The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. II: 1100-1400 (review)

The twelfth to fourteenth centuries witnessed significant developments in book manufacture and use, not only in the British Isles but throughout Western Europe. Around 1100, books were made predominantly by monks, for monks, and parchment was the only writing surface. By 1400, commercial production was invariably the norm, many books for the English market were being supplied by imports from Flanders, and paper was becoming increasingly fashionable as a writing medium. The book as we know it today largely took shape in the later Middle Ages.

This second volume of The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain (CHBB II) comprises twenty essays that address how, why, and for whom medieval manuscripts were made, focusing (despite its title) on the period c. 1066-c. 1425. The editors, Nigel Morgan and Rodney Thomson, have authored five essays between them, on topics as diverse as ink, illumination, and the liturgy. The list of contributors reads, mean while, as a who's who of modern scholarship on the history of the medieval book. It was also an excellent touch by the editors to commend those scholars, such as M. R. James, Richard Hunt, and Neil Ker, who investigated this subject to such great effect in previous decades. Malcolm Parkes has the double distinction of contributing two learned chapters (on layout and presentation of the text, and handwriting in English books) as well as being included in this roll call of distinguished trailblazers.

The volume as a whole is divided into three sections, entitled 'The Roles of Books', 'Book Production', and 'Readership, Libraries, Texts and Contexts'. The first features a thought-provoking essay by Christopher de Hamel, questioning whether the place of books in English medieval society has been over-estimated, and a discussion of language and literacy by Thomson and Morgan. 'Book Production', in turn, celebrates such central themes as format, bookbindings, and the manufacture of books in monasteries, cathedrals, and urban centres. By far the greatest portion of CHBB II, 'Readership, Libraries, Texts and Contexts', is devoted to essays on specific genres (religious instruction, history, science, music), languages (Latin, Anglo-Norman French, Middle English, Welsh), and other aspects of learning (library catalogues, encyclopaedias, archives, illustration). It would be quite wrong here to single out any one contribution for especial praise; suffice it to say that every chapter is a significant addition to its respective field.

Any reviewer will naturally turn to those topics on which they profess to possess a modicum of expertise; and I am no exception to that rule. The history of medieval book-production in Scotland and Ireland is reserved explicitly for other publications (the forthcoming first volume of The Edinburgh History of the Book in Scotland and A History of the Irish Book). In effect, therefore, the present collection of essays could, perhaps should, have been renamed The Cambridge History of the Book in England and Wales, though doubtless that was an issue on which the editors had little say. (Note to publishers, and occasionally authors: England and Wales on their own do not constitute 'Britain'.) Scotland does, however, creep into the essays of Pamela Robinson (The Format of Books), Thomson (Parchment and Paper), M. A. Michael (Urban Production), Jeremy Catto (Biblical Exegesis), Nigel Ramsay (Law; Archive Books), Morgan (Books for the Liturgy), and Nicolas Bell (Music). Thomson's passing reference to the sourcing of Scottish parchment for the twelfth-century Bury Bible (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 2; the text actually states that the parchment originated in Scotia, which need not of itself exclude Ireland) has always struck me as a fascinating example of the lengths to which the makers of medieval books might go, both literally and figuratively.

Annalistic chronicling likewise receives a very brief notice, and could perhaps have been given greater treatment. Recent research reveals that this form of historical writing was not the preserve of Benedictine...