ISSN 1750-4953


Marginalia

Home
About Marginalia
Current Issue
Archived Issues
Notes to Contributors
Links to Other Online Journals

Marginalia -- The Website of the MRG

In the catalogue description of six leaves from a Psalter attributed to William de Brailes (Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 330), Paul Binski comments that ‘[i]lluminated Bibles produced in France and England [in the thirteenth century] tended to shrink, producing miracles of compression¹ The rise of the universities at Paris, Oxford and Cambridge at this time precipitated an unprecedented and growing demand for small, portable Bibles, the core text of these new institutions.² The development of complex penwork is a paradoxical progression in this context. Even as the books were reduced in size, physical decoration - the largely red, blue, and for deluxe productions, gold, delicate flowing lines which emanate from the scribal text produced with an extremely finely cut nib - was developed and expanded. (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Philadelphia, Free Library of Philadelphia , MS Lewis E 29, f. 45 v.

Nigel Morgan has argued that this development of penwork would go on to provide an extremely important stage or platform for further marginalia as the thirteenth century proceeded.³ The relationship between the text and its accompanying decoration has received scholarly attention with regard to mnemonic and contemplative functions⁴ and post-deconstructionist theorists have suggested both latent and intentional subtexts in relation to largely later fourteenth century figurative marginalia.⁵ A more pragmatic line of enquiry with regard to the development of penwork in the thirteenth century is suggested by the new educational market created by the emerging universities. Clare Donovan has argued that the nascent book trade in Oxford was well established by the second decade of the thirteenth century, and that craftsmen working in the book trade including illuminators, parchment-makers, scribes and book binders participated in an organized and competitive commercial environment.⁶ Donovan has also suggested that bookselling ateliers would develop a ‘house style;’ responsive to the demands and tastes of their respective markets⁷ The productions of the de Brailes workshop have been examined in terms of iconography, figure style and narrative efficacy, yet the extremely distinctive penwork evident throughout the de Brailes corpus must not be underestimated in terms of characterizing this house style and its subsequent commercial implications. David Carpenter has argued that a xenophobic atmosphere existed in England during the first half of the thirteenth century. It is intriguing therefore to find French stylistic influence in the penwork associated with the productions of William de Brailes.⁸

The success of the workshop of William de Brailes in Oxford, for which documentation exists between the years 1238 and 1252, is attested by the relatively large number of extant manuscripts that are attributed to de Brailes and his assistants.⁹ Of these survivals, which include Psalters, the earliest extant Book of Hours, University textbooks and individual leaves, many are Bibles¹⁰ Later productions provide the most developed examples of the de Brailean penwork style, with feathered extensions which descend from the text of the folio, often transversing the bas- de- page in either a horizontal or diagonal line.

De Brailes and some of his associates may have emerged from the workshops which produced the Lothian Bible (c. 1220) (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS M. 791) and the Huntingfield Psalter (c. 1210-20) (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS M.43)¹¹ The absence of marginal penwork in the Huntingfield Psalter, and its encapsulated line fillers, demonstrate the conservatism which characterised English decorative technique in manuscripts at the beginning of the thirteenth century¹² The Lothian Bible can also be taken as evidence of this characteristic, for although the Bible does include some quite elaborate pen structures, these are from the tradition of the gloss. The penwork is purposeful in associating the glossed text with the main body of the Scripture, but there is no interconnectivity of penstroke between the two. With the exception of the Psalms, the penwork in the Lothian Bible is separated from the text by a consistent margin. The reader is alerted to commentary on the biblical passage by the juxtaposition of the gloss in the margin of the folio to its relevant biblical passage.. This further commentary is not linked to the text by a line that travels from the script to the marginal commentary. Often the commentary is purposefully separated from the main text by encapsulation in a triangular structure that completely encompasses the additional text. The penwork in the Lothian Bible directs the reader from words to words; its intention is utilitarian not decorative. The penwork technique favoured by the de Brailes’ artists moves the reader’s attention from the text along the directional line created by the penstroke. The reader is not directed to further words for consideration but rather to the intricate penwork structures themselves.. The function of the penwork in this approach is decorative and perhaps suggestive of contemplation . It is not organizational, directive or informative. Its motivation may have been purely decorative, yielding commercial popularity.

The origins of this technique have not as yet been investigated.¹³ A strong case can be made, however, for a source in deluxe books produced in Paris in the early decades of the thirteenth century. The Lewis Psalter ( Philadelphia, MS Lewis 185, c. 1225-30) (Figure 2) exhibits this penwork technique as developed by de Brailes and his associates in Oxford.¹⁴

Figure 2: Philadelphia, Free Library of Philadelphia, MS Lewis E 185, f.45 v.

In the case of the Lewis Psalter, the pen flourish proceeds most often from the line filler, thereby descending from the right-hand side of the page and developing into feathered and vertebrae-like extensions across the bas- de- page. The penwork present in the Lothian Bible guides the reader by juxtaposition, as it does in early French examples of this technique. On the other hand, the de Brailean technique of interaction seems to follow the later Parisian methodology.

Although line fillers are more associated with Psalters in this period than with other texts, their development also appears to advance marginal pen decoration. The release of the line filler from a rectangular frame seems to free the penwork not only to extend into the margins of the page, but also to physically suggest a connection between the text and the abstract or figurative decoration. The de Brailes workshop sustains the cachet of the deluxe Parisian books for the evolving Oxford market of the 1230’s. This style is further developed by the creation of increasingly complex nonfigural constructions in the terminal penwork. It might also be suggested that the prominence of this penwork implies that it was popular with patrons. Furthermore, its presence in both the deluxe and the more pedestrian sectors of the de Brailes market implies that it was a stylistic characteristic that was desirable to both wealthy and more aspirational owners.

The Stockholm Psalter (Stockholm, National Museum MS B.2010, c.1230-40), shows the evidence of the involvement of de Brailes or his close associates on a deluxe production, with particular regard to the penwork on the leaves attributed to them.¹⁵ This distinctive penwork is also present on much lesser productions that carry no illustrative work, which may be associated with the Oxford workshop, such as Lewis E. 30 (Philadelphia, Free Library of Philadelphia).¹⁶ Lewis E 30 is a very simply decorated small Bible. It carries blue initials with red flourishes and long descenders, which invade the bas- de- page and turn to travel horizontally across it. Lewis E 31 (Philadelphia, Free Library of Philadelphia) is another small Bible which also shows evidence of association with Oxford productions.¹⁷ It carries a variety of characteristic penwork with red and blue flourished initials which continue throughout the book. Although the style and level of expertise in execution of the decoration varies, it is the increased amount of penwork which surrounds the Psalms in Lewis E 31 which is most striking. (Figure 3)

Figure 3: Philadelphia, Free Library of Philadelphia, MS Lewis E 31, f.132 v.

This characteristic of heavy decoration accompanying the Psalms, in contrast to the more restrained decoration of the rest of the Bible, seems to indicate patronal choice, and an accompanying wish to spend generously on this frequently opened portion of the book. That the de Brailes workshop responded to patronal devotional requirements is shown not only by the production of the first extant Book of Hours (London, BL MS Additional 49999), but also by the production of these more pedestrian books. De Brailes’ inclusion of rubricated Anglo-Norman captions throughout his Book of Hours seems a clear response to the patron’s wishes in a practical sense. As noted by Donovan, the captions perform several functions throughout the book, but they are most often used to describe the figures in historiated initials.¹⁸ The elaborate penwork which permeates this production serves no such function; it enhances the experience of the reader of the text perhaps simply by making this an attractive object. The intended private use for a devotional text does not demand beauty, but the desireability of that text is increased by its decorative character. The perceived French stylistic influence demonstrates the de Brailes group not only responding to the taste of patrons but perhaps anticipating the growing trend for French art and architecture which became dominant in England after the 1260’s. There is no evidence beyond the manuscripts themselves to establish whether the de Brailes workshop responded solely to commissions or more actively marketed their works through prototypes, which were then revised to accommodate specific patronal stipulations. It is possible that both techniques were used, and it is clear that de Brailes had a sound understanding of what appealed, and what sold well.

When Richard Goldthwaite quoted John Ruskin’s admonition, ‘The vital question, for individual and nation, is never “How much do they make?” but “To what purpose do they spend?”¹⁹ ’ he was thinking in terms of the origins of consumerist culture as instanced by artistic patronage in early Renaissance Italy. Goldthwaite suggested that:

The rise of the universities produced a new group of literate lay consumers who not only had to spend for their requisite books, but who could chose to spend in the workshops that catered to their various tastes and pockets. In this light, the productions of the de Brailes workshop can be categorized as consumer objects. William de Brailes includes three self portraits in the Book of Hours, two of which are accompanied by the words ‘w. de brail’ qui me depeint’²¹ A fourth portrait appears in a Last Judgement leaf (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, MS 330, leaf 3) inscribed W DE BRAIL’ ME FECIT.²² That de Brailes wished to be identified as the maker of these images is clear, what is also possible is that de Brailes desired his books to be associated with him in a commercial sense. His signatures are directional in that they not only proclaim de Brailes as their source, but they indicate where similar objects can be found by the inquisitive consumer; that is at the de Brailes workshop, and for a price.

Cynthia Johnston, Oxford University Department for Continuing Education

Manuscripts Cited:

London, British Library

New York, Pierpont Morgan Library

Philadelphia, Free Library of Philadelphia

Contents

Next

NOTES

I would like to acknowledge the kind assistance of Katherine Chandler, Reference Librarian at Rare Book Department, The Free Library of Philadelphia, who took the photographs of the manuscripts for this publication.

1. Paul Binski, The Cambridge Illuminations, eds. Paul Binski and Stella Panayotova (London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 2005), p.173.

2. See Teresa Webber, 'The Bible and Its Study from the Cloisters to the University,' The Cambridge Illuminations, 2005, pp. 75-80

3. See Nigel Morgan, 'The Decorative Ornament of the Text and Page in Thirteenth-century England: Initials, Border Extensions and Line Fillers,' English Manuscript Studies 1100-1700, vol. 10, pp. 1-33.

4. See Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 221-257.

5. See Michael Camille, Image on the Edge (London:Reaktion, 2004), pp.11-55.

6. See Clare Donovan, The de Brailes Hours; Shaping the Book of Hours in Thirteenth Century Oxford (London: The British Library, 1991) pp. 9-24.

7. Donovan, (London,1991), p.12.

8. See David Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery in Britain 1066-1284 , Oxford: Oxford ,200, pp. 354-376.

9. For discussion of the documentary evidence see Donovan(1991) pp.13 -15.

10. In addition to the six leaves held at the Fitzwilliam (MS 330), there is a leaf at the Morgan Library, New York, which may be from the same Psalter (M 913). See Binski, The Cambridge Illuminations, p.176. Also the Walters Museum in Baltimore holds additional important leaves from another manuscript (MS 106) which Donovan identifies as perhaps part of an introductory cycle of a Bible or Psalter. See Donovan, (1991) p. 203. . Also see. See Nigel Morgan, Early Gothic Manuscripts I, 1190-1250, Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles, IV (London, 1982), p. 86. Morgan lists the major Bibles of the workshop as London, Gray's Inn MS 24; Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud Lat 13; Oxford, Christ Church MS 105; Oxford, Merton College MS 7; and Philadelphia, Free Library MS Lewis 29.

11. Morgan (1982), pp.78-9 for the Huntingfield Psalter (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS M 43), pp. 79-81 for the Lothian Bible (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library,MS M 791).

12. Both London BL MS Royal 1 D.X and BL MS Arundel 157 are further examples of this conservatism in technique. See Morgan (1982) pp. 72-3, 75-6, attributing them both to Oxford.

13. See Sonia Scott-Fleming, Pen Flourishing in Thirteenth- Century Manuscripts, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989, for an examination of French and English stylistic traits of penflourishing which Scott-Fleming argues connotate origin and date of MSS.

14. See J. R. Tanis (ed.), Leaves of Gold, Manuscript Illumination from Philadelphia Collections (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2001), pp. 51-3, for the Lewis Psalter.

15. Morgan (1982), p.114 for the Stockholm Psalter (Stockholm National Museum. 2010). I am grateful to Nigel Morgan for suggesting that although the Stockholm Psalter shows evidence of London production, the presence of the de Brailes group as evidenced here demonstrates a connection between London and Oxford workshops. It may be possible that some of the de Brailes flourishers worked in London previous to their work in Oxford.

16. See E. Wolf, European manuscripts in the John Frederick Lewis Collection (Philadelphia, 1937), pp. 37-8, for Lewis E 30.Also De Ricci, Seymour, with the assistance of W.J.Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada, vol. 2 (New York:H.W.Wilson,1935-40), p.2025. no. 3. In 2007, Debra T. Cashion identified Lewis E 30 as datable to the second quarter of the thirteenth century with a possible Oxford provenance for the Free Library of Philadelphia's online collection of medieval manuscripts. See http:/ www.library.phila.gov. for the complete description.

17. Wolf (1937), p. 39 for Lewis E 31, and De Ricci (1935-40), p. 2027, no. 11. Debra T. Cashion dates Lewis E 31 to 1230, and suggests Oxford as place of production in her 2007 description of the MS for the Free Library of Philadelphia's online catalogue. See http:/ www.library.phila.gov.

18. Donovan (1991), pp. 35-41.

19. John Ruskin as quoted by Richard Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1300-1600 (Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), p.4.

20. John Ruskin as quoted by Richard Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1300-1600 (Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), p.4.

21. See Donovan (1991) p. 9 for discussion of the self portraits in the book of hours, (London, B L MS Add.49999).

22. See Donovan on the Cambridge , Fitzwilliam, leaf 3. p. 10.