This latest volume in Brepols’s ongoing series cataloguing medieval notated manuscripts in France focuses on two significant archival collections: the Archives Nationales in Paris and the Benedictine Abbey of Saint-Pierre in Solesmes. Both institutions are renowned for their preservation of liturgical heritage, notably Solesmes, whose monks have played a fundamental role in reviving and safeguarding Gregorian chant since the nineteenth century.
The catalogue’s structure demonstrates the authors’ considerable expertise. Each entry is clearly formatted, providing a siglum, archival shelfmark, liturgical classification in Latin, concise content summaries, and basic codicological information. Descriptions are consistently detailed yet accessible, and references to established repertories and earlier editions are helpfully included. This makes the catalogue a highly practical reference tool.
One notable strength of the volume is its set of comprehensive indices, enabling researchers to quickly assess liturgical distribution, types of musical notation, and repertorial prominence across both archives. Fragments related to the Divine Office dominate numerically, while Mass chants--particularly from the Ordinary and Proper--are comparatively rare and are grouped in the appropriately named “Varia” section. The inclusion of diverse materials, such as a cantio, an Exultet, and even a polyphonic Missa by Guillaume Dufay, enriches the catalogue’s scope significantly.
Predictably, given the nature of these archives, early fragments predominantly exhibit West- and East-Frankish notations from the tenth and eleventh centuries, followed by Aquitanian notation. Later fragments primarily feature square notation on a staff, reflecting standard chronological developments in medieval music notation.
However, despite its considerable scholarly merits, the volume has several limitations. The absence of photographic reproductions significantly restricts the utility of the catalogue. Paleographical and codicological research often hinges on visual examination of manuscripts, as textual descriptions alone cannot adequately convey subtle details crucial for dating and determining origin.
Later provenance is often recorded, but there is a notable absence of attempts to determine or even hypothesize the place of origin of the fragments. This significantly limits the catalogue’s value for researchers interested in reconstructing the geographic and institutional contexts of manuscript production.
Additionally, the catalogue lacks critical codicological and paleographical details. Dating often covers overly broad intervals, occasionally spanning up to a century--an imprecision that is insufficient by modern scholarly standards. Descriptions omit essential features such as parchment coloration, dimensions of text blocks (though leaf size is provided), ruling and bounding lines (including their method of application and visibility), and prickings, all of which could have contributed valuable insights into manuscript production techniques.
Paleographical analysis is likewise minimalistic. There is no systematic indication of the number of scribal hands involved, nor are types and characteristics of scripts discussed. Features like ink coloration, marginal annotations, or graphic elements such as maniculae are not mentioned. This lack of detail extends to decorative initials, whose sizes, styles, and colors are inadequately described. Given the absence of illustrations, such codicological and paleographical details are not merely beneficial but essential for comprehensive scholarly use.
In an era increasingly dominated by digital resources, a purely print-based, imageless catalogue faces considerable limitations. Providing even a modest selection of images or an online digital supplement would have greatly enhanced the volume’s accessibility and utility.
Overall,