DISSENSION IN BEDE'S COMMUNITY SHOWN

BY A QUIRE OF CODEX AMIATINUS

Let me present Codex Amiatinus ‘‘en raccourci,'' in a nutshell, to

show the quire structure of the 1029 folios of the manuscript that

contain the biblical text from Genesis to the Apocalypse. For the

present I exclude the first set of leaves, which require very special

consideration. In the following diagrammatic presentation bold

numbering draws attention to quires of irregular formation (* = last

leaf of the quire).

1
From the diagram below one can safely conclude that the writing

of the codex was assigned simultaneously to a number of scribes, a fact

that by itself could suggest some degree of urgency. The stately

sequence of quaternions, maintained throughout, only breaks down at

points where the stint of a scribe comes to an end, and thus provides

us with the explanation for the irregularity in structure we then

observe : hand A, to finish, inserts a single leaf in a binion [ 21]; hand

B needs only a binion [ 24]; hand C inserts a single leaf in his last

quaternion [ 47]; hand D adds a single leaf to a binion [ 67]; hand E

again adds a single leaf to a binion [ 89]; hand F, oddly, adds two

singles to a trinion [ 100]; hand G's procedure is interesting since,

needing only one more bifolium, he adds a single leaf to his last

quaternion, and places another single leaf before the first quaternion

of the following scribe — thus perhaps indicating that the rules of the

scriptorium did not allow a single bifolium to be used as an

independent quire [ 117 / 118]; hand F ends the codex by placing a

single leaf in the front of a trinion [ 129]. One other feature relating

to quire structure is worth noticing : the bifolia are extremely large,

and in twelve instances a bifolium was created by sewing two single

leaves together [in quires 20, 40, 61, 64, 86, 88, 92, 96, 100, 111, 117,

1. The diagram combines information drawn from Bibbie Miniate della Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze SISMEL , ( , 2003), pp. 4-5 Fascicolazione
( ), combined

with data on the Wright

scribes given by David H. in ‘‘Some notes on English Un-

Traditio
cial,'' 17 (1961) pp. 452-53.
hand A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
hand A

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
hand A hand B

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
[21] 173v Deuteronomy ends* [24] 193v Joshua ends*
hand C

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
hand C

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
hand C hand D

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
[47] 378v Paralipomenon ends*
hand D

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
[51] 418r Psalms end, 418v blank*
[52] 419r Proverbs begin
hand D

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
hand D hand E

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
[67] 535v Isaiah ends*
hand E

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

hand E

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

hand E hand F

89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
[89] 708v Tobit ends*

hand F hand G

97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

[100] 796r 2 Maccabees ends* (796v Image of Christ)

hand G

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

hand G hand F

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

[117] 933 last folio *
[118] 934v Acts of Apostles ends

hand F

121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

hand F

129 [129] 1029v Apocalypse ends *

 ´ ´
298 REVUE BENEDICTINE

128]. When this happens the sewn bifolium is regularly placed after the

outer bifolium. The overall picture that emerges is one of an extremely

well regulated and disciplined scriptorium. When single leaves are

found in a quire they represent an anomaly that demands a special

2
explanation.

Showing what each scribe accomplished will round off our view of

the codex :

Hand A, (Quires 1-21) [21] Pentateuch : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,

Numbers, Deuteronomy

Hand B, (Quires 22-24) [3] Joshua

Hand C, (Quires 25-47) [23] Judges, Ruth, Kings 1-4,

Paralipomenon 1-2

Hand D, (Quires 48-67) [20] Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle

of Canticles, Wisdom, Sirach, Isaiah

Hand E, (Quires 68-89) [22] Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, 12 Prophets,

Job, Tobit

Hand F, (Quires 90-100) [11] Judith, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah,

Maccabees 1-2

Hand G, (Quires 101-117) [17] Gospels : Matthew, Mark, Luke, John;

and Acts

Hand F, (Quires 118-129) [12] Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles,

Apocalypse

Given the close parity in the number of quires written by hands A

[21], C [23], D [20], E [22], F [23], G [17], one is left wondering

whether hand B, who uses less than three full quaternions [3] to write

Joshua, may be an indication that Jerome's version of this biblical

book was acquired by Wearmouth-Jarrow only at a rather late date.

It is here one regrets the loss of the two sister pandects made at

Ceolfrith's order; had they survived, a comparison between the

pandects on points like this might have proved revealing.

The evidence points to a very well regulated scriptorium at

Wearmouth-Jarrow, and further indicates that there must have been

someone very competent in charge. When we think of Bede's

monastery it is his figure, with his voluminous literary production,

that looms largest on the historical canvas. This rather obfuscates the

image we long to have of his whole community and of how it

functioned from day to day, and in particular of how its scriptorium

2. The end of a quire is signaled by a Roman numeral placed at the bottom (to the

right) of the last leaf — from I to CXXVIII. No numeral is given on fol. 796v (image

of Christ) and fol. 1029v (last leaf). Up to LII the number is preceded by a ‘‘Q.'' The

number XXIIII comes twice, once on fol. 193v as XXIIII, and again on fol. 201v as Q

XXIIII.
 P. MEYVAERT 299

was organized. At the time of his departure for Rome in 716, after 28

years as abbot, the anonymous Life of Ceolfrith tells us the community

numbered over 600 ( cohortem militum Christi numero plus quam

3
sexcentorum ). But we don't even know how this number was divided

between the two houses, situated twelve miles apart. Did each have its

own independent scriptorium, or was Monkwearmouth, where Ceolfrith

resided, dominant? And, in which of the two houses, Wearmouth

4
(Uiuraemuda) or Jarrow (Ingyruum), did Bede spend most of his time?

Since we are about to witness a disjuncture, with a clash of human wills,

knowing how the scriptorium functioned and responsibilities were

distributed, would have helped us better understand what occurred.

I wish to begin by bringing on the historical scene, if only for a brief

moment, the monk who was in charge of the Wearmouth-Jarrow

scriptorium. Since he plays a role in the unfolding drama, his

existence should be recognized. Not knowing his real name I will

simply call him brother X. When the time came to prepare the initial

quire of the gift pandect, brother X., in charge of the scriptorium,

decided what it would contain. He took as his model the opening

pages of Cassiodorus's Codex Grandior, known in Bede's day as the

Old Pandect ( pandectes uetustae translationis ), which Ceolfrith acquired

5
in Rome. That he planned a quire of regular structure, composed of

bifolia, cannot be doubted. This quire was arranged as follows :

1 2 3 4 5 6

Fol. 1 left blank for inscription

Fol. 2 Ezra on recto (verso blank)

Fol. 3 (Both sides painted purple)

Cassiodorus's Preface on recto

Contents only of Amiatinus on verso

Fol. 4 [Father] antiqua translatio Division (verso blank)

Fol. 5 [Lamb] Jerome Division (verso blank)

Fol. 6 [Dove] Augustine Division (verso blank)

(no verses at the top)

3. C. Plummer, Baedae Opera Historica (Oxford, 1896) p. 400 (c. 33). A study of

the vocabulary of this Life has left me convincingly on the side of those who do not

identify its author with Bede. The young boy who survives the plague and later be-

comes a priest (see c. 14) I accept as the author of this Life modestly referring to

himself.

4. Still an unsolved question, that may have a bearing on the problem we are dis-

cussing here.

5. Note Bede's terminology in his Historia abbatum [15] (Plummer, 1, p. 379) : ita
ut tres pandectes nouae translationis, ad unum uetustae translationis, quem de Roma ad-
tulerat ipse, [Ceolfridus], super adiungeret.
300 REVUE BÉNÉDICTINE

The first folio (1) was left blank for an eventual dedication. It was
followed by the image of Ezra on the recto of the next folio (2);
within the community there was agreement that the image in the Old
Pandect — which I have argued depicted Cassiodorus — represented
Ezra. The ‘‘new'' image of Ezra was the first section of the
6
introductory quire to be completed. Because the next folio (3) was
the first text folio of the whole pandect, it was given the royal
treatment and painted purple. The Preface from the Codex Grandior
(Cassiodorus's Preface) was transcribed on its recto, and the contents
of Amiatinus placed on its verso — but at this stage the verses
celebrating Jerome were not yet present on the page. Following the
purple folio came the three divisions of Scripture in the order of the
Codex Grandior. The division representing the antiqua translatio — to
use Cassiodorus's own terminology — was first, and therefore stood
facing the verso with the contents of Amiatinus. Since the order of
books in Amiatinus followed that of the Codex Grandior — namely
the antiqua translatio division — and not that of Jerome's division,
the juxtaposition of these two sides was a congruous one. Brother X.,
taking his cue from Cassiodorus's allusion to the Trinity, invented
three appropriate roundels showing the Father, the Lamb, and the
7
Dove, and placed one at the top of each of the three pages. The
introductory quire, therefore, ending with Augustine's division,
illustrated with the Dove (but as yet without the text above the
image), was immediately followed by Genesis — an apposite place for
such an image given the opening verse of Genesis : Spiritus dei
ferebatur super aquas (Gen. 1.2). 8

6. See my article ‘‘The Date of Bede's In Ezram and His Image of Ezra in the
Codex Amiatinus,'' Speculum 80 (2005) p. 1117. The scientific analysis of 1999 sug-
gested the Ezra image stood apart from the rest of the quire : ‘‘as regards... observa-
tions made under ultraviolet light... it was noted that all the red leaves display the
same fluorescent bright orange coloration as the reds found in the lozenges. The books
and clothes illustrated in the miniature of Ezra display a fluorescent red, different
from the other reds found in the [quire].'' ‘‘Non-destructive Analysis of the Bibbia
Amiatina by XRF, PIXE-a and Raman,'' Quinio 3 (2001) p. 170.
7. See my comments in ‘‘Bede, Cassiodorus, and the Codex Amiatinus,'' Speculum
71 (1996) pp. 840-41 : ‘‘to achieve the desired numbers (50 in the case of Jerome and
72 in the case of Augustine) Cassiodorus proposes adding the Trinity, viewed as unity,
to 49 and 71. In Amiatinus Christ is substituted for the Trinity in the Jerome sum-
mary, and divina unitas replaces the explicit mention of the Trinity in the Augustine
summary... It seems... likely that someone at Wearmouth-Jarrow became a little un-
easy about the explicit mention of the Trinity — even though the triune God was
considered one — when only a single digit was needed to complete the arithmetical
computation!'' But it was the explicit mention of the Trinity in the Codex Grandior
that gave brother X. the idea for the three roundels to represent the Trinity.
8. Herbert Kessler kindly points out to me that the dove often appears in the open-
ing of Genesis illustrations.
 P. MEYVAERT 301

When the codex was completed, brother X., as scriptorium head,

supervised its binding, and this binding emerges as a crucial element

in our story. The particular sewing procedure adopted, known

through some examples from late Antiquity, was in use at

th th
Wearmouth-Jarrow in the late 7 and early 8 century as we know

9
from the very clear evidence of the Stonyhurst Gospel of St John.

The quires were attached to each other, and to the cover boards, by

separate strands of thread : two strands in the case of the small

Gospel of John (135 x 93 mm), and five strands in the case of the

much larger Codex Amiatinus (505 x 340 mm). The ten holes in the

parchment (40 mm apart, except for 80 mm between holes 4 and 5

from the top) used in the earliest binding, were identified by Sergio

Giovannoni, who was responsible for the most recent re-binding done

10
in 1999.

Board Quires

I lived long enough in monastic communities to realize that the

enthusiasms of one member, or a small group, might not be shared, or

to quite the same degree, by others. In 1938, just as World War II was

starting, a monk of the Abbey of Solesmes, Dom Augustin Genestout,

came out with the revolutionary theory that the Rule of St Benedict

was not an original document but depended on the Rule of the Master.

9. See Roger Powell , ‘‘The Binding,'' in The Relics of Saint Cuthbert [Ed. C. F.

Battiscombe ] (Oxford, 1956) pp. 362-74, especially p. 365 on the sewing, accompa-

nied by a diagram (p. 366). For the Amiatinus binding and Sergio Giovannoni's find-

ings, see Sabina M agrini , ‘‘Per difetto del legatore...'' : storia delle rilegature della

Bibbia Amiatina in Laurenziana,'' Quinio 3 (2001) p. 159. See also the reference to

Jean Vezin at the end of the Postscript below.

10. I owe this information to Sabina Magrini who consulted Sergio Giovannoni's

notes.
 ´ ´
302 REVUE BENEDICTINE

It was not until after the war was over, however, that the scholarly

debate on the question really got going. I well remember from the

year I spent at Solesmes (1947-48), when the community numbered

close to 100, that not all, by any means, shared Genestout's belief

and enthusiasm for his new discovery — which tended, seemingly, to

belittle the Founding Father. On other points as well, like Gregorian

chant or hagiographic or spiritual devotions, one could sense that a

large community might harbor a variety of views and positions. This

is a normal human situation, but we need to keep it in mind when we

approach the study of monastic communities of the past. The monastic

communities of Wearmouth and Jarrow were, after all, not angelic,

but human communities.

The dissension that occurred at Wearmouth-Jarrow centered on

whether the introductory quire prepared by brother X. gave sufficient

prominence to the role of Jerome. Bede emerges as brother X.'s main

antagonist, and reflection on this has led me to realize that the part I

attributed to Bede in the initial planning and preparation, and

particularly in the making of the Ezra image, was probably

exaggerated. If there was agreement in his community that the seated

figure at the opening of their old Pandect (Cassiodorus's Codex

Grandior) was meant to be Ezra, it is not essential to bring in Bede

to explain the image we now see in codex Amiatinus. Other learned

brethren in the community, besides Bede, were familiar with Exodus

and its description of the garments of the High Priest, and, similarly,

Jerome's letter to Fabiola (Letter 64) which dealt with these garments

would have been read and known. If the monastic scapular, mentioned

by St Benedict, was in use, all would know how it could be handled

and manipulated. Moreover, since as I pointed out, Bede at a later

date was to say that the High Priest only put on the ritual garments

at the time of performing sacrifice, it becomes more problematic to

view him as the inventor of the Amiatinus image showing Ezra as

‘‘High Priest,'' ritually clothed, but in the pose of writing in a book.

(On the other hand, knowing that an image of Ezra was in the

making may well have provided Bede with the inspiration to

undertake his commentary on Ezra.)

We know that when Bede thought of the gift pandect that was

going to Rome it was Jerome's name that came uppermost to his

mind. Notice his manner of referring to it in chapter 66 of his De

temporum ratione . Amiatinus is not so much a ‘‘book'' in which his
 P. MEYVAERT 303

community has managed to assemble between two covers a series of

disparate codices containing Jerome's translations, as a single pandect

attributable to Jerome :

Qui inter alia donaria , quae adferre [Ceolfridus] disposuerat misit

ecclesiae sancti Petri pandectem a beato Hieronimo in Latinum ex

11
Hebreo uel Graeco fonte translatum

I sense a campaign was set in motion to see if Jerome's role could

not be better underlined in the gift pandect. To try and impress

brother X. with Jerome's true importance Bede showed him a passage

from Aldhelm's De virginitate dealing with the virgin Eustochium,

which specifically dwelt on Jerome as translator of the Bible. The

passage needs to be quoted :

Cui sacer interpres conscripsit opuscula plura,

Qui rudis et veteris digessit famina legis

Ebrea Romulidis vertens oracula linguis

Necnon Argolicas Italo sermone loquelas;

Idem translator biblis opulentus opacis

Transtulit in Latium peregrina volumina pandens

Thesaurosque simul librorum forte Pelasgos

Edidit in lucem, quos bargina texerat umbra.

Clavibus Ausoniae verbi clustella resolvens.

Tomum praeterea comptum sermone polito

12
Ad famulam Christi scripsit dedasculus idem...

Reflecting on the situation brother X. had an idea of how he could

shift the emphasis from Bede's concern with Jerome to what he

considered the real issue. The elegiac couplet he (or someone on his

side) composed and placed on the last page of his initial quire, (just

above the figure of the dove created to symbolize the Holy Spirit),

provides a glimpse of the arguments on the other side in the

controversy :

11. CCSL, 123B, p. 534, ll. 2047-50. Bede likewise uses donaria in the verses he

Aldhelmi opera
added on fol. 3v (see below at note 15).

12. , MGH auct. Antiqu. 15, p. 441, ll. 2144-54.

 ´ ´
304 REVUE BENEDICTINE

+ Eloquium domini quaecumque volumina pandunt

13
Spiritus hoc sancto fudit ab ore Deus

[Whatever books proclaim the word of God

God the Spirit poured forth this word from his holy mouth]

I have hunted through all the available Latin data bases and the only

place I found this conjunction of volumen and pandere was in the

passage from Aldhelm quoted above. I myself now have little doubt

that brother X. (or one of his allies) composed the couplet with the

passage from De virginitate in mind. The intention was to remind

readers what they would find in all the biblical books that followed

on the initial quire, namely God's Word ( eloquium domini ) transmitted

through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In such a context too much

emphasis on Jerome seemed out of place. The Bible, after all, was

God's word to mankind, not Jerome's. Bede may have been somewhat

annoyed to find how brother John had played with Aldhelm's

vocabulary to counter him.

The only way to obtain the upper hand in a monastic community is

to get the abbot on your side. Bede managed to persuade Ceolfrith he

had a just cause, and received his permission to intervene. We

therefore reach a point where brother X. has to step aside, no doubt

with very mixed feelings, and hand over the gift pandect to Bede. But

when Bede took over, the codex was already bound, and this created a

big problem. With the date for departure already set, the time for

making changes was limited. Unbinding the volume in order to start

a new first quire from scratch was out of question. Bede, therefore,

was forced to deal with the first quire as it then stood. Since his view

about the gift Pandect containing Jerome's ‘‘new'' translation of the

Bible was a strongly held one, what probably most offended him was

the prominence given to the antiqua translatio in brother X.'s central

bifolium, with its Preface taken straight from the Old Pandect

brought from Rome, and the division according to the antiqua

translatio put in first place. Because the volume was bound there was

Speculum
13. For the image I use part of the photo kindly supplied me by the Biblioteca

sancto fudit
Laurenziana for my article of 2005. It is clear from the spacing between

spiritus
and that the verses postdate the image of the dove. Richard Tarrant

kindly pointed out to me that ‘‘the two lines form an elegiac couplet, and

must scan as a dactyl, which it does in the nominative but not in the genitive, where

the final syllable is long. Without the metrical factor it would be hard to decide but

meter is here determinative.'' The rendering I give was that suggested by my friend,

Paul Dutton.
 P. MEYVAERT 305

only one way to ‘‘dethrone'' this central bifolium, namely by carefully

cutting down the central fold and removing what now became two

single leaves. This, at least, helped to assure that, even if the order of

books was unchanged, Jerome's division of Scripture now obtained first

place. Bede had a plan for the leaf with the antiqua translatio division.

Since its verso was blank, he placed on it a design consisting of five

circles shaped in the form of a cross, and chose five sentences from

Jerome's letter to Paulinus, each one dealing with a book of the

14
Pentateuch, to fill the circles. The new position assigned to this

verso, as an opening to the Pentateuch, entitled it in turn to receive

the ‘‘royal'' treatment, by being painted part purple and part gold.

I think this was also the time when Bede added his verses about

Jerome to the bottom of purple page with the contents of Amiatinus :

Hieronyme interpres uariis doctissime linguis

Te Bethlem celebrat, te totus personat orbis,

Te quoque nostra tuis promet bibliotheca libris,

Qua noua cum priscis condis donaria gazis

15

I am also prepared to believe that it was at this period, when he had

full control of the gift Pandect, that Bede added his two verses over

16
the image of Ezra.

But a major problem remained. How could the two single leaves

resulting from the cut central bifolium be re-integrated into a codex

that was already bound? An anchor of some sort was needed to

which the separate leaves could be attached. The solution Bede

adopted had, in fact, already been presented to me by Sabina

Magrini, in her article of 2001, but I had failed to notice it and

realize the full implication of her words :

Contestualmente, il restauratore [Sergio Giovannoni] ha rilevato come

i fori della cucitura a fili indipendenti non siano riscontrabili nel bifo-

lio con la pianta del Tabernacolo. Il fenomeno è quanto meno singo-

lare e non trova una facile giustificazione. Si può supporre che il

bifolio con la pianta in origine non sia stato concepito come parte del

primo o degli altri fascicoli e che, pertanto, esso non sia stato cucito

all'interno di questi o al loro stesso modo : in tal caso, esso sarebbe

14. For the text of Jerome, see I. H ilberg 's edition of Letter 53 in CSEL vol. 54,

pp. 454-455. It should be noted that on Numbers Bede's totius arithmeticae et mensura
terrae stands in the place of totius arithmeticae et prophetiae Balaam . Hilberg (p. 455)

records no manuscript with Bede's variant.

15. See ‘‘Bede, Cassiodorus,'' Speculum 71 (1996) p. 868.

16. On these verses see ‘‘The Date of In Ezram Speculum

Bede's ,'' 80 (2005) pp.

1098-99.

RB 19
 ´ ´
306 REVUE BENEDICTINE

stato agganciato al resto della cucitura del codice soltanto per prati-
17
cità, forse anche in un secondo tempo. (emphasis mine)

‘‘In un secondo tempo'' — I can now interpret this as the time of

Bede's intervention. The Tabernacle bifolium, in other words, had

clearly not been part of brother X.'s original plan since it lacked the

ten holes belonging to the original binding. In my Speculum article of

2005 I cited passages showing Bede's willingness to copy plans, like

those of churches, which he had found in Adamnan's De locis sanctis ,

and I used this as a basis for arguing that the copying of the Ezra

18
image from the Codex Grandior was probably his doing. Allowing

now that this might not be the case (since it belongs to brother X.'s

original plan), I see, in contrast, that copying the Tabernacle image

from the Codex Grandior fits in much better with Bede's known

propensities. That Bede had studied the Tabernacle image in the Old

Pandect and been fascinated by some of its details is shown through a

passage from his De tabernaculo (a work postdating his discovery that

the images in the Old Pandect came from Cassiodorus). There he

wrote :

Altare quidem totum cauum fieri praeceptum est... sed in medio sui

habens craticulam per totum in modum retis distinctam in qua uicti-

marum carnes comburendae imponerentur et subter arulam in qua

compositis lignis arderet ignis semper ad deuoranda superposita holo-

causta paratus. Erat enim contra arulam ostium in pariete altaris

orientali unde ligna ad addendum ignem inmitti uel carbones et cine-

res possent egeri quo modo in pictura Cassiodori senatoris (cuius ipse

in expositione psalmorum meminit) expressum uidimus in qua etiam

[pictura] utrique altari, et holocausti uidelicet et incensi, pedes quat-

tuor fecit quod utrumque eum sicut et tabernaculi et templi positio-

19
nem a doctoribus Iudaeorum [Cassiodorus] didicisse putamus.

(emphasis mine)

Bede, alive to details in the two old images not vouched for by the

text of Scripture, conjectured that Cassiodorus derived such elements

a doctoribus Iudaeorum . The term altar, for him, no doubt evoked a

rather massive and solid structure, and therefore altars standing on

four legs would appear most unusual. But the two altars in the

Tabernacle image of Codex Amiatinus are clearly shown to be

standing on four legs, and this allows us to conclude, beyond the

Magrini Quinio
In Ezram Speculum
17. , ‘‘Per difetto del legatore,'' 3 (2001) pp. 159-60.

18. ‘‘The Date of Bede's ,'' 80 (2005) pp. 115-16.

19. CCSL 119A, pp. 81-82, ll. 1557-70.

 P. MEYVAERT 307

shadow of a doubt, that Bede was copying the Tabernacle image from

20
the Codex Grandior.

Altar of Holocausts Altar of Incense

The opening in the front of the altar of Holocausts, immediately facing

the viewer, through which, as Bede says, fire wood could be added to

stoke the flames, and the ashes removed, is also correctly shown facing

East ( anatol ). Some questions, however, will doubtless remain

unanswered : did Bede introduce any modifications — like the cross

over the door to the Tabernacle — to the image being copied? Did

the Tabernacle image in the Grandior occupy a full bifolium, or is the

Amiatinus image a bifolium enlargement of a single page image in the

Grandior? Perhaps, now, most importantly, can we consider the

Tabernacle image in Amiatinus to be Bede's own work?

The new Tabernacle bifolium provided the necessary support for the

two single leaves that came from brother X.'s cut central bifolium,

since a single leaf could be placed on either side of it. The scientific

analysis of 1999 was able to show that the purple leaf had been

placed on its left side, since it left traces of itself both on 6v and 7r.

The other leaf was placed to its right, accounting for the traces that

21
rubbed off onto 8v. If the notes of Sergio Giovannoni, when

published, reveal the existence of some holes along the central fold of

the Tabernacle bifolium, we may get a clue of how this bifolium was

attached to the codex before the gift Pandect left Northumbria for

Rome in 716.

20. For the clearest view of the altars use the CD-ROM La Bibbia Amiatina (SIS-

Quinio
MEL, 2000) and zoom into 2v, 2v_7r, 3r_7r.

21. ‘‘Non-destructive Analysis,'' 3 (2001) pp. 169-170 : I assign to the folios

the numbers they have in my diagram above on p. 4. The numbers 7 and 8 represent

Bede's addition of the new bifolium.

 ´ ´
308 REVUE BENEDICTINE

The initial quire, therefore, so carefully executed by brother X. (A),

was converted into something of a hodge-podge by Bede (B) :

A B

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 5 6 3 7 Tabernacle 8 4

As was said above, when single leaves are found in a codex whose

gatherings are as well structured as those of codex Amiatinus one

must view them as an anomaly and uncover their story. But the

story the single leaves found at the beginning of this famous

manuscript have to tell moves on a very different level from that told

by the other single leaves found elsewhere in the codex. Now when I

look at the opening pages of Codex Amiatinus, it is with rather mixed

feelings. I am grateful to Bede for giving us a glimpse — and probably

a quite accurate one — of the Tabernacle image that stood in the

Codex Grandior. But his intervention also remains a testimony of his

obstinacy and his willingness to ride roughshod over the feelings of

others in order to get his own way. I cannot imagine that brother X.

was happy to see the work he had so carefully planned and executed

become so damaged. While Bede's intervention has, I admit, slightly

lowered the esteem I formerly held him in, it has also helped me to

understand that he was fully human, possessing his share of human

22
weaknesses.

22. I am very grateful to Laura Light for her editorial help with the final version of

my manuscript, and also to my friend Paul Dutton for some useful suggestions. I can-

not refrain from quoting how Dutton summed up the situation, as he saw it, in a

message I recently received : ‘‘What Bede did ...was to introduce physical changes to

an already completed codex based on his own convictions. In one light his remaking

was a ruination of the original design; but your old friend Bede was like so many

driven scholars — he was convinced he was right and that conviction overrode mere

collegiality and codicological aesthetics.''

 P. MEYVAERT 309

Postscript
I view this present short piece as a small revision of ‘‘The Date of

Bede's In Ezram and His Image of Ezra in the Codex Amiatinus,''

Speculum 80 (2005) pp. 1087-1133, where (especially p. 1107), I failed

to reflect sufficiently on the ‘‘in house'' significance of what was

happening. For a different approach to the initial pages of Amiatinus

see the article of Celia C hazelle I mention there on p. 1049 (note 45),

‘‘Ceolfrid's gift to St Peter : the first quire of the Codex Amiatinus and

the evidence of its Roman destination,'' Early Medieval Europe 12

(2001) pp. 129-58, which Chazelle has now followed up with a further

interesting article : ‘‘Christ and the Vision of God : The Biblical

Diagrams of the Codex Amiatinus,'' in

amburger
The Mind's Eye : Art and

[ed. Jeffrey H and

ouché
Theological Argument in the Middle Ages

Anne-Marie B ] (Princeton, 2006), pp. 84-111. We develop our

respective positions mostly from different premises, or from common

elements, which we perceive and interpret differently. So, in trying to

explain why the roundel with the image of the Father comes last,

Chazelle appeals to an opposition, on the theological level, between

Vivarium and Wearmouth-Jarrow, while I see it resulting from strife

within Bede's own community. Similarly, to give another example, we

attach a different level of importance to the fact that the bifolium

with the plan of the Tabernacle lacks the holes connected with the

original binding. Chazelle interprets this as a desire to display the

open bifolium to better advantage, while I see proof that the

Tabernacle image was not part of brother X.'s original plan. I must

leave it to others to evaluate our different stands, while remaining

certain that between us we will keep interest in the first leaves of

Codex Amiatinus alive for some time to come. — For an illustration

showing how quires were held together using the sewing method of

separate strands described above at note 9, see Jean V ezin , ‘‘La

réalisation matérielle des manuscrits latins pendant le haut Moyen

ˆ
Age,'' in
´
[ed. A. G ruys and

umbert
E le´ments pour une codicologie compare´e

J. P. G ] Codicologica 2, (Leiden, 1978), p. 37, Fig. 1.

Cambridge, MA Paul Meyvaert