This paper deals with the system of marginalia designed by the Franciscan Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253). The educational rule of marking quotations or memorable topics in the margin of a book by means of notae, i.e. symbols or mnemonic hooks, dates back to Quintilian, who also spoke of vestigia and simulacra. Grosseteste had developed a ready list (tabula) of about 400 symbols. Each of them identified a theological or philosophical topic. For instance, a overturned triangle symbolized the Antichrist, a circle with a dot inside was a mark for eyesight, and so on. The list performed a double function: excerpting by reading and later retrieving of what had been collected. As a consequence, writing as well reading were conceived of as a kind of mnemotechnique. The outcome was a topical concordance of the Bible and the Fathers. In retrospect, we know that Grosseteste’s system failed. Only 200 symbols were actually used and monks never excerpted all the 150 books they had selected for their scholarly work. This paper tries to suggest some reasons for that failure.
Making notae for Scholarly Retrieval: A Franciscan Case Study / Cevolini, Alberto. - 38:(2017), pp. 343-367. [10.1484/M.USML-EB.5.115027]
Making notae for Scholarly Retrieval: A Franciscan Case Study
CEVOLINI, Alberto
2017
Abstract
This paper deals with the system of marginalia designed by the Franciscan Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253). The educational rule of marking quotations or memorable topics in the margin of a book by means of notae, i.e. symbols or mnemonic hooks, dates back to Quintilian, who also spoke of vestigia and simulacra. Grosseteste had developed a ready list (tabula) of about 400 symbols. Each of them identified a theological or philosophical topic. For instance, a overturned triangle symbolized the Antichrist, a circle with a dot inside was a mark for eyesight, and so on. The list performed a double function: excerpting by reading and later retrieving of what had been collected. As a consequence, writing as well reading were conceived of as a kind of mnemotechnique. The outcome was a topical concordance of the Bible and the Fathers. In retrospect, we know that Grosseteste’s system failed. Only 200 symbols were actually used and monks never excerpted all the 150 books they had selected for their scholarly work. This paper tries to suggest some reasons for that failure.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Cevolini_Making notae for scholarly.pdf
Accesso riservato
Tipologia:
VOR - Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione
1.39 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.39 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris