The two artists of the Nowell Codex Wonders of the East

Abstract

The version of Wonders of the East contained in the Nowell Codex has long been seen as a relatively weak, low-grade production. The text has not been well received: even the edition produced specifically to represent the texts of the codex uses another manuscript version as a base text (Fulk 2012). The thirty-one images are frequently called “crude”, and even more pejorative adjectives have been deployed, including “absurd” and “ludicrous” (Rypins 1924; Sisam 1953: 78; James 1929: 55, 58). Some studies, including the most recent discussion of the manuscript, find a “chaotic vibrancy” in the strangeness, darkness, and lack of clarity found in the images (Mittman & Kim 2013, Ford 2009: 222). All assume that the lack of technical control points to the scribe of the text having drawn the images despite a lack of expertise in drawing.

What has not been recognised before is that there are at least two hands at work in the images of the text. A number of images show doubled figures, where there is a clear distinction between the work of a controlled and skilful draughtsman and the imitative work of a weaker contemporary. Other images can be attributed with more or less confidence to one artist or the other. One of the most interesting images also seems to show interference from a later ‘doodler’.

This paper will demonstrate the existence of these two hands. It will point to some moments in the text where scribe and draughtsmen seem to be in conflict. This will in turn lead to the brief consideration of some implications for our understanding of the construction of the codex and the value invested in its production.

Keywords: manuscript; exemplar; artist; frame; monstrous; Wonders of the East; eleventh century; Beowulf