J.P. GUMBERT Medieval Points Medieval Punctuation Is Not Often Considered a Very Fascinating Subject for Study. Editors of Class

J.P. GUMBERT

Medieval points

Medieval punctuation is not often considered a very fascinating subject for study. Editors of classical and Medieval (and Renaissance) texts hardly seem to be aware of its existence - certainly they almost all agree that any Medieval dots and hooks are almost as irrelevant as fly-specks and can, nay must be absolutely disregarded by editors; this even though there exist pronouncements by authors from Alcuin to Erasmus stressing the importance of punctuation, which should mean that at least some authors punctuated according to a system they found adequate, and that at least some manuscripts - and certainly the autographs of such authors - show such a punctuation. For scholarly editions of later texts strict respect for the original punctuation is a matter of course; for Medieval texts the contrary is the case. Why? Because Medieval punctuation is different from ours. So is Medieval language and Medieval thought, but about that nobody complains; but in the case of punctuation the difference produces a lack of understanding, and thus a feeling that Medieval punctuation is either worthless, or very difficult, or both. The lack of editorial interest in its turn causes a lack of study. In (fairly) recent years, however, some books have appeared which really help us and which deserve notice. (See also the survey by Patrizia Rafti, 'L'interpunzione nel libro manoscritto: mezzo secolo di studi,' in Scrittura e civi*lta 12 (1988) 239-98.) One is a very instructive volume of congress proceedings; the other is the first major monograph on the subject.

A. MAIERÙ (ed.), Grafia e interpunzione del Latino nel Medioevo, Seminario interna- zionale, Roma, 27-29 settembre 1984. Roma: Ateneo 1987. viii, 224 p. [= Lessico intellectuale Europeo, 41.]

Reading this volume certainly gives an excellent introduction to most of the problems of the field. A large part, as the title indicates, devotes its attention to spelling; but punctuation does get its share. Only two of the articles do not really need to be discussed here. The level of the contributions is quite high. Some articles concentrate on describing Medieval facts and developments. Malcolm Parkes analyses the contribution of Insular (mainly Irish) scribes to what he calls 'the grammar of legibility,' i.e. the way in which spacing, punctuation, specially marked letters etc. are used 'to ensure that the message of the text was clearly understood.' His article is a lucid and interesting (and novel) 152

study of some very important inventions. (It is now also in his Scribes, Scripts and Readers, iggi, and much of it has gone into his Pause and Effect, see below.) Jean Vezin surveys the text divisions of Gospel books, especially the interplay of chapters and Eusebian sections; but not much is new here. I would not agree that the Eusebian sections 'evoquent notre moderne division en versets,' nor that the division per cola et commata 'n'est pas étrangère à la répartition en para- graphes.' Nor do I feel that 'il convient ... de distinguer la ponctuation ora- toire et les divisions du texte suivant le sens' - as if the so-called rhetorical punctuation did not follow sense! It is admirably put in a text quoted by Vezin (after Fischer) on p. 59: Alcuin had the text 'articulated in accordance with grammar, with a view to reading aloud, in such a fashion that the text of the book should offer a clear path to those who read, no incongruousness to those who hear, and not allow even the less educated to misunderstand.' That is really the ideal description of what punctuation is for; such a punctuation follows both sense and rhythm; the only thing it is not concerned about is grammar. Anne-Veronique Gilles, in treating punctuation in liturgical manuscripts, speaks equally clearly of distinctiones and positurae as 'correspondant au sens logique et grammatical ainsi qu'aux pauses respiratoires qui en decoulent' (p. 116). But she does not appear to see that the use of positurae and the writing per cola et commata are two ways of reaching the same result, and makes a jumble of what Jerome and Cassiodorus said (p. 116); the enrichment of the positurae by the addition of accents to guide the movement of the voice is surely not a 'confu- sion' (p. 123); the Devotio modema is certainly not one of the causes of the introduction of Missal and Breviary (p. 129); and the whole piece is not as help- ful as one would have wished. Louis-Jacques Bataillon discusses autographs of 13th-century University authors: Albertus Magnus, William of Moerbeke and some others, and shows that some (not all) of them did indeed use a careful, reasonable and useful punctuation. Some extracts (with plates) illustrate the practice of these authors. It is a pity that Bataillon has to describe the signs ('point-virgule renverse,' 'petite barre oblique') because he does not know, apparently, that these are the punctus elevatus and the virgula (but the 'barre oblique' of Pierre de Limoges marks the places for ? signs). Also, he tries to explain the placing of for instance the p. elevatus 'pour s6parer principale et subordonnee' (p. 159), instead of: for marking a break which will help in understanding. But he certainly proves that, at least in the case of autographs of authors who knew what they were doing - and such autographs are, happily, reasonably frequent - there is no excuse for not keeping the original punctuation merely out of a 'vieux prejuge.' Gilbert Ouy brings us into the i5th century, with autographs of Nicolas de Clamanges and some contemporaries - more authors who knew what they wanted and who deplored the decay of old (that is: twelfth-century) punctuation, especially in texts 'which show any awareness at all of style' (quae ali-