I am grateful to the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellin, where I am an associate professor in Medieval History, for the generous grant which allowed me to conduct this research.
1This article will argue that the practice of chronicle writing in the twelfth century defies the established notion of the holographic manuscript. Purportedly written as collections of factual historical information, chronicles in this period were written following multi-layered agendas. They claimed authority through their basis in accredited sources whilst also expressing newer institutional or political agendas. This exercise of historical writing gained pace in the territories ruled by the Anglo-Norman kings as an important means of both appropriating the past and building up identity. They are complex narratives, defying modern perceptions of the factual and the fictional in the medieval past. They also raise challenging issues around authorial figures and their roles. This article will consider whether holograph manuscripts of such chronicles should be granted more status than other copies of the same texts. Is it possible to understand how far holographs constituted “official” versions of this type of historical writing when other manuscripts or copies of other chronicles were not? If holographs were well cared for and kept in the monasteries where they were written, were they particularly significant compared to later copies? Do copies bear testimony to the actual significance of the holograph? And does collaborative production alter the concept of the holograph?
2In order to explore these questions, this article will examine the manuscript now Leiden, University Library, BPL 20, an alleged authorial copy of Robert of Torigni’s Gesta Normannorum Ducum, written at the abbey of Le Bec c. 1139. The manuscript is presumed to have travelled to England early, with probable links to at least two other manuscript copies, all datable to the twelfth century: London, British Library, Cotton Ms Nero D VII (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, xcvi); and a Reading Abbey manuscript now divided between Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, Ms 177/20 and London, British Library, Cotton Ms Vitellius A VIII (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, cxii).
- 1 BPL 20 is available in digitised format at the digital collections of the University of Leiden: htt (...)
- 2 In the Le Bec catalogue the manuscript appears as item 115: “In uno volumine historie normannorum, (...)
- 3 For more on medieval autographs see: Overgaauw 2013.
3Leiden, University Library, BPL 20 has been the subject of much recent analysis.1 Thanks to this, it is possible to establish the basic codicological information of the manuscript with a substantial degree of detail. It is dated to the middle of the twelfth century, with a precise terminus ante quem date of c. 1163, and its production can be placed at the Benedictine abbey of Bec in Normandy (Avril 1964, 211; Hermans and Van Houts 1983, 80–81; Dumville 1985, 4). It consists of two different parts. Part I, fos. 2r–59v, can be dated more precisely to c. 1139 thanks to the autograph work of Robert of Torigni and his version of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, cix; J. C. Crick 1991, 23–25). Part II, including fos. 60r–106v can be dated on palaeographical grounds to c. 1160. Notably, both sections of the manuscript were bound together by 1164 when they appear as such in an entry in a Bec catalogue of that date, now Avranches, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 159 fols. 1v–3r (Cleaver 2017, 190–205; Dumville 1985, 2–4).2 The manuscript contains Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni (fos. 38v–47r), Vita Alexandri Magni (fos. 38v–47r), Epistola Alexandri Magni ad Aristotelem (fos. 47r–51v), Abbreviatio gestorum regum Franciae (fos. 52r–59r), Genealogia comitum Flandriae (fo. 59v), Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae (fos. 60r–101v), Historia Britonum (fos. 101v–106r), and a fragment of Orderic Vitalis’ Historia Ecclesiastica (fo. 106v). This is a historical volume dealing with the histories of France, Normandy and Britain, including biographies, chronicles, and genealogical information relating to the counts of Flanders. As previously mentioned, the Gesta Normannorum Ducum in this manuscript is considered an autograph (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, cix; J. C. Crick 1991, 24; Lieftinck 1964, 69; Hermans and Van Houts 1983, 80).3 Robert had been a monk of Bec before becoming abbot of Mont St Michel, and his work on the Gesta Normannorum Ducum was done whilst he was at Bec. Its binding, together with such important works of secular history, thus suggests that Bec viewed him as an authority who could place the dukes of Normandy on the same level.
4According to its editor, Elizabeth Van Houts, the Gesta Normannorum Ducum constitutes the first post-Carolingian national history of a Frankish principality (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, xix). It was first written by Dudo of Saint-Quentin under the heading De moribus et actis primorum Normannorum ducum, between c. 996 and c. 1015. Dudo’s work was continued and revised by William of Jumièges. His revised version, known as Redaction C, brought the history of the Normans up to c. 1070, thus including the history of the conquest of England by William the Conqueror. William’s text was, in turn, revised by multiple authors, many of whom remain anonymous. Their work constitutes the Redactions α, A, B and D of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum. Two other authors would contribute further to the redaction of the text, Orderic Vitalis and then Robert of Torigni himself. Orderic worked on the Gesta Normannorum Ducum from c. 1109 to c. 1113 and produced what is known as Redaction E. Apart from revising William’s style, Orderic included extensive interpolations to books VI and VII dealing with Dukes Robert I and William the Conqueror. However, he did not expand the narrative beyond the chronological framework already established by William.
5The last Latin author to contribute to the Gesta Normannorum Ducum was Robert of Torigni, who worked on the text in the late 1130s. He added substantial work to books II, VI and VII. Above all, he added a whole new book, VIII, on King Henry I, bringing the narrative up to 1135. His redaction is known as Redaction F. Thus, the writing and rewriting of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum can be seen both as a long-drawn-out process of collaboration and as a challenge to standard concepts of authorship. It involved a careful process of revisions, additions, subtractions and manipulation of the text by several individuals who were in constant dialogue with the work of their predecessors. It evinces some of the mechanisms under which history was written in the Central Middle Ages and, importantly, poses interesting questions to our current understanding of the holograph. If an historical text could be altered through a considerable timespan, with the intervention of various authors, some of whom were anonymous, how does this shift our understanding of “the Author”? Consequently, if there is not a single authoritative version of a text, is it still possible to think about the existence of an authorial holograph? These questions make it important to examine the surviving copies of Robert’s own work.
6There are forty-seven surviving medieval manuscripts of the work identified by modern editors as the Gesta Normannorum Ducum and fourteen of Dudo’s “original” text, showing the popularity of the work and its availability throughout the Middle Ages. That a possible continuation to the work was considered in the form of a biography of Geoffrey of Anjou, the husband of the Empress Matilda, is shown by a letter sent by Robert of Torigni to Prior Gervase of Saint-Céneri in 1151 (Van Houts 2018, 132). No continuation was to be written; however, the Gesta Normannorum Ducum was later used as a major source for both the vernacular Roman de Rou by Wace, written in the last quarter of the twelfth century, and for the Chronique des ducs de Normandie by Benoît de Sainte-Maure. This provides further proof of the ongoing status accorded to the work, and to Robert’s “concluding” version in particular.
- 4 Benjamin Pohl has argued for continuous amendments to the text up to the year 1165, (Pohl 2014, 52, (...)
7The version of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum in BPL 20 has been identified by scholars as Robert’s personal copy (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, cix, cxxvi; Cleaver 2018, 95; Pohl 2014, 59). This raises important questions around the concepts of both an authorial holograph and a “reference” copy intended for ongoing institutional ownership. The text is accepted as being in its latest stages of composition, representing a version that Robert himself thought ready for “publication” c. 1139, but which he continued to amend during 1139–1159.4 Parts of the work are missing from this manuscript, with losses from the beginning of the text and book VIII, mainly due to the absence of the first two quires. This has the unfortunate effect that both title page (if any) and incipit are missing. The work of several scribes, apparently directed by Robert of Torigni, can be seen in the manuscript and constitute another layer of collaborative work. The skeleton of the text, which was copied first, corresponds to that of Redaction E by Orderic Vitalis, with blank spaces originally left for Robert’s additions. Robert’s interpolations were added later in a variety of hands. This team of scribes were most likely working under the close supervision of Robert himself. The blank spaces left in the manuscript were probably set before Robert’s composition of his work, as some spaces are too small to fit comfortably (fol. 15v; see Fig. 1) and others are too large, so the text appears stretched (fol. 15r; see Fig. 2).
- 5 For a counterargument see: Bisson 2019.
- 6 See fols. 17r, 47v, 52r, 65r, 99r Pohl 2014, 60.
- 7 See fols. 2v, 4r, 6v, 14v, 19r, 20v, 25r, 29v, 30r, 30v, 105 (Pohl 2014, 60; Van Houts 1989, 217).
8Benjamin Pohl has identified one of these hands as that of Robert, citing its presence throughout the manuscript as scribe, annotator and corrector (Pohl 2014, 58–64).5 According to Pohl, the specific hand, also present in Avranches 159, stands out because it "can be seen repeatedly to amend the work not only of virtually all previous scribes but also of previous correctors" and because "while most of the hands in Leiden BPL 20 are confined to certain parts of the manuscript, this one hand features throughout the entirety of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum", (Pohl 2014, 60). In fact its corrections occur throughout the whole of BPL 20. As noted by Pohl, this amending hand usually concerns itself with grammatical corrections that sometimes require erasure and replacement.6 Sometimes it adds more substantial revisions. An excellent example is the explanatory notes attached to personal names or place names, betraying a solid interest in Anglo-Norman affairs. They serve to “render the texts to which they are attached more intelligible and accessible to Norman audiences”.7 This hand stands out as particularly angular, less regular and "informal", not the product of a trained scribe (see Fig. 3).
Figure 1: (BPL 20, fol. 15v).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 2: (BPL, 20, fol. 15r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 3: (Fol. 2v).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
- 8 See Pohl’s remarks for the palaeographical characteristics of Robert’s hand: “the overall impressio (...)
- 9 For Robert’s interest in genealogy, see: Van Houts 1989.
- 10 Very little evidence of Robert’s activities as a scribe at Bec survive, for this see: Pohl 2018, 10 (...)
9This hand stands out, too, as it shares few characteristics with the hands that wrote the main body of the text in BPL 20 (see Fig. 4).8 As Van Houts has argued, there is no question about Robert’s over-riding role in the execution of BPL 20 in all of its stages (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, cx).9 His interventions worked to create the “final word” on the text written out by a team of scribes whom he directed. Thus, Robert stands out as as an author who relied on a team of scribes working under his instruction. He was increasingly gaining responsibility as a monastic administrator but still keenly interested in the composition of history, the compilation of books, and their acquisition.10 It is possible that Robert’s reliance on his scribal team was the result of this situation and was thus unique to him. However this does not seem to have been the case since, as noted by Jenny Weston, "For the many authors of Le Bec, the scriptorium (and its scribes) were crucial to the development and presentation of their ideas. Without diligent scribes recording the text, and making suitable adjustments at the authors’ request, many of the innovative ideas developed by the community at Le Bec would not have survived" (Weston 2017, 159–60). If this is correct then, at least in the case of an historical work, both the contents of the text and the hand(s) producing fair copies were open to constant change. Can Robert’s direct involvement in the production and writing of this manuscript then count as sufficient evidence for it being a holograph? Do we not need to account for the efforts of his team of scribes, who, as suggested by Weston, gave voice not only to an author but to a whole community at Bec? Would this type of collaborative work in situ not somewhat alter our definition of the authorial process in the composition of this narrative? This raises the related question of whether Robert himself came to be considered as an authority on Norman history.
Figure 4: (Fol. 20v).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
- 11 Benjamin Pohl places his date of birth at around 1106 (Pohl 2018, 112). For more on Robert of Torig (...)
- 12 The first list includes the donation of books given to Le Bec by Philip de Harcourt, Bishop of Baye (...)
10Robert of Torigny was born in Western Normandy in the early twelfth century.11 He entered the monastery of Bec in Normandy in 1128 as a young adult, and twenty years later, c. 1149, he became prior; an office he held until he was elected abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel in 1154. He died in June 1186. At Bec, Robert worked on the Gesta Normannorum Ducum and a Chronica, describing events from 318 to 1111 and elaborating upon the World Chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux. Robert’s knowledge of recent history was celebrated by Henry of Huntingdon, in an addition to his own Historia Anglorum. This took the form of a letter to one Warin the Breton, narrating Henry’s encounter with Robert at Bec in 1139. Robert is depicted as having copies of important, new historical works, even though he is quoted as describing himself as “a man most devoted to the investigation and collection of both divine and secular writings”, (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, lxxviii; Pohl 2018, 98). Robert is thus frequently credited as having been vital to the increased production and collection of manuscripts at Bec during the middle of the twelfth century. He carried on with this role at Mont-Saint-Michel, where he completed his Chronica and potentially continued to revise the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, showing a continuous interest in the writing of history and his ongoing use of the library holdings at Bec. Thanks to this interest, two book lists detailing the manuscripts held at Bec in the second half of the twelfth century survive (Cleaver 2017; Pohl 2014, 51). They are included in the flyleaves of the manuscript now Avranches, Bibliothèque Municipale, Ms 159, which includes a copy of Robert’s Chronica, its oldest surviving witness.12 Their contents suggest that he influenced the choice of books to be acquired by Bec. Robert stands out as a man who gradually came into his own, rising to the challenges and opportunities presented to him while at Bec, and taking on both greater responsibilities and greater power. Being an influential member of the community at Bec allowed Robert to compose the Gesta Normannorum Ducum in the manner previously described, clearly impacting the outcome of his endeavour. Henry of Huntingdon’s testimony confirms Robert as both collector and critic of historical works.
11For his version of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Robert of Torigni relied heavily on the version written by Orderic Vitalis and not on the earlier text of William of Jumièges. He preserved most of the dedicatory letter and the seven books that constituted Orderic’s text’s main body. However, while Orderic had not intervened in the early parts of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, leaving William of Jumièges’ text mostly unchanged, Robert of Torigni felt free to make more interventions. He made extensive interpolations to books I and II, primarily based on Dudo of Saint-Quentin’s, De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum. He inserted further interpolations throughout, substantially adding to the text again in book VII, concerning William the Conqueror (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, lxxxii) and again, adding an entire book celebrating the deeds of King Henry I, instead of including the shorter epilogue which already appeared in Orderic Vitalis’ text. This redaction is the most popular of all the redactions of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, accounting for 23 of the surviving forty-seven medieval manuscripts. However, does this mean we can think about Robert’s version, as portrayed in BPL 20, as the most authoritative or ’‘official’’ version of the text? It certainly portrays a moment of composition where after ample manipulation by several authors and hands, the narrative is reaching its latest stage of development. Still, does this inherently mean that Robert’s version carries more authority than the one produced by Orderic Vitalis, William of Jumièges or any of the anonymous authors who worked on the text’s other redactions? Is it possible to think about BPL 20 as an authoritative copy of the text?
- 13 Hermans and Van Houts have identified up to nine different hands intervening in the manuscript (Her (...)
12Let us now consider the physical characteristics of BPL 20, for it will allow us to contextualise the status of the work in terms of its production and possibly of its intended reception while providing clues as to the potential authority the work might have carried. BPL 20 is relatively large, measuring approximately 32.5 by 22.5 cm. The text is set out in two columns, with double vertical boundary lines and a divided central margin (see Figs. 5 and 6). It has 47 lines of text, and it is rubricated (see Fig. 7). The Gesta Normannorum Ducum also includes line-fillers in red in the first six books of the text, particularly after the number of chapters (see Fig. 8). It is written in Protogothic miniscule in various hands, with longish ascenders and descenders.13 The script is laterally compact. It has initials of various sizes, in green, red and blue (see Figs. 9, 10 and 11). Some minor initials have been filled out in ochre, particularly of lists of chapters, as in fol. 9v (see Fig. 12). There are occasional more elaborate examples of initials, as the blue initial in fol. 24r (see Fig. 13) or when a curious face looking through a letter O appears in the same fol. (see Fig. 14). Larger and more elaborate initials, such as the ones in fos. 5r (see Fig. 15), 10v (see Fig. 16) and 22v (see Fig. 17) mark the start of new books. Here a more elaborate setting with curling lines and penwork is present.
13Unfortunately, the loss of the first quire of text means it is not possible to know whether more elaborate treatment was given to the opening initial of the volume. Surviving initials at the beginning of the other works contained in part I of this manuscript vary in size and level of elaboration (see Figs. 18, 19, 20, 21). However, they are generally less complex than the initials opening new books in the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, except perhaps for the 9-line “A” found in fol. 52r opening the Adbreviatio Gestorum Regnum Franciae (see Fig. 22). This particularly large initial displays three colours, red, green, and ochre, and it includes foliate pen-worked interlace. This highlights that even though the main initial has been lost, those remaining show more elaboration than opening initials for other texts in the volume, except for the elaborate ‘’A’’ in fol. 52r. As such, it can be argued that the opening initial of Robert’s work probably matched that of other significant historical texts in this same volume, like the 9-line “C” opening Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (see Fig. 23), a striking example of the treatment such works could merit.
14The initial to Geoffrey’s text depicts the image of a mounted knight leaping over an elaborate interlaced “C” on coloured ground (see Fig. 23). It comes in part II of BPL 20 and is thus later than the other initials discussed so far. It evinces a slightly later style but still uses the same colour palette and plain background as the one observed in part I of the manuscript. Furthermore, it indicates the treatment historical works could receive at the twelfth-century Bec scriptorium and may therefore indicate the level of display given to the opening of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum.
Figure 5: (Fol. 2r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 6 : (Fol. 2v).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 7: (Fol. 10v).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 8: (Fol. 12r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 9: (Fol. 23r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 10: (Fol. 21r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 11: (Fol. 11r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 12: (Fol. 9v).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 13: (Fol. 24r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 14: (Fol. 24r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 15: (Fol. 5r).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 16: (Fol. 10v).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 17: (Fol. 22v).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 18: (Fol. 33r, Vita Karoli Magni).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 19: (Fol. 38v, Vita Alexandri Magni).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 20: (Fol. 42r, Epistola ad Aristotelem).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 21: (Fol. 59v, Genealogia comitum flandrie).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 22: (Fol. 52r Adbreviatio Gestorum Regnum
Franciae).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
Figure 23: (Fol. 60r, Historia regum Britanniae).
Image released in the public domain by the Leiden University Libraries
- 14 For more on monastic book production see: (Thomson 2008); (Webber 2008).
15This is all the more true when considering the relative care placed in the initials at the start of books throughout this copy of Robert of Torigni. It is of further interest when considering that this copy consumed considerable resources and can thus be seen as a relatively high-quality product. At Bec, the willingness of the community to support the production of a manuscript like BPL 20 is shown by the resources invested in its creation: parchment, ink, money for the acquisition of books that would serve as exemplars, and the human resources involved in both the writing and copying of the historical narratives included in it.14 It shows that Robert’s endeavours were valued enough so that a significant investment was made in them. Robert’s holograph was not luxurious, but it was considered an important product to make, hold, and maybe even lend as an exemplar of a valued work. This brings the enquiry back to the issue of whether BPL 20 was indeed treated in this way.
- 15 See: London, British Library (“The Reading Abbey Cartulary,” n.d., fol. 9v)
16The answer is that early copies were produced from BPL 20 for monastic communities in England. One is a manuscript produced at Henry I’s new foundation of Reading, now Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 177/210 and London, British Library Cotton Ms Vitellius A VIII (fols. 5—100). Another is associated with Colchester, and is now London, British Library Cotton Ms Nero D. VIII. The Reading copy is late twelfth century. All the relevant folios [fos. 5–100] of the Cotton portion, constituting the later part of the original volume, are badly damaged by fire. It was both written and corrected at Reading Abbey (Coates 1999, 154). There is also an ex-libris in the flyleaf of the Cambridge manuscript, associating it with the monastery at Reading. The original volume can be identified with an entry in the late twelfth-century library Catalogue of Reading, where it appears as Vita Karoli et Alexandri, et gesta Normannorum, et alia.15 The Cambridge manuscript consists of 59 folios, which include the Vita Karoli Magni (pp. 1–30), Vita Alexandri Magni (pp. 30–67), Epistola Alexandri Magni ad Aristotelem (pp. 67–89), and the Abbreviatio gestorum regum Franciae (pp. 89–115). These are similar to the contents in the first part of BPL 20. A possible third section containing the Historia Britonum is missing. Robert’s version of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum begins on fol. 5r of the Cotton Ms Vitellius A VIII, it is rubricated but only partially legible. This is one of only two copies of this version which include the additions dated to c. 1139–59 entered into BPL 20. This evidence strongly suggests that BPL 20 itself, or a “loan copy” produced from it, was chosen as an exemplar by Reading and that Robert’s authority as a historian was important in this choice. If that argument is accepted then it follows that the cooperative work on BPL 20 did not contradict its status as the “original” copy of Robert’s version.
- 16 Dumville has speculated on whether the Cotton manuscript might be a copy of the Reading Abbey manus (...)
17London, British Library Cotton Ms Nero D VIII is a composite manuscript containing a variety of texts that can be grouped into three main parts: fos. 3–175 include a collection of historical works, including the Historia Regum Britanniae and the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, and dates to the last quarter of the twelfth century; fos. 176–344 include historical and scientific texts, including the Polychronicon, dating from the last quarter of the fourteenth century, and fos. 345–347 include a history of the foundation of Colchester Abbey dating to the sixteenth century. Because of this last section, a possible link between the volume and Colchester has been suggested (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, xcvi; J. Crick 1989, 149–52). The first part of the manuscript, fos. 1–175 is comprised of two different units, written in an English hand dating from the end of the twelfth century, which exhibit separate sets of quire signatures. Despite this, they can be seen as products of the same scriptorium, most likely bound together early and perhaps meant to be a single whole, as they both contain texts related to BPL 20.16 The first part of the manuscript includes Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Britanniae (fos. 3r–63r), followed by Gildas’ Historia Britonum (fos. 63r–71r), as in BPL 20. Dudo of Saint-Quentin’s De moribus (fos. 72r–135v) is followed by the Gesta Normannorum Ducum in Redaction F (fos. 147r–159v), the Vita Alexandri Magni (fos. 160r–169r) and the Epistola Alexandri Magni ad Aristotelem (fos. 169r–174v). The volume ends with a list of works by Bede (fos. 174v–175r). This portion of Cotton Nero D VIII is in effect a selection from BPL 20, to which the list of Bedan texts has been added.
- 17 See: “Digitised Manuscripts: Cotton MS Nero d VIII, Fols. 146v-147r. British Library” n.d.
18However, the version of Redaction F in this codex is incomplete, consisting only of books VII, VIII and the so-called Additamenta. The earlier part of the narrative follows Dudo’s history and Redaction A of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum (fos. 135v–146v), beginning in book V and including the short epilogue. In this instance, Redaction A is part of Dudo’s narrative. A rubric closing Dudo’s text and running through folios 146v and 147r of the manuscript states: “Explicit historia Dudonis decani sancti Quintini de ducibus Northmannie que uero sequuntur addita sunt de sexto et septimo libro historiarum Willelmi Gemmeticensis monachi” [Here ends the history of Dudo, dean of Saint-Quentin, about the dukes of Normandy. What follows is added from the sixth and seventh books of the histories by the monk William of Jumièges]17 This is followed by extracts from Redaction F, associated here to William of Jumièges, and without any further separation. It is clear that whoever was running the copying project was keenly aware of the fact that William’s work was complementing Dudo’s version of the narrative. Unlike the Reading Abbey volume, which might have served as an exemplar to this Cotton manuscript if it was not BPL 20 itself, the copyists here preferred to collate the work of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, including Dudo’s text, Redaction A and Redaction F. Here, Robert of Torigni’s authorial interventions in BPL 20 do not seem to have conferred enough authority to his redaction of the text to grant an inclusion of his whole work in the manuscript; the copyists of the Colchester MS preferring earlier redactions to Robert’s own. As a holograph, BPL 20 seems to have influenced the choice of content in the Reading Abbey volume, but this does not seem to have been the case with this Colchester codex. Even though it is unlikely that its status as an autograph copy was unknown to its makers, it is not entirely impossible.
19The writing of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum is revealed by this analysis as a double collective enterprise involving the efforts, firstly, of various authors through time. From when Dudo of Saint-Quentin first began to write his De moribus, to when Robert of Torigni finished the latest touches to his corrections, 150 years had passed. It is possible to establish with a moderate degree of certainty that at least four of the authors were monks, except for Dudo of Saint-Quentin, who had been a canon and chaplain to dukes Richard I and Richard II. As authors, those who engaged in writing the Gesta Normannorum Ducum depended upon their communities and varying degrees of lay patronage. Some were anonymous, but in the case of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni, it is possible to trace a joint exercise that exceeded the boundaries of time. This mode of composition is vastly dissimilar to most modern equivalents, despite being reasonably typical for medieval writers. It challenges modern notions of authorship and thus impacts our understanding of what constitutes a holograph in the medieval period. Does it, therefore, impact the value of the concept? I would argue that it does not, quite the contrary, for it illustrates the complex process by which medieval texts both came to be and achieved authority.
20Something quite similar happens when considering the other main factor evinced by the production of BPL 20, that of its collective scribal production in situ, for it is also not unusual for medieval texts to be written by a team of scribes that would work in aid of authors for the composition of their texts, as was the case with Robert of Torigni. However, neither is it universal, as can be shown by Orderic Vitalis’ authorial copy of this same narrative (Jumièges, Vitalis, and Torigni 1992, ciii). In the case of monastic authors, this second mode of collective creation required the resources of a well-doted scriptorium and the acquiescence of monastic authorities. Robert of Torigni counted upon a team of scribes who prepared a working copy of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum into which he could insert his interpolations and later corrections. However, as shown by the Colchester copy of the text, medieval scribes and their directors remained free to make choices as to how a text was to be assembled and presented. In the case of Robert’s text, the two English manuscripts discussed both display knowledge of his authorial version as presented in BPL 20, but both made different choices. However, this does not in itself challenge the status of BPL 20 as a potential holograph. If such is to be considered a manuscript handwritten by the person named as its author, as described by the OED, then the involvement of a team of scribes would contradict this basic definition of what constitutes a holograph. But I would argue that this would not be the case for medieval works. Once again, BPL 20 illustrates the complexities involved in the composition and copying of medieval texts, highlighting the value of not taking modern conceptions and definitions at face value when working with narratives written in the remote past. This type of “serial” authorship and team-writing of texts, which now tend to be discussed as ’the work’ of individual, named authors, challenges not only authorship concepts, but also the status of a holograph and autograph manuscript in the medieval past. This paper has presented evidence that, even if a monastic compiler/editor/continuator started with a copy of an older work but then revised, interpolated and updated it, as well as having the result copied by a team of scribes, both the text and the manuscript could meaningfully be considered as his work. If that argument is accepted then the concept of the authorial holograph remains important but needs to be expanded.