| ||
Poslanie mnogoslovnoe is an anonymous and undated polemic
traditionally attributed to the sixteenth century Novgorodian monk Zinovii
Otenskii.[1] In conjunction with
Zinovii's magnum opus, Istiny pokazanie,
Few students of paper would fail to acknowledge that the mere identification of a watermark with one from an album reprinting handmade tracings from dated manuscripts is virtually useless for dating purposes, since such a procedure can hardly establish "identity" of the mark in question with the original.[8] However, even when a mark has been correctly matched with a dated analogue, there still remains the problem of ascertaining how long before or after the latter the paper containing the former was used. One of the more notable attempts to devise a method of dating watermarks which deals with this difficulty was made by the celebrated pioneer of watermark study, Charles M. Briquet. In his most famous work, Les Filigranes, Briquet endeavored to ascertain the amount of time that could elapse between the production and use of the paper made during the thirteenth- through sixteenth-century period covered in this album. Only in rare cases during this era did watermarks themselves directly indicate when they were made. But, Briquet inferred, because the wire designs that produced them deteriorated rather quickly, identical filigranes must have been made virtually at the
In 1920 the noted Russian paleographer V. N. Shchepkin produced a critique of Briquet's method, and an approach to dating watermarks which he thought yielded a narrower time-period. Shchepkin suggested that the use of the maximum of plus/minus fifteen years as a corrective is unsatisfactory, since in more than half of the cases Briquet himself considered, the production/use timelag was five years or less, while the average figure was a decade.[10] Moreover, Briquet limited himself to a comparison only of identical marks, which Shchepkin implied did not take sufficient account of the fact that watermarks do change in shape very quickly during the short life of their wire designs. Thus, apparently working on the assumption that "very similar" as well as "identical" marks were produced at nearly the same point in time, Shchepkin devised a dating formula designed to be accurate to within a decade, based on a comparison of the use dates of both the former and the latter. What Shchepkin sought to obtain was the average of the known use dates of a given mark, which were then corrected by a margin of error assumed to be plus/minus five years. For a manuscript with one watermark, a simple average would be sufficient; for a work containing several different
Shchepkin's critique of Briquet's method is well-founded, and although his own procedure was expressed somewhat ambiguously,[12] his approach might seem a serviceable guideline for the calculation of an approximate watermark date.[13] However, both Shchepkin and Briquet seem to have been
One major implication of Stevenson's research has been that watermarks do not have to be "identical" or even "very similar" in order to have been produced virtually at the same time, and he has pointed out a number of ways by which the researcher can determine the nature of the chronological relationship with which he or she is dealing. Stevenson seems to have been the first scholar to analyze the implications of the fact that watermarks are "twins." That is, pairs of wire forms with essentially the same designs were used to speed up the paper-making process, and the duplicate marks that result can be found together, thus denoting one consistent stock of paper. These twins would never be fully identical to each other, but will nevertheless be exact contemporaries with regard to time of manufacture.[15] Moreover, using guidelines which Stevenson has provided on certain recurring variations displayed by twin marks, the researcher can distinguish these pairs from other marks which may also appear very similar (perhaps having been produced by the same artisan), but of a different age (Stevenson, "Twins," pp. 64-68). Relatedly, Stevenson has shown that the distortion which watermarks undergo as their wire designs are used is a regular and in part measurable process, so that earlier and later stages or "states" in their brief lives can be distinguished.[16] Thus again, filigranes which might once have seemed only typologically related will be identifiable as different states of the same mark, very close to each other in age. Briquet was clearly aware that double moulds were used in paper production, Shchepkin at least recognized generally that more than one "form" could be employed in making the same kind of paper, and both knew that the marks changed shape during the lives of their moulds.[17] However, neither studied these phenomena systematically, or really took account of them in their dating formulae, which were applied only to "identical" or "very similar" marks. Thus many filigranes intimately related to each other, the analysis of which could clearly have a bearing on the dating of the
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the ability to identify twins and their variant states is that it facilitates the recognition of the presence of long series or "runs" of contemporaneously produced marks, which Stevenson considers to be the most significant for dating purposes. What Stevenson essentially argues is that these substantial runs denote a stock or stocks of paper procured expressly for a specific major project, which thus can be assumed to have been used shortly after their purchase.[18] Stevenson's research on early European printed books amply demonstrates a correlation between dating and the presence of long runs of homogeneous paper, and the idea is reenforced by the fact that paper was expensive to produce, which, as Stevenson points out, meant that a manufacturer did not undertake to make a large stock of paper until he had a definite order for it.[19] Thus one inference which might be drawn from all of this is that paper in a substantial run in an undated work could be presumed to have been used at about the same time as it was in a dated volume, where it also constituted a major stock. Concomitantly, Stevenson also noted other types of paper use, such as those represented by personal documents, or single sheets found scattered in large volumes, both of which may have remained in use for a number of years. That is, since paper was expensive to purchase as well as to produce, extra sheets left over from any project would be likely to be saved, rather than discarded. Stevenson suggested for example that a small but costly stock of paper might be passed from father to son, which could explain those exceptional cases noted by Briquet of the same mark turning up twenty or thirty years after its first recorded appearance.[20] Perhaps more importantly, Stevenson's research again demonstrates that odd sheets in the middle of large volumes tend to be left-overs or "remnants" of earlier projects, used where needed to fill gaps in later tasks.[21] Thus the dating of the major stock or stocks of paper represented by long "runs" should not be influenced by the long use-period which might obtain for "remnant" sheets scattered among its leaves; the
Stevenson was concerned primarily with western and central European printed books, and his approach implied that virtually no time-corrective was needed if one were dealing with considerable amounts of homogeneous paper in a large volume, whose remnants were essentially irrelevant for dating purposes. However, in applying these ideas to dating manuscripts, especially those produced on paper imported into Rus', where conditions affecting the paper trade are still inadequately known, it would seem unwise to apply no corrective at all to a suggested use date. Thus I would propose the creation of an additional category of paper use, interspersed between those suggested in Stevenson's work, which would apply to long manuscripts characterized by substantial runs, but also containing remnant sheets. Because paper even in a lengthy manuscript constitutes a smaller sample of the evidence involved (i.e. the stock of paper it represents) than does a printed book existing in a number of exemplars, its odd sheets may not be as insignificant for analysis as they would be in the printed work. Thus, while the long runs in such a volume will still be given prime consideration, as Stevenson suggests, the evidence provided by its remnants will not be entirely disregarded. Rather they will be used as a check on the date indicated by the main stock of paper, which is when that particular document was putatively inscribed. When the use dates of these remnants do not coincide with the date of the latter, they should, again following Stevenson, be presumed to be at the end of their use periods. Thus adding the latter figure (five years or less for the majority of marks in Briquet's sample) to their use dates should produce a limit beyond which that particular manuscript could not have first appeared.[22] Conversely, if the remnants do have use dates later than the major stock, the date of the latter might reasonably be called into question. In this way, the testimony of the remnants would be utilized, but would not disproportionately influence the choice of the dating period for a given stock of paper.
The most significant watermark match-ups in K-B 31 are with filigranes found in two other Russian works both written in 1567: Muzeiskoe 4056, a
K-B 31 contains sixteen watermarks—ten "gloves" and six "spheres" of varying shapes and sizes, which together appear a total of seventy-one times, throughout the manuscript's 290 folios.[25] All of these marks will be shown to date from the 1560s, and all, with one possible exception, can be found in manuscripts of Russian provenance written during this decade.
The filigranes which are found most often in K-B 31 are two small ruffled gloves, each topped by a crown, with a letter "F" on the palm, and corresponding to Likhachev's nos. 1878 (in very good/excellent likenesses and distorted variants or later states), and 1879 (in good/excellent likenesses and close variants, perhaps later states).[26] They occur in twenty-four of the thirty odd quires of the manuscript, and together account for more than half of the total number of its marks. Their design features, frequency, and distribution
Next in frequency in K-B 31 is still another crowned glove, which is a fairly close variant of Likhachev 1872, and is again taken from Muzeiskoe 4056. It appears three times in K-B 31 (see Table 1). The rest of the marks in the manuscript occur only once or twice each, and ought clearly to be classified as remnants. As has been indicated, such sheets should not unduly
Thus it would seem that the available data clearly and consistently supports the idea that K-B 31 was inscribed in 1567 or very close to that date, and that the principle that a manuscript may be dated by its main stock of paper, using remnants as a check on the date of the latter, is valid, at least in this one case. Not only do all of the marks in the manuscript have analogues dating to the 1560s, but eleven of them, including both runs and remnants, can be identified with marks in Russian works dated 1567. Moreover, at least nine of the latter, which account for 88.7% of the total number of filigranes in K-B 31, closely match marks found in either Muzeiskoe 4056 or OIDR 328. Furthermore, these two manuscripts both contain significant runs of Likhachev 1878 and 1879, which undoubtedly constitute the longest runs in K-B 31.[37] The remaining five marks are all themselves remnants with use dates in the early 1560s, and thus likewise do not contradict the 1567 date posited for K-B 31.
Clearly one reason that the dating procedure suggested here could be applied to K-B 31 is that all but one of the dated analogues of its marks were on manuscripts of Russian provenance; thus an allowance for "travel-time" for the importation of its paper into Muscovy did not have to enter into the calculation. There are of course other aspects of paper-use and watermark behavior which need further study before this approach can be adopted with any confidence. For example, "runs" and "remnants" are still relative terms, at least with regard to manuscripts, which, as noted, represent a much smaller sample of a given stock of paper than can be accounted for in several exemplars of the same printed book. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the basic idea of dating manuscripts by their main stock and checking that date by their remnants, is worth the testing and refinement it requires, and I hope that the conclusions presented here will provide the impetus for such further work to be done.
Gathering | Watermark |
[A (f.II,ff. 01-04): | 1905] |
[B (6 fols.): | 3146 ("Skazanie")] |
[C (5 fols.)] | |
1: | 1901; 1902 (Poslanie begins) |
2: | 1902 (2) |
3: | 1901; 1902 |
4: | 1901; 1902 |
5: | 1901 (2) |
6: | 1901; 1902 |
7: | 1878 (2) |
8: | 1878; 1879 |
9: | ?B11028/1878/1879/3354/B11027; 1879 |
10: | 1856/4090; 1879 |
11: | 1878; 1879 |
12: | ?B11028/1878/1879/3354/B11027; 1879 |
13: | 1878; 1879 |
14: | 1879 (2) |
15: | 1879 |
16: | 1879 (2) |
17: | 1878; 1879 |
18: | 1878; 1879 |
19: | 1878 (2); 1879 |
20: | 1878; 3356 |
21: | 1878; 1879 |
22: | 1878 (2) |
23: | 1878 (2) |
24: | 1879 (2) |
25: | 1878 |
26: | ?1920; 1888 |
27: | 1892 (2); 1878 |
28: | 1878 (2) |
29: | 1878 (2) |
30: | 1878; 1879 |
31: | ?3440/B14029/1913; 1872 |
32: | 1878 (2) |
[33 (includes ff. 05-06): | ?1853/1892; 1872(2) (Poslanie ends; Basilean homily)] |
[D (f.III,ff.07-010): | 1907 (3450) (2)] |
Watermark and Source | Date |
1872; 1878; 1879; 1892: Muzeiskoe 4056, Mineia (also contains var. of 3356?) | 1567 |
1901; 1902; 1905; 1907; 1913: GBL OIDR 328, Triod (also contains 1878; 1879 and var. of 3440?) | 1567 |
1853; 1856: OIDR 262 (19th-cent. listing), Trefoloi | 1561 or 1562 |
1920: Imperatorskaia publicheskaia biblioteka, F. I. 213 19th-cent. listing), Margarit | 1567 |
3146: Imp. publ. bibl., portfeil' CIV (19th-cent. listing), Letter of Marshal de Montluc | 1562 |
3354: Tverskoi muzei 4056 (19th-cent. listing), Zhalovannaia gramota granted by Ivan IV | 1560 |
3356: Russkie akty Revel'skago gorodskago arkhiva 79 (19th-cent. listing), Official Communication (Gramota) by G. I. Zabolotskii, Voevoda of Rugodiv (Narva) | 1567 |
3440; 3450: Muscovite Apostol printed by Ivan Fedorov | 1564 |
4090: Former Novgorod-Sofiiskoe sobor library 1423 (19th-cent. listing), Collection of Saints' Lives | 1565 |
B11027: French document | 1561 |
B11028: German document | 1566 |
B14029: French document | 1563 |
| ||