A book like Digby 23(1) would provide assistance at crucial points for those who did not have access to the full glosses or did not want to carry them around.
Digby 23(1) begins with Calcidius’s introduction, its initial letter “I” set out as a greyhound whose tongue flowers out onto a field of blue speckled in red: “Isocrates in exhortationibus/ suis uirtutem laudans; cum omnium bonorum tociusque prosperita/tis consistere causam penes eam dice/ret; addidit solam eam esse que/ res inpossibiles redigeret ad possibi/lem facilitatem” (Isocrates, in his speeches, praises virtue, since he says that it is the cause of almost all good things and all fortunate conditions, and adds that it alone is what makes impossible things possible and even easy, fol. 3r, fig. 3).102 Various interlinear glosses have been added. Since the form “Isocrates” was not that familiar, one gloss clarifies that he was a certain philosopher. The first large marginal gloss is on the right-hand column and explains the identity of Calcidius, archdeacon of Cordova.103
Many of the glosses are marked by sigla. It appears that each glossator uses a different one: a diagonal line with two dots, a small triangle that suggests a harp, two parallel check marks, a wavy line with three dots, and a squiggly line rather like a pothook. In some cases these function as insertion marks or signes de renvoi, indicating where in the main text the gloss should be applied. In other cases, where there is no corresponding siglum in the text, they might be interpreted as versions of paraph signs, marking the beginning of the gloss. Since each glossator appears to uses a single distinctive mark, they also can serve to distinguish the glossators, marking each man’s individual contribution to the ongoing tradition.104 Some of the glosses have no siglum, however, and a few, bafflingly, have two.105 The earliest glosses are generally less ambitious and less heavily abbreviated. On folio 14V, for example, a glossator whose hand Dutton has identified as that of the main scribe explains the associations of Pallas Athena: “Vere bellicosa pallas dicitur Cum dea ra/tionis et etiam discret/ionis sit; que considerari oportet. et enim maxi/me necessarie sunt in / bellicis negotiis” (Truly Pallas is said to be warlike since she is the goddess of reason and discretion, which ought to be considered, and indeed are essential, in the business of war). Similarly, on folio 5V, there is a gloss marked by a harp and two check marks that provides a simple summary of a key point: “Duo ornamenta assigaui/mus militibus scilicet forti/tudinem et mansuetudinem/ fortitudinem contra aduersarios man/suetudinem contra obedientes” (We assign two distinctions to soldiers: strength and mildness: strength against enemies and mildness for those they govern). In comparison, the pothook glossator, whose hand dates from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, makes longer and more complex contributions.106
Figure 3. MS Bodleian Digby 23(1), fol. 3r (with permission of the Bodleian Library).
The dialogue proper begins on folio 4v (fig. 4), with Socrates counting the number who come together to continue the previous day’s discussion: “Vnus, duo, tres; quartum enumero/ vestro thimee requiro, qui hesterni quidem/epuli conuiue fueritis; hodierni praebi/tores inuitatoresque ex condicto residea/tis” (One, two, three, but I ask you, Timaeus, where is the fourth who had agreed yesterday to be part of our banquet? You don’t make up the agreed upon number of guests or providers).107 On this page there are two large glosses, one across the top and one on the left-hand column. The latter gloss, by the same man who on the previous folio tells us who Calcidius was, here gives a good sense of the allegoresis that could be brought to bear on the text.
Vtitur dialogo et ponit sena/rium numerum ut operis de/signet perfectionem que sicut/ille numerus est perfectus/ et constat ex suis partibus ita/hoc opus perfectum est et sic con/stat ex suis partibus ut nichil infra sit quod non sit necessarium/ nec aliquid excrescat quod non sit su/perfluum. In primis praemittit quasi quedam ludicra quedam ficticia quedam leuiora ut quodam modo assuefaciant animum audito/ris ad suscipienda graviora
[Plato] uses the form of a dialogue and he inserts the number six so that the work will represent perfection, for just as this number is perfect and is made up of its parts, so this work is perfect and is made up of its parts, so that there is nothing below that is not necessary nor does he remove anything that is not superfluous. First of all, he sets things out, as if they were jokes, or a fiction, or something casually amusing, as if in a certain way they were to prepare the mind of his listener to take up heavier matters.
Figure 4. MS Bodleian Digby 23(1), fol. 4V (with permission of the Bodleian Library).
Why one, two, three, and four should make up six, or why six should be considered perfect may not be immediately apparent. Here the glosses of Bernard are helpful: “Socrates … requirit unum quem sentit abesse, non forsitan realiter, sed sub significatione. Nam subtracto quarto, remanent partes quae coniunctae faciunt primum perfectum numerum, id est sex, et ideo a perfecto incipit” (Socrates … asks after one whom he feels is missing, not perhaps realistically, but under a deeper meaning. For if you take away four, the parts that remain together make the first perfect number, that is, six, and therefore the work starts from a perfect number).108 In other words, if, having removed four, we add one plus two plus three, we get six, which is a perfect number because it combines the first three prime numbers. It is because the gloss is so succinct that it is slightly cryptic. It assumes familiarity with a tradition of mathematical commentary and would make sense to another master who was equally familiar both with the text and with certain approaches to its interpretation.
One of the most striking contributions of the pothook glossator comes on folio 5r. The gloss begins “Socrates tracturus de positiva iusticia. non inuenit regnum nec rem publicam aliquam dispositiam secundum rationem/ positive iusticie. Proposuit ergo rem publicam/ quamdam et eam ordinauit secundum dispositionem quam considerauerat in macroscosmo et microcos/mo” (Socrates, when he was going to discuss positive justice, did not see any state ordered according to the logic of positive justice, and therefore proposed a certain [hypothetical] state and arranged it according to a certain plan which he considered in light of the macrocosm and the microcosm, fig. 5).109 The remainder of the gloss, which has been transcribed and translated by Dutton, compares three hierarchies: that of the macrocosm, from God to devils; that within man himself, from wisdom, located in the head, down through the heart to the feet and hands; and that in the state, from the senators, down through the soldiers, to those working in the mechanical arts such as skinners, cobblers, tanners, and farmers, who are outside the city. Dutton has argued persuasively that this gloss draws heavily either on the glosses of William of Conches or on glosses that are very similar to them.110 As Dutton notes, the Digby glossator’s account differs in a few details. The glossator includes farmers among those men living outside the city walls, for example, whereas William makes no mention of them.111 The most striking difference, however, is that William does not explicitly use the terms “microcosm” or “macrocosm.” Since the pothook glossator follows William so closely in other respects, it is tempting to think that this innovation may be his own. We may never know who this Digby glossator was, who his teachers were, or even where he taught, because at this stage the manuscript might still have been on the Continent. He remains for the moment an anonymous but judicious reader.
