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.
2017
The Annotated Book in the Early Middle Ages: Practices of Reading and Writing
Teeuwen, Mariken; van Renswoude, Irene
9782503569482
Brepols
BELGIO
Making notae for Scholarly Retrieval: A Franciscan Case Study / Cevolini, Alberto. - 38:(2017), pp. 343-367. [10.1484/M.USML-EB.5.115027]
Cevolini, Alberto
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Cevolini_Making notae for scholarly.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipologia: Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione 1.39 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.39 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
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

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1145728
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact