp. and note that on Adam and Eve from on his is an idea developed by in of his See L. A For the in Homilies of and in (1992), pp. – For the reference to the et on of Claudius Adam and Eve being by the Michael in the art of the illustrated in and P. eds, The Old English Illustrated Cotton Claudius p. – in the image from Claudius as an of in on Adam and – Hilmo, Medieval Images, p. – Ibid., p. – Broderick, p. – Hilmo, Medieval Images, p. – See A. in the (1982), pp. note 6, the author that the of the as at the of the on page of Junius 11 has been by F. L. ‘The Narrative in the Junius Manuscript and in Literature’, in Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. ed. S. B.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.