As a complement to the work of Alastair Minnis and Brian Scott on a collection of accessus or introductions to pedagogical texts copied on their own in a collection of such ’Literary Prefaces’, this essay examines the accessüs to a typical series of school texts copied together in a single thirteenth-century manuscript, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 391. The works included in this manuscript were all widely taught during the Middle Ages and are all known to scholars and available in English translations. Yet they are not automatically included in discussions of literary works studied in the Middle Ages and this essay is meant to support the implications of Minnis and Scott’s term for them.The introductory matter, sometimes more than two accessūs, is significantly more extensive at the beginning of the manuscript and as much as possible has been edited and translated in this essay. Ways that we might look positively upon repetition, variation and contradiction are suggested and the implications of the evolving formats of the introductory material throughout the manuscript are explored. It is hoped that this approach may encourage other scholars to look at the accessūs to school texts in other relevant collections.

Chapter 3 launches with Pseudolus’ opening scene which revolves around a letter. I explore Phoenicium’s epistle to discern how it determines Pseudolus’ comic course as well as audience expectations about what lies ahead, and consider what a letter composed by a meretrix reveals about literacy and the symbolism of writing on the Plautine stage. Next is the play’s protracted indeterminacy, which flies in the face of its textual exposition. Why is Pseudolus uncertain about how to proceed when he himself recites the letter that so clearly sets out the comic plot? The answer lies in this comedy’s claim to dramatic innovation. Pseudolus tells us that its epistolary interception is new to the comic stage, a nova res which inspires in the schemer a novum consilium that neither he nor we expect. But the play repeatedly undercuts its own novelty, a paradox reified in the element around which its innovation revolves – the stolen letter. I perform a close analysis of the false delivery scene in which this text is put into action, reading for its epistolarity but also laying bare the internal replication it effects and the resultant mise-en-abyme.

This chapter examines passages in Hebrews where the Spirit is portrayed as the speaker of Scripture quotations (Heb 3:7–4:11; 10:11–18). Due to previous skepticism about the Spirit’s role in Hebrews, this chapter also argues that the Spirit is a speaker in the same way as the Father and Son and that the author uses his speech to develop a thoroughly distinct divine character. In Hebrews 3-4, potentially the longest pneumatological discourse in the NT, the Spirit encourages the addressees to avoid the error of the wilderness generation and press on towards rest. In Hebrews 10, the Spirit “testifies” to the benefits of the new covenant - especially forgiveness. In contrast to the Father and Son, the Spirit’s conversation partner is “us.”

In this chapter, it is shown that the textual heterogeneity of the book of Revelation is only on the surface. To the contrary, it has a clear structure, designed to provide unity to the whole: a prologue in which the author provides the guidelines to the reader (1. 1–3); an introductory liturgical dialogue (1. 4–8); an account of the things John saw and heard during his vision (1.9–22.16); and a closing liturgical dialogue (22.17–21). After this, the type of account constituted by Rev 1.9–2.16 is examined, through analysis of previous proposals. We conclude that Rev 1.9–2.16 is a special narrative, with the following characteristics: the use of a homodiegetic narrator (allowing John to simultaneously appear as a witness to the story and as one of its characters, and thus to highlight the veracity of the story he tells); a flexibility in the use of space–time coordinates; the variety of characters that participate in the plot; the fact that the plot has a happy ending; etc. Finally, I explore the author’s purpose of showcasing the truthfulness of the narrative.